Talk:Prespa Agreement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Uploading Prespa Agreement's PDF files to Wikipedia to prevent their loss?

Is this possible? URLs to all 3 language versions of the deal, can be found at the Infobox's language section, in .pdf format, but problem is, they are hosted by external websites which may be not reliable, and URLs to them may break over time. This will result in readers losing access to these documents. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 09:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole agreement in English is available to plaintext form on the North Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affair [1]. Shall we incorporate it to the article? --Despotak (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say wikisource is a much more useful platform for that. We can use the wikisource template to link (see the box I placed to the now not yet existing article)

@L.tak and Despotak:, I think wikisourcing it is a very good idea. I am totally unfamiliar with this progress however. Is it complicated? (edit: L.tak you missed your signature) -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page now displays photographs of the original, signed agreement. I went on and edited the .pdf to be able to c/p the text. I created the wikisource (check the infobox User:L.tak added). I am not experienced with formatting with the mediawiki syntax, so I ask you to help out with this. Caution: The spelling is as is in the document. I did not type anything. Be careful if you want to make spelling edits, that they represent what is written in the actual document. --Despotak (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@L.tak and SilentResident: I will need your help, because I am not an experienced Wikipedian. I uploaded the pdf to wikicommons [2], I created an index that needs proofreading [3], and a wikisource [4] that needs love. --Despotak (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. I will give it a look. It will be one of the to-do things after the MOSMAC RfC-- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Prespes agreement vs Prespa agreement

I suggest the page is moved to Prespes agreement since it was singed in Greece and the Greek name should take precedence. Furthermore, many articles and mainstream media refer to it as the Prespes agreement also Weatherextremes (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Initiate a formal move request and your reasons for it. I will also note that the article is covered under WP:ARBMAC.Resnjari (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Prespa agreement → Prespes agreement – The agreement was signed in Greece and the Greek name should take precedence. Furthermore, many articles and mainstream media refer to it as the Prespes agreement. Weatherextremes (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I've not seen any English language news sources use "Prespes" the whole time I've been following this story. These are just some examples, but this is the standard that I've some of the most prominent European news orgs in English: The Financial Times, EurActiv and EUObserver, as well as France24, BBC World, The Guardian, AFP and EuroNews. This is also in official statements by EU Council President Tusk, EU Commission President Juncker, Foreign Affairs High Representative Mogherini and Enlargement Commissioner Hahn through the EU diplomatic branch and Nato. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, a quick Google hits search for "Prespes agreement" -prespa yields 67 results and "prespa agreement" -Prespes yields 470,000 results. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move per Therequiembellishere. Ghits overwhelmingly prefer "Prespa agreement". ONR (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per reasons outlined by @Therequiembellishere.Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Therequiembellishere. From the very initial days of its signature ceremony, it was called Prespa agreement, not Prespes. I know the ONLY reason the plural "Prespes" is used in Greek, is due to Greeks being used to referring to these lakes by their plural name. However the lakes in english are better know by the singular Prespa instead. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Background Missing crucial information

Can someone please flesh out what the dispute is about in the lead (one sentence) and the Background section (one paragraph)? The dispute is referenced in the text but not defined. Tx 184.69.174.194 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I quickly cribbed a new Background section from the lede of the naming dispute article, and renamed the original section as Agreement History. (Someone please add what coding I missed. Not being a member, I could not pull directly from the source text -- it is under semi-protection and probably should remain so for some time yet.) Does this lede need more than what it has currently? Also, since it references the issue background, I left the "Republic of Macedonia" name in that section intact for now, but that probably should go to consensus. I would suggest that at least one mention of that name be left intact. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Name of Macedonia at the time of signing.

I believe that the "Republic of Macedonia" was the signatory of the agreement and not "North Macedonia" because that was the name of the country at the time. I changed it back after someone undid my previous edit. If I am wrong then please let me know. God'sNotDead (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether you are wrong or not: the name in the treaty upon signing is carefully avoided, stating it is the "party admitted to the UN under resolution 47/225"". It's probably wisest to keep the name North Macedonia here (the name of the country presently), with a note that it was constitutionally called Republic of Macedonia at the time... What do you think? L.tak (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the name of the country at the time should be used. Even if not specifically mentioned it was a rep from the Republic of Macedonia who signed it. God'sNotDead (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with L.tak and would hope to gain consensus here. Adding to the argument of the user, I see two further arguments: 1.) The phrase as it stands now is misleading in many senses. For one Republic of Macedonia links to the page of Norther Macedonia giving the idea the two names are synonymous. 2.) The Presba Agreement is about the change of name of the so-called Republic of Macedonia because it was not accepted by the international community. Putting that name out in the opening paragraph of the article strikes me like the opposite of what the Agreement tries to achieve. Even those who might disagree must see the irony… A possible solution would be to change the phrasing into something closer to the text of the Agreement. User:Ιππώναξ 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Contents of the agreement

There's a lot of info about the process of signing & ratification, but hardly anything about the contents of the agreement itself. Is there a specific reason for this or just that nobody bothered? --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably the second.Resnjari (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hungary opposes the prespa agreement?

The article says that Hungary opposed the prespa agreement, is this true? Can someone give me a source? I couldnt confirm this as a fact. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutist wording in lead about revokation options compared to sourcing

Right now the lead says:

The Prespa agreement cannot be superseded by any other agreements or treaties nor revoked, and its provisions are legally binding for both parties in terms of international law and will remain in force indefinitely.

That does not seem discussed later in the article. The sources are:

1. this opinion piece by a law professor. Judging by Google-translate it is about what options would be available to either party to get out of the agreement if they wished to do so unilaterally and concludes it would be difficult.
2. that paywalled article which I cannot access but it apparently is an interview of one of the Greek negotiators.

2 is a primary and non-independent source, and I do not feel 1 is enough to support the wording in the lead. At the very least the last part is WP:CRYSTAL (if governments change on either side of the border and they agree to scrap the agreement, or pick another name, surely it will happen).

I am not sure of a better wording, but what are we exactly trying to convey here? That it is illegal to break treaties? Maybe it would be better to remove the sentence entirely. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was the stupidest thing about this agreement. Any law, any agreement, any treaty, is only valid as long as people are willing to say it is. Any government anywhere in the world can promulgate an "irrevocable law" all it wants to, but if the next government to come along in that country doesn't feel like following it then it is just words on paper. Laws are not some magic spells that compel obedience just because they have been made. --Khajidha (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct 100%. Some political parties in R. Macedonia (July elections 2020) already promised unilateral termination of that agreement on jus cogens grounds.Алфа БК (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Потпишување на договорот за македонско-грчкиот спор (17.06.2018, Преспа) (42853677381).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

unusual ID's of contracting parties and a legal quality of the treaty

I added some information relating to unusual ID's of contracting parties, were Greece is a "First party", and the (banned) "Republic of Macedonia" (prohibited constitutional name of other contractor) is the designation of the "Second party" (before the 11. jan. 2019. it was FYROM in the UN) in the Prespa treaty. These unusual ID's of contracting parties may be of some importance to understand a legal quality of the treaty itself.178.221.70.230 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

All about illegality is here: Jane, Igor(2020). "Uncertain Future of the Prespa Agreement between Greece and Macedonia". South Asian Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol 2, No 2.: 147–155. https://sarpublication.com/media/articles/SARJHSS_22_147-155.pdf Алфа БК (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: 178.221.70.230, your edits have been reverted. [5] While your edits are valid, (it is true that the Prespa Agreement indeed used Party 1 and Party 2 instead of actual country names to refer to the signatory parties), this was merely a trick by the Greek side to come into agreement with a neighbor of which the name didn't recognize. Such tricks are redudant here in the English Wikipedia, so do not try to reinstate your changes again. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

NDI

A very simple question. Who is or are the NDI? I do not doubt this exists and I do not doubt the findings. In a country so finely split down partisan lines as Macedonia it is very easy to achieve the desired result of a survey. But at this time readers do not even know what NDI stands for, where they are from, etc. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

National Democratic Institute, regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I realised after posting that the point had become academic. Thanks. So an ostensibly "non-profit NGO" chaired by Madeleine Albright conducts a survey over a matter on which the public already expressed its opinion through a boycott; this survey happens 16 months after the nation voted with its feet and lo and behold, it finds a "majority" approve the agreement. As if this cartel might actually have released data showing a majority dis-approve! Still I am not worried. The public is intelligent enough. They click the link and spot Albright's name and they get the picture. No need for discussions or debates. Eng.wiki is clear on what is considers "reliable" and this is why I have largely turned into a gnome. Cheers Jingby. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jingiby for your valuable help (once again!). I suggest next time that user:Coldtrack avoids expressing personal views about polls and politics in Edit Summaries when trying to add tags like how he has done here [6] and here [7], (edit summaries are not for that purpose, let alone tags). and rather approach the issue in an wikipedic fashion. Only then we can avoid problems of communication. @Andrewgprout: you are being reminded to read about WP:TAGGING. Restoring Tags removed due to problematic edit summaries (such as the ones Coldtrack had used), is not a constructive approach. If you believed that the tag was justisfied there, then you should have provided a better explanation yourself on your edit summary on the reasons you did, rather than asking others to "resolve" it [8] based on problematic edit summaries and without opening a talk page discussion first. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I haven't a clue what you're talking about. The summary supported the edit which had sought clarification over who the NDI had been. You removed it twice and refused to elaborate both times. A second editor restored it and a third responded to it and since then there has been no objection from anybody. Now if you truly believe that your were correct to boldly revert me then feel free to revert the last three edits to your plain unlinked initialism and I assure you I won't interfere with it. However if you actually read what I said you'll see there is not one iota of personal opinion. The majority boycotted the referendum and this is verifiable. Now speaking AFTER realising who the NDI is, I see that all of the sudden, a "non-profit NGO" conducts its own findings and produces the type of result on the Agreement, NATO and the EU that the referendum itself in one fell swoop did not do (because it had been a double-loaded question). Somehow the reader is expected to just tacitly nod to what is clearly a square peg in a round hole and not ask any questions. Life is different I'm afraid. Luckily we KNOW this to be a Madeleine Albright brain-fart though I can fully comprehend why some people would prefer to conceal this. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident: There was nothing wrong with the template added - I do not see anything absolutely wrong with the edit summaries either - if they are anoying to you the very best thing for you is to ignore them, because it is you that is coming across as a bit of a shit here. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: if you felt like that, then my apologies. Still I strongly oppose mixing tags with politics. The Macedonia naming dispute remains a politically sensitive topic enough, and all the editors, (including myself and you), are urged to not bring unecessary political debates to this, they are not helpful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)