Talk:Greece/Proposal (not being sure about it)

Proposal (not being sure about it)

I am making a proposal, although I am not sure about it:-).

Since, Republic of Macedonia is only used twice in the artice and once in a map, I would propose that, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IGNORE, in the lead to be used "the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia" in the foreign policy section to be used only as Macedonia naming dispute, without a name for the country and in the map to have only the flags of the neighboring countries, since are not relevant to that map.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is perfectly fine as it stands. Macedonia (Greece) ("Macedonia" on the map) and Republic of Macedonia ("Rep. Mace.") are perfectly disambiguated on the map. There is no confusion. (Taivo (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

"Rep. Mace." is an unsourced and improvised acronym which can only serve the nationalist objective of removing the "evil" (yet sourced and frequent) fYRoM acronym. NikoSilver 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, according to this generally very reliable site, "Republic of Macedonia" is in fact the name given to the country in its constitution. I tend to think that the constitutional name of a country can be used, particularly when it is comparatively unambiguous and short. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a different argument to that of Taivo, but I will gladly address it. We have all sorts of reliable sites (UN, EU, NATO, IOC, FIFA, FIBA... all) , and the choice for "constitutional" is arbitrary. Others can prefer "internationally accepted" rather than "US imposed" (briefly?^{check what Senator Obama had co-signed}), others can choose "more frequent"^{(M is more frequent, but fYRoM is much more frequent than RoM)}, and others can choose "according to context" like many other pedias and intl docs. It is a matter of choice, and this is why there's a poll here. NikoSilver 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalist objective"? Thanks fo sharing your own nationalism. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not addressing anyone in person, unlike what I am apparently receiving. :-( Yes, I think that nationalism makes people hate this acronym and it makes them want to sweep it under the carpet along with the non-ambiguity it advocates. Either if you call it Americanocentrism (temporarily, obviously, see above), or if you call it Bush-ism, or if you call it lets-create-havoc-in-the-Balkans-to-sell-more-arms-due-to-insecurity, or if you call it Macedonism, the fact remains that there are nationalist reasons behind calling that country by the name of a whole wider region, which are even propagated officially by the country's government^{PM himself and schoolbooks}. It is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know that terminology has always been a great tool for propaganda. NikoSilver 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, the above comments seem to me anyway to be explicitly saying that WP:POV, specifically, the POV of editors who believe the country should not be given the comparatively unambiguous name it has ("Republic of" begins the name, after all, "Macedonia" does not) takes priority over what most people would call the most reliable of sources, the government's own official documents. It is hard to see how such an argument, which seems to say POV takes priority over RS, is a particularly good one. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RS? All over the place: UN ... EU ... NATO ... IMF ... WTO ... IOC ... WB ... EBRD ... OSCE ... FIFA ... FIBA ... All countries start with "Republic of" or something of the sort. Nobody ever actually says it, though, and nobody writes it, and even if anybody does then nobody ever reads it. Not even the masters of the world call themselves officially simply "America". Nor will Sweden decide to rename itself to "Republic of Scandinavia", nor Portugal to "Republic of Iberia", without receiving the fierce opposition of their neighbors and part of (the sane IMO) international community. You can't expect me to support that, as you would obviously not accept this fictional analogy. NikoSilver 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So in effect we are in this case arguing over which reliable sources are more reliable? And we are arguing that outsider names are more important than the name the group has given itself? Regarding the other countries named, I know full well that many countries have a much longer formal name than the one in popular use. However, surprisingly, perhaps, in most cases the most popularly used name by the country's citizenry is the name of the article. Should this case be different? And you have yet to provide a single reliable source to justify your allegation that the naming is somehow a trick of the government. Without such a reliable source, making changes based on your comments would be making changes based on your own unsubstantiated point of view, which is clearly not allowed. Can you produce a RS clearly stating that the country's chosen name was clearly and explicitly chosen for the purposes of some sort of misdirection? John Carter (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You haven't checked my links. Try United Macedonia which has a good repertoire of schoolbooks and other governmental publications. And actually this is all Greece worries about.[1][2] Did you see above the picture of their Prime Minister depositing a wreath under an irredentist map with half my country included within "Macedonia"? But this is not our issue here. We're not supposed to judge who is wrong or right (and sorry for indulging in replying).

Everybody knows that we call countries as we like in all languages. Otherwise this article here would be called Hellas for instance. Deutchland also comes to mind. What we use in WP is the most frequent English appellations. The most frequent is (sadly admittedly) plain "Macedonia". But it is very ambiguous, hence it's taken. So, per WP:NCON we should go to the next most frequent, which is (indeed) "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (1.5M hits). Others have arbitrarily chosen "Republic of Macedonia" (0.9M hits), and this is also the article name for the country.

Some encyclopedias and a lot of specialized literature on the subject uses alternative names depending on context. I don't see what's wrong with that to be extended to the article for Greece, who is the initiator of all this fuss. Especially when we've already agreed that fyrom should be used in all intl orgs articles! (such as Accession of FYROM to EU etc) Why should Greece (of all!) be the ...exception of the agreed exceptions?? NikoSilver 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Google searches are not research and are not reliable sources for "what is most common". You have to actually examine pages to see whether the page actually 1) uses FYROM as the sole name for Macedonia, 2) simply has FYROM as a keyword, but never uses the term in the text itself, or 3) uses FYROM simply as an alternate term for ROM. So Google numbers are worthless. If there were a difference of, say, 1 million to 10, that might be significant, but that's not the case here, so Google is not a reliable source for determining "most common" or "most common in X context". (Taivo (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

(ec)Niko, please keep your anti-American ideology to yourself, it is not appropriate here. Indeed, the majority of the countries of the world do not accept FYROM and use "Republic of Maceedonia" in their relations. They only use FYROM when they have to in an organization that requires it. "Rep. Mace." is a perfectly acceptable variant here because "Rep." is an easily sourced abbreviation for "Republic" and if you actually look at my list of atlas references above you will see "Mace." as a sourced abbreviation for "Macedonia". Therefore "Rep. Mace." is a sourced form for "Republic of Macedonia". "FYROM" occurs virtually never on actual English-language maps, so the argument that it is somehow "common" is without merit. Actually, we can use the Wikimedia abbreviation "RM" referenced here. And, as I was browsing maps on-line, I found this U.N. map that was not labelled FYROM, but "Macedonia": [3]. Sort of puts the lie to the contention that the U.N. always uses FYROM. And here the World Bank uses "Macedonia": [4]. But "Rep. Mace." is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation and each of the two parts is easily sourced. Combining two "real" abbreviations is perfectly acceptable in English usage. (Taivo (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I am sorry you find this Anti-American! (What??) I'll reply to the rest later, but obviously you are not reading the small print. NikoSilver 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And, just to refresh your memory, "Rep. Maced." was actually proposed by one of the editors whose POV is decided Greek: [5]. (Taivo (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, this the second time I correct you on this. Please read the edit summary of my edit: "Pending final discsussion outcome" Dr.K. logos 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No correction needed. My statement is true--the current version on the map was placed there by you (except with "Maced." instead of "Mace."). I never tried to imply that you necessarily intended it as permanent, but it's a good version whatever your motives in placing it there were. You were reaching across the gap and placing a good compromise solution in place. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

For chrissake, when you deliberately compile two arbitrary abbreviations just to expunge one other then there's a reason behind it! And when you make a list of atlases, you should begin with the most popular ones: Google Earth, which reads "Macedonia (FYROM)" and Microsoft Virtual Earth, which read "F.Y.R.O.Macedonia". And I bet I can easily find instances of FYROM usages in countries which are supposed to use RoM (in reverse to your examples). I would appreciate if you simply took into consideration the essence of my post above your edit conflict. We don't need to agree, but see what I'm saying. OK? NikoSilver 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded below about my research methodology for looking at English atlases. I wouldn't have a problem with "Macedonia (FYROM)" on the map, but I think that "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" is far superior since it is a self-identification. I will continue to contend that self-identifications trump everything except most common English name. If we went with other "common English names", then disambiguating "Democratic Republic of Congo" from "Republic of Congo" would require the use of "Zaire" for the former. Doing a Google search on "Zaire" yields 20.6 million Google hits, but "Democratic Republic of Congo" yields only 16.4 million hits. (I don't trust Google hits, but it gives a hint of how common "Zaire" is.) But using Zaire is totally unacceptable since that is no longer the name of the country as a self-identification. Thus, Wikipedia does not use "Zaire" even though it is the most common name to distinguish "Congo" from "Congo". Thus "FYROM" may be common, but it is not the self-identification and should not be used except in direct quotes or in discussing those international organizations that use FYROM and list it as such. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

In response to the original suggestion which started this thread, I could actually accept that, although others might not. In response to Niko, it seems to me that we are now arguing about which sources are most reliable. Your statement seems to indicate that the government of Greece and United Macedonia are in effect extremely reliable sources about what the government of the Republic of Macedonia has been doing. Somehow, that argument strikes me as being both less than creditable (unless a specific source from one of the parties intimately involved in choosing the "Republic of Macedonia" as the name of the country is cited, indicating that in fact was the reason for the suggestion and approval of the name ROM), and, conceivably, considering many/most of the individuals involved are still living, at least maybe potentially a violation of WP:BLP. I am therefore asking for a clear and specific reliable source which clearly and explicitly states that the name ROM was chosen for the purposes you have described and which has not been subsequently withdrawn, apologized for, or whatever. Please produce one such. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Like John Carter, I have previously stated that the textual references are OK, but I prefer the map to stay as it is. And this is the anti-Americanism I am referring to: [6] (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Read the diff better. I'm saying that the name was imposed by the US when the latter chose to use it (and actually for other cases I like the fact that the US has the power to impose in general). Then I'm saying that this might be temporary, and I am linking to the US Senate's resolution which calls for a country called "fyrom" not to act nationalistic, which is co-signed by senator (then) Obama and many of his today's staff. Where is the anti-Americanism? Why do you always have to start with the assumption I am a prick man? NikoSilver 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, http://maps.live.com Be my guest.--Avg (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My survey was absolutely unbiased without regard for "best" or "worst" or ROM or FYROM. I did a Google search for "on-line atlas" and then navigated to Macedonia on the first ten hits. You can do biased searches all day long on "FYROM" or "ROM" and find what you want, but I'm not interested in that. I just went with the first ten atlas hits on a Google search and 9 of them listed simply listed "Macedonia" and one of them listed "FYROM" (the ten included Encarta). That's fairly unambiguous. Picking and choosing which atlases or maps you go to is not a very fair way of going about research when you are asking the question, "What is most common?" My results might have been slightly different had I gone to the first 100 maps, but 9 out of the first 10 hits on Google was not even close. I challenge you to stop just doing biased searches and to actually conduct unbiased research. (Taivo (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Hey Taivo, don't take things personally, I didn't mean to accuse you of ...conducting a biased research! It's just that MS and Google maps are obviously the most common ones. Maybe it is the fact that you used the specialized word "Atlas"? I just typed ""map" and they came up first in the list. NikoSilver 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My search may not have been in Google, either, but in Yahoo! so that may have made a difference in results as well. I have both search blocks on my browser menu and I just randomly type in one or the other. Some sites pay Yahoo! extra, some sites pay Google extra, some sites don't pay anyone. The search engines operate in their own world to themselves and no one really understands how they operate. But the commonly used English term for performing any web search is "google" no matter what search engine you actually use. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Niko, I specifically asked you to produce a source, pretty much an unimpeachable source, under the circumstances, BLP and all, specifically saying that there are internal sources which clearly indicate that the name "ROM" was chosen for the reasons you gave above. If you cannot do so, I request that you cease making such OR POV statements, and that you indicate your willingness to do so by clearly saying as much. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I really have not understood what you are saying. I'm sincerely trying and I'll get back to you. NikoSilver 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let me make it clear. You have I believe repeatedly stated that the motivations of those who chose the name ROM were in some way guided by the idea that by choosing that name they would somehow be able to perform some sort of trickery such that they could be fairly universally recognized by the short name "Macedonia". That is a very serious allegation, particularly considering that the individuals about whom that allegation is being made are I think almost universally still alive. On that basis BLP might very well enter into the picture here. I am requesting clear and unambiguous reliably sourced information which clearly and explicitly states that at least one of the parties involved in the government's choosing the name "Republic of Macedonia" has stated that the name was proposed and approved on the basis of somehow trying to take the name "Macedonia". In all honesty, I've noted the controversy pretty much from the start on the VOA, BBC, worldband radio, and the like, so I do acknowledge the possibility that some such source might exist. But I would need to see the source for us to be able to act upon changing the content of the article to reflect the belief that those who chose the name did so for some underhanded purpose. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all please try to take a quick glance at the featured article Macedonia (terminology) to understand the basics because I think you are confusing some things (because it is confusing). Tito who first called it such is dead and many would argue that's not so sad, and many then, including the US called it nationalistic that he did (see this quote by the then US State secretary Stettinius). Kiro Gligorov is not dead, but was incapacitated due to an assassination attempt, and that was really sad because he was moderate. He was actually ready to agree to a composite name and my fellow Greeks were idiot enough to turn it down and seek the (nationalistic and crazy) "No Macedonia in the title". The name was not initially used as a nationalist vehicle. It is used now. United Macedonia is not a country, it is an irredentist concept and it is being taught in schools in RoM. Please read the sources in that article.

Second, there are thousands of sources calling the current govt of RoM "nationalist". But I can't see where BLP would apply. NikoSilver 01:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I specifically requested a source which cited one of those involved in the choosing of the name for the independent country for the source of saying that the name choice was in some way intended to co-opt the name "Macedonia". Simply citing sources that call them "nationalist" is not quite enough. Tito is himself probably irrelevant, as I don't think he was personally involved in the choosing of the name of the independent country. Also, for what it's worth, please note that the title of the article is not Macedonia, but in fact Republic of Macedonia. The average reader of English would read the name from the beginning, and in that context realize that the name was in fact not that of "Macedonia". And we are writing to the English speaking community here. We cannot base the naming of a country and its base article on what we say the current motivations of the people using that name are, as you seem to be doing in the above. And, of course, by policy and guidelines, we use the name of the main article wherever possible. The fact that individuals are using that name for nationalistic purposes is irrelevant, because it really doesn't affect the legitimacy of the name, but rather the reasons some people at the current time choose to use it. There is a difference there. If you are to keep repeating the claim that the name was chosen to co-opt the short name "Macedonia" I would need to see the evidence I requested above. I also remind once again everybody that we are not discussing arguing about the name "Macedonia", but the names "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I would urge everyone to focus on that fact, rather than seeking to say that people are attempting to bring about a result which is not in fact reflective of the current situation in wikipedia. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Let's take it one by one:

• Tito first called it RoM (but as a constituent republic of Yugoslavia). His reasons are cited as nationalistic and irredentist (according to the US[7] and Greece).
• The republic became independet from Yugoslavia and kept the same name (RoM). Greece thinks that everybody will simply drop the "Ro" call it "Macedonia" (and not RoM), which is true. But nobody said that the name was chosen preserved for that purpose. "M" is the most frequent term today.
• Between fYRoM and RoM, it is clear that fYRoM is more frequent. RoM has other advantages (like self-id and better proximity to most frequent plain "M"). RoM is the title of the RoM article in WP.
• However, we have agreed that "fYRoM" will be used in all international organizations articles, because they refer to it as such (and it to them). We had agreed that this "exception" would also include Greece (this article here), who is the initiator of all this, for the same reasons. Some users now are disputing this and want the Greece article to match all others (rather than the intl orgs ones). NikoSilver 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is a fairly concise and accurate appraisal of the issue at hand except for some quibbling and phrasing in the last bullet. The first three bullets are accurate. I would have added an additional bullet on the origin of fYRoM and the unfortunate quibbling of Greece in the matter, but what you have is accurate. My reading of the Wikipedia issue is a bit different, however. According to the things I've read you are accurate on the fYRoM in articles on the international organizations and in direct quotes on the matter. But on the issue of Greece and Greek-related articles, no consensus was ever reached on whether Greece is a walled garden (to borrow a term from another talk page) or whether it has just not been conformed to meet Wikipedia standards elsewhere. So no consensus was reached, just a ceasefire. (Taivo (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you. I try to be as objective as possible so that I can observe and correct my own mistakes. If you want to strike out "we had agreed" and insert "there was a silent consensus for years" I won't object so much. Although it was a little more than that, e.g. check this diff. NikoSilver 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I apparently have to refresh your memory: this was never an "agreement" in favour of this exception. Several users, me included, had very explicitly rejected the exception even back then. It was a mere pragmatic acknowledgment of the difficulty of implementing a better rule, in the face of what was never anything else but a brazen-faced threat of unending edit-warring against anything different from the part of your team. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant "little". Re-read. NikoSilver 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reading in the same place: [8]. But I do note Future's desire on that same Talk page that Wikipedia be standardized on "Republic of Macedonia". I think that Future's comment about calling out FYROM once as an alternate form early in the article and then using Republic... the rest of the way is a working start for a discussion. The Greek POV (while not exactly accurate, Niko, it's a useful short form) of "FYROM always and forever" really cannot be maintained. Neither can a complete rejection of FYROM in every sentence of Wikipedia (although no one is advocating that extreme view). There is going to have to be some compromise. Here in the Greece article, the Republic is mentioned three times I think--in the intro paragraph, where mentioning FYROM is appropriate; in the paragraph on the UN I think, where its mention as the name used in that body is appropriate; and on the map, where its use is not appropriate as "Rep. Mace." disambiguates perfectly well. (Taivo (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the second textual use was in "Foreign policy" (the "UN" reference I was thinking of is elsewhere): "Prominent issues in Greek foreign policy include ... the dispute over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ("FYROM")." I think that the compromise that begins this section is superior: "Prominent issues in Greek foreign policy include ... the Macedonia naming dispute." That way, the interested reader is sent directly to a detailed discussion of the matter and the Greece article doesn't have to devote unnecessary space to it. (Taivo (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I read the whole discussion, but I did not see any objection to my proposal. What`s the problem with not refering at all the name in this article except the lead, where to be used "the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia? All this per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IGNORE.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the other side's opinion on this. Personally, I am not exactly happy with the proposal, but if the community accepts it as a solution I will not be the stubborn one who rejects it. I'm too tired of this discussion, and if this proposal ends it, that will be fine. NikoSilver 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that suggestion is unacceptable. We can't deal with the naming dispute without referring to the state that is its object, and we also can't omit the names from the map, because the flags alone are not well known enough to outside readers. How many American readers will know that flag belongs to Bulgaria, for instance? No, we won't capitulate in the face of stonewalling and POV egotism to such an extent that we'll allow useful article content to be butchered just to avoid the conflict. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot censor the appearance of the long name format or the long acronym just because some people don't like it. Butchering of useful content is unacceptable indeed. NikoSilver 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We can always use: "The Party of the Second Part":-) [9]--Avg (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian`s word's proposals are not desirable:

• Depriving our readership of useful content to avoid hurting the sensibilities of a few of Wikipedia editors is entirely out of the question.
• Using a cumbersome "the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia" is of no real use to our readership; it would be just as unnecessary and counter-productive as mentioning "(former Ottoman) Bulgaria to the north-east and (former Italian) Albania to the north-west".

As mentioned elsewhere, the idea of this whole discussion is simply to treat mentions of the Republic of Macedonia in Greece-related articles in the same manner we treat mentions of any other country in those same articles, thus putting an end to the currect de facto "Greek exception" to Wikipedia's approach to naming countries. - Ev (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet more evidence (if any were needed) that fYRoM is the more common long form in English. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And note the disambiguator used on the map in this video. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clinching it. And actually makes the point about starting replacing RoM with fYRoM in articles thoughout Wikipedia pretty valid.--Avg (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the alleged freedom to choose one's own name, it is well known that the Austrians tried to name their newly independent country 'German Austria' in 1918, but that name of the country met objections, and they had to modify it to 'Austria'. Regardless of the two different cases' specifics, it's the principle that matters: One can do whatever one wants except forcing other to accept that; you may put a name in your constitution bur it's only valid on your territory and not applicable beyong your borders. Apcbg (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A BBC article entitled "Ivanov wins Macedonia elections", with a "see also" section mentioning "Conservative leads Macedonia poll", "Macedonian poll 'unsatisfactory'", "Nato Macedonia veto stokes tension", "Macedonia urged to solve name row", "Country profile: Macedonia" and "Timeline: Macedonia" (not to mention the similarly phrased articles listed in the "from other news sites" section) is considered as "evidence [...] that fYRoM is the more common long form in English", and as "mak[ing] the point about starting replacing RoM with fYRoM in articles thoughout Wikipedia pretty valid" ? Is that how you see it ? Really ? Ev (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ev, the debate is and has always been if the most common long form used in the English-speaking world today is "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Nobody has ever doubted that "Macedonia" is far more common. But we cannot use it due to ambiguity between the country, the province and the region. What the article does is that it first uses the short form for convenience, but when it refers to the full name, it chooses the fYRoM name. So between the two long forms, yes, this is another proof that fYRoM is simply more common. This is all I wanted to say, why your tone is as if I have to push a POV?--Avg (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How many instances of "Republic of Macedonia" do you see in that article? My browser only detected one, and that was as part of "former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At no point do our naming conventions indicate that we need to use a "common long form" for disambiguation purposes. Instead, they ask us to use the common form, and disambiguate if necessary; that is, to use "Macedonia", and desambiguate somehow. The simplest & more practical disambiguations are "Republic of Macedonia" and "the country of Macedonia". We should use those, and not the convoluted provisional reference; we're a mere encyclopedia, not an excerise in diplomatic jargon. - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from protecting admin (section break)

• I am the admin who protected the article due to the edit warring. I have refrained from commenting on the issue previously, as I did not follow the issue, and was not going to get involved until I was familiar with the specifics of the debate. With that said, I am appalled by what I see here. It is impossible not to note that the people who are objecting to the use of Republic of Macedonia are all Greek. It is not ethnic labeling to identify editors who identify themselves as Greek on their userpages (or, even more obviously, have usernames which use Greek characters, rather than the Roman alphabet which should be used on the English wikipedia). There is no Republic of Macedonia in Greece, and therefore there is no way to confuse the country with the region. (This pointedly excludes the use of Macedonia, which is a more contentious issue.) Greek editors continually point to the UN (which notes that it is a provisional designation), NATO (which is simply because of the Greek government's insistence) and other international organizations (which generally follow the lead of the UN), but fail to note that over 60% of the members of the UN use the name Republic of Macedonia, not FYROM or Skopje (or any of the bizarre portmanteaus in use in Greece) in their own governmental documents. Of the remainder, a significant portion have no diplomatic relationships with the republic, which does indicate a lack of support for the use of the name Republic of Macedonia. I support Durova's proposal (well above), but I don't have anywhere near enough time to devote to what appears to be a long-standing and widespread instance of ethnic POV pushing, as vitriolic and hateful as the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Israel-Palestine issues. For what it's worth, if I see any sort of widespread push to start changing articles to "FYROM" as the poster above me advocates, I will make liberal use of the banhammer. Horologium (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Horologium, you wrote: “There is no Republic of Macedonia in Greece, and therefore there is no way to confuse the country with the region. (This pointedly excludes the use of Macedonia, which is a more contentious issue.)” How exactly do you purport to guarantee that the use of “Macedonia” is excluded? Exactly the opposite is the case, readers with less familiarity with the topic would naturally regard "Republic of" as a technical formality as it usually is, as in "Republic of France", "Republic of Turkey" etc., and invariably disregard that "Republic of", reducing the name to “France”, “Turkey” and "Macedonia". That's precisely the reason why "Macedonia" is a most commonly used English name for that country, as the “RoM proponents” here themselves admit. Your startling idea that editors’ nationality is revealed by their username spelling and script is quite at odds with Wikpedia reality, indeed. Apcbg (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• That would be me and I do have the intention to do so when FYROM is accepted as NPOV. I have not started yet, because, unlike others, I'm waiting for the discussion to finish before I do so. However, how about making use of the banhammer for the editor who is right now messing with dozens of articles?--Avg (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  And I count at least four non-Greek users opposing it, so "all Greek" is at best mislead. And I see that the rationales of the opposers are policy based, versus those of the supporters who just dismiss the whole thing by calling people names and slapping ethnic labels. These are not policy based arguments. NikoSilver 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I hope you didn't do the count based on Husond assumptions [10] :-) I don't hink you can safely say how many of the opposers are Greek, although of course undoubtedly some of them are. And in any case, as you mention, the ad hominems should stop.--Avg (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Husond's assumptions are sound. 25 of the 29 opposers in the straw poll either self-identify as Greek or Greek ancestry, have Greek-alphabet usernames, have Greek phrases (in the Greek alphabet) on their page, or have a history of editing focused primarily on Greece-related articles. As for policy-based arguments (this is directed towards NikoSilver), I see plenty of policy-based arguments from the supporters, primarily dealing with Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, which is pretty clear-cut. The opposers have conflated support of "Republic of Macedonia" with support of "Macedonia", which is not the case. Greece insisting that they hold a monopoly on "Macedonia" is akin to the United States insisting that they hold a monopoly on "Georgia"; both are unreasonable. Horologium (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• See this map for a correct analogy with the US. NikoSilver 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  (after E/C X2)We don't need that map for some of what you are postulating. Some Mexican extremists have been claiming for years that the American southwest is occupied Mexico, and that it should be reunited or "re-occupied". In any case, I'm not so insecure that if Baja California were to become an independent country that I would object to it calling itself "California", but in any case, the people of BC consider themselves as "Mexicans", not "Californians", which is something that you need to keep in mind. You keep bringing up the extremists in the Macedonian government, but their PoV doesn't even have majority support in their country, let alone the rest of the world. Should we not rename the article on Israel because Hamas (the governing party in Palestine) doesn't recognize their existence as legitimate? I'm sure that one can find a great deal of support for renaming the article "Zionist Occupation Government" or something similarly offensive, but that doesn't make it a legitimate topic for discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  The "Zionist entity" is not an analogy. The UN and all international organizations do not call Israel such. Nor do many English media. Nor does the US senate (for chrissake) as shown in the next section. NikoSilver 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I appreciate your view about California, but I am sure you would understand if it is not shared by everybody. NikoSilver 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  The nationalists rule the country through the Prime Minister, and now the are even electing a nationalist President of their likes. Every single English source calls them all "nationalists". (example) NikoSilver 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  (ip) Nationalists ruled the US from 1/2001 to 1/2009, too. And? Is that releant to any article other than "The Nationalist Tendencies of Country X"? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  What Jim said. And I have to add that the Hamas allusion is spot-on; it's exactly the same thing. Hamas teaches Palestinian children that Palestine contains all of the areas now known as the Gaza Strip, Israel, and the West Bank. They do not have international support for that position, however. The Macedonian government does not enjoy international support for some of its more grandiose ambitions, but your position is "they can't use 'Macedonia' in their name", which has been the traditional position of the Greek government, whether under New Democracy or PASOK. Horologium (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Horologium, no Greek editor has said they don't want Macedonia in the name of the country and no Greek party (except a small nationalist one) supports that. It's all about disambiguation and non-monopolization.--Avg (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, Avg, you are mistaken. There are dozens of instances in the above paragraphs where "Skopje" is boldly proclaimed as the desired name of the country and there are several editors who use that term for Macedonia quite regularly. (Taivo (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

  Then, I'm afraid, you don't understand what you're reading. Most Greek editors refer to FYROM as Skopje because this is how the country is referred to in the Greek world. This is the common name that Greeks (inclding Anglophone Greeks) use in their everyday speech. However, no one has said that Skopje should be used here in Wikipedia or as an official name. It is simply the common name for Greeks. Is it really that difficult to make this distinction?--Avg (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding the name ‘Skopje’, the related compromise name form ‘Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)’ was not only proposed by the UN mediator Nimetz (as mentioned someplace above I believe) but was also the name reportedly accepted by Prime Minister Gruevski in connection with his participation in the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit. See e.g. Channel 5 TV Skopje: “... Никола Груевски прифати промена на име ... Во Букурешт Никола Груевски отиде со промена на име Република Македонија - Скопје - рече министерот за одбрана Лазар Еленовски.” (Translation: Nikola Gruevski accepted a name change ... To Bucharest Nikola Gruevski went with a name change Republic of Macedonia - Skopje – said Defense Minister Lazar Elenovski); Alpha TV Skopje: President Branko Crvenkovski before the Parliament: “Од меѓународната заедница нема веќе разбирање за двојната формула, а и ние ја напуштивме непосредно пред Букурешт, со прифаќањето на предлогот Република Македонија (Скопје).” (Translation: The internarional community has no longer any understanding for the double formula, while we have abandoned it on the eve of Bucharest with the acceptance of the proposal Republic of Macedonia (Skopje).) Apcbg (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Henceforth we shall call Greece, Athens; France shall be Paris; Germany shall be Berlin; and my own USofA shall be Washington. So be it, amen. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Actually it is so indeed. If anyone ever uses "Skopje", it's the same as using "Washington's opinion is", or "the position of Athens on the issue is". Not for the name of the country! That would be an extreme nationalist POV supported only by 5%-or-so of Greeks. NikoSilver 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't know that Wikipedia now prescribes how will Greeks refer to the country in the real world. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, no one, I repeat no one has ever said that Skopje should be used here. However, it is a simple fact that all Greeks use it. Although it is used universally, no one except some nationalists want this to be the name of the Republic ("Republic of Skopje"). And this should actually show you what the real Greek nationalist POV is.--Avg (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed re the usage of Washington or Athens to refer to the government of the country. Nonetheless, as Macedonia use RoM not fYRoM, that should be all that matters. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Although I do not agree, I understand the arguments of your position, Jim. Do you understand the arguments of mine, or do you simply dismiss it altogether? NikoSilver 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, Niko, but I cannot agree. Until and unless the Republic of Macedonia changes its name, fYRoM is just nonsense. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinion too Jim, and I won't reply to your last premise. NikoSilver 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Amazingly, the slogan on your example says "I love Macedonia" not "I love Republic of Macedonia" ... but that must be some exception probably :-). Apcbg (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NC uses self-id only if there is no unambiguous frequent English id. So first option should be plain "Macedonia", second option should be the next most frequent "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and third should be "Republic of Macedonia". NikoSilver 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I don't necessarily have an obection to moving it to Macedonia, but somehow I think that you might. Moving it to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is offensive to the people of that country, because it's not their self-identification, and in fact is noted by all groups as a provisional placeholder. "Republic of Macedonia", which seems to have the fewest GHits, has the advantage of being a self-identifier (it is the country's official name translated into English) and non-ambiguous (the Greek region is not prefaced by "Republic"). The articles you cite deal with the placeholder identifier, which exists solely because of Greek intransigence on the name issue (If the Greek government were to drop its opposition, the whole issue would be resolved swiftly). Horologium (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  It would be more policy based to move the article to "Macedonia", but it's (rightfully) taken and it is very ambiguous. See FA Macedonia (terminology). We also shouldn't pass value judgment: We don't care if Greece is right or wrong, or if the world is doing it because of Greece's persistence etc; it just happens! But we are not discussing where to move the article for the country!! We are discussing how to call it within the article for Greece, who is the initiator of all this!! NikoSilver 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Funniest part is that Skopje itself has proposed the "double naming formula", which means FYROM for Greece and ROM for the rest of the world. So having FYROM here actually conforms even with the most POV of Skopje :-)--Avg (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Reply to NikoSilver: In this case, it doesn't matter what the Greek PoV is on this issue: We should use the name that is used in the article, not a piped link or the (creative) addition of "Former Yugoslav" immediately prior to the link to Republic of Macedonia. Again, Greece's objections to its neighbor's name do not provide editors carte blanche to editorialize in the article on Greece, any more than on any other article. The country's name is Republic of Macedonia, and using any other term is likely to be perceived as PoV editing. Right now, the article is locked to your preferred version, and it's likely to remain at that version until a final consensus is hammered out. (There is little likelihood of agreement, so we'll have to settle for a consensus instead.) And in response to Avg: this is the article about Greece, not the article on Greece's preferred terminology for its northern neighbor. Use the name of the article for the country, not a Greek-slanted piped link or a tacked-on prefix. Horologium (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  My apologies if I didn't make myself clear. The "double naming" formula was proposed by the Republic itself. And that would be the best of proofs that Greece is a special case. We already have agreed as an encyclopaedia that where the Republic is participating in an organization with the FYROM name, it should be referred to as FYROM. Greece is an ever more obvious case and the Republic accepts that. My own opinion on this issue is that for reasons of encyclopedicity and Wikipolicy FYROM should be used everywhere. It is after all the most common unambiguous name. But just having a look at where we are now, for people to accept it should be used in international organizations articles and not in Greece-related articles, where the Republic itself says it should be, is beyond my logic.--Avg (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  (after many edit conflicts and a break; this is directed to Avg) You are missing my point. What you are trying to say is that this article should be written from a Greek point of view. That is not how Wikipedia works. You have already made it abundantly clear that you want FYROM to be used everywhere, but that is a)not likely to happen, or b)a neutral point of view. Using Republic of Macedonia is the compromise, as FYROM is the result of Greek intransigence to calling the country Macedonia, which would be their preference. FYROM is not the name of their country, and to force all references in Wikipedia to use that reference would be imposing an externally-generated placeholder on an entire nation. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  This argument has been used so many times that I specifically put it in FPaS AN/I thread for discussion, because it is the core of the problem. FYROM is not Greek POV, it is the NPOV decided by diplomats outside Greece and the Republic. Diplomats know NPOV, it is their job. Now in terms of plain Wikipedia policy, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is simply more common in English than the Republic of Macedonia. Proof has been (and contines to be) provided on that. And finally, if you believe (although this is not what Wikipedia policy says) that how the people of the country call themselves should take precedence over common English usage, then perhaps you can propose of a rename of this very page to Hellas? Or how about joining the ongoing debate about renaming Burma to Myanmar?--Avg (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I am not about to get involved in the Burma/Myanmar issue, thankyouverymuch. As to renaming this page "Hellas", sorry, that's not English, it's Greek. Don't try to compare apples to oranges here; Hellas:Greece ≠ Republic of Macedonia:Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Horologium (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes? [11] ... NikoSilver 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Don't even try debating these two, Horologium. It's no use. I don't know how many editors have tried this in the past. These two have built up the exact same smokescreen in response every single time. Every attempt at discussing this rationally fails bcause it is always, immediately, sidelined into a big huge heap of waffle, from the exact same two or three editors, with the exact same spurious arguments. There is not a snowball's chance in hell to break through this big concrete wall of bull. This is precisely the reason why no process of dispute resolution will ever resolve anything here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, what you should do is revert war "them", insult "them" and threaten "them" with bans [12], as a good Wikipedian.--Avg (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  FP you would be a lot more convincing if you had any proof for this opinion of yours. It happens that this "bull" is supported by a good number of third party users, despite your continuous intimidations and threats. I really don't know how they still allow you to influence people in such a hideous way. There is absolutely no decency in your behavior while a poll is running. NikoSilver 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  FYROM is how the world officially calls ROM. ROM is how they officially call themselves. There you have it.--Avg (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I love the comment that diplomats "know NPOV": they exist to reprsent their countries and get the most they can for theit country and its interests. That is their job. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  True, but if you'd read my comment once more you'd see I wasn't referring to diplomats from the two countries, I was referring to the UN diplomats, the mediators, who actually came up with this name. Which, by the way, the country diplomats both accepted.--Avg (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  UN diplomats belong to countries, too: thereis no new world order or universal government. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also, you didn't address why Greece should be dealt differently from all other articles where the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" name is acceptable (like Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union and all UN, NATO, etc lists and articles). NikoSilver 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I did address it, you just didn't like my answer. Perhaps you should take a look at all of the other European articles; every single one of them has a link to Republic of Macedonia, every single one of them. None of those links are prefaced with "Former Yugoslav". Horologium (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  The other European country articles do not have a naming dispute with that country. My question was why Greece (who calls it that) should be treated differently from the intl orgs (who also call it that). NikoSilver 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Because Greece doesn't need to be differentiated from every other country because they have a naming dispute with the Republic of Macedonia. Treating Greece differently than every other European country is PoV editing. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you said this before, but you did not explain why. For what it's worth, here's why I think not. NikoSilver 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll try this once more. Greece is a country, not an international organization. The article should be edited in line with other countries, not international organizations. Your desire to have the article written differently than any other country is an example of POV editing, and your lovely explanation in the straw poll does not address that very fundamental issue. As I said, the UN and NATO use "FYROM" due solely to Greek opposition, and the other international organizations follow the UN. More than 60% of the world's governments do not follow the UN's lead in their own diplomatic communications, however, and that itself is significant. In fact, four of the five permanent members of the security council, a majority of the members of NATO, and a majority of the members of the EU use Republic of Macedonia, not "FYROM". Horologium (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Isn't it an oxymoron when you say (right above) "the UN and NATO use "FYROM" due solely to Greek opposition", yet you agree to use FYROM in the poor mislead intl orgs but not to their mighty misleader Greece? The way you put it the intl orgs have one more reason to have RoM, not one less! NikoSilver 20:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Fut.per is correct. I am not going to waste more of my valuable time arguing with you; it's obvious that your mind is made up, and nothing short of the end of life as we know it is going to change your mind. I'll remove this page from my watchlist now. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ironically you say "logic doesn't work here" (in your edit summary) exactly when I expose your own logical fallacy using your own words... I'm sorry. NikoSilver 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Horologium is correct: logic here has as much chance as Sisyphus does of rollinmg that rock up the hill. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to take Horologium's place in continuing this discussion where you can highlight this by leading me to self-contradiction too? NikoSilver 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As Albert Camus puts it "The struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.":-)--Avg (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the basis of the Greek POV arguments are word games and Horologium's frustration at making any progess with that group is well-founded. (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

For a word game FYROM must have done pretty well to be the status quo name for almost every international organization on Earth. --Avg (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If one of the arguments you use to reach a conclusion is demonstrated to be flawed (like e.g. Greece having the power to singlehandedly twist the arm of all international organizations despite global consensus otherwise), then it might be a serious indication that your conclusion is also flawed (like e.g. global consensus is not that much "otherwise", or -worse- Greece should not be treated differently than the others who call the country as such). It happens frequently when the arguments are invented based on the desired conclusion, rather than whichever conclusion to be based on the existing arguments. NikoSilver 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• For all I know Greece does not object to the inclusion of 'Macedonia' in the compromise name that is to be agreed, hence no claimed monopoly there (despite the fact that the greater part of Macedonia (region) including its historical primary city of Thessaloniki (Solun) belongs to Greece). It is the Republic of Macedonia that, with just 30-odd percent of that region's territory, is effectively trying to monopolize the name by the inevitable identification "Republic of Macedonia" = "Macedonia" (see my comment above). Apcbg (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think i need to make something clear at this point, determining which disambiguation qualifier is more common in English: "Republic Of" or "former Yugoslav Republic of" is one thing. Defining that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" can have an interchangeable use with the acronym "FYROM" in article content is another. And indeed FYROM, as well as ROM, are not as easily identified by the average reader. The problem here i believe, is that too many editors pair "Macedonia" with "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with "FYROM". The use of "Macedonia" for the country in a context where there's no need for disambiguation is another issue also, you have to treat them separately, not that you can't draw arguments from one case to use on another of course. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just so you don't feel so alone in this section, Horologium, I am in agreement with the points you are making so far. They are basically the same things that Future Perfect, ChrisO, myself and others have been saying for days now. (My apologies if I forgot to name someone.) (Taivo (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

• Yor forgot me, and I'm crushed, absolutely crushed I tell ya.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• And Jim, too :) -<-@ (Taivo (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Let me repeat for the third time the relevant paragraph from the guideline: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." (bolding is mine) I read this as a clear indication to use the self-identifying name, normally, we'd use the "common English term" which is "Macedonia" in this case since there's a need for disambiguation we should use the self-identifying name per Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't see any problem with "Republic of Macedonia" name, the only problem is POV of some editors against it, otherwise there's nothing wrong with it, it's self-identifying official term, it's English, it's documented in English publications, it doesn't need disambiguation. man with one red shoe 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no established practice of using “Republic of” in order to disambiguate between two distinct entities, “Republic of XXXXX” and “XXXXX”. Rather the opposite is the case, people commonly presume “Republic of XXXXX” = “XXXXX” as in “Republic of France” = “France”, “Republic of Turkey” = “Turkey” etc. Any reader that is not particularly knowledgeable about the specific circumstances of Macedonia (region) would identify “Republic of Macedonia” = “Macedonia”. The problem with "Republic of Macedonia" name that you say you do not see, is that it causes confusion rather than disambiguation. No proof to that is needed other than by the fact that, while "Macedonia" ia not the official name of that country, it is the most widely used name for it (in English and other languages). Apcbg (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia is part of the name and invoking the ignorance of the people is not a good argument, there's also no established practice to place a "Former Yugoslav" or "Former ..." in front of a name to disambiguate and people might not even know that Macedonia province is not that "Former Yugoslav" (if I were to use your type of ignorance argument) man with one red shoe 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It may not be "established practice" in the case of any other country. But in the case of this country, it clearly is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I made no comparison with the other name (“Former Yugoslav etc.”), my point was that your portraying of the “Republic of Macedonia” name as a disambiguation means is refuted by the inevitable identification “Republic of XXXXX” = “XXXXX”, making the name "Republic of Macedonia" a means of confusion rather than disambiguation.

Second, whether the name “Former Yugoslav etc.” is better or worse in that respect is irrelevant. (By the way I never claimed it was, and never suggested the replacement of one of these names by the other. As a matter of fact though, your reasoning about the name “Former Yugoslav etc.” is self-refuting; indeed you say that “Former Yugoslav” thing is not common, but then one would be much less likely to drop the unusual part of a name rather than the standard part (“Republic of”) that one is accustomed to dropping in all similar instances.) Apcbg (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that they drop all so usually is only "Macedonia", but here since we need disambiguation from another "Macedonia" we should simply use the self-identifying term (which per the guidelines should "always be borne in mind"). To me this disambiguation is enough, we talk about a "republic" not about a "region". man with one red shoe 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there. Excellent observation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That “Republic of” is enough of disambiguation for you is fine, but editors discussing the issue here are unrepresentative of the visitors to the relevant Wiki articles and constitute a tiny percentage of them. The "Republic of Macedonia" name being a means of confusion rather than disambiguation due to the standard identification “Republic of XXXXX” = “XXXXX”, it serves no reasonable Wiki purpose to try imposing it over the other name when a solution outside Wikipedia is pending anyway. Taking sides only fuels fruitless confrontation between editors and wastes time that could be more productively used for work on these and other articles. Apcbg (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The only problem for you though is that's the "self-identifying" name which carry some weight, and it's not about taking sides, as the guideline explains the self-identifying term is not considered POV while saying that "they don't have the right to use it or something along that lines" is. man with one red shoe 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot measure that weight, apparently it's not absolute as "German Austria" was such a "self-identifying" name too yet that was not enough of weight to keep it. As undisputably there are two competing names in our case, each of them is clearly POV, and the push to replace one of them by the other is taking sides indeed. Fact is both sides including the "self-identifying" party have agreed to seek compromise and their evolved positions already guarantee that none of their original preferences (including the "self-identifying" name) will be the outcome. Therefore, at this stage to try impose one of these names is quite at odds with Wikipedia spirit, it's no use to persistently revert names that are both to give way to a third one. Apcbg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You would think this is so universally true that it would be ridiculous to debate. Well then perhaps you have to see this. This user is not prepared to change the Wikipedia name even in that case.--Avg (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the governments of Greece and Republic of Macedonia should be advised to seek no solution to their dispute as that might jeopardize the comfort of some Wikipedians :-) Apcbg (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not POV, read this example from WP:NAMECON guideline: "Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

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. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV." man with one red shoe 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither here nor there. Self-identification of countries and self-identification of people is not the same thing at all. For instance, the compromise solution proposed by Nimetz provides for a name different from 'Macedonia', say 'North Macedonia' or something of the sort, while the ethnic Macedonians would keep their self-identification name 'Macedonians'. The existence of two names for that country is objective reality not someone's subjective POV. And so is the agreement of both countries (including the "self-identifying" party) to accept a compromise name solution. Apcbg (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the same principle, that's only an example, it doesn't apply only to self-identification of people. To see that this applies to countries read this paragraph that I kept adding on this discussion: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." -- so it's clear that's the same policy being it self-identifying "people" or self-identifying "country" name. man with one red shoe 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's you who says that it's the same principle not your quotes. The former one concerned peoples not countries. The present one says that a city, country, people or person have something in common (self-identifying entities) not that a certain particular principle applies to all of them. As a matter of fact the relevanr peinciples differ widely from country to people to city to person. In many countries the personal freedom to change one's name is limited, while the names of cities are seldom decided by the cities themselves etc. Apcbg (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is hopeless if you can't understand that's an example only, it doesn't say that's only for nations/people it's for all self-identifying entities that are enumerated in the same page in other place. I don't want to assume bad faith, but if I have to explain such simple things I will either have to start or just give up and let other people decide what to do. man with one red shoe 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear one-red-shoe Man, even if that example were accepted as a principle, it wouldn't in the least support your name replacement advocacy because the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a self-identifying name par excellence too, promulgated by the Skopje government via their 1995 accord with Greece. And who likes or dislikes what name and why is, according to WP:NAMECON, a subjective POV that is irrelevant. Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not the name they use in Constitution, that's the "self-identifying" name. man with one red shoe 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMECON says “self-identifying” not “constitutional”. The Macedonian Constitution is applicable solely within that country’s jurisdiction; abroad, the country is represented by its government, and when the Skopje government proclaims the name “former Yugoslav etc.” as their name to be used in certain areas, it’s a true self-identification act of that country. To challenge that self-identifying name is a subjective POV (WP:NAMECON). Apcbg (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you invoke what "WP:NAMECON says" when you didn't read it, which is obvious because one example in WP:NAMECON is exactly the use in constitution. As for them "proclaiming the name of “former Yugoslav etc.” " that's a bit misleading, they accepted to use that form as a compromise, so it's actually how other organizations call them in official settings, not how they define themselves. I'm sorry, but you are twisting even a simple and clear fact and you didn't read the guidelines that you invoke, you actually claim that they say the opposite of what they say, for example let me quote you: "WP:NAMECON says “self-identifying” not “constitutional”". Where does is say that? Can you back up your words with a bit of... you know... facts? man with one red shoe 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Here is your fact, as plain and simple as they come. WP:NAMECON quote: “If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved etc.” It does not say “If the name is a constitutional term for the entity involved etc.”

The word “constitution” is mentioned in WP:NAMECON just once, quote: “(check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)”.

Constitution is given as an example (and WP:NAMECON explicitly says so!) of legal context.

An international agreement to which the country is a party is a legal context beyond doubt.

This legal situation is an objective reality.

Your explanation of the origins of that reality is a subjective POV that is irrelevant according to WP:NAMECON. Apcbg (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That explanation ("POV" or not) is meant to explain how come they self-identify in one way internally and then accept to be called FYROM by others, accepting to be called in a way by others is not "self-identification" by the simple definition of the words, if you want to re-define the meaning of the words I will not participate in that type of discussion. man with one red shoe 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"POV or not" wouldn't differentiate between "calling itself internally" and "calling itself externally", both are NPOV objective reqalities. When (as it does since 1995) the Republic of Macedonia signs international treaties under the name "former Yugoslav etc.", that's "calling itself" i.e. self-identification — not just "being called by the others" as you try to suggest. Apcbg (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So you force somebody to use a specific form and then you claim that's the "self-identifying" term? Man, see their constitution and you'll see how they call themselves, see all the newspapers in Macedonia and see how they call themselves, listen to their TV and see how they call themselves, see their history books and see how they call themselves. UN and EU forced usage is not everything, is actually a minor thing and is not a "self-identifying" term, is obviously a compromise and a necessity because of Greece pressures or veto (and I would not have any problem to find tons of references that say just that from non-partisan sources, even from Greek sources, so this is not a POV, is pretty much a fact), claiming that's a "self-identifying term" in these circumstances is bordering intellectual dishonesty. man with one red shoe 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced OR I am afraid. While WP:NAMECON gives objective criteria to determine self-identifying usage, it says nothing about determining or taking into account the circumstances of such self-identifying usage. Apcbg (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the rule doesn't talk about circumstances, I talk about circumstances because of name dichotomy. As I explained this is not OR because I can find many sources (including Greek) that clarify why this is not exactly a "self"-identifier and talk largely about how they call themselves (so, do you want me to provide such sources, or you'll still not be convinced? Let me guess...) man with one red shoe 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So they use the name “Macedonia”, “Republic of Macedonia” and “Macedonians”, thus making “Republic of Macedonia” a self-identifying name — something we already knew and nobody here disputes I believe. At the same time, fact is they also use the other name in a legal context, signing since 1995 international treaties under the name "former Yugoslav etc.", which is "calling itself" i.e. self-identification according to the objective criteria set by WP:NAMECON to determine self-identifying usage. Unless you provide sources (which you are welcome to do) showing that they do not actually sign agreements under that name, "former Yugoslav etc." is a self-identifying usage too. Apcbg (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's say that's a self-identifying name too, not because it's true, but because I don't want to debate endlessly the issue of what a self-identifier is. But since there is "another" self-identifier which is preferred by the people of the Republic of Macedonia while this one is used only out of political necessity (do you disagree on any of these points?) it makes sense to use the "Republic of Macedonia" and the reason is simple, if you read the rationale of why the self-identifier is important you'll see it's because it's a preferred name for itself, a key statements of an entity's own identity See here: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity." So for example, if Cassius Clay is forced to use his birth name in some legal acts it doesn't means that's the name he prefers to use, it means that the document asked for his "birth name". Trying to claiming that FYROM is the preferred name for their country is a losing line of argumentation, at most you can show that's used in official setting, we already knew that, that doesn't make it the preferred term for the country, which is what we are after per the guidelines. man with one red shoe 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your lengthy quote from WP:NAMECON is merely an explanation and illustration of what self-identification is. WP:NAMECON does not say how to choose between two self-identifying names. By the way, the preferred self-identification is none of the two names discussed here; the name they use 99% of the time is “Macedonia” as your own sources would most likely demonstrate. Surely they see their own identity in “Macedonia” (which is present in both names we are discussing) not in “Republic”, I never heard of anyone identifying oneself as “Republican Macedonian”. Yet we don’t use in Wikipedia the name “Macedonia” for their country as they do, and as the common English usage is. Why? Because everybody agrees that that name is confusing. But then, if I were advocating for the replacement of the name “Republic of etc.” by “former Yugoslav etc.” (which I'm not), I would have invoked the fact that the former name is as confusing as “Macedonia” is, due to the inevitable identification “Republic of XXXXX” = “XXXXX”, in our case “Republic of Macedonia” = “Macedonia” evidenced by the common English usage.

Therefore, assuming good faith on behalf of those arguing for the replacement of the name “former Yugoslav etc.” by “Republic of etc.” throughout English Wikipedia, the present discussion on the Talk:Greece page has demonstrated the failure to find any justification in the relevant WP policies for such a replacement.

Finally, in addition to being unjustified the present replacement proposal is all the more unfortunate when we take into account that, unlike e.g. the WP Ireland name issue where some solution would have to be found in Wikipedia as the external situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, in our case there is an inevitably pending solution that in few years would create a new reality to be reflected in Wikipedia (with none of the present two names the winner), rendering any interim effort of imposing one of the names totally misguided and pointless, a petty quarrelling, and goodwill and time wasting that it is. Apcbg (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, do you really think that FYROM is the term whereby the citizens of that country identify themselves as? NO! FYROM is a temporary name for use in the United Nations and other organisations. The self-identifying term is the REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, a term which is used in the constitution of the country. FYROM ≠ Self Identifying. Had people from the county decided to call themselves FYROM, it would be another case. But they have not. Please stop using a ridiculous line of thought and wake up. PMK1 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)