Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia naming dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chronograph 1985 (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 6 October 2023 (→Why is Wikipedia allowing such obviously biased language in this article?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeMacedonia naming dispute was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 9, 2011.

Request at RfPP

I am moving said request for an edit here...this needs more eyes and discussion. No opinion on the request per se. Lectonar (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia naming dispute

In the photo displayed alongside the Signature subsection, Alexis Tsipras is on the left and Zoran Zaev is on the right, but the order of their names in the caption is reversed. Also, the location where the photo was taken is identified as being in [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]]. That now redirects to North Macedonia. Once that is updated, should it be piped, as the country had not yet changed its name when the photo was taken? Or perhaps the words in what is now can be inserted in front of North Macedonia. —⁠173.129.59.223 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's more: I only just now read the text of the Signature subsection. It says the agreement was signed by the two countries' foreign ministers in the presence of their prime ministers, but the caption of the photo implies it was signed by the prime ministers. —⁠184.207.65.109 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Valid points. I've tweaked the image caption and removed some of the rampant over-linking and redundancies in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semiological confusion, and the first use of a past name

If the country has to be referred in a modern context by informing the readers about its past disputes with Greece, then the term North Macedonia suffices without further clarification in the first sentence of the article's lead paragraph. But if the editors want to change that sentence to refer to the country in a historical context, the first time this historical name is used, should be in its official form, Republic of Macedonia, instead of the short Macedonia. This is still per WP:NCMAC's historical context criteria while at same time eliminating any possible initial semiological confusion. The rest of the article does not require changes as the clarification is given already from the start. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Our current guideline for historic contexts still continues the same principle as the old WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2009, which stated that "'Republic of Macedonia' […] will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names", but that "'Macedonia', by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous". It's quite simple really:
  • We use the old name of the country in pre-2019 contexts. This is one such context, without any doubt.
  • The old name of the country was "Macedonia", pure and simple. That was its name in exactly the same way as the names of its surrounding countries are "Greece", "Bulgaria", "Serbia" and so on.
  • Each of these other countries also has a formal long name involving some form of "Republic" ("Hellenic Republic", "Republic of Bulgaria", and so on). But we use those only in special, rare situations. Since we're not saying "Hellenic Republic" in this sentence, why would we want to use the long form for the second of the two countries we're mentioning?
  • The only other reason we habitually used to employ the "R. of" prefix somewhat more often was disambiguation. But disambiguation is already provided by the context of the sentence. Nothing could be more unambiguous than "the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia" and "until 2019". No other of the many "Macedonias" was a country in Southeast Europe in 2019. How could any reader possibly be confused about which "Macedonia" this sentence is referring to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You got some very valid points, but my points are as very valid too and I am sure you understand that. However, do you realize you are making changes without seeking WP:CONSENSUS? The name North Macedonia stayed like that for years and became Consensus. But if you want the old name for historical purposes, then we have to stick to the historic Consensus made for it, which, prior to 2019 it read: "The use of the name "Macedonia" is disputed between the southeastern European countries of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia". That's a compromise that will keep everyone satisfied and any concerns on disambiguation, soothed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the article into a historical tone, brings us more questions: What about the infobox? The map? As you probably noticed, prior to 2019, it was "Republic of Macedonia" not only on the lead sentence, but also on the Infobox and the Map as well. Now with your changes, the infobox and map refer to the country using a present tone, but the lead no longer uses present tone but past tone... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That old wording is of course no longer an option because it's out of date. And there are no concerns of disambiguation, because there simply isn't any ambiguity. Full stop. And no, you don't have any valid point at all, as usual. We'll simply apply the rules of WP:NCMAC (both the old and the new), which for some reason this article has so far failed to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree with your changes, you ought to seek consensus if you want your edits to stay. Go WP:BOLD, not edit warring. This isnt helpful! NCMAC states that Republic of Macedonia can be used in a historical context. This was the term used there as well before we changed it to North Macedonia. Mind you, Republic of Macedonia was used for a very long time and none had objected to it, not even you. What changed now and you are disputing it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stamping your feet on the ground and crying "but I don't agree" won't help your case. You have no case. Read the guideline, then read it again to try and actually understand it. You haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I was a participant to the creation of the updated NCMAC. Something which you forgot. Second, I am not stamping my feet there, I am merely explaining that your uncompromising attitude is leading no where. I have already tried to explain to you that there are 3 options: North Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia, and I am fine with the 2 first ones, which had already been used in that sentence for a very long time and are stable for obvious reasons explained above and for which you failed to acknowledge. The third option, the plain Macedonia, was never used in the first sentence and I do not understand why this sudden insistence of yours to ram it there despite my concerns. I am fine with the first 2 options like everyone here was, I would say, before you come and make disputed changes to it. The topic of Macedonia is very sensitive and its articles have long been controversial, for which you, as an Admin, are fully aware of. The safest course here is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes to such a sensitive article like that. Is it much to ask from you to try and be more grateful towards me (and any editors who may not agree with your views), for offering you a compromise, which is Republic of Macedonia? You know that the plain Macedonia will never be accepted into the top of the article without much-needed clarifications such as North (which was stable for 1+ year), or Republic of (which was stable for many more years before it was replaced by North). If you don't want a compromise, then we return the sentence to its present tone, that is "North Macedonia" and be done with it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Future Perfect is right about MOSMAC and Silent Resident is misinterpreting other Wikipedia guidelines to suit a particular narrative. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, this comes by Taivo, the disruptive edit warrior who started not one, not two, but FOUR edit wars across Wikipedia over the use of the plain "Macedonia" on various articles. Coincidence???--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being too busy in real life and not reporting sooner: The attention of an uninvolved admin has been requested at: [1]. Also the article has been reverted back to the last stable version before all this disruption started. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, here's what that uninvolved admin answered: "[WP:NCMAC]] should answer most of the questions." Yes, indeed, it does. SilentResident might take this as a hint to finally start dealing with the question how her preferred wording matches that guideline (which it quite obviously doesn't). A question she so far hasn't addressed with even a single word in all those hundreds of words of rambling aboe. If that explanation isn't given in her very next posting on this page, I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Administrator said you should seek WP:CONSENSUS first: "WP:NCMAC should answer most of the questions. If no agreement can be reached, you should consider using an WP:RFC" I suggest you heel to his advice and try to come into agreement with those who disagree with your viewpoints, or else open a RFC and have a third opinion on this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count. You don't count as long as you don't finally start doing what you ought to have done a dozen or so postings further up: address the issue how to properly apply the guideline. There will be an actionable disagreement if and when there is actually some argument on the table. Not just ranting on and on about how we must stick with some prior version, but an argument about the only thing that counts: how to apply WP:NCMAC. I don't know if you really don't realize this, but you haven't said a single word about that yet. Right now, there is nothing to agree or disagree about, other than the obvious fact that my version conforms with WP:NCMAC while yours doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count. First, you must really feel comfortable to speak like that against fellow editors, as admin that you are, heh? It will be useful in future reports against you. Second. lets see what we have here:

"the only thing that counts: how to apply WP:NCMAC" So, in your perception, the article's first sentence isn't in line with WP:NCMAC? I disagree. It meets NCMAC ctireria, just not the "historical context" criteria. Otherwise you wouldn't try change the wording in the first place and give it a historical context. But I do not mind any changes to it that can bring the sentence both under WP:NCMAC and under historical context criterias. However I do mind -in fact I am vehemently opposed- to the use of the ambiguous Macedonia as the first word in the lead paragraph for the country. The "Republic of" is necessary especially from the moment the lead is mentioning more than one Macedonias (Greek region of Macedonia, Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, etc).

You haven't explain why, while WP:NCMAC permits both "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia", you are insisting on using only the ambiguous "Macedonia" for the opening sentence of the article which is finding me vehemently opposed for the reasons underlined above and in previous discussions to which you were participant. Why not use "Republic of Macedonia" which is less ambiguous and still in line with WP:NCMAC? After all, this was the one we used in the very opening sentence for 10+ years already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did any of the recent changes "give it" an historical context? It was an historical statement all along. Do you know the meaning of the little word "was"? It means in the past. The naming dispute no longer exists. It existed before 2019 and ceased to exist the moment the renaming happened. So, every statement describing the dispute is by necessity, always, a "pre-2019" historical statement in the sense of the guideline. It wasn't post-2019 "North Macedonia" that was engaged in the dispute, it was pre-2019 "Macedonia".
About ambiguity, what matters is not how many "Macedonia"s are mentioned somewhere in the lead or elsewhere in the article, but whether there is a danger of ambiguity in the particular sentence we're talking about. That's the only legitimate function of disambiguation: making sure readers won't misunderstand the particular passage in question. That sentence is perfectly disambiguated by the term "countries". There is no other "Macedonia" that is a country (or was one in 2019) or could possibly be engaged in a dispute with Greece, so no reader could possibly be confused about what this sentence means.
And I "haven't explained" why it should be the shorter term? Yes, I have, in my very first posting above. WP:NCMAC doesn't just blindly permit both the longer and the shorter form to be chosen at will; it mandates that the shorter form should be used where there is no danger of ambiguity. That was very explicitly spelled out in the old NCMAC, and the new NCMAC has inherited this principle for the historical contexts, even though it no longer spells it out in as much detail – it does explain the same principle for the modern "N.M." vs. "R. of N.M."; the historical "M." vs. "R. of M." go by the same criteria.
And stop going on and on about how much you are "vehemently opposed" to this or that or how this or that version was stable for so and so long – you should know that neither of these are of any relevance whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article is about the Naming Dispute and the lead paragraph shouldn't welcome the readers with anything less than the official name of the country whose the name was disputed in the first place. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilentResident has still failed to address the question of WP:NCMAC in any manner whatsoever, let alone a convincing manner. She is alone in her insistence that "North" should always precede "Macedonia" in each and every instance in which it occurs, a POV that she consistently pushes in every content dispute that she initiates and exacerbates (and then blames others for edit warring). The neutral admin was crystal clear--NCMAC answers all the questions. But SilentResident plays the game of I don't like it consistently and unconvincingly. "North Macedonia" was the result of Prespa, not a party to the dispute. That was "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Republic of Macedonia". The official name everybody (including you) consented to, for 10+ years to be used at the opening sentence of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment I've been pinged to this by Ed as an uninvolved admin with a background in Balkans disputes. WP:NCMAC says that "all contentious edits touching upon North Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction.", unless you are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. Three editors have breached 1RR, although no doubt they will all claim they are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. In addition to the 1RR restriction under NCMAC, this is also an article subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Nevertheless, Silent Resident has breached 3RR in any case, and is lucky they have not been blocked on that basis. Given the interpretation of NCMAC in this case is disputed, I have restored the pre-dispute version (despite the fact that it may be the "wrong version"), to allow the resolution of the issue here on the talk page without further edit-warring. I will talk more about the interpretation of NCMAC in my next comment. Bear with me while I drill down into the consensus positions determined by the 2019 RFC. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have now had a good look at the 2019 RFC, and it is very clear about issues such as this. What it says (in the collapsed detailed consensus box at the top) is:

5. Historical names: What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?

Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".

The closing panel agrees that there is a clear consensus for Option B. The terms "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" retain their meanings within the context of articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019 and thus, should not be changed, although an optional note such as "now North Macedonia" may be added where appropriate.

What this means is that when referring to the country between 1991 and 2019, Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia should be used to refer to the country, with the option of adding "now North Macedonia" where appropriate. Now, given this naming dispute is historical (as it says in the current first sentence, it "was" disputed, and therefore this is in the past) and occurred between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia between 1991 and 2019, not between Greece and North Macedonia after 2019 (as the dispute was resolved by the Prespa agreement and the subsequent change of country name to North Macedonia), we are clearly dealing with the quoted consensus on historical names here, so part 5 of the RFC applies to this article. In the circumstances, the optional use of "now North Macedonia" is appropriate, as that is now the name of the country, and is should be mentioned in the first sentence as it forms the resolution of the dispute that the article is about. There is the issue of consistent use of common names here, which Tomica quite rightly raised in an edit summary. If we use "Greece" as the common name for the Hellenic Republic, then it is only reasonable to use "Macedonia" as the common name for the Republic of Macedonia in the same sentence, especially as it is linked to the North Macedonia article. If it is followed by "now North Macedonia" it is indisputably clear what we are talking about. It is therefore clear that the first sentence should be worded "The use of the country name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia (now North Macedonia) between 1991 and 2019." and the first sentence of the second para should read "The dispute arose from the ambiguity in nomenclature between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon." Therefore, this edit is not IAW the 2019 RFC. I have implemented the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, that's a very good compromise IMO. The (Now North Macedonia) placed next to Macedonia, suffices for me, as it eliminates the risks for semiological confusions and it is much better than the version Taivo and FPAS had put, which was only an ambiguous Macedonia without any qualifiers next to it. Thank you! And again, sorry for the 1RR rule, wish I had realized this sooner rather than have FPAS bring it to my attention. Speaking of FPAS, I urge him and Taivo to leave the opening sentence untouched from now and on and refrain from such kinds of edits in the future. Peacemaker67, I would appreciate if can you leave the article locked for a while? I am worried someone may try revert your changes and this is the last thing the article needs. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Peacemaker's version, of course. I still think my previous version was slightly more elegant, with the "North Macedonia" bit a few words further away but integrated in such a way that it actually added something substantial to the explanation of the issue. The interesting fact is not just that it happens to have this new name now, but that its name change was the very thing that resolved this dispute, so why not let the reader know this while we're at it? But that's a minor quibble and not worth fighting over. That SR now acts as if this tiny difference ("N. M." one word away versus nine words away from "M.") makes all the difference to them, as if readers could overcome the alleged "semiological confusion" she's been fantasizing about across a textual distance of no more than two words, only goes to demonstrate how utterly irrational her whole approach has been the whole time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is several words apart, then it is not a qualifier. If it is next to it, then it is. Something they haven't taught to you at the school's grammar lessons, I assume?
There might be cases where qualifiers can be words or sentences apart but this is not enough given this is a name dispute over an ambiguous name shared by multiple regions/entities in its background.
You are just trying just to make others's concerns appear illogical while yours as logical. To me, this is a classic characteristic of a defensive profile that has serious difficulties in communicating with other people of different views. These profiles usually are the ones that have difficult time trying to find a common ground in disputes. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

BTW, it's unfortunate we've again been bogged down in the unavoidable tedious debating over naming superficialities in the lead sentence, caused by the usual blind and senseless stonewalling by the usual agenda warrior, when the actual crux with this article is actually something else: The article as a whole is shockingly bad. I have to admit I have never in all these years managed to read it as a whole. Whenever I've tried, I've had to stop after a few sentences; it was just too embarrassing. This article is so badly written, reading it literally hurts.

It's absurdly over-long, written in tortured prose, with a jumbled and chaotic structure, and with an embarrassingly obvious editorializing agenda in large parts. This goes back all the way to the time the bulk of it was written in 2008 or thereabouts, but it's become even worse over the years. Even the very first few sentences are illustrative: instead of explaining straight away what the dispute was actually about, the second sentence moves off into a double tangent about what is allegedly "pertinent to its background" (but explaining neither what that background is nor in what way those early 20th century events are pertinent to it).

I don't know where to start to fix this article. This needs radical pruning down and rewriting, preferably rewriting the whole thing from scratch. But given the current climate of agenda editing and ownership, trying to start such a thing would probably lead nowhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Future, this article is a horrible POV-frankenstein. The second paragraph for example is forum-level quality and only paints on side of the dispute, there is no way it should be that high up in the article. The history section is also way too long and the level of detail should be reserved for more specific articles. There is also big issues with quote cherry-picking, a sure sign of the POV build-up.
I support the radical pruning and rewriting approach as there are still some minor redeeming qualities in this article such as the 3rd and 4th paragraph. Also as you mentioned, starting fresh is heavily burdensome as there are many hurdles involved. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time for protection?

I'll fully protect the article if three of the recent editors request it. But we know how tedious that can be. Surely there is some other way.. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't suppose any of us would want you to protect it unless it happens to be on the correct version, right? – But seriously, the only way ahead I see is that the editor who has so far stubbornly dodged any invitation to engage with the content and guideline issue and has instead engaged in purely procedural stonewalling should be clearly told to either start bringing forward pertinent arguments or go away. That's what we have admins for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't wondered why I was not responding to you for a while. You got to my nerves with your insults.
  • "[...] I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here." [2]
  • "But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count." [3]
I say, EdJohnston, yes lets lock the article, because I do not trust the editor is suitable enough for editing it! After all, I have no changes to make to it, it is him who caused all this disruption.
Edit: So it seems one more editor is disagreeing with Future Perfect and Taivo's version: [4] Future Perfect you said you are not counting me, but looks like you will have to make a re-count. Sorry to say, but that makes it not "zero" but TWO editors against your plain "Macedonia"... I believe it is better if the article is locked to the last stable version and open a RFC on the matter. There isn't anything else to say in this discussion, I have become too stressed and anxious after this climate encountered and the insults against me. If a RFC is opened, I will participate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, you are now beyond 3RR [5][6][7][8]. Please self-revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you are. Difference is I wasnt the one who instigated all this disruption, it was you. I was simply defending it from what seems to be: 1) Going without consensus, 2) dismissing your opponent's concerns, 3) insulting them in talk pages... need to say more? For this reason I asked for Admin attention. This is too much for me to handle by myself, I have OVERDONE myself and yet to no avail: all I see is more and more drawn to the edit war you started: [9] [10] Are you feeling proud for it? I will repeat myself one more time to Ed: the article needs to be locked! As for you, FPAS, I am disappointed. Next time learn to make consensuses instead of wars. @Alexikoua & Tomica, it is not worth going into edit wars just because of FPAS's contested edits. Please lets open a RfC like how Ed has suggested and let a new consensus to be formed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not beyond 3RR. I (admittedly) made two reverts yesterday, and a third one more than 24 hours later today; this last one having been unfortunately unavoidable because your (and Alexikoua's) careless editing in the meantime had led to a version that was not just contrary to the guidelines but plain nonsensical ("North Macedonia changing its name to North Macedonia"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Alexikoua does not agree with SilentResident, his edit was to "clean up" the stable version that I had reverted to. He did nothing to change the wording of Macedonia, his edit concerned a different topic. SilentResident is stretching the facts to agree with her own unique agenda. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FPAS and Taivo: You still have the chance to do things right this time: either call a RfC like Ed said and make a new WP:CONSENSUS, or return the article to the old consensus. Anything else, be it edit wars, arguments, accusations or insults against your opponents, isn't helpful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident. What "isn't helpful" is your POV pushing that ignores NCMAC and Ed's actual advice: "NCMAC says it all". You don't seem to be able to read or remember any comments that don't support your unique POV. Ed said to refer to NCMAC. You don't seem to have heeded his comment at all and seem to be completely ignoring NCMAC. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am speechless. You just claimed that the 2 options of the 3, which are "North Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" (which was used for years, and YOU CONSENTED to it), are "completely ignoring NCMAC". Wow! What can I say?
You know something? I am curious, if these 2 options indeed ignore NCMAC, why did you let them stay in the opening sentence for YEARS (10+ years)?
Why in all of sudden you instigated all this disruption and edit wars to have it removed in an unsuspecting time like this?
Why didn't you support my repeated calls for the respect of WP:CONSENSUS?
If the old CONSENSUS was problematic, then why didn't you even seek a new WP:CONSENSUS building?
Why did you not even ask for a third opinion or RfC on the matter?
Why have you and FPAS been quiet to Ed's calls for a RfC???
Trying to put the blame on others for your wrong doings isn't going to help. Seems you love accusing other for having hidden "agendas" and such, but none of us started the mess, it was you. Your edit log shows you have participated in 4 disputes related to Macedonia already. And now this time you who broke ARBMAC, broke long-established 10-year CONSENSUS and broke 1-year SILENT CONSENSUS, broke WP:CYCLE, and your disruption got 4+ different editors and +3 Admins drawn to them, and more. You want to criticize me? Do it. I am not pretending to be a perfect person, and unlike you, I fully acknowledge with shame my fault for breaching 1RR while trying to defend the article from you. Wish I realized I was breaking the 1RR sooner so that I prevent myself from falling for it and having FPAS bring it to my attention when it was too late. The admins and the community have my apology. I accept my responsibility and that's why I called Tomica and Alexikoua to constraint themselves so that there aren't any further 1RR breaches. But if you want to criticize me, first you will have to be honest with yourself and acknowledge your wrongdoings which caused these disruptions in the first place, both here and on the other articles. If it wasn't for your edit wars and breaks of CONSENSUS, then the locking of the article and the Admin intervention wouldn't have happened now. Criticize me as much as you like, but first I expect you to acknowledge your wrongdoings, support our call for CONSENSUS and RfC and stop your edit wars across Macedonia-related topics once and for all. I do not EVEN want to see the name "Taivo" in future edit wars about Macedonia again! It is getting tiring already.
Edit: nevermind about RfCs and such, Peacemaker67 intervened and offered an excellent compromise that can satisfy both parties: "Macedonia" stays, but a much needed qualifier "North Macedonia" is added next to it and IMO this soothes all of my concerns for possible semiological confusions. I am positive that the dispute is resolved. However I do insist that the article stays locked for a while at least. The article's protection is necessary, IMO, if we really want to prevent similar incidents in the future. Also a reminder to everyone and to myself as I failed: the article is subject to 1RR. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the article to remain locked because it is now in compliance with NCMAC (it was not in compliance previously). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is. The article will have to remain locked unless the editors who 1) stirred the edit wars, 2) ignored the consensus, and 3) went with changes without taking in account the other party's concerns, acknowledge their attidude was inappropriate and promise to not repeat this in the future. There is also my fear that because the new sentence is still fresh, someone who didn't participate in the Talk Page might not like Peacemaker's resolution and try restoring back any disputed edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How funny. You are the one who started the edit warring, no one else. You are the one who rejected Future Perfect's perfectly acceptable wording that was in compliance (as he explained) with NCMAC. You are the one that the article needs to be protected from, just like every other article where you take your flaming "North" sword into useless battle. What did you achieve with your edit warring and whining? Nothing. The word "North" moved forward a couple of words, but changed nothing to native speakers of English who are perfectly capable of understanding context. You're not a native speaker and although your English is very good, it's not at the level of being able to lecture native speakers as to what they can and can not understand based on normal context. Future's edit was in line with NCMAC, which, as you have been told, is the final authority on this matter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speak only for yourself. What may be perfect for you isn't necessarily for everyone else. You should have asked us if we find it perfect, something you DIDNT. Instead, you and FPAS came here with the "We will have it worded THIS way, because we say so and think so! We don't care about consensus, We don't care about SilentResident's concerns, she has agendas, and she doesn't count anyways" attitude. You are welcome to consider FPAS's wording as being better for you, but for me it is Peacemaker's. Period.
IMO, there is nothing more to say here. This discussion has come to a natural end, and there are better things to do than arguing indefinitely with you. Good day. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I have no objections to PeaceMaker's wording whatsoever, it is perfectly acceptable to me and to Wikipedia's actual, enforceable WP:CONSENSUS embodied as policy in WP:NCMAC. You keep weeping over the "lack of consensus", but you seem ignorant of the simple fact that WP:NCMAC itself is, indeed, a consensus of the broadest kind. It is you, dear SilentResident, who wanted to ignore consensus, not Future and I who were seeking to enforce the broadest of consensuses in this matter. Your crocodile tears are noted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever stated that WP:NCMAC isn't a WP:CONSENSUS in the broader form. Has anyone ever stated that? No.
The real question here is why did 2 experienced editors, you and FPAS, attempted to force your wording of preference into the article, when it has become clear it was opposed? Why force it instead of building a consensus and figuring out better alternatives such as Peacemaker67's "Macedonia (now North Macedonia)" when it has become clear that your plain "Macedonia" wasn't accepted into the opening sentence?
Why wouldn't we work on finding a compromise together? I made a step: offered you a compromise, didn't I? It is the "Republic of Macedonia" (but apparently there were better ones, like Peacemaker has shown to us). Only if you had made one step forward, just like I did, then, IMO, we would have had good changes to reach Peacemaker67's solution by ourselves, but without Peacemaker67's help! (not that I am dismissing Peacemaker67's help, I am saying that as editors we can do better than this).
You don't need me to tell you the obvious, that you are a smart and intelligent person, with alot of experience on Macedonia-related topics. Just I wish you handled things in an way that I wouldn't feel I was left without options but resort to desperate means such as to call for admin intervention. I can't shake from my mind the question "Why did we reach a point where Peacemaker67's intervention was necessary for something that Taivo, an experienced editor, would manage by simply reaching out to me?"


IMO, we can't just keep calling the admins and RfCs every time we are in disagreement! Its getting ridiculous. A good start is to learn to trust each other. You will need understand that I have no personal agendas just because I disagree with you. It happens that I see everything from a different viewpoint than you do. Quite obvious, isn't it??? You may agree or disagre with me for many things but this isn't a reason to accuse me for having... agendas. I may have editorial POV, yes, but agendas? Or crocodile tears? Really? OK, you have made your choices.
Excuse me but I will not reply any further, Im done here and this is not WP:FORUM. You want to continue this discussion? Sure, use User Talk Pages. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@everyone, Peacemaker67's resolution can be read here [11] in case the above discussions get archived. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At last, sanity prevails. Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The language "As a significant contingent of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians and view themselves as unrelated to Macedonians" does not follow logical semantics..

The identifier "North" should be used in this context to differentiate Between the ethnic Greek subgroup of Macedonians and North Macedonians. As it wouldn't make sense for Greeks who consider themselves ethnically Macedonian to believe they are unrelated to ethnic Madeconians. Ed 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

Nope. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Jingiby (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You left out and misplaced the one crucial word in the quoted phrase that makes all the difference: "unrelated to ethnic Macedonians". That word ethnic is the disambiguator here. Macedonian Greeks do not consider themselves "ethnically Macedonian"; they are ethnic Greeks. The Slavic Macedonians in North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. "North" can't be used as a disambiguator here because it's not part of the ethnic name; it's only part of the name of the country. There is no such thing as "North Macedonians". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do in fact consider themselves "ethnic Macedonians" the way Cretans consider themselves "ethnic Cretans", and Maniotes consider themselves "ethnic Maniotes". These are known as ethnic subgroups. Referring to one side that perceives themselves as Macedonian but not ethnically Macedonian makes absolutely no sense and does not follow logic since for a Greek, being Macedonian is being part of an ethnic subgroup. Ed 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It shouldn't have taken you more than three reverts to start this discussion. But anyway, there's no issue here. The name of the ethnic group was not subject to the Prespa agreement. Countries don't dictate what people refer to themselves as. "Ethnic" is already a satisfactory distinction, since it refers to an ethnic group, not a regional group. "North Macedonians" is sometimes used by reliable sources to refer to citizens of North Macedonia. Most reliable sources still continue to refer to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonians". Please sign your post too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the Prespa agreement, following simple logic and not defying the law of identity or noncontradiction should dictate the use of "North" as an identifier to follow good semantical reasoning. Ed 18:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)
I was trying to correct the Tag, and for some odd reason lag lept leaving out the double brackets I was adding. Ed 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

Why is Wikipedia allowing such obviously biased language in this article?

Using the word "ethnic" before designators like "Macedonian Politician" etc, is verging on ridiculous use of language. Ed 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute&oldid=1178925296"