Talk:North Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2019[edit]

The name is mistaken it should be Republic of Macedonia. We expect shortly this error to be corrected thank you and best regards. Mkdsime (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: that was the previous official name. The current official name of the country is the Republic of North Macedonia. Highway 89 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The name was changed in February. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 00:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


I have noticed that several categories are still under "Macedonian" name. Like for example, Category:Macedonian Eurovision Song Contest entrants. Isn't it time to change all Category names to reflect the North Macedonia change.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead but exercise caution, as in sift and weight which need it and which don't. MACEDONIAN remains the demonym for the ethnic group and for all of their properties including language. The "North" qualifier is for state organs and matters concerning the sovereign body. --Edin balgarin (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don't change those as long as the central naming RfC hasn't concluded. It's still an open issue in the RfC to what extent and in what contexts we will continue to use plain "Macedonian" as an adjective. As long as that hasn't been decided, there's no harm leaving those adjectival category titles where they are now. Fut.Perf. 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sea (or, at least, lake) of blue[edit]

" the country's name is changed to Republic of North Macedonia, erga omnes." Can someone come up with a rephrasing that would separate those two links? How it is now makes it seem as if the official name is "Republic of North Macedonia, erga omnes" until you actually click (or, at least, hover over) the links. I considered changing "erga omnes" to an unlinked "for all purposes", but some editors have expressed a preference for having the Latin term in the article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On some other page (can't remember where) we had a clear consensus that we shouldn't use the Latin jargon term here. There's really no reason to stress the point of "for all purposes" in the first place – why on earth would any reader expect the name might be anything other than for all purposes? Fut.Perf. 13:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it was actually on this page. A second instance of the phrase was removed from the lead section, but further down in the text it stayed. It should be removed there too, for the same reasons. Fut.Perf. 13:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, but it seems that SOME editors wanted it. Figured I should at least point out the problem first. --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Can I just say that erga omnes is very common and widely understood. Perhaps not to the same extent as de facto and de jure but certainly more than the myriad of Latin expressions to grace legal documents (e.g. one of my personal favourites, Volenti non fit injuria - you can use ths one anywhere if you're clever ;) ). --Edin balgarin (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe amongst your circle of acquaintances it is "very common and widely understood", but this article is the first I had ever seen it.--Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Outdated language and terminology in the Naming Dispute section[edit]

Since I am not sure wether this issue has already been disussed and not intending to make any non-consensual edits or to engage in any useless edit-wars, I decided to open this new discussion:

Reading the article and reaching the "Naming Dispute" sub-section, I suddenly felt as if I started reading another article, uninformed about all the recent events. The first paragraph of the section refers to the present with a language of the past ("Greece opposes ... ", "The Republic of Macedonia is accused of ... "), erroneously using "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "North Macedonia", and ignorting the new reality of the Prespa Agreement. E.g. "the Republic of Macedonia" (sic) is not any more accused "of appropriating symbols and figures" of Greece, and Greece does not seem to object anymore "to the use of the term Macedonian for the neighbouring country's largest ethnic group".

The sub-section is then outdated about the current status of the foreign diplomatic recognitions of North Maceconia: It still refers to the international recognitions of the country as "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia", while ignoring the new status with a series of countries recognizing the country in question as "North Macedonia".

These are just some examples. The problem is obvious throughout the section in question, which "lives" in the past, and "briefly returns to the present" only in the last two (short) paragraphs, suddenly remembering the Prespa Agreement. But the Prespa Agreement cannot be ignored, unless you have a different structure: A historic narration in the beginning, and then analysis of the new reality. But this is not what currently happens. We do not have a historic narration in the beginning. It is as if the text "steps" upon two different realities, choosign a different one each time!

For all this reason, I believe that the section should be re-written and updated, in order to reflect reality. And, of course, the term "Republic of Macedonia" should be replaced by "North Macedonia", unless it is clearly used in a historical context.Yannismarou (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The name change hasn't happened yet[edit]

The referendum isn't until July. "North Macedonia" is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roupen-Aldel (talkcontribs) 07:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Where did you get that idea from? Fut.Perf. 08:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Quoi? Official state websites are using the name; seems totes to me. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 00:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


I don't have edit power but someone who does cntrl-F "bMacedonia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmuelic (talkcontribs) 14:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting, done. Fut.Perf. 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Just wondering when the RfC will be ready. I think it closed 3 weeks ago.--Europarliament (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Results were posted earlier today. Fut.Perf. 08:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Remind me where this RfC was and where I can see the results.--Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC) --Europarliament (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting the removal and replacement of the Ohrid insurginent flag from the Ilinden uprising section[edit]

The image and corresponding caption posted in the Ilinden section ( has undoubtedly been carefully selected from a large collection of Ilinden flags to push Bulgarian perspectives on this wikipedia page, thus highlighting a lack of NPOV amongst certain editors on this page. There are different choices for the Ohrid insurgent flags which have no references to Bulgaria which could have been used such as:

The Bulgarian tricolour is also missing in the following which is located in Sofia,

There are flags outside of those used by the Ohrid insurgents that could have been used instead such as:

And the flag of the Krusevo Republic itself which I personally think should be used

I suggest using more neutral flags such as the ones listed above and reserving for pages more related to the Ilinden uprising. Selectively choosing such a flag as the one used in this article out of all the alternatives clearly indicates Bulgarian narratives being pushed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talkcontribs) 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how these flags are more neutral than the one currently used in the article. This is just removing one POV to present another. How I see it, specifically using a flag without Bulgarian symbols pushes another kind of perspective. If you could provide a study on the frequency of use of each flag during the uprising (which I doubt exists), or any other reason for why these flags are more representative, then the one used in the article should be changed. However with the information we have now there is no reason to believe that the Bulgarian-oriented flag isn't representative.--Antondimak (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
All flags have inscriptions only in Bulgarian language. The first one for example also has a pendant, depicting the Bulgarian flag, The second flag is the reverse side of that presented now in the article, for which replacement the new editor is insisting, because it had the Bulgarian flag on it. The third is the reverse side of the first one above, that has pendant, depicting the Bulgarian flag, The fourth banner was of the Kulmanovo detachment, led by a vojvode from Bulgaria proper and subvojvode, who was sentenced to death in Communist Yugoslavia as Bulgarian element. The fifth banner as nearly all here, has Bulgarian lion on it. The seventh flag is of the 7th Kumanovo Macedonian-Adrianople detachment in Bulgarian army volunteer corps during the Balkan wars, etc. Nearly all of them are kept in Bulgarian museum of military history in Sofia. Jingiby (talk)
@Jingiby, there is no conclusive evidence that the flags depict a "Bulgarian lion", these could be linked to the "Macedonian lion" such as the one depicted in the 'Coat of Arms of Macedonia from Stemmatographia by Hristofor Zhefarovich' (1741):

and the ones in Fojnica Armorial and Korjenić-Neorić Armorial and countless more.

Such a lion is also depicted in the Razlovci Uprising banner which has zero references to Bulgaria and Bulgarians:

In addition, the language scripts depicted on the flags/banners are of no significant matter, since these Cyrillic characters are used for dialectal variation prior to standardization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talkcontribs) 01:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If we are to keep the original image/banner, we should atleast have in the caption the entire statement on the banner, that is, "Freedom or Death: Macedonia, 2nd region, area 6" and not going on to further refer that "there were Bulgarian flags everywhere in during Ilinden" in the caption, which can be transferred to the main text. Otherwise in its current state, the image is obvious POV by cherry picking, especially since there are so many other more neutral banners that can be used instead. Also @Jingiby, the contents of the banners is what matters, the relevance of who made them is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talkcontribs) 02:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't ever heard of a "Macedonian lion" before WWII, it seems to be a modern invention. Also the Razlovci Uprising was clearly Bulgarian in character, I don't think that is disputed. --Antondimak (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Those flags and images are the zeitgeist of the campaign. Bulgarian or not, they should not be removed. --Edin balgarin (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Antondimak see Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia for the Macedonian lion pre-WWII. @balgarin all the material presented is historical and put up for discussion. My motivation behind uploading the images is to show a majority of flags did not have direct references to Bulgaria, therefore using the tricolor flag in the main article is POV via cherry-picking. We should not support the removal of primary historical evidence in this wiki. Anti political shills
Disagree. Removal of the image and the caption will lead to false assumption. Furthermore, it's been cleared in the text that at the time the Macedonist ideas were not present. In fact, the image is referenced as it is in the main article, Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Regards, gogo3o 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Some of those banners that I presented still have elements of 'Macedonist' ideas and they existed around the time of the tricolour one you uploaded. An example is a reference to a 'Macedonian' people (6th flag), this is contrary to your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talkcontribs) 01:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This flag image was added by Gogo303 on 23 February 2019. As @Antondimak: states above, "this is just removing one POV to present another." Therefore, we should revert back to the version a couple months ago where no flag image was included and not have to worry about which POV to select. --Local hero talk 20:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, I doubt Gogo303 opinion matters in this context as he was the one presenting his POV by uploading the image in the first place. I agree, this should be reverted to its original state. Cherry-picking such images especially on a popular wiki page only does harm to the encyclopedias neutrality. Anti political shills

This type of Macedonist vandalism goes beyond Wikipedia and includes damages of random objects of Bulgarian heritage object such as church inscriptions.

Damaged inscription on the Holy Sunday church (Sveta Nedela) in Bitola. It reads: This holy church was erected with the contribution of the Bulgarians in Bitola on October 13, 1863. The part of the inscription that reads "Bulgarians" has been erased. There are many other deliberately destroyed Bulgarian monuments in the Republic of Macedonia.

The Bitola inscription of 1016/1017. The medieval stone contains instances of the word Bulgarian. In 2006 the French consulate in Bitola sponsored and prepared a tourist catalogue and printed on its front cover the inscription. News about it had spread prior to the official presentation and was a cause for confusion among the officials of the municipality. The printing of the new catalogue was stopped because of its "Bulgarian" cover.

If we support that in Wikipedia, how we can prevent vandalism in real life?gogo3o 10:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Final warning, Gogo303: You need to seriously distinguish your real-world political conflicts from your Wikipedia disagreements. Nobody here on this talkpage has been damaging cultural objects, nobody has been destroying anything, nobody here is a vandal. People are disagreeing with you over whether a certain image should be in the article. If you can't meet other people's good-faith opinions about what is or isn't relevant to this article with respect, you need to re-think why you are on Wikipedia at all. Calling other people vandals groundlessly is a blockable offense. Fut.Perf. 10:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how every other person here agree on the image removal (in fact, only the person that started the discussion and Local hero). Besides, this is not about my personality. I have never been warned or been in a serious dispute on nearly 2000 edits over several years. You are now seriously discouraging me to contribute further to Wikipedia by your actions. Have a good day, gogo3o 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I see there was bickering all the way to ArbCom over this picture, but it is clear that the main problem with the section is a lack of information. You have a more useful article at Macedonian nationalism that gives a quote about how "We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians, but they are rather Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians." It should be clear from that and what you have already that there were some folks who were feeling more Bulgarian than others, hence the variety of flags. So obviously this article should (briefly) describe and identify both groups and illustrate each with characteristic flag(s). This is some colorful history - recognize its diversity. Wnt (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Especially on these flags of the IMRO again. As organization's initial name shows ("Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees"), it had a Bulgarian national character: the revolutionary leaders were quite often teachers from the Bulgarian schools in Macedonia. This was the case of founders of the organization. Their organization was popularly seen in the local context as "the Bulgarian committee(s). The organization modeled itself after the earlier Bulgarian revolutionary traditions and adopted their symbols and especially the Bulgarian lion and the motto Svoboda ili smart. Both are on the flags. Per the memoirs of one of the founders of the IMRO - Hristo Tatarchev, at the beginning of 1894, they attempted to work out the Statute of the new organization. The founders had near at hand an exemplar of the Statute of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee, and used it as a model. On the cover of the first statute of the Organization, is depicted a woman holding a flag with her right hand, on which is written "Svoboda ili smart". She is leaning on a pedestal on which a standing Bulgarian lion with a crown is depicted. At its early stages, the membership in the Organization was restricted explicitly in its statute: only for Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting a sentence[edit]

This sentence has some unnecessary repetitiveness to it:

"After the ceremony, Tsipras, along with his North Macedonian counterpart, crossed over the border to the North Macedonian side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."

Can we simplify it like this:

"After the ceremony, Tsipras and Zaev crossed over the border to the other side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."

The context of who Tsipras and Zaev are is established earlier in the text. GStojanov (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds much better, also the use of the term 'North Macedonian' is problematic according to Anti Political Shills
As is "Macedonian". It's better to avoid using adjectives in general, so this seems like a good proposition. --Antondimak (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, for a simple geographic feature such as a lake share, plain "Macedonian" is certainly not problematic according to either Prespa or our guidelines. As for simply saying "other side", I'd be all for it, if it wasn't for the fact that it might not be immediately obvious to the casual reader that the other side of the lake was in the other country. Fut.Perf. 13:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Prespa doesn't deal with these cases, so it can't actually prohibit or endorse either "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". It would be better to avoid adjectives altogether, but in this case, if it is needed, "North Macedonian" should be used, because it's a textbook example of a case in which confusion would arise, as they travelled from one "Macedonia" to the other. They left Greek Macedonia and entered North Macedonia, so if the reader isn't expected to understand the situation, I doubt this would help. "Macedonian" can be used deep in an article related to North Macedonia, where no confusion would arise, while here we're exactly at the border. By the way sorry for readding "North" after your edit before replying. I hadn't noticed your reply and I thought removing it was accidental. --Antondimak (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Do we seriously have to fight over every instance of "(North) Macedonian" like this now? And do we still need to deal with pretend "disambiguation" requirements used as a weapon to force this or that naming choice into articles? This is pretty academic now, because I agree with CMD below and I'm probably going to cut the whole passage out pretty soon, but let's nevertheless clarify this. No, it's not "better to avoid adjectives altogether" (the RfC was pretty clear about that), and there's nothing problematic about plain "Macedonian" here. The guideline recommends that "the shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context". That's clearly the case here; this is about as "deep in an article related to North Macedonia" as it gets. There's no reference to Greek Macedonia anywhere near there. The reader hasn't even been told that Psarades is in Greek Macedonia, nor would they have any reason to care. Plus, the reference to "crossing the border" does enough to disambiguate the situation even for the most confused readers. Saying that somebody "crossed the border from Psarades to the Macedonian side" is no more problematic than saying that somebody "crossed the border into Azerbaijan from Tabriz", or that somebody "crossed the border into Luxembourg from Bastogne". Fut.Perf. 11:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
We will have to argue (not fight) over every instance if we are to ignore the guidelines and force "Macedonian" everywhere. This is the one case where there needs to be a dinstinction. If "North" isn't to be used here, it can't be used anywhere. There would be no difference from your examples if we were speaking before 12/02/2019. The country isn't called "Macedonia", it's called "North Macedonia". A better equivalent would be to say "Kim Jong-un crossed from Kaesong to the Korean side to meet Moon Jae-in". I think you would agree that it would be pretty wrong in this case, as would be in our sentence. --Antondimak (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It also depends on the sources that are used for references, If they use the term 'Macedonian' then the adjective Macedonian should suffice. Likewise with 'North Macedonian'. Again it's good to abide by the suggestions in
Nah, that's not how it works. We don't tie our naming choices to whatever choice happened to be made in whatever individual source happens to be used in this or that footnote. Fut.Perf. 11:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's necessary to state that each side of the lake is in a different country, and further there are two other sides as there is also an Albanian side. That said, this all seems like far too much detail for such a high-level article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That's also quite true. Feel free to prune down. Fut.Perf. 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The simplified version suggested is fine. It states that they "crossed over the border" and that it was "the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991", if a reader can't tell that this means that the two sides of the lake are in different countries from this then I have to question said reader's comprehension of English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

An adjectival reference that is questionable[edit]

In this sentence we have an adjectival reference that is questionable. We refer to the past using a current adjectival reference:

"The territory of the modern North Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

I suggest we reformat is like this:

"The territory of the modern Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

or like this:

"The territory of the modern state of North Macedonia was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

I prefer the first choice, but the second is acceptable too. GStojanov (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Even better: "The territory that was to become North Macedonia...", or: "The territory of today's North Macedonia". Fut.Perf. 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The second is more encyclopedic: "The territory of today's North Macedonia" GStojanov (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This is common practice for all other countries. I don't see how it's different here. It specifically says "modern" North Macedonian state. The mention isn't historical, there was no "Macedonian state" at the time, it simply refers to the borders of today's country. We use phrases like "the territory of the modern Greek state" for the ancient period even though no such thing existed, because it is used to help the reader understand the geography. Similarly "the territory of 'modern Portugal', 'modern Spain', 'modern France'", is used for periods during which these states didn't exist. Actually a less "cluttery" solution would be to use "the territory of modern North Macedonia", but instead a more descriptive phrase is used because of current sensitivities. --Antondimak (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we then say: "The territory of modern North Macedonia was annexed..." GStojanov (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Whatever we say, there's of course no reason to prefer the wordy "(North) Macedonian state" over the simple noun "North Macedonia". I wonder why the same person who was arguing that adjectival forms are problematic per se in the thread above is now insisting on using one here? For the sake of what "current sensitivities" would you do that? – That said, personally I'd still go for "that was to become", because it helps to get the idea across that it was only through this annexation that the territory in its current extent was first defined as a unit. Fut.Perf. 11:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I still personally prefer "North Macedonia" to "North Macedonian state" personally, I just said that I would understand if it was kept more indirect in order not to upset people (specifically Slavic Macedonians in this case). Now that you explain it, I think your proposal is better, maybe reworded as "which would later become". --Antondimak (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2019[edit]

Please change IPA-bg to IPA-mk. GStojanov (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, I changed it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2019[edit]

Please change: "The North Macedonian education system consists of" with "The education system of North Macedonia consists of" GStojanov (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? It's not an official name, it's a description. And it should be "educational system" or "system of education" NOT "edcuation system". --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, it should be "The educational system in North Macedonia...". Why? Because there is nothing specifically "North Macedonian" in the educational system. It is a standard educational system. So it makes sense to say: "The educational system in the country consist of..." GStojanov (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We would normally speak of "the British educational system" or the "French educational system" or the "American educational system" or.... This bending over backwards to avoid saying "North Macedonian" is ridiculous. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Avoidance of using that adjective is necessary. Its usage for state organisations and other matters can result in the spillage of the term in matters of culture, ethnicity and language. That is why the Prespa agreement stipulates that 'of North Macedonia' should be used for state organisations. Anti Political Shills
No. We had an RfC about the naming conventions, we have an updated valid guideline now, we're not going to re-debate the basics again here. Fut.Perf. 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least it should be avoided when dealing with topics not related to state organisations Anti Political Shills
We are not subject to Prespa. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If you were not subject to Prespa, then the old naming conventions would remain in full usage Anti Political Shills
Please read WP:NCMAC. It was quite an effort getting it hashed out, you know? Fut.Perf. 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, also please use a standard signature to sign your posts, including the date and with a proper link to your actual user name. Fut.Perf. 10:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I too am disappointed that we are unable to follow the WP:NCMAC. We spent three months hashing it out, and now we don't use it. There is no need to talk about bending backward or forward. Let's use our policy. My proposal is in accordance to WP:NCMAC.5.3 (chapter 5 paragraph 3). GStojanov (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Except that there's nothing in that paragraph of NCMAC that prescribes the form you want to use. It explicitly says the opposite of what you claim. Fut.Perf. 12:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
How about this: "...especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural." And there is nothing cumbersome or unnatural with: "The education system of North Macedonia consists of". GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No reason to change it from the form used by the writer. At least aside from the previously mentioned need to change "education system" to "educational system". --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I pointed out that we are not using the official name here, we are describing it. Which is EXACTLY the sort of situation where that portion of NCMAC says that we may use "North Macedonian". --Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019[edit]

Change: "village of Oteševo on the North Macedonian side" to "village of Oteševo on the Macedonian side". Rationale: At the time of the event the name of the country was: Macedonia, so according to WP:NCMAC.3.2: "In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name" we should use either the then current name or then current adjective. GStojanov (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Now in my opinion that's really stretching it. We said "Macedonia" will be used in historical contexts, but here we're talking about geography, which remains unchanged. It's similar to the previous instance we were talking about, where "the modern North Macedonian state" was used, even though the event preceded the establishment of the Republic. --Antondimak (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We are referring to an event that happened in 2018, and at that time the name of the country was (Republic of) Macedonia. We agreed that when referring to events prior to 2019 we will use the then current name (or adjectival reference). GStojanov (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Rephrased it to avoid the problem entirely. Used the suggestion from the "Reformatting a sentence" discussion above as a guide. If it isn't clear that starting in Greece and crossing the border into a country that the Greek PM had never visited since it's independence means that they ended up in (what was then) the Republic of Macedonia, then the reader's English comprehension level is simply too low. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I am encouraged that we can be creative when we want to avoid an inconvenient adjectival reference. Let's keep this spirit and deal with the other four. GStojanov (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2019[edit]

Change: "The fauna of North Macedonian forests" with "The fauna of the forests". Rationale: The context is already well established, the name of the country is mentioned 10 times already. GStojanov (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The change "The native forest fauna..." is good. I like how user:Khajidha added semantics with "native". GStojanov (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2019[edit]

Change: "According to Eurostat data, North Macedonian PPS GDP per capita" to "According to Eurostat data the PPS GDP per capita" Rationale: The context is already established. This paragraph alone mentions North Macedonia five times. It is way too repetitive. GStojanov (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian minority?[edit]

I suggest dropping the mention that there is a Bulgarian minority in the opening few paragraphs as there is no modern evidence to indicate a significant Bulgarian minority. Official censuses in the Republic of Macedonia and Yugoslavia are contrary to the statement. --Anti political shills (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)