Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Listing "Macedonia" as a common form in English

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for the proposal as originally worded, but see follow-up discussion regarding other variants below. (Closed by RfC participant, as this RfC has clearly gone stale.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


"Macedonia", without the adjective "North" and outside the "FYROM" pseudonym, is still commonly used in English language reliable sources and, of course, in the majority of pre-Prespa sources in English. Should the first sentence of the lead be edited to recognize common English usage by changing it to: "North Macedonia or Macedonia, officially Republic of North Macedonia"? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Despite the Prespa agreement, "Macedonia" still commonly occurs in reliable sources in English. Looking at media coverage of the 2020 Oscar nomination of "Honeyland", the coverage was split between calling the country "North Macedonia" and "Macedonia". The New York Times article on the film used "North Macedonia" in the first reference and "Macedonia" in subsequent references. In addition, decades of English reliable sources used only "Macedonia" as the common name of the country, with or without reference to the trademark dispute with Greece. Wikipedia should fairly recognize common English usage of "Macedonla" in the first sentence. It is a precisely parallel situation to that of Myanmar, whose article begins "Myanmar or Burma" even though the name was changed decades ago. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
What you have failed to make the case for is why this needs to be right in the very beginning of the article. There is a name section where these things can be discussed. It can even be discussed elsewhere in the lede. But to have it right in the first line of the article, alongside the current name? Nope. Khirurg (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Because our readers, those who want to know right away that they are in the right place, don't want to have to read the article and guess where the name that they are looking for has been hidden by opponents of Macedonia's right to choose its own name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone with a functioning brain can see this is a country article, and that they have to the right place if they are looking for the Balkan country. Your feigned concern for "our readers", who you assume are extremely dumb, is not a compelling reason to clutter the opening line of the article with 3 names one after the other. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is absolutely no need for that in the first sentence of the lede. This will result in an absurd situation with three names ("North Macedonia", "Republic of North Macedonia", "Macedonia") all crammed one after another in the first sentence of the lede. That it not the purpose of the first sentence of the lede. The nomenclature can be discussed elsewhere in the article, but I see no compelling arguments here for inclusion of former names in the first sentence of the lede. Khirurg (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The reason is that this it not a "former name" because it is still in use in English language sources and is still one name likely to be encountered by our readers and users. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's being used less and less, and regardless, that is not a compelling argument for it being the fourth word in the article. Many countries are referred by a shorter name (South Korea is frequently referred to as simply "Korea"), but I don't see you arguing with as much zeal for those cases. Khirurg (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that it's being used "less and less"? If you look at the links I provided further up on this page, about half of the articles dealing with "Honeyland" used "Macedonia", not "North Macedonia". The version you reverted yesterday had it much further back in the first sentence, so your complaint about "the fourth word" is rather empty given that you oppose its use anywhere in the first sentence as a reference to actual English usage. Your argument about "Korea" is not relevant since there are two Koreas, but only one Macedonia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the pre-2019 sources refer to the country as "Republic of Macedonia", with "FYR Macedonia" coming second, yet Taivo would never be sensitive to open any RfCs asking for "FYROM"'s includion to the first sentence of the lede. Contrary, knowing his bias, he would oppose any such attempts back then. What changed now?. Both "Macedonia", "Republic Of Macedonia" and "FYR Macedonia" are already present on the lede, just lower and this suffices. This RfC is just a dangerous trick of restoring the plain Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia to the top of the article, in spite of WP:MOSMAC, for which I am afraid there will be much contention and friction. Taivo should back off before old wounds are opened again. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent WP:NCMAC. Next he will argue that plain "Macedonia" be used in the article because "muh Honeyland". Khirurg (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. The proposed text does not violate WP:MOSMAC nor WP:NCMAC in any way, shape, or form. Those who maintain that it does are simply catastrophizing the proposal and not acknowledging the proposal for what it actually is--a simple and straightforward description of current English usage, not any attempt to replace "North Macedonia" in any other text or place in the English Wikipedia. And since "FYROM" is not now used in any context (unlike simple "Macedonia"), it is not equal or equivalent to "Macedonia" in any way. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The naming issue was settled with NCMAC. Now, you are reigniting the issue by proposing to place plain "Macedonia" on an equal footing with "North Macedonia". No way. Khirurg (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not about the naming issue and never has been. This is about listing a continued common form in English that the majority of English speakers will recognize as the name of Greece's northern neighbor from their reading of reliable sources before Prespa and continuing after. It is not about how we label that country throughout Wikipedia. It is offering our readers a clear and unambiguous indication that they have come to the right place if they were looking for "Macedonia" and did not know about any place called "North Macedonia". It is an opportunity, if you will, for them to learn that the name has changed recently. The vast majority of English speakers know nothing about "North Macedonia", but they do know that "Macedonia" is a country in the Balkans. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of English speakers know nothing about "North Macedonia" What kind of nonsense is this? How do you presume to know what the "vast majority" of English speakers know or don't know? Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Because I have lived my whole life in the United States and I know the level of geographic knowledge that my countrymen possess and where they are likely to look for information when confronted by a film like "Honeyland" and press releases about "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, we are deep in WP:OR territory now. Your personal experience, however fascinating, is worthless as a source. Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's also as irrelevant to the question of making Wikipedia easy on our readers as your insistence that they read the entire article before they find the hidden mention of "North Macedonia" being the same country as "Macedonia", the country they are searching for. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Your proposal does not make things easier, it makes things more complicated. Anyone with a functioning brain can see this is a country article, and that they have to the right place if they are looking for the country. Your feigned concern for "our readers", while touching, is not a compelling reason to clutter the opening line of the article with 3 names. 04:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose User TaivoLinguist is known as a user for having strong bias in favor of the old name for that republic, and even blamed Greece for not keeping the old name for the country. [1] In his words (copy-pasted here for everyone's convenience): "You [Greeks] defeated your northern neighbor in a completely Greek-begun and Greek-maintained false trademark dispute and now you wish to follow up on your victory over your Slavic neighbor with victories over your ancient neighbors. Yes, it's political, but it is entirely of Greek political origin." This leaves me little room to agree that the motives behind this RfC are purely neutral and nothing more than an attempt to sideline North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia, with an ambiguous and highly debated term Macedonia which refers to many things, such as people, places, languages, regions and administrative entities. This problematic RfC can set a dangerous precedent for violations of WP:MOSMAC which made it clear that the name "Macedonia" shouldn't be used in any way outside of historic context. This would reignite the old debates and disruption among Wikipedia's editors which I believe have already been settled. Sorry but I oppose this. The RfC should be cancelled as it goes against MOSMAC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It's always sad when one party to a dispute gloats over a victory that was directly the result of their own intransigence and bullying of a neighbor. This is not a violation of WP:MOSMAC except in only the most twisted interpretation of it. There is no advocacy here of using "Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia as an option. It is only a recognition that many of our readers will land on this page expecting to see "Macedonia" because that's what their English source outside Wikipedia is using only to find that they are in the "wrong place". The addition is simple and only reassures them that they are in the right place. This is, in no way, shape, or form, a violation of Wikipedia's strictures on the use of "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to re-litigate the dispute and talk about "intransigence and bullying" even if that is true.
None of us know how people end up here and what they're actually looking for -- the modern country, one of its predecessors, the ancient Kingdom, the greater historical region, the Greek region, or may be even the fruit salad. Once they get to this page, they will clearly realize that it's not the fruit salad, but besides that, we need to be clear. Just giving "Macedonia" with no qualification as a synonym can only confuse them if they're looking for one of the others. I have just made the dab note a bit more explicit, so that should help. After that, we can certainly let the user know that "Macedonia" is used informally as a short name of this country. --Macrakis (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Inspecting the sources that TaivoLinguist provided, usage of Macedonia still occurs significantly in English sources, this cannot be denied. I feel that the statement in the stable version "[...] from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name Republic of Macedonia" does not do justice in exemplifying the fact. From just reading the first paragraph, an uninformed reader may think that the state changed name any time between 1991 and the present day, and in additional may also further think that the former name is totally obsolete in usage (it's only briefly mentioned late in the 3rd paragraph that the name change recently occured). I also think the addition of "(before 2019: Macedonia)" that Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested is also fine, as this reflects the former and recent naming convention in wikipedia. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I also don't have any problem with using "(before 2019: Macedonia)" rather than the form I used in the RfC text. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Had the RfC proposal been "(before 2019: Macedonia)" I wouldn't opose it, under the condition that it is removed after a reasonable time.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just pushing old name forward, keeping it alive with the strength wikipedia has. It's not old if it is still common? Blahblahblah, this would apply to almost everything officially renamed. And North Macedonia is already more common than Macedonia. Just piling up name after name in the first sentence, very confusing. If nothing else it can be mentioned somewhere further, not in the first sentence. Or, as a note in the first sentence. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it would apply to anything that has been renamed if the old name is still common. That's exactly the point you're missing. Check out Myanmar. It was renamed decades ago, but the first sentence is "Myanmar or Burma" because "Burma is still commonly encountered. Otherwise, you're using "the strength Wikipedia has" to push your own political agenda, which isn't to describe the usage in English, but to prescribe that you demand English use the new name without exception. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the arbiter of English usage, it is the descriptor of English usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
And do we have some statistics? IMHO North Macedonia has accomplished in 1 year what Myanmar has not in decades. "(before 2019: Macedonia)" - fair enough. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not perfect by any means, but a search on Google that uses the parameters "Macedonia -North -Ohio -Iowa -Alexander -"high school"" during the past year yielded these results. About half the results on every page relate to "Macedonia" and not "North Macedonia". Even official papal announcements were using "Macedonia" and not "North Macedonia" for a recent papal visit to the Balkans. "North Macedonia" is becoming more common, of course, but "Macedonia" is still far from disappearing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Some sources did not get the memo (or simply forgot) and we have to mention it? Yeah, now you will say that Macedonia is not a "bad name" and Macedonians do not have right to dictate things and so on and so forth... It was highly medialized, English sources did adapt quickly (so there) and to keep mentioning those few who uses old name out of habit or as a "shorter nickname"... mehChrzwzcz (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Shorter nickname" is rather disparaging to our readers who know this country only as "Macedonia" because they don't care about Balkan politics and are looking at their world atlas from 2010. For many, I still say "most", of our English speaking readers, the only name they know for the country north of Greece is "Macedonia". To assume that they have all followed the intricacies of European politics for the last 10 years is rather naive. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
PS. I however don't oppose with the use of of the text "(before 2019: Macedonia)" rather than the text used in the RfC now. Jingiby (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if there exists a short form of the official name we should refrain from using it for the sake of unambiguity. We can easily afford being precise here. The case is identical to the one of Ireland. I do support the shortened adjective "Macedonian" thought. As for the common use in English of "Macedonia" I haven't seen plenty of reliable sources so far in this thread. --ShockD (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Adding the proposed name as a commonly used short name in the leading sentence. Correct me if I'm missing something. My point is that it's quite ambiguous outside of the country (therefore it might potentially cause more issues than it will solve) and I'm really not convinced about its common usage in English (I myself have never seen it anywhere on Wikipedia). Just my two cents. --ShockD (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Common usage in English" is not the same as "in Wikipedia". It is common outside the prison of Wikipedia in media, in reference works, in atlases, in most reliable sources before Prespa. We must assume that not every household in America bought a new atlas after Prespa just to be up-to-date. Millions of English speakers will encounter "Macedonia" for years to come because of its prevalence in reliable sources written and published prior to 2019. Of course, because of WP:NCMAC, usage in Wikipedia changed, but Wikipedia is not the only work written in English. As long as "Macedonia" takes second place in this sentence, and only this sentence, in Wikipedia, it will cause no problems. It's there as a reference point for the majority of our readers who have never encountered "North Macedonia" and have only encountered "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The country was simply referred to as Macedonia for almost 30 years, both in written sources (unless they were of administrative or very formal nature) and in everyday life (even nowadays most people I interact with and tell them where I'm from ask me: "Why North, is there South Macedonia too?"). Mentioning that in the lede would just give readers guidance that they are reading the right thing; the rest of the article (and all articles) on Wikipedia should obviously include North Macedonia, there is no doubt about it. I also want to point out the bias of the people who have taken part in this discussion; I notice that most of the users discussing seem to be Greeks, Bulgarians or Macedonians so I think this discussion should be taken to a broader circle of users who don't seem to have a very strong opinion on this matter just because it is so close to home (literally and figuratively). DD1997DD (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
When I filed this RfC, I listed it as "History and Geography". That's supposed to open it up to people who are looking for such things. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you did the right thing it's just that topics like this always attract people who have such strong feelings about them that the discussion just ends up being a very nonobjective one. I just want you to keep that in mind before you decide what to include in the article based on this talk page. DD1997DD (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support making the old name somewhat more visible in the lead than it was until recently, though not necessarily in the form proposed initially in the RfC statement. I can see why we wouldn't want to present it as if it were just a free variant on equal footing with the current/official one. But it's undoubtedly still a prominent search term, still a prominent source of incoming links, and still legitimately in use throughout Wikipedia, including this article itself (in the historical pre-2019 contexts), so having it visible and bolded is quite reasonable according to our usual standards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
FP, may I suggest that "Support" doesn't reflect your position? Maybe "Support with modifications" or something would be clearer? --Macrakis (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with modifications (see below), in agreement with Future Perfect.
No doubt "Macedonia" is sometimes used today to mean the Republic of North Macedonia, the same way that "China" is often used to mean the People's Republic of China, "America" is often used to mean the United States of America, "Congo" is sometimes used to mean the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), and "Persia" is used to mean the Islamic Republic of Iran. I agree that we should acknowledge this usage in the lead, but we should mention it in such a way that there is no confusion. Examples of phrasing from those other articles include "commonly known as", "also known as...simply", "also called", etc. So I would suggest something along the lines of:
North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia and often called simply Macedonia, ...
As for the New York Times (claimed above to use the name without North), its recent mentions of North Macedonia have consistently used the full name. Searching for [macedonia] and sorting by newest first, I see:
As TaivoLinguist observes, the recent article on Honeyland in the NY Times starts off with the full, unambiguous name, and afterwards uses the short name. Which supports the notion that "Macedonia" is a short or informal form. Other reviews often talk about "a beekeeper in Macedonia", where both the country and the region are reasonable interpretations of the word -- though of course the film is in fact from North Macedonia.
Other organizations have similar styles. For example, the Associated Press uses "North Macedonia in all copy".
So I certainly agree that there is ample evidence that "Macedonia" on its own is used as a short or informal name, and that that should be mentioned in the lead. But not on the same level as the full or formal names. --Macrakis (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with modifications to the formulation as long as it is crystal clear to our readers who are looking for "Macedonia" not as a "short form", but as the full name, of the country formerly known as "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The only full name is the Republic of North Macedonia, just as the only full name of "Britain" is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In that article, we say:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK or U.K.) or Britain...
That seems like a reasonable formulation. I don't know what you mean by claiming that "Macedonia" is its "full name". Its full name has been the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (as a component republic), the Republic of Macedonia (as an independent country), and the Republic of North Macedonia (as an independent country). --Macrakis (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to read my entire comment. I certainly didn't claim that "Macedonia" was the full name. I said that many of our readers, who are not specialists in political science, consider "Macedonia" to be the full name of the country. "What country is north of Greece?" "Macedonia" (not "Republic of North Macedonia"). This RfC is not about changing the official name of the country or changing the policies of WP:MOSMAC or the strictures of Prespa. It's about helping our readers who are looking for "Macedonia" to know quickly and easily that they are, indeed, on the right page after all. You simply cannot reasonably expect that the entirety, or even the majority, of the English-speaking world will know anything whatsoever about Prespa or the naming dispute with Greece. They'll see "Macedonia" in some pre- (or even post-)2019 source and look for it in Wikipedia under that name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The new names [Republic of] North Macedonia solve the dispute, and in an elegant way for all parties. Lame attempts to renege on this resolution can only pour oil on the fire, in a very useless way. The name dispute, its context and its history are discussed at length in the introduction and the early paragraphs of the article. Placing wording that could be interpreted as stating that [Republic of] Macedonia is an appropriate way to call the country without any caveat relative to the name dispute is a big no. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that there was a dispute, today hopefully largely solved. Place Clichy (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with the results of the Prespa Agreement. It's only about the simple fact that English readers who know nothing about the Prespa Agreement (and don't care) need to see clearly in the first sentence that they are in the right place when they are looking for "Macedonia". Nothing will change anywhere else in Wikipedia, where WP:NCMAC and WP:MOSMAC dictate "North Macedonia". The "name dispute" was a false crisis invented by Greece which the rest of the world basically ignored. English speaking readers, especially on the western side of the Atlantic where European politics are only of concern if they affect air fares for summer vacation, in general didn't care about this "name dispute". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The "name dispute" was a false crisis invented by Greece Thanks for making your anti-Greek motives behind this RfC attempt to bring the old name back pretty crystal-clear. I am withdrawing the conditional support I have expressed above. Now I will oppose everything suggested here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
In other words, your support was never based on making Wikipedia easier to use for our readers who don't care about Prespa and Balkan politics, and only know one name, "Macedonia", for the country north of Greece, but upon establishing Prespa as the prescriptive demand for all English usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very weird that the best you do here in the RfC about "readers who do not care about Prespa Agreement" is to keep telling everyone here about... your views on the Naming Dispute. Indeed!! If you really wanted support, your priority here would have been to not allienate editors with your far right VMRO-DPMNE-like views. You almost won me before you lost me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a very simple argument here that I have made over and over and over again, but that is being lost in all the "but Prespa and NCMAC demand" rhetoric from opponents. First, the majority of English readers, at least on the western side of the Atlantic, neither know nor care about Prespa and Balkan politics. Second, they know about "Macedonia" and they are looking for "Macedonia". This is supported by the majority of sources that they will be reading that were produced definitely before Prespa and often after Prespa. The proposal here has one and only one objective: to make it easier for readers looking for "Macedonia" and landing here to understand that this is the right place despite the different article name. It is not to establish "Macedonia" as an alternate name in violation of NCMAC and MOSMAC. It uses "Macedonia" in this one place. That's all this does, yet opponents, including yourself, continue to misrepresent the purpose of the RfC because you know that I think that Greece created the political crisis that led to Prespa. But that's irrelevant to this proposal. Completely irrelevant. Look past your politics and look past my politics and you'll see that this is a very simple request to help our readers who are looking for "Macedonia" to know that they are in the right place after all despite the different name in the title. I have never said anything else about this request because that's all there is to it. I worded the proposal in the simplest way knowing that we would then work to an acceptable compromise, which we have a couple of options for already. Your "I'm going to oppose everything whether reasonable or not just because I don't like you," seems rather unproductive, don't you think? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This topic has nothing to do with the Prespa agreement. TaivoLinguist and Fut. Perf. explain everything pretty clearly above; this country is still commonly called "Macedonia" and the lead should acknowledge that. --Local hero talk 23:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I see comments like this: I also want to point out the bias of the people who have taken part in this discussion; I notice that most of the users discussing seem to be Greeks, Bulgarians or Macedonians so I think this discussion should be taken to a broader circle of users who don't seem to have a very strong opinion on this matter just because it is so close to home (literally and figuratively). and I despair. Please do not track the ethnicity of Wikipedia editors to dump on them this way. Profiling editors like that is both useless and misleading. Whoever makes comments like this needs to think: Is mentioning the ethnicity of editors necessary? The answer is almost invariably no, it's not necessary. Why? Because the ethnicity of editors does not matter in the end. An editor of whatever ethnicity could very well be anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian, anti-fill-in nationality here and still comment here undisturbed, because judging by his nationality s/he appears uninvolved. That kind of simplistic evaluation is unacceptable in what purports to be an intellectual endeavour like Wikipedia. Please have this in mind when commenting in here. Dr. K. 23:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the RfC's OP is expressing strong anti-Prespa Agreement views which makes me worried that the motives behind the RfC aren't really as objective and rather an attempt to undo the Prespa Agreement using convenient Wikipedia policies such as second common name as a guise to achieve that. Everyone please have this in mind when commenting here on this RfC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no "anti-Prespa" views. I have strong views about the unnecessary political posturing that fostered decades of acrimony between neighboring states and that made Prespa necessary. Do I think that the naming dispute was a false crisis of Greek creation? Yes. Do I think that Prespa was a necessary end to this false crisis? Yes. While Prespa required the official change of name of Macedonia to North Macedonia, you confuse the political requirements placed on Macedonia with trying to command all English speakers and all English language sources to comply with it. Do not confuse my opinions of Greek political demands with the necessity of a written agreement between the parties. This proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on Prespa or the political history leading up to it. It has everything to do with helping the millions of English speakers who know nothing whatsoever of Prespa or the political history of the Balkans and only know that "Macedonia" is Greece's northern neighbor because that's what their atlas from 2015 says. We need to reassure them that they are in the right place. That is the beginning and end of the reason for this RfP--because scrubbing the word "Macedonia" from the beginning of this article does a disservice to our readers. There is nothing whatsoever in this proposal that negates the official name of "North Macedonia". This is about our English-speaking readers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The Disambiguation Page Macedonia already does that for the readers, per WP:MOSMAC. Both those who know and seek just the Greek region of Macedonia and those who know and seek just the Republic of Macedonia will land on the Disambiguation Page directing them to the articles they were looking for. Not only that but also will tell them the Republic of Macedonia became North Macedonia. Even those who somehow landed on the article of North Macedonis, skipping the Disambiguation Page, are welcomed with a lede explaining them the name change. Strange that you thought of the readers as being too dumb as to not be able to understand that. What is more, is that I haven't noticed any complaints around there about readers getting confused or lost while looking for Republic of Macedonia. A full year passed already and none had problems getting there.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Not everyone gets here through the disambiguation page. Perhaps they searched for "Macedonia" on Google and failing to find it clicked on the first thing that popped up. Or perhaps they came here from a link on another Wikipedia page that hadn't yet been changed to "North Macedonia". Perhaps they came here from another web page that simply said "Macedonia". Perhaps they came here from the disambiguation page, but didn't understand what was there and just clicked on the first "Macedonia" link that didn't say "ancient". You can't guarantee that every reader got here in the same way or that they have absorbed the fact that "Macedonia" = "North Macedonia". What you are advocating it that readers get one and only one shot at understanding that "North Macedonia" is Macedonia's new name before they get to this page. You also cannot take your experience ("I haven't heard any complaints") to cover all readers, especially those who are confused and either give up, complain to others, waste time looking at other pages until they realize that this might be the right place. With one word in bold, we solve all those problems easily for the reader. Why should the reader be forced to read the small print for something that can so easily be presented to them? You question my motives, when they are crystal clear--tell the English reader that North Macedonia = Macedonia in moments without a lot of fanfare. Do you question your own motives in trying to make that equation harder for English readers? "It's been a whole year!" You sound like you expected every English reader in the world to 1) be aware of the naming dispute; 2) be aware of the Prespa Agreement; 3) know the effective date of Prespa; and 4) immediately purchase a new copy of every book they owned that said "Macedonia" with corrected text. Surely you are aware that since (1) is a false assumption, the entire chain breaks down and your "It's been a whole year!" becomes a naive expectation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jingiby:, please only write "Oppose" in bold once. One might think that there are two users named Jingiby as you have !voted twice :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, because there were several proposals but none of the was exactlyq simply and clearly: "(before 2019: Macedonia)" Below this answer, TaivoLinguist (Taivo) has done that afterwards, accepting this proposal. Jingiby (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Still, don't use duplicate !vote marks. I've marked the above as struck, for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Take it easy on him. Dont you see why closing this RfC and reopening it with the other proposal would have avoided all this mess? Even I voted twice - against the RfC's proposal but in favor of yours, in a separate comment below the initial vote.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the "(before 2019: Macedonia)" wording. It was simple and informative. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Prove it. Cancel this problematic RfC and initiate a new one with "(before 2019: Macedonia)" as its proposal and we will support it.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
"Prove" what? That Taivo supports what he just said he supports? Are you accusing him of lying or what? Your personal attacks and ad personams in this discussion have crossed a line here; cut it out. Only warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no need to initiate a new RfC if this one produces (as I hoped it would) compromise wording that is acceptable to most, if not all. That's the goal here, to improve Wikipedia for the readers, not to draw a line in the sand and die defending it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
If you promise to take in account our concerns here -and that is, to go with (before 2019: Macedonia)-, and stop with this needless criticism against the naming dispute, Greece and the Greeks, like you did earlier, then I dont see a reason to object to this. Needless to say, this is not a WP:FORUM. For the consensus to be stable, our concerns should be taken in account and without alienating each other. That is, to keep personal political views away from this discussion. This way, hopefully even the other editors who lost their trust to the process, may actually reconsider their positions and consent to the proposal.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Since I've already stated on several occasions that I had no opposition to alternative wording including "(before 2019)...", your request for a "promise" is pointless. But you must "promise" to stop these unfounded accusations that I am trying to ignore Prespa and violate NCMAC and MOSMAC. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes it is used in English, and used unsparingly by locals among the South Slavic nations. The point which every "oppose" editor is either missing or is simply ignorant of is that a great many publishers and writers RESOLUTELY REJECT "North", and it can end up in broken bones for any westerner who enters Macedonia and dares to impose the qualifier on the population. Are we going to peddle the fantasy indefinitely that the nation merely accepts its constitutional name and everything is business as usual just as in the Republic of Albania next door. Another thing is that "North Macedonia" by itself is meaningless. There's the full constitutional name and that is the only official name for any country. Short names are mostly arbitrary: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has what official short name? Britain? Great Britain? The UK? GB? Whichever tickles your fancy. Here in Bosnia-Herz and former Yugoslav republics, we say "Macedonia" period - and so do our post-2019 sources. --Vrhunski (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. North Macedonia or Macedonia suggests equivalency where none exists. The two terms simply aren’t interchangeable, in pretty much any context. But this is what the proposed phrase appears to suggest. That is misleading and gives undue weight to the notion that “Macedonia” might still be the name of the country (in whatever context.) The country only has one name, though, domestically and internationally. That many inhabitants of the country still refer to is as “Macedonia” is relevant and noteworthy. It should be mentioned in the lede — just not like that. —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name wasn't "Macedonia" before 2019. Before 2019 there was a very complicated situation, where at least two names existed in parallel. Moreover, this is overcompensating for the readers not understanding the situation. There are already enough indications to let them understand. --Antondimak (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: What is being proposed? Moving article title? Or simple reference somewhere to the fact that Macedonia remains widely used? --Vrhunski (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Well then the "equivalency" argument is null and void. It was referred to in short as Macedonia from independence. This in turn never ended in 2019 and still hasn't stopped - nor will it stop any time soon. I am not sure how the Opposers feel they are helping the project by suppressing a fact that not only screams out but is highly elaborate in doing so. What is the difference with the Saudi town of Al-Kharj which is known locally by the unofficial name Al Saih reported in bold? The article sits at the former. How is there an equivalency issue? --Vrhunski (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very convenient to forget the complicated past of the Macedonia Naming Dispute and use an... Arabic town or Burma/Myanmar as example here. As if prior to 2019 everything was already normal, when clearly it wasn't... Sorry but restoring the old name to the article without the necessary clarifications for informative purposes, doesnt improve things, only makes them worse.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not an "old name" if it's still in common use. It may not be an "official" name anymore, but if it's still in use in English, then it's still one of the names used by English speakers to refer to the country. Prespa has zero control over that. This is all about our English-speaking readers. Many, if not most, of them know the country north of Greece as "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia" (which is "old"), not "North Macedonia", not "Republic of North Macedonia". They know it as "Macedonia" and all this proposal does it make it easier for them to learn that "Macedonia" is now called "North Macedonia". Isn't that the goal of the opposition after all? To promote "North Macedonia"? What better way than to make it crystal clear to our English-speaking readers that "Macedonia" = "North Macedonia" now? Apparently, you'd rather make our readers work to learn the new name. One would think that the easier we make it for them to learn the quicker and happier they would be to learn it. The other point is that the past name of North Macedonia wasn't complicated at all. The vast majority of references in English were to "Macedonia" and "FYROM" was pretty much ignored except by the UN and Greece. That's why the result of both ARBMAC and ARBMAC2 was to call the country "Macedonia" and to use "FYROM" only as a note. English speakers never used "FYROM" and the evidence was clear (I was a part of ARBMAC2). So trying to get out of this proposal by claiming that the history of English usage was complicated is not based on any actual evidence. The evidence showed that "Macedonia" was, far and away, the name that English speakers used for Macedonia. So there's no need to needlessly complicate the issue. "Macedonia" is still commonly enough in use in English that readers need to be able to clearly see that when they reach North Macedonia when looking for "Macedonia" they are in the right place. (And anyone who is looking for FYROM already knows enough about the Balkans to know about Prespa, so there's no need to help them.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What are you arguing about in this lengthy reply to me? Like I said: if the readers is your concern there, then a descriptive text following (or followed by) the name Macedonia is the most recommended and the one solution almost no one here has objected to from what I can see in this RfC. On the other hand, restoring the old name without the much needed description/clarifocation, is not helpful for the readers and breaks Wikipedia's Naming conventions which everyone agreed to abide by, and which allows the name Macedonia to be used in a historical context. Had the name Macedonia never been a subject of a heated debate, had the name not been as politicized as it is today, now the naming conventions wouldnt have been in place and the common name would have been able to stay as the country's name instead of the new name dictated by the naming conventions for use. That's how the reality is. You have conveniently blamed Greece for the naming dispute and for everyone being in this situation now, but actually the naming dispute was of Yugoslav Communist origin for which everyone living in the region of Macedonia pays the price today, and for us editors having to be CAREFUL with how they use the name in Wikipedia. The name Macedonia has a complicated background and we ought to show responsibility as to not go with solutions that divide editors of different political beliefs and origins. That is, a solution that has the widest support possible is better for us all.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You keep trying to make this a violation of NCMAC and it is not, in any way, shape, or form. The proposed change is not using "Macedonia" in running text, which is the point of NCMAC, but is only noting a form encountered in English. And your long diatribe about the naming dispute is totally irrelevant. English speakers, in a large majority, used only "Macedonia". They didn't care about the dispute, the origin of the dispute, the result of the dispute, etc. They called the country "Macedonia". Period. "FYROM" wasn't even on the radar except in political or Greek-based resources. You continue to twist the purpose of this edit so that you can proceed with your goal of scrubbing the word "Macedonia" (without "North" attached) from every trace of its existence in the world. This edit recognizes that "Macedonia" is still in common use in English sources. It does not seek to use "Macedonia" for "North Macedonia" in any other place. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I believe it is. There is a difference in believing and making. And sorry to say that, but from the looks of it, I am not the only editor here to believe it is. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@SilentResident. What on earth has the sensitive matter of the naming dispute have to do with the way a nation and their media universally refer to their land? An issue so extensive that even the neighbouring nations continue to use Macedonia by itself. People need to get it into their heads that this is not an ordinary situation. This is an armistice so that the Macedonian regime can wedge the tinpot Balkan nation into EU/NATO. FTR "North Korea" and "South Korea" are not official names either. So I still fail to see why you really want to suppress information and peddle a myth that "North Macedonia" the country is invariably referred to by all locals and local media. --Vrhunski (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me correct you: here we are not talking about 1st most common name among the locals but about whether the 2nd most common name in the English speaking world should be listed as the country name when the naming conventions in Wikipedia made it clear that the name is North Macedonia, nothing else, and that the old name can be referred in a historocal context. The naming conventions were build with community consensus which everyone should respect. Any use of the name Macedonia without the necessary descriptions/clarifications for the readers to understand, shouldn't be tolerated. Anything else is merely an attempt to bring back the old name from the backdoor. I cant hide how stressed and worried I am! I was participant in the naming conventions as did many others here, and the last thing I want to see happening here is attempts at circumventing it.-- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
All right it looks like we were talking about two different things. Slimy deception is a tactic for many editors as I have personally observed over time but I am definitely not one of those and I am not looking for back door vulnerabilities to promote an agenda. I merely favour the noteworthy aspect of a simple mention that it continues to be referred to as Macedonia where it has been said so many times now and that really is all. I wasn't pushing for Macedonia to be listed as a country name. --Vrhunski (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
User:SilentResident, your continued attempts to paint this as a violation of NCMAC are simplistic. They point to your desire to completely scrub the word "Macedonia" by itself from Wikipedia and are a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of naming conventions and what they actually do. Naming conventions dictate usage of terms in running text, they do not prohibit the noting of alternate forms in common usage at the beginning of appropriate articles. For example, the name of the capital of Ukraine has entered English as "Kiev" based on a transliteration of the Russian form of the city's name. The Ukrainian form, however, is "Kyiv" and that is the official name of the city. Ukrainians strongly desire that we change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" throughout Wikipedia, but "Kiev" is still by far the most common name in English so by longstanding WP:CONSENSUS we use "Kiev" in Wikipedia. That does not, however, prohibit the inclusion of "Kyiv" in the first sentence at Kiev, "Kiev or Kyiv". The rest of the article, of course, uses "Kiev" (except when discussing the history of the name). So your attempts to use NCMAC to prohibit the listing of a common English name in the first sentence is misguided at best (WP:AGF). It's also not a coincidence that the one or two editors here who share this misinterpretation with you have always been on the same side in every discussion concerning the name of Macedonia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"It's also not a coincidence that the one or two editors here who share this misinterpretation with you have always been on the same side in every discussion concerning the name of Macedonia." Interesting that you have this impression about "one or two" editors. Because I would say the same about you. But that's not my concern, as sharing similar views with other editors is absolutely natural and is one of the Project's beauties: a diverse community full of editors with both opposing or similar views. However, if I were you Taivo, I would have put -as the OP of the present RfC that I am- my priorities straight and reflect on why the RfC's original proposal was opposed by so many editors and not just "one or two editors", while the alternate proposal in the other discussion bellow has won much support already. If my memory does not fail me, a Volunteer here in Wikipedia once said: "downplaying or calling other's legitimate concerns in a dispute a gross misinterpretation, isn't winning you their votes, rather confirms their concerns". Looking at your responses thus far, it seems like his wise words needed to be echoed here... Don't expect further replies by me here, you disappointed us and this discussion isnt productive and is not leading anywhere for as long as you fail to acknowledge our concerns about the RfC's original proposal.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The country is still referred by many as Macedonia. Also considering the fact that all documents before the recent Prespa agreement used the name Macedonia it could be confusing to people who are not familiar with the region. N.Hoxha (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. I would say something like "sometimes informally Macedonia" - this is how Bosnia (and Herzogovina) is treated. The other mooted option (before 2019), implies that it had an officially recognised name, before 2019. I think we need to understand a)that 90+% of Eng readers couldn't give a damn about the naming dispute, but do need to be reassured that the 10 year old book or article they have just read is talking about the same place as this North Macedonia article, and that the place hasn't mysteriously split into N & S in the last decade b) unfortunately there are large numbers of 'errors of naming' around the world (Holland, not Netherlands, Russia, not USSR, Britain, not UK of GB & NI and Greece itself - the name given by the Romans to one part of that country, now used almost universally by non-'Greeks'), we can inform that such usage is disliked locally - we cannot, and should not impose a 'correct' usage, which IMO is what the excluders are implicitly trying to achieve. Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I Support the proposal to mention "Macedonia" as an alternate name in the lede. That name is used by many, regardless whether that is a correct practice or not. The names used on Wiki articles are not intended to be politically "correct" but to help readers find an article easily, and give reliable information. I would accept several possible wordings, though the one suggested by Pincrete should be the most appropriate. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2020 (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.

Options for including "Macedonia"

This discussion has been closed with the preferred result Option 3 --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Right now two options have emerged for including the name "Macedonia" in or near the first sentence(s) of the lead.

  • The text currently in the article: "North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia, is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe. It gained its independence under the name of Republic of Macedonia in 1991 as one of the successor states of Yugoslavia."
  • The text previously in the article: "North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia (before 2019: Macedonia), is a country..."
  • A third option which doesn't imply that "Macedonia" was an official name: "North Macedonia (before 2019, Macedonia), officially the Republic of North Macedonia, is a country..."

Which of these seems to be the better option? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Options 1 & 2. Frankly, the 2 first sound better than the third one because of consistensy in keeping both official and short names together, next to each other. Edit: also, I shall note that the first option is more future-proof of all the options. The second and third options shouldn't be permanent but temporary. Because the name change at some point in the future wont be a Recent Event anynore to justify this note in the starting sentence of the Lead. As time passes and the new name becomes better established, these options lose their purpose. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The other two clutter the opening sentence and are unnecessary. The naming dispute is not the end-all-be-all of this article. It is in fact relatively minor aspect. There is also no precedent for something like that anywhere on wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this situation is not "unprecedented". See Kolkata, Mumbai, Saint Petersburg, and Volgograd, for example. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
User:SilentResident suggested a separate discussion. There is some usefulness to separating this polling of options from the contentious RfC above. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
That's fair. We should however keep in mind that the results of this discussion only apply in the case that the above discussion goes for this option. --Antondimak (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the above discussion was so focused on "North Macedonia or Macedonia" that it was divided into three camps, and thus not very definitive: Support, Oppose, Oppose but Support different wording. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Options 3, 1, 2, in this order. The renaming (not the preceding naming conflict, but the renaming itself) is quite important enough that we should clarify it to our readers up front. I find all three listed options acceptable, but #3 strikes me as most natural. There are, of course, no straightforward precedents from other articles that we could easily follow, because as far as I remember no other country has renamed itself recently. The only relevant precedents I can think of are renamed cities, and there we routinely do similar things (e.g. "Nur-Sultan, previously Astana"; "Chemnitz, from 1953 to 1990: Karl-Marx-Stadt"; "St. Petersburg, formerly Leningrad" etc). If people are worried about not cluttering up the lead sentence, I'd suggest that the link to the previous name is actually more important to the reader than the full formal "Republic of" variant; the latter could just as easily be demoted to a second sentence. (Note: Taivo, I hope you don't mind I have very slightly edited your initial statement, turning "the first sentence" into "the first sentence(s)", because in one of the variants the word isn't actually in the first.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I think it makes more sense to leave it next to the shortened name rather than the full constitutional name (option 2), since Macedonia itself is shorthand in this context. Option 1 does not make it clear enough when the name change occured. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 would seem better than the other two. Apcbg (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise has explained it all pretty well. --Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 because it's simple, efficient, compares short form to short form, has the date of change, and is uncluttered. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Keep short names together. Maybe 3A - hide it as a note after North Macedonia. :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess Option 3 but I thought the point of this was to express the fact that the country remains referred to as just "Macedonia"; all these options suggest that once 2019 hit everyone on Earth started throwing "North" in front in every circumstance. --Local hero talk 15:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You are quite right that "Macedonia" is still in wide use and the axis of the earth did not shift in 2019, but it was clear from the preceding RfC that the simplest formulation as proposed there was unacceptable to a certain group of editors. Having the date isn't unprecedented (Kolkata, Mumbai, and Volgograd, for example, which have the dates but are still commonly called "Calcutta", "Bombay", and "Stalingrad"). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 One reading the second option might think that the previous official name of the country was "Macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia". The first option is not bad but not as good as the third one. The latter is shorter and better addresses the point made in the content dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Keep the current text. It's better to mention the old official name, which was Republic of Macedonia, instead of the shorter one. --StanProg (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There were two old official names actually, let's not start it again ... Apcbg (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment 2This discussion may be useful as a 'straw poll', but it has zero formal weight - since the RfC is above and it is confusing to have two closely related discussions happening at the same time. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Luckily, there's no such thing as "formal weight" (or lack of such) on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But feel free to close out the initial RfC section above and move the RfC tag down here, if you find that less confusing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Obviously the former official name should be instead of simply Macedonia which directly points to the entire naming dispute.Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, remember that this isn't about "official" names, but about common English usage, which prior to 2019 was, far and away, "Macedonia" and which is a form that readers are still quite likely to encounter (despite the growth in usage of "North Macedonia"). That's the name that should be mentioned at the beginning for our readers' sake, not to memorialize some "official" usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
And what about this: It gained its independence under the name of Republic of Macedonia (short Macedonia) in 1991. -- No "before 2019", no "common this" "common that" , no "still used", no "official". Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
That's also possible, though I personally find the year 2019 more important for our readers' understanding of the situation than the year 1991. If we're going to tell them that there is one name now but there was a different name some time earlier, the natural question that will come to everybody's mind will be: but how and when did it change? That question is otherwise answered only a long way further down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but at least my proposal do not have to explain when it was common, that old name is still common, etc. Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Options 3, 1, in this order. My thinking is pretty much along the same lines as @Future Perfect at Sunrise:’s above, except that I think that #2 has the potential to be slightly misleading, because there is some potential that users might misread it as “Macedonia” (in short form) being previously official, which is a claim that would need, to say the least, much more context. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just use one name in the opening and save the naming complexities for a "Names" section: "North Macedonia is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe. It gained its independence in 1991 as one of the successor states of Yugoslavia." Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no update on this topic for a while now, can we finally conclude that there is a consensus for option 3? Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Since this is dependent on the discussion above, we should probably wait for consensus to emerge from there before we decide about this one. --Antondimak (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the situation is pretty clear, isn't it? The RfC above shows a pretty clear consensus against the initial proposal as worded in the RfC statement, but a consensus for (or at least no consensus against) the general notion that the old/simple name should be given higher visibility than before. The second discussion here has a pretty clear consensus for one specific option, the one labelled "option 3". There's really no need to wait for further formalities here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Not really. Of the 15 votes cast, 8 are for option 3 (although some of those also include other options, and one of them is a regular stalker of mine), in other words a bare majority. Not consensus by any stretch. Khirurg (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What? It took you 5 days to object? And then only after two uninvolved drive-by editors made reverts to the article without reading the Talk Page? Don't try to convince me that this article isn't on your watchlist and that you knew the day that the change to the article was made. There is a consensus. Sometimes consensus is, indeed, a majority vote, especially in cases like this one where non-Wikipedia feelings are strong and strongly expressed. If you notice above, there was clearly a consensus against my first text, but also a clear consensus to say something. After this discussion, the majority of editors decided what that something should be. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The discussion is still open, and even so, only the barest majority opted for option 3. There is no consensus. You are trying to force the issue. False claims of consensus are a well-known form of disruption.
User:Khirurg, The discussion was still open only because no one had bothered to close it and declare a decision. It's been open for nearly three weeks and all but the last flurry of comments from today were from the first few days. False claims of "no consensus" are a well-known form of disruption. But, in point of fact, the only "disruption" after the text of the article was changed nearly a week ago has been today from drive-by editors and you doing a "me too" revert after Future and I reverted the drive-bys. And your "8 votes" is based on a miscount. There were 9 votes, not 8, so that's not a "barest majority", it's 9 to 6 (now 11 to 6, nearly two to one). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done on purpose, I think. Khirurg has repeatedly shown that he is not very good at calculations. Anyways, I see your point. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, at least two of "option 3" were from Balkan trolls that follow me everywhere and vote out of spite. The reasoning is very very poor. Khirurg (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Re "Balkan trolls that follow me everywhere and vote out of spite", do not give yourself too much importance. Another breach of WP:PA. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Says the guy who attacks me with every diff. Stop digging yourself even deeper. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Having content disputes is not an "attack". It is sad if you do not think so. Why do you keep saying "stop digging yourself even deeper"? What is the point of that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
"Khirug has repeatedly shown..." is an attack. Want to ask an admin? Don't do that again. Khirurg (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, I defended you. However, I am not against asking an admin, as you seem to suggest. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Make another comment like that, or the "entertaining" one, and it is yourself you will be defending. Promise. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg:, yes I find that article entertaining, just I find many others. Keep your "promise", will you? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask, for the sake of the discussion, to end this drama. Such kind of 'conversations' should preferably be held on personal talk-pages. N.Hoxha (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry N.Hoxha. Sometimes these discussions become too long. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 All key information are properly presented and it's nicely written. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Per Sadko and the rest of option 1 supports. Dr. K. 01:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Option 1 is a continuation of reader-unfriendly demands that have characterized the issue of Macedonia and its chosen name for decades. It fails to recognize that "Macedonia" is still prevalent in English language reliable sources and has been the common English name ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia. Failing to acknowledge that simple fact, and to help our readers easily equate old "Macedonia" with new "North Macedonia", is a failure of Wikipedia to be user friendly. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I have discussed this before and I didn't know there was another ongoing discussion, but option 3 seems very well put. DD1997DD (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Taking a rough count and only considering first preferences, Option 1 has 6 votes (which becomes 7 if Antondimak wants to now swing it toward this option), Option 2 has 1 vote and the majority of votes goes to Option 3 with a total of 11 votes. It is clear Option 3 has consensus whatever way you look at it, even by taking other preferences into account. Beat of the tapan (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 has 12 !votes, not 11. Keeping the discussion open for a month is the way to go though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Please also inform Antondimak of that fact, as he has been reverting edits based on the false justification that option 1 has the majority vote. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not the RFC we are talking about. We are talking about the one above. This is about more specificity in the case "support" prevails in the RFC above. The RFC above didn't result in a consensus, so the page is reverted back to the state it was before all this. (By the way I don't know what mention of "The Republic of Macedonia" in the lead you are talking about.) --Antondimak (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Antondimak, you are now edit warring for a version that mentions neither the former short form "Macedonia" nor the former official name "Republic of Macedonia". That is not the "stable version", nor is it supported by anyone in this discussion. That is disruptive. I do not take part in edit wars, so I will not revert you, but I urge you to self revert. --T*U (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, you obviously need to learn to count. At the time you claimed that there was 10 to 8, there were actually 13 !votes for option 3 (12 if you do not count mine, which was entered just a few minutes before). How do you manage to reduce that to 10? --T*U (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Reading through the discussions again, I seem to have made a mistake. I may disagree with this approach, but it seems this discussion could lead to a result independently from the one above. I was under the impression that the version I was reverting to was the one that existed for over a year, and that "Option 1" was created during the above discussion. Therefore the inclusion of "Macedonia" on the first paragraph would be decided above, and its implementation here. Since the mention of "Republic of Macedonia" in the first paragraph was there before, and had resulted from last year's consensus, this RFC has the authority to force the change, as the previous version was an option. I wil revert my edit. --Antondimak (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
To the new comment you posted while I was writing the previous response: I was counting the RFC above, as I believed, and had stated as such before, it was necessary for "support" to prevail for this one to hold. --Antondimak (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I did not participate in the original and confusing RfC, where I was tempted to combine "Support" and "Oppose" into a "Suppose" !vote. Since that original discussion now is closed, I find it easier to attend here. Option 1 ignores the fact that plain "Macedonia" still is used by some RS, and Option 2 seems to say that plain "Macedonia" was official before 2019. --T*U (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I was about to post my rationale, but then I realized TU-nor said it almost exactly above. --Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1: The name change can be mentioned below the lead paragraph. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:30, 6 April 2020 (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.

What's up with China?

The end of the Naming Dispute section says that "four of the five UN permanent members (the United States, Russia, France and the UK) recognised North Macedonia under its new official name". This implies that China hasn't. Is this still the case? I can't find sources on the subject, and was interested why that was, and if there was any implications bilaterally. Mannan369 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for bringing it up. The article cites no secondary sources about any of this, just primary sources from the government websites of the four other countries, so in all likelihood this is just some Wikipedian's imperfect data collection (see WP:NOR). We have no evidence and no reason to expect that China doesn't recognize the new name; it may just be that they didn't bother to update their foreign ministry websites as quickly, or our fellow editors failed to look hard enough. I'm going to remove the sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: in fact, these [2][3] country list entries on the Chinese foreign ministry website, as well as the Chinese embassy in NMK [4] do use "North Macedonia" (translated as "北马其顿" 'Běi Mǎqídùn'), so it doesn't look as if anything strange is going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia belong to a single user who always removes the adjective North Macedonian from all articles?

This discussion is not appropriate to this page and should be had elsewhere. This page is for the improvement of this article, not the range of articles cited as the motivation for this thread. See WP:TALK for Talk Page guidelines as well as WP:NOTAFORUM. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The Wikipedia naming conventions report:

i) Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanatory notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.
ii) about the nationality of people: In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia).
iii) when referring to official state institutions of North Macedonia: the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian"
iv) in all other contexts: In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic). The shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context. One general example of this may include subsequent and repetitive references to the country in articles that are primarily about topics related to North Macedonia, its culture, and its people.

Based on the RfC decisions, the adjective "Macedonian" can still be used, but there are four cases listed above for which the RfC recommends the usage of "North Macedonian". After more than a year, I haven't seen these RfC decisions adopted by Wikipedia. People have different opinions about what can cause ambiguity and depends on their personal background, but the main article about North Macedonia uses the word Macedonian to talk about very different concepts. The adjective Macedonian is used for the ethnic group, the whole country/population, the ancient Greeks, the geographical region of Macedonia. I don't see the reason to introduce even more confusion by trying hard to avoid the word "North Macedonian" and ignoring the RfC decisions.

1) The Wikipedia naming conventions suggest the adjective "Macedonian" for the people (without prohibiting "North Macedonian"), and they suggest "North Macedonian" in all other cases (without prohibiting "Macedonian"). Moreover, the Wikipedia naming conventions say: According to the arbitration decision, this guideline is meant to be binding and enforceable for the time being.. Although someone who reads these Wikipedia naming conventions would expect that "North Macedonian" is used much more often than "Macedonian", we see that there are almost 0 usages of the adjective "North Macedonian". I don't want to start discussing which adjective we should use or not as this has already been discussed during the RfC. I simply report facts and say that the RfC decisions are ignored in practice. Am I the only one who has this impression? If I am wrong, could someone show me a reasonable number of examples of wikipedia articles that adopt the RfC decisions?
2) The Wikipedia naming conventions say that "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" should still be used in historical context, but they also say: "Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanatory notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.". I have never seen such an explanatory note on the article of North Macedonia which is full of sentences in historical context or in any other article.
3) Based on the decisions of the RfC, the pages about culture, music, cuisine, etc should define in the very beginning the term North Macedonian. For example, "The North Macedonian music or simply Macedonian music is the music of North Macedonia (or something similar).", and in the rest of the article, we can use the simple form "Macedonian" instead of the full form "North Macedonian". This will be very helful for the reader and also comply with the decision of the RfC. So why we don't do it?

It's impossible that there are 0 examples of sentences/paragraphs that cause ambiguity/inconsistency in some many articles of Wikipedia, and especially on the main article about North Macedonia that briefly covers everything about North Macedonia. I don't want to edit the articles myself because it will lead to edit wars with other users that try hard to avoid the adjective North Macedonian violating rules of Wikipedia naming conventions. I give you here some examples of articles that are inconsistent, the title of them says "North Macedonian", "North Macedonia", or "Macedonian", and although "North Macedonian" is used or was used in some of them, there is a wikipedia user who is very actively involved in North Macedonian articles, and he always removes the adjective "North Macedonian" by claiming that a form that complies with the Prespa Agreement is better. The Wikipedia naming conventions clearly say that Wikipedia is not limited by the Prespa Agreement, and in any case the decisions of the RfC considered the Prespa Agreement. So there is no point on using the Prespa Agreement to justify editing on Wikipedia articles anymore, and this happens by expert users who know the Wikipedia rules.

a. North Macedonian
b. North Macedonian
c. North Macedonia
d. of North Macedonia
e. North Macedonian
f. Macedonian
g. North Macedonia

In the articles, (d), (f), and (g) the same user removed multiple times the adjective North Macedonian by claiming that this is better according to the Prespa Agreement. This user doesn't want to accept the RfC decisions, and he always removes every North Macedonian adjective. Is this behavior acceptable in the Wikipedia community? Does Wikipedia belong to this single user? It's really disapointing that people who are so active in Wikipedia intentionally ignore the decisions of the community. I feel like locking all articles about North Macedonia is the only solution.

I kindly ask the people who are actively involved in updating these articles to find the best ways to rewrite the whole article about North Macedonia (and other related pages) in order to avoid ambiguity, by respecting the decisions of the Wikipedia community that are reported in the Wikipedia naming conventions. Of course, I am happy to help you if you need me.

after all this... a good question is does the Wikipedia community respects the Wikipedia naming conventions or every single user can make arbitrary decisions, by using the adjective "Macedonian" based on the RfC decisions and incorrectly remove the "North Macedonian" based on the Prespa Agreement?

We need an answer to this question NOW and ensure that all users respect the naming conventions of this community! Nikokiris (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the use of "North Macedonia" seems to have been "nuked" for some time now, despite it being decided that it would be used in most cases in the RfC (e.g. there are 0 uses in Skopje and Music of North Macedonia, and only two uses in North Macedonia). --Antondimak (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that many people can help you about this. WP:MOSMAC is ignored by a clique of people, not just a single user. And the problem is that the other users just don't care. So we ended up in a messy situation controlled by 5-10 users who don't respect WP:MOSMAC. Maybe @QEDK: @Neutrality: @BD2412: can give us an opinion. We need a way to break the clique of people who block us from improving Wikipedia. Otherwise, we cannot make progress because of people who don't want to accept consensus as described in WP:MOSMAC. Peace in balkans (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

North Macedonia or simply Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia,[d] is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe. It gained its independence in 1991 as one of the successor states of Yugoslavia. A landlocked country, North Macedonia has borders with Kosovo[e] to the northwest, Serbia to the northeast, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west.[8] It constitutes approximately the northern third of the larger geographical region of Macedonia. The capital and largest city, Skopje, is home to roughly a quarter of the country's 2.06 million inhabitants. The majority of the residents are ethnic Macedonians, a South Slavic people. Albanians form a significant minority at around 25%, followed by Turks, Romani, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Aromanians. Lizzz22 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for the name of the country being "Macedonia" before 2019

So, let me make this clear. There is an article about the naming dispute before 2019, there have been endless edit wars and talk page comments on what the name should be, therefore even here, there has been a dispute. Yet, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: (an administrator) edits with an edit summary: "rv, there's no POV dispute here and nothing to endorse; that its name was "Macedonia" before 2019 is a simple, incontrovertible and undisputable fact. What else does anybody claim its name was?". So, first of all, it's indisputable in English, and secondly, user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, although you were part of the endless dispute on this very talk page, you never noticed there was a dispute? You have yourself contributed to an article named Macedonia naming dispute. Obviously, no, there will never be an indisputable fact about the country's name before 2019. Obviously, claiming there was no dispute over the name, while contributing for years to an article exactly about this naming dispute is clear POV madness.

Let me restate this, an administrator claiming there was no dispute over the name, while contributing for years to an article about exactly this naming dispute is clear madness.

Let's try to be fair and add one sentence about the naming dispute, and the two names that were used, at the end of the first paragraph of the lede and be done with it. We can even note that the vast majority used one name and only a minority of countries, organisations and people, used the other - this would be factual. All in all, the country is mostly known to the general public about this naming dispute.

Of course, on the other hand, if people want to insist on one side/name, others will insist on the other. Irony follows. I think, while in Greece, as a speaker of English, I kept hearing about this country named Skopia. I wonder if that was not the simple, incontrovertible and indisputable factual name. Ah, let me check the talk page, ah, yes, there are at least 40 people who have suggested that over the years. Yes, yes, indeed, that was the simple, incontrovertible and indisputable factual name..... Yes, yes, "no POV dispute here". 2A01:C22:763E:1F00:E83E:A493:5545:330F (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is indisputable that its name was Macedonia for the simple reason that the country said so. What was disputed was whether other countries would use that name and whether it had the right to so name itself. --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "that its name was "Macedonia" before 2019 is a simple, incontrovertible and undisputable fact"; this is absolutely correct. There was a dispute over what its name should have been. Not about what its name was. Its actual name, the only one it ever had, was Macedonia. Nobody ever claimed its name was something else. Nobody, not even the most ardent Greek nationalist, could possibly ever have believed that its actual name was anything other than that. They all hated the fact that it had that name. But they knew that fact for a fact all the same. If it hadn't been a fact, they would have had nothing to be upset about, right? – Now, the dispute about "what it should have been" is a notable political issue that we can describe and report on, in the appropriate place. But the lead sentence isn't that place. In the lead sentences of our articles, we just tell our readers what the names of things are. And since we are an encyclopedia, we describe the world the way the world actually is, not the way some people think it should be. So we use the names things actually have, and we do so without apologies or disclaimers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is false. The dispute was about the name. Saying that the name was undisputably Macedonia is the clearest way to take a side. Go ask whomever you want that was on the other side. I don't think they'd share your interpretation. You don't get to pick the beliefs of the other side .--Antondimak (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC
Really? Show me anyone who was saying that the name was not Macedonia. Not that the name shouldn't have been Macedonia or that Macedonia did not have the right to take that name. Show me ANYONE who literally argued that the country had not named itself that. Its just basic English. --Khajidha (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a difference between the name of something and the name somebody chooses for something. This is basic linguistics. The government of a small Balkan country doesn't have a monopoly over the English language and its more than a billion speakers. The Greek position wasn't that the country shouldn't be named Macedonia by the way. It was that the country was nameless, as the legal procedures of establishing a name (which would include being recognised by the international community), weren't finished. --Antondimak (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"The government of a small Balkan country doesn't have a monopoly over the English language and its more than a billion speakers." Which is why the GREEK position was pure BS. And the only "legal procedure" for naming a state is for that state to say what it calls itself. --Khajidha (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
See now you're showing even clearer bias. It's not our job to choose what position was "better". We should just recognise the reality that both positions were considered valid and the conflict unresolved. We can't act like history happened the way we would want it to happen. --Antondimak (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What happened was that a country announced it had adopted a name. That is a fact. Whether other countries accepted it or whether various international organizations okayed it does not change that fact. It happened. The position that an action was improper is not the same as the position that it did not happen. --Khajidha (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
In common English usage, the name was indisputably "Macedona". That's all that matters to Wikipedia usage and was confirmed over and over in places like WP:MOSMAC. There was a political dispute over its name begun by one of its neighbors and begrudgingly given credence by other countries with certain types of political ties to that neighbor, but common English usage was never affected by this dispute. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia deliberately used uncommon name because of some strange compromise to appease Greeks. Now we can end this charade and say: it WAS known as Macedonia before 2019 :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. With some of the contributions above, this discussion has now reached a degree of delusion and idiocy it's clearly not worth continuing. Especially since there never was anything actionable about improving the article to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Before 2019, the name used in this article was "Macedonia". That's what we're saying here. Jonathunder (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, not only the name used in Wikipedia articles. The official name of the country was 'Republic of Macedonia' recognized by 130+ countries WW including the USA, Russia, and China. FYROM was a reference used in organisations to satisfy Greece's needs. I don't see the reason we shouldn't not mention that in the lead. — Tom(T2ME) 14:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There are too many negatives strung together in User:Tomica's response to understand what exactly he means, but to reiterate, this reference is not about politics or references in official organizations. It's strictly about common English usage which has always been (and still actually is) "Macedonia". The reason we mention Macedonia at all in the first sentence is that (see evidence above) "Macedonia" without "North" is still the most common way in the English language to refer to the country. Yes, we use "before 2019" as a compromise to the tender sensibilities of a very vocal portion of our editors and as a recognition that usage is changing toward "North Macedonia" in a way that it never, ever changed to the "FYROM" complex of names. But this is not about any kind of political or compromise organizational usage which never caught on in English. It's strictly a recognition that in English the name has always been "Macedonia" and the majority of our readers recognize it as such. This is a pointless thread since it's just another attempt to push a particular political agenda and not an attempt to improve the article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining Future. My comment was indeed not intended to sparkle anything negative or biased. It's a simple explanation of the political situation before 2019. Perfectly explained though, it's indeed about the English-usage of the word 'Macedonia' when referring to the country. — Tom(T2ME) 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not what it's saying. If it is, then it is terribly worded. --Antondimak (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
If you think it is terribly worded, that is your problem and your fault because you refused the simplest, clearest, and most accurate wording to describe English usage: "North Macedonia or Macedonia...". Remember that this isn't about the political demands and extortion of one of Macedonia's neighbors or about artificial name-like constructions imposed on Macedonia by outside forces, it's about common English usage. That's all it's about. "Macedonia" without the "North" is still used about half the time in reference to the country in English. It's changing, but "Macedonia" is still quite common, especially in the millions of sources written before 2019 where "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the name of the country in English despite the efforts of Macedonia's neighbor. We've had this discussion before and the issue was decided. You didn't get your way. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sections that are too long

Hello fellow users! I would like to bring it to your attention that two sections in the current version of the article, namely Prespa agreement, NATO accession, and EU path and Naming dispute are very extensive, while sections like Tourism and Administrative divisions consist of 1 and 3 sentences, respectively. Do other users also agree that the first two sections should be trimmed and the latter two expanded? I am looking forward to your opinions! DD1997DD (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A great deal of those "dispute" sections should not be here anymore and should instead be merely a sentence or two in one section and links to other Wikipedia articles. Having so much space dedicated to the political problem caused by one of Macedonia's neighbors is a subtle way to keep Macedonia subjugated to the whims of its neighbor and not treated as having a separate and equal place among the powers of the earth. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I tried trimming both sections considerably. I still think the Prespa agreement part could be shortened even further, but I would appreciate it if you let me know what you think about the current version. DD1997DD (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Much better and much closer to an appropriate length. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Greek MFA claims

Obviously some Greek editors here wanna push Greek MFA claims as fact with the following,

Greece opposed the use of the name without a geographical qualifier due to its own region of Greek Macedonia, that is historically and ethnically different.

All I am saying is that this claim is ambiguous and can be treated as being universally quantified - i.e no history nor ethnic groups are related between the two regions ever. Obviously this is wrong (see Demographic history of Macedonia, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, National Liberation Front (Macedonia), etc). I am simply proposing something less ambiguous and direct, such as

Greece opposed the use of the name without a geographical qualifier due to its own region of Greek Macedonia, which they claim is historically and ethnically different.

And @Dr.K real mature with the covid-19 joke, made me giggle. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hxseek, nice to see you again. Surely you are aware of WP:CLAIM? "Claim" is a highly loaded word, won't work. Khirurg (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Again stop with your false stock puppet allegations, it's very unconstructive and unprofessional. Okay then, I am open for suggestions which avoid using claim but again accentuate the statement is not 100% factual (as it is not). Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of "Greece opposed the use of the name without a geographical qualifier due to its own region of Greek Macedonia, stating that the two regions are historically and ethnically different"? Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
But they are different. That's the whole point that readers shouldn't get confused about. It's like for example Bulgarian and Turkish Thrace. They are different. That they historically have connections, like all neighbouring regions in the world, isn't significant enough to confuse the readers. --Antondimak (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Saying something like ethnically different actually has some explicit meaning and makes sense (with respect to the majority groups), but what in the world is historically different? It's unencyclopedic and horribly vague to be stated as some sort of fact. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
We must keep to the Prespa Agreement. Specifically, Article 7 mentions that both countries acknowledge that their respective understanding of the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" refers to a different historical context and cultural heritage. When reference is made to Greece, these terms denote the area and people of its northern region, as well as the Hellenic civilisation, history and culture of that region. When reference is made to Republic of Macedonia, these terms denote its territory, language and people, with their own, distinctly different, history and culture. Jingiby (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be bound by facts rather than a bilateral agreement between two political parties, especially those signed under implicit duress. More importantly it should not be bound by the words of political organisations whether it is the Greek or Macedonian MFA. Beat of the tapan (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That above is not agreement between two political parties but between two neighboring states which was been supported widely by the international community. Jingiby (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It is political rather than a reliable source for facts, even if martians support the agreement. It contains universally quantified statements that can easily be disproved via a counterexample (just look at the articles I listed in this section). Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding Beat of the tapan's usage of "political parties". I believe that what is meant is that the agreement is between two parties that are political in nature (as governments are) and not between two political parties. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Well this isn't an academic paper. The main goal is that the information be understood easily by the readers. We've even gone to the extreme of adding the technically inaccurate and politically loaded "(before 2019, Macedonia)" phrase just so the reader is absolutely sure this is the correct article, even though there is a disambiguation page and disambiguation links right above it. --Antondimak (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay sure. But I hold on to my new proposal of "Greece opposed the use of the name without a geographical qualifier due to its own region of Greek Macedonia, stating that the two regions are historically and ethnically different". I think it makes it clear it's Greece's position rather than god-written fact. Beat of the tapan (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It is universally accepted by academia, as well by both governments. --Antondimak (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Why not "Greece opposed the use of the name without a geographical qualifier so as to avoid confusion with its own region of Greek Macedonia.'?--Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that's be a good way to phrase it. --Antondimak (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep much better. Thanks. Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't mind me here, as I see the discussion is already on a good track. Just passing by to commend Beat on his great sense of humour, minus the dig about maturity of course. I always thought good humour is contagious. :) Dr. K. 00:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No kidding, I actually did laugh. But I felt bad afterwards. Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The second proposal of Khajidha is more accurate. Jingiby (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

I would like to change North Macedonia's status from developing country to developed country. Cityblock99 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding that North Macedonia is commonly known as Macedonia

I think that instead (before 2019, Macedonia) would be better to add that North Macedonia is unofficially known just as Macedonia. The 1 paragraph is how it is now and the second is how I think that I would be better to be.

North Macedonia (before 2019, Macedonia), officially the Republic of North Macedonia, is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe.

North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia, commonly known as Macedonia is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe. Lizzz22 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's better that the name change is noted as such, actually. El_C 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Before 2019 it was not known just as Macedonia, it was also known as FYROM by several major and small countries and every major world organisation. Therefore if just Macedonia is to be included as a name before 2019, definitely so does FYROM 10:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:214B:821C:A000:85CF:2B66:D0A1:59A7 (talk)

This debate is over and your side lost. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

The Macedonian Radio Television has been renamed to National Radio Television as reported in the list here.

The issue has been reported already in the previous section, but it is hidden by the long discussion. I add it here to make the request visible. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Now some research is needed on the sub-organisations. --Antondimak (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

In the World War II period section, it says "an United Macedonia", please replace an with a. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, matches other two instances of "a* United Macedonia" found in the article. CMD (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_28&oldid=968888419"