Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Name: North Macedonia == == Demonym: North Macedonian/s == == Ethnicity: Macedonians == == Language: Macedonian

I have read the discussion that you have led and I want to say some things.

1. We already all know that the new name of the country will be North Macedonia, there is no need of the word Republic before North Macedonia because there is no other use of the name North Macedonia.

2. The new demonym will be North Macedonian/s, the demonym of every country is coming from its name, so, if the name of the country is North Macedonia, the demonym will be North Macedonian/s. But to clarify that the demonym is not an ethnic, but just an political term, so there will not be ethnic North Macedonian/s, but by North Macedonian will be clarifed that that person is from the country North Macedonia or he/she is something of that country. For example, Goran Pandev is a North Macedonian professional footballer, or Zoran Zaev is a North Macedonian Primer Minister. If we wanna say that Goran Pandev is an ethnic Macedonian professional footballer, then we will write: Goran Pandev is a Macedonian professional footballer. I think these things are clear, but in any case, I wanted to make them 100% clear.

3. The ethnic group with the name Macedonians will stay the same, so, there will be no changes in the places where we talk about the ethnic group Macedonians.

4. The language with name Macedonian will stay the same, so, as for the ethnic group, there will be no changes and in the places where we talk about the language Macedonian.

Resnjari, there is no need of new article with the name North Macedonian Macedonians, we already have an article about the Macedonians. This case is the same as the case with the Bosniaks, and for the Bosniaks we have one article and that's enough, we don't have and we don't need an article with the name Bosnian Bosniaks.

Maybe we need an article with the name North Macedonians who will contain informations about all citizens of North Macedonia, the same as the articles: Bosnians, Swiss people, Belgians, Americans, Argentines etc. I want to ask you what do you think about it?

I want to ask and about the languages infobox, we need a third graph for the official regional languages, Resnjari already placed a request on the infobox talkpage, but I still don't see an answer, can anyone resolve this? Sashko1999 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on the North Macedonian Macedonians thing was about conventions on citizenship and ethnicity being side by side. Nonetheless if MOSMAC is not updated there might be editors who will fool around and cause mischief via edit warring about what so and so bit 'really' means or implies. I do feel that MOSMAC will need to be updated with a reaffirmation of its conventions as they are with few small adjustments about North Macedonia(n) as you say in light of the Prespa agreement. @SilentResident was saying however that we treat past political and other people etc without using the North Macedonian term and it stays as it is pre 2019 with Macedonian. Admins would need to have some input on all this otherwise though its small things as everyone knows Balkan topics have the possibility to cause numerous wiki shitstorms. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Per the Prespa Agreement, the "nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Therefore, to use your example, we'll continue to describe Goran Pandev's nationality as Macedonian (Macedonian professional footballer). --Local hero talk 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Local hero: - My understanding is that if it is a description of his country of origin (a footballer from North Macedonia) then he is a North Macedonian professional footballer. If it is a description of his ethnicity, then he is a Macedonian professional footballer. Only ethnic Macedonians can be described as Macedonian. If there is an Albanian in the national football team, he is always a North Macedonian professional footballer since he is not ethnically Macedonian. Sashko1999's outline looks good to me at a glance. --Michail (blah) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
I took the wording straight from the agreement... nationality is Macedonian or citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Agim Ibraimi will also continue to be described as a Macedonian footballer despite being of Albanian ethnicity. --Local hero talk 17:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I just read the whole agreement and yes you are right @Local hero:. Thanks for pointing it out. Much appreciated. :) Resnjari (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Local hero, do not confuse the nationality with the demonym, the nationality doesn't have to be the same as the demonym, for example, in North Korean passport writes NATIONALITY: KOREAN, but how we write here about their football players?, we write that they are North Korean, because that's the demonym for North Korea. Here is one example. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ri_Myong-guk Ri Myong-guk (born 9 September 1986 in Pyongyang, North Korea) is a North Korean international footballer.

The term Macedonian will be used just if we need to say that the player is an ethnic Macedonian, we can't use this term if we want to say that the player is from the country North Macedonia, because the demonym for North Macedonia is North Macedonian/s, and not Macedonian/s. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Philly boy92, completely agree with your views because they are 100% correct. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please reference WP:MOSBIO, we introduce nationality (or location) as context in the lead. Demonym is quite similar to nationality - for the purposes of the infobox here, we can include Macedonian and North Macedonian.
Again, per the Prespa Agreement, the people of this country are Macedonian, regardless of ethnicity. No changes will be necessary to such articles leads. Thanks. --Local hero talk 19:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So, to summarize from the discussion thus far, we are concluding to the following terms:
  • Name: 1) Republic of North Macedonia (formal), 2) North Macedonia (common).
  • Demonym: 1) North Macedonian/s 2) Macedonian/s
  • Nationality: 1) North Macedonian/s
  • Citizenship/Nationality: 1) Macedonian/s, 2) Citizen/s of North Macedonia
  • Ethnicity: 1) Macedonian/s, 2) Albanian/s, and so on.
  • Language: 1) Macedonian, 2) Albanian, and so on.
Did I miss something? Also I am bugged how to call the country's geographical north, south, west and east: Northern North Macedonia, Southern North Macedonia? Perhaps the "Northern parts of North Macedonia" and "Southern parts of North Macedonia sound better. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm yes, clearly you weren't reading... nationality is explicitly "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Where did you determine that the demonym is North Macedonian? I'd rather not get repetitive, please re-read. --Local hero talk 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm yes, clearly you weren't reading... nationality is explicitly "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". I was. And nationality isn't exactly same same as citizenship. For example: the Albanian nation spreads across 3 countries and encompass populations both of Albanian, Macedonian and Kosovar citizenship. My impression is we can't make a clear sense without clarifying where nationality/ethnicity/citizenship do differ from each other, precisely and not based on our opinions. I will need hear some opinions on this, but also I will appreciate if can we find a legal definition in the constitution. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You need to familiarize yourself with some terms I'm afraid. In any case, this agreement explicitly tells us that Nationality = Macedonian: why does your list not reflect this? --Local hero talk 20:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies, checking again at Prespa Agreement, Page 3 of 19 where nationality and citizenship are used in the same context. Then Nationality is same as citizenship here. Updated above comment. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Local hero No need for personal attacks on users please. The agreement says that the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (one thing, not two separate things). It does not say that the nationality is "Macedonian". Additionally the agreement states that The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name of the Second Party or its short name, that is, “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad, may be in line with Article 7(3) and (4). I would argue that the demonym does relate to the state. It denotes the state that a person is from. It is not related to ethnicity or nationality. Others have demonstrated this argument clearly with the example of North Korea. --Michail (blah) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I find this persuasive. But ultimately w/r/t the demonym(s), I think we should follow WP:COMMON. My expectation is "North Macedonian" will come widely into vogue, although some nationalists on either side may prefer different terms. Once we move the page, I would suggest listing both demonyms ("North Macedonian" and "Macedonian") in the infobox; in fact, there's a decent argument to just do it now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 At the same time, a different line of the agreement and specifically article 7, reads: 1. The Parties acknowledge that their respective understanding of the terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” refers to a different historical context and cultural heritage. and 3. When reference is made to the Second Party,these terms denote its territory,language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to under Article 7(2). So if something refers to the people or the territory is still "Macedonian" but in a different context compared to Greek Macedonia. So if someone would argue that demonym is more related to the territory rather than state, then "Macedonian" would be more correct than "North Macedonian". I would insist to try to get a consensus before deciding the demonyms that should be used in wikipedia. Argean (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Argean I agree that there needs to be broad consensus, I was merely offering my own understanding of the situation. then "Macedonian" would be more correct than "North Macedonian" - no, because Upon entry into force of this Agreement, and subject to provisions under Articles 1(9) and (10), the terms “Macedonia”, “Republic of Macedonia”, “FYR of Macedonia”, “FYR Macedonia” in a translated or untranslated form, as well as the provisional name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the acronym “fYROM” shall cease to be used to refer to the Second Party in any official context. I think 7.1 is referring to how Macedonians refer to themselves in Macedonian, not that Macedonia can be used interchangeably to refer to North Macedonia. If we take it to mean the way you mean it, who decides on whether "Macedonian" means ethnic Macedonian or Macedonian (Greek)? After all the agreement says it's both. At any rate, I think I have made my position understood, it is my opinion that it should be done the way we treat North Korea, i.e. demonym as opposed to nationality. You also mentioned a key word, context. Macedonian gives no context. North Macedonian does. --Michail (blah) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 Well, I never challenged if you made your point clear. I'm trying to say that there can be more than one opinions that can be well justified based on different interpretations of the text of the agreement. That doesn't mean that I'm trying to prove which one is right or wrong. So you are mentioning the line about the terms that will cease to be used officially in regards to the "Republic of Macedonia/FYROM". You can see that it doesn't explicitly mention the term "Macedonian", which on the other hand is clearly mentioned in article 7. So depending on the choice of article the conclusions that can be drawn are completely different and sometimes contradictory. For that reason I personally think that the agreement should be interpreted as a whole and not in fragments. My personal feelings on the use of the demonym "North Macedonian" are very mixed, being a Greek Macedonian myself. Especially the comparison to North/South Korea bugs me a lot, because it implies that "North Macedonians" are just a part of "Macedonians" and the other part is "South Macedonians". This could cause an awfully large amount of misunderstandings among less informed individuals that read about "North Macedonians". I honestly think that the scope of the agreement is not to change the terms that are currently being used for the people, but to change the meaning of these terms along with changing the official name of the state and its institutions. I don't feel that the use of the demonym "North Macedonians" is achieving the same goal. Regards, Argean (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, just a short comment because I see that there is a lot of confusion for no reason. The Prespa agreement has nothing to do with determining the demonym for the citizens of North Macedonia. It determines the nationality/citizenship which will remain "Macedonian" as it already has been. It also doesn't touch the subject of ethnicity which is basically left to self-determination and will also remain "Macedonian", or as I prefer to call "Macedonian (etnhic)". The demonym does not always follow the name of the country or the official term used to define the nationality/citizenship and I can give a thousand examples. I believe that the demonym(s) that will be used on wikipedia articles should be decided after discussion on updating the MOSMAC and after reaching the necessary consensus. Argean (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But it does. According to Wikipedia itself the demonym "is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place". Also, the nationailty/citizenship does not remain "Macedonian", but changes to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", an official change that will take place on ID's, and passports as well. Cutting the "/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" part is against the Article 1 of the Agreement. Demonym should change to "North Macedonian", ethnicity remains Macedonian.StevenHal (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The agreement only determines the official terms for nationality/citizenship (both being the same thing). It doesn't care about how such an unofficial and ambiguous concept like a demonym will be chosen to describe the people that come from this country. So what is a "place" after all? Is it a state? Is it a territory? Is it a geographic region? Article 7 of the agreement determines the rules that should apply on the use of the term "Macedonian" and this includes the territory for both parties. At the same time the term "North Macedonian" is not mentioned even once in the text of the agreement and I don't think that this was just an oversight. Furthermore, to give an example of how a demonym does not reflect completely the official terminology, I will use the example of another multicultural country: the official citizenship of Bosnians is Citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I don't think that we breach their constitution when we omit the "Herzegovinians" part from the demonym. And we still use "Bosnians" although it sounds very similar to Bosniaks (in some languages the two words are even exactly the same) which is clearly an ethnic designation that applies only to 50% of Bosnians. Let's wait to see what demonym will eventually predominate for people from North Macedonia and avoid trying so hard to push our own personal interpretation of the Prespa agreement. Argean (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well since we are referring to, and this whole arguement is about the name of the citizens of the (future) Republic of North Macedonia, I believe it is pretty obvious that the "place" you ask about, is the country itself. North Macedonia. The very definition of the term makes it obvious that "North Macedonian" is the most logical way to go, as the demonym stems from the name of a place, as mentioned previously. Also, the Article 7 you mentioned, clearly describes the respective (as stated) understanding of the term "Macedonia/Macedonian" between the two countries and peoples, and does not involve third parties in any way. You also seem to contradict yourself saying demonyms are ambiguous and unofficial, yet "North Macedonian" should not be used as it is not cited in the Agreement. The example of Bosnia is vastly different from this case, more complex, and does not reflect on this issue in a similar manner (double placename instead of compound name with geographic content). I would argue that the Koreas would provide a better example in this case, both countries referring to their citizens as plain "Koreans" (officially and unofficially), but "North/South Korean" having been adopted worldwide for both official and unofficial mainstream usage. Keep in mind that even in this case, the geographic terms North and South are not official in the country titles as it is with North Macedonia. I could name other examples as well (East Timor/East Timorese etc.) but you get the point. The arguement in this case becomes even stronger taking into account the recent clarifications for nationality that do not even exist in the examples I gave. Lastly, it's pretty obvious that "North Macedonian" will, eventually, be overwhelmingly and globally used in all contexts, as it (rightfully) goes without saying to the average person, that demonyms follow state names.StevenHal (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Please, read my previous comment, because I don't like to repeat myself. First of all I don't object the use of the term "North Macedonian", but I propose a context-specific usage. Secondly the whole Prespa agreement is between 2 parties, and doesn't involve third parties in the first place. The implementation of the agreement involves third parties as outlined in the agreement itself. Article 1 clearly says that the use of the term "Macedonian" is defined within article 7 and does not limit the use of the term between the two countries and peoples, and does not involve third parties in any way. Your interpretation seems to me as POV pushing. I have objected the "North/South Korean" paradigm and explained my arguments very clearly before. The case of "North Macedonia" is obviously a very complicated one. Actually the only true comparisons that I can think of, apart from the "Bosnian/Bosniak" case that I already explained, are the Northern Cyprus/Turkish Cypriots discrepancy and the complex issue of Northern Irish identity. So obviously we need to reach a consensus before deciding the terminology, because none of us holds a crystal ball. Argean (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
My goal is neither to act like an expert, nor hold a crystal ball. I'm merely trying to interpret things as objectively and simply as I can. I do insist the demonym should derive from the state name, as defined, and as has been established, and done so for years. Not only that, it is what Wikipedia has been applying for all countries bearing directional names. East Timor's demonym is East Timorese, South Sudan's is South Sudanese, Central African Republic's is Central African, South Africa's is South African, North/South Korea's is North/South Korean, East/West German, North/South Vietnamese etc. Same goes with non-country directional names from cities to provinces (US States West Virginia, North/South Dakota/Carolina etc.) and other prefixes as well (New etc.). These demonyms are all derivatives of the states' names. You (wrongfully) take the ethnicity factor into consideration (frankly, it is a bit odd that you consider the current state, of Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greeks) coexisting with the exact same name less confusing and problem-creating. Also your suggestion of using the name according to context on each and every word it describes would be confusing and vague to say at least to anyone who hasn't actually read the Agreement) , something you shouldn't be taking into account here. That's why there are two different categories, Demonym/Ethnic Groups, clarifying everything. I can't see what would be so wrong with "Demonym: North Macedonians, Ethnic Groups: Macedonians".StevenHal (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious that we have different opinions, but please try at least to read my comments carefully and avoid judging who is right or wrong, because I never tried to do the same with your comments. We both express and argument for our personal POVs, I can't see why yours is more objective than mine. I keep asking for consensus, while you keep pushing your POV using debatable arguments and contradicting yourself, especially when you try to compare the situation with "North/South Koreans" (well now you decided that their state names are "North" and "South" Korea, which contradicts your previous comment that the geographic terms North and South are not official in the country titles as it is with North Macedonia). You also seem to have decided that you know better how to define a demonym, so I think that we should forget all the linguistic relations among the various terms "ethnonym", "endonym", "exonym", "toponym" "topo-ethnonym" (as briefly described here) and stick to a vague definition of "demonym" that it may refer to the official state name or not, depending on what is convenient. I've described very carefully my personal view on why I believe the generalized use of the term "North Macedonians" creates more problems than it actually solves, so I'm not going to repeat myself. I have no idea what will be the consensus result of the discussion on an updated guideline, but at least I'm not trying to preoccupy what is logical and expected to happen. PS. And no it's not odd to keep the current terminology for people. I'm a Greek Macedonian and I don't object if someone wants to be called ethnic Macedonian, especially now that the agreement explicitly states that modern ethnic Macedonians have nothing to do with Greece and its' culture. Argean (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You keep acting as if I'm personally insulting you. Are you that easily offended when having a normal argument or is this your way of winning? How can that consensus be reached, when we obviously have different opinions? You keep pushing your POV as well. That's what we have been doing for the last hours. That's what an argument is. Now you stick to the North/South Korea example, touching on unrelated details thinking it will somehow prove you right, while I have posted, and can post many more so it doesn't really do much. Point is, the demonym of a people stems from the place they are from, and is not (necessarily) based on ethnicity of the majority group. Like I said, that's what the seperate info boxes are for (demonym/ethnicity). I'm not going to argue whether demonyms are vague, but it's something that exists and we have to live with. I'm not using demonyms to my convenience, I'm simply using them as examples of why the demonym for "North Macedonia" should follow the steps of other directional names. The demonym "North Macedonian" while also following the demonyms of similar compound names as mentioned, is also a way of differentiating between the citizens of North Macedonia (including minorities, especially Albanians whose language is now co-official, something important we haven't touched on) and the regional group of northern Greeks, putting an end to all monopolies of the terms usage. You are bothered by "North Macedonians" for demonym, as a Macedonian Greek, while the plain "Macedonians" just basically works to overshadow regional Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians (reason why the clarification was added to the nationality). I believe it is fair and serves both peoples justice. And like I told you earlier, the average person't won't have any knowledge of every detail and asterisk in the Prespa Agreement, so you can't count on that to solve any misunderstandings.StevenHal (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You really like to argue, don't you? I never suggested that you 're insulting me, I just keep reminding you of WP:RFC, which you have never used or suggested in your posts. We both have an opinion, but there is a certain behavior that defines pushing your POV. I don't know why actually it's you that keeps repeating the "North/South" Korean paradigm, while I have explained in other posts not only why it's a bad analogy, but also why I find other examples more relevant (e.g. Northern Cyprus/Turkish Cypriots). There is no info box for "ethnicity", there is one for ethnic groups and no this is not why they are there (it's not there in every country after all, it's there ONLY in the countries that recognize more than one ethnic group). I never said that demonyms are vague, but that the concept is vague itself and I'm really trying to understand what your interpretation is and if you understand the relation of demonyms/ethnonyms/logonyms etc. Finally I don't get your point of differentiation: so for you an ethnic Macedonian of North Macedonia is what? A "North Macedonian Macedonian"? If you say he is a plain "North Macedonian" that contradicts the agreement. If you say that he is a "North Macedonian" and a "Macedonian" at the same time this is confusing and misleading (I have explained that extensively). What I say is since the name of the ethnic group AND the nationality is not changing and remains "Macedonian", let's not make things more complicated. A "Macedonian" (as used in modern context) should remain the same and the redirection to the relevant page clarifies everything (Slavic origin, etc). A Greek Macedonian stays also the same and not related to "North Macedonia" and an Macedonian Albanian will become an "Albanian of North Macedonia" and that's no different to let's say an Albanian of Montenegro who is also a Montenegrin citizen (and there is no page for Montenegrin citizens, but only for ethnic Montenegrins) Can you just at least agree that we need to have a broader discussion before starting changing demonyms in all relevant pages in a week's time, that the agreement will come into force? Argean (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyways, I'm afraid I have spent far too much time (Which I sadly don't have) arguing over something we are obviously never going to reach an agreement on, and have no power on either. I have my opinion, I did my research, and I drew my conclusions, and you drew your own. I could argue with you, but it would just be perpetual and repetitive, and most importantly eventually lead nowhere. This is a compromise to end a pointless discussion for the sake of both of us, and not a withdraw, I will continue supporting what I havd stated. I trust that the people who will edit the page once the new name becomes official will do a good job solving any issues and misunderstandings such as this. Have a good day.StevenHal (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we could argue indefinitely, but this is not what the talk pages are for. I think that we both made our points clear long ago on a topic that obviously needs broad consensus before any changes eventually apply. My apologies if you are a newcomer to wikipedia, but if you really want to contribute, please allow yourself some time to read briefly the guidelines. Regards. Argean (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly you deleted a sentence from your own comment: According to Wikipedia "Demonyms do not always clearly distinguish place of origin or ethnicity from place of residence or citizenship, and many demonyms overlap with the ethnonym for the ethnically dominant group of a region.". I'm reposting it for the sake of objectivity that you like to plead for. Argean (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Congrats. I cited the Wikipedia definition earlier, basically promoting it to you, didn't I? Glad you read it, I urge you to reread the first sentence as well, it would end our argument in an instant. And please keep the discussion on a single thread. No point in arguing in multiple.StevenHal (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you but I know Greek so I know the etymology of the terms and I don't need to read the wikipedia definitions. I haven't argued with you in any other thread but this one. Except if you are using more than one accounts here, so please stop opening new sections about the same issue just to repeat the same things over and over, because I will also keep answering. Argean (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Classic "Name does not equal Demonym": Netherlands / Dutch. --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I've read the entire discussion, and I might say that the demonym should remain 'Macedonian'. While I recognize that there is indeed a degree of difference between nationality and demonym, the Prespa Agreement explicitly states that the nationality remains 'Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia' and goes to great length to avoid the term 'North Macedonian'. This is not a mere technicality: the government of the Republic of Macedonia used it as a key point in the name-change referendum to calm fears over 'losing identity'. I doubt that other cases (North Korea / South Korea, South Sudan / Sudan) are good reference points here. Furthermore there's definitely no evidence of 'North Macedonian' becoming a widespread demonym over the commonly used 'Macedonian'.--FlavrSavr (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The demonym related to the country will be North Macedonian though. As in, the North Macedonian Government; not the Macedonian Government. --Michail (blah) 21:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That has not been the case so far. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The BBC, for example has been careful enough not to use it.[1]. I'm confident that even if 'North Macedonian' becomes more common, a lot of, if not the majority of the media will refer to it as 'Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is about as much a crystal ball as telling you the next solar eclipse is on the 2nd of July. The agreement explicitly states that Macedonia cannot be used by North Macedonia as a name to refer to itself, so even if the demonym when referring to the people might be Macedonian (as the agreement confirms), the demonym when referring to the country will be North Macedonian. It's right there in article 1. --Michail (blah) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, demonym, from that beautiful Greek word δῆμος meaning dêmos, "people, tribe" and όνομα, ónoma, "name" specifically "identifies residents or natives of a particular place" - namely the people, so I doubt there's such a thing as a "demonym when referring to the country". Demonym refers to the people, by definition. The Agreement, never, I repeat, never uses 'North Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Demos can also mean country, so demonym can indeed refer to the country as opposed to the people. The demonym for South Korea is South Korean, but there isn't a South Korean ethnicity; it refers to the state not the people. I would also remind you that the agreement specifies nationality as Macedonian, and since when do we use nationality for the demonym? Is Charles Michel the Walloon Prime Minister or the Belgian one? --Michail (blah) 22:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This discussion can become endless, that's why I keep insisting that we should reach a WP:CONSENSUS on updating WP:MOSMAC. Personally, I agree in specific parts with both of you (I've explained my opinion many times, so it's pointless to repeat it again). Listing or not the term "North Macedonians" in the infobox, next to the demonyms, is one thing (personally I disagree). After all the definition of demonym is so vague, that we shouldn't be debating on it anyway. The important matter is that it's becoming obvious that there is going to be an endless edit warring on which pages should be renamed and which not after the agreement comes into force, and that's the issue that needs to be resolved. --Argean (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Argean. As I'm fairly new in this discussion, I'd just like to clarify my opinion once again. The Macedonia naming dispute and its resolve is a sui generis case and other situations (North Korea / South Korea, South Sudan / Sudan) might be helpful, but not conclusive. For example, the demonym for South Korea is both 'South Korean' and 'Korean' (as it is indicated in the article itself), however, there is another country bearing the name Korea. At some point, I believe it become common in the English language to use the demonyms 'South' and 'North' Koreans to distinguish two different nationalities (RK and DRPK) of the same ethnicity. There is no indication so far that media will totally abandon the usage of 'Macedonian' and start using exclusively 'North Macedonian' en masse when referring to either the people or the government of the future North Macedonia. The ethnicity and the language, of course, remain 'Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi FlavrSavr. I just want to make a small clarification regarding my opinion on the naming conventions. I distinguish the demonym from the adjectival terms that should be used as titles in specific pages. As I've said before the demonym is not defined by the agreement, so let's wait and see which demonym will be eventually used more commonly. I personally agree that the demonym should reflect the nationality (in this case Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) and there is no need for adding the "North", because not only it doesn't need disambiguation (like the Koreans, the Sudanese people, etc), but rather causes confusion, as I've explained before. On the other hand, we should all acknowledge that the agreement explicitly states that The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name of the Second Party or its short name, that is, "of the Republic of North Macedonia", or "of North Macedonia". Keeping in line with that should be sensible, no matter what terms are used by the media. That includes e.g. renaming the page of Prime Minister of Macedonia to "Prime Minister of North Macedonia", and stop using the adjectival term "Macedonian", since the Prime Minister is an official organ and not just a person. Anyway, this is a discussion that in my humble opinion should be taking place at WP:MOSMAC and not here, because the "demonym" is just the tip of the iceberg. --Argean (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, you are right, this discussion should be taking place at WP:MOSMAC, before this article becomes a hotbed for nationalists from both sides. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on updating WP:MOSMAC

A discussion to draft an RFC for a newly reviewed/updated WP:MOSMAC has been initiated here. All editors that have suggestions on how the naming conventions could or should be renewed, based on the recent developments related to the ratification and the approaching implementation of Prespa agreement are more than welcome to contribute. --Argean (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia climate map

File:Macedonia map of Köppen climate classification.svg

The map of Köppen climate classification in the article is quite nonsensial - tundra climate in all the eastern macedonia etc.. Please delete it from article.Grtek (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That map is evidently taken out and enlarged from an extremely small-scale world map of climate regions, and quite seriously oversimplified as a result. I agree it doesn't really make much sense at this size. Even the shape of the country itself is hardly recognizable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The shape and image kind of looks like a hamburger gone wrong after being left out for days and becoming soggy. Is there anything in the commons to replace the map?Resnjari (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari and Grtek: Yes, I replaced it with commons:File:Koppen-Geiger Map MKD present.svg. Runner1928 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :)Resnjari (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated the old image for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Name Has Changed

It is over. The North Macedonian Foreign Minister has publicly announced it. North Macedonia got the last papers from Greece and the change is official. Here is his twitter message https://twitter.com/Dimitrov_Nikola/status/1095381648844169217?s=19

Why isn't the title of the page 'Republic of North Macedonia'? Ronbb345 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

So the articled moved to Republic of Macedonia, which is neither the common nor the official name anymore. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would assume that this is either a mistake or there hasn't a final decision in regards to the changing of the term on the page yet? Ronbb345 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

hasn't been*

Excuse me. Ronbb345 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just have a look a few sections above this one. There's a "requested move" process ongoing just now. We usually take a couple of days time for decisions like that on Wikipedia; there's no rush. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the original page for the discussion about changing the original page. Newcomers will get confused as this will be the first time they read about this. For those who are not involved with the issue, they will only know/look for one country, North Macedonia. Time to change, no need to wait for the State Department to log in and do the changes, wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.147.18 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Comment: Whether the article is moved or not, will depend on the outcome of voting in the February 8's Move Request which has to be completed first. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And how is that "completed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.147.18 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A move Request must stay open at least a full week and it cannot be completed in less than 7 days since its initiation. It was opened in 8 February and it is expected that it will be completed by 15 February or later. If there is consensus in that Move Request for moving the article from the old name to the new one, then the progress will be completed. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Dutch official public news channel NOS also mentioned it; it seems official. The Republic of North-Macedonia has been born. [1] 217.123.76.65 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nos.nl/artikel/2271715-macedonie-heet-vanaf-nu-noord-macedonie.html
I do not understand what you are trying to tell us. The article cannot be renamed until the February 8's Move Request is over. That will happen from 15 February and ownards. Read above please. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Typical bureaucratic nonsense. Make everything as complicated as possible and never use common sense. --188.155.242.88 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding what I said. Ronbb345 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Announcement of the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia for entry into force of the Final Agreement, Constitutional Amendments and Constitutional Law for Implementation of Amendments

  • We hereby announce that as of today, February 12th 2019, the Final Agreement for Resolving the Differences as Described in United Nations Security Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Parties enters into force and this was duly published in the Official Gazette by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Furthermore, we also inform that the conditions for entry into force of amendments XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Constitutional Law for implementation of the Amendments XXXIII to XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019 are met. These shall enter into force today, on February 12th 2019 together with the duly publication made by the Government in the Official Gazette.

Therewith begins the fulfillment of the obligations arising from the Final Agreement and constitutional amendments. The initial decisions in relation to the necessary measures and activities for fulfillment of the above-mentioned obligations shall be presented in a Communique published by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for fulfillment of the obligations stipulated in the Final Agreement. Maleizmene (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Official government website has been renamed

Official government website has been renamed to "Government of North Macedonia": https://vlada.mk/node/16763?ln=en-gb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The linked page has "Republic of North Macedonia" at the top and "Republic of Macedonia" at the bottom. There is no doubt that the change is in progress, and also obvious that it will take time for the change to propagate. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's actually odd/bizarre that the wiki page is still named "Republic of Macedonia" even though under the External Links section of the same page, it directs you to the official website of the "Republic of North Macedonia". Moreover, all headers of all three language versions of the website (Macedonian, Albanian, English) have been remained in line with the country's new constitutional name: Republic of North Macedonia. Therefore, why is there still a discussion here about this?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, while there is overwhelming consensus for renaming this page to North Macedonia and most editors appear to favor doing this sooner rather than later, there are those who insist on following a specific Wikipedia process for controversial names (that was applied to this page because FYROM ↔ Republic of Macedonia was controversial.) I would argue that this no longer applies, because North Macedonia isn’t really controversial, as this discussion appears to show, but I don’t get to make this call. —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • On the very top of this discussion page it says: "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." So are we still determining something that the country itself has officially announced in its official website (which has officially renamed in all language versions) and official Twitter account?!? Come on guys, let's be serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the name has changed. Wikipedia’s process for determining consensus on this is through the requested move initiated on 8 February (see above.) This process apparently takes at least 7 days. So we can all come back this Friday, see that there is, in fact, consensus for moving the page to North Macedonia, and move the page. Like it or not, that’s just how Wikipedia rolls. But be glad we can use this process instead of ARBCOM, which would take more than a month. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Patience please, guys. Why this rush? Just wait 2 more days, it won't hurt. That's how the Move Request works: it should have a minimal duration of 7 days for everyone to be able to participate in it. 15 February isn't as far as you may think, is only 2 days from today. @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, is the outcome of this Move Request substantial enough for moving the article, or do we have to wait for the Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC to be completed as well? -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing page name move discussion, as the name listed in the infobox is supposed the the entity's official name, I request, now that the name change to "North Macedonia" is official, that the name in the infobox be edited to read "Republic of North Macedonia", the new long-form official name.Pizzaguy875 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_24&oldid=1143725148"