Talk:2018 Macedonian referendum

POV-tag

I have removed it because no reason was given about it and here is any discussion, explaining what in this article is biased etc. Jingiby (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a constitutional referendum

The referendum isn't a constitutional referendum. Only parliament can change the constitution. It's a plebiscite on whether the voters approve the deal with Greece or not. The (very loaded..) question will be: "Do you support EU and NATO membership by accepting the deal between Macedonia and Greece?". No reference to the constitution.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

"Name change" should be spelled without a hyphen though, shouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going by media reports where the hyphenated form seems to be the common one. https://www.dw.com/en/macedonia-sets-date-for-name-change-referendum/a-44889359 and https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/macedonia-parliament-vote-referendum-deal-56909781 https://www.rferl.org/a/macedonian-lawmakers-vote-name-change-referendum-greece/29398570.html Why do you want it without a hyphen? Is that the British form?--Batmacumba (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Adjectives formed by connecting multiple words are always hyphenated. Non-hyphenation can be applied if the expression is used as a noun. Here is an example that illustrates the difference:

This is a name-change referendum. (as an adjective)

This is a referendum for a name change. (as a noun)

The title of this article clearly makes use of it as an adjective.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian referendum, 2018

This name is more accurate. The issue is too complicated and the question is related with different changes, not only of the name of the state. Jingiby (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You may think so, but you should not have moved it without prior discussion. The change of the name is the central element in the deal with Greece and name-change is the common name for the referendum--Batmacumba (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The strategic access to NATO and EU depends on the vote. Both are more important then the designation Northern. Also the partnership with Greece and the stop of the antiquisation-policy, as well as the future of the controversial project Skopje 2014 are related to its result. On the other hand the relation of the country with Serbia and Russia, which are against the acces of Macedonia in NATO are in accordanse with it. Of cource, there are also another consequences, that depend on it, not only the addition Northern. Jingiby (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No need to complicate this unnecessarily. A) Wikipedia uses common name B) Everything else depends on the name change.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you point any name issue here: Are you in favour of European Union and NATO membership by accepting the agreement between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Greece? Jingiby (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is: "Do you support European Union and NATO membership by accepting the agreement between the Republic of Macedonia and and the Republic of Greece?". The agreement is about the name change, everything else is assumed consequences of a name change. The highly loaded question with EU/NATO window-dressing is presented by the government to get maximum support, but it doesn't change what they are voting on: An agreement to change the official name of the state. You did not address the common name issue, which is the central one. Wikipedia articles should be titled using the name they are commonly known by.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the opinion of the opposition in Skopje. The ruling coalition insists that main aim of the referendum is not only that. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "Macedonian Prespa agreement referendum, 2018"? Number 57 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring the common name argument. This is not about what the opposition in Skopje thinks, but what the international media and observers call it.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is neutral, but it violates the common name rule.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a third opinion here will be helpful. Jingiby (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am in favor of the name-change referendum. Everybody is calling it that way in Macedonia. Try googling "Macedonia referendum", you will see the same. Svrznik (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

VMRO never accepted North Macedonia as a constitutional name.

I am removing the info about a wikileaks cable that reportedly said that VMRO-DMPMNE accepted the same thing that is in the agreement in 2008. Here is a link to the cable, read the Scope section: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08SKOPJE491_a.html

It says that VMRO accepted North Macedonia as an international name in international organizations and in bilateral use with countries that have a problem with the constitutional name Macedonia. Effectively, just replacing the FYROM ridicule with something more decent, but keeping the right to name our country the way we choose. If that was on the table at the moment, there would be no need for a referendum, it would be accepted unanimously.

The text in the euobserver.com article is a reflection of propaganda that was circulated locally in Macedonia, and was subsequently debunked as fake news. 77.29.22.217 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

EU Observer are reporting it accurately as far as I can see it. Number 57 22:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the Scope section in the cable. It reads: "In all international organizations, plus bilaterally by any country that does not want to use the constitutional name... Macedonia would use its constitutional name in referring to itself, on passports, product labels, in the media, etc. ". Clearly different than what is in the deal. 77.29.22.217 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the problem here. The wording in the article is fine. As you're refusing to abide by WP:BRD, I don't really see any point engaging with you further on this. Number 57 23:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement says that VMRO was willing to accept the same terms of the agreement, back in 2008. The current accepted terms are a change in the constitutional name. The accepted terms in 2008, as stated by the cable, is a change in the international name, with the constitutional staying the same. I really don't understand how you can not see that these two terms are fundamentally different 77.29.22.217 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Factchecked this, and I can confirm that the EU Observer did not publish propaganda. The section is not factually inaccurate, and I recommend you leave the section alone as you are close to breaking the three revert rule. Just follow WP:BRD so we don't have to go through administrator intervention. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You clearly have no background info about this. The section is factually inaccurate. International name change is not equal to Constitutional name change. The old version of the article said that VMRO accepted the present terms in 2008. The present terms include a constitutional name change, which is why all the fuss is about. The terms accepted by VMRO in 2008, as stated in the original cable, did not include a constitutional name change, only an international name change, i.e. changing the silly FYROM reference to Northern Macedonia, which nobody in the country would object. Do you need a drawing about the facts, so you can "Factcheck" them visually? 77.29.22.217 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually EU observer is wrong. The information was first published in Greek media in Ekatimerini, in an attempt to discredit the SYRIZA Goverment. Macedonian local news agency jumped aboard without checking the cable, in attempt to criticize the previous VMRO government, without checking their facts first. If you read the actual cable, you will see that it say something slightly, but substantially different, from what the news reported. This was indeed published during the campaign propaganda, and gained some controversy in Macedonia, and it is sadly to see that it found it's way to Wikipedia. Svrznik (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You're patently the same editor as the IP, now having logged into an account because the article was semi-protected and the IP was blocked. Number 57 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And you seem to patently refuse to read the original source. Where does it say that the 2008 government agreed to same terms that are in the current name deal? Svrznik (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Svrnzik:  Comment: The burden is on you, as the editor proposing changes away from consensus, to prove your opinion is correct. See WP:BURDEN and the fifth argument of WP:FLAT. Also, in case it isn't obvious, your arguments are unsourced. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that is not sourced is the claim that the government in 2008 was ready to accept the same term. The original source contradicts this. Even the secondary sources do not claim this. My last edit, just removes the synthesis that states "i.e by equal, as the contemporary conditions". Once you remove that claim, the whole news article becomes irrelevant to the no/boycott side. A previous government, 10 years ago, was willing to accept different terms, than the one offered today. Why does that piece of info even need to be included in the No/Boycott section, other than for means to discredit the no/boycott side? Svrznik (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Svrnzik: You must give examples, before it can be called sourced. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Govt. will legitimize result even with low turnout?

I read an article that said "an official from Skopje speaking in Brussels on Friday (28 September) made it clear that the authorities will declare the result as legitimate even in case of a low turnout."

Should we make a mention of this? I haven't found a corroborating source yet and other articles are still saying 50%. Anyone got thoughts? Or should we only address this if a scenario arises and becomes part of the media narrative? Does anyone know if Eurasia Review can be considered a credible source? I'm not familiar with it at this time.

Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

References

It's strike me as kind of pointless anyway to have a required turnout quorum for the referendum to be valid if the result isn't legally binding... The treaty will still require to change the constitution with a two third quorum in the parliament. So the result of this vote will be used as a negociating tool to force the opposition to agree to it by branding them as bring against the will of the people, whether it get its 50 % turnoit or not. That's the point of it. --Aréat (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The minimum 50% turnout to make it valid will not matter as Zaev and Tsipras will force it through no matter no matter what. The agreement is despised by the majority of citizens in both countries and therefore - even if the turnout is only 34% which it appears to be - Tsipras and Zaev and the the EU will force through the agreement and attempt to give birth to a new nation no-one in either country wants - soviet style. Reaper7 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to be hasty editing the article. Wait for sources to report what actually does/doesn't happen here. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Re-asserting Russian influence

Russia - or any state operating from Moscow - has not had "influence" of the nature where anti-Russian propagandists are concerned for many years now. After the second world war, Moscow never fully established control in this region until the split with Tito in 1947 after which its influence ended. Macedonia morphed from Socialist Yugoslav republic to western puppet state in one fell swoop with its independence in 1991. Although there is significant grass roots support for the country to be pro-Russian among the Slavic majority, the regime has functioned as a NATO/EU loyalist regardless of which government and president have ruled ever since 1991. So if Russia were to assist its sympahthisers in Macedonia to rise up to overthrow the Zaev regime, this would be the first time Russia's interests were being served in this region since before the October Revolution (remember that Kingdom of Yugoslavia was an opponent of Soviet Russia and Soviet Union). --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The Russian Federation's attempt to influence the vote is very well documented, as shown in the article.50.111.19.178 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my above remark or the related edit I made. The article still says that Russia tried to influence the vote. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Albanian vote

The article currently says, "The Albanian vote turned out to be inconsequential to the overall 2018 referendum result as only 233,000 Albanians voted, marginally less than their voter turnout in the local elections of 2017." This is cited to [1], an article titled "Albanian Vote Not Crucial in Macedonia Referendum Shortfall".

Considering that the total number of voters in the referendum was 666,344, that means that 35% of the voters were Albanian. It seems unlikely that a demographic group constituting 35% of voters could be "inconsequential" to any election. Besides, the cited article says, "When it became apparent on referendum night that turnout would fall short, some pundits suggested the government had been let down by the ethnic Albanian vote. ... Data, however, shows that in 15 predominantly ethnic Albanian municipalities, turnout was only marginally lower than in local elections a year ago – 233,000 voters compared to 261,000." In other words, the article says that it's not the fault of Albanians that the referendum failed to achieve 50% turnout, because they voted at a rate similar to how they voted in local elections. But that's not the same thing as saying that their vote was inconsequential. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it mean inconsequential in the yes/no result. Even if all 233,000 albanians had voted no, the yes side would still had won by a landslide. An argument could have been made that their vote, or lack of, was important as with the fail to reach the participation quorum, but as the article mention their participation rate was not so different from the rest of the population. It could indeed be clarified here, if you want to. --Aréat (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I was in Macedonia during most of September and talk was that Albanians were going to come out and vote in "droves" for a yes vote (and other conspiracy theories). There was a whipping up of anti-Albanian sentiment during the referendum campaign by some opposition circles. I added that sentence to the article because in the end Albanians voted in numbers that they have always voted (of the adult population) in elections and were of no consequence to the end result. Some additional information on Macedonians and their vote numbers would round off the section and give a full picture placing in context the Albanian vote. So far the article lacks that info. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I do think the sentence or some version of it ought to be restored as pundits and others thought that the Albanian vote was important and would somehow carry the day for better or worse.Resnjari (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I readded the sentence and reworded it taking into consideration comments here. If there are any further issues ping me.Resnjari (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"talk was that Albanians were going to come out and vote in "droves" for a yes vote (and other conspiracy theories)"--well, well, it turned out they weren't 'conspiracy theories'. If Albanians were 35% of all those who voted, while being less than 20% in the total population, I think this qualifies as 'voted in droves'.77.248.83.156 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Majority vs. Plurality

For the IP editor who keeps insisting on changing "majority" to "plurality" - majority means more than half. Eighty out of one hundred twenty is more than half - therefore, a majority, in this case a two-thirds majority. Plurality means the largest share, but less than half; for instance, if there were three options and one got 50/120, the next got 40/120, and the last got 30/120, the first option would have a plurality but not a majority. Please find something else to obsess over. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion (not certain). He may possibly be alluding to the paltry figure to vote. No matter what scheming occurs in the corridors of the deep state to expedite the changes sought by the proposer (including outside interference), it cannot be ignored that the real majority voted with their feet. Boycotting is a communication from the persons eligible to vote to the mandarins seeking the changes. It could be that this is what the IP wishes to highlight. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't staying home signify that the majority did not have an opinion or did not care either way? Refusing to vote seems a very stupid thing to do if you really do have a preference, you run a large risk of your preferred outcome not occurring. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)