Talk:North Macedonia

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

In this phrase from the introduction:

In 2018, the dispute was resolved with an agreement that the country

The word "agreement" is linked to Prespa Agreement. This is good, but someone could guess that it's an extraneous link to the agreement article. Please change the link from [[Prespa Agreement|agreement]] to [[Prespa Agreement|an agreement]] so that the link more clearly refers to this specific agreement. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done with a slight modification; I included the words "resolved with an agreement" so the distinction is more obvious. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that under the demonym "Macedonian" we should also include the term "North Macedonian" in the article's tab

I suggest that under the demonym "Macedonian" we should also include the term "North Macedonian" in the article's tab with the description "(unofficial)" alongside for example, colloquially the vast majority of people usually describe something as being "North Macedonian" due to its association with the country in general and not the Macedonian ethnicity specifically. Take the Wikipedia article of east Timor for example which uses both terms East Timorese and Timorese in its demonym, or the articles about south and north Korea which also do the same although neither East Timor nor South and North Korea use officially any orientations alongside their endonyms but nonetheless the articles use them to make the content more accurate by also including the common global perception — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Marenguista di Napoli d'Attica (talk • contribs) 02:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A demonym, if that's what you're referring to (not endonym as in your heading) is something more specific than just an adjective referring to "something" from a country. A demonym, by definition, is the word that refers to the country's inhabitants. For this country, that word is indeed "Macedonian", and only that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the word I meant to say was demonym, excuse me for the typo, I fixed it, anyways. Yeah I agree with that statement but it isn't absolute, colloquially the term endonym is used by the global interception as I mentioned before to describe something which isn't specifically related with the ethnicity of a country but the country in general. You can check the examples I mentioned before, the articles of south and north Korea or East Timor. Marenguista di Napoli d'Attica (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Demonym*

My autocorrect keeps changing it, I apologize once again Marenguista di Napoli d'Attica (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOSMAC reflects the decision of the wikipedia community and defines what naming should be used about North Macedonia, and a very concrete clique of people have put a lot of effort into ignoring these decisions. It would be nice if I could say that I agree with Future Perfect about the demonym, but I cannot do that because his argument contradicts himself and because of the effort he has made since 2019 to avoid using WP:MOSMAC. "North Macedonian" is absolutely correct wording for everything related to North Macedonia including people, and indeed the adjective "North Macedonian" was used in the main page of North Macedonia as a result of applying the decisions of wikipedians, but during the next years a clique of people who push their agenda found several excuses to avoid both the wording "North Macedonian" and the consensus reached in 2019. Right now there are ZERO usages of North Macedonian in the main page.

My comment regarding the demonym: the name of the people is not defined by any official document, otherwise we wouldn't discuss it. The name of the people is not defined for any country, not only for North Macedonia. Who defines what is the name for people of Germany, UK, Portugal, Brazil? No official document does it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should report facts that rely on what wording is used to refer to people from North Macedonia based on reliable sources.

I have no reason to disagree that the majority of reliable sources uses plain "Macedonian" for the demonym, but a quick google search shows that the wording "North Macedonian" is used as well to refer to people of North Macedonia according to reliable sources and international organizations. Therefore, what is the motivation to hide this fact from wikipedia? We can include both as demonym and still use the plain Macedonian in the articles. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Languages in North Macedonia

Article 7 of the North Macedonian constitution says : In the Republic of North Macedonia, the official language is the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic script. - Член 7 Во Република Северна Македонија службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. Инквизитор771 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on Article 7 of the North Macedonian constitution, which states that "In the Republic of North Macedonia, the official language is the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic script," it can be inferred that the Albanian language is not officially recognized as a co-official language in the Republic of North Macedonia. The constitution designates Macedonian as the sole official language. Инквизитор771 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Law on Languages of 2019 was not ratified by the President and is deemed to be inconsistent with the North Macedonian Constitution. The Constitutional Court of North Macedonia is set to determine the law's constitutionality in October 2024. Инквизитор771 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Until the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia renders a decision on the legality of the Law on Languages, Macedonian remains the sole official language of the Republic. Инквизитор771 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In light of these developments, I propose that we temporarily remove references to Albanian as an official language of North Macedonia from this article until the Constitutional Court's decision is finalized. This approach ensures that the content remains consistent with the current constitutional provisions and avoids potential misinformation. Инквизитор771 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Local hero ^talk 22:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a POV-joke. On 15 January 2019 the Law on the Use of Languages came into effect, despite the refusal of President Gjorge Ivanov to sign off on it. The law was published in the government gazette after being signed by parliament Speaker Talat Xhaferi. In this way Albanian became a second official language in North Macedonia. The Albanian language until then could only be co-official in the areas where the Albanian minority represented at least 20% of the population per the 2008 Law on the Use of Languages spoken by at least 20% of the citizens in the units of the local self-government. The new law extended the official use of Albanian over the entire territory of the country. Under the new legislation, Macedonian continues to be the primary official language, while Albanian may be used now as a second one, including at a national level in official matters. The legislation stipulates also all public institutions in the country will provide Albanian translations in their everyday work. The fact that the constitutional court has been referred to and how and when it will rule on the matter is irrelevant to the current legislation, before the decision of the court, and even afterwards, if the court accepts that the law does not violate the constitution itself. Jingiby (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your reply is just a copy-paste of text from Languages of North Macedonia. Anyway, per Article 7 of the constitution, only Macedonian is the official language. The constitutionality of the law mentioned in your copy-paste is pending. That being said, use of Albanian is definitely in more widespread use in reality following this law, whether or not it is constitutional. --Local hero ^talk 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My replay is backed by reliable sources in the corresponding article. That above is only POV. Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The constitutional court case is POV to point out? I was referring to the laziness of your reply, not the sourcing backing the text in the article. --Local hero ^talk 21:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Constitutional Court was referred to this issue by the ultra-left, pro-Russian, and even according to some, pro-fascist Levica Party back in 2019. Until now, the court was silent, but after the ultranationalists from DPMNE came to power, the court thought of opening a case. So the issue is not from yesterday and this legislation that has been in effect until now remains valid until the court pronounces.Jingiby (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the Macedonian Constitution the official language is Macedonian. There, there was the new law of 5 January 2019 the Law on the Use of Languages, that makes Albanian co-official. However - is it a silly point to make? - I think Macedonian is not 'co-official' but simply 'official'. Also, Albanian is not co-official in Macedoniandefence, central police and monetary policy. Hence the supremacy in North Macedonia remains with the Macedonian language.

So these points can be made in the article, no? Politis (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Macedonian is official, while Albanian is co-official. Jingiby (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Your attempt to justify the Law on the Use of Languages is not just misguided—it's an outright farce. The Constitutional Court’s involvement in this issue is riddled with controversies and lacks true legitimacy. It’s no secret that this court has shown favoritism toward nationalist agendas, undermining its credibility.

The insistence on treating Albanian as a co-official language flies in the face of our constitution, which unequivocally states that Macedonian is the sole official language. Until the court rules on this matter, the law is effectively null and void. Continuing to reference Albanian in this context is a dangerous precedent that threatens the very foundation of our national identity.

It's time to face the facts: Albanian should be removed as a co-official language until the court reaches a legitimate decision. Anything less is a disservice to the rule of law and an insult to the Macedonian people. 92.53.18.135 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this stance. The idea that Albanian should be treated as a co-official language without a proper Constitutional Court ruling is absolutely wrong. Our constitution is clear: Macedonian is the only official language, and any attempts to bypass that with a flawed law should be challenged.

The court itself isn't biased toward nationalist forces as some claim—it's performing its duty to uphold the constitution. The law pushed through in 2019, without proper presidential approval and with the involvement of individuals like Talat Xhaferi, is deeply questionable. Until a legitimate, constitutional ruling is made, Albanian must be removed from any references as a co-official language.

This is about ensuring the rule of law, not bending to political convenience. Ethnicity should never override the clear legal framework that governs our country. Инквизитор771 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your attempt to downplay the significance of the co-official status of Albanian is not just misleading; it’s a blatant oversimplification of a complex and critical issue. Yes, Macedonian is the sole official language according to our constitution, but the Law on the Use of Languages that was passed is not merely a footnote—it's a legal document that attempted to elevate Albanian to co-official status across the country.

Claiming that Macedonian is simply “official” while Albanian holds a “co-official” designation implies that Albanian can be sidelined, which undermines the impact of that law and disregards the voices of significant segments of our population. You may argue that Albanian is not recognized in certain areas like defense or monetary policy, but that only highlights the inconsistency and contentiousness of this legislation, which is currently awaiting a constitutional verdict.

This situation creates a precarious legal landscape where the implications of such laws could destabilize our national identity and legal system. The supremacy of Macedonian language should be reflected not just in theory but in practice. Until we have a definitive ruling from the Constitutional Court, the existence of Albanian as a co-official language is legally questionable and should be challenged vigorously.

Your assertion that this can simply be brushed off as a "silly point" only reveals a lack of understanding of the broader implications for our society. This is not just about semantics; it’s about preserving the constitutional integrity of North Macedonia. Инквизитор771 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comments just further expose your own POV and inability to objectively evaluate the topic at hand (i.e., refusal to use 'VMRO-DPMNE' in comments, bringing up irrelevant ideological leanings of Levica, etc.). That the constitution only names Macedonian as official must be noted in the article. --Local hero ^talk 02:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I Propose to Classify the Government as a Unitary Parliamentary Republic with Elements of Indirect Ethnocracy

A proposal to classify the government of the Macedonian Republic as a unitary parliamentary republic with elements of indirect ethnocracy, highlighting the allocation of government positions and jobs based on ethnic affiliation and the implications of this practice for political representation and social dynamics. Инквизитор771 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I propose that we classify the government of the Macedonian Republic as a unitary parliamentary republic with elements of indirect ethnocracy. This classification reflects the reality that government positions and jobs are often allocated based on ethnic affiliation, which influences the overall governance structure. The practice of distributing roles and responsibilities in a manner that prioritizes ethnic representation has significant implications for both political dynamics and social cohesion within the country.

Recognizing these elements in our classification will provide a more nuanced understanding of the governance system and its impact on our society. I welcome any insights, critiques, or additional perspectives regarding this proposal. Инквизитор771 (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You would need sources that classify the system as such. Plus I think you need to look up the definition of ethnocracy again. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that provide this or a similar summary? Also, at a quick glance, there does not seem to be coverage of ethnic job allocation in the article. CMD (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Establishment history

Why is Krusevo republic 1903 not added? 89.205.124.12 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any clear guidelines as to what should be included in that field of the infobox. For instance, Albania lists a whole bunch of things, while Italy is very concise. --Local hero ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The section is intended for "key event[s] in history of country/territory's status or formation" in support of the "Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]", "Autonomous province [of...]", etc)". However, both fields are often misapplied for a variety of reasons. CMD (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

1903 is a national holiday for the state. It should definitely be added 89.205.124.12 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be added considering 1903/1944/1991 are all national holidays and important days for the modern history of the country. 89.205.124.12 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some problems with this claim. Firstly: the short-lived formation in question covered only one small town and does not have the characteristics of a real country. Secondly: the population of the town at that time consisted of different ethno-religious and linguistic communities that do not identify themselves as ethnic Macedonians. Jingiby (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh look the state sponsored account from Sofia that edits Macedonian history. First of all we did identify as Macedonian my own ancestor fought there and he identified as macedonian :) That small republic covered almost 500km2 which is 1,000 Vaticans. Demographics of the area does not make the republic a non macedonian and part of our macedonian history. We celebrate it as a national holiday so i do not understand why should a ethnic bulgarians state sponsored accounts comment under my edit? I am directing and asking macedonians to edit macedonian history 89.205.124.12 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this encyclopedia is based on reliable secondary sources, whose authors are Academics, which are published by University publishers. Jingiby (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)