Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Before I address the issue at hand I would like to point out a few things that jumped out at me reviewing the exchange above. I understand this is somewhat of a political issue, nevertheless the approach taken by both parties is, in my view, disappointing. It is my hope that by doing so future discussions will be more productive and will less likely require a third opinion. @Pinkbeast: "...It is you who chose to do bold-revert-revert, you who accuses editors of "wishful thinking" simply because they demand sources for material you add, and it is you who still has failed to say which cite actually justifies the conclusion ...." Pinkbeast This could be considered a violation the principle of assuming good faith see WP:AGF. Also as per the policy on no personal attacks WP:AVOIDYOU, it is usually more productive to avoid "you" statements where possible. Similarly the lighthearted essay here may be useful. "...Re the EDIT, did you forget AGF? To be fair, you did that when you started to accuse people for "wishful thinking" for wanting the source you have not yet provided. ..."Pinkbeast This does not seem helpful to the discussion. It would probably be in everyone's best interests to focus content rather than the editor. "The rest of your comment here is pointless rhetoric. "Pinkbeast Summarizing the opponents views while distilling out any perceived rhetoric might be a better approach. Pinkbeasts edit summaries are often rationale rather than a summary. This makes my job a little more difficult. Summary is important and having both are accepatable. See WP:EDITSUMCITE. For example "This seems to be purely part of the Greek position - no cite says it except in reporting Greek PM's comments"Pinkbeast edit summary @SilentResident: "...one wonders if you made the changes about the non-statement of the Macedonian side on ...for the purposes of giving the wrong impression about the Greek side " SilentResident It is usually is best to Focus on content instead of focusing on possible motives. "...you have remained quiet in the past 24 hours instead of addressing the sources." SilentResident There is no time sensitivity here. Pushing the issue as a time sensitive one is not in everyone's best interests. See WP:REQUIRED and WP:DISENGAGE for more on this. Also from the policy on civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. ...a user who baits is not excused from their actions..." "...Despite providing WP:RS from my part which confirm ...you haven't reverted your edits to the page."SilentResident Again this could be seen as taunting/baiting/bullying. It is often in everyone's best interests to allow the other party to [WP:DISENGAGE|cool off]] or perhaps even walkaway. "I am not going to keep correcting you forever, so please, next time. try and be more careful in what you are doing with the sourced information I have added to the article. And most importantly: cite sources for your edits, not your opinions. "SilentResident This could be interpreted as uncivil. From the Avoiding incivility section of the policy Wikipedia:Civility "Try not to get too intense....Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully." "I am afraid you are wrong and you know this, yet you are wasting my time trying to push denialist POV on the article"SilentResident This also could be interpreted as uncivil. See above. Similarly the lighthearted essay here may be useful. "I think I have been very clear to you. Do not expect me or anyone else here to let a journalist's note on the lack of official statement "SilentResident This also could be interpreted as uncivil. See above. Similarly another lighthearted essay here may be useful. With that out of the way. I will take a couple of more days to allow for some additional de-escalation. I would ask that SilentResident and Pinkbeast refrain from making edits to the section in question until this is issue is resolved. I would also ask that both parties prepare a concise summary of their positions in the appropraite section below.Dig deeper talk 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Dig deeper (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to briefly summarize the dispute in a few sentences below.

Viewpoint by (SilentResident)

The Macedonian and the Greek governments are discussing the thorny issues that are hindering the Greek-Macedonian relations and are affecting the progress for resolving the Macedonia Naming Dispute. The two premiers met in Davos and agreed to tackle with issues that are sensitive to the other side, (i.e for the Macedonian side is the sensitive issue of the Greek blockages to Macedonia's entry to international organizations, and for the Greek side is the sensitive issue of the nationalist Macedonian policies of the previous Macedonian government such as claiming ancient heroes which Greece considers to be part of its own historical heritage by raising antique statues and naming venues after them) by making mutual concessions or steps that could help toward that direction and soothe the other side's concerns and facilitate trust which is necessary for resolving the Name Dispute. While I view the Macedonian government's move to undo nationalist/antiquisation policies of the previous government as a pledge aiming at easing Greek concerns over Macedonian irredendism, Pinkbeast views this to be rather a coincidental move, not related to the issue of irredendism and antiquisation policies. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Commenting on "Viewpoint by Pinkbeast" - highlighting the core of the issue to Dig deeper:

• Pinkbeast made the following statement: But of course Macedonia has been irredentist in the past. (This is the Greek position. It is not necessarily accepted by the Macedonian PM. The Macedonian position is as I understand it that inferring that Macedonia is planning to annex bits of a much more populous country just because of its name is a bit silly...). This is very remiscent of the classic denialist POV mostly held by nationalist circles in the Republic of Macedonia, who see nothing wrong about the Antiquisation policies, and regard the removal of statues for the sake of improving relations with Greece as being unfair and wrong. Pinkbeast's view that irredendism in the Republic of Macedonia is merely "Greek position", is disappointing. Let me point to such an irredendist incident that the Macedonian officials harbor, and which has damaged the Greek-Macedonian relations and obviously are not just a Greek position, but a fact - the latest diplomatic incident occurred just one year ago, in 2017, where the officials of the Republic of Macedonia where photographed with a map claiming whole parts of Greece's territory as belonging to their country. Info borrowed from the article Vergina Sun: In early August 2017, the Macedonian Consul in Toronto, Canada, Jovica Palashevski, sparked a diplomatic incident between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, when he delivered a speech against the backdrop of an irredentist map of Greater Macedonia and a red Vergina Sun flag. After strong Greek protests, the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Macedonia condemned the incident and recalled its diplomat back to Skopje for consulations. If irredendism was merely the Greek position, and not an actual issue in the bilateral relations between the two countries, then I don't want to ever hear what Pinkbeast thinks about that 2017 incident - nor I am interested - this is Wikipedia after all and it is our duty to stick to the facts, not to what an editor thinks or says about it.

• Pinkbeast also wrote: Therefore the Macedonian PM has vowed to end irredentism. (This doesn't follow; as discussed above, just because I say I'm not doing something is not an admission I did it in the past, no matter how convincing the evidence is that in fact I did.) which is not the impression the sources have given. Let me quote Huffington Post here: [1], where it reported the statements of the two premiers after their historical meeting in Davos: "Και οι δύο πρωθυπουργοί είμαστε έτοιμοι να λύσουμε τις διαφορές μας με πραγματισμό και αίσθημα ευθύνης. Δεν θέλουμε να λύσουμε απλά το θέμα του ονόματος, αλλά θέλουμε να θέσουμε τις σχέσεις των δύο χωρών μας σε στέρεα θεμέλια. Στα θεμέλια του αλληλοσεβασμού και της καλής γειτονίας. Που σημαίνει ότι πρώτα πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουμε το αλυτρωτισμό σε όλες του τις μορφές και μάλιστα με εγγυήσεις ότι δεν θα αφήσουμε κανένα ανοιχτό παράθυρο, ώστε να δημιουργηθούν εκ νέου παρόμοιες προκλήσεις στο μέλλον», υπογράμμισε ο κ. Τσίπρας. Όπως ανακοίνωσε ο πρωθυπουργός, ο πρωθυπουργός της πΓΔΜ τον ενημέρωσε ότι είναι είναι διατεθειμένος να προβεί σε σημαντικές πρωτοβουλίες άμεσα σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση."

Translation of the above text to the English language:

"Both prime ministers are ready to resolve our differences with pragmatism and sense of responsibility. We do not want to simply solve the name issue, but we want to put the relations of our two countries on solid foundations. The foundations of mutual respect and good neighborliness. Which means that we must first deal with irredentism in all its forms and even with guarantees that we will not leave any open window to re-create similar challenges in the future, "Mr. Tsipras stressed. As the prime minister announced, the Macedonian Prime Minister has informed him that he is willing to take important initiatives directly in this direction."

As you can see in the text, which I translated for you, there is no doubt that the two Prime Ministers stated that they discussed about irredendism and that the Macedonian Premier informed the Greek one that he was willing to taking steps in this direction (in fighting irredendism). And the reports that followed this meeting, confirmed that Zaev has taken indeed such steps. He first renamed the avenue, then the airport, then he cancelled the Skopje 2014 project, and now he proceed with the removal of statues of ancient heroes which Greece sees part of its heritage. If Pinkbeast thinks that these are not steps against irredendism, or whatever, little concerns us. We better stick to what the sources say and not what opinions we the Wikipedia's editors may have about this.

• Last, Pinkbeast is falsely claiming that there is a sentence in the article saying "Therefore the Macedonian PM has vowed to end irredentism." I highly recommend that Pinkbeast checks the article more carefully next time... Let me copy-paste the disputed sentence here from the article, for everyone's convenience: "the two PMs vowed to take concrete steps to resolve the naming dispute and agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies". I can't see anywhere in this sentence (or the article) stating that the "Macedonian PM has vowed to end irredentism.", because this is not true, the sources, including Huffington Post which I posted and translated for you, do not even report such thing, only reported that the Macedonian premier agreed to take direct initiatives towards that direction. And this is exactly how I wrote it on the article. Pinkbeast is accusing me of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is very unfortunate, because the sources are very clear.

Edit:

• Pinkibeast said: As regards the commission, my position is quite simple - if it exists there should be better sources for that fact. but I do not see what the problem with the cited sources is for Pinkbeast to ask for "better" ones. And I am wondering what Pinkbeast means when he/she says about "finding better sources", since the current ones are both reliable and confirm what is written on the article. To cast any doubts aside about these sources and what they do say, let me point out to Kathimerini, one of the three cited sources. Kathimerini is the leading and largest newspaper in Greece and a historic newspaper of Southeastern Europe which is regarded as a very reliable and as source it meets Wikipedia's WP:RS standards. Quoting Kathimerini on the commission (it is in Greek): "Οπως αποκάλυψε ο ίδιος ο κ. Κοτζιάς, οι δύο χώρες συμφώνησαν επίσης ότι από τον Νοέμβριο θα δημιουργηθεί μια επιτροπή η οποία θα διερευνήσει τα σχολικά βιβλία της ΠΓΔΜ με σκοπό να εντοπιστούν οι αλυτρωτικές αναφορές, όπως π.χ. χάρτες που περιλαμβάνουν τμήματα γειτονικών χωρών.".

Here is English translation: "As Mr. Kotzias himself revealed, the two countries also agreed that a committee will be set up in November to investigate the Republic of Macedonia's school books in order to identify irredentist context and maps that include parts of neighboring countries."

As you can see, the source is very clear on this: the foreign ministers agreed on the formation of a commission. And so, the sentence in the article is written in line with what the source reported. I am copy-pasting here the sentence from the article for your convenience: "Nikos Kotzias stated on 29 September 2017 that a joint Greek–Macedonian commission would undertake a review of Macedonian schoolbooks with a view to the removal of any nationalist or irredendist content from them, an initiative proposed by the Macedonian side which later is confirmed by the Greek side to be part of the MUI." Simple as that. I only added information based on what developments became known (at least to the public and the media) and from what sources there are available on this. Now, if Pinkbeast wants to know more on this (i,e if that commission has eventually been formed or not) then, I am sorry I can't help, nor is my business to do, as I am not a journalist in real life, and my role as an editor of Wikipedia is just to add a note on the article on what has been agreed among the two Foreign Ministers, citing reliable sources. Nothing less, nothing more. My role is as simple as that. Of course, if Pinkbeast is seeking to learn more, then he is welcome to ask directly the Foreign Ministries of either country for more information on this, not me. And last, just in case Pinkbeast thinks that a source, such as Kathimerini is not reliable and is asking for a better source due to WP:RS concerns, then he can always take the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the RS can be scrutinized by the RSN volunteers and administrators. Simple as that. But if Pinkbeast is insisting on faulty positions about the sources, without providing to us more clean explanations of what the problem is exactly for him/her, then I can't help but see this as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. Sorry. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Pinkbeast)

I've largely stated my position above, but - there's a leap of logic above that goes:

• Macedonian PM states no irredentist aims. (This I agree is the case).
• But of course Macedonia has been irredentist in the past. (This is the Greek position. It is not necessarily accepted by the Macedonian PM. The Macedonian position is as I understand it that inferring that Macedonia is planning to annex bits of a much more populous country just because of its name is a bit silly...)
• Therefore the Macedonian PM has vowed to end irredentism. (This doesn't follow; as discussed above, just because I say I'm not doing something is not an admission I did it in the past, no matter how convincing the evidence is that in fact I did.)

There's been a lot of argument and SYNTHESIS, but it all seems to me to be simply evading the point. Either there is a cite to say the Macedonian PM actually "vowed" to do this, or there isn't. If there isn't, it should be removed.

As regards the commission, my position is quite simple - if it exists there should be better sources for that fact. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion by Dig deeper

....

After reviewing the comments from @Pinkbeast: and @SilentResident: I have given my 3rd opinion below. Firstly, I agree with the tag that this article is too long. It reads like an awkward collection of news reports rather than encyclopedia. More needs to be done on this article to make it flow and present the concepts in a more concise manner. My 3rd opinion takes this macro view into consideration as well as the micro view of each disputed item. Nikos Kotzias stated on 29 September 2017 that a joint Greek–Macedonian commission would undertake a review of Macedonian schoolbooks with a view to the removal of any nationalist or irredendist content from them, an initiative proposed by the Macedonian side which later is confirmed by the Greek side to be part of the MUI. The appropriate policy for not including this statement (which is already 5 months old) is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and perhaps WP:NOTNEWS ...expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. from WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. from WP:NOTNEWS The fact that there is doubt on one side as to whether or not this future event would actually happen is telling. Until there is an update in the news or a similar statement can be found from the Macedonian side, I believe this would be better placed under the "Greek position" subheading or deleted. This article is already quite long and overly detailed, so I would lean toward deletion. Similarly the 2nd statement: Nikos Kotzias stated on the 29th September 2017 that a joint Greek-Macedonian commission would undertake a review of Macedonian schoolbooks with a view to the removal of any nationalist or irredendist content from them. Macedonian sources have not confirmed this. If Macedonian sources have not confirmed this, then the entire sentence should be either placed under the "Greek position" subheading, or deleted it until both parties independently confirm this undertaking. Having the disclaimer "Macedonian sources have not confirmed this" after the disputed facts is not ideal and, in my opinion, makes an already long and cumbersome article even longer. With respect to the 3rd statement: the two PMs vowed to take concrete steps to resolve the naming dispute and agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies in exchange for Greek consent on Macedonia's bid to regional initiatives or agreements Without several unbiased and reliable source to support this, this sentence does not belong. Thank you for using 3rd opinion. A reminder this process is a nonbinding and informal mechanism. Dig deeper talk 21:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast:, the content which you have removed, has been restored with the issues addressed as far as I can tell: the word "vowed" has now been removed and replaced by the -used by sources- word "pledged".Also I have added additional sources on the textbook issue from EuroNews portal which mind you, is neither a Greek, nor a Macedonian source, but an independent one. Also I have accompanied the info on Commission with the recommended clarifications that it is a Greek announcement. Is there anything else you have problems with? -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You have essentially ignored the third opinion provided by Dig deeper. Please respect the process and do not simply dress the material which the 3O said to remove up slightly differently and re-add it. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: I think User:Dig deeper was quite clear to you that this process is a nonbinding and informal mechanism. However, you have again now rushed to delete well-sourced information even though you do not have my consent for this, in spite of me providing more sources for them after the informal process has ended, and in spite of Dig deeper telling you that the previous approach taken by us was problematic. Instead of using the 3rd opinion's suggestions selectively in an way of enforcing your POV on the article, if I were you, I could rather use this opportunity to make improvements taking in account the 3rd party's recommendations. You complained that there are no reliable sources. I have told you your options on this (such as DRN) and I have provided even more sources and I am sure you are fully aware that the sentence you dispute is well-cited by both Greek, Macedonian and the international media, such as Reuters, Balkan EU, Huffington Post and BIRN. On the Schoolbooks, now even EuroNews is available for you to check if you think that the Macedonian and Greek sources are biased or fake. That there are so many sources confirming the new government of Macedonia's goodwill in resolving the Naming Dispute with Greece leaves us no many options on what to do: I recommend that, if you really care about this article, then you should seek WP:CONSENSUS on how this information is presented on the article, or, like how Dig deeper has advised you on his talk page: either 1) Walk away for a while and wait until someone else supporting your views joins our discussion, or 2) walk away and reenter the discussion after things cool down (and there is more info about the ongoing developments), or 3) let it go for a while and at a later point initiate a request for comment or dispute resolution (which you should bear in mind that it too is also non-binding). It is up to you. I could like that we deal with this now, so I can focuse - the sooner, the better - on adding info about the new process on the Antiquisation issue and the new initiatives taken by the Macedonian government towards Greece in the context of resolving the Naming dispute, such as the removal of the ancient statues that are part of the Skopje 2014, which cumbered the prospects for resolution. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I should seek consensus? That's a bit rich. You've consistently just crammed your preferred version in immediately; you've literally just completely ignored the third opinion (and who was willing to step back and seek a third opinion? Was it you?) About the only thing you have managed to avoid is a technical 1RR violation, but your entire editing history here is to do what you feel like without paying attention to any other editor. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, the thing here is, the content is sourced while, per WP:NOTTRUTH, your opinion isn't a contrary source. You have cast doubt on official statements by the Greek MoFA, but you haven't provided any evidence that could support this. As for my entire editing history, this shows that I have contributed to the article since 2013 without any problems or disagreements with other editors, while yours is much more recent and reflects some contradictions, especially when it comes to citing Greek MoFA's statements. While today you are firmly refusing to cite Greek MoFA's statements on schoolbooks, this didn't seem to be a problem for you in the past: [2]. I recommend that we stick with Dig deeper's edits as a compromise for now, albeit not an everlasting one. Please see my response below.-- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 01:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going to implement the changes I suggested in the 3rd opinion, as I was planning to do. It would probably be in the best interest of both @Pinkbeast: and @SilentResident: to walk away from this article and talk page for a while. It seems unlikely there will be consensus between the 2 parties. A second warning regarding civility: If I do not see a change in civility of the discussions as outlined earlier, I may request a ban on one or both users from editing this article and talk page. Dig _deeper ^talk 19:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dig deeper:, Thank you for your edits but I am afraid the third opinion's outcomes are non-binding; the two parties will still have to work on building a WP:CONSENSUS. However, your re-writing of the first sentence is a better compromise than removing it completely per Pinkbeast's request.

About the schoolbooks: although you have my gratitude for bringing WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL to my attention, I am discontent with the sentence's removal in spite of the EuroNews source. Even so, I will wait before I restore it along with additional info on the Republic of Macedonia's 24 EU opening accession chapters which will be pre-conditioned on the Commission's progress on the review of the books.

When I have time, the coming days I will also add to the article the February initiatives taken by the new Macedonian government on resolving the dispute with Greece. I hope that there aren't any other objections by Pinkbeast? Have a good day. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Including citations are good. Please be mindful of WP:CITATIONBLOAT. Dig _deeper ^talk 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Diplomatic incidents related to the Prespa Agreement, follow up

A diplomatic incident occured between Bulgaria's Prime Minister Boyko Borisov and the Republic of Macedonia's President Gjorge Ivanov today, because of the Prespa Agreement which resolves the Macedonia Naming Dispute. But I am noting this here because I do not feel it is appropriate to add this incident to the article itself as it is not directly relevant to it, but I could consider adding this to a possible future sub-article created for the post-Prespa Agreement reactions/developments, if a such article is ever created (and possibly to Gjorge Ivanov's article). About the incident itself: the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, as well as the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ekaterina Zakharieva, cancelled today their sheduled meetings with Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov who is paying an official visit to Sofia, in protest for Ivanov's rejection of the "Name" deal with Greece. [3] Furthermore, the Macedonian Government is asking for Macedonian President Ivanov to be isolated from politics for the same reason: [4] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The Prespa Agreement (in PDF)

The Prespa Agreement which settles the Macedonia Naming Dispute once and for all between the two countries, Greece and the Republic of Macedonia over the later's name, was released today to the public, in multiple languages for everyone to access and read. The Final Agreement will be signed in a high-level ceremony which will be held this weekend at transnational Lake Prespa, on the Greek side of the border. High-level EU, USA, NATO representatives are expected to attend the summit, as well as the UN special envoy Matthew Nimetz, and possibly the UN's Secretary General Antonio Guterres, besides the two heads of the governments of Greece and Republic of Macedonia, PMs Alexis Tsipras and Zoran Zaev.

Here is the Document of the Prespa agreement - all provisions and princiles in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format:

• In English language: [5]

• In Greek language: [6]

• In Macedonian language: <no stable link found yet> (If can someone find it, it will be appreciated. Tried myself but not even the official media outlet of the Republic of Macedonia, MIA appears to have it published.)

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We cross our fingers that the parliaments and people of these two countries will vote to ratify the agreement. Then things here can change in accordance (assuming that WP:CONSENSUS is satisfied). --Taivo (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look good - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/opponents-criticize-greece-macedonia-name-deal/2018/06/13/66e3b81e-6ee5-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1bbb4e97afca - many other similar RS reports mirroring this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan: For your update, the Final Agreement has a very high likehood of passing from both Parliaments despite opposition, so the problem lies somewhere else: low likehood of passing throug the public Referendum which is scheduled to be held in the Republic of Macedonia this September.

Here is the situation in both countries:

• Parliament-wise:

Greece: In the Greek Parliament, MPs from all parties are supporting the agreement: the Leftists of SYRIZA, the Socialists of KINAL, the Liberals of POTAMI, and the Centrists of New Democracy (but not its right-wing, which is the one you read about in the news), and they can, if combined, form a comfortable majority which is makes any risks of Greece downvoting the Final Agreement pretty unlikely.

Macedonia: Similarily, in the Macedonian Parliament, the MPs of all parties exept VMRO-DPMNE, such as the Albanians of DUI, AFTA, BESA and the Socialists of SDSM) are too in favor of it. So no problems there either.

• Referendum-wise:

Greece: Greece won't hold any referendums, but Greek President Prokopis Pavlopoulos is backing the Final Agreement fully.

Macedonia: It is here where the true problem lies. Macedonia is expected to hold a referendum over the change of the country's name, on September 2018. The nationalist VMRO-DPMNE party and the country's President Gjorge Ivanov, who is backed by VMRO-DPMNE, are firmly opposing the Final Agreement, by falsely claiming that the Macedonian identidy and Macedonian language are "hurt" by it. Ivanov's full quote here: "With such an agreement, the Macedonian identity is not strengthened, but rather, the already acquired rights in the United Nations are degraded. The covenant of our ancestors, those who created the centuries-old ideal and aspiration for our one and only Macedonia, is denied. The 73-year-old right of self-determination and statehood of the Macedonian people is being trampled; the 27-year-old history of the independent Macedonian state is erased. Everything that is sacred to Macedonia is trampled, and the unborn are deprived of the right and pride to be Macedonians." Of course, nothing of what the Macedonian President Ivanov has said is true, (Greece finally recognizes and acknowledges a Macedonian idendity and Macedonian language with the Final Agreement). So it is likely that Ivanov's statement is based either on his misinformation of what the Final Agreement is about, or was done for political purposes (to appease to nationalist voters in his country for netting more votes for his party).

The international community does not share President Ivanov's views on the Final Agreement, and the EU and US ambassadors in Skopje are urging for him to drop his hardline position but to no avail. The analysts believe Ivanov and VMRO-DPMNE are opposing the Final Agreement exactly because with its provisions it puts an end to Macedonian nationalism, which translates in VMRO-DPMNE losing its most successful card in winning elections: utilizing the nationalist myth of ancestry from Ancient Macedonians which is a very popular trend in the country and works well for gathering more votes.--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

News reports [7] place the duration for the referendum and parliamentary ratification etc on both sides as taking some 7 months. If all goes to plan it wont be until January/February 2019 at the earliest when some kind of real change can be discussed on Wikipedia. Until then status quo remains as per WP:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, no one here is asking for changes. If Fut.Perf.'s comment above is the reason you keep repeating yourself, then you probably misunderstood what they said because they didn't ask for changes. I suggest reading their comments more carefully. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 09:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My comments are for all to see, now and in future as there will be over time the usual IP requests over the name issue. 2019 if things go to plan a new discussion. Otherwise the status quo remains.Resnjari (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:: your edits [8] [9] treat it as just an agreement and not as the final agreement and according to the news, it is viewed as just that: the final, with no plans or intentions for further agreements (which will be extremely impossible imo). The Final agreement is not just a whatever agreement, is final in the sense that it is replacing the Interim Accord of 1995 and is the backbone for the future relations of the two countries. Nothing is suggesting that this is just a whatever agreement.. The only thing that threatens the agreement from actually being the final one is the risks it faces during its progress of ratification by both side. Or am I missing something? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not missing anything; you have expressed plainly yourself why it is not necessarily the final agreement. It may fail and at a later date Macedonia and Greece may reach another agreement. Since we don't know if that will or will not happen, we cannot refer to it as the "final" agreement. I have left in one "Final Agreement" with capitals where we are referring to the title of the agreement itself, and because that helps to clarify that it is hoped that the current agreement will be that accepted in "although all UN member-states (and the UN itself) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries".

I have no idea:

• why you think duplicating the above phrase at two points in the article is a good idea.
• what you mean by "you are putting way too much personal thought to this". Who else's thought would I put into it?
• why you would say "Do I have to keep reverting you>" - while it accurately represents your approach (literally completely ignoring the 3rd opinion to revert your preferred version back in was quite special), most persistent edit warriors don't actually come out and say "I'm going to edit war". Pinkbeast (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

why you think duplicating the above phrase at two points in the article is a good idea. because I was referring to it by name. As you may be or not be aware, between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, there were other agreements reached in 2018 predating this one. The 2018 agreement for the border cooperation which was delayed for 27 years due to the naming dispute, the 2018 agreement for the training of the students in the high educational institutions of both countries and the so on. Thats why I think you are "you are putting way too much personal thought to this" on this without actually checking if the "2018 agreement" is a bit too generic term and not necessarily referring specifically to the 2018 Final Agreement of June between Tsipras and Zaev. I hate having to revert due to ignorance that their edits may in fact complicate things instead of clarifying, as were yours (no offense). Clarifying things never hurted. And frankly, no it has nothing to do with edit wars and so. In fact, it has to do with keeping the information as clarified as possible, which I am sure you will agree with me on this, because leaving room for misperception and confusion due to unintentebly interchargeable terms is not helpful. Just common sense.

Now that you know this 2018 June agrement isn't the sole agreement this year between the two countries that are related to the naming dispute, perhaps re-consider reverting your edits? Edit: I can see that the term "Final" which is meant to refer to the name of the Agreement, is misunderstood in the sense that it refers to it being just the last agreement, which as I have described above, may not be the case. Due to this, instead of just self-reverting your edits, I could suggest the term "FINAL" Agreement when referring to the specific Agreement, is changed to something else, that could avoid misperceptions, such as: "2018 June Agreement" or "2018 Tsipras-Zaev Agreement" or something like that? Just to stay safe. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarified the ambiguous term "2018 agreement" to the more specific "June 2018 agreement": [10] I hope this solves all problems and eliminates any possible confusion with the other agreements. And, Pinkbeast, don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing your efforts to contribute to the article, in fact I am glad you are doing so, and I sincerely wish that you keep up the good work. Just I am hoping for more attention on whether any edits may generate more problems than they solve, like the removal of the Greek conditions for the recognition of the Macedonian language and ethnicity, which were removed despite being an important part of the separation of the Greek and Slavic Macedonias and their different histories, which is a primary aspect of the whole naming dispute. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast:, I like how the media call it "Treaty of Prespa". For many reasons, it is a good and stable name: 1) by tradition, treaties are named after their place of signature (Treaty of Paris in Paris, Treaty of Lausanne in Lausanne, Treaty of Bucharest in Bucharest, Convention of Istanbul, in Istanbul, Treaty of Vienna in Vienna, etc, etc). plus it is easier distinguishable from the other 2018 agreements, since it is not on par with them, but a more high-profile agrement signed by the two heads of governments and usually such treaties are not named after months, but after year signed/place signed. Plus, to not mention that it is an international treaty which defines the diplomatic relations between the two countries, is replacing the Interim Accord and is submitted to the United Nations. Also for many other reasons, still it is a good name ot use. Should be worth to discuss whether can we adopt this term here in Wikipedia/and or open a RfC about it? Edit: hmm I can't seem to find amywhere this term when googling it. Edit 2: a {{cn}} tag has been added, and unless a source is available, this is out of discussion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminology is still fluid as its history in the making. A more definitive and shared name (in each respective language) from both sides may come into usage over the coming months and at ratification in early 2019.Resnjari (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

For once I will agree with you. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A reminder about requests for moving Republic of Macedonia to Republic of North Macedonia

Quoting power~enwiki (original comment can be found here: [11]):

Per decree of the Arbitration committee (as seen at WP:MOSMAC) the title of this article is "Republic of Macedonia", and the article should refer to the country as the "Republic of Macedonia".  If/when that changes, we will conduct a formal RFC on the topic at WP:MOSMAC.  All other rename suggestions can be safely ignored, regardless of the status of the renaming discussions; of course the discussions themselves may be notable and worth discussing the section on the name of the country.  Apart from a one-sentence mention of the proposal to rename to the Republic of North Macedonia, I oppose discussion in the lead section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Republic of North Macedonia exists as a redirect but everyone is asked do not initiate requests for moving Republic of Macedonia to Republic of Northern Macedonia yet, as the deal does not go into effect immediatelly, but only after it is ratified by both Parliaments and the Constitution of the Republic is ammended. Until then, the articles have to stay as is, even if the deal has been reached between the two countries' prime ministers. Just a reminder to everyone. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh, for once I agree with you. It might be worth starting to think about some of the necessary changes that may have to be taken, but for now we should definitely wait and see how it all plays out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite right. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No premature changes need to be done until the Macedonian referendum is held and the Greek parliament signs off on it.Resnjari (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

At least, the good thing here is that the "Republic of..." can finally be dropped (after the agreement is ratified) from the articles where both Macedonias are mentioned, since "North Macedonia" stands as a distinctive term by itself, bearing no risk of semiological confusion with Greek Macedonia. I can predict that this will also drastically reduce the WP:ARBMAC-related vandalism across Wikipedia by IPs and editors alike, and certainly eliminate the disruptive edits where the country's name is changed from Macedonia to FYROM. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the agreement wouldn't just replace "FYROM" as the official diplomatic name but also replace "Republic of Macedonia" as the official name, even then I'm not sure whether or not we should immediately change the title after the constitution is modified. This seems to be similar to the king of Swaziland renaming it to Eswatini, except it's more drawn out over a long period of time requiring the approval of many different politicians rather than the order of a monarch. Because of that, I feel that there would be a WP:COMMONNAME dispute here just like there's a dispute on that article. In short, even though the government of Swaziland, the United Nations, and many sources all recognize that the name is Eswatini now, it's very highly contested that the article's name should change. For that reason, I don't think it's likely that a consensus will be reached among Wikipedia editors to change the article's name from "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" either, even if the government of Macedonia, the United Nations, and many sources all recognize the change. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Agreement replaces the official name on all documents, anywhere, and is for all purposes, both international and domestic, and will be the name the country uses in its diplomatic relations. Once all the procedures have been completed (Constitution ammendment, Parliamentary ratification, Presidential signature) We here in Wikipedia have no other option but to update the articles accordingly to reflect on this reality. Swaziland's case is not the same as Republic of Macedonia's case. In the case of Macedonia, it is an international treaty which goes into effect by replacing the Interim Accord of 1995. So it is two different cases and two different procedures. You point at WP:COMMONNAME, but frankly, this is a common name, not just for the Republic of Macedonia, but also for the Greek Macedonia, as well as the broader geographical region of Macedonia. Taking in account all these, I do believe that reaching a consensus here in Wikipedia for changing to a more specific name when referring to that country won't be an issue, because it was Wikipedia's community the one that has acknowledged the (Republic of) Macedonia being just one of multiple Macedonias and not the sole Macedonia, and we all have witnessed (and still are witnessing to this very day) firsthand this whole semiological confusion between the Republic of Macedonia and the Greek Macedonia on several of the project's articles which were engulfed in dozens of edit wars, corrections, reversions, heated debates and more. Unless the majority of the editors are nationalists of Macedonian ethnicity (who are opposing this name change), there could really be no problem in achieving a consensus for these much-relieving changes. In my opinion, Wikipedia has way more serious political disputes to pay attention on, and Macedonia's name certainly isn't one of them and I am sure everyone here, at least the most logical of all editors, could appreciate if this ridiculous name case is over once and for all so we can switch our attention and energy to other more pressing areas of the project. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, no, Brendan has a point here. No matter what happens officially, it is still an open question to what extent common English usage will follow suit, and common English usage is still what mainly determines our naming practices here. International treaties have no power to compel ordinary speakers to change their habits in everyday discourse, so it's quite conceivable that we might end up in a situation where we would want to say "Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia", just as we now say "Swaziland, officially the Kingdom of Eswatini" (or "North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", or indeed "Greece, officially the Hellenic Republic"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Brendan and Future are both right. Take, for example, the name of Ukraine's capital city. Here in Wikipedia, it is still "Kiev" because that is, by a wide margin, the most common spelling in English usage. Yet the government of Ukraine has declared the correct English spelling to be "Kyiv". "North Macedonia" may catch on in English sources very fast, especially if there is a lot of publicity. Good for Greece. But it might not. It may take a month, it may take a year. It may be like Kiev and never change. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, on the cutting edge of change. --Taivo (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, the country's new official name will be used in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is COMMONNAME. Let me explain - in some articles, where both the Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia are mentioned and a need for clarification arises, then the COMMONNAME (Macedonia) wont suffice, the new official name will have to be used (North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia) to distinguish it from the other Macedonias. So even if WP:COMMONNAME is not realized yet, the new official name will be used in areas where needed, while the COMMONNAME can still be used in areas where the Greek or regional Macedonia are not interchargeable with it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I am just realizing this swapping between OFFICIALNAME and COMMONNAME is bound to lead to more problems than solve: when in parts of the article the clarification North Macedonia is required to distinguish it from the other Macedonias, and in other parts of the article, the COMMONNAME Macedonia suffices, then we will most likely end up with a case where a country, in the very same article, or on different articles, is mentioned by two different names: North Macedonia and Macedonia. This is pretty confusing especially to the readers and can be a problem for us all having to deal with. The readers will certainly be wondering about that, and no in-article explanation will suffice to address this in a satisfactory manner. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why we have Arbitration. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Language

I believe that the language has nothing to do with the naming dispute. It is clear that the languages are different. It seems that the Ancient Macedonian language was related with the Greek language, because most toponyms and names are Greek. It is possible that it was a mixed language, but it was not related with Cyrillic Macedonian. Jestmoon(talk) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want. Can you be more specific? As for the language, it is part of the naming dispute and this has nothing to do with how much the modern slavic language relates to the ancient hellenic one, but about whether the modern language shall be called as such and without any linguistic/cultural/ethnic/geographical qualifiers. I have the impression the article does explain the background of the issue. No? -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The language might be part of the naming dispute in Greek eyes, but this article is about the political dispute over the name of the nation, which is entirely different than any complaints over what the world calls, and has called, the South Slavic language. Linguists worldwide (excluding nationalists in Greece and Bulgaria) universally call the language Macedonian and this has been the case for long before there was a Republic of Macedonia. The whole issue is discussed in a separate article that is appropriately linked from here. Indeed, it's possible that the section in this article is inappropriately long because, as I stated before, the political dispute that this article covers has nothing to do with the linguistic issue. There should be a very short mention of the problems that Greeks and Bulgarians have with the linguistic label "Macedonian" and the link which already exists. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if the section isn't shortened. The only problem I would have is if someone wanted to expand the section in this article (where it is inappropriate). --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The Macedonia Naming Dispute involves the use of the words Macedonia/Macedonian for both the country, people and language. I recommend that you read the lead section: "Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia [...] Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language." This is exactly the naming dispute. We have 2 Macedonian people, 2 Macedonian languages/dialects and 2 Macedonia regions, with the Slavic side claiming monopoly over the name for itself even though historically and geographically it doesn't have the right to monopolise it. Hence the "Dispute". To say that "the language is part of the dispute in Greek eyes", only shows ignorance on the Macedonia Naming Dispute and its roots. To say this, is to exonerate the responsibility of the Slavic side and to incriminate the Greek side. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 11:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are conflating the political issue with the nonpolitical issue. The language is called "Macedonian" in the scientific community universally and there is exactly zero effort to call it anything else. It has been called "Macedonian" universally and without debate by the linguistic community since I was in grad school in the 1970s (at least). I'm not a Slavicist, so I can't tell you for how long it's been called universally "Macedonian" without debate in the scientific community. It is, indeed, a separate issue from this political debate in the eyes of the world. I separate Greece and Bulgaria (perhaps you missed my frequent mention of Bulgaria along with Greece in my previous post) from "universally" because there are issues with calling the language "Macedonian" in those two countries. They are separate issues, further distinguishing the language name issue from the copyright issue that Greece has with Macedonia separate from the language issue. But there are not "two languages" called "Macedonian". There is one. There is a dialect of the Greek language which bears the regional label of "Macedonian", but that's not a language. This is not unique on the linguistic map by any stretch of the imagination. There are, for example, three distinct linguistic entities known as "Scots" or "Scottish". But scientists don't care about Greece's copyright challenge or Bulgaria's ownership challenge. The label predates the breakup of Yugoslavia by decades. My point, however, is that the language name issues are separate from this article's point, which is the political row between neighbors over the flimsiest of reasons and that the language section should not be any longer than it is and that my personal opinion is that it is still too long. It should be mentioned, but not conflated with the point of this article. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are actually considering expanding the language section of this article (which I will oppose), then there really is no point whatsoever to continuing this discussion since I'm not proposing anything more than "leave it alone or shorten it, but leave it alone is OK". --Taivo (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think anything in the article needs expansion when it comes to languages. But bear in mind that the article's 2017-2018 developments section will obviously be expanded and this will possibly contain info about the negotiations on the name of the Slavic language, as part of the Kotzia's seven proposals pack, which includes change to the: 1) country's name (Macedonia), 2) country's people (Macedonians), 3) country's language (Macedonian), 4) country's short name and codename (MKD) 5) country's trademarks and products (Made in Macedonia), 6) country's web domain (www.websitename.mk), 7) country's cars and vehicle IDs. etc. The Greek MoFA Nikos Kotzias is expected to arrive at Skopje next week according to the newspapers, and present the full 7-point package with the proposals for the final resolution of the name dispute, to the government of the Republic of Macedonia. If the name dispute is eventually resolved and if, hypothetically speaking now, an international treaty that includes the language's name, is signed between the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, then the linguists and Wikipedia will have no other option but to move on and the articles be renamed accordingly. History tends to repeat, and so, I suspect the resolution procedures will be similar to what was done in past naming disputes, such as the British Naming Dispute where Great Britain was forced to abandon that name for United Kingdom to appease to French concerns over ambiguity with the french province of Brittany. This is just my prediction. Nothing more. There is nothing else that can be discussed here, but I hope it has been made clear that the language's name is part of the dispute and the negotiations for its resolution. Whatever is agreed about the language's international name, will be reflected accordingly in Wikipedia and the linguistic world. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

First, there's no guarantee that all of Greece's copyright infringement demands will be met. Second, just because Greece and Macedonia might come to an agreement over what to call the Macedonian language does NOT mean that scientists are in any way, shape, or form bound by it. None of us are bound by the petty childishness of a country's government (in this case, Greece's) unless that government ties money to usage. So unless a scholar is doing research that is funded by Greece or Macedonia directly, that change simply isn't going to be required. And since Wikipedia is based on common English usage, don't get excited about seeing Wikipedia change any time soon when it comes to the name of the language used by linguists, and therefore used in general scientific work. Just look at Serbo-Croatian, for example. --Taivo (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You got a point about Serbo-Croatian, however you are missing another: It is a linguistic group and a category which contains both Serbian language and Croatian language. The Macedonian language on the other hand isn't a linguistic group nor a category of its own, just merely language under the South Slavic group. Since it is a distinct language and is used only in the Republic of Macedonia and by the Slav Macedonians, it will be very weird for the scientists to not follow up, if the people who speak it, start calling it by a different name. Wikipedia's article will have to be updated soon or later, to accommodate both the readers and the editors, and that will be done only if the Naming Dispute is resolved and the language's name is covered by the dispute's resolution. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors' opinions, like governmental decrees, mean absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. If, and only if, linguists actually use some new name in a significant number, then Wikipedia will change. And not one minute before. Count on "later" rather than "sooner", if at all. --Taivo (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor's opinions, of course. When time comes, there will be discussion among the editors about this. That time hasn't come yet. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And your opinion as an editor, of course, as it does in every discussion (as does mine as an editor), will count for nothing without solid evidence that common English usage has changed. You know this already. That's why Wikipedia has always called Macedonia "Macedonia" and ignored Greece's silly copyright infringement issue. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that was true, then Wikipedia could still call the United Kingdom by its previous name, couldn't it? Of course it is not a matter of how silly a naming issue is, just Wikipedia uses the names the states pick as official for themselves, like in the case of Myanmar. So if the Republic of Macedonia picked that name, Wikipedia followed suit. And if it picks another name, Wikipedia still will follow suit and rename the articles accordingly. Just common sense beyond our mere opinions. :-) -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken about your characterization of "Wikipedia just following suit" concerning the name "Republic of Macedonia". You weren't here for WP:ARBMAC2 as I recall, during which there was great discussion about whether to call Republic of Macedonia "Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The main piece of evidence was always common English usage and there were detailed analyses of search terms used by readers, names used in English language atlases and geographies, names used in the English-language media, etc. It was always about common English usage and never about "just following suit" with regard to official Macedonian nomenclature. The Greek editors tended towards pointing out official UN usage and Greek sensitivity as indicative of the direction that Wikipedia should go, but in the end it was common English usage that prevailed. The same will happen in this instance. Hopefully simple demonstrations of the overwhelming shift of terminology (or not) will be all that is needed and that it will not require arbitration again. The name of the country is a different issue and will, of course, be subject to WP:CONSENSUS, I'm only referring to the name of the language following the topic of this thread. --Taivo (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. For the Republic of Macedonia, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Republic of Macedonia" and not mere "Macedonia"? I had the impression the WP:COMMONNAME was the "Macedonia" but Wikipedia chose "Republic of Macedonia" for the reasons I described above in my previous post (well, whenever you look on the web, you can see that the name "Macedonia" is prevailing over "Republic of Macedonia" in usage as far as I know). Apparently I will have to finally read the lengthy background of the WP:ARBMAC2. I wish I didn't had to as I know it was a very long discussion. Thank you Taivo for your time. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Macedonia" is more common than "FYROM" or "former....". But because of the ambiguity between ancient and modern Macedonias, "Republic of M" and "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" were chosen as appropriate disambiguating titles. The common usage discussion eliminated FYROM et al. from the mix. --Taivo (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep thanks, Taivo. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Reading @TaivoLinguist: comments, he is right on the matter @SilentResident:. The negotiations regarding the naming dispute relate only to the official name of the country. Unless a agreement occurs between both nations, the name Republic of Macedonia will be the standard on Wikipedia as per wp:ARBMAC. Changes to renaming ethnic Macedonians or their language to terminology as say used by Greece is doubtful will change. Greek Wikipedia is the only place where that kind of alternative wording exits. All other Wikipedia projects are in sync on this. Albanian Wikipedia was the last that formally had the 'Greek view', but after much discussion i changed it over there to the Republic of Macedonia, and refering to ethnic Macedonians as Macedonians and their language as Macedonian and not something else. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, welcome to a discussion that has already came to a natural end. Taivo is very elloquent in his comments and he has convinced me on the wrong of my positions, hence why he is now finding me agreeing with him. I do not understand how your entry to this discussion is contributing anything new besides bragging for your edits in other Wikipedia projects for wich I am uninteresrted and is none of English Wikipedia's concern. I appreciate your time coming here but I do not think there are any. As for the negotiations regarding the naming dispute, like I have told you numerous time in the past in other cases: we stick to the sources and facts, not to editorial opinions. So if the one side of the dispute says that the name dispute *do* relate not just to the country name but also all spheres, including codenames, abbreviations, language and identity, then who are we to argue? This page is meant to reflect the thorny issues between the two sides, not Resnjari's views on the dispute. If that was the case, then the article could very well been titled "Resnjari's View On The Macedonia Naming Dispute".

Soon the Greek FM Nikos Kotzias is visiting Skopje to present a 7-point resolution on the name dispute, that, according to various newspapers, covers the issue of the language's name, the issue of the abbreviations and more, and the article will be updated accordingly to the sources, not our opinions. Have a good day, Resnjari. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, no need to get snippy there. I've been watching this discussion quite closely the whole time and @TaivoLinguist: has done well. If he hadn't said it, it would have been a discussion between you and me, as i dealt with a similar matter not long ago on Albania Wikipedia where i cleared out various absurdities that existed there for many years. And it was no easy feat, but i got it done in the end. Only one Wikipedia project now remains at odds with every other on the issue. With current negotiations ongoing, as its been groundhog day many times over among politicians on this issue, until both parties sign on the dotted line no administrator will even bother listen to a case to change the very name of this page. When it comes to Macedonians as an ethnic group and their language Macedonian those wanting change wont get it at all as per reasons given by TaivoLinguist.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Snippy? Not at all. Just, your notoriety in making talk page discussions prolonged is what wares me. Hence I am not too enthousiast to sit down and revive a discussion with an editor who has been notorious for failing to close past disputes with other editors, especially on the Albanian articles, and for failing to make even a single compromise in every one of the Noticeboards he has been involved in the past. So my sincere apologies, but do not expect more responses from me here. And yes, thank you for sharing your *opinion* with us but this little serves, other than losing the point here, which is that the language name change is not my concern here, but the false perceptions the editors who have this article on their watchlist and believe that when the Greek side calls for "Erga Omnes", they assume it means only the country's name and nothing more. Have a good day and thank you for your attention. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

hehe, oh come now, reading your lengthy comments here could wear anyone out if they don't have the stamina.😎 Compromise, yeah i am all for it, where relevant and of merit. As you were told here by @TaivoLinguist:, on the ethnic group and language nothing will happen in the way of change. And for admins to accept change for this page, unless both sides singon the dotted line then it will be reflected here otherwise prior decisions as per wp:ARBMAC stick. For more than two decades the Greek side has officially stated that up for negotiations is only the name of the country and not other things. What everyday Greeks hold as a view about another people and their language, most of the world, say apart from Cyprus do not support. And yes i will keeping a very close eye on this matter. A good day to you too.😉 Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the info: checking the Burmese language rename case, even if a country itself, as well as its people, constitutionally rename the language, it may still be called by its old name in the English Wikipedia due to WP:COMMONNAME, but with a note on what its new (official) name is, added. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, your going to have a very difficult time getting that kind of change as there is consensus on all Wikipedia projects except Greek Wikipedia. The last holdout was Albanian wikipedia and i got it to change to be in line with the rest, as per consensus as i am all for consensus. And even on English Wikipedia, a new ARBMAC case on the lines of what your refering will attract a lot of people to it. There will be great difficulty on the change you want. Only the name of the country is as far as change will happen if both sides agree to a name and sign on it officially. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You aren't even reading before commenting, are you? You don't even need a consensus for adding a note about the official name on the lede. Just check the Burmese Language article for yourself. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Like that done with the Kosovo issue. On this you may have a have a difficult time getting it up and running. Support is not wide ranging, otherwise the first ARBCOM would have done that.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You need sources to point to constitutional use of the purpoted name. This isn't happening yet. First there has to be an agreement between the two countries. Then have the constitution ammended. And then, point to the documents of the constitution confirming its new name. Once these 3 steps are done, any filibuster editors trying to block or revert such information will most likely get into troubles. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah, because the only change that will happen will be one on the name -if both countries agree to a change, not anything else. Whatever everyday Greeks may hold as a view on ethnic Macedonian identity and their language, having a hatenote wont pass here because the Greek state has not made those issues part of the issue officially. Those who would push for hatenotes or other like changing the pagname of the ethnic group article or the language one will not get far, as the previous wp:ARBMAC threw out those arguments. The only change that is likely will be on the country name if an official agreement is struck.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't follow you. I am not talking about article name, but about the sentence inside the article's lead paragraph noting the official name which is different, just like how it was done for Burmese language. Now if you don't mind, I am done here. Good day -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Its hard to see that happening in this case. Say hypothetically it happens, if a hatenote goes into the main articles, then a hatenote will go all over Wikipedia where it says Macedonians and Macedonian language. Previous ARBMAC arbitration did not suggest that as a solution to matters and in any new ARBMAC on the issue, there will be great opposition to such a thing. Only the country name will be changed IF an agreement is struck as only that issue is disputed. The Greek state has not officially asked for Macedonians north of the border to rename themselves or their language (nor is that part of current negotiations), contrary to non-binding views aired by politicians in the Greek parliament or society.Resnjari (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[od] User:SilentResident is correct. That adding a note to the first sentence about a constitutional change of name doesn't require any consensus or arbitration. Changing the title of the article, which is what I was talking about, will require a demonstration of common English usage and a consensus. But simply adding a new sentence to the lead doesn't take that. Indeed, that's precisely the kind of information that we want to see in the first paragraph: "Macedonian, called XXX as a result of compromise with Greece in its copyright claim, is a South Slavic language....", etc. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If a hatenote does get placed it would need to be applicable to only one article otherwise we end up with the absurd situation like with Kosovo and its hatenote where everywhere Kosovo is mentioned in articles there is a wiki hatenote about the dispute. My concerns are that it may end up like that situation where a mention of Macedonia is made any given article. Also other editors out there may not be in favour of a hatenote.Resnjari (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not talking about a hatnote--those are only directions to another article. All that is being mentioned here is a comment within the text of the lead paragraph at Macedonian language that mentions any new name. That's all. And that's appropriate. This thread began with a different topic and focus, but it has evolved to this point, where all that is being discussed now is a note within the text of the lead--not changing the name of Macedonian language without the demonstration of a change to common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been up for a long while. Ok, i know what is meant, like with the many Kosovo pages that have that note about the dispute. Still about a new name here, Greece has not compelled Macedonia to rename its language with a qualifier. Its still in the area of speculation that it even might happen. Internationally outside Greece, no one applies any suffixes or other terms for the people or language. I still don't see why qualifiers are needed to be outlined in a note regarding the language. The page has existed without one for very long time since the ARBMAC arbitration. I would need to see wording of this and its important that other imput is from editors is given from both sides before such a addition is made, because we might end up with these kinds of "notes" all over the place on many articles.Resnjari (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Resnjari you are quite right that it is currently premature to mention anything about a possible name change because nothing has happened. But if a change is made, then a brief sentence in the lead at Macedonian language on the new name (not a change in the article name) is completely appropriate without a lot of fuss since it would be a verifiable fact about the language. --Taivo (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist:, @Resnjari:, I think it is appropriate to ping you, given your involvement in the past discussion, about the latest developments on the name of the language, which occured today 12 June 2018. There is no need for any updates or changes to the article of the Macedonian Language, as Greece agreed today to recognize and accept the term "Macedonian Language", as is, and without any geographical or ethnic qualifiers, under the condition that the Republic of Macedonia will recognize that the language is a South Slavic language, completely unrelated to the Ancient Macedonian language, a condition which is purely political and meaningless for Wikipedia which already has this covered, hence no need for any changes to be made to it. Present article already updated with this info: [12] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. It still awaits approval by the governments of both countries and, apparently, a referendum in Macedonia, but I'm encouraged to see that both Greece's extreme name position and Macedonia's appropriation of the classical world have been abandoned. --Taivo (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The important thing is that some kind of resolution has been achieved. I agree with Taivo's sentiments that the process has still some way to go in both countries via a referendum in one and parliament of the other before its done and dusted. No hasty changes in Wikipedia until all of that has been accomplished.Resnjari (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Today most educated Greeks accept that there is a language spoken by the ethnic Macedonians,which is called "Macedonian language". However there is a propaganda that the Ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect, which seems to be wrong. Why must be emphasized in the article that this language was not Greek? Jestmoon(talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the vast majority of the historians, archeologists and linguists are agreeing today that the Macedonian (the Ancient one) is related to the Greek. However there is still no consensus on how much do they relate to each other. That is. Wikipedia's role here is is to highlight all aspects of the issue and the background of the dispute and how all this mess came to be. Now, the Treaty of Prespa resolves once and for all the political aspect (propaganda you called it) of the issue regarding the language. and that is a good step. Under the Treaty, Greece fully recognizes and acknowledges the Macedonian Language (the Slavic one), and the Ethnic Macedonian side acknowledges that their language is unrelated to the Ancient Macedonian. So I guess there is nothing else for us to tackle here unless you mean something else? Note: Whatever questions remain about the language, are not a politician's concern anymore, but a scientist's. Tsipras and Zaev already resolved the political aspect of the issue as far as I can tell. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Can the article explain why 'Northern Macedonia' is an improvement?

I just added the following at this article's latest ITN nomination:

• Comment- Re article quality, I fail to see any explanation in the article as to why the new name is an improvement (as distinct from a logical disimprovement that is being welcomed for other short-term reasons). Perhaps there are no reliable sources to explain this (possibly because it makes little or no sense to add a longer name, and one that logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia, which is seemingly at least partly why the Greeks objected to the old name in the first place, only the new name seems to make that problem worse). I suspect I may not be the only reader who is thus a bit confused and dissatisfied with article quality.

This may become an issue if and when a nomination looks likely to succeed at ITN (perhaps after a ratification by the Greek Parliament, or perhaps earlier). I know too little (and have too little interest) to try to fix the matter myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO). Indeed I'm not sure whether the necessary Reliable Sources even exist to allow it to be fixed. But I just thought I'd mention it here, just in case there are other editors around who are willing and able to try to address the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In theory at least, it comes with the implication that the Republic is quitting any Irredentist claim towards the rest of the Macedonia region. At least that is what the current Greek and Macedonian governments are claiming. In practice, we will have to wait and see. Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Ratification"?

Current edits on this article present the most recent news of what the Macedonian parliament did on 11 January as "ratification" of the Prespa agreement. Is this wording accurate? I thought the legal ratification of the treaty was already done in June, and what happened yesterday was a vote on changes to the constitution? Can somebody clarify please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. honestly I don't know to answer you on this with certainty. Since the international media used the term "Ratification" to describe the January's completion of the procedures, I reflected this on the article. Here some examples of sources calling it a ratification:

• Daily Mail: "Macedonia passed a constitutional amendment Friday ratifying the June deal" [13]
• Macedonian Information Agency: "[...] adopted Constitutional amendments needed to ratify the Prespa Agreement" [14]
• The Guardian: "the Greek parliament must also ratify the accord" [15]
• Meta.mk: " the Prespa Agreement comes into force completely i.e. as soon as it is ratified in Greek parliament." [16]

From what I understood, the deal was signed in June by the two Prime Ministers, but is being ratified now by the two Parliaments. A signature by the PMs do not constitute automatic ratification. For that, it requires the parliamentary procedures (voting amendments, etc) to be completed first. Which is exactly what is happening now this January, and not in past June. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Since the ratification is a noteworthy event on its own, shouldn't this be on its own sub-section in the article? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident is correct. "Ratification" is a term reserved for the approval of legislative bodies, not for the signatures of negotiators or even heads of state. In this case there were three legislative steps involved as I recall: initial vote by Macedonian legislature to proceed with terms of deal, vote by Macedonian legislature approving changes to the Constitution required by the deal, vote by the Greek parliament approving the deal. Technically, the first and the third steps are ratification of the Prespa agreement. The second step (the one that just occurred) is ratification of a change of name in the Macedonian Constitution, so it's not technically ratification of the Prespa Agreement, but is a requirement of that agreement. We all know that the technicalities of English legal terminology are often lost in mass media reporting. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident: if you want to show that the 11 January vote was a "ratification", why are you now citing 4 sources of which 3 quite obviously aren't calling it that (while the 4th is the Daily Mail, of all things)? And Taivo, sorry, but if your are yourself saying that the 11 January vote was "not technically ratification", why are you saying that "SilentResident is correct" in claiming that it was just that?

To refresh your memories: The ratification of the treaty on the Macedonian side occurred in June and July. We are citing reliable sources to that effect in this very article. Remember, it was that vote which President Ivanov tried to boycott by not signing it into force, and then it had to be repeated and entered into force when the president of the parliament sidestepped Ivanov and had it printed in the official gazette on his own authority after the second round. That was the ratification; it's been completed and legally in effect since then. Then came another vote on initiating the further legislative proceedings, and votes about the referendum and all sorts of other things. What happened now was a political prerequisite for ratification to also happen on the Greek side, but it has technically nothing to do with the ratification process as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Future perfect, I didn't imagine the term "ratification" would be questioned, thought it was kinda obvious. Otherwise I would have added these sources as well. Now that you raised this, I can happily add them as well. About your arguments... I don't know if the events you described that occurred in the past, do constitute a ratification by itself, because according to media, the voting of the amendments is part of the ratification's completion... Unless a state can ratify an agreement without passing the amendments it is obliged to, by that Agreement? From personal experience - and I had the impression - Greece ratified the Istanbul Convention of the Domestic Violence against Women the very same day it passed the law that envisioned further protection measures against violence against women. But whatever you mean that ratification of an Agreement as being a progress of its own, independent of the progress of adopting the Agreement's provisions, then perhaps you better ask someone else, as I don't know for certain, nor I thought this to be a possible case. All I did is to reflect on what the world media do call it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you still claiming the four sources you just cited here are calling this thing a ratification? Learn to read. They quite obviously aren't. (Except for the Daily Mail one, which is probably typical of the quality of that publication, which is why Wikipedia has decided to never use it as a source.) What's so difficult to grasp about the simple fact: Whatever they are doing now can't be a ratification because the ratification was already done half a year ago? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Future, I was writing my response and realized that the 11 Jan vote wasn't ratification of the Prespa agreement, but forgot to amend my first sentence. But there are still two ratification votes required. One by the Macedonian parliament and one by the Greek parliament. The Macedonian parliament voted to ratify last summer, but I didn't think that the Greek one had voted yet--they were waiting for the constitutional change in Macedonia as I recall (I'm working off memory here so I could be mistaken). --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So, ratification or post-ratification implementation, the ball is on the other side now. What remains is for the Greek side to ratify it before it goes into full force. According to local media, this will happen this or the next week if everything goes as planned. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist and Future Perfect at Sunrise: good news, the majority in the Greek Parliament is secured, and the Prespa Agreement will pass this week (precisely: Thursday 24 January) with more than the required votes for ratification. Not that I am supposed to inform, just a heads up.

And if you like, would really appreciate your opinion in the Talk Page: Splitting the article into 2 smaller ones, or re-ordering content? section, as well. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)