Talk:North Macedonia–NATO relations

NATO Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Europe Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Macedonia request for comment

The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Pages 2 and 4 deal with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accession of Macedonia to NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pics in article

There are two pics. They are of graffiti in Ohrid. Recent removals are on reasons based on wp:idontlikeit (i.e: "This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral" [1]) more then anything else. There is a segment of the population that opposes NATO. That has fluctuated over the years. The data in the article on support numbers is from 2008. No editor has bothered to put more current numbers about support/opposition in the article and also how that is reflected among the two large communities of Macedonians and Albanians in the country. I don't see why pictures of the sort that has a view about NATO from the country reflected as graffiti should not be in the article. The pictures where taken in Ohrid and these pieces of text where in prominent locations. If people have pictures of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place pictures, etc.Resnjari (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not based on wp:idontlikeit, that's your opnion, which is incorrect. Grafiti of some anti-Nato expression has nothing to do with the main article and is just propaganda from the anti-Nato camp. They shouldn't be in the article cause they don't contribute anything, someone making graffiti doesn't make it "majority support for anti-nato", provide sources and write in the text about it, but some graffiti pictures are not relevant. Ljuvlig (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They do, they reflect a view and give a visual of that view. There is opposition to NATO in the country and its not a clear cut one way street of support.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article has two main views: One of the supporters of NATO in Macedonia and one of those Macedonians who oppose NATO. Both deserve pics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are always a subjective element of Wikipedia articles, but their selection should probably compliment the prose they're included with. These images were included in the section "Negotiation progress" next to a table, which is why I might suggest they're not the best choice. If we had a prose section discussing opposition to NATO membership, then they would be an appropriate illustration. If we do want an image here, I think one of the options in Commons:Category:Prespes agreement might work, since that's directly related to the dates in the table. Or I know on similar articles, we've used images of joint military exercizes, and there are a number of options in Commons:Category:Krivolak (Army Training Area)-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its data on support and opposition that needs to be expanded, that's fine. The pics reflect a view that does exist in the country. There is opposition to NATO and though it may not be the overall majority opinion (depending on the year and geopolitical situation) in the country, it exists among a sizable part of the population.Resnjari (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that, and maybe if/when a "Public opinion" section is written, or the page expands into a fuller Macedonia–NATO relations article, they would be more appropriate. I also want to mention that including two contrary viewpoints next to each other is not actually how neutrality works on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure the idea of adding an "pro" image is a good fix.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this article gets it name changed to something else after Macedonia becomes a member, the overall issue about that over the years that has existed is two main opinions about NATO in the country, one in support and one in opposition. I don't about pics that exist about being in favour in the wiki commons. If someone sees something and or is in the country and takes a photo, that's good they can add for here. But there are pics reflecting a view of opposition and that should be in the article. I'm going to write and expand the public opinion section and re add t he pics as were. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on that section, I think its generally a fine addition to the page. One other note, I'd suggest choosing just one of those images to use. Template:Multiple image is discouraged except when absolutely necessary due to formatting issues it can cause some readers, and as part of a larger preference against image galleries. Thanks-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have accessed the article through my mobile phone, it comes out ok with the images. I can split the images into two seperate ones for the section (one being left and the other right). Two images don't make a gallery. The policy refers to many images present in a article and it causing issues. Anyway both images give context to the section.Resnjari (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One image is sufficent to illustrate a section like this. Thanks.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no issue with having two images in the article. I don't see a problem with it or for that matter the removal of the captions. Not everyone can read Macedonian or the Cyrillic alphabet. Please, no wp:idontlikeit.Resnjari (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. You are both arguably in violation of WP:3RR. Achieve concensus and then take action. If you cannot reach a concensus, submit a request for comment. --Michail (blah) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the stable version as pics have been there a while. As for edit warring claims i added content that was separate from the pics issue. No one contested those additions.Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went with one of the images as the graffiti is more visible than the other for the page and size. Caption for the picture should stay. I can read and write in Macedonian, but most people who read the article cannot.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Michail, i thought that you where a new editor but instead you have been around a long while and only changed their signature so that the signature is confusingly different from the user name. Please have a read of WP:SIGPROB. It says Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] or [[User:Example|Nickname]]) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form [[User:Example|User:Example]]/Nickname.Resnjari (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the text from this image both as ALT Text and in the file description, so it'll be available if a reader wants to know more by hovering or clicking on the image. And as an editor who also signs with what they want to be called, rather than their full username, please feel free to sign however you like here Michail, you're absolutely correct about consensus then action when edits are disputed.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on signatures that can be confusing to other editors whether someone is new or an old hand if its different from the active username. Hence i cited WP:SIGPROB.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it strike nobody else as bizarre to have an image of some random anti-NATO scribble in a section that only talks about strong pro-NATO sentiment in the country from both officials and public opinion? Do we really need to give equal weight to the opinion of a single anonymous hoodlum? Just because the graffiti exists doesn't mean it bears including in an encyclopedia article. 199.247.42.202 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti NATO sentiment is real in Macedonia and has at times been the dominant view toward the military alliance by the public of which a sizable part of the population still is of that opinion (that is accounted for via RS in the article). The political elite of the country is a small group and the article does not only encompass them but views from the masses as well. The image reflects the Anti-NATO view as a visual. I see no issue with it being in the article.Resnjari (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's real according to you in your head, providing sources instead of talking nonsense about this. It's cause you want it to be that way, for all I know you could of done that graffiti, some graffiti of allegedly anti-Nato needs sources not some random graffiti.Ljuvlig (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kind word of advice to you. WP:idontlikeit is not a reason for removal. Anti-NATO sentiment is real in the country and has at times dominated among the population. That is sourced in the article via RS. The image is a visual manifestation of anti-NATO sentiment and relevant. If anyone has images that give a visual of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place such a image in the article.Resnjari (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't see the point with having that graffiti image in the article. An image of some random graffiti doesn't really contribute with anything to the article. --Glentamara (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue here, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Its a visual representation of anti-Nato sentiment in the country. Anti-Nato sentiment exists in the country and has ranged from being a majority stance to one of a sizable minority in the country. That is accounted for via RS in the article. If editors have pictures showing pro-NATO sentiment they are more then welcome to add.Resnjari (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two pics, one pro-NATO and one anti-NATO would be OK. After all, such pics illustrate the Public Opinion section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't participate in edit warring. If someone else reverts your edit, that doesn't make it okay to revert theirs. As Michail noted last week, we can bring the issue up at WP:RFC if editors here can't reach a consensus. Second, I mentioned this above, but giving one opinion followed by the opposite opinion is not how neutrality works, so I don't think a quote "pro-NATO" image is the right solution. With regards to the file, I'd agree its not exactly a "quality image," but we discussed it last week, and its fine to illustrate the Public opinion section. I will note that we've used a similar image for years in the Serbia sections on Foreign relations of NATO and Enlargement of NATO.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing wp:idontlikeit reasons. That's about all. Yes i understand that some editors are uncomfortable that anti-NATO sentiment exists in Macedonia and may want to sideline it due to a celebrated accession etc and to make the article have a possibly everyone is pro-NATO in the country slant which is not the case. As i said before, anti-NATO sentiment is accounted for in RS and the pic is a visual of such sentiments in current times. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Resnjari (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that similar images of the sort exist on the Graffiti page. They are there because they explain via visuals the content in the article to readers. The picture of the graffiti in this article was from the boycott movement that was against the referendum on the name change last year. The graffiti is of historical relevance.Resnjari (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me this has nothing to do with pro or anti NATO. I just don't see the point of having a random graffiti tag in the article, it drags down the quality of the article. It doesn't say anything about any sentiments in any direction. You can probably find a anti-NATO tag as well as a pro-NATO tag in any European country... It is completely different to have images of graffiti tags on the graffiti page as illustrations of what graffiti is, there it is really relevant and contributes to the content of the article. But if you want to keep the picture here it's fine for me, it's not a big issue for me to be honest. --Glentamara (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may not an image that is to the liking for some people based from a aesthetic point of view. But such images have been used in Wikipedia articles. Actually the image does have anti-NATO sentiment. If you can read Macedonian this would be apparent immediately. The graffiti singles out NATO, states a view of it and then has the hashtag #boycott. The hashtag #boycott was one of the most prominent slogans of the boycott movement on the Macedonian referendum last year on the name change, something which most of the Macedonian population did indeed boycott. This image is a visual representation of anti-NATO sentiments among the population that has been at times the dominant view in the country and remains a view of a sizable part of the population for over a decade toward NATO (its accounted via RS in the article). Anyway i hope that goes to someway clarifying the matter further. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give evidence/facts instead of your own opinion.Ljuvlig (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Macedonia to NATO.

On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Given that the country was renamed North Macedonia so that it could enter NATO, should this article be renamed Accession of North Macedonia to NATO? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving, since the country ratified the accession protocol to NATO under its new name. Nice4What (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't have been done yet. Going by this logic, this article's title should've used fYROM all along. There's an active discussion going on at Talk:Republic of Macedonia that may lead to discussion to amend WP:MOSMAC which will provide us guidance in naming this article. Until that's done, the move here should be reverted (depending on outcome). --Local hero ^talk 15:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The move should be reverted. There are discussions on both the talkpage of the Republic of Macedonia article and about updating MOSMAC. Stable version of names should stay until MOSMAC is updated.Resnjari (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big question is the name of the accession protocol. I have tried but didn't find it. L.tak (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also apart from issues with having "north" at the moment and so on, if the article was to be moved, since Macedonia will be a NATO member in the not to distant future the article might as well become North Macedonia–NATO relations. But only after all countries sign the protocol and WP:MOSMAC is updated.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and until that's done, I'm reverting most of today's "North" additions to the article. Once MOSMAC is updated, we can make any needed changes. --Local hero ^talk 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes revert them all including the pagemove. MOSMAC discussions will be active for some weeks anyway before something final is done and dusted.Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not move back or forth until there is a decision/consensus on this. However in all the moving also the formal title of the treaty was changed. I will move the field "long name" in the treaty box to the formal name of the treaty, as that is not something subject to discussion here (I hope!)L.tak (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved to Accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO; Wikipedia rules should not decide what the country is called. The country is now Northern Macedonia, which means that Wikipedia should follow suit and not make its own rules regarding country names. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy called Naming Conventions (Macedonia) and it is in effect until the new one can be implemented. --Michail (blah) 18:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it. Like I said, it's stupid for Wikipedia to decide which name is the only one you can use when Northern Macedonia is just as good and even more official. You should be able to use both, but titles should have the official name. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at the moment. WP:MOSMAC is in force until its updated (current discussions are underway on the matter). Until then stable versions of the article pagenames apply. Plus waiting a month or two does not hurt anyone before changes are done. Having a new and updated WP:MOSMAC will then be a guide on how to proceed.Resnjari (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is bigger than this one article, and we should follow the Wikipedia convention for now. Various editors are working on a proposal for how to do the name changing, feel free to register your comments at this RfC Draft or or maybe this one, but discussions on this talk page should probably stay focused to the country's progress with regards to NATO. I expect an RfC to be up later this week, but then its a minimum of 30 days till that closes, after which I do assume we will be moving this article to "Accession of North Macedonia to NATO." Just be patient!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article has move protection, and can be moved only by an admin. An hour or so ago an editor did a cut-and-paste move, which of course loses the attribution of the history. I've reverted the cut-and-paste and explained to the editor, but it obviously needs an eye keeping open for similar occurrences. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Thanks for notifying me about Attributions. Now about the topic: Just a day after the last comment in this discussion, the community with an overwhelming consensus, moved Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia. Every other article about that country, has already been moved and this is one of the last, unmoved articles remaining, only due to the SemiProtection lock. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article North Macedonia is in its "new" location already, it is hard to maintain this here. I guess this doesn't need to be going through the formal requested move, and we can just find an admin who is willing to move it. Any objections? L.tak (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move! --Glentamara (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m confused did Greece sign the membership protcal or not?

Greece signed it first but awaits approval from president. Then Slovenia followed and awaits approval as well Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signed and approved. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]