Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote

This is a poll that would decide whether a disclaimer would be or not used in wikipedia articles that mention the name of the country Republic of Macedonia. The result of this poll should affect all articles in Wikipedia that include the name of the Republic of Macedonia. bogdan | ^Talk 19:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there is a consensus that this discussion is about articles other than Republic of Macedonia itself; that article is no doubt hotly contested too, but let's deal with one thing at a time. --Cjnm 10:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer is currently in use among others in the articles:

Its current text is:

Note

{{Macedonian naming dispute}} Template about to be deleted per TfD-Splash 02:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the disclaimer

The disclaimer should be put in articles that contain the name of the Republic of Macedonia.

Theathenae
Odysseas
Colossus
Chronographos (any other course of action would violate NPOV, as it would aid monopolization of Macedonia on behalf of FYROM. Bear in mind that the Greek province of Macedonia incorporates the majority of both area and population of geographical Macedonia)

As I have said before, the lamentable-quality article Culture of Macedonia portrays the typical POV that FYROM editors try to impose: reducing the 2500-year long history and culture of Macedonia to something that pertains to their country exclusively, and monopolizing all Macedonia word derivatives in the process. It remains to be seen whether Wikipedia can prevent this, within its own scope. Judging by the fact that a Wikipedia Trustee voted the way she did, it seems that Wikipedia cannot, or rather will not, which is worse. Chronographos 14:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA (this disclaimer conforms with the principles of wikipedia)
Vergina.The name Republic of Macedonia is a falsification for the Slavic peoples!It is a imitation of Hellenism and included 2500 years Greek history of Macedonia.This is the reason why the name "Republic of Macedonia" is an international dispute.
ank99 For the disclaimer in its revised wording (see below) which serves its purpose much better than the existing template and contains links to the relevant articles.
Xmartha 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)The disclaimer should be put in articles that contain this name[reply]

Huxflux 10:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against the disclaimer

The disclaimer should not be used in articles as the information on the dispute is available by simply clicking the Republic of Macedonia link.

Naive cynic (see Talk:Macedonian denar)
Bogdan Giuşcă (see Talk:Macedonian denar)
Angela (see Talk:Macedonian denar)
Superm401. We should use the more popular term and not trouble ourselves over the Greeks not liking it. Superm401 | Talk 19:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Moravice (Completely unnecesary. The disclaimer is already accesibel and is anyway rather obvious. An encyklopedia can't bother to make a disclaimer for every dispute it covers)
VKokielov This is an insult. An insult, nothing less. Imagine writing under Yigal Amir: "we do not pretend to judge his marriage", or under abortion: "we do not pretend to judge Eric Rudolph". Believe me, for the Macedonians it's enough that their country is called FYROM and that there are signs to "Yugoslavia" south of the border.
80.255 Unnecessary. Bending over backward to avoid every conceivable POV is tantamount to creating a new POV. When we start putting disclaimers like this all over the place, the abyss it certainly staring back at us!
User:Cjnm (see Talk:Macedonian denar). However I don't think in this case a poll is particularly helpful. I would suggest those who feel strongly about this because they live in the area would do best to stand back from the discussion, try to gauge what the consensus is among uninvolved editors, and go along with it even if you personally disagree with it.
- You lay far too much on the human race. The uninvolved editors are small in number and apathetic. It's always that way, even in an academic project like Wikipedia. No; the locals have to defend their positions, with all due zeal but for the sake of whoever decides, and not like animals. --VKokielov 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - you would actually be far more effective if you are able to show that what you are proposing is widely supported by those who are not local or passionately involved. I'd say the same to those who feel strongly the other way. --Cjnm 09:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know that old maxim, the third fellow gets beat up? That is, if you try to get in the middle of a fight, you'd be beaten up and the two sides will continue fighting? There's nothing barbarian in that; it's the essence of human nature, even if we idiots sitting in front of our computers (speaking figuratively, of course) don't understand it. That is, the least disinterested parties ought to convince the rest of us. We, unfortunately, don't have neutral experts, and neutral quacks, for all their abundance, don't do us any good...--VKokielov 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not local; I am neither Greek nor Macedonian. I have watched this battle, and I conclude the disclaimer, while obstensibly NPOV in itself, is being pushed in a POV and nationalistic way. Jonathunder 19:05, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase it it in a way that its inherent NPOV quality eclipses our "nationalistic" ways Chronographos 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As below, "Alternative wording." Dell Adams 10:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Adams 10:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Wrong both for Macedonia and as a precedent. Susvolans ⇔ 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. We've been over this before: disclaimers were a bad idea for medical articles, they were a bad idea for legal articles, and they are a bad idea for Macedonian articles. Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked at the top of every page, is sufficient. --Carnildo 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific disclaimers are essential for numerous Chemistry related articles, to insure public safety. A general disclaimer is easily overlooked by the average websurfer. See for example Ammonium perchlorate. I'm not supporting this RofM disclaimer, just refuting your statement. ---Alex 21:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those should probably be removed, too. By putting a disclaimer on some articles, it exposes us to liability from any articles that don't have the disclaimer. By not having any special disclaimers on individual articles, and linking to the general disclaimer on every page, we have no such exposure. --Carnildo 19:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. And we should stop this Greek nationalist orgy on English Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the template, especially with its current, very POV wording. BlankVerse ∅ 10:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not local; and to me this is another unnecessary timesome PoV edit war. Septentrionalis 19:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Junes 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) No, this is a very bad idea. Think of the precedent it would create! Templates for Myanmar/Birma, Taiwan... I don't want to think about it. The Greek POV is a minority view; obviously it can be discussed in the Republic of Macedonia article, but please don't let it clutter every article related to Macedonia or 'FYROM'. We can't please everyone.[reply]
Oppose as per all the reasons above. Alr 04:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Isn't already understood the Wikipedia does not represent any individual or organized nation? --Terry 17:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Republic of Macedonia is explicit. However, I support efforts to arrive at alternate wording or to have a brief statement on the RoM page only. E Pluribus Anthony 07:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The UN refers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and variably (in reports) as Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic. E Pluribus Anthony 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. There is a Republic of Macedonia, and linking to that article is sufficient: gratuitous disclaimers are deliberately insulting to the people who live in that country, and set a very bad precedent for Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not mire itself in petty regional disputes. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeditor 17:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC) I doubt anybody denies or tries to hide the existence of a dispute. Referring to it on pages like Republic of Macedonia seems like a good idea – reminding readers of the dispute on every article on anything Macedonian does not.[reply]
Gogo (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Abstain

Joy [shallot] 20:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (does nobody think of us neutrals?! :)[reply]
FlavrSavr - this is ridicilous. Not only I am against the disclaimer, I am also against this poll as a means to solve this "problem", and it will only serve as a legitimization of the Greek POV. (Is it a surprise that all of the "For" votes are given by ethnic Greeks?). I'll try to further elaborate my reasons in the corresponding talk page. (I agree that it should be left on the Republic of Macedonia article, as Alex pointed below)
Alex 04:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC) - The disclaimer should remain on the Republic of Macedonia article as long as the name of the country is officially disputed. As for whether it should be placed in other articles (which is the subject of this poll), I have no comment.[reply]

— ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 22:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC) - I agree completely with FlavrSavr.[reply]

Alternative wording

I don't myself see that the "disclaimer" is needed in all these articles. But if we were to keep a footnote like this, I'd like to suggest a much better form of words: "Republic of Macedonia" and related terms are the subject of a naming dispute with Greece". This would be just as effective and much less intrusive where the article itself has little to do with the naming dispute. I'd welcome views on this wording (preferably brief ones) - independent of the vote above about whether to have a footnote at all. --Cjnm 10:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am rather uncomfortable with the word "official" myself, it's un-WikiPedia-like Chronographos 12:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. The sole purpose of the disclaimer is to state the fact, not the opinion (as some here have tried to claim), that the name is a matter of international dispute. It is; it's not just "the Greeks" who think it is. Indeed, it is those who wish to remove the disclaimer who are trying to push their opinion that the dispute should be swept under the carpet and Greek objections ignored. So much for neutrality.--Theathenae 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This wording actually accomplishes Theathenae's purpose, while the existing disclaimer does not. Wikipedia doesn't take "official positions", and no one thinks it does.--Dell Adams 10:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this template altogether. The dispute should not be mentioned everywhere, but only in the articles where it is relevant, like Republic of Macedonia. bogdan | ^Talk 12:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this better, for Wikipedia, term which should be included where authors deem necessary. Funny, though, that Greek-view supporters can so easily support an alternative wording to help a dispute while FYROM-view supporters are so stubborn on their views! --Ank99 09:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, unfortunately, have enough input in this section to conclude that there are many people on either side willing to support this alternative wording. One swallow does not make a summer.--Dell Adams 23:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]