Talk:Greece/Archive 5

FYROM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Background: There is a dispute as to whether the use of "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia" (or its abbreviated form "FYROM") versus "Republic of Macedonia" in the article text of Greece is or is not consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style or other guidelines. The dispute is related to the overall naming ambiguity between Greece and the aforementioned country, see also: Macedonia naming dispute.
Result: A straw poll was started to help gauge consensus on the issue.
--slakr^\ talk / 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry to open an old can of worms, but why does this article refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM"? The fact that Greece recognizes this country by the latter doesn't mean that we have to go against WP:MOSMAC and Wikipedia tradition for this particular article. The few exceptions when we do refer to that country as "FYROM" on Wikipedia are not present here. This is not an article e.g. about an institution where the Republic of Macedonia is a member under the name of FYROM. The sentence [Greece] has borders with (...) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to the north is thus inadequate. Húsönd 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia/Editing Notes for Macedonian articles which may be relevant. dougweller (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not really. Húsönd 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever name is displayed it should not be a redirect.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a problem here. But I agree that the use of "former Yugoslav" in this and similar articles should be phased out. There never was either a well-based consensus or a rational justification for it. It was all a matter of the insistence of some Greek editors of having Greece-related articles stand apart from all the rest, as an "island in its own reality", using a naming practice more sympathetic to the Greek POV concerns. A practice that is fundamentally at odds with the demands of NPOV. We don't follow X's naming preference about Y, just because we are in an article about X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, we don't even follow X's naming preference about X itself... why should we follow the POV about Y? man with one red shoe 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. It is no news that Greek editors who are naturally involved with this article would dread to see the Republic of Macedonia being referred to by any name but "FYROM". But this article is simply not within the range of exceptions when we do use "FYROM". Greek users can stick to FYROM on the Greek Wikipedia where they are obviously the majority, but not here. Húsönd 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC mentions for articles referring to Greek internal affairs "If in doubt, leave as is". Well, leave as is. End of story.--Avg (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC is dead. It failed to reach consensus over precisely this point. Yes, there was a time when it made sense to leave this one area just open and not touch it. But that doesn't mean we are forever doomed to keep it that way. We finally got some outside opinion from people other than the usual suspects. Not surprisingly, that opinion is in favour of policy. So, I think the time to simply enforce policy and stop the political bargains has come. People who choose to edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut. you're vandalising the page against consensus. You will be reported if you continue.--Avg (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Have fun. My edits aren't "vandalism", and a determined small national faction of POV-pushers against policy isn't "consensus". Wikipedia policy on standard naming practices is actually quite clear, and actually enforceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have fun all right, especially with the diifs where YOU support what you now deny. Let's see, will you find an oversight fast enough?--Avg (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is a brilliant example of Future Perfect's "consistency": He updated the MOSMAC himself stating "However, no exact guidelines for all cases have been agreed upon; when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is." [1].--Avg (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was one and a half years ago. At a time when we still thought MOSMAC could actually become a real guideline, and an understanding of "don't change the status quo" could be a reasonable temporary compromise on the way there. But, as I just said, that never meant policy should be kept suspended in favour of the POV egotism of national factions forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect Sunrise please stop. UN (that is United Nations) accepts this country under the name FYROM. And you come here, with your funny theories and try to vandalise the page as you have done with other pages. Relax and let it go. Until UN accepts a different name, you got to live with the fact that this country is called FYROM, whether you like it or not.FDAU (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The decisive criterion for Wikipedia's naming policy is not what the UN or some other political body calls it, but (1) what the majority of the English language community calls it, and (2) what the country calls itself. Those two, in that order. That's the rule of this place; if you don't like it, go edit some other website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect is doing nothing disruptive or inadequate but to provide his opinion. Without some serious and practical arguments for the usage of FYROM on this article, we should change it to Republic of Macedonia as elsewhere on Wikipedia (except articles where this country refers to itself as FYROM as within the subject). By the way, the United Nations have no power of decision whatsoever on Wikipedia's content, we're independent to make our own decisions as long as these conform to the laws of the US state where our servers are hosted. Húsönd 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"if you don't like it, go edit some other website"... what an admin-like behavior! F.P., you are still an admin, right? No wonder why so many editors have chosen to quit or reduce their edit rates: manners like this, and formerly hidden (now open) agendas of the kind. Btw, Husond, you are right: all that matters is the USA law of Florida! Again, no wonder why things in Wikipedia tend to be in such an unprecedented mess... Hectorian (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond you have to understand that Future Perfect and consistency live in two different universes. I have proposed many times that the country should be referred to as Republic of Macedonia everywhere in Wikipedia. Ask Future if he agrees or not. Because we have spent countless posts with me on the side of "RoM" and him on the side of "Macedonia" plain. I agree right now that RoM replaces FYROM in Greece article as soon as "Macedonia" is removed altogether as a reference to this country from all articles. Because whoever supports exceptions has no right to talk about consistency.--Avg (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't remember you making such a proposal. But whatever: thanks for agreeing that RoM is adequate for this article. Since you have agreed to that, there can be no conditions making it dependent on what we do or don't do in other articles. This is not your bazaar. No political páre-dhóse. Either R.o.M is okay here, or it is not. You just confirmed it is. In that casea, for you to insist on something else in order to press for changes in other articles would be a disruptive WP:POINT violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not a trade off. It is a simple issue. Since you clearly do not respect this is a special case then there should be no special case altogether. As simple as that. Your prime argument is Wikipedia policy. I want it enforced everywhere. Do you?--Avg (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The policy is: Use whatever the majority of native English speakers would most readily recognise, and what is compatible with the state's self-designation. That would actually be Macedonia, in most contexts. Add disambiguation needs (real disambiguation, not the POV-flagging demanded by some of your friends), and we end up with Republic of, in many cases. The remaining choice between R.o.M. and simple M. is not a matter of special exceptions, it's simply a matter of good writing and proper attention to context, just like the choice between Ireland and Republic of Ireland, or China and PRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy are you really a spin doctor. Well it's simple, we either are consistent or not. No matter how you spin it there is this simple underlying fact. I'm really bored debating ad nauseam obvious things. --Avg (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Hmm, can we agree not to focus on particular editors and just debate the application of WP:MOSMAC on this particular article? I think that there is no need to over-dramatize the issue. Húsönd 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: it's not about "application of MOSMAC". MOSMAC failed to reach consensus exactly because of this article, and is currently no longer tagged even as a proposed guideline. What we need to do here is work out how to apply WP:USEENGLISH and WP:NC; those policies are quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, first I agree with Husond that the whole discussion should be done at MOSMAC until there is consensus there, otherwise no article should be touched. You can't appeal to guideline enforcement when there's no agreed guideline, and the interpretations of WP:NC and WP:UE don't hold so much water. And I agree with Avg that there has to be some sort of give and take for all the relevant situations because this whole thing is one issue, and not several ones that need to be repeated in each individual article ad nauseum -this is highly counterproductive. Moreover, the whole discussion can very well be diverted to the respective WP guidelines (not "policies" as erroneously mentioned above). One view for UE, for example, could be that (especially) the names used in the English language WP, since it is in the planet's lingua franca at the moment, cannot be monopolized by the English speaking nations and the English speaking usages, but they have to reflect a global viewpoint, irrespective of restriction to the English language sources. Or that we can't be bothered to check frequencies of appellations every time we deal with a controversial name, and we'll go by a globally accepted list, such as that of the UN (why should it be "self-identification"? who says that this is NPOV?). Another view for NC, could be that in articles such as "Greece" which are directed to inform readers about "Greece", it is irrational not to inform the reader of how anybody in "Greece" refers to their neighbor, at the risk of being punched in the face by an inhabitant of "Greece" because you used the name WP showed you. And another view for NC could be that it is simply unsourced to refer to the country by any other name, because the primary sources that refer to Greece's borders will always mention "FYROM", the spellout, or its translation. Same do all labels from within Greece that lead to the country's border. And of course there are numerous arguments from the other side, and that is why it is imperative that nothing is touched until there is an agreement. Finally I do not think that it is productive to accuse the other side about "POV egotism of national factions", and if the other side picks up the glove and starts accusing about "linguistic obsession" or "ill-perceived liberalism" etc etc, then there will be no end in this. NikoSilver 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all this is just so much waffle. Not worth responding to. "Use English" actually is policy, and no amount of ranting can change that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What's not English about the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's not predominant in normal, careful English prose and not what native English speakers will most readily recognise. Which is what "useenglish" stands for, as a shortcut. As you perfectly well know, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And "Republic of Macedonia" is? Says who? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Macedonia" is. "Republic of" is just our chosen disambiguator, which happens to be also the formal long name of the country. Says who? Predominant use in reputable English-language print and news publications. As you know perfectly well, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was hinting at. If you were really so concerned about using the most predominant term, you would have advocated the use of plain "Macedonia". As you know perfectly well, "Republic of Macedonia" is not the most common long form of the country's name in English. And, seeing as "Macedonia" is ambiguous, the most common long name should be used instead. The country's preferred long name is irrelevant; common English usage takes precedence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd have to advocate going for "f.Y." all over Wikipedia. (Which, as you perfectly well know, has not a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.) Remember, what we are discussing here is not how to generally name the country. What we are discussing is exclusively whether and why this particular article should get a treatment different from the rest. Which, of course, it shouldn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is in fact what I have always advocated, but if we are talking specifically about this article, the fact that the "other" Macedonia is mentioned throughout is enough to answer your question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is very simple to me, there's a commonly English name used by most of the reputable English-language print and news publications as Future said, and that's not FYROM, or any variant of it. Per Wiki policies we need to use the common English name. The only reason for pushing FYROM in this article is to make a (cheap) nationalistic point (sometimes masked as "correct UN name" which has absolutely no importance in Wikipedia), there's no other reason for pushing this name -- this blatant POV pushing should stop. Now. man with one red shoe 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "Republic of Macedonia", either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the solution is to go without disambiguators altogether. The need for those has always been overstated in this debate anyway, for transparent reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a solution so much as evidence of the inconsistency of your line of argumentation. Make up your mind as to what it is you're advocating. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" on routine first mention, and plain "Macedonia" where context makes it unambiguous. And no exceptions for Greece-related POV islands. "f.Y." provides no extra benefit, in any context. It adds no disambiguation value over and above what "R.o." does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds rather confused to me. You're either in favour of the predominant English usage, or you're not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, if you insist: "Macedonia" on routine first mention, and whatever disambiguator is short, simple, easy to understand and compatible with self-designation wherever contextually necessary. Which will still be "R.o.", in most cases. And I still insist, above all, no POV islands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You really are funny sometimes. At least you admit that your stance has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics. (Oh, and you perfectly well know it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Looking around in google news and books sources a bit, it occurs to me that common English usage gives little guidance as to what disambiguator to choose, qua disambiguator. Writers don't disambiguate the country. If they have to contrast the country against the region, they disambiguate the region, and only that. The country carries the simple name by default. Those writers who use either "R.o." or "f.Y." seem for the most part to do so for other reasons, not for those of disambiguation. So, if we decide we want to do a bit more disambiguation than the average (which is okay with me), we are left to make our own choices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But which disambiguator is the more common in English? In my experience, it's by far the former Yugoslav Republic of or some variation thereof. The biggest promulgator of "Republic of" in the English language is Wikipedia itself. Why perpetuate the discrepancy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"f.Y." is not used by writers out there for purposes of disambiguation. Those who use it have other reasons for doing so. In any case, talking about disambiguation is moot here: In the case you've been edit-warring about, the context ("borders on...") a priori excludes any confusion with Greek provinces anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I note that you've been edit-warring a fair bit yourself. Secondly, who says that the former Yugoslav Republic of is not used for disambiguation? Thirdly, there is a long-standing consensus that it should be used in articles in which the Greek region is mentioned. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a "consensus", there has been a stalemate: policy on the one side, against determined obstinacy of a POV faction on the other. And now the time has come to break that stalemate. There is no objective reason to have "f.Y.", the only motive to have it is because you guys like it that way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-righteous rhetoric aside, policy says that the most common English term should be used, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case we use the next most common. And I quote: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". It also says that "editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain". In other words, the only reason you oppose the former Yugoslav Republic of is because you don't like it, and that isn't a valid excuse. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a good reason to change it: to bring this article in line with all other articles in this project. The very fact that a national faction of editors is treating this article as their ideological home turf, where they can demand preferential treatment for their POV concerns, is enough reason to insist on a change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should insist on moving "Republic of Macedonia" to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, then? Because that's what policy says we should do. That we haven't done so already is entirely due of the whims of those who oppose it for no reason other than that it is preferred by the Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Have fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if policy really counts for shit around here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if WP:MOSMAC hasn't been made effective yet, then Wikipedia:Mos#Internal_consistency applies. It effectively determines that we use the same term throughout Wikipedia, and the determinant is always the article on the term itself. In this case, the current location of the article Republic of Macedonia determines that we must refer to this country as "Republic of Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia. Rather simple. Húsönd 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close Controversial proposal, not listed on WP:M. This has been discussed a million times. Keeping this open is just a unnecessary drama magnet and pool for personal attacks. --Avg (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not something that can be closed, are you copy-pasting my comment on the phony move proposal at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia to try to make a WP:POINT? Try better. Húsönd 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not phony at all, as a matter of fact. I'd been biting my tongue for far too long. The more you resort to personal attacks, the less seriously you're taken. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite the other way around, but there's no point in trying to convince when one's in delusion and denial. Húsönd 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. Please, just stop. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Gonzales Oh, wait this is about something else. Yes, what Husond said makes perfect sense to me. man with one red shoe 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Husond's argumentation on how exactly he supports that "this is not something that can be closed" (unlike the other). Please start by explaining why the discussion in Talk:FYROM is "a matter of common interest" where "mediation should help interested parties achieve an agreement" and this talk here isn't. I'm particularly curious, Man with one red shoe, perhaps you could help Husond explain since you rushed to agree? NikoSilver 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The other was a move proposal, that can be closed. This is a discussion, that requires no closing whatsoever. "Matter of common interest"? What are you talking about? Húsönd 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is for a controversial change. "Matter of common interest" (among the disputing parties) is a direct quote from WP:M that you linked. Did you mean to say WP:RM then? Anyway, I think a lot of users will agree with me in despising argumentation which is based solely on mere technicalities. NikoSilver 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand how you want to close a discussion in the talk page, that makes no sense, I don't think I need to explain anything till you explain your intentions and on which policy are based on, since this is a form of censorship that I've haven't heard before... it would be interesting to detail it more... man with one red shoe 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We're witnessing once more blatant double standards. Kekrops starts a discussion about renaming the RoM article and it gets immediately closed and archived. The same discussion here is kept open. I agree with all your arguments, care to file an AN/I against ChrisO for censorship?--Avg (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Both discussions are for controversial changes, so censorship (your word) should not apply to either of them. See comment above. NikoSilver 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion aimed at making changes to the article. No admin intervention is required as there is nothing to be closed. A controversial move proposal, on the other hand, such as the other proposed for the RoM article, does require an admin to close it. No comparison whatsoever and no double standards whatsoever. And definitely no censorship, that proposal was pointy and utter nonsense, it had to be closed straightforwardly. Now Niko, I don't recall referring to WP:M, just WP:RM. Although it could've happened that I may have typed WP:M by mistake, dunno I didn't check. Húsönd 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with everything. Both discussions aimed at making changes to the respective articles. "Closing" (by an admin or not -actually) is customary in either move proposals or whatever-other-proposals. Censorship of the discussion is evident, but I can understand the cowardliness in lack of policy based argumentation. You mention that the proposal was pointy again and again but you have not explained why; a discussion is never pointy when based squarely on policy, irrespectively of what sparked it. Your "utter nonsense" characterization I will not comment. Yes, you did type M, but that's beyond any point. And yes, I understand why you are bored to locate the trash talkpage where the closed proposal has been moved: it's so well hidden. NikoSilver 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's really strange that the man with the one red shoe understood your argument and rushed to support ity even though you had linked to WP:M rather than WP:RM. Telepathy? NikoSilver 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You may disagree but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Discussions aimed at making changes to the articles require no admin intervention, there is nothing to be closed and everything is decided on consensus. Controversial move proposals are something completely different and do require admin closure. It's the second or third time I say the same thing and I shall not repeat myself (if you still believe that these are not the procedures then you should go find some more information on them instead of just nagging). There is no censorship whatsoever, and from what I can see there is just a group of disgruntled Greek editors that are simply impossible to please because they demand what cannot be agreed consensually. The only Wikipedia where the article on the RoM stays at FYROM is the Greek one, simply because that's the only Wikipedia where Greeks are the majority. Here, you seem to try to impose a majority that you do not have, either by victimization, finding loopholes in policies or lack of policies, lengthening any discussions on the matter, and complicating them to the limits of sanity and patience. Not gonna work. Furthermore, a discussion is always pointy when it's disruptive and just to try to prove a point. The move proposal at Talk:Republic of Macedonia was merely a way to counter a normal discussion occurring here, that Greek users found to be a menace. Overreacting and distracting maneuvers are also not going to work. Finally, the move proposal is not hidden, it's very well archived with easily accessible links to it. I didn't check if I had written WP:M instead of WP:RM not because the discussion was hidden, it was simply because the discussion was so long and nauseating and I would have to scavenge even to find my own comments. Húsönd 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTing by means of repetition does not make you right. What you had originally posted was WP:Mediation and not WP:RM. But even so, if you reeeeealy wanted to help, you'd obviously list it to WP:RM, now wouldn't you? If you are soooo convinced that this is just because of "a group of disgruntled Greek editors", then why didn't you let this exposed? All the other bad faith assumptions in your post I'll choose to disregard. NikoSilver 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Niko, I think that you should not bother too much with personal discussion, that's irrelevant to the article. I can agree with somebody without agreeing with everything, stop twisting words. Basically you want to push a POV, you don't like that other people point to the obvious thing that this article is an island of POV and decide to censor them by trying to stop the discussion because is... controversial? I've never heard of such reason for censorship before... people are inventive... what's next "shut up because you don't say what I say"? man with one red shoe 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood the first time, but I cannot understand why you repeat (and expand) the same thing even though it has been explained to you. I said that both discussions should not be censored. Husond said that the other discussion should be, and I disagree. I hope this is the part where you disagree with him also. NikoSilver 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care about the other discussion, nor I'm willing to discuss it in this page, it should be discussed in the page of that article, as for censorship I was not talking specifically about you I was mostly talking about the guy who posted Speedy close, I addressed you only to the length you support that request, if you don't, very well, it's not about you. man with one red shoe 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we cleared out that part. Now I am addressing the same thing to you for not opposing, and not "caring" on the speedy close in the other talk. If you do care/oppose, then very well, it's not about you either. NikoSilver 10:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was said above by those who support the change that FYROM shall by used only in articles about organizations in which the country is accepted as that. Well in the bilateral relations of this country with Greece (whose article we are arguing about) Greece recognized ROM as FYROM. That's the official position and is a position to which FYROM has agreed upon. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this article is not about the bilateral relations between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it's just about Greece. Húsönd 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSMAC used to say that fYRoM should be used in articles in which "the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization". There is no reason why the same rationale shouldn't be applied here. The country's appearance in a list of Greece's neighbours meets the criterion of being mentioned "specifically and exclusively" in relation to Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop quoting wiki pages as if they were law and you were a lawyer. That "rule" can't and won't be applied here, because it simply makes no sense and is not compatible with our actual policies. Never did. Give actual reasons, not quotes ripped out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why the convention applying to articles on international organizations cannot be used here as well. In the context of the EU, the country is fYRoM. In the context of Greece, the country is fYRoM as well. In the context of the fYRoM itself, the country is "RoM", obviously. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as fYRoM, it is fYRoM. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as "RoM", it is "RoM". Like it or not, that is the state of the real world. And we are here to write articles about the real world. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Refactored this bit here, where logically it belongs. Please let's keep the content discussion in one place and the process/meta-discussion in another.

That is simply not true. Nobody out in the real world makes such a terminological distinction by topic area. The R.o.M. certainly refers to itself as R.o.M. independent of domain, even in its dealings with the EU and UN, and third party observers also each follow their individual naming preferences, no matter if they mention the country in relation to Greece or in relation to the US. (The example Politis quoted below would have been an interesting counterexample, if it did what he claims it does. But I doubt it does; judging from the public parts on its website, it just has random unsystematic variation between the different terms, probably according to the individual whims of different authors within that material, but not systematically according to topic area.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, how do we move on?

The posititions of the pro-FYROM crowd are evidently in a hopeless state at this point. Avg acknowledged he was in favour of using "Republic of Macedonia" in all articles, but was only edit-warring against it in this article in order to press for other changes elsewhere. Kekrops' article renaming proposal predictably fell flat; since the article continues to be called Republic of Macedonia, there is one reason less for using anything else in other articles. NikoSilver has resorted to inarticulate ranting about how using "Republic of Macedonia" puts "millions of lives at risk" and how we must use "FYROM" because otherwise Greeks will punch you in the face in real life.

Against this predictable argumentative smokescreen, there is a very clear consensus of all other editors, except the Greeks.

Wikipedia can't tolerate a situation where an editorial decision is kept hostage by the ideological egotism of a single national faction. The fact that this position is upheld exclusively by editors of a single nationality proves that these people aren't here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; they are here to make it an encyclopedia more favourable to their national viewpoint. (Many people have evidently come to accept that as a normal thing to do for a wikipedia editor. It isn't, and shouldn't be.)

So, what's the way out? Discussion evidently won't lead anywhere. These people will never, ever, let go of their obsessions. We all know that. A poll won't lead anywhere, because their faction is large enough to numerically shoot down any vote, unless a closing admin has the guts to simply discount national block votes (as they should). That leaves us with continued edit-warring until one half of us is banned.

I, for one, will remove the "f.Y." again, since there have been no new arguments, the article move proposal has failed, and I consider this a decision based on solid consensus, with only the raw obstinacy of edit-warring standing against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and if the changes prompt a revert war I suggest a straw poll to legitimate those actions once and for all. Húsönd 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll only makes sense if we get prior assurance that national faction block votes get discounted; otherwise we know the result in advance. Voting makes no sense in national conflicts like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I fail to see why a very policy-abiding position with numerous arguments in support of this (such as the one that was done in WT:MOSMAC by me -see archive #2) has to be reduced down to the funny part of it in order to discredit this argumentation. I also fail to see why we can't have a centralized discussion there and then apply the changes in the respective articles. Everything else is terribly counterproductive. NikoSilver 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because your arguments simply are not serious. Sorry, that's the way it is. You won't find a sensible person seriously arguing on that basis. As for centralised discussion, that would only make sense if there were some perspective of a actually having a sensible discussion with a realistic chance of an outcome. There isn't. We know that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I always thought it was your replies to my arguments which were not serious... Your idea off a sensible discussion starts from the notion that the discussion has to end in your desired outcome. NikoSilver 10:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the link for my argumentation of that time is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)/Archive 2#Statement by NikoSilver. NikoSilver 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. That was the bit where you were arguing that mentioning "R.o.M." in a Greece-related context was a violation of WP:V because otherwise we would be "misquoting Greece". Right. – – – (long pause). – So, will you accept having a straw poll with Macedonian and Greek editors excluded? Because I honestly see no other way out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Among other five reasons yes. And for the reason you are citing, we have already chosen not to misquote the UN, EU, and NATO on the same grounds. And no, I do not agree with any straw poll, either with or without the presence of implicated parties (and when you address a Greek and you say "Macedonians" he understands this and only this, so please disambiguate when speaking to me because otherwise you don't make sense). I can only agree to sound argumentation, but you choose to always discredit and dismiss that in the most insulting and degrading way. If only I had reversed what you have told me regarding the merit of your argumentation, I'd be simply looking through arbmac bars now... Well, so be it, you say my argumentation is bullocks, I say your replies are bullocks. (I can almost hear the "rant" argument coming up again...) NikoSilver 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excluding the two national camps isn't a solution either. We have seen too many examples of anti-Greek and/or generic anti-Balkan bias from holier-than-thou outsiders to know better. I would exclude all Europeans, North Americans, Australians and the nationals of any country that has ever established diplomatic relations with Skopje under any name whatsoever. That's if you really want to eliminate inherent political bias from the process. Let's get the Uruguayans to decide, as their flag looks a lot like a compromise between the Greek and old Vergina flags. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what was the reason you caused this havoc out of the blue Fut.? Perhaps you didn't know you'd offend almost every Greek Wikipedia editor? Was it so difficult to leave this article in peace? Your obsession has started to seriously harm the project.--Avg (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should care about Greek obsession and cater to different points of view? Do Greek people own this page? Should it present their point of view? I thought Wikipedia is supposed to follow WP:NPOV policy not to cater to specific POV in each page. man with one red shoe 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not worth restarting same discussion that'll go around in circles. A straw poll would be a very straightforward way to legitimate changes to the application of FYROM to this article, as editors simply need to voice their positions cut and clear. And obviously the straw poll would have to be advertised in appropriate places, such as the talk page of WP:MOSMAC, to attract a wider scope of participants interested in providing their position, and maybe even the Village Pump. That should provide representation of the whole Wikipedia community in the poll, thus the Greek block would no longer be a problem. Húsönd 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what would the straw poll question be again? How should the country be referred in the Greece article? Why not have a straw poll about keeping consistency? That would be fun.--Avg (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that consistency would work in your favor, remember that we use "Macedonia" in all the rest of Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said that would be fun. Let's have fun then.--Avg (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll has started below. Húsönd 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

Split long thread (117kb) to Talk:Greece/Naming poll per WP:SIZE. slakr^\ talk /

The Map and The Map Only, Please

Split long (45kb) thread to Talk:Greece/The Map per WP:SIZE. --slakr^\ talk /

Mistake

I had asked a question if some sockpuppetry was going on. This was based entirely on a misleading lead. Apologies to those inconvenienced and I have deleted the passages in question, as suggested. Looking back, the mere hint at such a thing was so ludicrous that it must have made those mentioned smile with exasperation. Thanks for your patience Politis (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry does, in fact, happen in some areas of the encyclopedia; however, I've found it helps to avoid adding beliefs about suspected sockpuppetry into the discussion, itself, but rather bringing those concerns to our sockpuppet investigations team. That way, in case someone turns out to be a sockpuppet, they can be blocked if needed, while at the same time, if they aren't, discussion can still proceed as normal without a discussion being derailed due to an allegation. =) Anyway, cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink to Republic of Macedonia

Just so no one gets their panties in a wad, all I did with that minor edit was to change the name of the link (not the text on the map) so that it links directly to Republic of Macedonia (as it does in the first paragraph of text) and not to FYROM which then redirects to Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

"Motto", again

Happy 25 March everyone, but the "motto" seems still unsourced. Of the five footnotes that were readded [2], I can read only one (number 2). It describes the expression as a "slogan" and vaguely claims something in the flag "symbolises" something about the slogan. First, "symbolises", for whom? Where is that understanding documented? Did the creator of the flag describe their intentions that way? Is this commonly described and taught this way? A passing allegation of that source is not a suitable reference. And even if it was true, that still wouldn't make the expression a "state motto". A state motto is something that is officially enshrined in legislation. Can anybody please show me:

1. Does the Greek constitution define the motto as part of the country's state symbols, along with the flag, anthem and so on?
2. Do official state symbols such as emblems contain the expression?
3. Is it widely used on state-issued items such as coins or banknotes?

As for the other four "sources", they are just google book search pages with no readable full text. So, what do they say? And, none of them is of the kind that would easily qualify as a reliable source on such an issue.

If it's a state motto, it must be sourceable to official state publications. Not just as being a popular slogan connected with the Greek revolution, but as being specifically an official motto of the modern Greek Republic.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Χμμμμ...., Well, by definition, the motto Ελευθερια ή Θανατος is not an officially declared motto as you can see here [3], but it's widely used as such (even in some drachma banknotes, I suppose) from state institutions. I don't see any reason why to remove it, but if you insist, then ok, go on. Kapnisma (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the motto of the Greek revolution which led to the creation of Greek state and this is sth well sourced already. There is really no point in this discussion but i guess it's part of the vendetta that is trolling wikipedia around for quite a time. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it was a motto used during the revolution. But that's not the same thing as a state motto. A state motto is something that is used at least on an official seal of the state or something similar. And spare yourself the personal attacks please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above it is not officially declared, but rather semi-officially, for example the flag's horizontal lines are supposed to come from it and in general terms it is considered as such in Greece. Anyway, vendetta or not, if you think it's so important, it's fine by me to remove it, since I can not find any goverment source to declare it as state symbol, but only sources in history or other books.Kapnisma (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this a bloody vendetta or a genuine interest on Greek state symbols? :) Kapnisma (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Using it on the money qualifies it as a state motto? I'm thinking "In God We Trust", that's pretty similar. man with one red shoe 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, read In God We Trust as well as List of state mottos, that will give you a fairly good idea what it means for something to be a state motto. (In fact, I guess the fact that the US have these is more or less the sole reason people put that field in the infobox, as if all other countries should be expected to have one too. It seems essentially a concept quite alien to most other states.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't appear to be an issue here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are the same sources I talked about above, aren't they? What do they actually say? I don't have access to the texts in those Google search pages. Of course, an article about the expression and its historical significance may well be legitimate; it just doesn't make it a state motto. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Spain's motto, Plus ultra, figures quite the same characteristics to the one used by Greece, but I don't see any debate there. Kapnisma (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish one is contained in the official national coat of arms, and as such also contained in the official national flag. That's the crucial difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference indeed, but do you see any official declaration by the Spanish constitution or any other public law that defines exactly this motto as belonging to the state's national symbols [4], as for example in US [5]? Because I do not. Kapnisma (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia articles, it certainly has legislation defining its coat of arms. I suppose they'll have a visual representation of the CoA somewhere, which will obviously contain the motto. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to repeat my self, but I honestly find this discussion about the motto aimless... Anyway, following your argument if I provide a graphical representation of the motto being edited by a govermental institute, it will be fine by you?Kapnisma (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if it's being used as part of the official national flag, seal or coat of arms. That seems to be the operational definition of a "motto", actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this discussion about the motto started again just after I reminded in a WP:AN case a discussion about FYROM's motto I had initiated some months ago. My rationale about why the mentioning of the motto is justified here but not in the FYROM article is exposed there.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, of course it was your posting that reminded me of this issue. But I honestly can't see any serious argument in favour of having it, either in what was said then or now. Have you got better sources than the ones we were discussing right now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Greece has officially declared the motto as its official motto in the European Parliament tells anything to you or not?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's some source, at last. I'd just question your description of that page as an "official declaration" by Greece; it seems to be a rather informal popularised fact sheet compiled by somebody (not clear who) for the parliament's public relations website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And at the end of the day, the motto is a part of the Greek culture for centuries now. This is no way the case for FYROM. So, stop running to the Greece article, whenever somebody dares to say anything about the alleged FYROM's motto you do not like. Maybe read a book with all the Greek wood-engravings of the motto instead.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit had nothing whatsoever with the Macedonian case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I take your word, as I usually do.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That and the significance of the day, no doubt. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A state motto isn't just an an arbitrary set of words - it's part of a heraldric emblem such as a coat of arms, a seal, or, more rarely, a flag. If it's official it will be defined somewhere in law. Kapnisma and Fut. Perf. mention the Spanish motto "Plus Ultra". This is in fact defined in law as part of the Spanish coat of arms. Insignia such as this are defined not via a visual depiction but through a heraldric description, which is provided in the Spanish law: "Acompañado de dos columnas, de plata, con base y capitel, de oro, sobre ondas de azur o azul y plata, superada de corona imperial, la diestra y de una corona real, la siniestra, ambas de oro, rodeando las columnas, una cinta de gules rojo, cargada de letras de oro, en la diestra "Plus" y en la siniestra "Ultra"." [6] If the Greek motto has any official status it will be similarly defined in some sort of official legally-binding text, most likely a law or decree. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Europarl.europa.eu is coontrolled by the employees of the Parliament, so the Parliament itself, so it is difficult to just say "we do not know who wrote that". It's the EU.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It could just as well have been written by the parliament's public relation intern who was tasked to cobble together some interesting facts about each state, and copied it all from Wikipedia. Is there anything on that page that tells us that's not what happened? – I would still like to see that "motto" in actual use. Where does the present-day Greek state use it in any official capacity? In all these months, nobody has ever pointed to an instance. I just checked a few government websites, at random. They sure have flags, they sure have coats of arms, emblems, everything. The "motto" is nowhere to be seen. Google for the phrase on site:primeminister.gr or site:parliament.gr: not a single hit. If that's a state motto, they are doing their best at hiding it from the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, using it on money would probably qualify. I understand that you mean by saying that "In God We Trust" was not official till it was declared so, but using a saying like that on money or stamps (which are kind of official instruments), would probably qualify. man with one red shoe 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those crackpot Greek nationalist editors are know trying to establish a motto as their own without any sources!!!!!!! Thank God and what a coincidence that exactly the same anti-chauvist, good faith editors of the above discussion are involved! I am eagerly anticipating Husond's opinion on this matter...Kapnisma (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm a Greek and I've grown up with this motto. I find it really strange that what is considered here 3d grade general knowledge has to be verified. I had once found a page of the Greek Army which explains that the stripes of the Greek flag are nine because the syllables of the national motto (in Greek) are also nine. But this is the most I found. For my Greek friends here: I really don't consider the motto as so important, I mean there are numerous countries in the world with same or similar ones, it's not like we invented it or something. Furthermore it is indeed related to the 1821 revolution, as much as Ohi is related to the 1940 victory over the Italians. Should we add Ohi in its place? Finally, I consider that Greece, world's 20th-or-so wealthier nation, an EU and NATO member, and an undisputed financial leader in the Balkan peninsula, doesn't need such "bloody" (in the literal sense) mottos anymore. Maybe that's why it doesn't appear so much lately? Don't know, but I really think we shouldn't bother too much. Probably it is for good. BTW we can mention it in the history section, as a compromise, and we need not restrict its application to the war of independence exclusively! NikoSilver 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just call it an unofficial, semi-official or popular motto and be done with it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a popular national motto, nobody doubts that, but it doesn't seem to be a motto of the state in any meaningful sense, and certainly not in the sense of the state mottos listed in these infoboxes, which is basically defined by their use in heraldry. I still propose removing it from the infobox, absent even a single source where the Greek state claims this motto for itself. (I don't consider the European parliament page an adequate source in this context. A "state motto" should be sourceable to the state itself, or it isn't one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, as I already have written.Kapnisma (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Greece is a nation-state. Consequently, this article is necessarily about the nation and the state, not merely the latter. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Context. In the infobox, where it would be listed in direct neighborhood with the flag, seal, anthem, and official name of the modern republic, it would certainly imply an official status for the Greek state. That's what that field in the box is for, if it's to make any sense at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just place it within the history section's text as I proposed above? If it's so important to some, we can even include pictures of early flags depicting it, or we can put it in big quotes, or whatever to attract attention (although I'm not so eager to advertise it so much). I agree with Fut.Perf. that it should only be in the inforbox if we find some sort of official source of heraldry nature. NikoSilver 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't want to call an othercrapexists but this is a rather well-sourced motto, at least for the national part. Other mottos are either royal or personal of important people of the country etc. Best solution is name it national motto just like there is a national language in the USA article.. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita in infobox needs to be updated

The GDP per capita figure needs to be updated to reflect 2008 estimates and match this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. The figure must be $ 30,661. 77.83.166.161 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update those info? FDAU (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Regarding the anthem in the Info Box, shouldn't it read "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleftherían", as opposed to "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleutherían"? The modern Greek transliteration of the letter upsilon is an "f" sound when preceeding an epsilon (which is pronounced like an "e"). 82.34.206.224 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Done (cf. Eleftherios Venizelos not Eleuftherios Venizelos) man with one red shoe 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Background: There is a dispute as to whether the use of "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia" (or its abbreviated form "FYROM") versus "Republic of Macedonia" in the article text of Greece is or is not consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style or other guidelines. The dispute is related to the overall naming ambiguity between Greece and the aforementioned country, see also: Macedonia naming dispute.
Result: A straw poll was started to help gauge consensus on the issue.
--slakr^\ talk / 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full text (~50kb) archived early. Please see the archive page it's on for the full discussion --slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

There is too much reverting on this article. Sooner or later someone is going to protect it (not me, I hate doing that). I've just shot one of you to encourage the others; don't be the next William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also watching this article. Though I am more likely to block people for edit warring than I am to protect the page. Chillum 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And you have noted I suppose who is the user who edit wars in two fronts right now: "FYROM or RoM" and "motto".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some international norms for RoM and FYROM

It is not unusual to adapt terminology according to context. For instance: The world-wide and respected, 'Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment' has this arrangement regarding the usage of the terms, 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Fyrom', they resemble very much the guidelines agreed a while ago in Wikipedia by editors.

Its volume, "Balkans 2003, Jane’s Information Group, London" contains country analysis of all Balkan states.

In the chapter GREECE - we have a standard section called Foreign Relations, and there we find a sub-section titled, "Relations with FYROM". Because the chapter deals with Greece, RoM is always referred to as FYROM.

In the Chapter, BULGARIA... we have the "Relatioins with Macedonia" because Sofia recognised the name RoM, but the same Chapter uses FYROM when bringing Greece and ROM together.

In the Chapter ALBANIA we have, "Relation with FYROM".

In the Chapter Republic of Macedonia, of course we have RoM all they way exept when it concerns relations with Greece; there the name becomes FYROM.

I think the same applies to Economist Intelligence.

From what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here.Politis (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

“

Refusal to 'get the point'

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.

” — from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

What is the purpose of this reminder, and to whom is it directed? --Athenean (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A reply to the "reminder"

I like your idea of objectivity. First you do not object to the labeling all Greek users in the very "background" of the poll as an "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" faction! And then you slap a "reminder" for everybody to see and be guided (or, better, extorted under the threat of a ban!) into agreeing with your interpretation of policy! Where is your dignity? Where is your chivalry? Where is your sense of fair play? You wanted a poll to justify your claim? Well, what you have managed to do is to irreparably stain the one that has been initiated. I object to the fairness of how this poll was carried out, because it is evident that there are numerous attempts to manipulate the voters. Shame. NikoSilver 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this repeats what you said before, why post again? Second, what don't you like about "fiercely opposing"? I think it's a pretty honest description, if you see most of the editors who oppose the change found it useful to say "strongly oppose". As for politicizing, is always unnecessary... while it's debatable if this issue is politicized or not... I doubt it's "shameful" to portrait it this way, what's sameful is your reaction and your accusations, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand and keep an even tone you started to shriek (repetedly even) man with one red shoe 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am shrieking, I'm only shrieking to shrieks. If all these were obvious, if "strongly" was equivalent to "fiercely", if "politicizing" was evident, then it would be obvious for the ones who came here. No reason to put a billboard on top of it. But your problem is that it is not so, so you try your best to paint it this way. The #Opposition rationale is not a "shriek", it is a well documented, well sourced, and 100% WP policy based rationale. That's why you cannot refute it with dignity, but only with slur and extortion. NikoSilver 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who cried "shame". As I see you could have said "I don't like how the oposition was described, while we strongly oppose I don't think "fiercely" is an appropriate term and the accusation of politizing is not necessary" -- that's concise, to the object, and non-shrieking. Personally I don't make a big difference between "strongly opposing" and "fiercely opposing" especially that the behavior on this page is closer to the later... but if you feel offended or wrongly described you can ask in different manner than to cry "shame!" in the talk page. As for politicizing... I'll let readers decide for themselves. I personally didn't mention politics nor have I accuse people of anything related, although I fail to see any other reason for existance, use, and promotion of the FYROM term itself. man with one red shoe 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't you. You are the one who replies. The other one (who is the one who it was) didn't cry "shame". He cried "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" in the poll's background section (!!!). The other other one (who is the second one who it also was) didn't cry "shame" either. What he did was he posted a threating boilerplate that we should get the point otherwise he would use the guns we gave him against us. The other other other one (who is the third one who it also was), is the one who keeps repeating what an organized faction we are so that he makes sure it never goes unnoticed by anybody who visits the page! We notice the effect of their actions in the rationales of the last support votes (which is totally *not* based on policy, but 100% based on these ethnic attacks!)... How gallant, how fair, how brave! Keep it on! NikoSilver 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

3 of the last 4, to be precise. --Athenean (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments to opposition rationale

I've read your Opposition rationale and most of your points are not really sound. Your point about using FYROM in quotes where it is found is sound and should be maintained since we don't want to be falsifying quotes (but the reverse is also absolutely true--"Macedonia" in a quote should not be changed to FYROM). Your point about using the terms found in official lists is also sound since those are really just a different form of quote. But your argument about "ambiguity" in a statement such as "in the region of Macedonia bordering the Republic of Macedonia" is not sound. Such a phraseology is not unusual at all since we regularly distinguish between Congo, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo without resorting to such constructions as "the Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire" (or "Belgian Congo" or "Congo-Leopoldville", etc.). And Wikipedia is not, as we keep reiterating, bound by the constraints of either the UN or the European Union or NATO or anyone else. We can refer to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. even though these de facto independent states have no international status. "The region of Macedonia bordering on the Republic of Macedonia" is perfectly unambiguous since there is only one known entity called "Republic of Macedonia" and if the context of the article is Greece, then the region of Macedonia is perfectly unambiguous in context. You've constructed a paper tiger that is not destroyed at all by the reference to FYROM since there is no Greek Republic of Macedonia with which to get the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia confused with. (Taivo (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, thank you for your productive input. Thank you for acknowledging that within the rationale there are sound arguments. You may, of course, weigh the arguments you agree with vs those you disagree with, and in the end decide differently, as you already did. But this is a matter of interpretation, of taste, of personal preference for one criterion's importance over that of the other. On the other hand, you must admit, that what I'm facing here is fear to even speak my opinion and my mind! I'm treated as a "nationalist" who "shrieks" and posts "rants". I'm threatened with bans! And it's not just me, it's all Greeks! Thank you for pointing out that we do not deserve this! To the essence of your argumentation I will respond briefly in a following post. NikoSilver 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For ambiguity, I must say that I face it constantly in my everyday life (not just my wiki-life), as I travel a lot (maybe twice a week) throughout the Balkans due to my work. My reply is that we must not judge with the eyes of a person who has been educated on the subject. Hell, if all were educated on the subject, there wouldn't even be a reason for the real-life dispute! If simple people could understand that Macedonians are NOT the superset encompassing Greek Macedonians (aka "Macedonians" also, and without any qualifier) and Piriners (aka Macedonians regionally, but Bulgarians ethnically and consciously), but all of them above are Macedonian regioners then there wouldn't be any problem to begin with! If simple people could understand that a superset can have a name with qualifiers, and its subsets to be without qualifiers, then we'd all be happy! But in real life, people have been used to think the opposite. Now "republic of", is indeed a qualifier, but you must believe me, it's a qualifier that mixes up things even further. First because it goes unnoticed, as if you haven't read it. Second because even if you read it, instead of solving questions, it creates questions. Like what on earth is a region called Macedonia doing outside the republic called Macedonia? My solution adds two (black) words *outside* of the (blue) link, which could by all means exist in normal text! The country was *indeed* part of Yugoslavia, which immediately clears out that the republic and the Greek region are mutually exclusive! Would it be a problem to use the same clarification in other contexts? Like "The former Portuguese colony of Brazil has a different official language from most of its neighbors who speak Spanish." Now what's wrong with that? That it happens to hit some sensitive nationalist nerves? Hell I thought it was me accused of that! NikoSilver 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with disambiguating qualifiers is that there is no limit to them once you have opened the door. We must assume a minimum level of intellectual curiosity and intelligence for users of Wikipedia or else the whole affair topples like a house of cards. There are two Chinas, two Congos, "two" Macedonias. Your use of Brazil is not reasonable since there is only one Brazil. You should confine yourself to entities where there is a possibility of confusion. How does Wikipedia distinguish the two Chinas? One is the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the other is the Republic of China (ROC). How does Wikipedia distinguish the two Congos? One is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRCongo) and the other is the Republic of the Congo (ROCongo). We assume that our readers use the appropriate one. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to disambiguate the two Macedonias by Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece). It is perfectly parallel. We don't call DRCongo "the former Zaire" and we don't call ROC "Taiwan" and PRC "Mainland". We mention both designations within their articles, of course, and within direct quotes, but we don't use these terms on maps or in lists of neighboring countries. You are asking that we treat the Republic of Macedonia specially. The PRC is just as adamant about what ROC is called as Greece is about the Republic of Macedonia, perhaps even more so since PRC claims ROC as a province and Greece has no such territorial claims about the Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia therefore has two very strong and relevant precedents for not using FYROM and setting its policy instead on Republic of Macedonia throughout. You cannot be insisting that we treat the Republic of Macedonia differently than we treat these other four independent countries. (Taivo (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. NikoSilver 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming per country

After reading most of the comments and positions that have been presented here, I came up with a proposal. Maybe this is not the right place to be presented, but it can always be moved to the talk page of a more relevant article, this for example. It was obvious for me to notice that for some users, the position of Greece, Greeks, International Organisations and many states in the world, is considered biased and POVish... So, why not using "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" according to this map? In e.g. Greece- or Australia-related articles, "FYROM" shall be used, whereas in American- or British-related ones, "RoM" shall be. This proposal may fix things, cause it really makes me sick watching attempts to install the name "Republic of Macedonia" all over Wikipedia, only in order to serve the FYROMian POV and certain departments of foreign affairs... Do not try to force a "solution" through the window... Hectorian (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the position that already exists in Wikipedia. Compare this with the "naming controversy" concerning Province of Taiwan/People's Republic of China (Mainland view) and Republic of China under Communist control/free Republic of China (Island view). No, we give each entity its own name that it chose itself: Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Thus it is perfectly parallel to let the Republic of Macedonia have the name which its people chose for itself. Wikipedia does not rely on international authority to give entities names. Thus, the Republic of the Congo-Kinshasa became Zaire and then the Democratic Republic of the Congo because its people wanted to. The unrecognized, but de facto independent Abkhazia is recognized as such here even though none of the international organizations that are named in support of FYROM even note its existence. Most international organizations call the Republic of China "Taiwan". No. That's no compromise, Hectorian. Wikipedia already has well-established precedents for using Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. NikoSilver 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One word. Burma. Why it is not Myanmar again if "we give each entity its own name that it chose itself"? Sorry, but Wikipedia is far less straightforward as you might think.--Avg (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, the people of FYROM also agreed (though their elected government) to the usage of the term FYROM, in all international matters (and certainly they did not have Wikipedia in mind, yet Wikipedia is not a domestic matter in any case). In addition, the Greeks do not use the name "Greece" for their country, but if you know, Hellas. Furthermore, the inhabitants of the Greek Macedonia use the term Macedonians for themselves, but the respective article that was created, was deleted by the admins who voted "support" here... Thus, I doubt that Wikipedia already has well-established precedents... It seems that it has precedents when it fits the POV of certain editors and policies. Hectorian (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Re: Burma. Wikipedia does not react instantaneously. My question would be how many people who are fluent enough in English to edit Wikipedia really spend time cruising the Burmese realm? Not nearly so many as cruise the Greek and Macedonian articles. I read the chart on Taiwan/Republic of China and it is actually not far from what should be the case with the Republic of Macedonia. Notice carefully that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is an initial disambiguating reference and then the remainder of the references should be to "Republic of China" without "(Taiwan)". But I do note that that naming guideline is not "official" since consensus has not been reached, must as here. The only real question for the Greece article is the map. The first use of Republic of Macedonia in text has the disambiguating "FY", but the map should not include it. The map should be a straightforward representation of the names of the countries that surround Greece. It needs no disambiguation because it is a map and the disambiguation is in looking at the map. (Taivo (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Do you mean we should use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the beginning of the article and Republic of Macedonia thereafter (eg. in the map)? NikoSilver 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that Macedonians have used FYROM (reluctantly) is because of Greek pressure and coercion on the international bodies--it was certainly not their choice. And by using the names chosen by the people, you know that I meant the English translation of those names and not the literal transliterated words in the native language. (Taivo (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Why do you find that the Greek pressure invalidates the actual use that takes place? (and I didn't understand the transliteration bit) NikoSilver 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek pressure invalidates the use of FYROM because that means that the people cannot use the name for their country that they, themselves, prefer. They prefer Republic of Macedonia, but since Greece has threatened every international organization with withdrawal if Macedonians are allowed to use the name they prefer, then they have forced a name that the Macedonian people themselves don't want in order to participate in international organizations. Are you seriously trying to say that FYROM is the preferred name by Macedonians? Get real. It's a compromise name because the Greeks would not allow them into international organizations with Republic of Macedonia. And the transliteration bit was because another editor asked why Hellas was not the name used for Greece. We don't use a transliteration (as in Hellas), but a translation (as in Greece). (Taivo (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps, FYROM is the prefered name for the people of FYROM, not for the "Macedonians". But since you have fixed your mind in exclusively naming "Macedonians" the people of that republic in the Balkans, I personally see little room for further discussion on the matter... Get real of what you support, and don't pretent to be someone that tries to reach concensus. Let the masks aside to see the real faces! You have seen the real faces of the Greeks, that you, so much accuse of nationalism... Remove the veil from your own faces for once! Hectorian (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The people of the Republic of Macedonia self-identify primarily as Macedonians. The people of the Greek region of Macedonia self-identify primarily as Greeks, I would imagine, and Macedonian secondly. If you ask a Macedonian Greek what nationality or ethnicity he is, I don't think many would say "Macedonian". People from across the border, on the other hand, would, simply because that's their national rather than regional identity. So when (non-Greek) editors on Wikipedia speak of Macedonians, they generally mean people of the Macedonian nationality and ethnicity, not Greeks with a sub-national, non-ethnic regional identity. But I suspect you already know this... -- ChrisO (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The people of the Greek region of Macedonia self-identify simply as Macedonians. Just like the people of Crete as Cretans and those of Thessaly as Thessalians. For the Greeks, primarily every Cretan, Thessalian or Macedonian is simply a subset of the Greeks. Simple as that! When non-Greek editors on Wikipedia speak of Macedonians, I would rather believe they are talking about the ancient Greek subgroup, rather than the modern self-imposed wannabe ethnos. Perhaps, if you try harder, people around the globe will begin to associate everything Macedonian with FYROM. Keep up this unencyclopedic work, and you may succeed, unless... Hectorian (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that people already predominately associate the term "Macedonia" with the republic of that name: "Macedonia" (without any qualifiers) is overwhelmingly the predominate term in English-language news sources. Husond is almost doing you a favour by not proposing to use "Macedonia" as the term instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall I (or any other Greek) thank you or Husond for that? Keep this favour for yourselves. And if the "battle" is lost already, what can I say? Congrats! You have just put another nail on Wikipedia's coffin... You have almost succeeded in turning it into an office of the United States Department of State. Condoleezza Rice will be pleased for that... Hectorian (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hectorian, you need to stop living in the 4th century BCE. "Macedonian" in the modern, English-speaking world refers to the Slavic language of that name, not to anything at all Greek. In other words, the normal modern English meaning of "Macedonian" is a Slav living within the borders of the Republic of Macedonia. "Macedonian" in the historical sense refers to Alexander and his short-lived empire. Usage of "Macedonian" in a modern sense in English is in relation to things Slavic, not Greek. You accuse the people advocating Republic of Macedonia of bringing a bias to this discussion, yet even before the discussion began the Greeks were voting strongly oppose. "Strongly" implies a very firm, fixed position and not one subject to any compromise or reasonable discussion whatsoever. No one who "strongly" opposes a position will ever rationally come to a compromise or build a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I doubt of what you say "Macedonian" means in modern English. And be sure that I am living the 21st century in its maximum extend! Yet, try to tell the people of FYROM and their supporters in here (see the admins above) that they are simply slavic, having to do nothing with the ancient Macedonians... I challenge you! Then, come back to ask me why the Greek users voted "strongly oppose"... Hectorian (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And indeed if you look at Britannica, the premier English-language encyclopedia (sorry Jimbo!), its entry for the RoM is now simply at "Macedonia". Greek Macedonia is treated separately as "Macedonia (region, Greece)". The fact is that common usage in English has evolved to the point that "Macedonia" is the standard term for the country, without disambiguation, just as "Luxembourg" is the standard term for that country which is likewise part of a wider region of the same name. The question we need to resolve is how we recognise that evolution in common usage. I fully recognise that common usage in Greek is different, but this isn't the Greek Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the case of "Luxembourg" as an example. You are perfectly aware that the case is irrelevant. Hectorian (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why we don't call the Luxembourg article "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg", when the same name is also applied to a city and a Belgian province? If we applied the same model to Macedonia, we would have the Republic of Macedonia article at Macedonia, the Greek Macedonia article at Macedonia (Greece), and the disambiguation at Macedonia (disambiguation), parallel to Luxembourg (disambiguation). It works for Luxembourg. Could you explain why you think it won't work for Macedonia? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg's name isn't an issue in the real world, perhaps because the border with Belgium is more of an imaginary line than a cultural divide. Same with Moldova and Moldavia; they are both Roumanian, at the end of the day. In any case, I fail to see the relevance of your WP:OTHERCRAP argument. We are not discussing the renaming of the article to "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)No, there is no renaming of the article proposed. The only thing at issue here in the Greece article is to make the map accurately reflect the name of Greece's northern neighbor. The name on the map should be "ROM" rather than FYROM. The name of the country is properly addressed in the first paragraph of the text and in no other place that I can see. The map should say "ROM" since that is the name of the article where the link goes and is the normal name of that country. (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps then you should consider withdrawing your vote of support? Because the proposal pertains specifically to the removal of the words "former Yugoslav" from the lead. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there are two places where FYROM is mentioned. One is on the map and is blatant--FYROM instead of ROM. That one definitely needs to be changed. The second is not FYROM, but "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". That one is more acceptable to me since the wikilink is clearly to ROM and not to FYROM and "former" is not capitalized. I'm not opposed to an initial disambiguation in an article. I am opposed to a blanket use of FYROM throughout an article after the very first paragraph. In the acronym on the map, it is just too blatant and prejudicial to Macedonia. It is an insistence that the Republic of Macedonia doesn't deserve the same respect with regards to its name as do other countries of the world. It implies that the Republic of Macedonia is somehow a lesser entity than its neighbors. After the initial disambiguation in the lead paragraph, then the map needs to be simply ROM. My support stands. (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Suit yourself. I was merely pointing out the obvious disparity between your stated position and User:Husond's proposal, which would ban the use of "former Yugoslav" in the article altogether. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I daresay that no two Wikipedia editors will ever be in 100% agreement on any subject. I oppose "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM", not "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" once in the lead. The map has got to change. (Taivo (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Like I said above. The argument that the straw poll is "doing the Greeks a favour" by not proposing the use of the term "Macedonia", and proposing the term "RoM" instead, reveals the absurdity of the arguments in favour of the proposal. This has nothing to do with the acceptance or not of these terms by the wider public. As it pertains to the article of Greece, which includes the term "Macedonia", which from ancient times has been part of Greece, using the newly minted "Macedonia" term to refer to RoM is a sure recipe for confusion. You cannot have two "Macedonias" meaning completely different things in this specific article. Confusion may not arise in other articles but in this specific article this is unhistorical and confusing. So by not using the term "Macedonia" for FYROM noone is doing any favours to anyone. It's simply good practice. Same goes for RoM, again, as it pertains to this particular article. And that, of course, includes the map. Can you imagine Greek Macedonia bordering with the Republic of its namesake? Or in the case of simply "Macedonia", which according to ChrisO is a favour by not being proposed, bordering with itself? (the "other" Macedonia), newly minted by Encyclopedia Britannica? Thanks, but no thanks. Please, everyone, give logic a break. Dr.K. logos 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "disambiguation" spectre again. Greek editors never tire of bringing that up, as if our readers were idiots. In my experience, the confusion persists only in the imagination of Greek editors, who would wish that readers were unable to think of more than a single referent when encountering the word. I have yet to see a plausibly documented example of a reader who actually was confused by seeing "M" used in its two meanings. For real people out there, it is actually quite an easy task to process the information that "M" can refer to two different entities. It's trivial. It becomes a conundrum only the moment you load it up with the kind of ideological baggage that Greek people are unfortunately so obsessed with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike, say, the Germans? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We certainly have our own ideological obsessions elsewhere, but fortunately none that prevent us from understanding that "M." can refer to two different things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're off the hook, then. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Future, if you have to associate the term "Greek people" with the term "obsession" as part of your arguments you know these arguments have not reached any intellectual heights. Dr.K. logos 16:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there's on other way of putting it. "Obsession" is what this whole years-long story witnesses, there's no denying that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you describe your "years-long" and thoroughly devoted opposition to "it"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Future: Yes, I understand your predicament, being embroiled yourself in countless debates in the past. You must mean the regulars of the Macedonia debates, including the opposition. I sympathise to an extent, because I too hate these endless debates. But you cannot generalise to all Greek people or even to the local Greek editors because "obsession" is too subjective and anyway cuts both ways. There is always "the opposition" which is equally "obsessed". Dr.K. logos

An outside observer's view is here: [7]. But you hopefully do recognise that here in Wikipedia the situation is asymmetrical: it's not two national teams against each other, it's one national team against the rest of the world. – Anyway, you have succeeded in sidelining the debate away from the actual argument again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good link, Future Perfect. That writer is spot on. (Taivo (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Again? Sidelining the debate? These were your comments I was replying to. That was completely uncalled for. Dr.K. logos 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the worls is actually you (and that is a good indication of megalomania if anything). You have put yourself in front of everything anti-Greek in Wikipedia, perhaps having formed in your mind a kind of illusion that you're fighting a noble cause by supporting the weaker side. Now since you refer to this specific article, this is one of a series of articles that were written just before the Bucharest summit with a very clear agenda - to pressure Greece to accept Skopje in NATO with the name Macedonia. Guess what. They failed and, since they didn't serve any purpose anymore - they have since stopped.--Avg (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How could they accept a city in NATO... hilarious Greek POV on display... and the world should listen to you? man with one red shoe 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For you it may be just the name of a city. For the Greeks this is how this country is called in everyday speech. What will you attempt to do next? Force the Greeks through various ways to refear to it the way you want? Sorry, man, not possible... Hectorian (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The "world" has no choice, I'm afraid. As for Skopje, it is simply a metonym, much like Luxembourg, Mexico or Panama. Like it or not, it is also the most common term Greeks use for the country. But you already knew that, didn't you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

At least you accept you're one of "partisans from the Wikipedia talk page dealing with the name wrangle". Still, he does call us a world-class team, and we should be rather chuffed that our talents are earning the recognition they deserve. Anywho, here's another outside observer's view. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Greeks can call it however they want in Greek, however, this is English Wikipedia, we should talk in English, in English is not called Skopje so please, keep it in English. And by the way you just admitted by this type of argumentation that this is Greek POV... man with one red shoe 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It took some time but we got there. Bingo. The Greek POV is Skopje. Hope it is clear now that FYROM is not Greek POV.--Avg (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is called Skopje in English by the millions of Anglophone Greeks of the diaspora. And you can't censor talk pages. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to censor anything, I merely pointed that in English Skopje is a name of a town, I don't care what mistakes Greeks in disapora make, maybe they should learn English better. Also, this is only a fabrication, you have no proof (not that it would matter how Greeks speak English). Both Skopje and FYROM used for Macedonia are Greek POV, FYROM is only the "lesser evil" in the view of Greeks. As for that article that you linked in your support it actually uses "Macedonia" to refer to the country... so I guess a "ha Ha!" is in order. man with one red shoe 17:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And maybe you should learn history better. We don't care much for your mistakes or fabrications either, believe me. As for your churlish flourish at the end, I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why we discuss history here? We discuss about a name and name convention, history has nothing to do in this discussion. What names "should be" is not a concern for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive. man with one red shoe 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem with Greeks adopting a descriptive approach towards their own established usage, strictly on talk pages of course. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, problem, just an additional chance for me to show that's a Greek POV, continue to call the country "Skopje" and it's going to be much easier for me to make a point that's only Greek POV pushing. In English the country is called "Macedonia" if you (or other) continue to call it "Skopje" it will only make my point that you want to impose your POV. man with one red shoe 18:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course Skopje is the Greek POV. Who suggested otherwise? You yourself have reiterated your anti-Greek POV on multiple occasions on this very page. Why shouldn't Greeks express theirs? No one ever said it should be used in the article. Relax. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this "reiterated your anti-Greek POV on multiple occasions". I feel offended by this. So if I don't agree with you in the matter of name for Macedonia I am "anti-Greek"? In what other instance I've been "anti-Greek"? I suggest you keep personal attacks in check and stop labeling people. If you have any shread of proof for my "anti-Greekness" by all means bring it forth, but otherwise, appologize and shut up in regard to my anti-Greekness, OK? man with one red shoe 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you feigning such offence? Your POV is the polar antithesis of the Greek POV. Therefore, "anti-Greek POV" is rather accurate, I'd say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is Greek POV? So the UN and EU are Greek-POV-pushers? Interesting.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Who else pushed for FYROM if not Greece? The country itself took a different name. While we can discuss if this is good, bad, wise or not, it's pretty clear who pushed FYROM and why UN/EU had to accept the country with that name. Take EU for example, Greece has veto in EU, and Republic of Macedonia would not have been recognized under this name. However, repeating this for the thousand time, Wikipedia doesn't follow UN or EU policies so it's pretty irrelevant what name they use, but let's not pretend like this is a name pushed by UN/EU, it's not, it's a name that UN/EU had to use because of Greeks protests/veto. Also, in this very page, as you can see just a bit above, people who have different opinons about name usage are labeled "anti-Greeks" and agreeing that "Republic of Macedonia" would do in this page, is considered "anti-Greek POV". man with one red shoe 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're way deep in WP:OR area. Again, here we simply describe. FYROM is an official and universally accepted name. RoM might be official but it is not universally accepted, and certainly not by Greece, whose article we're now discussing. Even FYROM has agreed that Greece is a special case and its official stance is that even if it wants to maintain RoM for all uses, it will change its name in bilateral relations with Greece.--Avg (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I just responded to a question, that's not "Original Research" since is not intended to be used in the article. It's also common sense, I fail to understand how people can deny that's Greek POV and then they come around and accuse people who simply don't agree of being "Anti-Greek". As for what Macedonia calls itself, even that is irrelevant, what's relevant for Wikipedia is the normal usage in English, and that's not FYROM. man with one red shoe 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If the compromise solution between two states is labelled Greek POV than how can one seriously not think that you haven't got bias? Let me repeat for the last time, the Greek POV at the time when the appelation FYROM was agreed was a name without the word Macedonia. FYROM contains Macedonia. It is obvious that Athens was pressured to accept it. This name did not come from Greece nor Greece was ever happy about it.--Avg (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it's accepted now as the "lesser evil", right? And how is this not "Greek POV" when all (or almost all) that oppose the proposal are Greeks? (not that's anything wrong with that, it only shows who's POV is). Wikipedia is not a democracy exactly because of this, for example Chinese (if they can access Wikipedia) or Indians would have no problems to dictate content on their pages and present their nationalistic POV, here what we see is that more Greeks watch this page than non-Greeks and this specific POV seems to tryumph, that's all. It's actually a problem that I noticed in many national pages, the people who watch them are more likely to be the people of those specific countries and they try and most of the time impose their specific POV. man with one red shoe 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For what the Chinese do in their country's pages, please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof... But, indeed, you must understand that if the Greeks were trying to impose their POV, all you'd hear in this talkpage would be shrieks for "Skopje". Please read the #Opposition rationale to see that it is based on policy. We also speak about clarity and about verifiability, but you constantly choose to refer to WP:NCON (which is also addressed inside and from which you can see that the article name selection is at best a "close call"). NikoSilver 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A visual conclusion from the straw poll above

I couldn't help but notice that on the straw poll above, users from a specific ethnic group seem to be voting en masse. I think that the following record could prove in an interesting and colorful way how the outcome of a proposal on Wikipedia can be ethnic-induced, instead of community-wide, as it should always be:

removed, for the sake of peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a counterexample, let me point out that while I spell my signature in all Greek these days, I'm not Greek by ethnicity. You really shouldn't rush to judge people by the colour of their letters, or the alphabet of their signatures. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not only names and letters. By the way, you should probably spell your name like this: Ντιγουρεν to be closer phonetically... or so I think... man with one red shoe 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but an important feature of my name is that in most transliterations, it inevitably changes slightly. Russian Дигвурен is inevitably prounounced differently from Japanese ディグレン or Latvian Dīgvurens. I like it that way. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be updating this list, as conclusions can be much better drawn when the obvious is painted in just two colors. Húsönd 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Appaling WP:OUTING. You will be reported at AN/I.--Avg (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Are you still bitter over Euro 2004? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't WP:OUTING since all this information is either posted on User pages or else claimed in the postings here. "Outing" is when someone posts personal information that has been gathered outside the confines of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Using personal information as a tool to evaluate someone's edits is harassment. It is clearly unneeded and WP:OR. I thought this page was dedicated to improving the article not to dissect someone's contributions and motives based on ethnicity and thereby cast aspersions on their character. As an eponymous user I strongly object to these methods. This is useless and pretty disturbing. Dr.K. logos 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Get off it. The fact that you guys voting oppose are all Greeks is self-evident; everybody knows that this is what's going on, and yes, it is a very interesting and very pertinent fact that will be taken into account when evaluating the results. It's a single faction against the rest of the wiki community. Why close our eyes to this obvious reality? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Future you have not bothered to read my comments carefully. So I repeat: As an eponymous user I object to someone using my ethnicity to cast aspersions on my character. This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia or improving the article. This is harassment. Dr.K. logos 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you get it, Taso? You deserve it. You're an obsessed Greek. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't remind me ΚΕΚΡΩΨ. Another unfortunate moment in the annals of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Will be taken into account" by whom and on what basis? --Avg (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's as self-evident as you say, why parade it in our faces like this, flags and all? Even you must admit it's in rather poor taste. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Will be taken into account" by the arbitration case that's looking increasingly inevitable, since WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have resolved all the POV-pushing that's openly going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This has now been referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OUTING_by_User:Husond_at_Talk:Greece--Avg (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of peace, like Future Perfect says, the list has been removed and that's okay with me. But I'm keeping a record of it here, might prove useful. Húsönd 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most effective way of dealing with this would be to ban all Greek editors from editing Greece, but I suspect that might not be a popular option. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bring it on. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. As long as we ban all English people from editing English related articles, ditto the French, Italians, Portuguese etc. Dr.K. logos 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's just ban everyone from everything, then we can put an end to all the edit wars. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew you were a person of reason ;) Dr.K. logos 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do some people pretend that's not a push for a specific national POV? Can anybody find a significant number of Greeks on Wikipedia who do support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia". Simple question... man with one red shoe 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are the specific national POV of the other side. And all those voting in favour have effectively sided with one national POV over another. In your rush to oppose the "Greek POV" at all costs, you seem to have forgotten that basic fact. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since most of the countries of the world recognize "Republic of Macedonia" and since it was the Greeks who forced "FYROM" on the international organizations that use it, the "other side" is the rest of the world besides Greece. FYROM would not exist without Greece pressure. (Taivo (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Not quite. Dozens of countries and international organizations have maintained their neutrality and stuck to the FYROM reference. Those that haven't have simply sided with Skopje against Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Other side"? You have to notice that there are people of different nationalities supporting this, I think there's only one from Macedonia that signed for support, while you'd probably have problems to show us a non-Greek supporting your cause. I will repeat the question can you find a significant number of Greek editors that support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" names? No? Then don't claim this is not a Greek POV. So, let's start by admiting a truth and continue from there... man with one red shoe 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the other side on Wikipedia is that which supports the POV of Skopje over that of Greece, regardless of the nationality of individual editors. Why are you so quick to condemn those countries and international bodies that use FYROM as being guilty of "caving in" to Greek pressure, but so reluctant to accept the fact that your POV is in perfect alignment with that of Skopje? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To make this clear I didn't say that countries and international organization are "guilty" of caving in to Greek pressure, it's just a fact that this was done at Greece's request, but they are not "guilty" of anything, it's just the normal political process and probably a correct decision, however as we discussed before Wikipedia is not prescriptive and doesn't care about the "correct" or "official" names. As for being in alignment with Skopje, I don't see how is that relevant, if people would call in English R. of Macedonia "Skopje" or "FYROM" then I would millitate for that term in this page and others, but that's not the case. man with one red shoe 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that something may "align" with a particular party's POV isn't indicative of that POV being supported. To take some examples from other naming disputes - we use Sea of Japan, Persian Gulf and Shatt al-Arab for three disputed places. Does that mean that we are pro-Japanese, pro-Iranian or pro-Arab? No; it's simply that the terms in question are the most commonly used in English. Thus with "Macedonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor detail being that there is no other Sea of Japan, no other Persian Gulf and no other Shatt al-Arab.--Avg (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But there are two names for these things--one promoted by one party and another promoted by a second party. Wikipedia uses common English usage as a guide and not "taking one side or the other". The Republic of Macedonia has two possible names--the Greek one and the Macedonian one. Common English usage uses the Macedonian one. This is not uncommon around the world. We call the Republic of Ireland "Ireland" even though there is another "Ireland" just to its north. Indeed, there are political parties in Northern Ireland that advocate the reunification of the island. This is not too disimilar from the Macedonian position, where Greeks are afraid of parties in the provinces of Macedonia wanting to rebel and unite with the Republic of Macedonia. Unlike the Greeks, the British did not insist that the Republic of Ireland adopt a different name and Wikipedia is not accused of an "Irish POV" when it calls the Republic simply "Ireland" and not "the former British dominion of Ireland". (Taivo (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I suppose Britain would be in no position to ask for such a thing after bringing the island's population to the brink of extinction from starvation. Britain was a colonial power that imposed itself on the natives, while Greeks have inhabited Macedonia since antiquity. There is really no meaningful comparison that can be drawn between the two. Furthermore, Ireland has been a clearly defined geographic entity since the island's formation, unlike Macedonia, the boundaries of which have shifted countless times over the centuries. You may not know for example that the original Macedonia lay entirely within the modern borders of Greece. À propos, Greece is not "afraid" of any secessionist movement in Macedonia; there is none. It is purely an international dispute concerning Skopje's use of the name to promote itself as the "rightful" owner of Macedonia and heir to its heritage. As for "the former British dominion of Ireland", I am unaware of its use by any country or international organization. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that FYROM is not the Greek name, but the UN name. The Greek name is not and has never been FYROM, but Skopje. UN's role is precisely to be NPOV and impose NPOV, so the name was chosen by the UN and imposed to both parties as the least controversial choice. And they both accepted.--Avg (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And "I don't know how many times I have to repeat" that the UN doesn't matter in Wikipedia--only Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to use common English names and, in cases of ambiguity, constitutional names. Wikipedia does not use "Kinshasa" and "Brazzaville" to distinguish the two Congos (even though that usage has occurred in various sources in the past), nor does it label the Democratic Republic of Congo as "formerly Zaire" or "former Belgian Congo" (even though both of those usages have occurred in various sources in the past). "FY" is not common English usage and it is not Macedonian constitutional usage. Therefore, "Republic of Macedonia" is the Wikipedia-preferred disambiguation option. (And if Greece objected to "Macedonia" so strongly, why didn't they object when it was originally called that in 1944 and prevent Yugoslavia's entry into the U.N. on the basis of that?) (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

This has also been addressed countless times. Greece did not and does not object to Macedonia being a geographical qualifier. At that time, Macedonia was a province of Yugoslavia, as much as Macedonia is a province of Greece. Its inhabitants were Yugoslav Macedonians living in the province of Macedonia, as Greek Macedonians now live in the province of Macedonia, so why object? The issue arises when a state emerged which appropriated for itself the name Macedonia without a qualifier and the previously nonexistent ethnicity "Macedonians". As an aside, nowhere in WP:NCON is mentioned that the constitutional name takes precedence over the UN name.--Avg (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have used "constitutional name" rather than "self-identifier" since the two are generally synonymous. Here is the relevant Wikipedia policy: [8]. Notice that it specifically excludes political reasons for choosing a name. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

There is no "UN name". The UN itself was very careful to stress that "FYROM" is not a name (see the second bullet point in Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions). "FYROM" is a description, not a name. WP:NCON does address the point that you raise; it mandates: "use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself." The Republic of Macedonia has only one self-identifying name. FYROM, remember, is not a name. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds too much like OR. I can do OR too, technically FYROM doesn't have a name at all, it only refers to itself as RoM and international organizations refer to it as fYRoM.--Avg (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that is OR, Avg, then you don't have a good grasp of what OR really is. We're trying to reach an acceptable Wikipedia accomodation, here, but if you want to call our discussion of accomodation and compromise OR, then we'll just use the most common English name--"Macedonia" without qualifiers--and be done with it. (Taivo (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

If I may say, both RoM and fYRoM are acceptable Wikipedia accomodation (common, official, etc), and in NCON spirit, they can be used interchangeably as synonyms. However, it is pretty clear that in the last days a certain group of editors has declared war against fYRoM.--Avg (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is not a synonym of Republic of Macedonia (ROM) since it is not a self-identifier, which is the second criteria for naming after common English usage. It is not even a "name" in the proper sense, but is only a descriptive phrase. If you find RoM acceptable, then we are in agreement on "Republic of Macedonia" or, as it is now abbreviated on the map, "Rep. Maced." (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I may have to refer you to the definition of the word synonym then: "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses" M-W. That's what RoM and fYRoM are. They are both "acceptable", however I consider fYRoM "preferable" for many reasons including Wikipedia policy rearding the most common name, but not least because it is less controversial and has been the status quo for ages in this article. And remember, this is not the place to discuss the country article title. but simply a reference within the Greece article, so the synonyms can be used freely per NCON. --Avg (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it started out as a "provisional reference", fYRoM has been used systematically enough over the course of more than 15 years to qualify as a proper name in practice. In any case, Wikipedia does not proscribe descriptive titles, as far as I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not proscribe descriptive terms, but only when a common English name is lacking (which it isn't in this case) and a self-identifier is lacking (which it isn't in this case). (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Merely noting that the list is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could reply that you are using wiki-lawyering and WP:BAIT and you don't WP:AGF but I won't bite. I will repeat one more time: Parading names of editors with flags attached is similar to attaching marks of ethnicity on peoples' clothes. And you should know about this piece of history. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Godwin in 1, congratulations ! - Ev (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was not in one. This discussion has been going on for a long time. Branding of peoples' identities should be avoided Godwin or no Godwin. Dr.K. logos 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you people gave two options in the poll and most of us chose the one of them , it does not mean that that one is Greek POV. Make the poll again with "Skopje" as an option and you'll see.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have no doubt that Greeks will want to call it Skopje, but that doesn't mean that if they have to choose between "R. of Macedonia" and "FYROM" (or derived) they won't choose the later, right? Or it's only by chance that most of the Greeks prefer that option and the rest of international editors prefer the other? man with one red shoe 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael was trying to point out that there are extreme ("Skopje") and moderate ("fYRoM") positions among the Greeks, while it is erroneously prescribed here that the "fYRoM" position is also extreme. NikoSilver 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What about having to choose between "Skopje" and "FYROM"?? Would "FYROM" be extreme POV of those choosing it in that case?--Michael X the White (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't matter one whit what the Greeks think about the name of their northern neighbor--it is what English speakers think (common English usage) and what Macedonians think (self-identification). Those are the only two criteria that are important in determining the name of a place in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should start calling Greece "the former Turkish province of Greece" or "Athens". No. That would be just as much a violation of Wikipedia policy as the Greeks trying to insist on "FYROM" or "Skopje" for Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Even if the "moderate" Greeks support "FYROM" on this page that doesn't make it any less POVish. POV means "point of view" not "extreme point of view", being in denial that "FYROM" is pushed here because of Greek POV is insulting the intelligence of the rest of the people. man with one red shoe 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Former Yug.Rep.of M..." works fine, Quote from Slav/ethnic Macedonian leader in Greece

This is what what Pavlos/Pavle Voskopoulos wrote in an article on his party's website:

"Είναι γνωστό ότι εδώ και χρόνια λειτουργεί σχετικά «ομαλά» η συνεργασία των δύο χωρών τόσο σε διμερές όσο και στο διεθνές περιβάλλον με το «περιγραφικό» όνομα «πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας» σύμφωνα με τις αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ αρχές του 1991 όταν έθεσε ζήτημα η Ελλάδα μετά την ανεξαρτητοποίηση της γειτονικής χώρας." [9]

[Translation by Politis] "It is well known that for many years relations between the two countries [Greece and fY/ROM] is quite “smooth” both in their bilateral and international environment under the ‘descriptive’ name ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, as agreed by the UN when Greece forwarded the issue in 1991 after the independence of the neighbouring country." [END of QUOTE]

We have a internationally recognised modus vivendi that respects all sides. I fear those against it are antagonising by dismissing precedents and principles of good (editorial) neighbourliness. Politis (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You misconstrue the issue. This is not about neighborly relations. This article isn't Greek territory, and our editorial decisions aren't about regulating the neighborly relations between Greek and Macedonian readers or editors. This is an international English-speaking website, and the only "sides" we have to find a balance between are (1) the habits of the English speech community and (2) the preferences of the named entity itself. Opinions from its neighbouring country, be it from the Greek government or from Greek minority organisations, play no role in it whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This Article is about Greece the only recognised name of the neibhouring country is FYROM. Trying to enforce a different name is a violation of WP:NPOV. Since there is an international dispute of this country's name it is irrational to be asked by Wikipedia editors to take one position or another on this matter.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

'Misconstrue' is a hasty judgement. This article is wikipedia and there have been many interpretations in this page - including by FPS - regarding appelation, including unfounded suggestions of 'frequency of usage in the English language'. The above quote was make in that spirit. But my Jane's Information example further up, stands because this publication, like other professional publications, offers a carefully thought out matrix and is a respected refelction of the situation. Beyond that, in the wider media, we have usages of both FYROM and ROM. I think we all agree that wikipedia is not (should not be) a policy making body for editors. (by the way, lookiing at other wikipedia examples, those who support using 'fyrom' in specific situations seem to have a mostly clear record regarding 'ethnic' editing. Politis (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Highly irrelevant -- even if Rep. of Macedonia itself would beg to be called "FYROM" we'd still have to use the term that's more common in English. man with one red shoe 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained above somewhere, unless you and I are looking at different publications from that Jane's Sentinel, it doesn't do what you say it's doing. It seems to be a lot more random variation rather than systematic domain-specific usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A second reading will show that the Jane's examples are quite consistent. For some reason, examples from the professional world in the English language do not count with some... There is no study on the 'more common' terms in English. We stick to the professional criteria, that is all. No one can be offended or accused of POVing or researching. Politis (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different publication then. I'm looking at the publicly available parts of http:www2.janes.com. Representative examples of what I find there are:

• [10]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2001

  first mention: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

  later: random mix of "Macedonia" simple, and "FYROM" abbr.

• [11]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2001

  first mention (in heading): "Macedonia" simple

  first mention in text: "Republic of Macedonia"

  further down: random mix of "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia" and a few "FYROM"s

• [12]

  deals with NATO topic, 2008

  first mention in text: "Macedonia" simple

  mentions "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and "Republic of Macedonia" as well as "the Greek province of Macedonia" as part of the description of the naming dispute

• [13]

  deals with NATO topic, 2008

  first and only mention in text (within the scope of "NATO said..."): "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

• [14]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2005

  first and only mention in text: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

• [15]

  R.o.M.-internal topic, 2002

  uses "Macedonia" throughout

• [16]

  Greece-internal topic, no date (pre-2002)

  first and only mention in text: "Macedonia" simple (referring unambiguously to R.o.M.)

• [17]

  NATO topic, 1999

  first and only mention, in list: "Macedonia" simple

I don't see any systematicity here. There's an overall preponderance of simple "Macedonia", and the exceptions to that are random, and not specific to topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When talking about placenames, Janes is not the authoritative source. Atlases and maps are the authoritative sources for placename usage, not a weapons publication that is trying to sell tanks and AK-47s. Up in the map discussion section, I showed that the vast majority of atlases and maps in English use simply "Macedonia" without any note of FYROM whatsoever. If I want to know the bore size of the main armament on a Vijayanta, I'll look in Janes. If I want to know the common English placename of a region I'll look in an atlas. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Compromise?

Maybe we could make up a couple of names that won't get confused by the ones battled over in the real world. For first iteration, how about

• Greek Macedonia
• Greater Macedonia area
• Skopje-governed Republic of Macedonia

I'm sure the last one can also be expressed in other ways that are neutral, descriptive, and don't mention the contentious aspect about history in Yugoslavia.

This proposed solution is similar to the Debian policy mandating that when a naming conflict can not be resolved, both packages must be renamed for inclusion in Debian. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the UN, my friend, to try to invent names! It is either "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the lead. I see no middle way.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia is perfectly fine by me, the rest is too much OR, and Skopje-governed Republic of Macedonia is yucky, can't even qualify it how bad inspired this proposal is. man with one red shoe 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my poor wording. We would not be inventing names as such. We would be inventing ways to refer to these regions in such a way as to avoid both confusion and the appearance of bias.

The third one, with a reference to Skopje, is certainly not suggested as a description we would have to use -- merely as a starting point. I picked it because Skopje, the name of the Republic's capital, is reasonably unique -- and mentioning it will avoid the confusion easily. We could agree on another description, perhaps Balkan Republic of Macedonia (it may be seem like a bit of cheating, but it's based on the fact that the Republic of Macedonia is "inside Balkan" while the Greek Macedonia is "inside Greece"), perhaps Republic of Macedonia (North of Lake Prespa), perhaps Republic of Macedonia (declared 1991). I'm not pretending to know the solution, I'm merely trying to suggest where it might be found. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Our current naming conventions policy ask us to restrict ourselves to reflect common English usage, not to create new names & modify English language itself.

For the specific purposes of naming countries in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia, "Republic of Macedonia" is a neutral & unambiguous name that English speakers would easily recognize, and that makes linking to it easy and second nature. In any case, no compromise with a biased group of editors is necessary (or desirable). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While your heart is in the right place, Digwuren, Wikipedia already distinguishes between Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (region) quite adequately. And there is only one Republic of Macedonia, so the "Skopje-governed" part is just not appropriate. It is no compromise since it is just a repackaging of the "extreme" Athenian (Greek) POV (expressed in those terms by several others)--that Macedonia should be called Skopje. Once again, Wikipedia policy is very clear on this matter--first priority of name is common English usage ("Macedonia" on nearly all English maps and atlases), second priority is self-identification ("Republic of Macedonia"). (Taivo (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, "Republic of Macedonia - Skopje" was a name proposed by Matthew Nimetz, the UN mediator himself, and deemed "worthy of consideration" by all the political spectrum of fYRoM [18]. So I wouldn't rush into conclusions.--Avg (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be "worthy of consideraion", but it is neither common English usage nor the self-identification and that is all that Wikipedia is bound by. Wikipedia naming conventions specifically prohibit the use of political or emotional arguments. If Macedonia accepts the compromise and incorporates it into their constitution as their self-identification, then Wikipedia can use it as a proper name. But until Macedonia accepts it as a self-identification it is just a curiosity and not usable here. There are only two names usable in Wikipedia for Macedonia--"Macedonia" as the common English usage, and "Republic of Macedonia" as the self-identification when necessary for disambiguation. (Taivo (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

This was not a proposal to change the title, simply a comment to illustrate that people shouldn't rush into conclusions on what is and isn't "extreme" POV. I stand by my position which is that the most common official name is and has ever been "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".--Avg (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was having a look at the World Cup qualifying group 9 table after Scotlands win over Iceland. As you can see here the BBC use the term FYR Macedonia. Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The most common "official" name is not an official name at all since the only "official" name that counts is the country's own self-identification, the country's own official name. That is "Republic of Macedonia". But "international" official name isn't relevant to Wikipedia anyway since Wikipedia's second criteria for naming is not "official international name", but self-identification. "International name" is specifically irrelevant to Wikipedia usage since naming policy prohibits the use of "political criteria" in assigning names to places. The only time that "most common official name" intersects with Wikipedia usage is when that is also the "most common English name" or the country's own "self-identification". And sports announcers are not the authorities on most common English names for places--atlases and maps are. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

here is the first page of the result of a very quick google search on maps of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You can't say the name is not used on maps. Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to repeat yet again, there is no "international name". There is a constitutional name, "Republic of Macedonia", and a provisional reference, not a name! - "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Describing "FYROM" as a name is simply wrong. The "FYROM" reference was only agreed to by Greece on the basis that it wasn't to be used as a name, which is why, when the RoM was seated at the UN, it was seated under "T" - for "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not "M" for "Macedonia" or "F" for "FYROM". When Greece and the RoM have had direct dealings with each other (as in the 1994 interim accord), Greece has not even used the FYROM name; it has referred to the RoM as "the Party of the Second Part", defined as being the state with its capital in Skopje. So when you speak of an "official name", there is in fact only one official name - "Republic of Macedonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raw Google searches are not reliable references for a variety of reasons. You actually have to look at each and every map to see exactly what the label on the map is. A map could be labelled "Macedonia" without any reference to FYROM and yet have "FYROM" as a keyword. Thus, while the map clearly illustrates the most common English name--"Macedonia"--it falsely shows up on a Google search under "FYROM" because the author of the web page put it in the keywords. You cannot just use a Google search as a criterion. Above you will see the result of my own Google search where I actually clicked on the first ten maps and examined the map itself. Only one of the maps had FYROM. The other nine had simply "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

For example, Jack, the second map in your Google search is Wikipedia's Republic of Macedonia article. The third link on your Google search links to a dozen maps, only two of which are actually labelled "Former Republic of Macedonia" on the map itself. The rest of the maps are labelled "Macedonia" or are unlabelled. You actually have to look at your sources and not just call a Google search "definitive". (Taivo (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Indeed, you would get a nearly identical Google result, I'm sure, if you also searched for "maps-Macedonia". My own Google search was for "on-line atlas" (or something very similar like "atlas"), thus I didn't prejudice the search either way. I simply got to the atlas and navigated to the map of the southern Balkans or Macedonia. Thus my own search was not biased in any way either pro-FYROM or anti-FYROM. It was a neutral search and the first ten atlases I found were 90% "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

No one's claiming that "Macedonia" isn't the most common name in English. But its ambiguity makes its use inappropriate, which is why the dilemma can only be between the two long forms. As Jack correctly points out, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (in all its variations) is far more common than "Republic of Macedonia". That it may be the product of "Greek blackmail" is irrelevant to the debate; we describe, we do not prescribe. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that "Republic of Macedonia" is interchangeable with "Macedonia", rather than a distinct term in its own right. A cursory glance at the relevant disambiguation page amply demonstrates that the opposite is in fact the case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"is far more common than" -- on what you base your assessment? To me that's not clear at all, if it's not clear than the normal action would be to use the title of the article which is not POV (hey, it's the title of the article) and it cannot be confused with anything else. So, why not? man with one red shoe 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the answer obvious? Those like you who are brave enough to stand up to "Greek nationalist blackmail" use "Macedonia", plain and simple. Not "Republic of Macedonia", an awkward cop-out which in the English-language media is effectively confined to Wikipedia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two distinct things that you are confusing, Kekrops. You are confusing "common English term" (which we agree is "Macedonia") with the preferred alternate name if the common name is ambiguous. You think that "FYROM" is a "common name", but it isn't. FYROM is, as you say a "long form". But there are two long forms for Macedonia--one is the self-identifier "Republic of Macedonia" and the other is the Greek-identifier "FYROM". Wikipedia policy is crystal clear--when the common form ("Macedonia") is ambiguous or otherwise unavailable for whatever reason, then the next form to be used is the self-identifier. That self-identifier is not "FYROM", but "Republic of Macedonia". The policy is absolutely clear--first use the common name ("Macedonia"), then use the self-identifier ("Republic of Macedonia"). Political concerns are irrelevant and are not to be used as a means of determining an alternate form if the common name is unavailable or ambiguous. "FYROM" is not the self-identifier and is entirely based on political and emotional considerations, so it is not available as an alternate for "Macedonia". Only "Republic of Macedonia" meets the Wikipedia criterion for alternate name--it is the self-identifier. And Jack is absolutely wrong in his assessment of the occurrence of "FYROM" on maps because he did absolutely no research on the maps. He did a simple Google search, which, as I clearly spelled out, is not an adequate means of conducting a survey or research. Until he actually looks at the maps and actually does a count based on physical observation of the maps he Googles, his "research" is non-existent and irrelevant. I actually looked at the maps on my unbiased Google search and found that only 10% of the maps had "FYROM" (1 out of 10). I also conducted a very simple poll on Yahoo! Answers just to see what turned up. I asked the question "What countries border Bulgaria?" Five people responded--one said "Republic of Macedonia" (in addition to Serbia, Greece, Turkey, and Romania, of course), three said "Macedonia", and one (a person with the username Hephaestus) said "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (literally). So in this admittedly very simple survey, "Republic of Macedonia" was just as common as "FYROM". (Taivo (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

So why does the relevant Wikipedia policy prescribe the use of the "most common name of a person or thing that does not cause ambiguity with other people or things"? In other words, the most common unambiguous term. It does not say "use the self-identifying term if the most common English name is ambiguous". By the way, if "FYROM" is "entirely based on political and emotional considerations", what is "Republic of Macedonia" based on? More importantly, who cares? We're not here to pass value judgments. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong policy, Kekrops. You're looking at the general policy for naming persons and things, not places and proper nouns. If you do a bit more careful research you will find the relevant policy for placenames, especially when dealing with ambiguities and conflicts. (Taivo (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Even that doesn't give precedence to self-identification over common English usage: "If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself." That clearly does not apply here. We have a number of established English terms, the most common of which happens to be ambiguous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, somehow you missed these objective criteria that are recommended to be used: "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)" Yep, it's in the constitution. "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)", Yep, it's self-identifying term. And let me quote something else from that policy:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

This pretty much invalidates most of arguments used by the Greek side. What remains that FYROM is more popular than Republic of Macedonia? That has not been concludently proved and might not be even important since. 1. it's not established that FYROM is used widely in English, 2. we have a self-identifying term that doesn't need disambiguation, so where is the problem to use "Republic of Macedonia"? man with one red shoe 06:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another gem from the policy page man with one red shoe 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely 
notes the fact that they do use that name.

None of that invalidates my argument above. We only use self-identifying terms if there is no English equivalent. I find it rather interesting that you have deliberately omitted the primary objective criterion: "Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)"... In fact, it is your side that needs to understand that your "moral" reservations against "FYROM" are irrelevant. "FYROM" is used internationally, not as widely as "Macedonia" perhaps, but certainly not only by the Greeks either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You grasp on the last straws "Republic of Macedonia" is used in English too. And no, I don't have any moral reservation against "FYROM" only that's not widely used in English and it's not the self-identifying term. I'm sorry but the policy is pretty clear. The quotes that I provide match perfectly the Greek POV for not using the term here. They are not valid arguments, and since I've been accused by you that I promote the "opposite POV" let me paste the clear example from the policy what is POV and what is not:

"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.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."

That's exactly what I support, "Republic of Macedonia" is self-indentifying name, it's not POV, POV is to say that they don't have the right to use this name and to censure it on this page or any other page which you and your side desperately try to do. man with one red shoe 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Kekrops, "Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifier, which, according to policy, takes precedence over moral, legal, and political considerations. "FYROM" has no such pedigree, so it is absolutely irrelevant what anyone's feelings about it are. It is an irrelevant term since it is neither the most common English term ("Macedonia") nor the self-identifier ("Republic of Macedonia"). It is one of Greece's names for the place, which is completely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. It doesn't even matter that a minority of countries and a few international organizations use "FYROM" because of Greek pressure--since it is not a self-identifier and is totally based on political considerations, it is invalid as a name according to Wikipedia policy. It's just as simple as that. I don't like the name Kekrops. I think I'll start calling you "George" and force everyone else to call you "George". Does that make your name "George" just because everyone else is using it? No, of course not. You're Kekrops because that is your self-identifier and therefore that is what we call you here. (Taivo (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

"RoM" is used too, but nowhere near as widely as "FYROM". And yes, self-identifiers certainly take precedence over moral, legal and political considerations, but not over common English usage. The fact that "FYROM" is "not a self-identifier and is totally based on political considerations" does not invalidate it as a name according to Wikipedia policy. That would only be the case if it were not an established English term. Your opposition to "FYROM" is based solely on the subjective criterion that it is "politically unacceptable", as your condemnation of it as a product of "Greek pressure" reveals. And that is unacceptable. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions – MOSMAC

After all this long and tiring debate, I draw two mail conclusions, which explain why the "supporters'" argumentation (and I mean, particularly, the ones who initiated the straw poll) has been clearly weakened:

1. The supporters did not manage to prove why the use of an internationally recognized name is POV.
2. The supporters did not manage to prove why an editor who supports the use of an internationally recognized name is a nationalist.

Here, we face a real problem, where general rules cannot apply: a state whose constitutional and internationally recognized names are not the same. Therefore, I think we should do what Nikos had proposed: Go to MOSMAC and have a centralized discussion. I think it is better than having edit-wars here and there. After all, not even ARBMAC can offer us any viable solutions (something I believed from the first moment).

MOSMAC is the only field where a viable solution can be found. It is a valuable and important almost-policy essaye, which, unfortunately, lost its orientation. Let's go there, and revive it. After all, it is Fut, one of the main "supporters", who had argued that MOSMAC sets "a fragile consensus respected by most of the long-standing contributors".--Yannismarou (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean, having discussed it ad nauseam here, we should go to MOSMAC, where we all already discussed it ad nauseam two years ago, and discuss it ad nauseam a third time? What good would that do? Well, it would probably have one advantage for you, that of filibustering: since normal editors will eventually stay away bored and disgusted, the decision will ultimately be left to those people who have the strongest motivation to persevere: i.e. those who have the biggest POV stake in it. And that is those who in an ideal wiki world should have the least say in the whole process.

The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"... fight it out ... until one side is banned" — you surely didn't mean it Fut., I hope not. Apcbg (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy Fut that you finally reveal to which side you belong. Finally, masks have fallen. Good!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever any doubt? He's gone back to edit-warring again despite a complete lack of consensus for such a departure from the version which had stood for years. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there anybody to apply ARBMAC on hime?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the admin, you tell us. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I abide to the rules Kekrops, and I do not apply adm powers, in a case I am personally involved, but I am really thinking my options now. Believe me.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Try it. I'm perfectly willing to make this a test case. Either the Wikipedia community surrenders to the power of local national factions, or it fights them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what if you lose? Is defeating the Greeks really that important to you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Defending a principle is important I doubt Fut.Perf. has anything against Greeks, but continue the veiled personal attacks if you like... man with one red shoe 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal posts have been repeatedly moved by users like FPS that have drowned their sound argument and better judgement. Every sourced proof has been dismissed!!!! There has been racists abuse against the presumed ethnicity of some user: "a determined small national faction of POV-pushers". How do we know that FPS is not a Greek anti-Greek user? Or, je vous le demande, that Politis is not a French Communist (Politis is the journal of the FCP)? There have been accusations that those who disagree with his tactics are invovlved in "edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside". Shall I continue? FPS has the credentials for being constructive, hope he finds them again.

The only thing some users are saying is that the context is everything. They have not abused anyone or anything. Their correct attitude is a credit to wikipedia. Context and current usage indicated a respectfull usage of Fyrom and Rom. Politis (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• "... fight it out ... until one side is banned", answering to Kekrops as well. I have repeatedly said that Fut is man of his word (no irony), and I mean it (this is indeed one of his credentials, Politis). Therefore, this is indeed his real intention: firstly, ban all the Greek users. Then, what?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• He now reverted for the third time! On the verge of violating WP:3R, and already violating the most vague interpretation of edit-warring he had recently supported (meaning, he should be already blocked). And he is an administrator! Έλεος! Since, they love lists so much, let's prepare one with User: Future Perfect at Sunrise recent edit-warring. The latter will be posted where appropriate.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If this becomes a test case, then it moves into the real world? I doubt FPS wants to ban Greek users, as I said, FPS could be Greek or half Greek or have pretented to be Greek or half Greek (and I French...). So the ethnic tag can see wikipedia move into the real world. What fun this could be... Politis (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the light of his recent tendentious edit warring, personal attacks and outright threats, it would probably be a good idea for Fut.Perf. to distance himself from Macedonia related articles for a certain period. He certainly has a lot to offer to Wikipedia in other areas. Otherwise he seems to be forcing the community to make the decision for him. --Avg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to have a broader discussion on the issue, with a more clear mind, I opened a thread here.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, the article as it now stands I think is an acceptable version. There are two locations in the article where the name "Macedonia" is relevant (other than the references to the Greek provinces).

• The lead paragraph. I have never objected to the wording "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in this case. I have added a footnote (that should remain) that references Macedonian naming dispute. The wikilink should not be to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because that is a non-existent article. The blue of the wikilink emphasizes the constitutional self-identifier of Macedonia while the black of "former Yugoslav" satisfies the needs of the Greek POV. I stated this point several days ago (it seems that long ago although it might have been yesterday morning).
• The map. The map should stay as it currently is: "Rep. Mace." as that is the self-identifier. "Macedonia" would be ambiguous on the map, so the self-identifier is appropriate. As "FYROM" has not been identified as an acronym elsewhere in the article (and should not be), its use on the map would be doubly inappropriate--a) as an unknown acronym, and b) as an externally-imposed non-self-identification.

The article stayed stable with that configuration for several days through the hottest portion of this discussion. We will argue ad nauseum over this issue with neither the FYROM POV nor the non-FYROM POV ever budging. In the end, the situation will be resolved in Athens (so don't try to insult our intelligence by claiming that this is not a Greek POV) when the international community finally tires of Greek stubbornness and accepts the Republic of Macedonia as it is or when some superpower gives Greece enough money to shut it up. In the end it's not about a name, but about power over its neighbor. As long as Athens holds Macedonia hostage in the international community, Greece has power in negotiations. When Athens gives up that power, it will once again becomes another poor Eastern European country at the doorstep of its richer northern European neighbors and can wring no more concessions from Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Poor? Eastern European? Last I heard, Obamanation wasn't doing that great itself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, compared to Nepal or Malawi, "poor" would not describe Greece, but would Greece exchange its GDP with Germany, France, or the UK? In a heartbeat. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Living in Belgium for more than a month, dude, I am not jealous of their GDP. I prefer the Greek one! See a CIA Factbook or something else to realize how close the Greek GDP is to the ones you mention, and then provide us with a better financial analysis.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:)What a pitty that UN hasn't appointed a genius like you, Taivo, to solve the problem in no time! With your clownish remarks you managed at last to express your frustration and personal bias and to drive away this conversation again in uncivil, childish and aimless exchange of personal attacks... pathetic attitude for sure... PS By the way, could you, as a richer northern European give me some money in order to start supporting you? Me, as a poor Eastern European nationalist can easy be manipulated with money... Kapnisma (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the point of my comments about the ultimate resolution of this naming issue was lost in the noise and defensiveness. Do either of you actually think that anything in the real world will change concerning the acceptance of Macedonia's name until Athens decides it will? And that the ultimate resolution will involve more than just a "name"? (Taivo (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Why don't you try buying off Skopje instead? They'd be much cheaper, believe me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm... On second thought, Kekrops, you are right, why trying to buy 11 million poor Eastern Europeans when you can do your job with the one sixth of the sum? Kapnisma (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Human Development Index for Greece 0.947 , HDI for UK 0.942, Taivo, can we please also buy these poor Northwestern Europeans?

Indeed. Seeing as he calls himself an expert on mass comparison, perhaps he can compare Greece's GDP per capita to that of the countries he mentions and see whether it's closer to Anglo-Franco-German or Malawo-Nepalese levels. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the thread that Yannismarou opened I honestly thought that it was at a place where a reasonable facsimile of an intelligent discussion could take place. Instead it was to an accusation of malfeasance directed at Future Perfect. That is not the place where a discussion will take place on the real issue. It is a place to try to silence one of the participants in the debate. Sorry, Yannismarou, opening a complaint against another involved editor is not the action of "a more clear mind" or a "broader discussion on the issue". Open a thread at a place for arbitration of the issue and I'll believe that you are acting with a "more clear mind" for "a broader discussion on the issue". (Taivo (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

(The wording in that previous post may be a bit harsh, but when I clicked on Yannismarou's link I was honestly expecting to go to a place to discuss the issue with the assistance of some moderator. I was very disappointed to see that it was just an accusation against another editor.) (Taivo (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, your comments are appreciated, but I cannot agree with them. Check my language in the ANI thread, and then judge what my purposes are.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I have fully protected this page until all of the editors involved stop the edit warring. FWIW, while I have a personal opinion of which version is correct, the page as it stands right now may or may not agree with my views. I am protecting it in the version which it existed when I arrived here (prompted by the AN/I thread initiated over the actions of one of the participants in the thread.) Horologium (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy&paste from guidelines for unbiased admins and editors to figure this out

"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.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."

Instructions: please replace "Maputa" with "Greece/Greeks" and "Cabindan" with "Republic of Macedonia" and you'll see what's the situation in this article. Please be forewarned that some people will try to fool you that "FYROM" is the common English form, that's only a diversion (their last resort really) the truth is that the clear common English term is "Macedonia". If we can't use the "common English" term the guideline is pretty clear that we should use the self-identification term, which is "Republic of Macedonia" and is also used in English (is not a Turkish or Macedonian or Chinese term, it's English). There's no reason not to use "Republic of Macedonia" on this page: it's English term, it's the self-identification term, doesn't need disambiguation. So please ask the honest editors who are so adamant against it, why. WHY do they oppose this term and let's hope we'll get the honest answer. My understanding is that's exactly the situation described in the guideline. man with one red shoe 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing spin! This is exactly the opposite of what is happening right now! The name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is alive and kicking. It is used in virtually any international forum and it is the only solution that has been universally accepted, including by the Republic itself. However some people here argue that even this is the reality, Wikipedia "shouldn't subject to the pressure of Greece as UN/EU etc did". This is very very clearly a violation of "Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."--Avg (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spin? Anyway, I refer to it as Macedonia, even if it isn't Macedonia "proper". ?I assume the other person can get the meaning by the context. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And that could be the name of our article, if this, this and this didn't exist. But they do exist so we have to find a way to disambiguate between them. So which is the most common form except "Macedonia" that you have heard people refer to this state?--Avg (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

man with one red shoe: I dont know how you suddenly pop up like (I said, like!) a sockpuppet. Try explaining your theory (I said, theory) to the EU, the UN, the media that uses those terms (including Janes Sentinel). Of course people also use 'Macedonia' for Fyrom/Rom. Have you come any editor who disagrees with that? No. So it is about context and I would argue that the context here suggest the UN name. I have provided clear examples. And as for 'common English term', have you written the book on what constitutes a common English term :-)? I suggest not. Politis (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly?! I have my account from March 2, 2008, your accusations or insinuations will not divert the attention from the issue at hand. Please be warned though that your baseless accusations/insinuation, if they continue, will be taken into account by admins. As for EU and UN it has been explained over and over that Wikipedia doesn't follow UN/EU policies, nor those organizations establish the "common use in English" so that's pretty much irrelevant. What's relevant here is that you and your friends don't have any serious argument against using "Republic of Macedonia" in this page. man with one red shoe 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Because according to Wikipedia policy, we only resort to self-identifying names in the absence of established English terms. It's the same reason why Greece is not located at Hellenic Republic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But Republic of Macedonia is located at Republic of Macedonia not at FYROM or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. man with one red shoe 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. And it shouldn't be. The only reason it is is because a bunch of "obsessed" non-Greeks decided that defeating the "Greek POV" was more important than enforcing Wikipedia policy. Still, that is no reason not to do the right thing here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My friends? I would like to think of you as one of my friends dear 'man with one red shoe'. But please can you stop bunching users into a 'group' with the intention of bashing them? I hope so my friend. As for wiki and UN, etc, your argument holds no water, unless you are the chief rule maker, dear chap :-). Politis (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I used "you and your friends" as a shortcut for "you and people who support your position" don't make a big deal out of it. And why my UN argument doesn't hold water? Wikipedia doesn't follow UN/EU naming conventions, this is pretty much clear for everybody, do you have another understanding? man with one red shoe 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it doesn't follow the UN per se. It follows common English usage, whether it is the product of UN terminology or not. And fYRoM is far more common than "RoM", whichever way you look at it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that claim, but I haven't seen the proof, till there's a clear proof I think we should use the self-identifying term per the guideline. Even in case you found let's say 2000 references for fYRoM and 1500 for RoM that's not conclusive and RoM should be used per guideline. man with one red shoe 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly doubt you'd change your tune even if you did see whatever it is you define as "clear proof". You know that it is intuitively true, but you're loath to admit it; people who don't give a shit about Greece's opinion use plain "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia". Only Wikipedia and the government in Skopje use the latter, and even then only some of the time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I didn't see any clear proof. And no, Wikipedia doesn't work based on "intuition". And no, if there not an order of magnitude difference, I would still think that self-identification should be used, no good reasons against. man with one red shoe 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been given Google searches, you've been given User:ChrisO's "survey of mainstream encyclopedias", you've been given globally televised international events like the Olympic Games, World Cup, Euro Championship and Eurovision Song Contest. Why do you deliberately choose to ignore the primary objective criterion: Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The name "Macedonia" is the common usage in English, not fYRoM, fYRoM is used mostly in official documents which carry not much weight when is to decide what is the "common usage", in this page we need to add "Republic of" in front of "Macedonia" to disambiguate from the Greek province with the same name. "Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifying term which should have priority in case the common usage doesn't exist or, as in this case, needs disambiguation. man with one red shoe 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrigible. "Macedonia" is not the only common term, nor does "common English usage" mean that there can only be one possible candidate. I shan't repeat myself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ri)As an outsider to the discussion, I can only say that this type of silliness is precisely what led to two world wars and countless other wars. What Red Show notes at the beginning of this section is true and happens to be wikily correct. One cannot expunge facts, one can merely explain -- well, unless we're setting up Oceania here. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote, it might be better to leave the two name forms as they presently are in this and other related articles, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia. Such fights to impose one of the names could only trigger if not world wars, local Wiki ones that are totally unnecessary as the eventual compromise solution to happen in the real world would be neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ Apcbg (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't "wikily" correct at all in fact. Wikipedia policy is clear: established English terms take precedence over endonyms. "Red Show" has conveniently bypassed this rule and painted the situation as one where there is no common English term (other than "Macedonia") and a self-identifying name must be used instead. That is simply not the case here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, Kekrops only sees the world through Greek-colored glasses ("Greek" as in the political viewpoint of Greece, not an ethnic designation). 1) "FYROM" is not, and never will be, the "common English name" for Macedonia. It is "Macedonia", full stop. 2) The second Wikipedia criterion for naming is self-identification. It is "Republic of Macedonia", full stop. 3) "FYROM" is not at all a "common English name" for Macedonia except in documents that specifically relate to the naming controversy or are dependent on Greek political considerations, such as international organizations. 4) And even if it is more common than "Republic of Macedonia" it is still not a self-identification and is therefore of a lesser status than "Republic of Macedonia". 5) "FYROM" is not even a "name" in its strict sense, but a description. 6) Wikipedia specifically prohibits political considerations or legal rights to a name from consideration, thus excluding "FYROM". 7) Finally, as we have demonstrated before, Google searches are completely unreliable as any kind of "evidence" in a serious discussion. They are not accurate counts of anything at all and are subject to no critical evaluation. They are numbers based on pretty much nothing. And I will stand by what I said earlier, Athens will persist in this naming dispute as long as it gives it power or a sense of power over its northern neighbor. In the overall picture of things, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a word or phrase. I don't have a problem with the current way the text reads in this article, but I have a serious problem with attempts to impose unwarranted bolding in Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

And there is a very suspicious POV comma in that article :-) Frankly, geopolitical analyses like the above "... Athens will persist in this naming dispute as long as it gives it power or a sense of power etc." won't fool a baby, sorry. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Athens will persist in this as long as it controls Macedonia's access to the sea--that and Athen's preexisting membership in all the international organizations that Macedonia wants to join is Athen's power over Macedonia. If gold were discovered in Macedonia tomorrow and Macedonia said, "We will split the profits with whoever gives us the best deal on transport," Athens would be first in line with a proposal labelled "To the Republic of Macedonia, our good neighbors to the north". You're naive if you think that money and power are not the cornerstones of international diplomacy--whether it be a silly dispute over a name or the spread of nuclear weapons. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Must be a vast amount of money and power involved there, for the Republic of Macedonia has also problems with Bulgaria, and that’s not the end of the list either. As a Skopje newspaper (Utrinski Vesnik, December 31, 2007) put it:

... it is difficult to explain to the world why we have problems

    with almost all [of the neighbouring states]

    while they do not have so many with each other.

Now the explanation is easy; it must be gold as you say, and plenty of it there ... Apcbg (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thing Greece doesn't border the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Serbia. (he said sarcastically). Hell, Greece wasn't even originally Greek: it was occupied at the time the Greeks came. At what point does the silliness stop? Fuck all of the nationalist bullshit, all of the political correctnes, and the rest of it. The people in the Republic of Macedonia refer to the country as Macedonia: that the Greeks get their togai in a twist over this is irrelevant to the naming issue. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the debate, I suggest you take your bullshit elsewhere. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was constructive, even if you don't see it that way. There is a reality here that is being dismissed and a non-reality that is receiving preferential treatment. Sorry if this fact pisses you off -- well, no, I'm not as you seem not to be able to shed your biases. While Macedonia the country and Macedonia the region of Greece are currently different, that difference makes no difference in reality, or even philosophically. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I fundamentally disagree with your myopic contention that fYRoM is not a common English term. It may not be the most common, but it is common nonetheless. Your belief that its use is entirely due to "Greek political considerations" is irrelevant. It is used, whether you or I like it or not. That "Wikipedia specifically prohibits political considerations or legal rights to a name from consideration" is precisely what you need to come to terms with. We cannot rule out fYRoM simply because you find it "politically unacceptable". I am arguing for its use not on the basis of any political, legal, moral, aesthetic or other considerations, but on its status as a widely used and established term in the English language.

Your fourth point is dead wrong. The status of fYRoM is not "lesser" than that of "RoM", but rather the reverse. Common English usage overrides self-identification, according to every single relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline. Regarding your dismissal of Google searches, I suggest you take a lot at the other methods prescribed by the guideline, namely "other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations". On every count, fYRoM trumps "RoM" by a wide margin. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Common perhaps, but not as common. So, are you saying tht the less common politically correct term is the better term? Are you saying that self-identification is meaningless? Are you saying that WP is the arbiter of English usage?. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From The World Factbook: "Macedonia gained its independence peacefully from Yugoslavia in 1991, but Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered a Hellenic name and symbols delayed international recognition, which occurred under the provisional designation of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." In 1995, Greece lifted a 20-month trade embargo and the two countries agreed to normalize relations. The United States began referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, in 2004 and negotiations continue between Greece and Macedonia to resolve the name issue. Some ethnic Albanians, angered by perceived political and economic inequities, launched an insurgency in 2001 that eventually won the support of the majority of Macedonia's Albanian population and led to the internationally-brokered Framework Agreement, which ended the fighting by establishing a set of new laws enhancing the rights of minorities. Fully implementating the Framework Agreement and stimulating economic growth and development continue to be challenges for Macedonia, although progress has been made on both fronts over the past several years." •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, should I just state the obvious, that the CIA World Factbook is a US government publication that reflects verbatim the US government position? (NB: The previous US government position - next one will be the first one of this administration and I am predicting several changes to many countries articles).--Avg (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Try beginning by not claiming what is not the case: the Factbook normally is not a statement of position; it is a collection of data intended, in large part, to help the State Department formulate positions based on facts (per the title). (Whether State chooses to do this is another question.) One sign of this is the extent to which they remain in print unchanged despite changes of American policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another uber-relevant guideline quote:

• "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." man with one red shoe 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia? This contains the same content, and distinguishes the Republic from the Province as well as, "FYROM". Is it the form of words that are important? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will cut it, is like using in Bulgaria article: neighbor with Greece, once part of Ottoman Empire, and so on. I don't think we need to explain in intro anything about the countries, people can click on the link and find more info about the specific country if they wish so, I'm sure it's mentioned in Republic of Macedonia that was once part of Yugoslavia. man with one red shoe 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the "important" issue is that the name "Macedonia" should not be used for anything other than a part of Greece. That's why articles which mention Macedonia routinely get vandalised with any number of made-up alternative names, like "Skopia", Bananadonia", "Slavomacedonia" and so on. This sort of thing goes on daily across the wiki, frequently coming from anonymous IP addresses in Greece. The dispute may have all kinds of diplomatic complications in the foreign ministries but down here in the Wikipedia trenches, it's a simple and rather vindictive ethnic feud. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had just about enough of your slanderous conflation of the legitimate Greek editors with the vandals. No one here is responsible for those gems, so I see no point in mentioning them other than to try to sully our reputation. I know it's a very British pastime, but smear tactics are not going to win you the argument. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things: as a purely geographical / historical piece of information, it's probably unnecessary in the lead (or else why does nobody care about having Austria talk about how it borders on "Slovenia, once part of Yugoslavia"?). And as for what our Greek friends tell us their main concern is with the "disambiguation", namely to avoid "monopolization" (reminding the reader that it's not the only Macedonia): this phrase doesn't do that. To be sure, "former Yugoslav" doesn't either; one more reason why I find their insistence so nonsensical. No matter how you word it, there is nothing in this piece of information that would even suggest to the uninformed reader that there is also some other Macedonia elsewhere. – As for whether the precise wording is important, well, according at least to Kekrops' professed argumentation, yeah, it would seem it must be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well how about this. Their "insistence" seems to you "nonsensical" because their primary objective is not to push their POV but to impose Wikipedia policy, which might be even against their own POV. --Avg (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So? Does Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia, fulfill our policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it is not an established name used in the English speaking world, but a novel construct (created with the best of intentions of course), I would have to say no.--Avg (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect myself to agree with you Sep. any time soon, but here we are. First thanks for at least trying to be sensitive to the opposing arguments. I have to admit your proposal is both intelligent and intriguing. Dr.K. logos 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that our Greek editors should volunteer first to add the wording "Republic of Greece, once part of the Ottoman Empire" to this article. It's only fair, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris you're a riot. Why not change the name to Yunanistan instead? Dr.K. logos 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it already was in the article. Greece's Ottoman past features fairly prominently in the history section, as far as I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson was trying to be constructive, why did you have to add some more WP:DRAMA to it?--Avg (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no use Avg. This is an intractable problem. No matter how creative or intelligent the proposal may be someone from somewhere is going to snipe at it. At least Chris did it with a sense of humour. Dr.K. logos 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to change it to Yunanistan, since nobody uses that name any more (apart from the Turks, but we'll agree to ignore them). However, I feel that it's important to add a reference to the Ottoman Empire in case hypothetical readers hypothetically get confused by the linguistic similarities between Greece, lubricant and John Travolta films. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you drivelling on about again? My browser counted 8 instances of "Ottoman" in the text. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, using Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia is of no real use to our readership. The idea of this whole discussion is simply to treat mentions of the Rep. 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. Of course, the naming dispute would be mentioned in the article's "Foreign relations" section, but with different wording.

It currently reads:

as well as the dispute over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ("FYROM").

It should read something alone the lines of:

as well as the dispute over the name of the Republic of Macedonia, which due to Greek objections had to enter the UN under the provisional reference of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ("FYROM").

Best, Ev (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reverse the question to Pmanderson: Why does the current form of words have to go? Why must we rid ourselves of the particular wording at all costs? Is it because it hits some nationalist nerves? ... ;-) NikoSilver 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. "FYROM" may be the product of the "Greek POV", but it is used in the real world. Those who oppose it are committing precisely the sin of which they accuse us, namely letting political biases interfere with editorial policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Niko:

• Our first interest is the common reader. FYROM is not, despite some desperate claims here, the common English name of the Republic; it is a polemical term, and does not even make its claims clearly; former is becoming dated, if not obsolete.

  Now, now. All this is value judgment and we're not allowed to do that. Plus there's the other side, which you know, and which I better not repeat. (BTW fYRoM is evidently much more common than RoM - you could have a case against plain "M" alone, but not RoM) NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No, it's a judgment of clarity and English usage, in order to communicate with our readers; nothing could be more our business.
  • I see no evidence of the "evident" claim that fYROM is much more common than RoM; nor do I find it plausible. I have no doubt that fYROM is more common in the statements of the present Greek Government, the international organizations in which it is able to prevail, and the polemics of the hellenophones; but that is not a collection of reliable sources, nor the whole of English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Macedonia is ambiguous - I hope we can agree on that. In general, the simplest disambiguator is best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• It is, because of the conflict, an obnoxious term. We should avoid being obnoxious, where clarity and English usage permit.

  Unlike the other term which isn't? Value judgment again, eh? NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would have preferred to see who rejected it themselves, rather than claiming the other side must be intractable.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Me too (for the other side). NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sep. Please. I didn't say the other side must be intractable. I said the problem was intractable. I also did not specify the direction of the sniping. So it could be either side. Dr.K. logos 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see I picked up your word, unfortunately. Yes, ChrisO and FP imply that the other side will never accept this compromise at least as strongly as you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate. The discussion climate is completely poisoned. But I could support your proposal if it would bring a way out of this mess. Dr.K. logos 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the policy-based arguments against FYROM, the term is of course offensive for similar reasons (I am not saying to the same extent) as ChrisO's suggestion above, or Former Military Dictatorship of Greece. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec2)There is no onomatological twin of the military dictatorship of Greece which tries to usurp its cultural heritage. So no need for "Former Military Dictatorship of Greece" Dr.K. logos 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no other Republic of Macedonia, either, unless there's been a separationist movement in Thessalonica which I haven't heard about ;) Enough with the straw men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is there any other fYRoM? Why do you use an argument that applies to both names? NikoSilver 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, logos, you actually admit that you push this name for POV reasons? See the previous heading, read the example from the guideline of "what reason not to use" 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with one red shoe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the red shoe obstructing your vision? Dr.K. logos 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it's intended to be a complete analogy? It was in response to the idea of FYROM merely "hitting nationalist nerves". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You lose any sense of analogy when (1)you realize the huge frequency by which fYRoM is used, (2)when you see that unlike your example it happens to be a name for bilateral relations among all international organizations and half the world countries, and (3)when you realize that the other name is offensive to other people, who happen to be the subject in this article here! So to have an analogy, give me a name for Greece where any of the three above apply... Then add the nationalism and irredentism associated with the name.12 NikoSilver 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sense of "offence" is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia's goal is not to keep Greeks happy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So weren't your examples above about Ottoman province and co. an illustration of how offended the ethnic Macedonians would be with characterisations including "former"? This was my understanding. --Avg (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Remember that one of the (IMO bogus) premises used to promote the "former Yugoslav" moniker has been the entirely hypothetical concern that a reader would confuse the Republic of Macedonia - the only state of that name anywhere in the world - with a Greek province of a similar name. There's no evidence whatsoever for any such confusion, and it's certainly not something that seems to worry any of the other encyclopedias, news outlets etc that routinely use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" rather than the rarely-used "FYROM". You might as well argue - as I did, sarcastically - that we need to disambiguate Greece to avoid confusion with grease and Grease. Ideological offence is a different issue altogether. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

also Hans you forget that the word "Dictatorship" is not a word that describes the Greek ethnicity. While "Yugoslav" is a native Makedonski word that means South Slav, which is a group of people that most people of The Republic belong to, as Wikipedia accepts too, although unknown for how long since there are people who are insulted by it as they are mostly connected to their ancient roots. - what's with the bullets? --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CuteHappyBrute's comments about the bullets referred to the previous state of this section (link), before my refactoring it for clarity (diff.) - Ev (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian style warfare ;)Dr.K. logos 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• pew pew Did i kill anyone?? :D --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was a lot of bullets. I had to duck :) Dr.K. logos 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can we get the article unprotected? That "Western civilization" line is begging me to remove it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The existing protection will expire on the 6th. If you can't wait until then, though, if you wished to have an uninvolved admin make a noncontroversial change to the article, or one that most parties agree by consensus to, I don't think that would be a problem. Just place {{Editprotected}} down, indicate what you want done, and we can see what happens anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Expires on the 9th.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Greece is the cradle of Western civilisation. Where have you been 3rdAlcove? Haven't you heard the news? Dr.K. logos 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He's far too cool for such antiquated notions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're begging for a Neo-Orthodox reply of sorts, methinks. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think someone dropped the baby at some point... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Greeks are clumsy nannies hence the rest of the Western Civilization has been hit on the head? NikoSilver 13:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

I'm surprised I hadn't noticed this earlier (thanks, Avg). According to our favourite guideline, "multiple synonyms can be used for a term", and "within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article." I guess that renders the entire excruciating conversation we've had up to now rather redundant. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're misreading the guideline. Read it again. That section is specifically about the technical constraints of wikilinking (you even cite the line that speaks of technical constraints). In the example given, you can use the link "ICTY" as a synonym for the link "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" because the MediaWiki software allows you to set up a redirect from one to the other. (Notice how that section is hyperlinked so that the reader can try it out?) It says nothing about how you should use synonyms, merely that you can use synonymous links within and to articles. I wrote the lines you're quoting, so I know very well what that section means. It does not endorse any particular usage of synonymous terms. It effectively says, "here's how the functionality works", not "here's how you should use this functionality". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty clear what it says. If you wanted to say something else, you should have written something else. So now what, are you going to change the wording in order to make it 100% conformant with your current POV? --Avg (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, since the wording is perfectly clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me quote again: "Names in articles - Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article." That pretty much says it all for me. --Avg (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It only "says it all" for you if you ignore the initial context-setting qualifier that it is about technical, not policy or stylistic, constraints. I find it ironic that you're ignoring that qualifier considering that you're quoting it. Please go and look at quote mining to see why you're engaging in a logical fallacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this is your novel interpretation. I've quoted the whole paragraph, so I'm sorry, no logical fallacy there.--Avg (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of debating a closed issue with someone who's engaging in shameless wikilawyering and quote mining, but I will say that you're providing some excellent arbitration evidence. Keep it up. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed pretty obvious you are lately fishing for arbitration diffs, hence your provocative "Ottoman" stuff that was begging for an overreaction. However, as everything else, it goes both ways.--Avg (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Of course a guideline cannot tell you how to use synonyms; that's up to the editors themselves. But if we can use synonyms, why shouldn't we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That part of the guideline tells you how to use the functionality of redirects to link to synonyms. It doesn't tell you whether you should or shouldn't use synonyms in particular circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my idiocy, but why do we even have a guideline on how to do something which we aren't supposed to in the first place? Where can this apply, but not here? And why? NikoSilver 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Synonyms are word associations that can be subjective in application, and therefore be inappropriate in certain circumstances. Because of this, an all-encompassing guideline cannot possibly predict all situations, and it cannot formulate a universal algorithm for determining the acceptability of a certain association. As a result, while we do have guidelines that describe how things can or are usually done, guidelines do not always apply universally, and therefore cannot be used to prescribe what must always happen. --slakr^\ talk / 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I quite like your comment about not formulating a universal algorithm.--Avg (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. My question was for a clear example on where it applies, and how this is supposed to be different. And having no definite answer for a couple of days now, I assume that it makes the supporting side uncomfortable, because it should obviously apply here too. NikoSilver 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

moved to poll --slakr\ talk / 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia. It's the consensus name on Republic of Macedonia, it's the shortest name, and it's consistent. As a parallel, in the US, Georgia is a state, but in the real world, Georgia is also a country. As a result, we have a disambiguation until either Georgia or Georgia decides to rename itself, both of which aren't going to happen. The good thing in the Republic of Macedonia's case is that it has a clear "Republic of" preceding the "Macedonia," which is sufficient to distinguish it from the not-Republic-of Macedonia (the State). Note, I truly do not care. For all I care, they could both rename to random letters, like "zzzzfjfjkfdjkfgggf" and "blarggg," but at some point Wikipedia has to deal with its business, and the country & state deal with theirs. Edit warring is retarded. --slakr\ talk / 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Would you mind adding this to the straw poll section above? Just to keep stuff in place, because this will otherwise just trigger the next round of endless repetitive debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Wasn't the poll closed? man with one red shoe 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No, the poll is open until the 9th as far as I recall. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) My understanding is the poll is closing, but not closed yet. People are discussing how to close it, and there was the idea that there should ideally be a consensus of several "closers". Until that happens, I'd say if anybody else wants to register their opinion, it will be most efficient, for the sake of keeping it readable, if they continue to do it there. (Since this is "not a vote", formalities of closing don't really matter much.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) For clarity: please, enter your comments here to support the proposal or here to oppose it. The proposal reads: Do you support a proposal to have the article Greece refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" under that very name, and not under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"? Best, Ev (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (not being sure about it)

Unresolved

 – Split long (62kb) section to Talk:Greece/Proposal (not being sure about it) per WP:SIZE --slakr^\ talk / 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the edit warring already

I have already had to re-lock this article, after the revert war started all over again. Come to agreement, or take it to arbitration. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate arbitration. The question is just: what question are we going to ask the Arbs? How will we define this case to make it not a "please decide the content for us" thing? (Because we know they wouldn't accept that.) Advice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Gdansk arbcom ruling, I guess. In any case, the nationalistic nonsense needs to stop. As I think I stated before, I don't give a rat's ass about either country, I'm just trying to use logic. If Greece decide that Ὲλλας had to be called Hellas rather than the Latin-derived Greece, I'd definitely support changing the article title. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim62sch's suggestions sound reasonable to me. And I tend to agree with the rest of his reasoning as well. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start that endless talk again. Because if Cuba decided to call itself "Florida" you would understand if some Americans would object. NikoSilver 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So what? If most of the people will call it Florida, then that would be the name we should use here, not the American POV (even if Americans are right to complain) man with one red shoe 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To FP: Ask them to interpret/close the poll. Ask them if ethnic profiling is legitimate. If legitimate, ask them if ethnic profiling should be used to discount votes. Ask them if the opinions of the voters of either side are against policy. Ask them to interpret policy (NCON and the others that were mentioned here and there). Ask them if there are any disciplinary actions necessary against "outing" and/or "faction" behavior. Did I forget something? NikoSilver 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also ask them if it would be correct to allow a poll to be decided based on the principle that one side, which had more people supporting it, whether they were right or not, turned out in greater numbers. There is a question whether polls which reflect ongoing real-world debates in which one side clearly outnumbers the other should be allowed to be "won" by the side which has more partisans in the real world discussion. And, of course, there are the various naming policies as well at WP:NAME. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask them if having a POV imposed in a national page by people who follow that page is legitimate when the rest of the Wikipedia uses another term, ask them if walled gardens are consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Ask them if we should have democracy and thus let Indian and Chinese POV for example (because they are presumable more people) triumph in their respective pages. Just so we know... man with one red shoe 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, are we agreed we need Arbcom? I'll be away with less than regular internet access over Easter (western), and I guess you guys will want to be grilling lambs rather than opponents the weekend after, so shall we say let's have a truce until after the holidays and then present the case? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If arbitration is needed, it would be much better to start it after Easter. I won't be editing after today either. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I think we do. Oh, Niko, I hate Florida.  ;) Seriously though, Cuba wouldn't make such a change so the hypothetical doesn't have much meaning. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't care about the hypothetical Cuba renaming either. No objections to ArbCom. Worst case scenario, and the edit wars continue, we can extend the article's protection until after the end of the Easter season. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the issue is a group of (Greek) editors insisting that Greece-related articles should be exempted from our standard editorial practices, and instead use wording that in effect reflects the Greek government's foreign policy stance.

As I see it, allowing for such an exception would infringe our general naming conventions policy and the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency, and even our core neutral point of view policy.

Furthermore, in order to keep Greece-related articles as an exception, this group of editors has resorted to blatant disruptive behaviour, including politicizing the discussion, constant exaggerations & even baseless allegations of "ethnic profiling" and "anti-Greek" attitudes, that poison the editing atmosphere.

As I see it, this situation could be easily dealt with by some non-involved administrators imposing ARBMAC topic-bans on this group of (Greek) editors. However, seeing that none has step up to the plate, we can ask the Arbitration Committee to impose these topic bans (alone or accompanied by other sanctions) themselves. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite accurate, although now the tar and feathers of accusations of ethnic profiling shall be upon you. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At least two editors have noted that they will not be editing until after Easter (western) -- and in fairness to Arbcom, I suspect they'll be busy with real life too. We can wait until Monday. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the postponement until after the 19th (while I am an American Protestant, my wife is Ukrainian Orthodox, so we get Easter two weeks in a row). (Taivo (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

The Easter Bunny comes twice? You must weigh 30 stone.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What a nonsentic, and boring discussion mainly by the non-Greek users, who are so eloquent when they decide to criticize the (Greek) [parentheses are a substitute for just whispering, I suppose] editors. In particular, Ev's proposal above which attempts to arbitrarily limit the scope of ARBCOM's competence is IMO completely wrong, unfair, one-sided, and against the principles of equity and impartiality. Guys, why are you wondering what ARBCOM is going to be asked to do? As I see things, it is clear that if you decide to go to ARBCOM (which IMO is the only way to overrun the current deadlock), the latter will examine the following issues:

1. Is there a policy-related issue, and a case having to do with the interpretation or/and application of the X or Z wiki-policy, or is it strictly a content dispute? If the ARBCOM judges that there is indeed a policy-related issue here, then it will subsequently examine the following issues:
2. According to policy, how should the country in question be mentioned in this article? Inescapably, if ARBCOM judges that, in this way, it interprets or applies policy, it will not only judge about this article, but about all the articles, where the country in question is mentioned. It will decide about this article, the Greece-related articles, the RoM-related articles, the international organizations' articles; about everything! It will also judge: if we can vary the terminology according to the topic, about the status of WP:MOSMAC, about the application of Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency, WP:naming conventions, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. Let me also point out that both sides here evoke concrete policy provisions. See here Husond's rationale, Ev's remarks above, and here Nikos' "opposers' proposal" (an excellent summary of the opposers' policy-related argumentation. Νίκο, many jurists I know would envy you!).
3. As it has done in previous cases, ARBCOM will also judge the stance of the users involved in this case (the "involved parties"), and whether by their actions they adhered to policy. It will subsequently judge whether it should impose sanctions for the violation of these policies–principles–rules. Instances of edit-warring, or allegations of PA, non-civility, OUTING, POINT etc. will all be examined. Everybody will be examined and judged. Not only "this group of (Greek) editors".

Concluding, my point is that if ARBCOM accepts the case and examines it, then everything and everybody will be under scrutiny.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've got nothing to hide. And examining and determining the breadth and depth of Wikipedia policy is exactly what we want them to do in this case. As long as all editors are willing to abide by the decision, whatever it is and whoever's toes get stepped on. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

What's going on here then? I see my name is mentioned amongst those who have been sanctioned in other nationalist related (Scottish) debates. I am a Scottish nationalist, not a Greek one or any other one. I could just as easily have voted support. Would I then be accused as a Scottish nationalist of backing up the nationalists in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia? Delete as appropriate. The only reason I got involved in this is because I didn't believe it right that a list of peoples nationalities should have been made. What happens? I end up on a little list of my own! It's a funny old world! Jack forbes (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC) PS; I think I shall leave this debate (not that I was overly involved) to others and go back to my Scottish nationalism POV. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But it seems pretty clear that no matter what the end decision is, and no matter how the final result is worded, this article will have to be permanently locked down to prevent edit warring, especially if the decision is to apply Wikipedia policy on "Republic of Macedonia" uniformly through Wikipedia including here. It will also probably require Republic of Macedonia to be permanently locked as well. Already there are editors with an anti-Macedonian bias vandalizing such innocuous articles as Staffordshire University because of the ill-advised listing of Future Perfect's edits at the admin reporting page. We can only assume that if ARBCOM's decision goes against the Greek POV (a shortcut for "national foreign policy") there will be further vandalism on any page related to Macedonia. I know that none of the named principals to this discussion will be involved, but anonymous IPs can do a lot of damage. If the decision goes the other direction, the same might very well be true at Greece-related articles as well. (Taivo (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

The community needs better tools for dealing with groups of users trying to impose a nationalist POV on articles. I don't know if there's any chance that ArbCom will be able to think up some without crossing the line into content decisions or creating policy, though. I haven't seen a lot of instances of them having done this in the past. It still might be worth a shot. Ideally, I'd love to see some sort of huge community meeting about how to solve national POV-related disputes, but I can't see how that would lead to any form of consensus, or even how we would start such a discussion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Heimstern. The community needs better tools. And we need them desperately. Because the tools used so far are basically based on the principle of shock and awe. Hardly a Wikipedian principle. Imagine someone inviting you to a party (poll). You go in to participate in good faith and when the party is over the police come in and separate the participants according to ethnicity. For good measure they apply stick-on labels on them illustrated with what they think is the national flag of the participant. The anonymous people who cannot be identified are considered neutral as long as they did not vote with the targeted ethnicity, no matter how silly their rationale may be. You say it cannot happen here? It just did. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But I don't think it is a banana republic either. So yes Heimstern. We need better, much better tools than that. Tools that reflect the goodness, fair-mindedness, decency and collegiality of this community. The tools used so far belong in a B-movie version of the INS meets the Keystone Cops. Dr.K. logos 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I really should get myself something from Banana Republic when I get back to the States. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I would follow your example but I still have the glue on me from the flag stickers and I'm afraid this would spoil the new clothes :) Dr.K. logos 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that the nationalist label is very easy to apply when another user openly states that his main purpose in engaging in the discussion here is to defend the national honor of Greece and he then proceeds to label an American veteran as a baby-killer. I trust that he doesn't represent the views of the entire pro-Greek group, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his feelings of utter nationalism either. (Taivo (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't know whom you are referring to but it is obvious such statements are extreme and don't belong in an encyclopedia. However the presence of a few extremists, which by the way exist in all nationalities, should not be used as an excuse to tag good faith editors, of any nationality. Dr.K. logos 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But, in this case, good faith editors and extremists alike were aligned nearly perfectly along nationalistic lines. Whether we want to admit it or not, it is the elephant in the room--we either talk about it openly or we try to hide it, but even if we try to hide it, it's still in the room. Greece is not the only place and this is not the only time when nationalist blocs have formed and built walls around a position. We can deal with the specifics of this case at hand and hammer out some sort of agreement or interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but, in the end, Wikipedia policy needs to find some way to deal fairly and effectively with nationalistic blocs in their walled gardens. If we do not find a way to deal with this problem, Wikipedia will not be a bastion of NPOV, but will just be a patchwork quilt of POVs where a reader can find one thing in Greece and the exact opposite in Republic of Macedonia or Turkey. (Taivo (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, please, no more slogans. Extremism has nothing to do with the naming dispute. Did you see anything extremist in my rationale? Or Niko Silver's or Yannis'? Or anyone else's ? Instead of going on a McCarthyist blame and tag path why don't you try to address arguments? Dr.K. logos 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Good faith editors and extremists alike"??? I don't like the sound of that. Careful with the labeling. What is this, a Hollywood movie with "good guys" and "bad guys"? What's next, a "War on Extremism"? What a mentality, my God. --Athenean (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite Athenean. It is not exactly good guys versus bad guys. But if it had to be a movie it would most probably be a cross between Pink Panther and the The Border. Dr.K. logos 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I'm thinking arbitration is the only place we go. Let's hope they'll accept it and be able to do something about it. Not putting long odds on it, but we can hope. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can. I don't want to sound like Obama but here we are. Dr.K. logos 07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The key issue here is ethnic/national/state POV

I wonder if the ethnic-"agnostic" Greeks on this page who complain about "ethnic profiling" would agree that Greek history be written, only by, lets say... Turks, or only by... Macedonians (from Republic of Macedonia). The problem here is exactly the ethnic (or national, or state) POV, if people who control a national page can or should impose their national POV. This is evident by the fact that all the rest of the Wikipedia uses the other term that is strongly opposed in this page... and the only problems on those pages are edits that come mostly or only from Greek nationals. Sorry for the "ethnic profiling", but nobody else is hung up against the "Republic of Macedonia" name and nobody else feels strongly against it. As you've witnessed in this page Greek editors even assume that you are not Greek or that you are even anti-Greek if you support the name of "Republic of Macedonia", for them is unimaginable that a Greek would support that name, that's how far their national POV goes -- if it's right or wrong, warranted or not, is entire another story, we don't discuss that here, but it's more than obvious that this is a Greek POV -- the question here is, should Wikipedia defend and protect a Greek POV? I think it would make sense to make a poll where Macedonians and Greek are not allowed to vote and involve as many editors as possible in the discussion thus eliminating or limiting national POV pushing... actually eliminating people is probably wrong, we should be able to invite people so that we drop the percentage of Greeks and Macedonians to a normal percentage. The problem on national pages is over-representation of those nationals, this is like having a poll in Harlem about historic restitutions for blacks, having a poll in Turkey about Greek islands, having a poll in Turkey about Armenian genocide, having a poll in Serbia pr Albania about Kosovo, having a poll in Russia about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, having a poll in Palestine about Israel right of existence and so on. Closing the eyes to who actually participates in these polls is ludicrous, it's not fair, it's not right, it's not representative, is irrelevant -- why should it be relevant in Wikipedia? man with one red shoe 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points. The Harlem question, the Israel-Palestinian issues etc. The problem is this: Even as a neutral nationality to these problems I still have my POV. So I may be a neutral nationality but I can still be a supporter of one side or the other. So being from a neutral nationality doesn't make you neutral. Logic makes you neutral. So instead of worrying about my nationality you should try to refute my arguments. That's the logical way. Dr.K. logos 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And who judges if I refuted them or not? See that for example an editor even claims that "FYROM" is a self-identifying term.. who judges if that's true or not or if it's even important when this argument twists the very reason of the guideline. I have my opinions and my arguments, he has his. It matters who the jury is, if it's Greeks they will probably say it is a self-identifying term, if it's an international jury the answer might be different. And if there's no jury we'll discuss this issue till we tire, if we do tire... Again, it's not bad faith (in most of the cases) it's a POV issue, and I wouldn't let wolves decide the fate of sheep and the other way round, it should be a better way. Care if you can to propose one? man with one red shoe 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally one should be able to support their arguments using reliable sources. Anyone can claim anything. You should demand WP:RS. If they are not forthcoming it's most probably POV. But I see your point. Sometimes, as in this debate, things arrive at an impasse regardless. In these circumstances, IMO, the only way out is the arbcom. Dr.K. logos 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Dr. K., that the issue should come down to sound arguments and reliable sources. In the majority of cases in Wikipedia, that is sufficient for a resolution to the discussion. Sources are stated, arguments are made, the parties develop some compromise and then consensus wording, the issue is resolved, and everyone moves on to other articles. I've participated in this process too many times to count here on Wikipedia and it works most of the time. The difference here is that there was virtually no movement on the issue. Both sides stated their positions, both sides have reliable sources and (at least in their view) good arguments on their side. Both sides cited Wikipedia policy that they thought was applicable. But there was virtually no movement. The only movements I ever saw were 1) your move on the map to add a disambiguating form on the map, but one that was not Greek POV, and 2) my acceptance of some form of "former" in the initial paragraph. But then you continually distanced yourself from that welcome compromise. I was trying to commend your example to others, but you didn't want to even acknowledge that movement towards the center. But now you still don't want to talk about the elephant in the room--the fact that one party to this discussion is self-identified virtually entirely as consisting of one nationality (not necessarily citizenship) and that the rock-solid position of that nationality fits neatly within the political position of their country of origin. This isn't even "outing". This is simply noticing the obvious user names spelled with Greek letters or of obvious Greek derivation. This is noticing on user pages that a person's native language or their second language is Greek. That's not "outing". About halfway through the discussion, you dropped your original username "Tasoskessaris" and replaced it with "Dr. K." to distance yourself from the "Greek" tag, but your POV didn't change and you even distanced yourself from the one welcome compromise you offered. No, the trenches were dug deep and they were dug very obviously with almost all Greeks in one trench and none in the other. Just because you don't like the national label on one POV, doesn't make it go away. The position of one side of this dispute is the national foreign policy of Greece and the self-identified sons and daughters of Greece loyally filled that trench. Whether some of the persons in that trench were, like you, wanting not to be called "Greek" or were trying to couch your arguments in logic and the interpretation of policy matters little--it was a "strongly opposed" Greek trench nonetheless. There were no self-identified Greeks as far as anyone could tell in the other trench. If the Greeks had divided themselves between both trenches then you would absolutely have a valid point. If the trench identified with Greece's POV included a minority of Greeks or even a strong majority of non-Greeks, you would absolutely have a point. But that's not the case here and casual observers readily noted that fact. Ethnic profiling is one thing, but when one side of a poll is "support" and the other side is "strongly oppose" then it invites a deeper look at what drives the "strong" position, especially when the "support" side feels they have strong arguments for their position. Coming to a compromise requires understanding the POV of the other "strong" position, not just understanding the logic and arguments. But when one is faced with nationalistic pride as the motivating factor for a "strong" POV, it's generally a losing proposition to try to come to a compromise. Here is a common argument made on this page: "This is the Greek page, why do you want to impose your anti-Greek POV on our page?" That's the elephant sitting in the room and if it isn't addressed then Wikipedia is weaker for it. (Taivo (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, first let me correct you on your comments about my screen name (Dr.K.). This has been my nickname since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. So I would say that I did not change this in the middle of this debate and to avoid tagging. No. Far from that. I have been signing all these years as Dr.K. exclusively. But I commend you regardless. This shows that you did not perform any checks on my contributions and that means, IMO, that you don't perform background checks on people, which nowadays is commendable. I wish you could go one step further and stop supporting flag-based analysis. You are right on my edit. I made it so that everyone would test-drive Rep. Mace. and see how it would look in practice and so others would, maybe, get used to it and keep it. But I saw no movement toward this position so I did hedge my bets. But given all this maelstorm of insinuations and nationality-driven assertions, (which by the way if you read my edits on the poll page I think are harmful to Wikipedia), for what it's worth, I would support your position of including "former" in the intro and Rep. Mace. on the map. Now the talk about trenches, for lack of better description, is, pure Taivo. Please, no more battlefield analogies. The ethnic tagging was enough of shock and awe. Let's lower the temperature of this discourse. The oppose side put forward some really good aguments. They were persuasive enough, for even you, to move you to the proposal which I mentioned above. That means they were worth something. Maligning them as nationalist does not do justice to these fine arguments and your compromise proposal which I find creative and fair, given the circumstances. As to the support side you make it sound as if all these supporting people were blameless and neutral, free from POV. I have refuted this logical fallacy on the poll subpage so I will not repeat myself here. If you need any links to my comments I will happily provide them to you. Conclusion: Nationality has no real relation to and is no substitute for a logical debate. As a fellow academic you should know that. It's nice for everyone to play cowboys and Indians or the border patrol against the illegals but at the end of the day we should all stop playing games and give Lady Logic and her husband Academic Debate their due. Dr.K. logos 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally have no real issue with compromising, unless the compromise would be offensive to Lady Logic (or Athena in her role as goddess of wisdom). In this case, FY is not a self-identifier, it is not what Macedonia is clled in other articles, it is not the title the gov't of Macedonia uses. I fully understand the issue regarding the region of Macedonia, and that Greece's only true major military accomplishments in a territorial sense were due to the brilliant generalship of a few Macedonians. I know how important the tradition of looking up to Alexander in particularis to Greeks. But, no one has a monopoly on place names, and we must accept that there is more than one Athens, or Vienna, or Berlin, etc. (Are the Greeks pissed at the US state of Georgia for having a city named Athens? Are the Georgians (the country) mad about Georgia (the state) itself?). In any case "former" does not really belong -- especially when it's blue-linked. The blue link takes you to an article entitled Republic of Macedonia, thus showing the fallacy of the adjective. Additionally, so far as I can see the Macedonians have already compromised by agreeing to the "republic of" appellation.•Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)