Talk:Macedonian denar

It has been proposed below that Macedonian denar be renamed and moved to Macedonian denar.

The proposed move has been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If a clear consensus for the page move has been reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance (if necessary).

For the disclaimer

The disclaimer is a legitimate Wikipedia convention and was agreed by consensus in Talk:Republic of Macedonia.--Theathenae 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That discussion is about the Republic of Macedonia article only. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This article didn't even have a discussion page until four days ago, so the convention has been imported from the main article.--Theathenae 06:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you two can't resolve the dispute normally, we can simply lock the article and let others decide. Might be the best call, actually. Either way, could you stop this lame edit war? It's cluttering up my watchlist needlessly. ;p Nightstallion 07:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. In the section below are the opinions of the two editors (me and Naive cynic) that are against the disclaimer.

Calling the currency the Macedonian denar and the country the Republic of Macedonia without a disclaimer is tantamount to endorsing a particular POV in the naming dispute.--Theathenae 09:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What POV? Everyone calls this currency Macedonian denar!

Against the disclaimer

There are many controversial terms, but a discussion about a controversy should be discussed only in the article dedicated to this, not in every article where the term appears.

Also, Wikipedia by default does not endorse any part in any conflict, so there is no point in putting a disclaimer about an "official position". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Names you mention appear in thousands of articles in Wikipedia. It is utterly pointless to add such disclaimer in every context they appear, especially considering the fact, that other similar naming controversies exist.

As a minor point, the naming dispute is not between Athens and Skopje, but between countries, i.e. Greece and Macedonia. -- Naive cynic 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is between two states; using the name of a country's capital city to denote its government is commonplace. There is nothing wrong with the disclaimer, unless you're promoting the notion that the name of the southernmost former Yugoslav republic is not a matter of international dispute.--Theathenae 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the disclaimer. The dispute can be read about by anyone who clicks on the link to Republic of Macedonia in the article. Repeating the fact there is a dispute on any article that has the word "Macedonia" in it seems pointless to me. Angela. 21:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It's simply off-topic here. This article is not about the naming dispute. bogdan | ^Talk 20:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the disclaimer should be scrapped - it's just not appropriate to have it in every article mentioning the country. Put the reader first. If people want to read about the political status of the country then they will go to the relevant page. If they want to read about things like lakes or coinage of the country then the page shouldn't be going on about political status. And if some kind of footnote of this kind has to stay in (perhaps in articles closely related to political status) then it should be shorter (with just one link) and better worded. An encyclopedia merely describes, it doesn't "endorse" things. --Cjnm 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the terms Republic of Macedonia and Macedonian(s) without a disclaimer is by definition endorsing a particular point of view in the dispute, because the use of these terms is precisely what the dispute is about. The sole purpose of the disclaimer is to make clear that despite the use of these terms, Wikipedia remains neutral in the dispute. At the moment, the removal of the disclaimer means that one point of view is being favoured over another.--Theathenae 10:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The amount of reverts here is ridiculous. Everyone is in danger violating, and probably has at some time or another, the 3RR. You need to use the talk page, not reverts. Please note that the page is protected in whatever state it was when I found it, I do not necessarily support it. So even if you like it how it is protected now, you need to work it out, as this is just a temporary measure. Now, discuss. --Dmcdevit·t 04:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It was slowly getting ridiculous. ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 07:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote

Since no progress was achieved since the article was locked, I created a poll page, so we get to a final result valid for all articles in Wikipedia that mention the Republic of Macedonia.

The poll is at Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote. bogdan | ^Talk 19:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than jump into another rather meaningless nationalistic vote contest, I'd suggest it would be much better for both sides to try to attract some editors who are neutral to this whole topic and see what they think. Hopefully your listing on Wikipedia:Current surveys will achieve that. I'll give my point of view for what it's worth. --Cjnm 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - Against the disclaimer

The poll is only making a obvious absurd request legitimate, as it is obvious that the current For the disclaimer vote is composed exclusively by Greeks. It will only prove (again, as it did in the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs poll) that:

1. Greeks on Wikipedia are far more numerous than Macedonians and
2. The neutral admins don't give a damn about this issue, generally speaking

Should I address it to the Turkish, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian or Russian Wikipedia to vote Against the disclaimer just to "prove" "whose tribe is bigger"? A poll would be a good method to resolve technical issues, or even more sensitive issues, if we assume that all participants in the poll are zealous protectors the NPOV policy and its values. However, I am a firm believer, that polling does not apply to Balkan related sensitive issues (when it comes to nationalistic debates people here are actually not respecting basic human rights, let alone NPOV policy)

As I am already listening Theathenae's voice yelling "Greeks are people, too!" I will try to explain my standpoint as much as possible these days. (I'm in a middle of an exam session):

The content of the disclaimer

Wikipedia hasn't got an official position on anything, except on its policies. There is no need for further stressing that Wikipedia hasn't got official position on everything that is a matter of dispute. That is absurd. If Wikipedia accepts this disclaimer, then there would be a need to put a simillar disclaimer on every article mentioning the Republic of China (legally known as Chinese Taipei), or to every other naming dispute, and if we get really consistent we should also apply a disclaimer on almost everything that is subject to any kind of dispute.

Moreover, the use of Macedonian(s) in Macedonian denar, Macedonian language, or Macedonians (nationality) (who are falsely referred to as "Macedonian Slavs" in Wikipedia, because of a simillar poll), or Macedonian whatever was never internationally disputed. Only the name of the republic is officially disputed. One can argue that the issues are linked, and they are indeed linked, but not legally (officially) linked and not subject to an international dispute (binational, perhaps, but not international).

Also, I think that is somewhat hypocritical from the users that wish to add this "no official position" disclaimer to every article , and at the same time using, IMHO, cheap tricks such as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYRO Republic of Macedonia, FYROM or whatever.

NPOV issues

Citing Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict (a policy proposed by ChrisO, that hasn't faced any serious NPOV objections. The user has received a barnstar for his "work on NPOV in passionate national disputes", among other things):

"Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

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 – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide."

Now, that example is perhaps better to use in the Macedonian Slavs naming dispute, but it can be applied here as well. No one seriously disputes that the Macedonian denar is the official currency of the Republic of Macedonia as it can be seen by a simple Google test - [1], as well in many other sites such as these - [[2]], [[3]], [[4] (I can't believe that I am actually doing this...)

According to the same article the proposed mechanism to deal with this "naming dispute" would be:

Criterion	Option 1 Macedonian Denar	Option 2 Fyromian Denar/Slav Macedonian Denar
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current official name of entity †	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity †	0	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. † Use English translation of name, where available

Any comments? I won't be able to answer all the replies, because of the above stated reasons. (Neutrals, please involve in this debate) --FlavrSavr 03:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The currency of the country whose provisional name, according to the United Nations, is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the denar. The currency of the Greek province of Macedonia is the euro. The currency of the United States of America is the dollar. So, go ahead and click on the dollar link: it will not get you there. So, why does Wikipedia not refer to the United States dollar as the "American dollar"? After all most people in the world do call it so, for convenience's sake. Most people, including American officials themselves, refer to "American" policy, "American" troops, etc, when they actually mean "USA policy", "USA troops", etc. This is done for convenience only. And this exactly what is reflected by the "Google criteria" which you invoke WRT the name of your country and its currency, institutions, etc. This name, however, may eventually change. Everyone referred to Ceylon, until its name was changed to Sri Lanka. Then everyone switched. Wikipedia should stand for clarity of information, and should not take a stand, implicit or explicit, on unresolved issues. We Greeks resent your country's attempt to monopolize the name Macedonia and its derivatives. We feel it is a thinly disguised attempt to appropriate a history and a culture which does not belong to you. Look at the Culture of Macedonia article as an example: is this what has happened to Macedonia culturally in all its millennia-long history? Your country had to change its flag (!) and change its constitution (!), and by doing so it admitted that both of these issues (hugely important for any country) were offensive to its international relations. Does this mean that your country has learnt its lesson? I don't think so. Just a few days ago it threw the Archbishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church in prison for ... performing a baptism! The aging prelate is not even allowed to have a Bible in his prison cell. This is not the behavior of a modern, Western-style republic that respects the rule of law. This smacks of Stalinist-style suppression. Witness the constant whining of your fellow countrymen, about how evil Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Albanians hate your country. Bulgarians consider your language the same as their own, Albanians want a chunk of your land, Serbs resent your throwing Archbishop Jovan in jail, and Greeks, well you know .... I am not trying to offend you by saying this, so do not take it personally: there is an American saying that goes "if you meet three a**holes every day, maybe it's you who's the a**hole". Think about it. Chronographos 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist issues...

Perhaps you should check the article named Denar then, it will not get you there, either. I do not oppose the idea that the article should be renamed into Denar, Denar (Republic of Macedonia), Denar (Macedonian), Denar (modern currency), Denar (MKD) or whatever. Wikipedia obviously chose to specify what Denar are we actually talking about, and obviously it has chosen a convenience name (which is also used for almost every other currency - I mean seriously, what's the difference between a Yen and a Japanese Yen?). I don't quite understand your argument against convenience names, are you applying that we should put a disclaimer that referring to Americans and all references to American (culture, traditions, army, whatever) is not meant to imply an official Wikipedia position that they should be referred to as Americans? (actually, the Spanish speaking community does oppose that references).

Strawman arguments. Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, as if you offered real arguments to refute. You think that the article itself shouldn't be named Macedonian Denar, but Denar instead: fine. Besides what the hell are you talking about: the opening line of the article is (quote): "The United States dollar, or American dollar". And since we are are there, why does this Wikipedia refer to the Republic of China as such? (with no disclaimer) --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"This name may eventually change." Every naming of a country, or anything may eventually change. Should that mean that we should stick a disclaimer to everything? Besides, it clear that only the name of the republic is officially disputed. Your argument that every international institution, (including the UN), government, most major news outlets, and as well encyclopedias refer to Macedonians and the Macedonian language as "Macedonians" and "Macedonian language" because they have to refer to them somehow until the naming dispute (which again, formally inflicts only the name of the republic) is resolved, doesn't give an answer why Wikipedia should refer to them somehow different. (actually, the only argument is, "we Greeks, resent that") IF the changes that you were talking about do occur, THEN we might consider using other terms than those.

Your argumentation hinges on the claim that somehow your people's self-acknowledged right to name themselves however they wish is superior to the Macedonian Greeks' self-acknowledged right that they are true Macedonians as well as the rightful cultural and linguistic heirs of the long Macedonian history before 600 AD. My position is that you cannot monopolize the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives. Which is exactly what you are trying to do. I would personally consider it a fair compromise if your country agreed to a name like "Upper Macedonia". I would also not object to something like Paionia, the original ancient name of the area. It is what a beautiful flower was named after. I know you have no connection to the Ancient Paionians, but their descendants are not around anymore, therefore they will not be bothered. Whereas the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians are. Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? We trying to monopolize the name? Did RoM somehow objected to the naming of the three Greek provinces as Macedonia? Feel free to build thousand Alexander statues. Feel free to issue your own Macedonian Euro. Did I ever mentioned that I object that Macedonians of Greece shouldn't be referred to as Macedonians, as well? Did I ever claimed that we are same as the Ancient Macedonians? No, Chronographos. I didn't. Our people's self-acknowledged right to name themselves however they wish is guaranteed by the Universal Charter of Human rights [[5]], quote - Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Our nationality is called "Macedonian". Greek Macedonians are not a separate nationality from the Greeks, and that is a fact. If they actually were, then we would have had a real problem. Their self-acknowledged right that they are true Macedonians as well as the rightful cultural and linguistic heirs of the long Macedonian history before 600 AD is not only scientifically disputed, it is as well not an argument why shouldn't a separate nation be named "Macedonians". No one deprives you from you regional self-identification right. And again, and again, 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 – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide. That is precisely why Wikipedia refers to Republic of China as such. --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument that every international institution, (including the UN), government, most major news outlets, and as well encyclopedias refer to Macedonians and the Macedonian language as "Macedonians" and "Macedonian language" because they have to refer to them somehow until the naming dispute (which again, formally inflicts only the name of the republic) is resolved, doesn't give an answer why Wikipedia should refer to them somehow different. (actually, the only argument is, "we Greeks, resent that")

"What you Greeks resent" and the situation of human rights (that are indeed not rosy, but the situation is Greece, the "birthplace of democracy", is far from rosy, as well) I mentioned above is not an argument against the NPOV arguments considering the disclaimer I mentioned above. "We Macedonians resent many aspects of Greek foreign and internal policy" but that is not an argument to put a Wikipedia disclaimer on every god damn term or aspect that we dislike. Those are arguments that are discussed/disputed in another articles. Various aspects of the dispute between Greece and Macedonia are not subject of this debate, and you are only trying to draw the attention away from the subject of this discussion - that being the disclaimer.

See above Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

To summarize, your arguments against the NPOV aspects I mentioned above can be put in only only sentence - "Those people are a**holes, don't name them Macedonians." Here's what the author of this poll thinks about how "a**hole" we are:

See Strawman Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Saw Strawman --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right that the poll was not a good idea, since the NPOV is not subject to negotiations, but I have no way to remove those disclaimers: the Greeks keep reverting them and the rest of world avoids entering in the negotiations of Balkan issues like the plague. I was hoping that the poll would attract some people, but instead it attracted the same old Greeks vs. non-Greeks. bogdan | ^Talk 19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Every non-Greek so far, has either voted against, or neutral concerning this issue. Perhaps you should think about it, as well.

That's simply because just about everyone doesn't care, except you and us. Allow me to consider your "neutral" vote as a rather disingenuous trick. You are far from neutral. You know it and I know it. This is just a touchy-feely game about plucky poor "Macedonians" bullied around by loud-mouthed Greeks. It may work, you know. Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos, I never claimed I was neutral. That is precisely why I am asking neutrals to engage in this debate. So far, they tend to disagree with the disclaimer idea. --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Before assuming bad faith and engaging in personal attacks, read the rest of the section title. There are "abstain" votes there as well as "neutral" votes. Tomer ^TALK 23:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Bad faith"? I just call it "survival tactics". I may not endorse it, but I understand why it happens. It's not for me to pass judgement, but I like to call a spade a spade. By profession, I know passive-aggressive behavior when I see it. I can deal with it, treat it (for a fee), but this does not mean I have to like it. Chronographos 23:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, isn't you who said that "Obvious as it is that Wikipedia cannot dictate international policy, it is equally obvious that polling does not define truth, regardless of the outcome"? --FlavrSavr 22:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand by every word. Chronographos 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's plain and simple. Let's suppose that your country reaches an agreement with Greece about the naming dispute, and your country decides to be called with a name different than Macedonia, for example NewName. Then, your currency will be renamed to NewNamian Denar and the disclaimer will have no place. The reasons for the existance of the disclaimer on the Denar wiki or elsewhere, are the same reasons that support the disclaimer in Republic of Macedonia. The name Macedonia and its derivatives are part of the political dispute and as long as an agreement is not reached, a disclaimer must exist. MATIA 17:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've also read that wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. I thought my above comment on the term Macedonia and the related terms was crystal clear. MATIA 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but what if we suppose that the Republic of Macedonia doesn't change its name and reaches a billateral solution of the problem? As for the propaganda machine, you'll be surprised that no one of the people that actually defended the Republic of Macedonia naming of the article is of Macedonian nationality. --FlavrSavr 19:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all about the propaganda: I've never implied nor imagined that all those people (i'm not sure about which one article) were all from the same nationality. Let me clarify the propaganda a little bit - WP is not for propaganda, but WP is for history and facts, let's say that facts and propaganda as the two opposite things. So, if that denar is called macedonian, the term macedonian is part of the political naming dispute or part of the negotiations and I said before that if the country name change then the currency name (and anything else related) will change too. What if, one way or the other, the name stays? In that case the terms will be officially recognized, yet some historical facts will not change. If the naming dispute is over, shall we erase from WP all the sections about it? Or will we have some paragraphs statings the facts? I 'm guessing that the second will happen: there was a dispute between the two countries for 17 years, it ended that way etc etc. One other fact, that we already have is the pre-modern (ancient, byzantine, whatever) usage of the name. These are facts too so they should have their place in the encyclopedia. That's what I said about propaganda and I hope I've clarified it by now. MATIA 20:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr knows exactly what the issue is and what tactics to pursue. He keeps arbitrarily claiming that "Macedonian Slavs" in ... an insult (!): it is nothing of the sort, obviously, and his own country's highest political officials have repeatedly and emphatically stated that their people are Slavs whose ancestors came to the area in the 7th century AD. Of course this is the tune they sing right now - this was not always the case: not too long ago they claimed descent from Philip and Alexander himself, and they chose their flag and worded their constitution accordingly. It didn't stick, so they had to change it: it's a bargaining tactic that is as old as this earth - put forward a package of outrageous demands and when you give some of them up, it will have seemed that you are actually willing to compromise. I understand the plight of a post-communist country, with next to nothing to live on, with one third of its population wanting to secede, with an abysmal human rights record necessitating the presence of UN peacekeepers lest all hell broke loose, with no democratic traditions and with a population brought up under totalitarian rule. What I cannot understand is why those huge and pressing problems should be carried forward at the expense of Greece and Greek history. The real problems FYROM faces are different. That they are not willing to confront them explains why this country is in the desperate financial situation it is. Chronographos 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do know exactly what I am doing, that is, giving factual arguments (NPOV policy, Wikipedia:Naming dispute) that are relevant to the subject/discussion, not inventing (like you do), arguments, that are completely irrelevant to the dispute - that is Macedonians being poor brainwashed totalitarian red scum, human rights issues... What else you have in stock? --FlavrSavr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is irrelevant, my dear FlavrSavr, and nothing of what I said is untrue. The issues discussed did not appear out of the blue: they are the results of human actions, and they have motives and backgrounds that need to be analyzed if such patterns are to be understood correctly. I know this makes you feel uncomfortable, but life is tough sometimes. Chronographos 09:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

See appeal to motive (you have given an excellent example!). I don't want to go the Greek motives behind this, they are irrelevant really (yet evident on the poll). --FlavrSavr 11:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, "this type of argument may be a logical fallacy". The operative word is "may". Chronographos 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

my humble "neutral" position on all this would be that "'Macedonian denar' is the official currency of the Republic of Macedonia." is perfectly permissible; there are no Greek Macedonian denars that could be confused with it, the Greek Macedonians paying their bus fare in Drachmes Euros. Also seeing the currency symbol is MKD, "Macedonian denar" is simply the name the Skopje government saw fit to give their money. Hey, I use Swiss Franks, without either France or Franconia making a fuss about it. Being sovereign, they could call their currency "Texas Chicken" if they wanted to, and apparently, even the international bankers opted for MKD rather than *RMD or something. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are inverting the issue here, dab. The matter is not about the "Frank" part, it's about the "Swiss" part. Let us conjure up a hypothetical scenario: Italy breaks up and Alto Adige becomes independent. It names itself the "Republic of Tirol", calls its particular Italian dialect "Tyrolese", prints stamps and banknotes with Austrian town monuments, puts an Austrian symbol on its flag, words its constitution fishily, claims Mozart as a Proto-Tyrolean, etc etc. Austria reacts and some of these provocative measures are taken back. UN intervenes and sponsors negotiations to resolve the unresolved disputes. The "Republic of Tirol" launches a PR campaign portraying itself as a plucky little country harrassed by big bullying Austria, and a "Tyrolean" user named "FlavoreSavore" gets extremely worried because "The English Wikipedia, and its mirror sites are the most important generators of the Macedonian Slavs term on the net, which is much unfortunate, because it makes the term more "common" than it actually is.". In other words, it's ok for Wikipedia to reflect Google, but Google reflecting Wikipedia???? Noooo, perish the thought! Chronographos 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"What's wrong with you, imagining hypothetical situations? Are you turning into FlavrSavr or something?" --FlavoreSavore 19:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am illustrating with an example. I know it makes you uncomfortable. Chronographos 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That macedonian-slavs-wikipedia-and-google thing. I've tried on google "macedonian slavs -wikipedia" and I got about 30% less results. Yet it seems that other sites, unrelated with WP mention that term and some of them have a .mk domain. MATIA 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but most of them use the term in a clearly medieval and ancient context, namely, Slavs that inhabited the region of Macedonia. Some of term were assimilated into what will become the Greek nation, some of them were assimilated into what will become the Bulgarian nation, while some of them were assimilated into what will become the Macedonian nation. --FlavrSavr 13:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, because some of the participants of this discussion seem to believe that I am somehow IMAGINING that Macedonians (out of vanity, or whatever) find the "Macedonian Slavs" label insulting, I would like to provide with you with this link - [6] - to cite: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. --FlavrSavr 13:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

about names

The thing is that there are about 2.000.000 Macedonian Slavs (to use the name of that wiki) and a few more than that, about 2 and a half Macedonian Greeks. The first guys live in your country, and the second guys live in my country. And since those two have the same name but are not the same thing, we wouldn't want anyone to be confused, right? Shouldn't we have that in our mind when, regardless our positions or anything, we try to find a working way? MATIA 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but with all due respect, I don't see how come referring to Macedonians (nation, ethnicity, nationality, people) can make a significant confusion between them and the wider region. Similarly, I can't understand how Macedonian Slavs, Slav Macedonians or whatever, doesn't create confusion between them and the other Slavic speaking people in the region, namely, the Bulgarians. Also, is it by accident or what, that all relevant encyclopaedias (except MSN Encarta), all relevant international institutions, all governments (except Greece and Cyprus), most media outlets don't use the term "Macedonian Slavs"? How come only Wikipedia needs that term? --FlavrSavr 13:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

See: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Macedonian_naming_dispute. Thank you. bogdan | ^Talk 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article seems to have been protected from editing since August 3--nearly six weeks! I cannot believe that a Wiki can consider editors so dangerous that they must not be permitted to edit an article for so long, so I've unprotected it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Article location

As can plainly be ascertained by anybody, Macedonian can refer to a number of different countries/regions/peoples, so "Macedonian denar" is inappropriate and misleading. The name of the article should be the name of the specific country in question, followed by the name of the currency, so as to avoid any confusion. Similarly, we have United States dollar rather than American dollar. I don't see why this case should be any different.--Theathenae 12:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, we have Swiss Franc rather than Swiss Confederation Franc, we used to have Greek drachma rather than Hellenic Republic dreachma. Anyway, the CIA World Factbook calls it Macedonian denar as does the World Bank. Macedonian denar is this currency's name. REX 12:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that Wikipedia does not call this country (simply) Macedonia, because that is the name of a region spanning several countries - of which the denar is the currency of only one. The reason that we have United States dollar rather than American dollar is that there are other countries that can and do call themselves American. The same disambiguation should apply here.--Theathenae 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The World Bank would appear to disagree with you Theathenae. Macedonian denar is this currency's name. Why don't we move Euro to EU Euro? There are other countries in Europe without the Euro. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Naming conflict, where you will see that Macedonian denar is the appropriate name. REX 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess we could always use Denar on its own, considering no other country uses that name.--Theathenae 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds acceptable. REX 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

With appropriate references to the other historical uses of the name, as per the current content of Denar.--Theathenae 13:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You do realise that a consensus must be formed though. REX 13:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can agree with me, Rexhep, anyone can. I must point out that the current definition of denar as a Roman currency needs to be changed, as the Latin name was in fact denarius - which has a separate article - not denar. I know nothing of the Croatian or Hungarian denar of the Middle Ages, nor whether they weren't perhaps written or pronounced somewhat differently.--Theathenae 13:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move reversions

I've locked the article against moves and given REX and Theathenae 24 hours for 3RR, the content being reverted being the title itself. (And if 3RR doesn't explicitly mention moves, it should. You both knew exactly what you were doing.) I don't care in the slightest what the article title ends up as, you can thrash that out yourselves - David Gerard 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It does mention moves: Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. bogdan | ^Talk 13:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Reason: FYROM denar is a made-up name with little or no usage in the outside world, where this currency is almost universally referred to as the Macedonian denar.

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as the proposer of this move. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support bogdan | ^Talk 13:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Given that the CIA World Factbook and the [7] World Bank call this currency Macedonian denar in addition to the fact that the issuing Bank calls it Macedonian denar, and in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Macedonian denar is the name to use. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Most common name

• 109,000 for "macedonian denar" -wikipedia. http://www.google.com/search?hs=srV&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22macedonian+denar%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search
• 901 for "FYROM denar" -wikipedia. http://www.google.com/search?hs=qCB&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22FYROM+denar%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search

bogdan | ^Talk 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)