Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 16

Article move

I have moved this article to Macedonia to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy and to achieve consistency with other Wikipedia articles and external sources. The issue of the article's name has been discussed and disputed for seven years. Unfortunately, it is clear that Wikipedia's normal processes of consensus have broken down in this instance; a lengthy discussion to find a compromise failed some time ago, a number of Greek editors has consistently sought to promote a nationalist POV on the issue, and pro-Greek nationalist vandalism on this topic is endemic across Wikipedia. Patterns of usage in English-language sources have shifted markedly during the last seven years but the breakdown of consensus-seeking on this issue has prevented us from keeping up with the state of play off-wiki. I've therefore decided, very exceptionally, to intervene to resolve this issue once and for all.

Here's a summary of the rationale behind this change:

• Naming policy. Names are governed by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which requires that we "use common names of persons and things".
• Common names prioritised. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) prioritises "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more."
• Self-identifying names prioritised. Where names are disputed, as in this instance, Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires us to prioritise the "self-identifying name" of an entity without reference to the political or moral merits of that name.
• How Macedonia self-identifies. Macedonia self-identifies formally as the "Republic of Macedonia" in its constitution and its government affairs [1], and uses "Macedonia" as the common short form of this formal name. Approximately two-thirds of UN member states, including all but two of the English-speaking countries, use this name.
• Daily usage by English media. In daily use by the English-language media, "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the preferred term ([2] vs [3]).
• Usage by other reference works. Almost all of the reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, gazetteers etc) available via Credo Reference and Oxford Reference Online use the term "Macedonia" as the conventional short form of the country; most also use "Macedonia" by itself as the name of their articles on the country.

Macedonia

Britannica

Philip's World Factbook 2008-2009

Chambers Dictionary of World History

The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Penguin Encyclopedia of Places

The Encyclopedia of World History

The Harvard Dictionary of Music

The Hutchinson Chronology of World History

A Guide to Countries of the World

Collins English Dictionary

Macedonia, Republic of or Macedonia (republic)

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Macedonia, [The] Former Yugoslav Republic of

(article title, however articles all use "Macedonia" almost exclusively within the body text)

Philip's Encyclopedia 2008

The Macmillan Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of World History

World Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of Contemporary World History

• Primary topic. Wikipedia:Disambiguation states that "When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title". It recommends that when determining which article constitutes a primary topic for a particular term, we should take into account the number of incoming wikilinks and article traffic statistics. Figures from http://stats.grok.se show what our readers are actually reading. All figures from March 2009:

article	hits
"Macedonia" entries
Republic of Macedonia	119,905
Macedon	22,845
Macedonia (region)	12,827
Macedonia (Greece)	11,660
Socialist Republic of Macedonia	1,972
Macedonia (Roman province)	1,873
Blagoevgrad Province	1,707
Diocese of Macedonia	296
Macedonia (theme)	603
Macedonia, Alabama	365
Macedonia, Georgia	317

The usage of Republic of Macedonia is more than twice the combined usage of all of the other listed articles.

With regard to the four top entries, the approximate number of incoming wikilinks is as follows:

article	wikilinks
Republic of Macedonia	~8,000
Macedonia (region)	~1,000
Macedonia (Greece)	~800
Macedon	~100

This equates to approximately four times more wikilinks pointing to Republic of Macedonia than to the other listed articles combined.

To conclude, the key points are:

• • "Macedonia" is the common form of the formal self-identifying name "Republic of Macedonia".
  • "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the predominant term for the country in English-language encyclopedias, dictionaries and everyday usage by the media.
  • The primary topic for the term "Macedonia", as determined by the number of web hits and incoming links, is the article on the country of that name.

I am aware that this will be a controversial move for some of our editors. However, Wikipedia's policies take precedence above national sentiments. Wikipedia is not subordinate to the views of external agencies and organisations, so the fact that certain international organisations and states may choose to use alternative terminology does not determine how we approach this issue. I suggest that if editors disagree with my actions, they should save their comments for the arbitration case due to start next week. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely endorse your move. Good work!--Patton^t/c 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a good move as well, in the two languages I know and can speak Macedonia is always the primary usage.I s there suppose to be changes for lets say Republic of Macedonia national football team, Flag of Republic of Macedonia and templates like Country data etc, and what about links? chandler ··· 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will need to be a general renaming of "Republic of Macedonia" articles. But I suggest waiting a day or two to see how this pans out first. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of marshalling the evidence and making the arguments clear, concise, and well-documented. (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Could somebody please chek these numbers? I got different results:

article	wikilinks
Macedonia*	<1,200 [4]
Macedonia (region)	>1,000 [5].
Macedonia (Greece)	>800 [6]
Macedon	>1,500 [7]

* Previously Republic of Macedonia.

 Andreas  ^(T) 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good move, I fully endorse it. I find your reasoning persuasive. While I'm sure some people will object, this is a global encyclopedia and opposition to the obvious naming mostly originates from a limited region. henrik•talk 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, this was an excellent decision, and I commend you for being willing to finally put an end to this nonsense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was too obvious ChrisO. See you at ArbCom where I will personally propose you will be desysopped for abusing the admin tools.--Avg (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was too obvious that following what ChrisO has posted Macedonia was the clear primary topic, and therefore should be treated as the primary topic chandler ··· 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to post your opinion at the ArbCom. The diffs are here for everyone to see what happened. --Avg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do object to the move?--Patton^t/c 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations List of Member Countries, the European Union, and Germany refer to the country as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. (Germany sometimes abbreviates the name to "Macedonia", after the full name has been used.) The United States apparently use "Macedonia". --Cs32en (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And as ChrisO has so clearly stated, Wikipedia is bound by no international organization's compromises. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Of course it's not bound by them. They are just an indication of prevailing consensus. Because most people would look for the article under the name of "Macedonia", just as they look for "Beatles", and not "The Beatles", I would suggest to use "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in bold letters at the beginning of the first sentence of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing that "Beatles" actually redirects to "The Beatles", so this is probably a possibility in this case, too. --Cs32en (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way is the number of wikilinks calculated exactly ? Doing a search for Macedon here for example results in more than a thousand articles, am i missing something here ?--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

More accurate statistics

Thanks to AndreasJS's information on how to manipulate the setting number more than 500 pages for "What link here [8] and MS Excel, I can get correct numbers. The limit of numbering is 5000 by the way. As you know, Republic of Macedonia was moved to Macedonia and Macedon to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). So there may be some confusions in the entries.

• The numbers of incoming links are "article-only".

Article	Without redirects	With redirects	ChrisO's
Republic of Macedonia	5347[9]	5414	~8,000
Macedon	1156[10]	1185	~100
Macedonia (region)	692	730	~1,000
Macedonia	418	1016
Macedonia (Greece)	408	526	~800
Macedonia (Roman province)	247	270
Socialist Republic of Macedonia	151	266
Diocese of Macedonia	88	89
Macedonia, Illinois	53	54
Macedonia (disambiguation)	20	33
Macedonia (theme)	17	18
Macedonia (ancient kingdom)	8	613

There are other Macedonia in US but I summed the total number of the incoming links except Republic of Macedonia (5347 links), it is 3250. Though there has to be considerations in this situation because current Macedonia was DAB until 2 days ago. However, ChrisO's rough numbers on Republic of Macedonia and Macedon are far to be approximate numbers.--Caspian blue 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically the move by itself has destroyed any chance of us actually verifying the numbers, because now all the bots fix double redirects and all links are changed. The disruption it has caused can only be repared if he moves the article back where it was, we wait for some time for the redirect links to go back where they were by the bots and then start counting. ChrisO has produced really major disruption and he also undermined the chance for a third party to validate his numbers..--Avg (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bots don't change links, they only change double redirects. The only disruption is in a handful of dab hat notes at the tops of disambiguated articles, which were now wrongly pointing to Macedonia as the title of the dab page. I think I've fixed most of those. Other than that, there were (and still are) a couple hundred normal article links directly to Macedonia, which should never have existed as long as that was a dab page. A good number of them were in fact "fixed" by the move, insofar as they were indeed intended to point to the country. I've been cleaning up a lot of them, disambiguating them all to safe and unambiguous pipe links (so they'll remain stable even if this is moved back eventually.) Other than that, all links are still pointing to exactly the same articles as they did, only most of them through a redirect (which is not a problem). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

8040 so its not at all hard to verify those numbers. chandler ··· 15:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yours is "all namespaces", right? I think article-only links are more informative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I was just showing where the number is from. chandler ··· 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the data is about how many "article" is linked to the mentioned articles. The much inflated number (+2500), 8000 includes user pages, wikispaces and others. According to your logic, ChrisO should've written like Macedon has more than 1500, not 100. Other numbers can be much inflated as well. --Caspian blue 15:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the wikilink statistics isn't the most informative anyway. The page view statistics are much more important, but the most important are real-world usage statistics. See the data I've been assembling at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC2#Documentation of usage. Current outcome is, in book publications (where older publications and history works are prominent) we have the country and other meanings roughly on a par, whereas in most other genres, most notably journalism and everything dealing with the present, the country leads by a huge margin, of at least an order of magnitude. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but he presented "incorrect numbers" as evidences.--Caspian blue 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

you might see it like that. chandler ··· 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're nitpicking now. Move on.--Caspian blue 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the Macedon number seems to be just a typo, Macedonia (region) 1024, Macedonia (Greece) can not be inflated 796, their numbers looks about the same as the original chandler ··· 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could be, however if that was just a typo, the hierarchy of numbering is not like that. With the little statistics, I wanted all editor interested in the issue can have a better grip of "primary topic".--Caspian blue 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If there was a typo there would probably have been a typo when he wrote the numbers down, therefore it would go on the bottom. chandler ··· 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter what you're saying, his research on the incoming numbers was incorrectly done. Period.--Caspian blue 16:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed when people talk about the appalling page move as if it is something permanent. And I'm also concerned when they claim they're doing work to "fix" things, when what they're actually doing is working to establish and solidify the new status quo. There are many steps here: First revert the whole thing, go to status quo ante, then develop a good, reliable process and then examine the validity of the numbers. We're already at step 3 without the previous two.--Avg (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not paying attention to what people tell you, are you? As I said, the changes I've been making are to stabilise the linking independently of the final outcome. They would in fact be most beneficial as a preparation for an eventual return to the old title. There should basically be no links to plain Macedonia at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be concentrating on reverting to the status quo ante, this is what I'm saying, if you have any respect for proper process. If you continue working as if nothing has happened, it means you solidify the new status quo. Go on and revert now. you're an admin after all aren't you? I cannot revert because ChrisO has blocked my access to the move tool. And then, after you have restored the calm and peace, do all your little tweaks and tests.--Avg (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning (but are not determining factors by themselves):

Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere

Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/

Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

From Henrik's FAQ:

Q:Is the data reliable?

A: It is easily susceptible to deliberate attacks and manipulations, but for most articles it should give a fair view of the number of views. I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats.".

So it is quite obvious that we should first define a solid process to determine whether there is a primary topic before accepting we can base such a controversial move to the above stats, which Wikipedia guidelines and their own developers say they should not be the base of important decisions. The consensus in Wikipedia for years has been that there is no primary topic. No one, even ethnic Macedonians, disputed that. --Avg (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that Macedonia is not only the primary topic per those stats but it is the common name in English. And no they are not manipulated if chech through previous months you'll see that the stats are on about the same level 85,161, 97,457, 93,418, 99,053 chandler ··· 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". --Avg (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the discussion comes from greek nationalists, yes. chandler ··· 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one jumping on the ethnic profiling bandwagon. Why don't you do a little table with user names and their country flags showing who edits Talk:Macedonia and what is their opinion? That would be a very nice idea[11].--Avg (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, im on that obvious bandwagon, just as I'm on the "earth revolves around the sun"-bandwagon. Both are clear and obvious chandler ··· 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you fail to understand the issue of ChrisO forging the results, you fail to understand the issue of performing controversial moves using unvalidated methodology, you fail to understand that no argument presented in this page has anything to do with nationalism and this failure drives you to resort to ad hominems.--Avg (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, Avg. We've seen the way you do witchhunts. "Future Perfect changed FYROM in 2007 Fort Dix attack plot and Staffordshire University to 'Republic of Macedonia'--Shame on him. They are surely within Greece's sphere of interest." "ChrisO moved this article without asking, he posted numbers that surely must be inaccurate because I don't like them and they prove his point." And I'm sure that you can "prove" that he drives 70 mph in a 60 zone and cheated a little on his income taxes as well. Oh, yes, and he kicked the neighbor's cat once, too. Your methods of accusation, Avg, are suspect. (Taivo (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

In case you missed it, I was accused by Chandler, I did not accuse him. And Taivo, really, I think I mentioned it yesterday, it is a bit tiring pretending you did not understand that mass renaming is a behavioral issue and not a content issue. Regarding ChrisO, it is not me who proved his numbers were incorrect, this has been proven by at least three other editors before me, so I can't follow your logic. Finally, I fail to understand your tone and your irony, I think I maintain a certain level of discourse with you.--Avg (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Avg, you should have noticed that several editors pointed out that what ChrisO was counting was different from what others were counting because they were using different tools and different time periods to count. It has been said above already then when one performs the experiment the same way that ChrisO did, one gets the same results. And if the only basis you have for discussing this issue is link counts, then your argument is indeed weak. We have a saying in the U.S., "There are three kinds of lies--white lies, damned lies, and statistics." We always look at numbers very cautiously, but that doesn't mean we accuse people of lying or deceit (as you have) just because the numbers aren't precisely the same when we try to count them. If the trend is the same, that's all that matters. And you fail to see that by attacking Future Perfect for following the dictates of WP:ARBMAC at Staffordshire University, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and a couple of other places that I pointed out, you fatally weakened your ability to make any claim against his behavior. While his changes at the "Greek interest" articles might be debated by you, his changes outside Greek interest were totally unassailable based on general Wikipedia policy and WP:ARBMAC specifically. His behavior was that he was applying Wikipedia policy. The real behavior that the unwarranted accusation illustrates, however, is your own. (Taivo (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

ChrisO did deceive the community and this will be one of my points for asking ArbCom to desysop him. I will take it there and I will leave the Committee to decide the outcome. For the last (I hope) time, the AN/I thread (that was not stated by me incidentally) was examining Future's behavior and I pointed out in detail the level of disruption he caused. Finally, I'm afraid ARBMAC did not decide on content, they explicitly denied to comment, so Future did not follow any "dictate". Of course I hoped they would decide because this could save us hours of pointless debate. At least I hope even more now that ARBMAC2 will force everybody to abide to some rules. This has always been my main wish.--Avg (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Taivo meant MOSMAC in his statement above, not ARBMAC. I admit I used to mix those two up myself all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case I wonder if I may ask you Future, did you make the changes to Staffordshire University and 2007 Fort Dix attack plot per MOSMAC?--Avg (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

These days I go more by common sense and general Wikipedia naming policy than by whatever MOSMAC suggested. But surely you are aware that those two cases in fact were in accordance with it, so what new devilishly clever debating ploy are you persuing with your question now, Mr Argument Guy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you're a smart guy Future and you wouldn't step on a landmine, don't worry. Basically I wanted Taivo to understand that you have many times proclaimed that MOSMAC is "dead" and specifically excluded yourself from its mandates. So the argument that you were applying MOSMAC for these two is moot.--Avg (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Avg, your argument for including Staffordshire University and 2007 Fort Dix attack plot and the others I cited in your accusations against Future Perfect is that even though he did the right thing, he did it for the wrong reasons? So, according to your logic, every edit to an article, even if it is a good edit must be judged by the intent of the editor and if his/her motives do not conform to your judgement of "pure", it should be reverted. That is precisely what you are arguing here. (Taivo (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

You're close but not quite. I'm not saying "even though he did the right thing", I'm saying "we have not yet decided what is the right thing" and to be more specific, even if we (the rest of the community) thought we might have decided what is "right" in MOSMAC, Fut.Perf. himself proclaimed this agreement "dead". So according to his own words, there was no "standard" naming and no decision. And until we decide, any arbitrary and unilateral mass rename is problematic, see the latest injunction by the ArbCom. Imagine if there was such an injunction when the naming poll started, how would you criticise Fut.Perf.'s actions in renaming a host of articles before the conclusion of the poll?--Avg (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck have you been smoking, Avg? "Renaming a host of articles"? Where the hell have I been renaming articles, can you tell me? My move log is here: [12]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who talked about moving? I said renaming. You renamed the way the Republic was referenced in dozens of articles unilaterally, without any consensus and any discussion. I would guess that refraining from renaming the country within articles would fall within the "common sense" domain? --Avg (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Learn English. Renaming an article means just that: renaming an article. And no, the injunction is only about that, renaming articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering won't help you here. The spirit is more important than the letter. It is "common sense" that you have to refrain from every provocative action. Of course we can always ask ArbCom for a clarification. In fact, wait, I will just do that.--Avg (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I meant MOSMAC--the place with the chart that says except in articles about international organizations and Greece that "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia" are the policies that must be followed. Thanks for the correction, Future Perfect. I'm Irish, and a "Mc", but there are just too many "MAC"s floating about to keep them all straight ;) And, Avg, what does it matter what Future Perfect was thinking at these two places? The changes were perfectly in accordance with policy and your objections to them are irrelevant. By adding trivial irrelevant details to your comments, Avg, you trivialize your comment, even when it may contain a germ of information worthy of discussion. (Taivo (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

In NO way whatsoever can this article be under the name of MACEDONIA, as it is already a pre-established historical, political entity with a dominant greek cultural identity, and by saying greek I mean HELLENIC, a wide ancient identity under which differrent ethnicities united as one single identity to form HELLADE. Please do not attempt to confuse the things further. There is no link between the region of the Republic of Macedonia (as they want to call themselves) and with the ancient entity of Macedoia which now, in its greater part (PELLAS) of history and culture lies in the greek boundaries under the region of Makedonia (capital Thessaloniki). The active population of FYROM Macedonia, is in no way related to the ancient Makedones, nor by language, neither cultural or historical identity since they are vastly a loose unification of former YogoSLAVIC ethnias. Albanians are the predominant element which by no account can they be considered as having even the smallest relation with the ancient Macedonia. Therefore I will state the movement of the article as totally meaningless with no relation to any historical background.--Beltenebros (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The move seems to have explicitly violated policy in my eyes. Firstly, it seems to violate WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars of wikipedia. Specifically, it seems to be indicating that, as it were, the subject most deserving or primary subject of the word "Macedonia" is in fact the nation of Macedonia. That is a POV, and will have to be counted as a POV until and unless it is significantly demonstrated that that opinion is shown to represent, as per the nutshell of that page, "representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." I have seen nothing to indicate that is in fact the case here, as it indicates a clear bias toward the current country. This is particularly problematic considering that the country in question seems on the verge of itself changing that name. Also, the page mover has been shown to have tried to remove information which seemed to run contrary to his POV by deleting material which said clearly that the name Republic of Macedonia had been agreed as the common name, without even a hint in advance that he considered it as much. Taking that into account, and the further suspect actions of the page mover in moving the page at a time he had good reason to think that the Orthodox members of the Greek "faction" here would be inactive, and we have, to my eyes, a clear attempt to try to violate policy through action against apparent consensus. I again repeat that I have myself seen, prior to this move, no support for such a change, and, in fact, did see an apparent agreement that such a move was not reasonable. Add to this the page mover's subsequent statements indicating that the only policies relevant to this move were the ones he points to in his justification of the move, and his refusal to even address the policies that his move violated in the eyes of several others, and I myself see here a move not taken with the slightest regard for policy or guidelines, but simply an attempt by one administrator to effectively declare himself God on the topic, place himself above even his fellow admins, and act like a true dictator, all of which is pointedly in violation of policy. I thus repeat that I think policy had little if anything to do with this move. The justification for the move strikes me personally as being as transparent as would the defense of a secret service agent assigned to guard the President of the US assassinating that same President for jaywalking. The only thing the justification for this move proves to my eyes is the page mover's lack of judgement and/or perspective. While that might be enough in criminal court to have him declared incompetent, this is not a criminal court, and it is not sufficient defense or justification for this move. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV argument is a red herring. Our naming policies simply don't work like that. Our naming policies on disputed names do not say that we should remain neutral and avoid chosing a name that corresponds to just one party's preferences. They say that we should follow common English usage and the named subject's own preferences (only balancing out these two against each other in some way if they conflict). If the result of that choice happens to coincide with the preferences of one of the disputing parties in the real-world conflict, that's just tough luck. Our adoption of such a name then does not imply support for the moral right of that side, it simply means an acknowledgment that that's what the real world out there does. That's not POV, that's how Wikipedia has explicitly decided it wants to work, in all such cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What a sterling rationale for placing of the People of the United States of America article under the title "Americans"! Apcbg (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you just go and move it there if that article interests you so much, instead of wasting our time here, mister politician? Stop being a broken record. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What have you to say about (I quote again) "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"? (Wikipedia:disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?) You have not answered that quetion yet. OK, it is not policy but only a guideline, but still you have to take this into account ("It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow").  Andreas  ^(T) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Andreas, didn't you know that whoever dares to quote this is a Greek nationalist?--Avg (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Andreas, such a debate has never happened yet. I'll be happy if we can have one, and I'm perfectly willing to reconsider the naming of this particular article in the light of sensible arguments (especially as regards the relative weighting of the ancient senses). But I refuse to accept this guideline quote as saying that a political faction can simply block developments by making a lot of "but we don't want it" noise and calling it "debate". Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the article move and I explain my reasoning below:

First: you write: * How Macedonia self-identifies. Macedonia self-identifies formally as the "Republic of Macedonia" in its constitution and ... In this sentence you are using twice the term "Macedonia" without quotes, thus taking sides on this delicate issue, which is still under negotiations under the aegis of the United Nations. By doing so, you damage your own credibility!

Second: in the continuation of the above point you write: Approximately two-thirds of UN member states, including all but two of the English-speaking countries, use this name. By saying so you miss to clarify that those UN member states have recognised the state in their bilateral relations. You also missed to emphasise that the United Nations itself uses the full name: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The United Nations is sort of the 'official registry' of the names of all countries and its use provides a general consensus that has never been challenge. You also missed to say that since 1995 there is a bilateral agreement between FYROM and Greece re-affirming this name for internatinal use.

Third: you mention the number of hits of the term Republic of Macedonia to be 119,905, which is much higher than some other related terms. You seem to forget that the Greek objection is based on distortion of history, and specifically on the high possibility of associating the modern day state FYROM with the ancient Macedonia. We don't need to go into further details of this, but I believe no serious editor/user/historian/scientist can really find any association between a nation of Slavic origin (which descended to the Balkans in 7th century AD) with the ancient Macedonians. Having said that, it would be worthwile to check the public interest on the ancient Macedonia in Wikipedia. Using only the main figure of this time, Alexander the Great, (and ignoring all other hundreds of terms relating to this), we see a number of 312578

Fourth: you seem to have done you homework and checking other reference works. I would never understimate other sources importance, but regarding the nature of this specific issue, its history (from 1991 until now) and the fact that it is a high political issue still under negotiations between the corresponding parties, it is worthwile to also check what international organisations use for this case.

So here is my list:

Registration of FYROM under the letter F ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"):

   * World Trade Organisation

Registration of FYROM under the letter T ("The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"):

   * World Health Organisation
   * Council of Europe
   * Unesco
   * International Atomic Energy Agency
   * UN International Development Organization
   * International Telecommunication Union
   * Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
   * World Intellectual Property Organisation
   * Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
   * European Union and candidancy for EU admission

Registration of FYROM under the letter M ("Macedonia")

   * World Bank
   * International Monetary Fund

Thus, the common practice of international organisations (including the UN itself) is clear and unambiguous. I believe that Wikipedia should follow suit.

Therefore, I find entirely unreasonable the article move. --Antibaro (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The move is totally and completely absurd. Based on what - google hits, wikipedia links, (since when these are a source ?!) and a handful of encyclopaedia sources with dubious quality ? Macedonia is, before all, a geographic region. A country article cannot stay under the name of a region with dubiously defined cultural, geographic and historical borders. The info on the People's Republic of China does not exist under the article named China. The info on United States of America does not exist under the article named America. Reliable sources - world organizations, not encyclopaedias (since nowadays every self-proclaimed researcher can publish his own encyclopaedia), point out the aknowledged name - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The article should be moved as quickly as possible. And I strongly suggest such adventure moves should be avoided. - Tourbillon ^A ? 11:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Intervention

I just noticed that Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia and the previous content of the page, which was basically a longer dab, seems to have disappeared. The person who did the move, User:ChrisO, cites policy as being the basis for the move, as per the Talk:Macedonia page. I don't know that anyone was given any prior notice of his intention to move the page, however. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion on the Boards regarding the proper name, mostly about Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (or similar?) being preferred by no-one except Greek Nationalists. I don't know the outcome of the discussion, but the move may have been the result of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I very definitely agree with the "Bold" part. I was in fact a regular part of the discussion on the Talk:Greece page for some time now, but the discussion there was about whether "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was the preferable name to use in that article. I do not remember there having ever been any discussion of even using in that article, let alone rename the central article itself, to the simpler name "Macedonia". In fact, I seem to remember that in the discussion there was virtually unanimous agreement that the article on the country would stay at Republic of Macedonia. I wonder whether such a destabilization of what was an at least reluctantly acceptable situation by both sides of the discussion, particularly without any sort of prior approval or agreement that I can see, is really the wisest move here. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the likes of Republic of Ireland who self identify as Ireland.? It may have a slightly different argument but if as you say it's standard practice to use the self identifying name then it's not standard practice across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think The Republic of Ireland is a very common name in English (especially in Britain), and I dont know about the hit counts, but from what's been shown on the talk page, ROM for Macedonia was a clear, clear primary topic, but some, what was it 10x hits than Macedonia (Greece) and 5 times the hits of the second choice chandler ··· 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been *seven years* of discussion. The article was the subject of edit wars and disputes within days of its creation way back in 2002. There is in fact no stability on this issue; nationalist vandalism relating to the naming issue is continuous and endemic across Wikipedia, as this abuse filter demonstrates. When President of the Republic of Macedonia was on the "In the news" section of the Main Page last week, it was twice vandalised by someone editing from the Greek Parliament. Leave aside the procedural niceties: I've set out the policy rationale on Talk:Macedonia. The issue at hand is whether this move is validated by policy. I'd say it's clear-cut. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was time for a third option. If there was a stalemate between the advocates of the different "Republic" titles then the new one should suffice until there is an agreement - this may be a stimulus, given that if neither side like the most recent rename then there is at least one thing they agree on, toward arriving at a consensus. In that light, I suggest that there is no undoing of the move until such a consensus is arrived at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specific part of the policy was used to make the change. Jack forbes (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all outlined on Talk:Macedonia chandler ··· 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the same logic, People's Republic of China should take the China (3fold hits, incoming links, common usages etc). I smell more dramas coming from the too bold move.--Caspian blue 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC vs Taiwan is a territorial dispute - two states disputing ownership of the same territory. So is Ireland, to an historical extent, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. Neither side disputes the other's right over the name of its part of the territory - the dispute is over who governs that territory. Neither Greece nor Macedonia disputes any territorial matters; it's purely an issue of one side (Greece) claiming exclusive rights to the name, which isn't a situation replicated in either China or Ireland. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @ChrisO, no, not just territorial dispute, but the ownership of the name "China" and its long "history" too. We already had a move suggestion/discussion last year (heated one). If the move was carried by a Macedonian, I wonder how good the user would get? Not too sweet one.--Caspian blue 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For UN member states, the United Nations List of Member States does probably indicate the prevailing consensus. --Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case: the UN uses a different terminology from two thirds of its member states, which use "Macedonia" instead. The situation is that the state self-identifies as Macedonia but participates in certain international organisations under a provisional reference (not a name!) due to Greek objections. But as I've noted on Talk:Macedonia, that's really a side issue, since Wikipedia's approach isn't determined by state policies towards an issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea versus Republic of Korea may also be a relevant comparison here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea is another dissimilar example, more akin to China or Ireland - it's one territory disputed by two states, whereas Macedonia is not a territorial dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Ireland (rep) no longer dispute any territory. It is purely a wikipedia debate on the naming of the country, which is why I say the policy is not used across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why it was given the sole name "Macedonia". Isn't the usual convention for that to only happen when the target is what most people are looking for? I would suggest the page be at "Macedonia (country)" as we have done with articles such as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical.--Caspian blue 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe both Georgias were found to have roughly the same level of prominence (hits, incoming links etc). That clearly isn't the case in this instance. Macedonia the country has five times the usage and eight times the number of incoming links to the next most prominent item on the list (which isn't Greek Macedonia). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia the country got 150k views last month, the state 100k (from stats.grok.se). According to the same view numbers above, Macedonia the country gets 5 times more hits than the next article that could conceivably use the Macedonia name. henrik•talk 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Georgia (country) be such a clear primary topic? I would guess not, just because Georgia (US state) is the common usage in the USA chandler ··· 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget that most English speakers live outside the USA and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think because there are many US users it is what heights the US state up to "block" the country as primary usage. Plus from what I can see about the country it doesnt seem to be called "Republic of Georgia" or something like that, so (country) is the only possible disambig for it i guess chandler ··· 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as Henrik indicates there isn't a huge gap between the prominence of each name. The situation with Macedonia is very different, as the stats show. As a matter of fact, it generally isn't necessary to include the form of government in an article's title; we don't, for instance, refer to Libya as the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (thank goodness). The only situation I can think of where you absolutely need to have a disambiguation-by-prefix is if two states use very similar names and govern a common, potentially disputed, territory. We get around the problem of Republic of Korea versus Democratic People's Republic of Korea because the two states are commonly referred to by geographical disambiguators - North Korea and South Korea. The only examples I can think of where we do need to disambiguate-by-prefix are People's Republic of China versus Republic of China and Republic of the Congo versus Democratic Republic of the Congo (the latter is particularly problematic, as there don't seem to be common terms for those states). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The timing on this was very bad indeed, as an arbitration request over the name of the country in the Greece article was going to be initiated next week, after the conclusion of the Orthodox Easter holiday. This really borders on reckless, Chris; you are aware of the planned arbitration request, and this move smacks of trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute, which reflects badly on you and (by extension) those who have supported you over a series of attacks on the content guideline you authored which covers this debate. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other view on the timing is, doing this now when we are going to have an Arbcom case anyway gives us the opportunity of having his action checked (and, if necessary, confirmed or reversed) in a controlled atmosphere and under the auspices of that body. Which may actually save us some drama, which would otherwise have been unavoidable. As for the issue itself, I'd say the case for applying the "primary use" rule to this article is indeed extremely strong. At the same time, experience with the other related disputes has shown that a regular consensus-seeking process would never have led to any policy-conformant outcome in this field. This is clearly the right result, and it is just as clear that it would never have been reached without this slighly irregular bold coup. I'm looking for a "gordian knot barnstar", but there doesn't seem to be one yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. There's actually no better time to put the policy issues on the table, as it gives Arbcom a clear target to aim at. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ChrisO, you're a liar who used deceipt to make this move. And this is no personal attack, it is the simple fact, no matter how bluntly I put it. And you lied when you made the move from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) yesterday when you labelled it "minor". It was paving the ground for this move today. When I flagged it to you and specifically asked you to comment, you failed to.--Avg (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves are automatically marked minor by the software. Secondly, calling people liars is not how we conduct discussions here. Saying it is no personal attack doesn't make it so either. Please discuss this matter civilly. henrik•talk 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I will not retract, per WP:SPADE. This is exactly what happened. I'm not talking about software, I'm talking about ChrisO's own words. Check Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation) yourself.--Avg (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I said I'd made a minor change to the page naming, and if you look at the diff this is exactly what I did. Adding "(disambiguation)" to the name of a disambiguation page is not an earth-shattering event. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole episode exactly as it happened will be put in front of ArbCom and I would let them opine.--Avg (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I now see which use of 'minor' you referred to. I will however still suggest you spend more time arguing your case and less time calling people liars. ChrisO has made a very compelling case above why this title is the proper naming for the country according to Wikipedia guidelines; if you wish to change that I suggest you put together an equally compelling case that some other article should use the 'Macedonia' title. henrik•talk 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no such compelling case as is referred to by Henrik. As I understand it, the highest policy we have is WP:CONSENSUS, and this unilateral move seems to be to fly in the face of that policy. I very much hope that ChrisO has an answer ready by the time Arbitration opens, and after this it may not wait until next week. Speaking strictly for myself, I have to say that my confidence in his ability to reasonably use the tools of adminship has been very shaken by this action. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about the Arbcom case is that the history of the past years has shown us that the normal consensus-seeking mechanisms just don't work when dealing with strong and extremely determined national groups like here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here. One article has been renamed. The many related articles which use "Republic of Macedonia" in their titles are still at the same locations. As Fut. Perf. has said, the Arbcom will have an opportunity to review the policy issues in a controlled fashion. If it decides that the policy rationale is insufficient, then this article can be moved back to its old name. As for WP:CONSENSUS, there are sometimes situations in which consensus cannot be reached because of certain factors - in this case a number of Greek editors who have consistently filibustered and wikilawyered every discussion on the subject.Ultimately it's a question of whether or not we follow basic policies; you can't have a consensus to violate policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you telling people not to get carried away is somewhat amusing, as the one rash action which took place was your own. And I agree there was no agreement or consensus for the move, despite the page regarding such matters which you developed. There is a very real question here as to whether you followed basic policies in your deceit and unilateral actions. And I do not personally think that any attempt to try to blame the existing situation for your own individual actions is likely to succeed. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work with faits accomplis, but with consensus. It is clear for me ChrisO abused the admin tools to win a content dispute and as far as I'm concerned, there is a very concrete case against him.--Avg (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The move function is locked, so Avg can not do the same thing that ChrisO did. However, any admin who disagrees with ChrisO can move it first anyway and then explain his motivation here. Then, he/she may get same responses from the supporters like: "Good move! Wikipedia is based on consensus and talk" etc.--Caspian blue 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's wheel warring, and very much frowned upon (as in a desysopping offence) by Arbcom. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's be fair, Chris. You can't very well claim wheel-warring protection for your move here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to reverting admins, I think people need to step carefully, that's all. Something that someone considers not wheel-warring could be interpreted differently by someone else, or by Arbcom. Better not to risk it, I'd say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth change it just before an Arbcom case is put forward on the naming dispute? Doesn't this stir things up further? Jack forbes (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it allows the Arbcom to review a clear policy issue in a controlled fashion and issue a binding recommendation. A move after an Arbcom case would just be a mess. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting you abused the admin tools to present to the ArbCom the facts the way it suits your POV.--Avg (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The policy rationale is at the top of this page. The rationale stays the same whatever the timing may be. In this case we have a perfect opportunity to discuss the policy issues in a controlled fashion and go forward - renaming all the other "Republic of Macedonia" articles in the same fashion - or go back to the old name, depending on the Arbcom's recommendations. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In which way having moved the article to Macedonia helps to discuss the issue in a "controlled fashion" if not by creating a new status quo and then asking the Arbs to uphold it? The discussion would be exactly the same amount of "controlled" if you simply laid out your arguments in the talk page without having made the move.--Avg (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD aside, the timing for this move doesn't appear to have been the most adequate. We should rather wait for the arbitration. Everybody will feast on drama then, no need for appetizers. I would recommend Chris to move the article back and wait for the arbitration. Húsönd 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For so many years, and despite any disputes and political discussions, there was a balance in Wikipedia regarding this issue. Now, defying any logic, this man has singlehandedly and without any discussion or warning managed to turn everything upside down. He managed to provoke unnecessary tension which will undoubtedly explode all over Wikipedia. He managed to again pour fanaticism into both sides, since one will furiously oppose and the other frantically defend this move. I also clearly oppose this action and will support any action against ChrisO for, in a totally unadministrative manner, bringing on blind fanaticism where a self-imposed peace was achieved. GK1973 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" was the stable, consensus version of the name of this article for years, so claims that "consensus in this issue is not possible because of Greek nationalists" is simply not true. The move by ChrisO unilaterally flies in the face of this consensus, and moreover does so using his admin powers. I am gratified to see numerous other community members speak out against this. As for the timing, it smells very strongly of trying to present a fait accompli to Arbcom. Moreover, the move is a completely separate issue from the ArbCom debate, which is how to refer to the country in the article on Greece. Will ChrisO now argue that this country be referred to as simply "Macedonia" in the article on Greece, where previously he insisted on "Republic of Macedonia"? --Athenean (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a new member and an inexperienced editor. I am also very careful of what are my limits. What I feel here is that ChrisO has stepped over his limits. Is this what wikipedia is supposed to be based upon? It will be based upon statistics or facts? Is it going to be based in admin "superpowers" or common scientific consensus? How am I supposed to give my trust in whatever I read in wikipedia if the truth is judged only as a statistical expression? And by the way who gave you ChrisO the authority to judge if I am a "nationalist"? Isn't that a "bad word" in your vocabulary?

If this is going to be the future or the present of Wikipedia then I already feel disgusted about it.Polemos (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can well understand your feelings. However, as an admin with "superpowers", I want you to know that the Arbitration Committee has authorized the use of kryptonite on any of us who try to move the article anywhere while the case is before them as per here, and anyone with these awesome superpowers of course doesn't want to lose them to kryptonite. They have done this to prevent the article being moved repeatedly while the case is ongoing, which is reasonable. I agree that there was probably insufficient justification for the page to be moved in the first place, and wish I had had the guts to revert it when I first saw it, but I'm new to this kind of situation. In general, the ArbCom tries to resolve cases relatively expediently. I think there is a very real chance that there will be some sort of resolution of this matter within only a few weeks. That is still a longish time, but at the end of that time I have every reason to hope that whatever decision is reached will be one that is at least tolerable to all sides. Maybe that isn't the kind of answer you wanted, but it's the best I've got. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words John Carter. It is correct for you as an administrator to bring peace. Please if you are so kind again to clarify me a question of mine. Right now, if understood correctly, the time we speak (metaphorically) neither you or ChrisO or any other admin can change anything that has any correlation with the naming/renaming of the "Republic of Macedonia", "Macedonia", "FYROM", "Former Republic of Macedonia", etc. unless/until ArbCom makes a decision on the subject?Polemos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. The current limitations apply only to the content directly relating to the name used for the various "Macedonia"s. So we, and for that matter anyone else, can still add material, or change other phrasing, add references, or anything like that. The current limitations apply only to the article names and names used in the text for the various areas, with the primary focus being the independent Republic of Macedonia. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Things should be moved back

First, a disclaimer: my only connection to the whole Macedonia naming dispute is that my grandmother once visited the region as part of a tour of Europe.

Things should be moved back, and Macedonia should be a disambiguation page. As ChrisO's numbers show, while the article on the country gets the majority of the traffic and links, it's not an overwhelming majority: almost a third of users are looking for something else, and the proportion of links is similar. --Carnildo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That would mean MORE than two thirds look for the country? isn't that what's called a supermajority in same places? I do think two thirds is a clear sign of primary topic chandler ··· 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the figures, Macedonia the country gets more than twice the traffic of all the other listed articles combined, and around four times as many links as the other articles combined. That's an overwhelming majority by any description. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I said above, this proves that you want to use these arguments to ask from ArbCom to uphold the name Macedonia. This would not be the easy if you asked them to move the article to Macedonia though, would it? So it is obvious you're gaming the system to win a content dispute.--Avg (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Supermajority, yes, but my rule of thumb is that in order to pick one article for primary topic disambiguation, it needs to be the most common by at least an order of magnitude. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO's actions

Chris, I notice you made a slight change to your opening sentence here. Does this mean you did not change the name in your capacity as an admin but rather as a run of the mill user? Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There was no clear and present administrative need for the page to be moved. As such, he was acting on his own perception of policies and guidelines, like any other user would. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's principally an editorial action to implement standard naming policies and guidelines. If you look at the changes I made to the page at the same time, I made numerous editorial changes to eliminate the dozens of unneeded repetitions of "Republic of Macedonia", fix awkward wording, remove peacock terms and deleted images, and so on. Think of it as essentially an overhaul (much needed, IMO) to a fairly stagnant article. Having said that, there was a minor use of the sysop bit to expedite the move (since move permissions are locked due to previous move warring and vandalism), which is why I expressed caution earlier about the suggestion that another admin could undo the action unilaterally. It's possible that some could interpret that as wheel-warring, which wouldn't be helpful for anyone. I advise against doing that for obvious reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted to take the same editorial action I couldn't. You abused the admin tools to gain the upper hand on a content issue.--Avg (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had admin tools, would you move it back? If yes, would you call that wheel-warring? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You have the tools, so same question right back at you. If you decided to revert, would it be wheel-warring? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(like 47 edit conflicts...) No, I do not think so. Wheel-warring is defined as repeatedly undoing administrative actions. A page move is not an administrative action; it is a content issue. If there was an edit-war between administrators on an edit-protected page, we would not call it a wheel war. It is simply an edit war. I suppose the parties would be dealt with more harshly than usual because admins are supposed to maintain a high decorum, but I do not think they be sanctioned specifically for abusing their administrative tools. The same applies here. The page is fully move-protected because of heavy edit-warring (move-warring?). Someone disagreed with the status quo, and believes that he has a firm base in policy to back up his views, so he was bold and took action.

It is very easy to say that you would move the page back if you had the tools. It is far different when you look at the issue while you hold the technical ability to do so. Chris clearly believes that discussing the name issue more is pointless, and I am inclined to agree with him. In any case, he made his move, and he laid out the reasons for his action, and I assume that he would be willing to undo his move if someone were able to convince him that his rationale is faulty. The same can be said for other administrators. There are approximately 900-950 active administrators on this site. Before any of them (us?) will undo Chris's action, they/we would have to be convinced that his action was very wrong/incorrect/illogical/etc. Chris's page-move can be viewed as a perfectly acceptable WP:BOLD move ("move" meaning an action in general, not the physical page-move). Moving the page back would be edit-warring, and thus even if I did in principle disagree with Chris (For the record, I do not), I do not think I would undo his move. As I said, administrators are expected to maintain high personal standards for their behavior. Considering that this page is still at this title, I assume that other administrators hold similar views as I do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should you two get to decide that the wider community cannot take part in the consensus-building process, just because you have the administrator bit?

Why should reversion of ChrisO's edit be perceived as wheel-warring/edit-warring because he is an administrator, whereas reversion of a non-administrator's edit is seen as a natural part of the WP:BRD and consensus-building process?

Admin status in no big thing, and not for use in content disputes in which one is involved. In content disputes, there should be no two-tier system. Why can't I have any impact on the title of this article just because I haven't gone through WP:RFA? Knepflerle (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This person lied. When he was challenged yesterday he referred to his move as "minor" and not "bold". He refused to acknowledge his ultimate goal. He used deceit to advance his POV. And he abused the tools.--Avg (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Knepflerle > The initial action falls under WP:BOLD. The first reversion is what starts an edit war.

@Avg > If you once more attack ChrisO for marking the move as a minor edit, without first showing me the diff of a test page-move that you made that is not marked as minor, I will block you for harassment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy I'm referring to his move yesterday of Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation). He explicitly referred to the move as minor in the talk page and he was specifically challenged to answer if this was paving the way for today's move. As you see, this was clearly part of a pre-meditated plan.--Avg (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't reply to the more crucial question - why can't a non-administrator user have any say in what the title of this article is? Knepflerle (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel really sad when some people use their power to achieve their own goals and then trying to say that they don't :-( --xvvx (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that bold action was needed because consensus (and even compromise) was being actively blocked by a dedicated group of edit(or) warriors who were pushing a POV that was not (or only loosely) based on Wikipedia policy. After all these years of blockage, ChrisO made a bold move to break the deadlock. Leave the article where it is. Let ARBCOM do their magic. If they revert it, then ChrisO has already said he will accept their ruling. But if ARBCOM lets it stand and firmly establishes Wikipedia policy, I have heard no such commitment from the edit(or) warriors to abide by ARBCOM's decision. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

How was it needed in say the Greece article where most of this discussion was located at? We certainly cannot have the country named Macedonia there, because of Macedonia. This is totally counter-productive.--Avg (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" was the stable consensus name of this article for years. It is a completely different issue from what is going on in Talk:Greece. --Athenean (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion at Talk:Greece, I have to agree with Athenean. I do not remember a single instance at that page of anyone requesting that this page be moved to its current location. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I point out below, is that it is ChrisO's appeals to his status as administrator, thereby characterising reversion of his edit as wheel-warring, that is stopping any other editors using their judgement. Labelling his edit as effectively irreversible is not compatible with a consensus-building project.

WP:ADMIN is unambiguous and utterly crystal-clear - the tools and status of an administrator aren't to be used in content disputes to impose their own interpretation of evidence and policy, and aren't to be used by in disputes in which they are already significantly involved (except in the case of blatant vandalism of course).

"With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

"In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action."

ChrisO would have displayed far better judgement had he either proposed this move here first, or asked an administrator uninvolved with the Macedonia naming dispute to perform the move. The best course of action would be for him to revert his action himself and pursue one of these options now. Should he not, this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. Knepflerle (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when the RfC is filed. I definitely have things to say there. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's already an arbitration case scheduled for next week. I suggest presenting your "things to say" there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of your judgement in preventing the community contributing to decision-making, and not the question of the naming of Macedonia-related articles - that is why it should be dealt with separately at WP:RFC/U. Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The community has tried and failed for seven years to reach any solution that is consistent with policy - specifically, because editors like Avg have consistently fought against any solution that offends a Greek nationalist POV. Consensus has definitively failed to resolve this issue. I think it's interesting that the people who are objecting to this are focusing exclusively on procedural issues and ignoring the policy rationale at the top of this page. Perhaps we could have some explanation of why the policy rationale is wrong? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But the name of this article has been stable for years, since 2003 to be precise. So invoking the "consensus is impossible because of Greek nationalists" simply doesn't cut it. The only disagreement/debate/instability was what to call this country in the article on Greece. The move does not make this article any more stable (in fact whole lot less), nor does it have anything to do with the dispute in Talk:Greece. All it does is it negates the long-stable consensus that existed in this article, and incidentally creates a whole lot more unecessary drama in the process.

What prevented you from presenting the above arguments to ArbCom which is, for God's sake, next week? --Avg (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that there can only be one rational answer to that, and others have said it multiple times already. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not for you to enforce your interpretation of the evidence using appeals to your administrator status in a conflict in which you were heavily involved. You don't get to pick when I and the rest of the non-administrator community can have a say on content issues. You don't get to pick when this is a consensus-built project and when it is not. Knepflerle (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And edit warring is going on..

The edit warring on the page and dab seems like provoked by the move, obviously. --Caspian blue 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, it seems to be about the ancient history of the country, [13] so I don't see any direct connection with the naming issue. Obviously edit warring of any sort is bad and shouldn't be condoned, though as an involved admin I'm not in a position to take action on it. I'd suggest raising the matter on WP:AN3 if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, the reverts on the dab page were completely unrelated to this, and seem now to have led to a relatively stable version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek monopolization of ancient Macedonia has nothing to do with the move. Greek nationalists on this website are denying modern Macedonia any right to ancient Macedonia, despite the fact the modern Macedonia covers the ancient Macedonian regions of Lyncestis and Pelagonia. Apart from covering parts of ancient Macedonia, the country's name originates from ancient Macedonia, ancient Macedonian ruins like Heraclea are located in the country. Why should this article monopolize topics from ancient Macedonia? The region is divided, therefore the history is shared between the two countries. Polibiush (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) The article title is changed (very big and controversial one), then supporters seem to need "consequent cleaning"/improvements on the article; The opposite side reverts such changes. The active edit war on the insertion of the Alexander the Great statue image reflects one of the naming/history disputes between the two states? So it is hard to say that the naming change is irrelevant of triggering effects. --Caspian blue 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, it would really help if you at least tried to get a basic grip of a situation before you post comments with accusations and insinuations. It is pretty clear you have not the foggiest clue what is going on here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well, no. Where are "accusations"? That is a mere observation of mine. I can not say that I know Macedonian history as much as you or related editors do, but I disagree with anything out of orders on Wiki without prior discussion. The only reason I'm getting interested in this dispute is because whatever resolution from the dispute seems like similarly be adapted to other naming disputes. --Caspian blue 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he has a very good clue. Yes, renaming the country article Macedonia gave carte blanche to some people of claiming ancient Macedonian heritage.--Avg (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, Avg, you're just proving how uncompromising and unwilling to reach consensus you really are by that last statement. Just because a place is named "Paris" doesn't give its residents carte blanche to claim French descent. That's the fundamental issue which Chris O's bold and well-justified move was meant to sidetrack--the years of obstructionism by those who don't want to ever see the Macedonia naming dispute resolved with "Macedonia" in the result. (Taivo (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

He didn't even propose it. Okay, you might want to support your wiki-friend here, but there are serious issues that cannot be overlooked. And I assure you, they won't.--Avg (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pelagonia and Lyncestis

Lyncestis and Pelagonia were independent kingdoms and were not a part of the kingdom of Macedonia until they were subdued. The kingdom of Macedonia was the kingdom ruled by the Argead tribe only. Of course you can say that these regions were later incorporated in the kingdom of Macedonia, as did many other regions, yet your thinking that Macedonia back then was what it was in the 4th century BC is clearly wrong (you are welcome to research it).GK1973 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyncestis and Pelagonia were reunited with the rest of Macedon during Phillip's reign. They were occupied by Illyria but they originally belonged to Macedon. Polibiush (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They did not Polybiush. The kingdom of Macedonia's first recorded king was Caranus. His line were the kings of Macedonia and not those of Pelagonia nor those of Lyncestis. The kingdom of Macedonia was ONLY the land of the Argeads. And of that Lyncestis and Pelagonia were not a part until much much later. Yet, they were independent kingdoms and you can understandably use them in your history section as some of the first recorded kingdoms in FYRoMacedonian soil.GK1973 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL at "re-united" and "occupied" by Illyria. All of what Polibiush is saying is pure, unsourced, nationalist OR. Come back when you have sources, OK? Up until 336 BC or so (i.e. most of its history), Macedon was located exclusively in Greek Macedonia. --Athenean (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, there is a reason why that section is brief and mostly focusing on the history of the region, not any group of people or ancient states. That image was of zero value apart from being misleading. Of course Alexander is a prominent historical figure associated with the region, but that's not the place to depict him as a national symbol, it would be a clear mistreatment of that fact (yes i know it's true, Alexander mania and stuff, but we're not talking about ethnic imaginaries here, it's five lines of basic historical facts). This article is not a tourist guide nor are we dealing with a tourism section, so monopolisation has nothing to do with it. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What you just described as what should not happen IS happening on the Macedonia(Gr) article. The modern Greek province is presented with Alexander the Great as its national symbol, with modern statues, map of great empires, etc. How on earth does the provicne of Macedonia have a 3000 year old direct continuity link to Macedon? Well anyway, thats how it is presented. That's why it is not fair for only one part of the region to represent all of ancient Macedon. Polibiush (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is "fair", because your country has no association whatsoever with Macedon, other than maybe 1 or 2% of Macedon's territory after 336BC may have occupied the geographical area encompassed within your country's borders. --Athenean (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't find anything wrong with the fantasy land article Macedonia(Gr)? Its because of nationalistic articles like those that make Wikipedia the most untrusted source on the internet. Polibiush (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

with the what fantasy land? GK1973 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't use WP:BOLD and administrator status to replace community input

Normally I would expect a non-trivial move to follow one of two paths:

proposal - establishment of consensus - move (RM style)

move - revert - establishment of consensus (BRD style)

Here there was no consensus-building process beforehand (so not RM style) and the second avenue has been blocked by ChrisO appealing to his admin status ("I think you'll find [reverting]'s wheel warring, and very much frowned upon" "When it comes to reverting admins, I think people need to step carefully, that's all ... Better not to risk it I'd say").

Invoking WP:BOLD and then blocking the rest of the WP:BRD cycle isn't really on - it has meant there has been no effective community input to the decision-making process. WP:BOLD is an editing guideline, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and cornerstone of the project - yet we've subverted the second with the first.

Furthermore, this is certainly not compatible with administrator status being "no big thing" - it gives them a much more powerful status in content disputes, giving them the possibility to enact their interpretation of policy and evidence without any wider input.

If this move stands, there needs to be a rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ADMIN because their current wording will not reflect how they are being implemented in practice. Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're disputing that the country is the primary topic or what? chandler ··· 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am. But I will not dispute it here, since this would sidetrack from the real issue which is the behavior of ChrisO. Starting the content dispute implicitly legitimizes the action.--Avg (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This move was not made to facilitate the ends of Wikipedia. It was made by an admin who clearly aimed to create all this fuzz...He knew what would happen and yet decided to act in a way that has caused and tomorrow will cause even more trouble in the Wikipedia community. He is not a newbie and he certainly knew the repercussions of such a "bold" or "provocative" action (according to each side). Thus, he is solely responsible for any situation that will arise in the following days. Were he a simple user, he would be treated otherwise, but being an admin carries a responsibility and demands an approval he has certainly lost now. GK1973 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Avg but he's shown very convincingly that the country is by FAR the primary topic. #Article move points it all out. chandler ··· 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insist Chandler. I will not legitimize this. At another setting, we can discuss. --Avg (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that this is not the point I was discussing. Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..So... if people here start being bold and start reverting ChrisO's changes, I guess that every thing is allright? Does it have to be an edit war to understand that we have a problem BECAUSE of this change? GK1973 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing, dear GK1973, is that even if you wanted, you cannot be bold and revert him. The page is locked for moves by non-adminsand ChrisO has already played the wheel-warring card to prevent any admin reverting him.--Avg (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course let us not forget the fact that he chose to proceed to this move at the Friday before the Orthodox Easter, when most Greeks will probably be unavailable for several days... GK1973 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe though that J. delanoy has stated his opinion that it would not be wheel-warring. Therefore, if there is an admin out there willing to revert he/she could do so without worrying about that. Jack forbes (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this article was already protected, it was not in danger of getting moved anywhere else. An admin to abuse his privilege of having access to the move function and move a stable article to his favorite POV version, by simultaneously denying any right of discussion, is a disgrace.--Avg (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget it might be done exactly to prove a point. The retaliation of the users that don't like this decision might as well be used in the ArbCom. Nationalism would be a great card to play there and especially if there is an actual reaction to this move. I'm really surprised such a thing is happening here - sort of unexpected on a encyclopedia which everyone is free to edit etc...I'm not done reading all the comments and going though the whole scale of this case but it looks like something planned and perfectly executed. A masterpiece at its own right.--Laveol ^T 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, I already agree with you. The point I'm making is that ChrisO has more than once stated it could be looked on as wheel warring which would put any admin off from reverting. The fact is, even though he had to use his admin tools he was not acting in his capacity as admin, which is why he changed the wording of his first sentence [14]. J.delanoy stated it would not be wheel-warring, so as I said, an admin could revert him. Jack forbes (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle is still in place. The upcoming arbitraction case just means that it's going to happen in a slightly different way, as BOLD-discuss-(maybe)revert (call it BD(m)R for short). The BOLD stage has already happened. The substantive part of the discussion will take place in the controlled setting of an arbitration case, with a binding outcome in terms of policy rulings from the Arbcom. I'll state for the record that if the Arbcom decides that the policy rationale is wrong, I'll willingly do the revert myself, at which point we'll go back to the previous name. Why do it this way? The key reason is that all the discussion to date has plainly failed to resolve the naming issue. BRD in this context is a recipe for continued inaction, no decisive outcome and the indefinite continuation of the dispute. BD(m)R, by contrast, offers a clear outcome that has a good chance of resolving this problem once and for all. Being bold is, as others have said, sometimes a necessary step towards breaking a long-standing deadlock. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee ChrisO, I want to follow the BRD cycle. Why don't you unprotect the article so I can revert you? I will then write an extensive email in the talk page, just like you did. First act, then explain.--Avg (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Revert and edit wars are not the way to deal with this. Let the Arbcom sort out the policy issues first, then revert if a revert is required. If the policy rationale for the move is fine, then no revert is required. There's no point in reflexively reverting while people are disagreeing on the policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This has fait accompli written all over it. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond belief. "Let the Arbcom sort out the policy issues first, then revert if a revert is required." This is what you have so blatantly violated and you are actually using it as an argument?--Avg (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Faits accomplis do not come with commitments to voluntarily revert. The bottom line here is that the community has been unable to agree on the policy issues, necessitating the bold move in the first place. (Though I should add that discussions on the subject have typically resulted in an overwhelmingly Greek lineup on one side and a disparate lineup of non-Greek editors - very few of whom are Macedonians - on the other side. That rather gives the game away about this being a nationalist dispute, not one of policy.) As it is, the article's name is now consistent with the rest of our European country articles, the policy rationale is clear, and somehow the world hasn't ended as a result of the renaming. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you revert now Chris? We've seen your arguments and you can certainly post the diff to the ArbCom.--Avg (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a cycle - you do not have the right to install your preferred version, and install yourself as the one editor who has to be convinced in order for it to be reverted. You cannot use WP:BOLD to subvert WP:CONSENSUS by installing yourself as judge, jury and executioner. Knepflerle (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that some of the very people who call the loudest for "consensus" here (yes, Avg, you are one of them) are the very people who have done absolutely nothing to promoted compromise and consensus every place that this issue has been discussed. Not a single step has been taken to reach a middle ground. Not one inch has been yielded to the "other side". No, their nationalistic pride is intact and they have defended the motherland valiantly. (Taivo (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't mean to sound insulting here. ChrisO, do you realise how childish this has become? Why don't you revert yourself and avoid all this drama. If Arbcom decide your right then fine but you won't convince anyone if you continually ignore the vast majority of editors here and stubbornly stick to your guns. I can only see this ending badly and I don't think I want to hang around and watch the train crash. Jack forbes (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it a bit sad that very little of the discussion is directed at refuting the arguments ChrisO put forward for making the move. If this is not the proper name for the country according to our guidelines, it should be easy to refute the arguments about primary usage according to page views, incoming links, media mentions, etc. The fact is that using the word 'Macedonia' to refer to the country is common usage in English, as well as in many other languages - roughly half the interwiki links for this article that has languages that I can understand use a version of plain 'Macedonia' as the name for the country article. henrik•talk 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Being bold here

I am being bold here (pun intended). I feel I won't be heard here. Just like with my edits, I feel like my contributions to this Wikipedia, you call, will be "lost in time". Shadowmorph (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is plainly because this appears not to be a wiki. There I was discussing with Future Perfect about the layout of the dab pages and even though we had our different views we were making progress. Then this administrator you say ChrisO came and has been bold and have changed the very "main usage" of the main topic. But he didn't just redirect Macedonia rather renamed the Republic article to Macedonia. That move by ChrisO was like stabbing me in the heart. Did he perceive this would be a cutting of a Gordian Knot when even the UN and administrations of whole countries haven't soled the dispute? I feel utterly saddened that I spent my time as a new editor to make the dab pages NPOV in my own way. If Wikipedia is showing the door to all other editors that weren't here for ages and ages on (like Avg or Fut.Perf). I ask again, what is the WP:Purpose of calling this thing here, a wiki? Bold administrators can do as they like, and we sit back and watch? It's funny, but also bad enough that the Macedonia pages are semi-protected to the end of time, scaring of any of the possible third party editors. I don't know all the WP:"bla-bla" but in my small little mind this is what I though I knew:

• It's one thing to redirect Macedonia to Republic of Macedonia

making it thus a main article, you know like that for Micronesia but the other way around

• It's a completely different thing to rename the article
• And do that controversial move solely on the grounds of a technicality like main usage statistics? Are those hits or unique visits we're talking about anyway?

Can you apply statistics to the Americans and at that dab page?

What are they like? 1,000,000 to 10 in favor of US?

Does Wikipedia put statistics over consensus?

• Republic of Macedonia was a consensus for years even among editors from the country
• Republic of Macedonia is the official name and also F.Y.R.O.M. is official in the UN

"Republic of" is used in Wikipedia when there are many meanings e.g. Republic of Ireland. Do the Irish object?

Even "Federated States of Micronesia" is not against the WP:"bla-bla"

• How in the world of your stats will you handle the adjective Macedonian?

e.g. How would Macedonian army[15] will be more commonly referred to Ancient Macedonia but the actual name Macedonia to FYROM?

I'm seriously considering deleting my own account after this It seems to me the admins and the ancient editors with a 10-second revert speed own the Macedonia pages now Too bad, I though this was a wiki Shadowmorph (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"like stabbing me in the heart", over do it a bit won't you. It's been been pointed out already, Macedonia is the clear primary usage, and the common name in English. And the UN might not be able to solve it because they have the same problem, greek nationalists who think they own the name Macedonia. But you'll see if we'd remove all Greeks and all Macedonians nationalistic povers this would be the out come. It might not be the common name in Greek, but it is in English chandler ··· 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So I guess Republic of Ireland is also the common Greek name for Ireland pushed by Greek nationalism. Ireland example is from WP:Naming conflict, I didn't pick it myself. Oh and I'm healing now, thanks :) Shadowmorph (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why I will make a case for the de-sysoping of ChrisO before the ArbCom

Dear friends (sysops [warned by ChrisO of losing your status if going against him] and non-sysops [who cannot anyway undo his move]), I would like to bring before you my input regarding what happened here. These are my remarks:

1. A major procedural issue: ChrisO decided to act in the way he acted on Thursday of the Orthodox Holy Week, definitely knowing that most Greek editors will be absent because of Orthodox Easter. I am tempted to characterize in the worst way such tactics, but I will not do it, wanting my intervention to be fruitful and constructive and not as provocative as the above editor's actions. Just one phrase: well done Chris! From today, I will also be completely absent from Wikipedia (you may have already seen my wikibreak declaration); you will thus be more free to continue your work.
2. ChrisO acted against consensus, which was built here after copious efforts during this poll (as you will see at the top of the talk page, it is called "a poll on move and intro par").
3. The above consensus concerning the title of title&madsh;as far as I remember—was never questioned, put under doubt etc. Therefore, no "consensus issue" was raised here before ChrisO acted in the way he acted.
4. As it is correctly mentioned by another user (Knepflere) BOLD's prerequisite is the existence (at least the initiation) of a consensus-building process. Such a process never took place; neither was it initiated. I am tempted to ask Chandler and other users I respect (e.g. Fut. [Α, ρε Fut. [[8υμάσαι στην talk page μου ... ]] Α, ρε Fut. τι είναι αυτά?!! Τέτοια πράγματα και από εσένα;!!!) supporting ChrisO's ridiculing of wikipedia's policies to tell me when was consensus on the article's title put under doubt. In any case, BOLD's invocation in this case is null and void.
5. Even if we make the hypothesis that ChrisO wanted to act per WP:BRD (which is, by the way, an essay, and not yet an official policy; you know Chris and Fut, like MOSMAC?), Chris blocked this procedure, by invoking his adm status and the wheel-warring sanctions. Thus he obviously did not want to act, and did not eventually acted per BRD. Therefore, the latter does not cover his actions. Quite the opposite indeed! He acted in violation of WP:BRD as well.
6. Even if we accept that consensus was put under doubt and scrutiny, as far as I remember, controversial moves should go through WP:REQUESTED MOVES. I don't believe that there is anybody here questioning that the move in question is non-controversial (even if we take the term "non-controversial" lato sensu [as lato sensu as we can!]). Thus, ChrisO, acting in the way he acted, violated the concrete WP policies concerning the move of articles.
7. ChrisO did not implement the move as a non-involved administrator or, at least, as an involved administrator who implements a consensual decision. He implemented the move as an involved editor, overrunning the sysop's protection of the page. In this way he used administrative powers to impose his will as an involved editor (without seeking consensus, without initiating the consensus-seeking procedure, without going to WP:REQUESTED MOVES etc. etc.). He thus abused his sysop status beyond any doubt.
8. Consequently, ChrisO did not implement an adm action, but committed an involved user's action abusing adm powers. As such, his move is not within the scope of sysop actions, and, if another adm undoes him, there is no wheel-warring. His warnings (aka threats) are null and void, because the sysop who will revert him, he will just restore wikipedia policies, which were violated by the actions of an involved editor (in any case, for me ChrisO no more deserves the "sysop" title). Personally, I will not revert him, not because I take seriously his warnings, but because I refuse to follow his path, which is in violation of Wikipedia's spirit and principles. I do not intend to be involved in tactics, methods, and procedures I disgust. I believe that, in the end, it will be Wikipedia community which will isolate and condemn ChrisO's practices.
9. In any case, if ChrisO firmly believes in what he does and in the correct application by him of BOLD (or BRD? or both? or I don't know anymore!), why doesn't he change RoM to Macedonia everywhere in the project? Instead, he declares that he did that only here and nowhere else. Why not, if he believes in his policy-adherence? By (non-)acting like that, ChrisO is inconsistent with himself. ChrisO, if you believe that you act in accordance with WP policies, change RoM to Macedonia everywhere.
10. ChrisO acted like that just a few days before ArbCom's dealing with the whole case (having first cleared the way with the renaming of the disambiguation page), and after his proposal of "prosecuting" himself the "Greek nationalists" before ArbCom (he doesn't think that the case should be introduced by a more objective user!) was met with disapproval (at least!). By acting like that, ChrisO attempted, in the most controversial way, to take "the upper hand" in this case, and create some precedents, trying to influence the arbitrators' first impression, when they start to deal with the case. Once again, I'll avoid the temptation to characterize such practices.

Dear co-Wikipedians, all the above convince me that ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything.

I hope that ChrisO will revert himself, as he has been kindly asked to do. But, even if he does it, I am not sure, if respect and confidence in him will be ever restored by the Wikipedia community. I hope that the harm he did to the project (edit-wars are already on the way because of him) will be undone at some point. Unfortunately, as I said, I'll be absent from the project during the next days.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously who the fuck cares that some religion is celebrating some holiday? If wikipedia stops on every religious date we won't get anything done. chandler ··· 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO himself cares [16]. He very well understands what "allowing everyone to participate" in contentious issues means and this is why he chose this timing. --Avg (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not celebrate but ChrisO knows perfectly well that most of the people who would object to his "boldness" (sic) would be absent for the next 3-5 days... This is why he chose this day, this is why it matters. Because it clearly shows planning and NOT spontaneity... And planning negates any arguments about "good faith".GK1973 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to make a change like this on the eve of an arbitration case. I've not been able to make it earlier because I've been in Spain for some days, with minimal web access. But I'm curious as to why Yannis assumes that the presence of Greek editors is essential for dealing with an issue that is, after all, about a foreign country. It's an interesting assumption considering the insistence of a number of editors that this isn't about Greek nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What you make us wonder is why YOU think that the presence of the Greek editors is of no importance. And of course it is really funny how you say that you are not going to make "a change like this on the eve of an arbitration case", when it was on the same day that you provoked everybody BY MAKING this change that you do not want to revert... As for your arguments about how Greeks should not have interest in the word "Macedonia" (... a foreign country...), this alone shows a huge disrespect to an active Wikipedian community. No...this is NOT about Greek or ethnic Macedonian nationalism. It is about you, the disrespect you show the editors and the institutions of Wikipedia. GK1973 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chandler is correct. Holidays or not, after what happened, no time should be lost. ARBCOM notified.--Yannismarou (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well, Yannismarou. Now you have managed to sidetrack the real issue (which is the naming of the country of Macedonia in Greece and following one consistent Wikipedia policy) and interfering in the article of another country for what you, yourself, admit are completely Greek motives fostered by a Greek audience. Congratulations for proving that nationalistic groups that are completely unwilling to reach consensus and compromise are a problem for Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I am happy to see that the initial comments at arbitration are leaning toward deciding the whole issue and not just the moving issue. We will see. (Taivo (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, do not hurry to judge my motives and actions. An read carefully the phrasing of my filing. Watch a bit how I am acting.--Yannismarou (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your filing carefully and I am happy that ARBCOM's comments so far seem to be willing to broaden the issue to solve the whole naming dispute. We will see as more of ARBCOM weighs in. It's the naming dispute within Wikipedia that is the fundamental problem here. And, in the end, it won't have mattered whether the issue was sent to ARBCOM today or next week. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

It is expected to broaden the issue, Taivo.--Yannismarou (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the amount of disrespect ChrisO has shown against:

1. Me (User:Shadowmorph), by ignoring the discussion started in Macedonia (disambiguation, now said) and bordering with the definition of lying [talk page] (other editors too were ridiculed, one even said too us we were "seeing ghosts" to anticipate your move)
2. All other editors in an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" [WP:Purpose] (we can't move it back)
3. All Orthodox [Good Friday] editors, using warlike tactics [Yom Kippur War] to begin an edit war (especially to Greek and Bulgarians that might object to your move) Shadowmorph

(reply to ChrisO from my talk page) Shadowmorph (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't feel disrespected at all by ChrisO's move, so speak only for yourself, Shadowmorph. (Taivo (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I speak for myself of course as I said so above. I was in the process of spending hours of my life in a free encyclopedia to improve the article named Macedonia along with Fut.Perf in a bold but constructive manner. Some of my additions involved the adjective form Macedonian, noone knows how that will be handled now and if my work is rendered null. Then a sysop made a double move, the article I was working into was added "(disamb)" and the country article was moved there. Where was I in that process? Nowhere. I wasn't a vandal, and I can't move it back or do anything about it. Do the sysops write Wikipedia, anyway? Now I'm compeled to write here in support loosing hours from my work leave in this surprise edit attack on an Orthodox Good Friday. The previous doesn't refer only to me but to all those that would like to object but don't want to ruin their holiday because there is no WP:Deadline. If you are not objecting to his move, of course it doesn't cover you, for that matter like I also said above. I stick to what I said. Do you think it is respectful to move a move-protected page and keep it move-protected then, in a wiki. Does it respect the wiki editors? Not even talking about the anonymous ones Shadowmorph (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I speak for myself, but others will agree too. Other Orthodox christians share my views, the ones that would like to have more free time to object properly.

Also, having recently involved in this makes me speak for the anonymous editors too. Who is speaking in their support here? Have you forgotten that you are in a Wiki-pedia? Shadowmorph (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair is fair, User talk:John Carter spoke in support of new editors (the only one) Shadowmorph (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, if you feel your work has been rendered null, too bad. That can not and will not be taken into consideration over policy. And the anons can speak for themselves if they want to, but in my experience (and everyone else who's been around long enough) in this area the anons are for the most part vandals that change "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" to "Fyrom" or "Vardarska" and the like. That's also why the page is move-protected; because morons have moved, and still would move, it to stupid names on a whim. BalkanFever 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on what the the anonymous users would do. Still should unprotect from time to time. Even Iraq or Bush isn't always protected i think. About my feelings, I just had to express those in common view, you know for the "anons" to see. My feelings solely, shouldn't be taken into account. Yet I still have arguments on policy maters. See my reply in the survey at the bottom. Here is a quick policy argument for you, obvious WP:OWNERSHIP Shadowmorph (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you bolded that last part, but if it's to accuse me of ownership, then you're sadly mistaken. BalkanFever 01:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry BalkanFever if I wasn't clear, I was referring (not accusing) to ChrisO's move of course. Shadowmorph (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ulterior Motives?

ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Macedonians, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Macedonia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Greek position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue...GK1973 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a clearcut case of a premeditated "Act now, regret later" plan. ChrisO will present a fait accompli to ArbCom and propose them to maintain peace by upholding the current status quo. He will then apologize for being too blunt and ignoring the consensus, mentioning he felt he was doing the right thing. He will then hope he'll just be admonished to respect consensus, while he would have won his content dispute. All these are too obvious.--Avg (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at your "outrage", Avg. You, of all people, have no concept of compromise or consensus, which you claim is a foundation of Wikipedia action. But you have refused to budge one inch when it comes to the name of "Macedonia" at Greece. You have offered not one compromise in the whole time I have been reading your comments. You have moved not one inch toward the other position. I guess that the words "compromise" and "consensus" don't mean the same things in Greek that they mean in English. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

What are you talking about? We are talking about Wikipedia here! Your name here IS "Republic of Macedonia"!!!!! GK1973 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the naming issue...

I hope I'm getting this straight, I have no personal stake in the nationalistic dispute as an American. The original dispute was between Republic of Macedonia and FYROM. Greeks support the latter because they consider the name Macedonia to be "theirs". Moving the page here from ROM doesn't resolve the issue, quite the opposite. At least "Republic of Macedonia" indicates that the country is one Macedonia among others (the region, the Greek province). Just plain "Macedonia" suggests that the country is the Macedonia--exactly what Greeks object to. "FYROM" only has support on the Greek side, so "Republic of Macedonia" is the most neutral title. No opinion on whether the country should be the primary topic. 140.247.4.244 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The naming of articles for the English wikipedia naming should reflect primary usage in, primarily, the English speaking world. Whether or not an outside group from a limited regional area objects to that matter is not particularly relevant unless they can show the naming to be incorrect according to our guidelines about primary usage. henrik•talk 05:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but when I (and most English speakers) say Taiwan I mean the de facto independent country known officially as the Republic of China. When I say China I mean the People's Republic of China. Just try to move those pages to the "correct" titles. And what about Palestine? 140.247.4.244 (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinas are a bit different (it's already been discussed above) in that they both claim to be rightful government of the same territorial extent. I'm not sure what your point is about Palestine, it seems fine. What other article should be located there? Besides, we all know Wikipedia is riddled with errors - it is not inconceivable that there could be improvements in the naming of those article too. henrik•talk 06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Wikipedia has NOT a consistent policy on these issues and this is the REASON of its success. Because it makes people find a solution. The whole world says England and means the UK. According to your rationale, we should rename UK to England and there clearly state that although people use it, it is not the correct word. The constitutional name of this country is REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and as such was accepted by all editors Greek or not, nationalists or not. What ChrisO did was to force on wikipedians the name most users refer to this country with (IT IS WHAT WE DO IN OTHER ARTICLES AS FOR EXAMPLE "GREECE" (Hellenic Republic)) but we avoid doing it where it might stir trouble. There is no clearer policy of wikipedia, despite any guidelines, other than the sincere will of most editors to contribute to this great project and maintin a consensus. There was absolutely NO REASON for ChrisO to be that "bold", for it served no purpose. No nationalist Greek's opinion was heard, their opinion being that the name of the country be reverted to FYROM instead of ROM and no ethnic Macedonian had any trouble with the constitutional name of his country. This was a blant attack against the Greek community of wikipedia and tyhose who support them as well as against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Arguments that are heard about the Greeks POVing are ludicrous, since RoM is clearly 100% in favor of the ethnic Macedonians' wishes. There was NO compromise there. Who could possibly claim that naming this country Republic of Macedonia was a violation of ANY rights, wishes etc except those of the Greeks? So, although Wikipedia was 100% behind RoM in this, ChrisO took this dispute to a new level, actually PROVING THE GREEK NATIONALISTS RIGHT!!! His action had nothing to do with order, it had everything to do with provocation. GK1973 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should highly extreme nationalistic views be taken into account? They will always be biased and push their POV, just as in the Muhammed cartoons the extreme editors don't get to push their worldview on the rest of us. As its already been explained, Macedonia is the common name in English, it is the primary topic. I am guessing its only in the greek language where Macedonia isn't the common name for Macedonia the country. And while I have heard Americans say "England" and mean "Great Britain" or "the UK", no the whole world doesn't confuse the two. And there's a difference between a confusion and a real common name chandler ··· 11:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the "highly nationalistic" views? As I explained so is the the case for so many other countries in Wikipedia, yet we DO NOT act like this. As for the world not confusing England with UK, I fail to understand your point.. Following the same rationale, that wants wikipedia to refer to a country by the exact way most people refer to it we are equally obliged to rename UK to England and there state that the name is not the official name of the country, yet most use it instead of the official name, EXACTLY as we now do in the RoM article...!!! Why don't you admit that there was absolutely NO REASON for this change? Every Greek had accepted wikipedia calling this country RoM. So did every ethnic Macedonian. So, now, we just choose to provoke nationalism and for what? What possible reason can you give me for this? When somebody entered "Macedonia", didn't this someone have the option to visit this country's site? Weren't the ethnic Macedonians happy that Wikipedia chose to refer to them as RoM? Wasn't this a great "victory" for them? What "nationalism" are you talking about? We provoke these people, we disrespect them and we instill fanaticism to the other side too, so what does Wikipedia gain from all this? Fanaticism? Edit wars? Loss of credence? We HAD achieved a compromise and everybody was content (apart from very few cases). The naming dispute has nothing to do with this. We didn't call RoM FYRoM! We didn't call them "Vardarska", we accepted the name they chose. So, there was NO NAMING DISPUTE here... This was a direct attack against the Greeks and nothing more. GK1973 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot?

While Fut. Perf. is right in observing that no consensus has been reached over the use of the two names (“Republic of etc.” and “Former Yugoslav etc.”) in Wikipedia, both his explanation of the reasons for that failure (‘nationalism’, which explains nothing) and his conclusion that one of the names should be imposed by other means, are quite wrong.

No consensus has been reached because that would mean a compromise on the usage of the two names, while certain editors feel that no such compromise is needed as they believe that the name “Republic of etc.” would eventually prevail in real life.

However, it is already certain that the latter won't happen. Even Skopje has already decided officially that Republic of Macedonia will not be the pending final solution. (President Branko Crvenkovski before the Parliament: “Од меѓународната заедница нема веќе разбирање за двојната формула, а и ние ја напуштивме непосредно пред Букурешт, со прифаќањето на предлогот Република Македонија (Скопје).” (Alpha TV Skopje) Translation: The internarional community has no longer any understanding for the double formula, while we have abandoned it on the eve of Bucharest with the acceptance of the proposal Republic of Macedonia (Skopje).)

The present ‘bold move’ only illustrates one more time the fact that “Republic of” cannot serve as a disambiguation means, that Republic of Macedonia = Macedonia, entailing a monopolization of the name ‘Macedonia’ by an entity that owns barely 30-odd percent of the geography and much, much less of the history of that region. Nice try, but a failed one (see the preceding paragraph).

So this ‘bold move’ is not the proverbial cutting of the Gordian Knot but rather shooting one’s foot (and shooting some more Wiki feet along that too :-). Apcbg (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The uncertainty of the formal name to be agreed on out there only strengthens the case for this renaming, IMO. The formal names, including our previous article title Republic of Macedonia, might soon be a thing of the past. However, in common usage in the international English language community, simple "Macedonia" will most likely remain the only stable thing. Do you really think everyday usage internationally would switch to something like "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" from one day to the next? If and when it does, we will follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. in the Past (apologies, I couldn't resist it :-)), you cannot presume that a future compromise name wouldn't affect common usage. If for example the formal name is 'Republic of North Macedonia' (which is not unlikely), then most certainly the common usage would be North Macedonia — not Macedonia. The right thing (now unfortunately aborted) would have been to keep the status quo here, and when the new situation arises then, as you rightly say, we follow. Apcbg (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When that will have happened (fut.perf.), we will react (fut.) accordingly, but only after the change will have been being felt (fut.perf.progr.pass.) in actual reality. References in article text will then have to be changed anyway, and the change of the article title will be trivial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The present surge was totally unprovoked and unnecessary. Apcbg (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, any change to the formal name wouldn't be relevant for our purposes. Wikipedia:Naming conventions requires us to use the common name, not the formal name, for a thing, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) explicitly prioritises the use of "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." When Yugoslavia changed its name from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it didn't change the common name - people just continued using "Yugoslavia". Likewise with Macedonia in its various name changes over the years. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Common usage, yes — but not only; we don't find the USA article under the title America. Apcbg (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apcbg, the self identification of the Republic of Macedonia will be decided by its citizens. The "Republic of Macedonia" is a formal name, which in the past has been used only for the purposes of disambiguation. Quite right ChrisO, the common name for the country has always been Macedonia. Even from 1944-1992 when it was known as the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and since 1992 as the Republic of Macedonia. PMK1 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure it will be decided by the people of that country, and supposedly confirmed by a referendum; as for the basis of that decision see the Alpha TV parliamentary report quoted above. Apcbg (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a case of cutting the Gordian Straight Line of Rope since there was no knot as far as Wikipedia concerned Shadowmorph (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf made an argument about a possible future North Macedonia. WP:Naming conflict says North Macedonia should be used then. And another thing, most english media refer to North Korea as Pyongyang (just like Greece uses Skopje for FYROM). I guess since Pyongyang is common[17] we should move North Korea article too Shadowmorph (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like the common usage of a capital city to stand for the government rather than the country, same like Paris, Moscow, Brussels (in 3 capacities, for the Belgiam Government, and NATO and EU governing bodies), Canberra etc. etc. are used. Apcbg (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia arbitration case

Yannismarou has filed an arbitration request on this issue at WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute (so much for the Orthodox Easter, it seems!). Editors are invited to leave comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New essay

People here might be interested in this new essay of mine. Comments and suggestions are welcome, if they are constructive and/or contain something new. (Which means: the usual suspects are cordially invited to not comment on it. I know what you think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

too much for democracy feeling ey?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing MOSMAC. :) It is an interesting topic, and well done for commiting so much time and effort towards this topic. One question however, what about refering to the Ethnic Macedonian population in Greece. Is "Aegean Macedonian" an appropriate appelation, i noticed that in WP:MOSMAC, it is labelled as "deprecated term". Would this deprecation be repealed, considering its frequent use over the past 2 years, since the publication of the first MOSMAC. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First, please let's be clear that this text is a personal essay and does not aim to become a binding new MoS document. Personally, I don't think "Aegean Macedonian" is very useful as a term. For one part of the readership it will have strong political connotations (for half of them negative ones), and for most of the rest it won't mean anything. Both is bad. A simple, easily comprehensible circumlocution, such as "ethnic Macedonians from Greece", is probably better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting essay. Using Wikipedia and the CIA factbook, I've looked up organsations, sporting and medical organisation- that the country is part of or has links to see whether they use FYROM or RoM/Macedonia. I've aimed to do this using NPOV and here are my findings:

Organisations that use the name FYROM

• FIFA[18]
• UN[19]
• EU[20]
• NATO[21]
• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development[22]
• International Monetary Fund[23]
• WTO[24]
• SECI[25]
• Francophonie[26]
• Red Cross[27]
• OPCW[28]
• Interpol[29]
• WIPO[30]

Organisations that use the name RoM/Macedonia

• CIA[31]
• WCO[32]
• ATP[33]]

Kyriakos (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we know that. That's not news. But what does the English speech community do when talking about the country's relation to these organisations? That's the point here. Because the official bureaucratic lingo of those organisations isn't what matters here. What matters is the usage of the speech community at large, as represented by quality journalism, English-language print media and the like. Those are the sources that count for our naming decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job, Future Perfect. (Taivo (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

What does the abbreviation FYRoM have to do with anything? The title of the article was "Republic of Macedonia". Don't act like the matter here is to resolve the political name dispute. This issue is resolved in Wikipedia for years now. And the "nationalist" Greeks did contribute much to this resolution. The real issue here is the renaming of RoM to Macedonia by ChrisO as well as the redirection he made and the status quo he created and wishes to maintain in a truly provocative way. FP, you have compiled a very interesting text which belongs to the naming dispute issue and not here. Nobody in this discussion disputed the use of the constitutional name of this country!. Nobody here moved that RoM should be renamed to FYRoM! GK1973 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects

In response to a request at Tizio's talkpage, I altered the double-redirects created by this move at Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM and Fyrom to point to this article's new location. Seeing that there is controversy and this move may not be permanent, I wanted to note those alterations so that these redirects can be repaired if this page is moved again. I've watchlisted the article so I can do the changes to those redirects myself if necessary, but obviously they won't need to wait on me. Any administrator can redirect them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested reversion of move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moot per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#Temporary_injunction, which states that "No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes." This has rendered the whole move request moot, and the issue should be revisited once the arbitration case is closed. -- Aervanath (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Macedonia → Republic of Macedonia — It very much seems to me that the move of this article to this location may have been at best poorly thought through. It has certainly created a great deal of unnecessary controversy and heat. The article had been comparatively stable at that name for some time, and that article name is consistent with Republic of Ireland, one of the few other nations whose primary self-identification name, Ireland, is also used for an area outside of the nation's boundaries. I believe we might all be better served if the article were restored to its previous location, thus giving those editors who see this move as being one accomplished by way of "special admin powers" or possibly excessive boldness to become calm again and better able to engage in reasonable discussion. — John Carter (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey responses collapsed to make page easier to read
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Survey Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Support Macedonia is not a country. It is a geographical region. FYROM, is a country that occupies a small part of the Macedonia Region. So, there should be a clear distinction between Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia (this is also illegal, since there is no UN resolution for such a name and the country is named Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) or whatever "Macedonia". Please, search a little about the nationalism that comes from this country's governement. There was not such a matter 20 years ago! It just struck them to be renamed to Macedonia, so they can establish a stable state (Albanians and Slavs up to 80%!) via stealing the history of a neighboring nation. They don't even want to share it! They demand from all the world to announce them the only Macedonians ever existed (even though they still remain Albanians and Slavs, and not Greeks). Please help truth prevail. Search, read and search again. You will understand beyond any doubt, that Alexander The Great the King of Macedon, was a regional leader speaking Greek language and was a Greek himself. As Greeks were all other regional leaders on the area called Hellas (Greece). There were never a Macedonia state. Never. There was Greek population with regional leaders (something like the US today, but without the federal government). Why they have started this propaganda? Because their nationalist party that governs the country is in desperrate need of creating "roots" for their mixed and diverse population (albanians and slavs have split the country in two), so they can control them. I mean, come on! Greece has even offered to share the name (North Macedonia) but they do not want to. They want to steal a Name, a History and a Language that they do not even speak! Oppose silly idea, you've only proposed it because users don't like the way this move was done, not because of the validity of the move. It was a perfectly valid move, and readers come first.--Pattont/c 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose. Irregular process, but the correct result. I could personally live with R.o.M., but in terms of general naming standards the current title is preferable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support moderate idea to mitigate the unnecessarily conceived controversy by the move before the holiday week. I believe John is abiding by the "current" rule (Dura lex, sed lex). The move is nowhere near perfectly valid move. That can be a bad precedent for other nationalistic naming disputes, so we have to be very careful of action for this sensitive issue.--Caspian blue 14:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. I agree with Caspian blue. If this move is accepted it will have a knock on effect to other article naming disputes, such as Republic of Ireland. There may be others who will look closely at this decision. This could cause edit wars and bad feelings throughout many country article talk pages. If a precedent is set then so be it, but stand by for more drama throughout wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Can you show a similar common usage "Ireland = Republic of Ireland" (which I doubt at least on the British Isles), or that is the obvious primary topic? http://stats.grok.se/ says Republic of Ireland: 218,707, Ireland: 510,586, Northern Ireland: 226,324, Ireland (disambiguation): 2,948 chandler ··· 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose clear primary topic has been proven, common usage in English, etc, etc, etc. chandler ··· 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose as I see no reason to change it. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support GoodDay, would you have given the same answer a couple of days ago before it was changed to Macedonia? There was no need for the Bold change when there was already an Arbcom case concerning naming policy's coming up. A decision could have been made without all this drama. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I see no problem with naming this article Macedonia. Just like I see no problem with naming Republic of Ireland as Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support per John Carter's rationale; however, I might reconsider once I see the U.S. of A. article titled America :-) Apcbg (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The main difference is that most Americans (English speakers) don't call their country "America." — AjaxSmack 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Ajax is right. Americans call their own country "The U.S." We only use the term "America" when talking about our principles in an abstract sense. We never (or only very rarely) use it in a concrete sense as a reference to the country. Foreigners come to "America". Americans live in the "U.S." (Taivo (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) Where is the difference? The main argument of ChrisO to impose the name Macedonia instead of Republic of Macedonia is that THE REST OF THE WORLD uses the name. So the same argument applies to both the Americans, as the people of the US are called worldwide, as to the UK citizens who are called English... The used country's name was perfectly acceptable by the people... for Gods' sake! IT WAS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL NAME!!!! You know... the one Greeks don't like, but like the "ultra nationalists" they are accepted? It is very easy to find arguments as to why your case should not be treated in the same manner...well, so claims everyone... so, should you oursue this madness more, the same will be done with many other issues and wikipedia will be the only loser... GK1973 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC) The difference is that the common English name is "The U.S." That is our self-identification. "America", as a name for the place, is only used by foreigners, so it is not the "most common English name". Americans only use "America" when they are talking about abstract things, not when they are talking about the country where they live. When I am in Canada, or Mexico, or in Europe, and people ask me where I live, I say "In the U.S." They will say "I want to go to America someday", but I will say, "I want to go home to the U.S." This is the whole point of the matter with Macedonia. They say "I live in Macedonia" or "I live in the Republic of Macedonia." It is only foreigners who say "You live in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". So the article on the United States should not be called "America" because that is not what Americans call their country. (Taivo (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) Again I fail to see any difference as to the Rationale of ChrisO. He based his change ON PURE STATISTICS, regardless ethnicity. now, you combine several argumets at the same time, wheras each and everyone can be disputed, when mentioned alone. You are playing with words. You cannot say that these two conditions must be judged simultaneously to stand. They have to also stand alone too. So, is it importnat that most English accounts of the word Macedonia are about the country? Then it is as important about the US and England (in the guidelines GOOGLE is provided as a reference, Google is not only used by Americans). Is it important how these people self identify? OK! But these people are NOT English speakers, so their name should be Makedonski and let's also change Greeks to Hellenes. Otherwise it is again just an English translation, that has little, much or mothing to do with how these people self identify... Germany has nothing to do with Deutschland, as Greece has nothing to do with Hellas, so obviously there is more to it than just self identification in English... Should we accept the self identification of a people as long as it is the predominant English term only as used by the majority of the native English speakers???? There is so much one can say...the only truth here is that there was NO PROBLEM AT ALL in this article and now we have caused one ourselves.... GK1973 (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, GK1973, but when you get excited, your English suffers and I only understood about half of what you were saying above. We use the most common English name of a place. That means that we translate "Hellas" into "Greece", which is the most common English name. But for English placenames, no translation is necessary, obviously. But we also place value on self-identifications. Americans self-identify their country as "The U.S.", so the article should be called "United States of America" (long form) or "United States" (short form). Brits self-identify their country as "The U.K." (unless they specify "Scotland", "Wales", "England"), so their article should be called "United Kingdom". It doesn't matter what Bulgarians call our countries. We call our countries "The U.S." and "The U.K." That's what matters for determining most common English usage among the English-speaking countries. For non-English speaking countries, the most common English name comes first--Macedonia, Greece, Japan, etc. Next in order is English translation of the self-identification--Republic of Macedonia, People's Republic of China, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc. (Taivo (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) So... from tomorrow I guess that Ireland will be termed "Ireland", China will be termed "China" and so on, because this is how wikipedia will impove! Good... And of course, we should also conclude as to what is more important.. the English translation of a people's self identification or how they are commonly called... If we give more weight to the self identification factor, then, most common use is of no consequence any more! But if we deem self identification as the most prominent determinant, then, we also have to decide whether we use the official or the unofficial one in our titles... As it seems, the official self identification, according to you comes second. And of course, all of this taking nothing else into account, no peculiar circumstances, no international disputes etc. But then, all this is against the policy of Wikipedia and in order to impose this as a rule, first the pillars have to be abolished and rigid rules imposed regardless of any peculiarities that may arise and any objections anyone may voice. And then...the same has to be done regarding EVERY issue of Wikipedia...Can it be that you just want to participate in a different on line encyclopedia? Of course I am not in favor of naming the US "America" or GB "England", but the blind coherence to rules, especially when they are tailored to suit one's specific purposes, is not what Wikipedia is about and will certainly lead to such situations. This article was perfeclty OK. No one expressed any objections until you decided to orchestrate this mini-coup to change the very essence of Wikipedia, attack and slander a specific group of editors and mispresent the issue. I did not participate in the disputes about which name of RoM should be used where. I was synpathetic to their self identification. Now, I am not anymore. Because now I realize the dangers that the Greeks advocated as a justification for their politial choices. Yet, I remain faithful to the essence of Wikipedia and I urge everybody to stop this badly directed play and allow things to work out as they did before, through common consensus and mutual respect. The people you accuse of nationalism are not the nationalists here. You are. They did not refuse the self identification of the ethnic Macedonians. It is you who impose on them a status quo, where their Macedonia is "another use of the term". What was so bad about the disambiguation table? Was Greek or ancient Macedonia above RoM? Did the Greeks push to redirect "Macedonia" to Greek Macedonia or is their self identification less important (but here you will again talk about common use of the term, although as it seems you place self identification above it)? What was wrong about RoM? You see, whenever it is convenient, you advocate consensus, whenever it is not you advocate statistics, whenever they don't work, it is self identification. Yet, where there was consensus you fought against it (there was consensus in the article), where the statistics are not convenient, you brought forward self identification (most Americans call GB England...), and where self identification is not a good argument, you again revert to statistics (The Greek Macedonian population is larger), when nothing works, you invoke "nationalist fervor" (any editor's objections). Again..WHY SHOULD A WORKING ARTICLE, WHERE CONSENSUS WAS ACHIEVED, CHANGE? If this had to happen to force Wikipedia adopt stricter rules, then why didn't you just go for it through the proper channels? Anyways... I sadly predict great tumult in the near future, I only hope that someone will find the strength to oppose this new Wikipedian Movement Against Consensus... GK1973 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Looks like 'US' vs. 'America' won't let my vote change, so I'm giving it a secong chance: I'd be prepared to reconsider once I see the People of the United States of America article titled Americans — you know, the "most common English name", both self and non-self identification and all that :-). Apcbg (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. The Gordian Knot was "loosed" by unconventional means. There was no consensus and no chance for consensus with the intractability of the nationalists who have worked so hard to stonewall any resolution of this over the years. It's in ARBCOM now, thankfully. (Taivo (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) ChrisO's bold action is perfectly understandable when we consider that "due process" does not function in these topics. The title "Macedonia" is adequate by our current naming policies & general practices. Personally, I would use either a Georgian "Macedonia (country)" or an Irish "Rep. of Macedonia", because I would prefer to have "Macedonia" as a disambiguation page, for two reasons: 1. Although I consider that in general the country has become the primary meaning of Macedonia (ChrisO elaborated on this above), for the purposes of an encyclopedia I believe that our readers would be better served by finding a disambiguation page as their first stop. 2. It would be helpful for internal links maintenance, simplifying the process of finding incorrect links to disambiguate. However, my threshold for considering a subject as an encyclopedic primary topic has been consistently higher than usual Wikipedia practice, and thus the above should be considered more a personal preference than a policy-based opinion. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Basic principle of any dispute process is to maintain the status quo until the dispute is settled. I will not validate unilateral moves. And I've not yet started on the content dispute.--Avg (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support. What happened is inexcusable and totally unacceptable. A blunt attack against logic that was realized with the whole reason to provoke a certtain wikipedia editor group. All changes have to be reverted and a clear apology issued.GK1973 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) "attack against logic"? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC WP:COMMONNAME. And you demand an apology? Wow, the internet really is a serious business. We can not allow extremists viewpoints to inflict their worldview on all overs. How do you think religious articles would look if they all accepted the dogmas of those religions? The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article is an example. chandler ··· 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Isn't it logical to follow policy? I doubt that ChrisO was just sitting at home, bored, thinking: "Hey you know what would rile them Greeks up? Me moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. That would be super-duper epic lulz.". And you want him to apologise? Really? If you actually go so far as to insist on that again, I should hope that ChrisO delivers it the same way that Jerry Seinfeld did to Ali Yeganeh. BalkanFever 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC) yes, he was sitting at home thinking "Now I will get you Greeks..." this is what he did exactly. His action defies logic because there was NO ISSUE. No motion of any ethnic Macedonian to do what he did, no edit warring by any "nationalist Greek" to change the name of RoM into their preferred FYRoM. This was a one man war and now more "supporters" crop up, only due to his provocation. The naming issue was resolved in Wikipedia LONG AGO. FYRoM is only used as another determinant and is not used in any articles that have to do with the country and are not of special interest to Greeks. You keep talking about rules and policies, yet you know perfectly well, that the guidelines of Wikipedia are not concrete and it is very easy to twist things back and forth to push an opinion. GK1973 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Naming the article "Macedonia" makes more sense. Polibiush (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Weak support. This is not the primary meaning of Macedonia (there is none), and this is the cleanest way to disambiguate; much preferable to Macedonia (country) (we prefer not to use parentheses, and the ancient kingdom is also a country). This is weak out of deference to the sensible editors who oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Note that RoM is not horrible, but not as good an option. Also note, gladly, that "fy" variants are not being considered. Jd2718 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support: As the proverbial new user, I support. I have already commented on starting an edit war in similar fashion to Yom Kippur War, by moving the page on an Orthodox Greek Good Friday. I go on to the issue at hand. This isn't a Wikipedia:Naming conventions solely but of WP:Naming conflict. A clarifier has to be added in the name, or better use the official ROM. Ancient Macedonian (adj) could come to mean an ancient form of Macedonian (from ROM). And of course Macedonia (Greece) can be mistaken for "occupied Macedonia in Greece". We should assume that the casual reader is uneducated on the matter in the first place. It is hardly suitable ignoring, in the names of the articles, a large region with a rich history and an important ancient kingdom. Brittanica referns to the country as Macedonia[34] but also refers to the region as Macedonia[35] (half the truth,ChrisO ?). Britanica has clarification in the subtitle, but WP doesn't use subtitling, therefore should clarify in the title. Main usage doesn't imply main knowledge of geography, WP is not just a reference with accurate names but a learning tool. I invoke WP:Purpose for that. See Micronesia case or better Ireland. We are talking about a small country here not about the billions of China and thankfully there wasn't an ancient Taiwan but an ancient China. Republic of Macedonia is the self-identification of the country, since countries self identify via their constitutions with a reason, not public opinion or government. FYROM is also common (political) usage for the country. Republic of Macedonia is not POV although controversial because of the dispute. Common usage in internet maps in English is Google Maps and Live Maps), both understood the problem and clarified using FYROM as the name, or inside it. Thanks for reading this, sorry for your time. Shadowmorph (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - apologies in advance to the nationalists that requested this. Reaper7 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Comment just to add the obvious WP:Ownership. Calling people nationalists isn't an argument. Your above is WP:JUSTAVOTE Shadowmorph (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Why change what's right? Grsz11 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - can't say I minded Republic of Macedonia, but the current title fits better with naming policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Strongly oppose. Straw polling this question is an exercise in futility: this move has been made precisely because consensus has been unachievable due to the obstruction of the Greek nationalist block. This straw poll is a redundant effort, as an arbitration case is about to get under way. It's also unhelpful, since what we need now is a period of calm discussion in the arbitration, not more drama here. And finally, it completely ignores the policy rationale for the move, set out at the top of this article. As far as I can see, none of the dissenting voices here have even acknowledged the existence of the policy rationale, let alone addressed its arguments. I might be willing to relent if someone was to explain why the policy rationale is in error, but not if people are going to completely ignore our standing policies on naming issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) It is my sincerest hope that ChrisO realizes how fortunate he is to be allowed to express an opinion before action is taken on matters of disputable application of policy. It would be wonderful if that were always the case, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Precisely. Knepflerle (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) What consensus has been unachievable ChrisO? What was the issue that was not resolved and you solved? GK1973 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Since you asked here are exactly the policies you broke: Ireland appears exactly as an example in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_geopolitical_contexts. Also see here Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms the self identification for a country is the constitutional is it not? Of course there was not even an argument in the first place to try to solve. Be reasonable Shadowmorph (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) WP:Naming_conflict: "So before proposing a name change poll via WP:RM, consider... ..." (but you didn't even propose) WP:Naming_conflict ends with this: "In the end, if all else fails, just leave the article at its original name. If there is such ambiguity that the possible title of an article could go 50-50, chances are there isn't that great of a need to move it in the first place. On these articles, endless discussion and bi-annual straw polls will likely only lead to more arguing and therefore the title should be left as its creator titled it." Shadowmorph (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Since the article was created with the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", then that policy no longer applies. (Taivo (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) "this move has been made precisely because consensus has been unachievable due to the obstruction of the Greek nationalist block": Can anybody tell me when the renaming of the standard for half a decade name was proposed, so as to say that consensus was obstructed?!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding me, Yannismarou? Just look at the endless debate at Talk:Greece concerning ROM versus FYROM and then tell me with a straight face that consensus was possible on any name for Macedonia that didn't follow the Greek POV right down the line? Don't treat us like we're idiots. You are just wikilawyering right now: "Since ChrisO didn't specifically initiate another endless debate right in this place, then how does he know consensus couldn't be reached?" "Don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows"-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues (Taivo (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) Are you kidding me, Taivo? This article has been stable for years before ChrisO unilaterally messed with it. It's been called "Republic of Macedonia" since 2003, and has been stable ever since. ChrisO's claim that compromise is impossible because of "Greek nationalists" to justify this move is disingenouous. The dispute in Talk:Greece is a wholly different animal. --Athenean (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Consensus on WHAT, Taivo? On the name of the article? It was Republic of Macedonia and nobody disputed that! What Greek POV pushed ChrisO to change the name of a universally accepted article? It is you who try to treat us like idiots. There was absolutely no reason for this provocative change. You dare talking about wikilawyering, when this action was a blatant breach of 4 out of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, the ONLY FIRM RULES? Did anybody change the name of the said article? What was the point of this action apart from provoking a mess? GK1973 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) (ec) No, it's perfectly logical and necessary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see exactly the trajectory of every single discussion over the name of Macedonia no matter which article it is found in. Avg became incensed over changing "former..." to "Republic of..." at Staffordshire University and 2007 Fort Dix attack plot for goodness sake! (Staffordshire is a college in England with a famous Macedonian graduate in case you might think it was part of the Greek "sphere of influence".) The people who claim that "Republic of Macedonia" was the consensus name haven't read the original Macedonian name arbitration (can't remember the wikilink right now, but it's the place everyone wrongly claims a consensus was reached) which specifically says, "No consensus". There was just fatigue. It's time that this situation be resolved for all of Wikipedia once and for all. (Taivo (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) Are you going to repeat this "examples" of yours for a long time? Just let me know. In case you missed why they were reported, it was because a certain editor mass changed dozens of articles from FYROM to ROM in minutes, just after he proclaimed on his own a "victory" in the naming poll. It was in the list of the articles (that will be of course posted again to the ArbCom) posted to indicate the magnitude of disruption he has caused. Mentioning them in your own completely irrelevant context I'm afraid shows a total lack of understanding from your part of the behavioral issue that is the crux of the matter.--Avg (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Avg, had you just listed the instances of change where the articles were clearly within the Greek "sphere of influence" I would not have uttered a peep about it. But the fact that you complained about articles that have nothing to do with Greece was a clear indication of the direction of your thinking--that there was no compromise on the issue from your point of view. Indeed, the old arbitration specifically said that articles outside the Greek area of interest were supposed to be "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia". And after I pointed that out to you, had you simply said, "Oops, those should not be on the list", I would have dropped it. But the fact that you tried to justify complaining about the changes to irrelevant articles just spotlighted a bias against Macedonia in all places, not just within the Greek walled garden. And I understand the crux of the matter very, very well--unyielding and uncompromising nationalism that disrupts Wikipedia across a wide range of articles and prevents the building of consensus through a wide variety of disruptive and stonewalling tactics. (Taivo (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) You really don't get it, do you. This was not a mistake, I included those on purpose because I wanted to highlight that my concern was not the content but the disruption. And, I'm also sorry to say, you have become a little tiring in repeating the same empty accusations on and on.--Avg (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I get it very well, thank you. Future's edits at Staffordshire University and 2007 Fort Dix attack plot were absolutely noncontroversial and caused no disruption whatsoever. But your commentary that they were somehow wrong or against policy (which they were not) inspired Greek vandals to go to Staffordshire University and disrupt the article (I didn't watch the Fort Dix article). So, actually, in the case of Staffordshire University, it was you who caused the disruption, not Future Perfect. (Taivo (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)) What you say, Taivo, makes no sense... somebody totally screws up a perfectly accepted article's title and you justify it because you think that this will be the start of a full resolution of this issue??? If you see my history, you will see that I never occupied myself with this issue. I was perfectly happy with things as they were, RoM was the name of choice of the ethnic Macedonians. I did not just dismiss any attempts of ethnic Macedonians to use the history of Macedonia but gave them constructive guidelines on how to do this without distorting history. I often got reverted by Greeks, many changes and additions I made still remain gaining consensus by both sides. Yet, now, I am a fierce opponent of this parody, since it is obviously an outcome of some completely unwikipedian scheme, devised by a few editors. I see the logic of the whole matter being twisted and manipulated, making no sense at all. Consensus was found, as far as the said article is concerned. Guidelines were given as far as other articles are concerned and their handling was to be arbitrated in a matter of a few days. What happened is an unnecessary disgrace for the whole wikipedia and was solely directed against the Greek editors. No matter how you want to generalize the issue, the said article was stable and needed no such change. GK1973 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC) The changing of the articles title has without a doubt screwed up the article's stability. While I didn't agree with name Republic of Macedonia, it was the article's name of choice and thus it was to be respected and preserved. I personally can see no logic behind this move that changed this stable title of six years into a title that will cause conflict between editors for possibly years to come if it is not changed. Kyriakos (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Support Republic of Macedonia was the stable, consensus name of this article for years, since 2003 I think. The overwhelming majority of wikipedia articles refer to this country as Republic of Macedonia. Also, while "Macedonia" gets the most hits, they are not enough to justify this article be the primary topic. I also agree with John Carter's point about Ireland. Lastly, the move was done without seeking consensus, in fact it goes totally against the prevailing consensus, and was done without RfM, and at the same time abusing admin powers. --Athenean (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Although I agree in principle with John's proposal, I believe that any removal-undo proposal, or any related administrative action should come after we wait a bit to see how the ARBCOM decides to handle the case, and how events there unfold. I think that this discussion was a bit rushy (or maybe I am wrong!), but I definitely support!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Republic of Macedonia was fine, but having this as just "Macedonia" seems to be more in line with common usage. Besides, it serves well to counter the nationalist Greek POV pro-FYROM that has been plaguing Wikipedia for years. Húsönd 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support per John Carter and the fact that the name RoM was the stable name here for around half a decade. Kyriakos (talk) Support I had some thought if I should vote or give my opinion since this is obviously the case (considering this will be summed up as an "ethnic/national/whatever" vote), but finally I decided to do it. I do not support a resolution of the FYRoM sort and pretty much liked the previous state of the article. Having it like it is now makes as much sense as moving United States of America to America, neglecting the fact that there is a whole Continent (region) with the same name. America is still the most common usage in English or any other language for the name of the state, although it's official name is US of A. It looks like pretty much the same case besides the fact that no admin tries to perform the same action. Oh, I forgot the other diff - the USA didn't have a text in it's constitution until 1995 about how it was the country's duty to reunite the whole continent (region).--Laveol T 00:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Support: There are many different things that are commonly called "Macedonia". --Carnildo (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Macedonia is clearly the most common term used in the English language for the describing of this country. "Macedonia" is in line with the standard usage found in the English speaking world. Per WP:NAME, in line with the seld identification of the people in question. PMK1 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Macedonia most often refers to the Republic just as Elvis most often refers to The King. --Local hero T 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ...oops.. "the King" does not automatically lead to "Elvis Presley", nor is it stated in the opening paragraph that he is also called the king, nor is the name of the article "Elvis", although 90% of the world calls him plainly Elvis and not Elvis Presley... So, according to your rationale, we should rename the Elvis article to "Elvis", add somewhere his last name and redirect "The King" to Elvis and not to the disambiguation list... GK1973 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) No, I meant that Macedonia usually refers to the Republic of Macedonia just as Elvis usually refers to Elvis Presley. For some people, Macedonia refers to Macedon just as for some people Elvis refers to Elvis Costello. For fewer people, Macedonia refers to Greek Macedonia just as for fewer people Elvis refers to Elvis Perkins. And for much smaller amounts of people, Macedonia refers to Macedonia, Alabama, Macedonia, Ohio, etc. just as for much smaller amounts of people Elvis refers to Elvis Brajkovic, Elvis Grbac, etc. --Local hero T 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose ChrisO already showed how "Macedonia" referred most often to the country. On a non-controversial article, this would have closed the argument long time ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ..OK, so how about tomorrow changing the title of the article UK to England? It is not the official name, but everybody calls it so... And also mention that it is wrong, but due to Wiki guidelines and against its pillars, which we don't respect anymore, it is the most commonly used name of this country worldwide... It will be very interesting to see how the Scotts and the Welsh will feel about it, but who cares? Only ultra-nationalists would dare oppose what is worldwide accepted as the mostly used INFORMAL term... What does it matter if there is NO PROBLEM right now? Let's create another one! Hell! We can do it every day! Let's find one such subject every day and prove our "non-POV" fighting, our war against those who don't VERBATIM accept the guidelines we ourselves have written!GK1973 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) There is a major difference, England is just part of the UK (along with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and not another name for the country. Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia are the same thing. I would compare it to "United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". TJ Spyke 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Yes, I question the methods by which the article got to Macedonia but User:ChrisO's reasoning is good. Maybe that's what it takes for sometimes inane arguments often based on the Seven rules of place naming to be put aside in favor of common usage by non-partisans. I only wish this spirit could spread to China. — AjaxSmack 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Even though not main article of China, that method was used for moving Cantonese to what an admin desired and changing naming conventions last September, but the admin who carried out soon had to face fierce oppositions. Well I think we can expect a 2009 move poll for whether People's Republic of China takes the title of China again Talk:China/DiscussRM? --Caspian blue 03:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose "Macedonia" is by far the most common name for the country. As for the nominators example of Ireland, that is far different in that it can refer to the country of Ireland or the island of Ireland (which also includes Northern Ireland), although I would support moving that to just Ireland. TJ Spyke 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Support. This was a unilateral move on a stable situation without previous discussion. The article should first be reverted to the status quo ante, then discussed. Also, ChrisO abused his administrator priviledge to facilitate the move. On the content: OK for somebody searching for the country, she/he will find it anyway. My concern is the casual user who wants to know about the meaning of the term "Macedonia". This user will be easily misled to think it is a country and nothing else (unless reading the article very carefully), whereas in reality it is a region as well as a country. Not everybody pays attention to dab notices at the top of the page. A dab page does this more effectively, except if there is a strong indication to the region in the lead paragraph.  Andreas  (T) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Support. When used with no context, there are two very common uses of "Macedonia": to refer to the modern country of that name, and to refer to the ancient kingdom/region/empire of that name. Classic case for a disambig. page. --Delirium (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know why you think there's no context. There is only one country called Macedonia. The stats posted above in Talk:Macedonia#Article move indicate that the country is by far the most frequently visited of any of the articles on places called Macedonia. The article provides context in its second section, Macedonia#Etymology of the name, which clearly explains the alternative usages. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Article titles are absent of context, though, since the overall namespace is flat. In this case, there's a name clash between what a person primarily interested in history would expect there, and what a person primarily interested in current affairs would expect there. In such cases, when both usages are significant, I think a disambiguation page is warranted. (The same is true when the same term is used different ways in different scientific fields, for example, even if one field is more prominent.) Put differently, I tend to err on the side of preferring disambiguation, and only put one article in the main location when there is such a clear dominance of one usage that it would surprise only a negligible number of readers to find it there instead of the other one. I think that weighs doubly so if there is a controversy over the name. In this case, I don't think it is true that only a negligible number of readers would type "Macedonia" expecting to find something on the ancient polity of that name. --Delirium (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC) The ancient Greek kingdom is usually called "Macedon", in my experience. So I think the possibility of ambiguity is being overstated. The Roman province is probably generally referred to as "Macedonia" in current English, but I bet that the number of people who refer to the Roman province is fairly small--you'd be more likely to talk about "Roman-era Greece" or so forth. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) That isn't actually my experience, as a layperson versed in classical history but not a classics scholar. Certainly in my primary schooling I remember the terms "Macedonia" and "the Macedonian Empire" being frequently used to refer to the polity of which Alexander the Great was leader, with the people themselves referred to as "Macedonians"; "Macedon" was a technical term, if mentioned at all. I agree that the Roman provence is not a primary meaning. --Delirium (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Support - "Macedonia" has two very different primary meanings: the ancient kingdom, and the modern state. "Republic of Macedonia" respects international norms while leaving no ambiguity about what the article is referring to. - Biruitorul Talk 00:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Important note: the Arbitration Committee has now passed an injunction to freeze all renaming of Macedonia-related articles until after the case is concluded, and then to permit renaming only as prescribed in the final decision. This survey is now moot, as any conclusions it reaches have effectively been set aside by the ArbCom. (There seems to be no consensus anyway, as usual.) I will ask for this discussion to be closed - I'm not doing it myself for obvious reasons. In the meantime I suggest that people consider making their arguments in the forthcoming arbitration case, which will be opening on April 22nd. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Comment We actually know that reversing the move done by you is not gonna happen until the ArbCom sorts it out. Then why are we wasting time for realistically not actionable move? Because this survey is a barometer to show that your action was never based on consensus. Similarly, you can also find supportive comments for your move. Either viewpoints presented on the thread can be evidences for the both side. Therefore, I see no reason to close the discussion.--Caspian blue 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. The primary usage of the term in English speaking countries does seem to refer to the modern day country, per ChrisO's argumentation above. I have yet to see convincing arguments that his analysis is incorrect, but I'd be open to further arguments. And while ArbCom has frozen any moves, discussions can still take place. henrik•talk 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to make any bolded comments, since this whole RM is pointless after the ArbCom motion, but for what it's worth, I consider the old name preferable as it disambiguates between different meanings of the word "Macedonia" (much the same way I continue to support "People's Republic of China" for that article). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Support We must not mix or confuse things, especially when we have a) the ancient kingdom, b) the country and c) the regional area. Since there is a big dispute here, it's better for things to stay clean and clear. The article America and many others on wikipedia, give us the answer :-) --xvvx (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Comment - It should also be noted that there is currently withing the ROM itself again serious discussion about changing the country's name. One source for such information can be found here. On the basis of that information, it seems to me to be reasonable to think that the name "Macedonia" in particular would not be optimal for this article. This is both because the existing consensus was against such a name for the article, and the fact that, should the proposed referendum take place comparatively quickly, it might not even be as popular as it is today, but "Northern Republic of Macedonia", "Republic of Northern Macedonia", or something similar might be the name, and most people would not necessarily think Macedonia and Northern Macedonia would be equivalent. In fact, the presence of the "Northern" would imply to most people the existence of another nation, which wasn't "Northern". I personally think that the "Republic of" starting the name of the old title is even more necessary now, given that we may be seeing action on a name change in as little as a month, because, according to the article, Ivanov takes office on May 12. It seems to me that he might well push for an early referendum, and, if he does, the referendum could, conceivably, take place before the ArbCom decides the case coming before them. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) This point has been refuted repeatedly in this discussion. Any change to the formal name of the country is very unlikely to change the common name, unless it drops the name "Macedonia" altogether (which is exceedingly unlikely). Nepal provides a clear example of this fact. Last year it changed its form name from the Kingdom of Nepal to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, but its common name - Nepal - remained unchanged and the Wikipedia article on the country remained at the same location. Using the common name is not only good practice, it's mandated by WP:NPOV, which requires us to use "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC) It should also be noted that the above comment seeks to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as its justification, and while that is a acceptable defense, it is far from a convincing one. Also, the above editor seems to my eyes to make a very irrelevant comparison. I am aware of no other entity which claims use of the name "Nepal", nor do I see how the new name of Nepal incorporates anything which could be seen as indicating that there is any such entity. Both of those points are relevant to the discussion of Macedonia, neither is relevant to Nepal. So, in effect, the comparison to the discussion about Nepal is irrelevant. And, of course, the quote produced is itself less than clear, as the names ROM and FYROM can also be said to be "common" and "found in verifiable reliable sources". So, in effect, the above "refutation" seems to me to be, in effect, just another attempt at misdirection or obfuscation. And, of course, as indicated, the decision of the country may well be made before the decision from Arbcom. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC) There is no Nepal (disambiguation) article like Macedonia's or "for other uses see...". The only accurate example to the situation is America and similar articles --xvvx (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Were the official name of that country changed to "Republic (or Kingdom, never mind) of North Nepal", then most certainly the media would have promptly started to use the informal short name "North Nepal" not just "Nepal" (never mind if there was any "South Nepal" or any naming dispute for that matter), same for maps etc. and common usage in general. So ChrisO's argument is more self-refuting than convincing. Apcbg (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Strongly support A month ago, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ's poll to move the article from "Republic of Macedonia" to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was stopped by ChrisO citing a long-standing "six year consensus". Now he seems to go against that same consensus by moving the article to "Macedonia" which equates with nationalist fYRoM POV. What is even worse, is that the former "consensus" was brought about not by agreement through discussion, but by forceful renaming and locking of the article six years ago. It goes without saying that I fully support reverting this move. --Radjenef (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose The common name of the country is Macedonia, and it's usually what is meant when someone is searching for that word. Wikipedia should therefore present the most likely meaning to its readers by default, along with the standard disambiguation paragraph for other associated meanings, i.e. exactly the way it is now. I can certainly understand the nationalist motivations of the various parties involved, and to an extent I even sympathise with them, but Wikipedia is a global resource for the world and shouldn't be subverted by any local nationalist agenda. -- Grnch (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Support Macedonia is not a country. It is a geographical region. FYROM, is a country that occupies a small part of the Macedonia Region. So, there should be a clear distinction between Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia (this is also illegal, since there is no UN resolution for such a name and the country is named Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) or whatever "Macedonia". Philip G. Strongly support - The move was not made according to Wikipedia's regulations and promotes nationalistic hatred, for reasons I've explained below. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Comment - I do not see any "Greek block" here: of the 16 editors surveyed, only 3 are self-declared Greek, and 3 have some other connection with Greece.  Andreas  (T) 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Macedonia is the name of a geographical area, where are living various ethnic groups: greeks, bulgarians, albanians, slavs. It's not appropriate by issueing the right for self-determination of some people, violating the same right of other people. Furthermore, I find the use of the term "Macedonia" exclusively for the country of Central Balkans at least arbitrary. Why don't you wait the official solution to the issue? That would be fair for both sides. However, that act of yours is a clear side-taking. I really don't understand the reasons behind this change. First, you state the right of self-determination. But at the same time, you deny the same right to people all over the geographical area of Macedonia, who also identify themselves as Macedonians but refuse any relation with the people of FYROM. Second, you refer to numbers of visitors in each article. However, by leading everyone who searches the term "Macedonia" into the article about the former yugoslav country, you manipulate those visitors. Visitors who enter Wikipedia to get informed not propangadized in favour of the one side..Thus , you deprive your visitors of the right to choose. Furthermore, you talk about "greek nationalists", however you are they who praise and reinforce the nationalism of the people of FYROM. And I don't see how greeks are nationalists, when accept the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", accepting simultaneously the right of citizens of FYROM to identify themselves and the right of the other people, who use the identity "macedonian" to distinguish themselves from the people of FYROM. Lastly, why in the article about the greek province of Macedonia, you put in brankets Greece and you don't do the same for The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? I think that the fanatics in this case aren't greeks but those who made that change. Why do you guys object to the new name of the article (Macedonia)? It seems to me that the only reason people want to move this article back to Republic of Macedonia is because of the way this move was done. That's not a reason to revert the move. Nobody has yet explained why they dislike the current name. Why do you object to the current name?--Pattont/c 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) For starters, that's why. Apcbg (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Trying to mix clear-cut (more or less) wiki policy and English usage with real-world political uncertainty... BalkanFever 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) President of the Republic before the Parliament in Skopje, 3 November 2008: "The internarional community has no longer any understanding for the double formula, while we have abandoned it on the eve of Bucharest with the acceptance of the proposal Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" (my bolding; source). Political uncertainty indeed! Apcbg (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You did not understand my comment. I am not going to bother explaining it to you. Maybe others will understand. BalkanFever 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You try to forget that in wikipedia there are countless instances where we do not use the most commonly used word in favor of another, which 1. better describes the object of the article (RoM is as effective if not more effective as M) 2. is the right word to describe the object of the article (RoM is, M is not! It is an unofficial name, used for convenience, in other cases this might not be a problem, but here it surely is) 3. is as effective in its description and at the same time less insulting or offensive to any group (as if you care... when England, Ireland, China, etc will be disputed and changed on the same grounds, we will see how "non-nationalistic" all "neutrals" will be... When the Scots read how Scotland is a part of England, just because the rest of the world calls UK England, although everybody knows that it is just the wrong form, wrongly used, we will see if this is about Greek nationalism or common sense, that is, to abandon the use of a term which is acceptable in Wikipedia by all sides in favor of one that stirs nationalism and ambiguity.) This issue is not about Greek nationalism but about clearly and needlessly pushing a dangerous position, that has us deciding on the names of the article, solely on the basis of popularity in use, regardless any of the above criteria. This extreme move will have great repercussions throughout Wikipedia, since there are hundred of IMPORTANT articles whose names can be changed following the same logic. Noone had a problem with things as they were. Everybody who now insists and argues as to why this change should be kept, had no problem with things as they were before, nor had any nationalist or non-nationalist Greek. Wikipedia's pillars are not the GUIDELINES, but the values of good will and cooperation and these are the ones who were disturbed here. GK1973 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You just show how ignorant you are if you think the whole world think England == United Kingdom, most of us were taught in school that they are not the same. And the issue IS about greek nationalism as if there weren't any opposition coming from greece, where would it come from? chandler ··· 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hold on a second. Greek nationalism? Greeks, over 90% are against the Macedonia - they are all nationalists? Have you been to Greece? Trust me it is not populated by nationalists. Reaper7 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ...Most of you are taught this but you SAY otherwise, since THIS is the primary argument of ChrisO in this issue. If you are not taught that the name of this country is RoM and not M, then it is the quality of education you are getting a problem and NOT an argument to be used here. And of course you are totally ignorant of Greek nationalist positions. Just so you know, their goal is for RoM to accept a name with NO mentioning of Macedonia in it, not to make RoM accept ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL NAME, as did all of us here. So I guess calling a country by its constitutional name is now perceived as nationalistic. I guess the editors from ROM who never moved the page were all Greek nationalists. How is that for defying logic. Shadowmorph (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Microsoft (Live Maps), Google (Maps), other fine examples of Greek nationalists :) (how ironic) Shadowmorph (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Statistics of hits, internet searches and wikilinks

Since no one is checking the fisrt discussion i'm posting here also, can someone explain to me how did ChrisO count the wikilinks ? Using this tool produces more than a thousand articles linking to Macedon. Correct me or that box above please.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The grok.se numbers are the number of times that an article was accessed or "hit", not the number of articles linking to it.

John Carter (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the second box, which contains the wikilinks for each article. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't answer for Chris here, but I too get about a thousand links for ancient Macedon (a couple more in fact, but about a thousand if you discount the ones from "mechanical" lists like year articles.) Perhaps just a typo. There seem to be significantly more for ancient Macedon than for modern Greek Mac., which is also interesting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My count is as follows counting articles only:

• Macedonia here - not even a full screen of 500, >500 total
• Republic of Macedonia here- 10 full screens of 500 plus one partial, 5000+
• Macedonia (region) here - 1 full screen of 500 plus one partial, 500+
• Macedonia (Greece) here- not even one full screen of 500, >500
• Macedon here- 2 full screens plus one partial, 1000+

Based on those statistics, the most used name in wikipedia, is, not surprisingly, Republic of Macedonia. Not surprisingly because the article had been there for I believe several years before a certain someone decided that he was presumably the first person aware of policy in all that time and decided to move it on his own. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as "Macedonia" was a dab page, linking to "Republic of Macedonia" was the only valid way of linking to the country article. That's not evidence for usage preferences, it's just the rule that dab pages aren't suitable link targets. Those 500 incoming links to "Macedonia" are all basically editorial errors. (I've been fixing some, since yesterday.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the number of hits as I think so, just hits and not unique visitors? This question is very important because hits can be trivially altered by reloading. For what is worth, hits could be only editors if they dodn't refer to unique visits. What about the demographics of those hits? Do they come from ROM mostly, the Balkans, or abroad? Because in the first case the argument supporting world popularity of the search term in WP searches is rendered false. Shadowmorph (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good questions, and I don't know the answers, unfortunately. Here is the site's own FAQ sheet. I guess the best way to get your answers would be from User:Henrik. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In the stats.grok.se statistics, as far as I'm aware, they are just hits, and they include hits by editors (non-readers), so on days when an otherwise little-read article gets heavy editing activity, the stats will be somewhat exaggerated. On normal, healthy articles one would generally suppose that the number of hits from normal readers will outweigh those from editors. But let's not mix up the web hits with the links stats. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear from the FAQ. It's about page views, not unique visitors, therefore much, much weaker stats Shadowmorph (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I take from this is that an article that is heavily fought-over may show more page-views than a more stable article that actually gets more unique visitors. The statistics presented by ChrisO at the top of this page should therefore be taken with a grain salt as Republic of Macedonia is witness to far more edit-warring (recent events are a case in point) than Macedon, which is in turn more fought over than the comparably stagnant Macedonia (Greece). The rationale used to defend the move on the grounds that Republic of Macedonia should be made the primary topic of Macedonia is thus severely undermined. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate. With the page view statistics, we are talking about differences of thousands of views per day. Those views that are caused by edit-warring editors may be in the dozens per day, or in the hundreds at most, on individual peak days. During normal times, even a contentious article like this one has only a handful of edits per day, or sometimes none for days on end. Even if half a dozen of active editors view the article several times a day, that's still hardly significant in the overall traffic. By the way, if you want to exclude the editing effect, you can also just look at redirects. With redirects, too, those that point to the country have the same much higher proportion compared to those that point elsewhere. And those are not triggered by editor-induced views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Even if every editor who looked at the ArbCom page today came over to look at this article, on one of its most internally notable days, it might only be a few hundred for a single day. And they wouldn't be figured into those totals anyway. The editors of wikipedia aren't numerous enough to make any real changes in numbers as high as those of the pages in question. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you refresh the page, is it counted as another hit? I would easily presume 100 "hits" per person per day if this were to be the case. I myself must have refreshed the very page we're in much more than 100 times only today, since I want to check new comments. --Avg (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at the per-day statistics to see what effect editing peaks have. For instance, the title of this talk page was, until a few days ago, the talk page of a quiet little dab page [36]. It got at most a few dozen hits per day, on days when we were discussing the disambiguation technicalities. On the 16th of this month (the evening when Chris started this move), the talk page hits jumped to 550, and yesterday it was 1,500. Okay, that's an effect of a heavy traffic editing peak. But that's only the talk page. Now look at the article itself: the page was always somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 hits per day, no matter if it was a redirect or the main article, and the last two days show only a very slight increase over the previous and are still well within the range of the normal. (Note that this doesn't count those visitors who come to the article through links to the Republic of Macedonia or other redirects, those are still higher, but were also slightly decreasing during these last two days.) So, no noticeable increase in article views because of the sudden activity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me the effect of the Macedonian presidential election, 2009 that "coincidentally" happened on the month March we are talking about. Could we compare it to some calmer period statistics some months before say September 2008, - or better March 2008 - or even March 2007 some time before the 2008 Bucharest summit (Greek VETO)? It is only logical for people these days to look for the country. It is even more logical that the thousands of people from ROM or the diaspora were reading the article this time. Even Greek people would go and read the article to find out things. That doesn't mean that they adopt the name by using the search term "Macedonia". It is just shorter to type. It's like trapping the Greek viewers, just because they read the article these times, that they concur to the name page. It's absurd to use hits stats like that. Shadowmorph (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. If you want to test other months, feel free. Do you expect me to do the work for you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry I didn't mean "you" do that. Just sharing thoughts here. I'll do that but still have to go away for Easter, so I guess it will have to wait. There is other proof for the above. Check out this Google trends search for "Macedonia"[37]. Look closely at the peaks. March 2007 would be a better period to check for hits. But my point is that it is irrelevant. People who search by the term "Macedonia" doesn't mean that they always use that as the name of the country. They just expect to learn things. Do you see the demographics? 98% of the searches in internet come from ROM. The weird thing on the stats is that Macedonia (Greece) even gets a great portion of those hits. After all Google is the internet :) Shadowmorph (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The "what links here" page is refreshed periodically. Not all the links to "Republic of Macedonia" have been incorporated yet into the list for "Macedonia" as for now (13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)).

To find out how many links there are, the page can be manipulated to have more than 500 links by changing the numbers on the navigaton bar, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=1500&target=Republic+of+Macedonia&namespace=0  Andreas  ^(T) 13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines vs Pillars

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

This is followed no matter which term is used as the MAIN TITLE of this article.

Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

We all agree with that. Again I have to point out that this action initiated a NEW ISSUE and did not resolve any pre-existent issue. The conflict on whether RoM should be called RoM or FYRoM was eventually and practically resolved and all parties accepted RoM to be used. No motions against the use of the country's constitutional name were pursued and those who did were self regulated with the assistance of the "nationalist" Greeks. Thus, this pillar was not followed, since an administrator took it upon himself to create and resolve a previously inexistent problem as was the renaming of RoM to M.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.

Do I have to elaborate on this pillar?

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,842,818 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

This is the most important pillar according to my opinion and the one I was especially amazed to see in work in Wikipedia. Code of conduct? Provocative.. Respect? None..Civil?.. Always, but it is easy to be civil when you are holding all the cards and expect from others to slip, so that you can find leverage against them. Consensus? None was asked for. Avoid edit wars? He did... in a most provocative way... Good faith? None. DISRUPT WIKIPEDIA TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT? Definitely! Open? Welcoming? I hope we all agree that the pillars of Wikipedia are much more important than any GUIDELINES, just as the constitution precedes in importance any local law. It is the spirit of the law we have to preserve and not to game ourselves into such situations.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.

NO FIRM RULES! So guidelines are NOT firm rules and shouldn't be used as such in cases where UNNECESSARY SOLUTIONS were actually manufactured regarding an INEXISTENT issue which stirred NO trouble in Wikipedia. Consensus WAS achieved. This move instilled fanaticism into everybody and FOR WHAT???? What was the problem that it solved?

4 out of 5 pillars were broken. Rules lawyering will be easy to adopt by both sides, with compelling arguments and a lot of links.... But the spirit of Wikipedia, the very pillars that worked so admirably for so long, was abused.

GK1973 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Erased warnings at the top

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, and changes to the name without discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name will be reverted. Discussion of the naming issue should be posted to the subpage Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name.

Important notice: Wikipedia's naming conventions for entities called "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" are proposed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). These conventions represent the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion regarding naming, please read the naming conventions first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=next&oldid=284264721

Contradiction: I don't think I need to add more about the erased tags.--Caspian blue 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to stir up, but was ver curious as to why the unfit "Wikipedia is uncensored" template is placed at the top, and I can not find typical warnings for controversial articles. --Caspian blue 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO thanks for enriching my diff collection.--Avg (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And ChrisO saw these templates in place before he erased them, seemingly because his actions flew directly in the face of them? Very interesting. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense - the templates were redundant at that point. MOSMAC in particular has been a dead letter for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is nonsense, I think, is willfully choosing to ignore them, as opposed to starting discussion of them, which is I think what we are supposed to do in such circumstances. Just another example, I think, of how someone decided that his opinion, and that's all it ever was, was more important than a grudging consensus which seems to have existed regarding the names of these articles for years. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

John, perhaps you could spare a few moments of your time to discussing the policy rationale at the top of this page instead of constantly ignoring it or assuming bad faith of others? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I request you immediately revert your move per the template you just deleted.--Avg (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You said on the ArbCom page you would revert if you were found to be wrong. You have been found to have been acted directly against the policy WP:CONSENSUS, as indicated by those templates, and I believe it is time for you to live up to your word. Your rather drawn-out explanation after the fact of your rationale did not adequately take into account all policies invovled, and seems to have clearly violated some of the others you did not cite. I do not believe it is generally considered acceptable to say "I'm just following (policy X)" while at the same time acting directly against other applicable policies. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you save it for the arbitration, since you've evidently decided to ignore the policy rationale. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A "policy" rationale which violates a core policy - WP:CONSENSUS - is not valid. Knepflerle (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I have a very nice diff for you Chris. Can you imagine who put the templates there in the first place? [38].--Avg (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumstances change. I don't propose to continue this tendentious point-scoring. The Arbcom will resolve this, not vexatious wikilawyers. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this beauty of yours[39] "The name Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not be used to refer to the country"?--Avg (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They change as in, "the article wasn't stable in the past so the templates were necessary then, but it's stable and settled now so the templates are no longer relvant"? --Athenean (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy Rationale of ChrisO

According to Wikipedia's pillars :

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.

Your rationale can very easily be challenged. As I have already stated, should we play rules lawyers, both sides would be able to make a compelling case. Yet, the ultimate and ONLY FIRM rules of Wikipedia is the upholding of its pillars of conduct, which you have blatantly abused. Your rationale could be used as a basis for discussion, but you never proposed or requested one. You acted on your own, when NO party had shown any wish to pursue such an action. What was the problem you solved? What was the problem these "nationalist" Greeks created? Wasn't the name RoM accepted as a status quo in wikipedia for years? ChrisO, you did not resolve any pending problem... you created one in a most provocative way. GK1973 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed In my honest opinion he is very dangerous in the way he edits. Reaper7 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous? No, edits are not dangerous. chandler ··· 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FYROM, lower case "the former"

The UN refers to the country not by its name, but by paraphrasing the history of the country. Therefore, a lower case "the" and "former". The abbreviation "FYROM" is only used unofficially.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andreas, but the EU uses officially FYROM.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the walled garden has a veto power there. Fortunately, not here. Húsönd 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Asking "why" they use it is not part of the Wikipedia naming process. The only question to ask is "if" they use it.--Avg (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How could I miss this. The EU is one big Wikipedia, walled gardens and all. Dr.K. logos 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Have to agree with Andreas. There is no reason to create a link to a name that actually isn't being used. If we are referring to the way the UN refers to the country "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (given the current situation), would probably be preferable. We don't want to confuse people unfamiliar with the topic by indicating something is the case when it is not. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

People unfamiliar with the topic have dabs, that's what they're for. Húsönd 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Other organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development also use the name FYROM offically. Kyriakos (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYROM, is not an option for the renaming of this article. PMK1 (talk) 01

03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? As it seems you have a problem with Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia IS an ambiguation...GK1973 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not you ask? Well. FYROM is NOT the term which the citizens of that country self-identify by AND it is not the predominant term applied to the country in the English speaking community. Thats why. PMK1 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is used by the present Greek Government, Greek nationalists, and those organizations which the Greek Government can prevail upon (such as the EU, where it has veto power). To the rest of the English-speaking world, it is a standing (if somewhat wry) joke. It would be inappropriate to use this monument of a point of view even if it were not baffling to the mere anglophone; and it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

O tempora o mores.... It was just a rhetorical question since THE NAME OF THIS COUNTRY IN THIS ARTICLE WAS ALREADY REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA!!!!!! Playing the victim here is as insane as pretending to not understand what is going on... As for nationalism, look at your mirrors everybody, for none of you is any better than the worst of the Greeks or the ethnic Macedonians... most of you are unfortunately POV pushers, all to ready to disrupt Wikipedia to advance your obviously suppressed aggression... GK1973 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the "English speaking world".. well wikipedia is not English nor American, so stop this egotism and try top abide by its rules... Just read the pillars to understand the absurdity of this whole thing, of how a perfectly settled article was transformed into a hell by the dictatorial actions of a single person! Start using your heads and stop playing Braveheart, you are nothing better than your accusations! And although I endorse the term RoM in Wikipedia, you are sounding like an extremist when you accuse the UN of being Greek driven... Respect to be respected! GK1973 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"As for the "English speaking world".. well wikipedia is not English nor American" Actually, in practice, it is. The English Wikipedia generally follows the norms that English speaking nations and countries do. More than 85% of native English speakers live in the United States or the United Kingdom, and hence for the most part, the norm in those two nations is the norm on the English Wikipedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Really???? OK, let's start disrespecting all the non English, non-American, non-Australian editors.. let us check all articles and bring them to our English norms... Let us only judge things according to the directives of the State Department or the Foreign Office... Wikipedia in English is relying on editors from all over the world, without whom we would be unable to include all those millions of articles. I bet that most editors are not citizens of an English speaking country. And of course, according to this logic, since the US has a much larger population than the UK, we can live the US as stands (unless we count in all the English speakers, then we change its title to "America"), but the UK stands no chance..does it? It has to be renamed to "England"... But where is the problem, right? We will certainly make sure that our readers understand that these names are not official, just that they are informally used more! OK! GK1973 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! PMK1 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

President-elect George Ivanov okays North Macedonia

President-elect George Ivanov okays North Macedonia. Quote: “Предлогот Република Северна Македонија да биде за меѓународна употреба, со гаранција за нашето уставно име, нашиот национален идентитет, јазик и нашата национална посебност. Ова е разумниот компромис на кој новоизбраниот претседател на Македонија, Ѓорге Иванов, и в.д. претседателот на СДСМ, Зоран Заев, ги усогласија ставовите околу решавањето на прашањето со името.” Translation: “The proposal Republic of North Macedonia to be for international usage, with a guarantee for our constitutional name, our national identity, language, and our national specificity. This is the reasonable compromise on which the newly elected President of Macedonia, Gjorge Ivanov and the interim Chairman of SDSM, Zoran Zaev harmonized the views around the solution of the name issue.” (Utrinski vesnik, 18 April 2009). Apcbg (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Wikipedia goes with most common English name and secondarily with self-identification. The most common English name is "Macedonia". Well, "irrelevant" is a bit absolute, but it is irrelevant until it is commonly recognized within the English-speaking world. It may take years for it to replace "Macedonia" as the common English term (if ever). As long as "Macedonia" is the most common English term (not just politically, but overall), then Wikipedia's policy is clear--"Macedonia" is the name to be used here. If and when "North Macedonia" becomes the common English term, then this article can be renamed. But until then.... (Taivo (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Cool, but it might take months for this to become the common name, unless they and Greece sort of steamroll it through UN/FIFA/UEFA/WTO/EU all these things, and many newspapers start reporting on it. It would undoubtedly settle the dispute (I think), but we can't prematurely change something. chandler ··· 07:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I've got no doubts you are aware that this is the article's talk page not exclusively the article title's talk page :-). Apcbg (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be still within a double-name arrangement, where "Republic of Macedonia" continues in use in some domains and internally? Just out of curiosity. To what extent is it a new position? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was still a double-name arrangement, yes. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone can translate the article to English fully, google translate didnt have macedonian, It was possible to get a half assed translation through serbian, and it seemed to talk about an agreement with opposition leaders and a referendum to perhaps actually change the name to Republic of Northern Macedonia? chandler ··· 09:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's about "Republic of Northern Macedonia" replacing "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and everything else staying the same. BalkanFever 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes a double arrangement. 'Republic of Macedonia' would be used domestically, and 'Republic of North Macedonia' internationally. The name ‘Republika Makedonija’ will remain the constitutional name and be used officially in an internal (domestic) context. International usage means (at least according to the latest Nimetz proposal; some finer points may be negotiated further): 'Republic of North Macedonia', with a short/informal version ' North Macedonia' would be ratified through UNSC and UNGA resolutions to be used in the UNO; in other official and quasi-official international, multilateral and regional organizations including EU and NATO; at official and quasi-official international, multilateral and regional conferences, meetings, initiatives and similar; in multilateral treaties, agreements and similar official documents; in passports and similar IDs used internationally (and not exclusively domestically); furthermore, the UNSC may recommend that third-party states use 'Republic of North Macedonia' for official bilateral usage. (Some countries have already declared that they would accept whatever name is agreed upon by the two countries.) President Ivanov is to take office on May 12, and he is believed to adhere to his party’s policies, with all the important policy decisions taken by the actual strong man in Skopje, Prime Minister Gruevski. Yes it could be regarded as a new position, so far only some Skopje politicians (e.g. Ljubčo Georgievski) favoured 'North Macedonia' but no state representative has officially supported that particular name – as far as I know that is. Ivanov's statement was made during his meeting with the opposition leader Zaev, who shared Ivanov's position on the name issue. Apcbg (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. But as you know we're right up in the name conflict so there where the mind goes. When does the president-elect take office? (I mean he can't get through this proposal until he takes office amirite?)... Perhaps this should be given a note in Macedonia naming dispute, and if new material, more coverage comes out, a new section. For this article, I dont know about the lead (until it becomes official), but under "Etymology of the name" perhaps? chandler ··· 08:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere recently that Greece would support the name 'Republic of North Macedonia'. Kyriakos (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right, the Greek ambassador in Washingston Alexandros Mallias announced on 14 April 2009, for the first time, that Greece would accept ‘North Macedonia’. He noticed also that it was the first time for Greece to agree that the compromise name of the neighbouring country contained 'Macedonia'. (source). Apcbg (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't the prime minister say "Republic of North Macedonia" (or whaever the order is) was not ok? --Laveol ^T 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Apcbg, what's with all the WP:CRYSTALBALLing? BalkanFever 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he is just trying to post an update on the name. Kyriakos (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone misinterpreted this information (probably he does not have knowledge of macedonian language). It was an opinion of an oppositional party member for gathering political points.93.219.251.26 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Macedonia 2

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related moves/renames can occur as prescribed in the final decision.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Next step: Macedonians (ethnic group) > Macedonians

The next logical step for those who support ChrisO's 'bold move' — if they believe in their arguments that is :-) — would be to try expropriate the name “Macedonians” for the article “Macedonians (ethnic group)” —— common English usage, self-ifentification, statistics, 'walled garden', the lot. Apcbg (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Harder to achieve - see Americans--Laveol ^T 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the next step for those who oppose ChrisO is to make Greeks a disambiguation page that points to "Greeks (people)" and "Greeks (college)" since both are common usage in English, and self-identifications, but refer to different things. (Taivo (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, Taivo, that's the spirit. After all, don't all these foreigners realize that this is the AMERICAN wikipedia, goddammit? Go Team America! F**k Yeah! --Athenean (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already noted that gross deviation (walled garden?) in the comments to my 'support' vote above. That would probably be dealt with next after they take care of the present business with 'Macedonians', let us not question the consistent NPOV of the ChrisO's 'bold move' supporters. As for the 'Greeks' case, any statistics regarding these different usages? Apcbg (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistics? I'm a linguist. I don't deal in that variety of prevarication. But logic and consistency can be applied in many different ways ;) It's called "The Law of Unexpected Consequences". (Taivo (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The more correct title would probably be Macedonian people, which i think is the format most articles are on. See Swedish people, English people, Norwegian people for example chandler ··· 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A parallel would be Assyrian people, which is also ambiguous with the ancient Assyrians. Assyrians points to a dab page, but the modern ethnicity is at Assyrian people (unless it gets again moved elsewhere, but for reasons that are unrelated to the ambiguity problem). The case has a couple of parallels, because it also happens that the modern name is ideologically disputed, and the historical link between the two groups is at least as tenuous as that between the ancient and modern Macedonians. So, no, I wouldn't advocate a move to Macedonians, but Macedonian people would be fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is however another parallel that the Macedonians (ethnic group) do not share with the Assyrian people, the parallel with American people. Apcbg (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you've been citing that a thousand times now. What's your point? Just because in one case it may be an obviously bad idea to make a certain naming decision doesn't mean it must be a bad idea elsewhere. Learn some logic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If I've been citing that a thousand times now, maybe that’s because no explanation of the different approaches applied in the two cases was ever provided. Would you care to explain why exactly “it may be an obviously bad idea”? Based on what Wikipedia principles and objective criteria? Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I might explain it to you if I had enough patience to deal with obnoxious lawyering, but I have not. Also, if I could see that there was any hint of a valid argument behind all this. So, right now your argument seems to be: ChrisO moved A to A'. There is one point of similarity between A and B. Therefore, anybody who wants to move A to A' should also want to move B to B'. However, there also is another point of similarity between B and C. So anybody who wants to move B to B' should also want to move C to C'. However, nobody has as yet moved C to C'. Therefore, moving A to A' must be wrong. – Have I summed it up correctly? Don't bother answering. Sleazy rules-lawyering might impress your politician friends. Not us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Much words, still no explanation. A small hint: Could it be that the name 'Americans' is problematic as an article title because there are other people outside the USA who also consider themselves Americans? Apcbg (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The real reason why there isn't a "American people" is because, they're "a nation of immigrants", Native Americans (dab to various) exist, but most US americans are covered under "Irish people" or "German people" or "Spanish people" etc. chandler ··· 16:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Brazil and Cuba were also nations of immigrants, no? Yet their respective articles (Brazilian people, Cubans) apparently defy your logic so the real reason must be somewhere else. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One other difference between the people of the United States and the Macedonian people is that the people of the United States do not share anything like a common ethnic heritage and have still, to a fairly high degree, not done significant enough crossbreeding to create anything like a common ethnicity, making it hard to think of them as being even remotely a common ethnicity. Having said that, I could see turning Macedonians into a dab page for Macedonians (ethnic group), Ancient Macedonians, Macedonians (Greek), and Macedonians (religious group), but do no myself see that there is really the need to break down the dab page into two separate dab pages. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The ethnic origins and ethnogenesis (or lack of it) of the US Americans is a fascinating topic but one cannot see its relevance to the title of the article People of the United States of America, namely why the name Americans/American is missing there. (Indeed the Brazilians are arguably more similar to the US Americans than to the ethnic Macedonians, yet the name of their article contains Brazilian, namely Brazilian people. Apcbg (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point there. There is a difference in that "American people" would, to any number of people outside the United States, possibly imply that it is referring to the people of the Americas. The article on the people of the US is not about the people of the Americas, and thus does not necessarily meet the first two points of the name nutshell, as per WP:NAME, specifically that it be easily recognizable by English speakers (I'm sure Canadian speakers wouldn't recognize it), and that it be brief without being ambiguous, as it is clearly ambiguous. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

John, but that's not a difference at all, that's precisely the core of the Macedonia naming issue, that as the US Americans would be wrong to try monopolize the name 'Americans' because there are many other people who consider themselves Americans, it is wrong for the Republic of Macedonia to try monopolize the name 'Macedonia' because Macedonia is a wider region, and the self-identification 'Macedonians' is used by other people inhabiting that region, incidentally more numerous than the ethnic Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia. These include the people of Greek Macedonia, the vast majority of them ethnic Greeks using the regional identification 'Macedonians'; these also include the people of Bulgarian Macedonia (Blagoevgrad Province), and a significant number of people throughout Bulgaria who are descendants of 20th-century refugees from all parts of Macedonia region, who are ethnic Bulgarians using the regional identification 'Macedonians'. (Oh, I forgot that reminding of all those people is nationalism :-)) The essense of the variety of problems that the Republic of Macedonia has been experiencing since its very independence is that they don't show any understanding and sensitivity towards the problems their name might be creating to other people. So it's their choice to behave as they do. Naturally, it's the duty of Greece and Bulgaria to protect the interests of their Macedonians including their right to their name. Apcbg (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I sure am glad you found someone to wikilawyer with, Apcbg. A wikilawyer always needs an audience. But I agree with Future Perfect, your arguments are extremely poor logic. Anytime one must resort to such convoluted reasoning as you do to make this argument, the argument is ipso facto bad and not worth the cyperink you've expended on it. My own take on the issue is that Americans are fundamentally different from every other country because the ethnic makeup of the United States is far more diverse than anywhere else on earth. While there is a basic layer of English, there are significant layers of Irish, Scot, African, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and non-English European to the point that, unlike Brazilians, which are primarily Portuguese and African, there is not even a starting point for defining "American" as an ethnicity. My own family contains English, Irish, Scot, Welsh, German, Native American, Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Russian components. There's just not anything ethnically that a person can point to and say "that's American". (Native American input to the ethnic makeup of the populations of these countries is actually quite low except in Peru and Mexico.) But this is an aside. The issue is in Arbcom now and they will decide the issue here. (Taivo (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Don't tell me that because of their diverse ethnic origins the US Americans self-identify as people of the USA rather than Americans :-). Apcbg (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo dear, have a look @ Category:Ethnic_minorities_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia, esp. Albanians_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia. The number of Albanians there isn't that insignificant and they are in no way "Macedonian" (hell, if they wish they can spread havoc, as they've done in the past and turn that so called country into another Kosovo). Then there also Turks, Serbs, Croats, and so on...

Anonymous IP, I'm not your "dear". I never said that other countries didn't have ethnic minorities. But each of those minorities has a separte, clearly defined ethnic label and identifies themselves as a member of that ethnicity. The United States is something completely different, where the ethnic minorities mix in a way unprecedented in world history. When a person of English extraction marries someone of Polish extraction, they become "American", not either of the above. However, as an ethnic term, "American" only means "mixed". There isn't a common "American" gene pool unlike the Albanians, Macedonians, etc. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

For Canadians (I live there), "Americans" are inhabitants of the US. I nevertheless favour Americans to be a dab page for the above-mentioned reason. The same reasoning holds also for Macedonians, because, as quoted above, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". (WIkipedia:disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? Andreas  ^(T) 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

btw, Names for Americans (a redirect page) has just been protected because of an ongoing naming war[40].  Andreas  ^(T) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One sees that (1) the participants in that discussion do not question the fact that the name “Americans” is the common English usage and self-identification of the people of the USA; (2) nobody there sees it relevant to discuss the American ethnicity or lack of it, invoking one's genealogy; and (3) the problem with the name 'Americans' in the title of that article is clearly identified as deriving from the fact that it does not disambiguate between the US Americans and the non-US people of the Americas (by the way, a notable exception in the common usage of 'Americans' for the US Americans, both in the USA and throughout the world, is Latin America where they say Norteamericanos not Americanos); but maybe the Americans (user-page self-identified US residents that is) in that debate as opposed to this one are of a different mixture of ethnic extractions :-). Apcbg (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Accurate statistics on the use of the word "Macedonia"

The main logical fallacy of ChrisO's argument is prooving common use of "Macedonia" for the country means "Macedonia" refers always only to the county.

I have managed to find a way to prove the REAL ENGLISH USE of the word Macedonia, for all to see. This can be done with a tool that is free, It's called Google advanced features. Most people don't know them.

I used it to count the use inside wikipedia articles.

See them here

This is roughly my count of the volumes above, but they are obvious anyhow:

• 40% ancient period (600BC-1AD) cited (incl.early Roman)
• 10% Late Roman,Byzantine (200AD-1700AD)
• 15%(or more) Ottoman (1700AD-1912AD) because of the 1912 wars etc
• 35% modern period, the region, Country and Greek province included there

Therefore there is no main topic. Even if it was, it would be Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

In case someone doesn't get it (I think it's self explanatory), here's a quick explanation: The graph measures the use of a word along the time context it is found along. That means if the word Macedonia appears in many results (say about Aristotle), and some date is always near there (e.g. birth of Aristotle), then Google counts them for that date. The volumes of the results for any given date is shown on a the vertical axis and appears as a bar next to all other uses.

The big bulk of articles are about the ancient period. The modern use have some big heights as well. Even if we add all articles about the 1912 to the modern country use - when they quite probably they refer to Macedonia (region) - still they are no more.

These statistics show beyond any possible doubt that the word macedonia is used by Wikipedia (english language) to refer to the ancient kingdom (that was erroneously named macedon before) and about any of the modern period articles (I don't elaborate any further for uses inside those). The search term "Macedonia" is found of course in articles about "Republic of Macedonia" too. If you search all the news articles, the results are roughly the same. Because news archives also contained few old magazine articles among the vast volume of modern news sources. Some would then say that the uses are poluted by anachronistic uses. That's why I did the search inside the en.wikipedia.org site only. I challenge anyone to give any other interpretation of what this graph states. Just follow the link above. Bear in mind that the graph shows the actual use of the word, it has nothing to do with links or hits which could be misinterpreted. As far as I know, Google indexes the whole of wikipedia articles (Wikipedia has pagerank 10).

P.S. The discripancy in the wikilinks in favour of the country only shows that those articles about the country tend to link to it more Shadowmorph (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Christ is Risen!","Χριστός Ανέστη!","Hristos Vozkrese!","Hristos Voskrese!" to all Orthodox Christians. Goodbye Shadowmorph (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! So, apparenly, according to ChrisO's own first point of his torturous justification according to policy, the article which this page is linked to should not be here, but rather the article currently at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This article would even according to the naming policy he cited very likely still be at Republic of Macedonia. I think that goes a fair way toward proving his policy argument seriously flawed. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you shadowmorph. This will be a very unpopular piece of information for the Fyrom nationalists and politically correct people who back them across the world (no one on here obviously), but for the rest of us - simply, well done and thanks for clearing this issue up. Reaper7 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but as so often the loudness and proudness of the trumpeting sounds is in inverse relation to the actual worth of the findings. There's the problem that the statistics only marks a small percentage of the actual occurrences, which it can link to a nearby date. These statistics talk of 1730 occurrences of the word. The real number of occurrences on Wikipedia may be much higher, according to a normal google search [41]. In any case, for estimating readers' expectations and disambiguation needs, I will much rather take measurements of actual English language outside Wikipedia (because that is where people's expectations and understandings are formed before they come here.) My evaluation of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, among other things, is here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On further checking, there also seem to be quite a substantial number of false hits. Those that cluster around 300 BC are mostly correct, of course, but as soon as you go into some of the less "typical" time periods, it gets erratic. Articles that don't mention the word at all, or in completely different contexts sometimes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, are your percentage statistics based only on the visual impression of the volume in the bar charts? Are you aware that the scale of those bar charts is non-linear? Probably logarithmic or something. The bars in the modern years that look only slightly higher than those in antiquity in reality correspond to much higher figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the impression that the y-axis scale is logarithmic instead of linear? Linear scales tend to be much more common in general. In any case, these charts do not say, so we can't just assume one or the other. But if asked, I see no reason to guess anything other than linear. As for the sample size of 1730, while that may not include all occurences of "Macedonia" in wikipedia, it is a statistically significant sample size, and i think we can assume that the error is systemic: It would affect references to the ancient kingdom and the modern state equally. I don't see why ShadowMorph's search would favor references to the ancient kingdom. Same goes for the false hits. These are furthermore just statistical noise and can be disregarded. Regardless of the details, however, I think the argument that the country should be made the primary topic because references to it form a supermajority has been seriously weakened. Searches for the ancient kingdom seem to be at least as prevalent. --Athenean (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The bars are non-linear, definitely: just click down into individual years and compare the numbers of actual hits. As for the "statistical noise", the problem is the noise is systematically skewed. When you go into, say, the early AD centuries, where the hits are few, the relative proportion of false hits is much higher than near the peaks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but for classical antiquity and contemporary times, where the number of hits is large and comparable, the noise affects both more or less equally. --Athenean (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)These figures are for the net in general. They show so far as I can tell a roughly equivalent usage between the ancient kingdom and modern macedonia. If they are even roughly equivalent, that would indicate that there is no clear preference of one for the other, and that would seem to demand that the name Macedonia be given to neither article, but rather be a disambiguation page. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

John, I checked the link you provided in more details, it seems that the usage of word Macedonia after 1800 and especially 2000 significantly prevails the other periods (I searched the post-2000 links, it seems they are mostly related to the country):

• 600 BC ~1390
• 400 BC ~12,200
• 200 BC ~6,210
• 0 AD ~ 2, 170
• 200 AD ~ 691
• 400 AD ~ 231
• 600 AD ~ 117
• 800 AD ~154
• 100 AD ~458
• 1200 ~1,020
• 1400 ~552
• 1600 ~ 1,090
• 1800 ~95,000
• 2000 ~184,000

MatriX (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the checking. They looked about equal, anyway. I wish there were some way to check the similar entries for google books and google scholar, but wasn't able to see any such function associated with them. And it would be much harder to determine which ones to count and not to count, because a book about Macedonia, for instance, might mention the word a few thousand times in various contexts. Oh, well. Thanks for checking up on it, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And even with these numbers, the "supermajority" argument has been fatally weakened. Even with MatriX's results, the ratio of hits for the country to other uses of "Macedonia" is 184,000/300,000, or a bare majority. But why search only post-2000 links anyway? Of course those would bias the sample in favor of the country. --Athenean (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't worked out quite how the scales of those bar charts are supposed to work, but they are definitely not linear. If you go into individual years, you will find that they hide much higher figures in the modern years than in the ancient period. The visual size of the bars seems quite heavily distorting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Searches on google and any contemporary corpus will always have a very heavy bias towards recent events. I don't think the news sources will report that Alexander the Great won in Gaugamela. This will be the remit of specialised historical publications. While hundreds or even thousands different news sources will have daily reports on the accession of the country in the EU or the recent presidential elections. Macedonia could mean for everybody also the Ancient Macedonia or even the Greek Macedonia, regardless of how often it is referred in the news, because news cover mainly topics referring to Republic of Macedonia. This is part of my position that first we have to agree on a process on determining usage and then start comparing numbers.--Avg (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About Fut.Perf's comment "outside wikipedia": I guess the writers of wikipedia don't speak common English after all, now Fut.Perf pertains (he didn't say that before). As per John Carter's question here it is: the same graph for google books only.

Google Books

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is full of less notable articles about the country (less notable than Aristotle that is). Still I didn't elaborate on any of that. Some people have also included all 1912 and later references to the country. How's that for extreme nationalism. You can break down the graph above in Matrix's way (not my way, because it completely ignores notability and focuses on bare numbers). Still the ancient use is pretty large in Books. I'll come back with more stats, when I have some time (I'm on a work leave). Thanks to all for the comments. Shadowmorph (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Google checks the importance of the topics as well, it does so with the pagerank algorithm. If we just count only the number of the different articles say about 2008 this is what we get:

Macedonian Cup 2008–09

Macedonian Prva Liga 2008–09

Macedonian parliamentary election, 2008

2008_Macedonian_Armed_Forces_Mil_Mi-17_crash

2008 European Women's Handball Championship

FYR Macedonia at the 2008 Summer Paralympics

etc. etc. etc.

while there are fewer about say 384BC.

e.g. Demosthenes#Early_years_.28384.E2.80.93355_BC.29

That's because it's ancient history. Even in the light of the above the ancient use is significant enough to justify the fact that there is not a single main topic Shadowmorph (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee member comment on changing names in other articles

A member of the Arbitration Committee has spoken out on the matter of changing names in other articles to reflect the current article name here. It is at this point of course only one arbitrator's statement, but I think we would all be wise to adhere to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a "silly" thought...

if i create a script in my computer, that resets every minute the ip of my router (since my provider's ip is dynamic) and then reloads the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(food) , within 1 month i will have 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes = 43200 hits. If i use 3 different pc's the number would be 129600 hits for the salad. And if i wanted to have a low profile on this, i would have used 100 pc's and less frequent ip change and refresh rate (let's say every 10 minutes). Is this possible? Yes it is! Are the statistics on the internet reliable? Definitely no! --xvvx (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A "silly" thought? I hardly think so. And, for what it's worth, I am aware of a few organizations and individuals who have attempted to engage in such behavior. Granted, there is no way to know whether this is an instance of such conduct, but I don't know that AGF applies to the body of people who only look at our pages, so I have to think that it is definitely a factor to consider. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are organizations who could organize this much more effective by infecting 1,000,000 computers.  Andreas  ^(T) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of big organizations. Actually a simple user can do this...

a) auto reload a web page every x seconds/minutes (firefox addon) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/115

b) how to make an auto reconnect script for the router http://www.techenclave.com/guides-and-tutorials/reconnecting-your-router-any-make-get-113556.html

and c) just to be sure (but not necessary), a script that before the wikipedia page loads, erases the wikipedia cookie.

My point to all this, is that the hits on traffic statistics, actually means nothing. --xvvx (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. Of course it's technically possible, but do your really suggest some sinister organisation has been doing this since the beginning of wiki statistics, every day for the last few years, just in order to prepare the debate that we are having now? And with enough skill to forge not just the hit statistics for the main article but for all the redirects consistently, not forgetting to also forge the regular fluctuations between weekdays, and watching us closely enough to react to every renaming of an article with appropriate shifts in their hit rates? This is just ridiculous. Especially since the hit statistics are perfectly plausible and in line with expectations based on independent external data, such as that from google and English corpora. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Remember, Gk1973, assume good faith. Now, for my recent edit. The original version of the first sentence mentioned the country and said the country wasn't the same as the region. The next clause then said that the region wasn't the same as the ancient kingdom. The next clause said that the name was derived from the name of the people. Well that's a long, unnecessary string of clauses. First, the country <> region. Second, the name of the region comes from the name of the people before there was an ancient kingdom. Thus, the mention of the kingdom is irrelevant since it postdates the application of the name of the people to the name of the region. I've tried to address your concerns over what "it" referred to (I didn't notice the problem the first time). Nothing has been deleted except for the unnecessary comment about the ancient kingdom <> the region. (Taivo (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

And remember, this etymology is not for "Republic of Macedonia", but just for "Macedonia". It is equally relevant for Greek Macedonia and for the Republic (and for the "former Yugoslav Republic of..." and for the "Kingdom of..." and for "Macedonia, Georgia"). There's no politics involved here. It's an etymology of the name--cold, hard, dispassionate, apolitical linguistics--therefore it should be as straightforward and easy to understand as possible. (Taivo (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Gk1973, there's no need to make the etymology section any more specific than it already is. That section is not about the Greek POV as to Macedonia's right to name itself thus. It is only about the etymology of the word. It's not politics, it's linguistics. The Greek POV is adequately expressed in other places in the article. The etymology section is only about where the name comes from. The first sentence already clearly says that the country does not equal the region. That's more than needs to said, but is quite enough to satisfy Greek national demands. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo...etymology shows the origin of a word and its historical path of use. It is NOT only about the etymology of this word but about the etymology of the name of this state. What you are trying to insinuate is clearly mistaken, since the ancient Macedonians did NOT inhabit this region, but ONLY its southernmost part. However you stretch, it, it is plainly wrong, not POV. POV is to try to claim that they did... If it is linguistics, please stick to the etymology. And the name of RoM (aka Macedonia) derives from the wider region, in a part of which it lies. This region was named thus because of the various Macedonias that were administratively used by the Romans (also wider regions). These, in turn, owe their name to the kingdom of Macedonia, which was only a small part of these regions (in the southern(most) part of the wider region of Macedonia). This kingdom and its inhabitants took their name from the Greek (by all accounts) word "makednos" and lastly, this word is proposed to have an even more ancient root in what we call "Indoeuropean", an undetermined language, which is hypothesised as the common ancestor of many European and non-European languages.

It is as if you claim that the etymology of the word European, should not mention the continent, or the etymology of the word Europe should not mention the myth or at least the name of the mythical personna "Europa". GK1973 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this is the etymology of Europe in Wikipedia.

Etymology

In ancient Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess whom Zeus abducted after assuming the form of a dazzling white bull. He took her to the island of Crete where she gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthus and Sarpedon. For Homer, Europe (Greek: Εὐρώπη, Eurṓpē; see also List of traditional Greek place names) was a mythological queen of Crete, not a geographical designation. Later, Europa stood for central-north Greece, and by 500 BC its meaning had been extended to the lands to the north.

The name "Europe" is of uncertain etymology.[11] One theory suggests that it is derived from the Greek roots meaning broad (eur-) and eye (op-, opt-), hence Eurṓpē, "wide-gazing", "broad of aspect" (compare with glaukōpis (grey-eyed) Athena or boōpis (ox-eyed) Hera). Broad has been an epithet of Earth itself in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion.[12] Another theory suggests that it is actually based on a Semitic word such as the Akkadian erebu meaning "to go down, set" (cf. Occident),[13] cognate to Phoenician 'ereb "evening; west" and Arabic Maghreb, Hebrew ma'ariv (see also Erebus, PIE *h1regwos, "darkness"). However, M. L. West states that "phonologically, the match between Europa's name and any form of the Semitic word is very poor".[14] This latter theory is supported by the fact that for Eurṓpē, eur+ope appears to be a false etymology, since the base of the first part is "euru", with a hard -u stem that does not merge with following omega: euru+ope. "Euruope" has been attested, with the meaning "broad-faced", "broad-eyed", with no connection with "europe".

Most major world languages use words derived from "Europa" to refer to the continent. Chinese, for example, uses the word Ōuzhōu (歐洲), which is an abbreviation of the transliterated name Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲); however, the Turkish people used the term Frengistan (land of the Franks) in referring to much of Europe.[15]

GK1973 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is the definition of etymology according, again, to wiki.

Etymology is the study of the roots and history of words; and how their form and meaning have changed over time.

GK1973 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All that expenditure of verbage might be justified if there were not another article specifically named Macedonia (terminology). That is the place for all the detail you want (and it's all there in living black and white with color graphics). This place should be just a brief summary of the etymology, devoid of your POV and nationalistic grandstanding. I will believe that you are true patriot without you having to prove it here. (Taivo (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

That is no expenditure of verbage, Taivo. No matter what you say, the little words you conveniently choose to leave in whenever you make your edits show that you are not interested in the correct presentation of the issue but in putting in as much vagueness as possible. You are the one who accepted to be written that RoM does not "precisely" coincide with the ancient Macedonian kingdom!! You are the one who wrote that the ancient Macedonians inhabited "the region". If restoring the truth makes you unhappy, if accuracy is a flaw, then despite your obvious love for the country of your ancestors, I cannot but get involved. What are your objections to any of my edits? Where did I get anything wrong? I did not use "Greece" geographically. If 4 lines is not a summary, if writing half as much as what was written in other articles (as was shown) is too much, nationalistic or POV, then my Slav friend, you are seriously misjudging me and Wikipedia. So, apart from vague accusations of "nationalism" and POV pushing, can you pinpoint the exact spots I was mistaken, disputed or "nationalistically" overwhelmed?

The country takes its name from the region of Macedonia in the southern Balkans, a part of which it comprises. The name is based on the name of the ancient Macedonian people - unrelated to the modern Macedonians, a Slavic people - who inhabited the southern part of the region. Their name was derived from the Doric Greek noun μᾶκος, mākos (Attic and modern Greek μάκρος, mákros and μῆκος, mēkos), meaning "length", and the Greek adjective μακεδνός, makednós, meaning "tall, taper". The adjective is used by Homer in the Odyssey (7.105f), to describe a tall poplar tree, and by Aristophanes in his comedy The Birds, to describe a wall built around their imaginary city. This Greek word can also be further attributed to a proposed Indo-European root *mak-.

Your main objection (according to your edits) to my edits was the phrases in italics. You preferred to state that "Although the region itself does not coincide precisely with the ancient kingdom of Macedonia" and "who inhabited the region." respectively... Now... my edits are POV and those are not!!??? "does not precisely coincide" means that it ALMOST coincides... clear mistake (and POV pushing), since we all know, as should you, since you claim to be an academic, that present day RoM only coincides with small parts of Upper Macedonia, which were not even parts of the Macedonian kingdom until very late in Macedonia's history and at times, reaquired their independence from it. Did you know Taivo, that the Macedonian kingdom was ONLY the state ruled by the Argead Macedonians? Lyncestis and Pelagonia were independent monarchies. As for your second justification, that "we do not know how much north the Macedonians (all tribes meant here) dwelt, this of course is also no mystery. Just read some history (although I doubt you will find any non-POVed, not Greek-tainted version) and you will easily find out that even Heraclea Lyncestis was a colony, a fort, and was not built in Macedonian lands, inhabited by Macedonians. these were lands belonging to Paeonians, Dardanians and other Illyrian, Thracian or Paeonian tribes. Of course, you could then talk about the Roman and the Byzantine (I do not know if you are among those who resent the term "Byzantine" or not, if you do, then sorry...), but then you should be all too careful, for at times "Macedonians" were called the Roman citizens that inhabited Eastern Thrace. Anyways. ignorance does not excuse your accusations nor your little obvious nationalist innuendos. GK1973 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Gk1973, you got things backwards. Some of the things you said I added to the statement, I didn't add, and some of the things you say I object to, I don't. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please, don't assume that I am ignorant of the history of the republic, the region, or the ancient kingdom. Just because I have different views on the relative importance of different aspects of that history, don't assume I don't know the history. And, please, before you go off half-cocked again, double-check what you are actually writing against the edits and comments that I actually made. There are so many factual errors concerning what I did and did not do and say in the above that I'm not even going to parse them one by one. Just calm down when you write and keep your comments clear and concise. I don't have a problem with Athenean's deletion. Not many countries even have an etymology section for the name (e.g., Hungary and Bulgaria don't have one). (Taivo (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, all the etymology section needs to mention is that the country takes its name from the region of Macedonia. Where the region of Macedonia gets its name, mentions of the ancient Macedonians and Indo-European roots and the like, are completely superfluous and can be treated in Macedonia (region) and ancient Macedonians. Including them here only feeds the nationalist delusions of the known kind [42]. --Athenean (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Most important places of "Macedonia" according to Google

You can check this map that Google thinks are the most important places in the context regarding Macedonia (not in Macedonia per se). Trust Google. Google is smart. Google does "no evil" :)

"Macedonia" view:map

Compare the above to the same for Ireland (the are all in Ireland). Just some food for thought Shadowmorph (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting. Rome and Athens are typically Macedonian places. We should enter Athens as an entry on the Macedonia dab page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! I've got this figured out now (it was the Rome and Athens comment)! Macedonia, Rome, and Athens are all places in the state of Georgia! That's what people are really looking for and not finding! <rabbit hole comment off> (Taivo (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Like I said, "in the context" not in Macedonia. It shows it is a complex subject. More later Shadowmorph (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, the map on your google link shows the country as 'Makedonija / Macedonia FYR' or 'Makedonija FYR'. An example to follow? :-) But yes, it is a complex subject. By the way, forget the rude person's sarcasm.Politis (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The map above shows marks on the cities representative of the context subjects involved (always according to Google). Here is what, in my opinion is the reason they show up

• Rome (the capital of Roman Empire) was never in Macedonia, but Roman Macedonia is an important subject
• Skopje (the capital of the named country)
• Skopje (the capital of former socialist republic)
• Skopje (Illinden, important in the above's history)
• Thessaloniki (capital of Greek Macedonia)
• Thessaloniki (the prize city for the winners of the 1912 war)
• Athens (the capital of modern Greece, to which Macedonia (Greece) belongs)
• Athens (the most important city in Ancient Greece)
• Sofia (capital of Bulgaria who was involved in the 1912 war)

if you zoom enough and click update these show up:

• Macedonia (region) beautiful cities
  • Ohrid in Republic of Macedonia
  • Kastoria in Macedonia (Greece)

I guess they are both important for tourists searching Google. Like I said I'm just giving this information out, I'm not making it up, so don't judge me Shadowmorph (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another interesting piece of statistics

• According to the page view statistics, the country article has always had an average readership of about 4,000 per day. The majority of them have always come through the Republic of Macedonia title [43], because that's obviously how all the links worked. (Other redirects have had a stable but overall insignificant contribution.)

• The plain Macedonia title has always had about 1,000 views per day [44]. Since there were few direct wikilinks to this title (there shouldn't have been any, since it was a dab page), this number represents mostly the people who typed plain "Macedonia" into the search box and used to end up at the dab page.

• Since the move three days ago, the readership of the Republic of Macedonia title (not the article as such, but the hits through that particular title) have dropped by about 1,000 to a new level of near or a bit below 3,000 [45] (note: the peak of 7,000 earlier this month is evidently because of the presidential elections.)

• At the same time, during the last three days the number of page views on Macedonia has remained unchanged, at about 1,000 per day [46] (which is not surprising, since that number is not generated by links but by manual searchers).

• This means that the difference of 4,000 – 3,000 = 1,000 corresponds exactly to the number of people who have always typed in "Macedonia" by hand in the search box, and who used to be led to the dab page but are now taken directly to the country page. The total readership of the country article, through both means of access, has remained stable at 4,000.

• This means that the huge majority of the 1,000 Macedonia searchers per day who used to end up at the dab page, actually meant to go to the country page, and did go there by subsequently clicking on the Republic of Macedonia link from the dab page.

• This is confirmed by the viewer statistics on the dab page itself. The number of people who actually read the dab page has dropped from 1,000 per day, to an insignificant ~150 per day. This is the sum of those who read Macedonia (disambiguation) ([47]), being led there from a variety of places, and those who click back on the disambiguating hat note from the country article, which is currently piped through Macedonia (dab) ([48]). The latter, only created for testing purposes three days ago, has been getting 60-70 hits per day.

• This means: Of 1,000 people daily who type "Macedonia" into the search box, the huge majority (near 95%) actually want to go to the country article, and have always done so. These people were previously forced through an unwieldy dab page for no reason at all. The new arrangement has made article access a lot smoother for the huge majority of readers.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we know the majority of the people typing in 'macedonia' are not Australian/American Fyromiam nationalists? A minority of the English Speaking world? What is happening here is Fyrom nationals are trying hard to alter the way we use the word macedonia. 212.188.202.162 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They're just trying to see how deep the rabbit hole is ;) (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

The above comment on statistics reads like a blog contribution by people who have nothing better to do on wikipedia. I think it should be deleted and those contributing to this nonsense can carry out their debate through email or on blog sites (and yes, they can including me in those conversations). Politis (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue of conspiratorial statistics is nonsense (both here and above). (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Let me remind everyone that it was ChrisO who originally opened the statistics Pandora's Box. By the way the hits mean nothing at all, since most people who search for Macedonia are from the country. I have said so above but was ignored. look this demographics of the people who use the search term Macedonia in Google

98% of the people who type in Macedonia are from the country. That is old news. Shadowmorph (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if that was the case (which I doubt, because having an interest in Macedonia-related google searches is not the same as wanting to read the Macedonia article in Wikipedia – the google searches from inside the country may well all be about finding the best local disco, bus service or greengrocer; and why would these people want to read the Wikipedia article about a country they already know? I swear I never read the article about my own country) – but anyway, even if that was true, so what? If 98% of our readership is from that country, then we must still cater for the needs of our readership and match their expectations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Google incidentally, provides the Wikipedia page as the first result. You say, Serve the 98% even though they aren't English speaking (check the languages also). Tell me, how would that be NPOV?.The majority of the searches for Greece come from Greece too, should we use FYROM in the Greece articles?

Let's see the English speaking world demographics below:

In the same way 95% of the people from UK who type in Macedonia, are Greek, probably studying there.

Furthermore most people from the US who type in Macedonia are from Ohio, quite probably looking for Macedonia, Ohio. That's why the traffic spikes caused by the country-related news get lost in the surrounding traffic noise. Should we serve them Macedonia, Ohio as a primary topic? After all they are native English speakers. Shadowmorph (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What does google mean by the traffic language? The language(s) of the documents that get returned? The user preference language of the searchers? Or does it also count searches entered in Greek or Macedonia, i.e. with "Македонија" or "Μακεδονία" as search terms? In any case, if those 98% of Google users who search for Macedonia from Macedonia are actually using Macedonian, they wouldn't really be the same kinds of people who end up at our page anyway, right? Your mistake is to conflate those Google statistics with our readership; they can hardly be comparable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm being helpful here, this is Google's own explanation of the above, here. Language information is determined by the language version of the Google site where the search originated.. Of course, regardless of your language preference in Google, if you search for anything, important results in English always show up front Shadowmorph (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, when I give you data about usage of the word within Wikipedia, you say let's look "outside Wikipedia". When I give you data from outside Wikipedia (from Google searches) you say let's focus on the readers of Wikipedia. Can you make up your mind, please? Which of the two do you prefer? Shadowmorph (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Boy, there are two different legitimate questions to be researched: (1) what do our readers want to read when they type "Macedonia" in the search box? That question is independent of provenance, native language or background of those readers; every user of the English Wikipedia is welcome and their interests are equally respected no matter their background. For this question, we have page view statistics. (2) what do native English speakers out there mean when they say "Macedonia"? That question is important for the policy considerations; it is a different though interrelated issue. For this question, we have corpus searches, media searches, google document searches. Our available statistics for these two issues largely coincide. Your google search-volume statistics, on the other hand, are neither the one nor the other, and you haven't provided any substantiation to the claim that they should be correlated with either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

English speaking readers then. The ones who read books. Lets see then what the usage of "macedonia" is in books (from Google Books, nothing to do with internet searches, just plain old books - only those are scanned) Shadowmorph (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I already did some google books counting myself, see WP:MOSMAC2, somewhere down (small but probably decently representative sample. It's true, books have a larger than negligible proportion of the non-country meanings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Google users many times search for the Wikipedia page too. Recent rising searches were "Macedonia wiki" and "Macedonia wikipedia". That's for proving some correlation as you asked. See my post below with all the search terms in Google. Shadowmorph (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FP, the easiest thing is to manipulate statistics. Using your very same figures I could easily point to you that most people (3 out of 4) refer to the country as Republic of Macedonia. Again, you continue to use dubious methods. And, especially, when it has been pointed to you that statistics of site traffic can easily be manipulated by scripts or plain persistence, you continue to use them. Do you really use data from the last 3 days, after we had this discussion here for everyone to see exactly how they can alter the results?--Avg (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Too dumb to respond to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your stats with the (dab) thing, could have been useful a month ago, but are now totally, utterly polluted by the 3000% rise in the Google search term "Macedonia wiki" and "Macedonia wikipedia". The recent clicks/hits are an artifact of the explosion of ChrisO's Google bomb. It's a pity that you didn't think of this testing page before ChrisO made his move. Still it wouldn't mean much, because it is mostly users from RoM and Greece who actually make the hits. Still 150/1000 from them don't look for the country by your numbers. That is about 15%, not insignificant Shadowmorph (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had any sense of logic at all, you would notice that my points are all based on the observation that certain links are seeing fewer hits, not more. That is explainable neither with manipulation nor with "google bombs". By the way, how do you think a change in page titles here could affect people's choice of search terms in google? (Incidentally, Google hasn't even yet reacted to the renaming, if you search for "Macedonia" it is still serving a link to "Republic of Macedonia" as the principal and first Wikipedia hit. Which means that whatever the google users are doing and no matter where they come from, they are still contained among those who register under "R.o.M" in the page view statistics. They are not part of the 1000 I'm talking about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what the heck are you going on about with "3000% rise" and "breakout"? Those notes simply reflect the rise of wikipedia as a reference medium since the early 2000s. Of course, every search term combination including "wiki*" will have a breakout rise, because prior to 2004 they were all zero. There was no Wikipedia. Strange thought, eh? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet another fundamental error in your "statistics". The regional volume statistics aren't absolute numbers, they are relative to the total net activity from each of these regions. That means, if google shows that people from Macedonia search, say, 20 times more often for "Macedonia" than people elsewhere, that doesn't mean that searches from Macedonia constitute 95% of the whole. Because the total of net traffic from Macedonia is tiny compared to net traffic in the US. In short, your whole idea that Macedonian readers are strongly over-represented to such a degree is completely ridiculous bullshit. You need to learn to read and think more before you write. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Given your own tendency toward abusive language such as the "bullshit" you included above, one might say the same about you. John Carter (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are always questioning my sense of logic. Let's just agree we think differently. The fact that Google hasn't reacted is part of the problem. Both the first two Google results now point to the country article (when one should have been pointing to the dab page). Therefore the hits for the dab page are less. Even more, the very few people that don't know what Macedonia means, will happily stay at the country page. This is what we serve them. We don't even explicitly mention the existence of the region in the top dab link. But those are very few. My point is that since ChrisO's move most hits (from the rising terms) represent people from RoM who just want to check the issue that we ourselves created, and if has been moved back to the original name yet. That's the logical interpretation of a sudden 3000% (1500+1500) rise in interest for the wiki article. Why do you think the search terms have suddenly risen? Oh and you got it wrong, the rising searches are not since the year 2000 but over a few days (hot trends). Since the last time I checked the "Macedonia wiki" term rose from 1500% to Breakout also. Look again. We are creating a worldwide issue here (wikipedian in nature) in case you didn't notice Shadowmorph (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are still not getting it, are you? The search terms have had no "sudden" rise. They've had a rise from zero during the time since before 2004, because before that there was no Wikipedia. Other than that they have been completely stable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of "the search term has risen from 1200% to 1500% to out of scale during the three days we are having this discussion" did you don't get? For God's sake the rising searches are not before 2004. They are because of the last 10 days. It's the uncomfortable truth for you.

Also check out download at the bottom the Google trends CSV with relative scaling or CSV with fixed scaling since you worry about relativity. See you later Shadowmorph (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see that "rise" from "1200% to 1500%"?? This is what I get for the recent development of "Macedonia Wikipedia" in the last 30 days. No rise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reported what the page was showing in the section below this. People who clicked on the links I provided ,saw it too. It was reading +1200% two days ago. Now it's breakout. If you have any more questions, take them to Google. Those little figures are called hot trends, they are about the rise over a few days. They don't cover the historical rises since the beginning of the internet. If you filter in UK only you will see Macedonia England (the soccer match) in the rising searches. It's only recent, how else shall I put it. I will comment no more on this. Got to go Shadowmorph (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm done here. I have no idea what you are misreading this time, but I'll let you simmer on in your confusion. If anybody is still taking your figures seriously, I really can't help them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked your link. So... you didn't find it strange that the line at your link suddenly vanishes at April 15 just before ChrisO moved the page ???

I didn't misread anything. About your other point Google Trends show top 10 cities where search is originating from for a given keyword. For "Macedonia": #1.Skopje #2.Pristina #3.Cleveland, Ohio #4.Athens. Only #3 is English speaking and would want to be served Macedonia, Ohio. Like I said, statistics is a Pandora's Box. I'm done here too Shadowmorph (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, for those confused. Here is the Google help page on Google trends. Find answers there e.g. for rising searches Shadowmorph (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Quote: When you see Breakout listed instead of an actual percentage, it means that the search term has experienced a change in growth greater than 5000%

"... with respect to the preceding time period", yes. I.e. compared with before 2004 or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I found the vanishing of that line that very strange too. Like for instance, the line for "statistical error" [49] also suddenly vanishes. On the same day! A sinister conspiracy!!! – Dude, seriously, that obviously just means the data is not statistically solid enough yet. It means they have too little data. It happens with all not-quite-so-common search term combinations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re "We don't even explicitly mention the existence of the region in the top dab link": This situation was intended to be temporary to help FytPerfSR with his statistical research. I think I can revert it now because to my understanding, this would be adding a link and not renaming one. Andreas  ^(T) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to remove it, I think it's served its purpose. We could still discuss how many specific other meanings we should explicitly mention in the hatnote, but I agree it could be more explicit than it currently is. (At least a "This article is about..." part.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful data. Google insights for Search

Google Insights for Search provide very,very,very helpful demographics on the use of the word Macedonia, worldwide. Where the hits originate, what people search for ... etc

Searches for "Macedonia" in Google

• Rising search terms
  • macedonia wiki : Breakout (increased out of scale!!!)
  • wikipedia macedonia : +1200%
  • google macedonia : +300%
  • england macedonia : +150% (this probably comes from wikipedia editors trying to figure out common English usage of the word, funny :)

Ok, it actually was a soccer match, hehe :) Shadowmorph (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Top search terms
  • 1. map macedonia (people search for the map of the region first)
  • 2. skopje macedonia
  • 3. skopje
  • 4. macedonian (an adjective, no more data)
  • 5. greece macedonia
  • 6. macedonia ohio
  • 7. makedonija
  • 8. map of macedonia
  • 9. macedonia capital (probably looking for Skopje?)

Note:All the above have a strong 90% regional interest coming from within the Republic Shadowmorph (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that for common English usage? Shadowmorph (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's check that in the English speaking world

in the UK: Unfortunately the results are temporary poluted by the recent football match of England against the country. Should try again after some months.

in the US: Google Insights for Search, filtered for US only

• Top searches
  • 1. macedonia ohio : Macedonia, Ohio
  • 2. macedonia church
  • 3. map macedonia : Macedonia (region) or Republic of Macedonia
  • 4. macedonia baptist
  • 5. macedonia baptist church
  • 6. macedonian
  • 7. greece macedonia : Macedonia (Greece)
  • 8. map of macedonia : Macedonia (region) or Republic of Macedonia
  • 9. alexander macedonia : Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
  • 10. macedonia oh : Macedonia, Ohio

Again the logical fallacy of ChrisO and his supporters. English speakers almost always call the country Macedonia. But the reverse is false, when English speakers say Macedonia, they don't always mean the country! Shadowmorph (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So let's have Macedonia redirect to Macedonia, Ohio for the English speaking Wikipedia. Well maybe not, and maybe not for Macedonia, Greece too (why isn't that the name of that article, what's with the parentheses???). Definitely not for the country only, wouldn't that be nationalistic and POV for a neutral encyclopedia? But since this is an encyclopedia people are supposed to learn from - and not just a reference - Macedonia should be a disambiguation page (just like Georgia). I rest my case :) Shadowmorph (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You do notice the small irony in you trying to show how confused everyone is by being stranded at a country when they type in "Macedonia", look how Google even refer to Macedonia, they seem to be under the same impression that most people around the world are, Macedonia = a country. chandler ··· 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you not see it?

• Republic of Macedonia ==> Macedonia (for simplicity in English)

but

• Macedonia ==> either Macedonia, Ohio, Macedonia (region), Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Republic of Macedonia, or Macedonia (Greece) Shadowmorph (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called Affirming the consequent, which is a formal fallacy. It goes like this: People call Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia, therefore when they say Macedonia they always mean Republic of Macedonia.--Avg (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference in maps

Google maps says, Macedonia (FYROM), though I would not necessarily forward it for this article, Republic of Macedonia is what was agreed. Politis (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a study and count over at Talk:Greece and showed that the vast majority of print and on-line atlases use simply "Macedonia". Only one out of the first ten on-line atlases in a Yahoo search for "on-line atlas" used FYROM. All the others used "Macedonia" and all my print atlases used only "Macedonia". The vast majority of English maps of the Balkans, both in print and on-line, just use simple "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Did this "Vast majority" include Microsoft and Google, those Greek ultra-nationalists :) ?

• Online maps with FYROM
  • F.Y.R.O.M. at Microsoft Live Maps
  • Macedonia (FYROM)' at Google Maps
  • FYRO Macedonia and long form Macedonia (the former Yugoslav Republic of) at Multimap.com
  • F.Y.R. Macedonia at mapquest.com
• Online maps with name "Macedonia"
  • Macedonia at infoplease.com Atlas
  • Macedonia at Yahoo Maps

Shadowmorph (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While your "count" was probably selective, I did a much more scientifically valid one. I chose the first ten atlases listed in a Yahoo search of "on-line atlas". I didn't pick and choose just the atlases that supported my POV. I just picked the first ten. I doubt that your search was so neutral. Let me guess, you did a Google search for FYROM and then found atlases. Or you picked your favorite atlases (which undoubtedly support your POV). I'll happily put my neutrally-obtained results up against yours--9 "Macedonia", 1 "F.Y.R.O.M." Those are cold, hard scientifically-obtained results from the first ten atlases from a search of "on-line atlases". And when I looked at the three print atlases in my collection (that postdate the republic's independence), all three had just "Macedonia". "FYROM" was mentioned in a footnote in only one of them. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually all the above are the most important online map sites in the internet. My definition of online maps is maps that actually work online not printed ones or images. I didn't look for the printed ones. I assume your good faith for the printed ones. You don't assume mine. This is what I did. I did a Google search for online maps (searching for FYROM would result in anything else than online maps). I also omitted the MSN map and the National Geographic map against my so called POV (because they fall in the Microsoft category - using FYROM). Of course Taivo you know that most english speakers won't bother to look outside Microsoft Live and Google maps, don't you know that? Shadowmorph (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now about the digital images & prints. Most digital maps found in the internet are versions of the CIA maps found here. Those are inconsistent

• University of Texas collection (CIA maps)
  • Before George Bush 2nd term: "F.Y.R.O.M." is used (long form)
  • After George Bush 2nd term: "Macedonia" is used

I guess many other printed maps that are non-UN, non-NATO and non-EU have "Macedonia" instead of "FYROM" like you say. But the real question is not the one you ask. It is this: Do people almost always mean Republic of Macedonia when they say Macedonia? Do they? In any context, not just when talking about maps? Shadowmorph (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The search term map macedonia is popular in the US. I've noticed there is a substantial interest in US (English speakers) for either Macedonia (Greece) and ancient Macedonia as shown in US Google searches related to map macedonia Shadowmorph (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at WP:RS you will see that printed matter by a reputable, peer-reviewed publisher is far superior to anything you find online. So I had a couple of extra hours to spend at a major bookstore this evening and did a little research in the two dozen or so different atlases that were for sale. In the U.S. there are three major publishers of maps and atlases--National Geographic, Hammond, and Rand McNalley. Of these three, each publishes a range of about 5 different sizes of atlas. Hammond is the only publisher to label Macedonia as "F.Y.R.O.M". The other two publishers label Macedonia consistently as "Macedonia" in all their atlases and on all the maps of Macedonia within each atlas. "F.Y.R.O.M." was not even mentioned in a footnote in any of N.G.'s or R.M.'s atlases. There were also atlases published by about a dozen other publishers, including D.K. These publishers all used "Macedonia". Other than in Hammond's atlases, there was no mention at all of "F.Y.R.O.M." or even of "Republic of Macedonia" on any of the maps from any of the other publishers. Those are Wikipedia reliable sources above and beyond anything found on-line. In other words, "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly used by the most reliable sources for placenames in the United States. (Taivo (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for that volunteer work Taivo. So you are saying that 1 out of the 3 major U.S. publishers still uses "FYROM" even after the official US recognition of the country as "Macedonia". That is interesting. It would be great if you would also check publishers from other English speaking countries (like UK, Austraila) with a different policy on the recognition of the constitutional name for comparison. But thanks for the data anyhow Shadowmorph (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't live in the U.K., Australia, etc. it makes going into one of their bookstores impossible. (And the U.K.'s policy on the name of Macedonia matches the U.S. policy.) But U.S. publishers are not bound by U.S. foreign policy. You are misinformed if you think that. They are bound by editorial choices and the choices of the cartographers who make their maps. I suspect that Hammond has some serious Greek component in their editorial board that isn't found at National Geographic, Rand McNally, or at any of the other dozen smaller publishers. That's not really surprising to have one publisher reflecting that position and the others not. Since the U.S. is so multicultural, I would have been surprised if none of the publishers reflected a Greek POV. But the key lesson that that only one publisher uses "F.Y.R.O.M." and all the others use "Macedonia". That's pretty overwhelming. (Taivo (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

One out of three is 33.33%. You know this is not a representative sample --xvvx (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Sakis. This is a representative sample since it represents the great majority of atlases which Americans are buying and using. It represents common English usage in the United States. On-line resources are not Wikipedia reliable sources on the same level of authority as books published by established publishers. And it is not one out of three, but one out of about 15. Common American usage on maps in atlases is clearly and unequivocally "Macedonia".

It is quite clear that the country is is commonly referred to as simply "Macedonia" in English, but this is not the question here. The question here is the reverse, namely, whether (i) the word "Macedonia" alone (without qualifiers) always refers to the country (obviously not), and (ii) whether the other uses are important enough to have a disambuigation page with the title "Macedonia". Looking at maps is of no use, except for maps of Greece or historical maps, because other maps generally will have only the country. Andreas  ^(T) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He has a point. Unless we have similar data regarding what the existing region of Greece which claims the same name is called on the maps, then the information on the maps has to be regarded as far from complete. It would be very odd to base anything on such incomplete information. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A map from a Greek school book of 1977[50], and ond from National Geographic of 1958[51]. More maps and further information for the use of the name "Macedonia" in Greece before 1988 here[52].  Andreas  ^(T) 20:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some other cases which should be treated in the same manner

During the last days, we have all witnessed this (to my opinion) blatant coup against everything Wikipedia stands for. After so much "discussion" the conclusion, anyone can reach by reading these threads, is that according to some obscure guidelines, we should accept the removal of the disambiguation page and the retitling of the article in question, because of statistics, however one may interpret them... For some reason, the same people who advocate this opinion do not see any resemblance to so many other cases, which really seem all too similar.

1. Is the official, correct name of this country "Macedonia"? The answer is of course no... it is "Republic of Macedonia".

Is the official, correct name of UK England?..no..of USA America?...no..of the People's Republic of China China?..again no.. Maybe of the Republic of Ireland Ireland?..again no..

2. Is the name predominantly used for this country by the rest of the world simply "Macedonia"? Yes! (Although predominantly does not specify exact numbers)

Is the name predominantly used for UK England?..yes.. of USA America?..yes.. for the People's Republic of China China?..again yes.. How about the Republic of Ireland?..again yes..and of course we could mention many more cases

3. Is the name also "claimed" by another geographical etc entity? Of course...

England?..yes (a "country" within the UK)... America? of course (an entire continent)...China?..yes... Ireland?...again yes (an island and another "country" of the UK..)...

4. Do the people there informally call their country Macedonia, as can be translated in English? Yes!

The people of UK?..here the answer is negative..no.. the US citizens?..hmmm..maybe, certainly many do (among them my friend Eminem.. anyone remembers the national anthem?) and of course it is solely used as an adjective, isn't it? (does anybody call an American car "car made in the US of A"?, is it "the US dream"?).. The Chinese? Yes. The Irish? Certainly...

How do we treat all those articles? With disambiguation pages. Why should we here do something else, especially WHEN NO ONE HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT UNTIL NOW? Of course, the ethnic Macedonians and their diaspora will even agree to this now, since they just want a "victory" against the evil Greeks. Yet, disputes, are not counted by such statistics. We are talking about an internationally acknowledged dispute, acknowledged by the UN, the EU, NATO and most major and minor international organizations. I know that America (the US) is not known to really respect international institutions, but the US is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to run on a wider consensus and respect the positions of all sides. So... if 1.5 billion Chinese do not have a problem with a disambiguation page and their country not being called solely "China", if 2 mil citizens of RoM had no problem with that for so many years, then what is the problem of those who act as if uninvolved? We are supposed to protect consensus and not sabotage it as is the case here. I bet that 99,9% of the people who look up China, Ireland and England do it in search for the respective countries. Much more than anyone can claim in this case. Yet, ChrisO did not make these changes there... he did not protect these pages from the nationalist Taiwanese, Irish, Scots and Welsh, depriving them of their basic rights according to the Wikipedia pillars.. The biggest argument in this case is that Greeks are "nationalists". Of course they are! So are the ethnic Macedonians and their disguised diaspora, so are the Indians, the Persians, the Americans (ooppss..), the Germans, the French... Who here is right and who is wrong? And the question remains... right IN WHAT CLAIM? They didn't have to put up with the appellation FYRoM, this was not the case. Their country's article was called "Republic of Macedonia", their own, chosen constitutional name. So what was the claim here that demanded this disruption? That most people who look up "Macedonia" do it in search for the country? This has nothing to do with Greek nationalism, just with the wish of some people here to attack the Greek editors, to anger them, to hit at their pride and fears and then gloat at it. Should there be a guideline as to the use of the name in other articles? There was, but was disregarded by the same people who now call for new "rules". It is very sad to see people rules lawyering all the time but when confronted with similar arguments, they conveniently mumble something about "it not being the exact case now"... Is it or isn't it absolute that THE ONLY FIRM RULES OF WIKIPEDIA ARE THE 5 PILLARS? Are these ruthlessly attacked in this situation or not? Did ChrisO breach these ONLY basic rules or didn't he? Is every other argument just words or not? These rules are based on mutual respect and consensus. Isn't this what you are trying to end here? Some claim that 7 years have passed and no clear consensus was achieved. First, where is it written that there should be an expirtation day for consensus purposes? Secondly, who said there was no consensus in this matter? Isn't the absence for so many years of actions like these by ChrisO the definition of consensus? Of course I expect answers that will have to do with dubious Google numbers, guidelines and allegations of how Greeks disturbed other pages and as such they should be punished in this way... GK1973 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I still haven't heard any argument as to why we should use a different standard for this case than the above mentioned . Shadowmorph (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no real issue of "disambiguation" here. The vast majority of searches are for "Macedonia" the country and not for the Greek region or the town in Georgia. The only competition is for the ancient kingdom, but that is still not as great as for the modern republic. As is typical from someone who wants to "win" at all costs, you are grasping at straws and wikilawyering with all your heart. I'll write a letter of recommendation for you to the government of Greece so that they know you worked as hard as you could to defend their honor. Actually, we probably need to move Athens to a disambiguation page since I'm sure there are a lot of people looking for Athens, Georgia instead of that village in Greece. I know I'm personally more likely to need information on Athens, Georgia than Athens, Greece. (Taivo (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Isn't it fun that yourself are "wikilawyering with all your heart" right now that there is no disambiguation issue, exactly when a week ago you were "wikilawyering with all your heart" that Republic of Macedonia is the best name to use? I think it speaks volumes. Some people are consistent, some others are simply here to support their wikifriends, no matter how absurd is what they support.--Avg (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Taivo's trolling has reached the level where it warrants mention at ArbCom.--Athenean (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2009

(UTC)

Possibly. It should also be noted that Taivo seems to be using his own opinion regarding what is and is not sufficient other usage to decide whether the name merits disambiguation. Unfortunately, the terms there are not as clearcut as he is making them out to be. And, for the record, I want to make it clear to him and anyone else who wants to call me a "Greek nationalist" that I am in fact German and honestly as an individual care less about "my" chosen name winning than I do about than I do about the NBA and NHL playoffs and most of the religion related content on wikipedia. Just saying that because I find the regular throwing around of that phrase to be less than useful. Actually, in general, I would caution Taivo from making any further almost completely off-topic comments as his last one above. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for disambiguation??????? Are you advocating "common sense", your opinion, some law we do do not know about? There is more than plenty of evidence that there is reason enough for disambiguation and this reason first and foremost is to achieve consensus, exactly as there was consensus some days ago. Taivo, you are as nationalist as most here. This discussion wreaks of need for disambiguation... Unless you can find in the firm rules of Wikipedia any mention as to what exactly the criteria that allow for a disambiguation page are (exactly how more popular an article should be)... And do not speak of Wikipedia policy, for this is exactly AGAINST any Wikipedia policy as it is clearly shown on all the above examples (and so many more one could cite)...you know something...?? Maybe there is no CLEAR Wiki policy here... have you ever thought of that? Maybe there ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ONE! Again.. what are your comments as to the pillars of Wikipedia? Are they too vague? Should they be removed? replaced? breached with impunity? Why don't you suggest that to the ArbCom? GK1973 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious difference between advocating "Macedonia" versus something else when no disambiguation is really necessary (i.e., at the Macedonia page), and advocating "Republic of Macedonia" versus "FYROM" on a page where disambiguation is necessary (i.e., at the Greece page). It's all in the context of the discussion. LOL, at "trolling". Even though all has been said that needs to be said concerning Wikipedia policy and the relevance of "Macedonia" here and "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece, I get a chuckle at the persistent (and highly creative) ways that the Greek POV keeps getting pushed to controvert what I consider to be very clearly stated Wikipedia policy. In the end, this endless wikilawyering is pointless since ARBCOM will decide based on their own uninvolved interpretation and clarification of Wikipedia naming policy. (Taivo (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Lol Taivo, be more careful next time, you've just admitted that Greece should be an exception and that we cannot have consistency throughout Wikipedia. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you were saying one week ago, that we cannot leave Greece to be a "walled garden" and that we should apply consistency throughout the project.--Avg (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully, Avg. Your position at Talk:Greece is against "Republic of Macedonia" and in favor of "FYROM". My position at Talk:Greece is that "Republic of" is sufficient disambiguation at that place, not throughout Wikipedia. The walled garden Greek POV insists on FYROM at "Greece". Here there is no need for disambiguation since we're not including the Greek provinces in the article, so "Macedonia" is sufficient here. You are, yourself, hypocritical in the same context, Avg. You want "FYROM" at Greece, but you're willing to accept "Republic of Macedonia" here? Sounds like WP:POT to me. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Or, it might mean that I respect consensus and although I believe that fYRoM might be a better choice than RoM, I will not make a fuss of it in this article. So much about me "not bulging an inch" as you have accused me. It is not my POV that this article should be RoM, but I accept that this might be the consensus of other editors. See, I respect the policies of Wikipedia more than my POV. I wonder if this can be said for ChrisO for example.--Avg (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And all this coming from whom? An expatriated ethnic Macedonian who does never POV???... All your wikilawyerng is a grand Pov effort! and of course no comment on the wikipedia pillars... GK1973 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, we do not call the UK England. This is because it is not England; it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; England is one piece of it, out of about four. We do, however, call the Kingdom of England (which existed up to 1707) England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you Septentrionalis, do we call the Republic of Ireland, Ireland? And what about North Ireland? Should we be able to access it through the disambiguation page for Ireland? I'm asking because some weeks ago I was having a discussion with Fut.Perf and he supported that West Macedonia should not appear on Macedonia (disambiguation) because people never refer to that simply as Macedonia. So what should we do? Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland and orphan the North Ireland article? Shadowmorph (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were technically possible to call the island of Ireland and the Republic both Ireland, we would do so. As it is, we are quite likely to reverse ourselves to use Ireland (for the southern Ireland) and Ireland (island); there is a discussion underweigh right now which is converging to that. As for Northern Ireland (nore the spelling), we do use it - because anglophones call it that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, Northern Ireland doesn't want to be named just Ireland. If it did then we would have a similar case of triple disambiguation. Ours is quadruple since Macedonia refers trivially to the ancient empire as well (see the data I collected above). Shadowmorph (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is even more fortunate for the editors of Ireland articles that the island of Ireland is indeed an island and not a geographic region with no standard definition. So they can use the phrase "island of Ireland" in the articles, unlike "region of Macedonia" which gives a sense of ambiguity or worse possession by one state (making the sub-regions appear as occupied). Ireland also involves regions belonging only to two, and not multiple countries, like Micronesia. But the weight of history is what makes Macedonia unique Shadowmorph (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the discussion at Talk:Ireland#Title_problems, they seem to propose Ireland to become a disambiguation page and move both other articles to Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) which is the opposite of what is happening here, now Shadowmorph (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They are nowhere near consunsus in this other talk page. Those editors there at least try to solve issues by talking and not moving and then move-protecting the page :) Shadowmorph (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph see this: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. PMK1 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As per the first paragraph of the section linked to above, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Therefore, citing it as evidence that something should not be considered is at best an unintentional misreading of the page linked, at worst an intentional one. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like every argument against the move from ROM => M has just been, look at this article, article X says this and not that etc. This is the type of rhetorical and distraction which has led to the issue not bieng solved aftar so many years. PMK1 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would really help I think if you learned to differentiate between articles and policies and guidelines. I'm sorry if you find citing the rules of wikipedia annoying. Do you have a better alternative, perhaps? Personally, I agree that there has been far too much misapplication of policy and guidelines, but that is a separate matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That was excactly my point. PMK1 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was, then it is a good one. Unfortunately, and I do mean unfortunately, it isn't that hard to misrepresent certain policies and guidelines, particularly if they contain language which is actively less than clear or specifically allows for variations. As I think we would both agree, there has been a lot of misrepresenting of policy so far, generally because of the way that the policies and guidelines can be cherry-picked to support whichever side. And again, unfortunately, particularly in cases where there are editors on at least one "side" who have a strong emotional attachment to a subject, I don't know of a way to stop it, short of rewriting whichever policy and/or guideline is involved. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, you raise an interesting and valid point. It all has to do with the different periods and circumstances when the policies and guidelines were written. This has ultimately led to many loopholes allowing people to say, "but in article Y it says this. Why cant it say that in article Z". Hopefully the guidlines and procedures involved with the more complicated and complex issues will be resolved. But it is good to see another user interested in the "nitty-gritty" of the project. :) PMK1 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On the eve of Arbitration

This might prove helpful for those frustrated with the naming situation while ArbCom does its work. (Taivo (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Really funny...!!! What edit war? GK1973 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a classic. Pretty funny and so true, however irrelevant with our case. One cannot fail to note that even in a humorous essay no one could imagine that an admin would first move the article to his favorite POV version and then protect it.--Avg (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, Avg, one of the Greek admins had done the same thing in your favor. Then you would be silent as a tomb on the issue that you are so vocal about now ;) (Taivo (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Nobody has though, or ever had. What is plainly clear is what I do now and what you do now. Everybody is judged by their actions, not by hypotheses. --Avg (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Google - Wikipedia connection. A battle for Internet's soul

Just How Powerful Is Wikipedia?. "Just how much control does it have over public perception?". Responding to a question originally asked by Future Perfect, this is the correlation of Google and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is extremely important to Google users (and all the internet in general). Most people typing a search in Google search expect to see Wikipedia pop up. If the internet users didn't read it, it wouldn't be the 10th site in the internet. This reasoning makes all the Google statistical arguments I presented above, very relevant to our case. I focus especially on the fact that the WP hits statistics for Macedonia are 90% coming from within the named Republic, a non-English speaking country. I guess nowdays more Google bombs like ChrisO's are likely to happen. Fortunately other articles that can be moved, are moved by editors, not admins, and can be reverted. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Irish state

According to Names of the Irish state, the official name of the state is "Éire" or "Ireland", and "Republic of Ireland" is an unofficial name used by its neighbour, the United Kingdom, apparently for political reasons (it is also the "description" of the state). According to this logic, the title of the Wikipedia article should be Ireland (the official and also the mostly used name) or Ireland (country). I leave it to ChrisO to look after this.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force#Policy, guidelines, consensus... and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant is the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See also the (unconclusive) discussion at Talk:Georgia/Archive 2#Requested Move - 15 March 2008 and previous ones listed at the top of Talk:Georgia.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just goes to prove that the Arbitration isn't really about what ChrisO did or didn't do, but about determining unambiguously what Wikipedia's naming policies are. While Greece may have been one of the cradles of civilization, the world is much larger than the shores of the Aegean now. (Taivo (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Irrelevant comment from the thread.--Caspian blue 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo you've just put the last nail in the coffin. You've just admitted that before policy has even been determined, nobody can claim they have an authoritative interpretation of the policy and lock everybody out of the discussion.--Avg (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's naming policies have already been determined unambiguously. What is at issue is how they should be implemented, and in particular what is to be done when a politically motivated block of editors blocks their implementation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears you have the solution for all the naming conflicts in Wikipedia. I'd suggest you go and move all relevant articles to the "right" place (and then protect them of course).--Avg (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that there is such pronounced disagreement about the unambiguous nature of the relevant policies, and the fact that, according to the policies, that should be taken into account if it exists, proves I believe the above statement at best misleading. And it also evidently doesn't think how to deal with those who, very possibly themselves in violation of policy, seek to act in ways which very definitely strike others as being against the very foundations on which wikipedia is built. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While ChrisO and I completely agree on the interpretation of what we consider to be unambiguous naming policies, there are those of you who think you understand them differently or who want to ignore them. ChrisO is right in clarifying what I wanted to say (and obviously did not do effectively)--that Arbcom will make the wording so crystal clear that nationalistic and parochial interests don't even have the small toehold they now think they have to dispute Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Um, you did know ArbCom doesn't change policy, right? Therefore, it is very hard to imagine how they would make the phrasing crystal clear. I can and do imagine that they will request the policy be clarified, and I myself hope to be involved in that discussion, but that would only be at the request of ArbCom, and such requests don't always necessarily get acted upon in a way they would wish. While it's hard to imagine that anyone would actively subvert such a request, it is certainly possible that such a request will not be acted upon if there is no consensus on how to change the relevant policies or guidelines to remove the ambiguity. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither ChrisO nor myself are asking them to change policy--just to enforce the policies that already exist against nationalistic and parochial interest groups. (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Whatever the ArbCom comes up with will probably be far from crystal clear, will probably make no one happy, and will solve little. By the way, this thread has drifted away from a discussion of improving the article, and should probably be removed... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when Wikipedia promotes counter-nationalism to fight nationalism?

Personal feelings aside, this is about a serious current political issue in the bloody Balkans area. Five million people live in the modern geographical region of Macedonia. More than half of them are Greeks. More than half of the region belongs to Greece. A quarter of them are Macedonians of Slavic origin, living in a third of the region. The rest are Albanians, Bulgarians, Roma, Turks, Serbs and other ethnicities. Wikipedia should not allow the move of the article, because it promotes the nationalistic sentiment of one side (the minority for that matter), based on arbitrary methodologies. This is certainly not a neutral point of view and no made-up statistics can back this case. Even the person responsible for this felt that his move is controversial; that should tell us something. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Populations have zero to do with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common English name for things irrespective of "real-world" feelings. (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was read by real people, living in the real world, communicating in different languages. Also, some believe that Wikipedia is all about neutrality. By shifting a political matter according to the nationalistic sentiments of the minority regional population of a multiethnic state that formally accepts a provisional name, you don't maintain a neutral stance. And this is something that real people, living in the real world, will tell you. NPOV isn't decided by robots, therefore your argument is invalid. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Taivo) Actually, the above statement is at least a bit in error. Policy, specifically WP:NAME, says, and I quote, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The point of dispute regarding this article is the ambiguous phrasing of "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". But he is right in that we try not to let any sort of political dispute get in the way of using the best name. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(also response to Taivo). I agree, that's why I'm saddened to see administrators outing editors because they belong to a particular population. I'm also saddened that people with a specific "real-world" feelings and sympathies are letting it them drive their actions in trying to fix and lock what they think should be the correct solution. It is also sad that these feelings are manifested as hatred, by calling other editors nationalists and not assuming their good faith. I also agree that hit statistics that are inflated unevenly in favor of one population, should not be taken into account in matter of policies. English speakers should be the ones to care about, agreed. But the English speakers commonly refer with the same name to multiple entities, either historical or of the modern regional type. Shadowmorph (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, people who participate in Wikipedia may be absent of nationalistic hatred, but their actions could very well promote this, even inadvertently.

John Carter, more on the subject: I'm aware of the regulations. Let me quote what you forgot.

• "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."
• "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."

Well, most reliable scientific sources, that is academic ones, they mean either the ancient kingdom or the region when referring to Macedonia. That is the understanding of any scholar today. In addition, nobody provided a scientifically verifiable method of determining what most english speakers think when they read the word "Macedonia". Most would think Alexander the Great, ancient Greece and so on. It's only natural.

But above all, even if you were right, the situation is not only about a name; the name has a content. As long as the content is questionable and promotes hate, it has no place in Wikipedia and this supersedes any convention. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I hope Taivo and others like ChrisO, Mactruth etc would stop calling all the Greek editors (like you) "nationalists". Never mind the intimidation you get for a welcome, feel free to comment here and contribute to the Wiki articles as you please best. Be bold, just keep civil way of contact, maintain WP:NPOV, and you'll be ok. And yes a very great portion of people mean the ancient place when they say Macedonia, as I have shown (see above). But don't expect people like Taivo to acknowledge that, since it is against their anti-Greece & pro-naming FYROM just "Macedonia" POV Shadowmorph (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

note:I'm just guessing you are Greek since your alias is (Sqrt(5)+1)/2 = φ I believe ;) To be fair nobody called you a nationalist yet, but it's only a matter of time. I lasted 5 days at most before being labeled that way Shadowmorph (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The most common English name for Macedonia in reliable published sources (i.e., atlases) is "Macedonia". Out of over two dozen atlases for sale at a large bookstore here only about 4 of them had anything other than "Macedonia" as the label for, well, "Macedonia". That's the end of the story as far as Wikipedia is concerned for what to call Macedonia. Google searches are totally unreliable as sources. And if you want to get serious about "ambiguity" then why doesn't "Athens" go to a disambiguation page because there are a whole lot of people in the U.S. who are more interested in Athens, Georgia than in some town in the southeastern corner of Europe--maybe not more, but more than are looking for the Greek provinces called "Macedonia" and more than are looking for ancient Macedonia. Indeed, if student were writing a report on ancient Macedonia, the most likely first link they would look for would be the most famous Macedonian--Alexander. Indeed, a whole lot of American students would probably look for Alexander at Greece instead of at Macedonia. So let's make Athens a disambiguation page, too. (Taivo (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

If you believe it, discuss it at Athens and then do it. By the way 4 of 24 (two dozens) = 1/6 . That is a significant 17%. Whole goverments are formed with that percentage of votes. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, these arguments are valid for sensationalist newspapers, which in my book are not what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". Following your way of thinking, most (?) people mean the World Wide Web (WWW) when they say the Internet. Let's just e-mail Tim Berners-Lee that Wikipedia decided to change the "most common name" that "english speakers use" for the Internet.

If Wikipedia wants to be an organization promoting neutrality and distributing knowledge, administrators - especially from the most populated english-speaking nations - shouldn't abuse their privileges. English is the lingua franca of our era and extra caution is needed for the handling of sensitive political matters.

I've showed above that the move is against Wikipedia's principles and even inadvertently, promotes nationalistic hatred. Nobody presented a valid argument against this. Nobody presented a scientifically verifiable method of determining what english speakers think when they are presented with the word "Macedonia" (which is ancient Greece in academic sources, the most reliable sources).

I welcome people trying to lecture others about "real world" feelings, when they clearly let their real world feelings in the way. I always appreciate the irony. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just summarized the case in arbitration. Took about 500 words; I'm not pasting here because this page is already cluttered. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

so weak comparison....

Athens since ~1400 BC

Macedonia (region) since ~700 BC

Macedonia (Republic) since 1991 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Taivo said The most common English name for Macedonia in reliable published sources (i.e., atlases) is "Macedonia"

Offcourse!! All the purely Historical and Geographical maps are related to Macedonia region and not at all to Macedonia-1991 Nickanor (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia constructs and modified history.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.133.231 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DISAMBIGUATION

There used to be a disambiguation page, now all we see is an article almost identical to the FYROM one. If this is not a policy of monopoly, what is?Alfadog777 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is a link "Macedonia (disambiguation)", Macedonia first of all is a country. Also when you type "Greece" you get the article about the country Greece, and there you have disambiguation page, it's simple... MacedoniaBitola (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

History and Geography against this

• 1.If Lybia gets the name Republic of Africa should Africa page refers firstly to Lybia??
• 2.If Romania the name Republic of Rome should Rome page refers firstly to Romania??
• 3.If a game or a film with an ancient name gets popularity should the ancient name be overshadowed??

This would be a fast food encyclopedia ignoring all the history and human memory Nickanor (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called common name. "Macedonia" in English refers to the country. chandler ··· 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)\

Macedonia in english historical books refers primarily to the region and ancient kingdom. Nickanor (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

i think you hit your own nail there, "historical books", seeing how Macedonia hasn't been independent for even two decades, how would they be in historical books? A history book published in 2005 would have one country on the balkans called "Serbia and Montenegro" instead of the current situation which is arguably 3 countries or at least 2 depending on how you see it. chandler ··· 12:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Common People born before 1991 do not even know that there is a state called Macedonia. However they have heard about Ancient Macedonia in their school.Nickanor (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a stupid, stupid, STUPID claim. 1st, I'm born before 1991 and I know about it. 2nd, Anyone who keeps up with news KNOWS that Yugoslavia split up during the 90s, creating Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia and FR Yugoslavia. Many people were probably taught pre-split that Yugoslavia like the Soviet Union consisted of several constituent countries, one called Macedonia. chandler ··· 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But you are NOT a common but a literate person :) Nickanor (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case there is no reason the republic should overshadow history and geography . It is part of it.Nickanor (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize Nickanor, people here tend to think that Wikipedia is just a reference work not an encyclopedia. History? Scrap that, they say Shadowmorph (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The common person who uses wikipedia (and the rest of the internet) is literate, the common person in Europe is literate... and on that, I very much doubt that illiterate people know what Ancient Macedonia is. chandler ··· 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You should doubt.. because illiterate people indeed knew and know about ...Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great , Alexander romance..Nickanor (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickanor does have a point however. Regretably, "Macedonia" is probably the common name for Macedonia (Greece) as well, and it is from what I remember the most common way of referring to the Ancient Macedonia of Alexander the Great. If the name is the most common name of several entities, then that may well take priority. The questions then become are the names in even rougly similar usage and does there exist a name for any one of them which is sufficient to make the naming of that article unambiguous. Personally, I think that both questions can be answered yes, and am curious why almost all the people I see defending this move seem to ignore the fact that "Macedonia" describes other things as well. I am not accusing anyone of anything by that statement, simply noting that it does seem to be the case. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No in English you would not say "Macedonia" and expect people to think you mean "Macedonia the region in Greece". chandler ··· 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so sure about ?? Macedonia like Thrace is a region thousands of years untill now Nickanor (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

True. But, by the same token, I think it is at best faulty logic for anyone to assume that when the name "Macedonia" is used that it by definition must be being used for the current country. For what it's worth, please remember that I oppose the FYROM label rather strongly, and honestly am not particularly interested in the topic personally one way or another. But to think that we are authorized to determine what people "expect" is I think at best dubious by policy. And, for what it's worth, please note that I was not the one who arbitrarily limited the possibilities to the area of Greece. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to be accurate and specified, Wikipedia should not intervene in this name dispute. The name of this country is contemporary and has nothing to do with historical references. As a result until both countries reach a consensus, Wikipedia have to admit the temporary name (F.Y.R.O.M.) G.karatheodoris (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You should know that "FYROM" it's not an official name! The official name of the country is Republic of Macedonia (Macedonia), "FYROM" is just a temporary refference. The Resolution says:

-The appellation "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was purely a provisional term to be used only until the dispute was resolved.[17]

-The term was a reference, not a name; as a neutral party in the dispute, the United Nations had not sought to determine the name of the state.[17] The President of the Security Council subsequently issued a statement declaring on behalf of the Council that the term "merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."[11] The purpose of the term was also emphasized by the fact that the expression begins with the uncapitalised words "the former Yugoslav", acting as a descriptive term, rather than "the Former Yugoslav", which would act as a proper noun.[17] By also being a reference rather than a name, it met Greek concerns that the term "Macedonia" should not be used in the republic's internationally recognised name.

-The use of the term was purely "for all purposes within the United Nations"; it was not being mandated for any other party.[17]

-The term did not imply that the Republic of Macedonia had any connection with the existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as opposed to the historical and now-defunct Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --MacedoniaBitola (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatigue does not equal consensus

So far, I've read nothing here in the last week that wasn't said 10 times at Talk:Greece and at least 20 times in other places before that. The Greek nationalists continue to stonewall the issue and present the same arguments ad infinitem against recognizing the most common English name for Macedonia. But they make a serious semantic error. They equate "fatigue" with "consensus". I read Lord of the Rings five or six times and eventually tired of reading it. So, too, here. There is nothing new despite the continued recruiting efforts of the Greek nationalists to get new editors to say the same old things. The issue is in ARBCOM now and I won't comment here anymore. But do not make the mistake of equating fatigue with consensus. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

And, regretably, others continue to throw arouond inflammatory and at times false terms like "Greece nationalists" to seemingly attempt to discount their comments. There does not need to be anything "new" by the way if the old statements are addressing relevant matters of policies and guidelines. And I hope that the above editor realizes that my being the only one who has responded to this additional inflammatory post doesn't mean that there are not a number of others who object to such language as well.

It would, however, be a good idea for everyone to leave this alone for a while. There is little if anything that can be done while ArbCom is deciding the issue. And, personally, if I were a member of the ArbCom, and I thank God I am not, I might well say to myself, "A pox on both their houses" after having to read through all the material about this dispute. I don't think that would help anyone's cause. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed John. I now understand where Taivo is coming from, but a took me a while, so here are phrases used by the neutral Taivo on these pages..and their translations for those new to the debate to understand. I have used word for word direct quotes:

• Greek nationalists & parochial interest groups = An editor of Greek origin.
• that village in Greece & some town in the southeastern corner of Europe = When describing Athens.

More to come later when Taivo overcomes his fatigue. Reaper7 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind Τaivo and STOP referring to the Greeks and all the others with a different opinion than yours as "nationalists"? It's really sad and annoying what you are doing. Do you have arguments? Bring them! If you don't agree with someone's opinion, talk with him... but please don't use such words to justify your side. --xvvx (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

Recent posts appear to have been prompted by Greek nationalist bloggers telling their readers to come and post here. See WP:AN/I#Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki. If it gets out of hand, I suggest that someone should semi-protect this talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Has to be seen to be believed. The Greek nationalists have a lot to learn from their Fyromian counterparts! Like get the media involved!! This is this very article being advertised by a FYROM TV Station. Of course, Greek Nationalists obviously have a lot to learn from Fyrom Nationalists

http://www.kanal5.com.mk/ShowNews.aspx?ItemID=50816&mid=1500&tabId=1&tabindex=0

Reaper7 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I might be a newly registered user but over the years, I've made significant contributions to hundreds of Wikipedia articles, in three languages. AFAIK, Wikipedia doesn't prevent anonymity. I've created this account in order to be able to track what is a serious matter to many Wikipedians. You seem to try to justify your actions by labeling others as "nationalists", while you're the first to blame for promoting nationalism, even if you didn't want to. If fellow Wikipedians want to find out about my arguments for Macedonia's open case, they can go here. Let them be the judge. You're clearly not in a position to be one, since neutrality is a word that escaped from your lexicon. In any case, it is interesting to see that you follow "greek nationalist blogs"; they surely are beyond my aesthetics. Reading this, some could suggest that you had an agenda regarding Macedonia's move. But not me; I do not represent the thought police. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is the translation of my original newgroup posting that was taken and spread around the greek internets, in whole or in part, altered or not. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not see any post that promotes Greek nationalism.I suppose that this post seems to be written from FYROMian nationalists or agents. Provocation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.216.18 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to just remove off-topic posts on sight. In my humble opinion, posts discussing the merits of the issue here on this page are not productive, since the matter has been brought to the Arbitration Committee. Hence, nothing said here will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the case, and I cannot imagine that any administrator would dare to move the page in direct violation of the ArbCom injunction. I am reluctant to propose outright banning any discussion of this, but something needs to be done to prevent this page from descending into total chaos. Does anyone have any ideas/thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a little late with posting a link already posted on the ANI for example... You don't have to create a new section but could've rather added this to the above one. chandler ··· 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the bold title of the first one concerning greek nationalists is very strong, so to balance the arrogance and indeed how much heavier the Fyromian nationalist side is using a TV station, I have decided to mirror the title, thus showing the original editor, in glass houses, don't through Nukes. Don't get me wrong, ChrisO will try to get every little anti Greek statement out into public, but today at least, he learnt that some readers will now see how far Fyromians go to promote their special brand of post communist propaganda, - doesn't make nice reading. Reaper7 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with your language Reaper!-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 19:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What language? Reaper7 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not let other people call you with different name except with the common name - Greek. If you call other people as "FYROMIANS" do not get angry if someone calls you according to one country in Africa. Regards-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's wrong about Africa? I didn't quite get this.--Avg (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some on the Slavic side call Greeks "Ethiopians" or something like that, as an insult. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The title of this section could be reasonably seen as a violation of WP:NPA, even if not directed against anyone in particular. I thus suggest that the heading be removed, particularly as it covers the same material as the last previous heading. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would propose something like merge the topics under the name "Off-wiki canvassing by both sides" or something chandler ··· 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the title and merged it with the previous section, whose title I've also changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO I have replied to you remarks in the arbitration talk. For the history I support the new user that you attacked. This whole section should probably be compacted from cluttering the rest of this discussion Shadowmorph (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all rational enough to preserve a clear state of mind despite our differences. However I am sad to see that few editors favoring the current state of the article, actually have real arguments. Because, let's face it, calling every supporter of the Greek side a "nationalist" is not an argument, it's mud throwing. Now, I am glad to see that the case is being examined at a higher level, and I hope against hope that a satisfying solution will be found. Having said that, I think that monopolizing the name Macedonia is not correct, and I am in favor of a disambiguation page for the term Macedonia, as in the past.Alfadog777 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the name of the article as it is right now is OK, since we all know that there are many cases like this one. For example, the country Moldova is not called Republic of Moldova, but simply as Moldova although there is a region in Romania with the same name. Another example is the name of the country Luxembourg, it is named as Luxembourg not as Grand Duchy of Luxembourg although there are a district and a canton with the same name. The name is not a problem, there are explanations at the top of the article and anyone that searches for the Greek part of Macedonia would write Greek Macedonia (Macedonian (Greece) or Aegean Macedonia), West Macedonia, Central Macedonia or Eastern Macedonia. These articles are separate enough. Thanks-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Before this debate if I typed in Macedonia I would expect to come across Alexanders Macedonia ie, Greek Macedonia. Perhaps it's because I have a passing interest in ancient Greece. I certainly wouldn't expect to see Macedonia, or as it was previously called on wiki, Republic of Macedonia. Am I typical of most people? I don't have that answer but wouldn't be surprised if I was. Why the objection to Macedonia being a disambiguation page? Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you see Macedonian history as Greek one or Macedonian one.-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it have to be seen as both? The ancient Macedonians where Greek where they not? Or has my passing interest been too passing? Jack forbes (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What you say is undoubtedly correct, yet someone who just wants to "surf" on the page, or get some initial information regarding Macedonia, sees this page initially. It is easy to skip the little text on the top. I think that it is not a case of deleting an unnecessary disambiguation page, but a case of making Wikipedia friendlier to the inexperienced user. That is why I am in favor of the initial disambiguation page, as it was in the past. Also, I think that it is not correct to monopolize the name Macedonia and right now, intentionally or not, that is what is happening. Unfortunately, we are entangled in a dispute. Allowing for good manners, and not monopolizing such sensitive matters, will only speed up the finding of consensus. Many Thanks to you my friend, for keeping a cool head, something difficult in these days Alfadog777 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The predominant view of scholars is that ancient Macedonians were Greeks (same language,religion, society structures, participation in the Olympic Games, etc.) However, recently Former Yugoslav ROM ,has posed claims on the ancient Macedonian history, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfadog777 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the point of this chapter? Maybe Wikipedia should ban the TV station for showing this. But I admit that it is a slow news week for this kind of stuff to be shown. But regardless, this section should be removed per WP:CRYSTALLBALL and WP:NOTAFORUM. PMK1 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Boris I of Macedonia?

Are you kidding me?

By the way, Boris I is also the father of Simeon I The Great.

Not to mention the misleading reference to Samuel -- the unsuspecting reader would think that he's Macedonian, when in fact his lifetime opponent bears the name Basil II Macedon (!) the Bulgar (!) Slayer.

[[53]]

The Slavic peoples that settled in the region of Macedonia accepted Christianity as their own religion around the 9th century, during the reign of prince Boris I of Macedonia, and these lands became part of the Bulgarian Empire.

Vandalism protected.. Nickanor (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Must have been some old vandalism that accidentally slipped through. Now corrected. Relax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

yes vandalism, whats that in his hand!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.161.162 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Last time I visited the Macedonia article I was directed to the disambiguation page where the great geographical region was mentioned and the visitor could see all the terms that refer to Macedonia. And now I open the Macedonia article and see the fYROM state which was hosted under the Republic of Macedonia name (like People's Republic of China instead of China and so on). Now I'm directed to Macedonia, as if the two states and the international community under conflict have already resolved the issue deciding to grand the name Macedonia to the modern state. Is Wikipedia's role to solve international issues before the international leaders do so? Because I thought it was just an encyclopedia with historical facts, tested by time! What's Future Perfect and other editors role in this project? They started by fighting over self-made ambiguous maps, then saying that if Mexico recognizes the country as fYROM it's a bummer, writing ambiguous historical articles and now drop the mask. I'm asking you directly. Are you part of an ongoing propagnada or is it just me? Because if you are, whis issue should go up to the wikimedia to be resolved and have only neutral editors left the right to edit. And to my surprise, the article is locked so that noone can alter such an concerning act for the whole project! This is serious ladies & gentlemen. Some user's role in the project should be examined by the community.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have been on Easter holidays (probably) and you are surprised (naturally), read the whole talk page here for some history. The issue was taken to an Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia (ARBCOM) you can view the initial statements of the involved editors here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2. Be prepared that you might be attacked because you have a Greek nickname. Evidence are presented here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence. Please don't post anything irrelevant there, I'm just informing you, not pushing you to write on any party's behalf (the previous sentence is a disclaimer).Phew! Just to be helpful :) Shadowmorph (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the section name acronym you have given. Please behave :) Shadowmorph (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacedoniaBitola (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 

Antiquity, Ancient Kingdom, etc. in the disambiguation note at the top of the page (only)

This section only focuses on the single bit of text accompanying the links to other "Macedonias" at the top of the page. I'll delete any comments that don't further that single purpose. (Taivo (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

The "unrelated" is entirely unnecessary. Macedonia was an ancient kingdom, period. It wasn't "Greece", it wasn't "The Republic", it was just the ancient "Kingdom of "Macedonia". The "unrelated" is a weasel word. "Ancient kingdom" should be quite sufficient. (Taivo (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Only ancient kingdom? Can you tell us what Macedonia was know by in the Roman & Byzantium periods?

Macedonia did not die and dissolve after Alexander the Great. Macedonia and especially Salonika have kept the name/language/religion for millennia. Reaper7 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom) only goes up to the end of the kingdom, not beyond. This note at the top of the page only lists the most salient alternate search term for "Macedonia"--all the others (Roman province, Byzantine province, town in Georgia, etc.)--will be found on the disambiguation page. In other words, this is not the disambiguation page, this discussion only focuses on the "See further" banner at the top of the page--not on anything else. My title didn't make that clear. This is a single-topic focused discussion that covers a single phrase of text that Shadowmorph and myself have been working on. (Taivo (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

That is exactly the reason I originally proposed the phrase "in Ancient Greece". I have a written about this in the other talk page, why the phrase "in Ancient Greece" is both short, to the point and correct. I'll summarize for you Taivo. You seemed to believe that I was pushing that Ancient Greece = Ancient Macedonia . That cannot be logical since the first is a kingdom and the second is a time period (or a general qualitative idea). We must be clear to the casual reader that expects to see about which one of the ancient Macedonias we refer (like you said we don't mean the Roman one). Therefore we should include this "in Ancient Greece": Ancient Greece is not a country but a time period and an idea. See Ancient Greece. It's like saying "in antiquity" but it is more correct because it is more specific and accurate. It's like saying "for the empire in Middle Ages see Byzantium". You wouldn't say "for the old empire ...". Besides Ancient Greece was also culturally where ancient Macedonia belongs. The very thing that we have to converse about the obvious truth of that makes it appear like you are pushing some POV that ancient Macedonia was something else. Do you? When was it if not in ancient Greece? Shadowmorph (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

I have said so before that those little bits of text next to dab links are of crucial important details and should not be taken for granted. But I want to ask something about your state of mind again. Are you anti-Greek? Because in every single edit I have seen from you was to omit the word Greece, or make Greece look like a distant outsider of Macedonia. I would compromise if we include Macedonia (Greece) or at least Macedonia (region) in the top link. It isn't enough that this page has been moved by consent of one person (ChrisO) with himself? Now we have to marginalize/hide/erase all Macedonia-(Greece)/Ancient-Greece from near the title too? We can't just use "for other uses" alone like there is no geopolitcal context. That's called hiding the truth or misleading Shadowmorph (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We are trying to get the most neutral wording here possible--neither focusing on the "Greek" nature of the word "Macedonia", nor on the "Slavic" nature. The ancient kingdom, while eventually fitting within the cultural sphere of ancient Greece, was not originally "Greek". (Linguistically, yes, Ancient Macedonian was related to Ancient Greek.) Indeed, many ancient authors focus on the non-Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians and lumped them in with the barbaroi. It was only during the reigns of Philip (sort of, Demosthenes would disagree) and later Alexander that Macedonia became culturally Greek, or, actually I think, that Greece became more Macedonian ;) But the most neutral wording for the disambiguation tag is one that is neither Greek-oriented, nor Slavic-oriented, but simply Macedonian-oriented--"ancient kingdom" without qualifiers in either direction. While we can argue over the title (in another place), let's try to make this phrase as vandal-resistant as possible. "Greece" in that tag line is just an invitation for Macedonian vandals. The word "Ancient" should be quite sufficient to clue in someone who is searching for the ancient world. (Taivo (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I am not anti-Greek and we are not talking about modern politics here. We want readers to go to the article on the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm out of here for a few hours, so don't expect a speedy response to your next comment. (Taivo (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Renowned ancient Greek authors like Herodotus and Thucydides claimed that the ancicent Macedonians where Greeks. It was common for the more 'central' Greeks to discrimate agaisnt other Greeks that were further away. The people of Syracause, which was undisputably, were also discrimated against by by the Greeks from the Peloponnese and Attica/Central Greece just like the ancient Macedonians. Kyriakos (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7 we are not talking about the actual truth here, rather on the correct wording. Well if by Taivo we use the simplest and more neutral solution it would be just "See also" for everything. How is that clarifying? We have already marginalized all other major meanings. Shadowmorph (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have a proposal as I agree with Taivo about vandal-resistance. Let's use this way: 'not to be confused with Macedonia (ancient kingdom)' alone. It is shorter and avoids the wording problem all together. Another question. Doesn't this pitiful debate illustrate that Macedonia should at least be Macedonia (republic). The problem would have been solved all together. Imagine other content disputes from now: e.g. "His mother is Greek from Macedonia and his father is Macedonian from Greek Macedonia"'. What is his ethnicity? We won't be able to make any sense at from now Oh... the fatigue... in my brain :) Shadowmorph (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've read your compromise wording, Shadowmorph. There's something about it that says more than "Look here for this other thing". I still don't understand why the simplest wording is not satisfactory for you. This phrase isn't about stressing the "Greekness" of ancient Macedonia. It is simply to point the reader to something else--the ancient kingdom. Why can't we just say what is there now, basically: "If you're looking for the ancient Macedonian kingdom, look here"? (Taivo (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

"His mother is Greek from Macedonia and his father is Macedonian from Greek Macedonia", that looks pretty easy, as you've written it, the mother is greek, the father is greek (if you mean Macedonian from Greek Macedonia as in "Texan from the United States, Texas"), therefore their son/daughter would be greek. chandler ··· 04:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DISAMBIGUATION

I am sorry for your deleting my thoughts, Taivo, but what I say is to the point and I believe they should be here, perhaps under a headline to avoid disrupting your conversation. After abolishing the disambiguation page, now we are trying to find ways to substitute it by adding phrases and written re directions. Just by discussing this, we accept that renaming the article and deleting the disambiguation page has created more problems to the users, while solving none regarding the dispute. In fact it has led to an Arbitration process. And still there are people here supporting that this is "the right thing to do", the "simple" way to refer to FYROM (or RoM, suit yourself) and that there is nothing wrong with the current state of the article. And in any case, it is standard practice, when Wikipedia contains two or more different articles under the same name, to use a disambiguation page. But no, not here, this is different. I dare ask why ? Until a satisfactory answer, backed by ARGUMENTS, is given, every baffled Wikipedia user that typed "Macedonia" and landed on this article, will assume that Wikipedia' s information on the subject is biased, and thus, cannot be trusted. This is exactly why Wikipedia employs disambiguation pages, and not text messages saying "To see X, go there, To see Y, go here".Alfadog777 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First, the Arbitration was already gonna happen. Second THE DISAMBIGUATION PAGE IS NOT DELETED. And if you don't know that, you only seem like a one purpose account created to use because you think Greece have monopoly on the name "Macedonia". The standard practice is NOT to have dismabiguation pages when there are primary topics. Europe (Europe (disambiguation)) has more than 1 meaning, NOT A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. Greece (Greece (disambiguation)) has more than 1 meaning, NOT A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. "every baffled Wikipedia user that typed "Macedonia" and landed on this article", No, the term "Macedonia" in English (and dare I say everywhere except greece) refers to the country. "I saw England play Macedonia on Wembley last week", you won't get a single person to say "W00t since when did a Greek region have a national football team?". chandler ··· 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, the only one monopolizing the name Macedonia is the pro FYROM (or RoM) side with the naming of this article. A disambiguation page serves its purpose only if it is the first to appear in a search. Examples of baffled users you can see above, and they are only the ones who actually bothered to post in the discussion page. The Arbitration process was sped up dramatically because of the renaming, and its agenda changed because of it. Also, there are NOT two places contesting the name Europe or Greece in the world, but there are two places contesting the name Macedonia, so a disambiguation is essential to preserve neutrality. From what you are saying, it seems you are, in fact, the one in favor of monopolizing the name, rather than me. I NEVER advocated the sole use of the name Macedonia by any one of the two sides involved. It is the article, in its current form, that grants the name to one of the two sides, disregarding consensus. The fact that I am relatively new here, does not imply, in any case, that I am a "sole purpose account". And finally, a word takes its meaning in the context of a phrase, the fact that you use the term "Macedonia" to refer to the country, does not mean others do likewise. The search in Google proved otherwise, and I think now, with evidence from Google, it is time to put an end to this "common English" argument.Alfadog777 (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to break the news, but in English (and probably all languages in the world, excluding Greek) Macedonia is the common name to refer to this country. And it does hold a "monopoly" whether you like it our not, on the common name, not the name, but the common name. Just as Greece holds monopoly on the common name "Greece". chandler ··· 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin the party, but this country did not exist less than two decades ago. Its independence was officially recognised in 1993. It's recognised name isn't "Macedonia". Republic of Ireland doesn't have any "monopoly" on the island. People's Republic of China doesn't have any monopoly either. On one hand, there is a region established for thousands of years and on the other hand, a 16 years old country. Leave "monopolies" or the BBC outside of your arguments. This is an encyclopedia and according to its policies, the most reliable sources are academic ones. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

When you "new" users actually learn what common English usage actually means, and that it has nothing to do with "recognition" (by whom?) maybe there would be productive discussion, instead of the same arguments, continually circulated by nationalists more than anybody else. That is, if you don't want to be labelled a nationalist, don't rant like a nationalist. And try to realise the context in which Chandler used "monopoly" - he is correct. BalkanFever 02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of makind direct and indirect accusations, consider reading WP:CIV and WP:RS; then, indulge as. 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SQRT5P1D2 (talk • contribs)

I call it as I see it. BalkanFever 11:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the point. There is no consensus about the common English usage.

• Chandler said: (in English (and probably all languages in the world, excluding Greek) Macedonia is the common name to refer to this country) .
• Macedonia is also the common name for the region and the popular ancient kingdom widely recognized in the past and the present. Even if the common name (not the official FYR Macedonia) is used for the country, this does not prevent the Macedonia article being a disambiguation page itself as it was for years. Republic of Macedonia as a meaning is not like Europe vs Europe (band) Nickanor (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is no consensus about the common English usage.", sorry but, "Greeks blocking" is not "no consensus". Do a simple news search, oh what's that? Delicious tears. chandler ··· 08:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see more academic Tears. Is it more about the country or the region? Nickanor (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And here is Macedonia in encarta.

• Common usage does not exlude clarification. Because Macedonia (republic) does not superimpose itself upon all other Macedonias in every spectrum of human science and information. Nickanor (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but academic books (seems like 2 of the first 3 hits are about the country?) don't weight up against common usage, both in news and every non-greek person. I'll give you the same example I gave Avg [54]. chandler ··· 09:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

chandler said : (ancient macedonia will be referred to as Ancient Macedonia, just as Ancient Greece, or Ancient Egypt is)

Women and monarchy in Macedonia‎ by Elizabeth Donnelly Carney (ancient)

A History of Macedonia. by N.G.L. Hammond (ancient)

Macedonia; Its Races and Their Future By Henry Noel Brailsford (region) Nickanor (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

and here is a response from a non-Greek person [55]

No consensus.Nickanor (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ancient History", you didn't see that did you? You see how he puts it in context? He's established that the book is about Ancient Macedonia, you think he's going to write "ancient" in front of every Macedonia in the book, a book which talks about history long pre-dating modern day Macedonia? But you bore me, "no consensus" from a 3 day old SPA... Yea, I'm sure you know every policy be heart yet. Consensus isn't "everyone has to agree". I'm gonna watch the Formula One you can shove off to el:Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας and keep up the non-neutral pov there. I'll give you the links again, Do a simple news search. Or are you proposing moving Greece and Egypt away from their pages? I mean we have Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, there's obviously no consensus which is the most common because all books talking about the history of the ancient civilizations don't put Ancient in front of every word... Sounds like no consensus to me chandler ··· 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent in Wikipedia for what to do when one word refers at once to a country, a region of another country, a former country, and places in more countries - Georgia. It's a dab. When you just type in the word, it makes no assumptions about what the person is seeking, and simply gives them all the options. Is that not the simplest and least contentious thing to do also with Macedonia? (Moving the country either to RoM, which it wants to be recognised under, FYRoM as it sits in the UN, or even Macedonia (Country), which would recognise the geopolitical reality without necessarily endorsing it --Saalstin (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Saalstin: Georgia is indeed a precedent, but for interminable battles over the name. Look at the top of Talk:Georgia and you will see that there have been six proposal to make "Georgia" the tiltle of the country page . Since the article is protected, the only difference from the present issue is that (until now) there was nobody who was eager to "cut a Gordian Knot". Maybe ChrisO is tempted to do this ...  Andreas  ^(T) 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

News-Googling improves Wikipedia..

Since Apollo spacecratf hits more than Apollo the God ; Apollo should refer mainly to the outerspace. This is the common usage...

Fortuna refers to people and places and nothing about Fortuna. Let's pick a popular one.

Sparta nothing about Sparta

Artemis nothing about Artemis

Jason nothing about Jason

This is the common usage... Nickanor (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the term " nationalist " enjoys far too frequent use. Just because I happen to have a different opinion, being against a unilateral change of name and defend Wikipedia's standard of consensus, I am a "nationalist" ? How about the ones sharing a different opinion from myself ? Shouldn't they be called likewise? Calling someone a nationalist simply exposes your lack of persuasive counterarguments. Although such personal attacks are now standard practice of the pro FYROM (or RoM) side, I still firmly believe that we all want the best for the article. This is why I hope that we will restrict ourselves to arguments, opinions and evidence. I believe that Wikipedia is against personal attacks and name calling in general, and I urge everyone to conform to its standards. Also, you can see that additional users are in favor of the disambiguation. So, you can see that the coin has two sides. Perhaps we should take both views into account instead of christening one "correct" and the other "nationalistic". Regards, Alfadog777 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Luxembourg...

Macedonia should be named MACEDONIA and only MACEDONIA, that is the name that we choose and that's a basic human right, like it or not. Macedonia is a country and nation (Macedonians), there is a region Macedonia too, but first of all is a country and the people who live in are Macedonians, for centuries...

Let's take Luxembourg for example: There is a region in Belgium called Luxembourg... but the article about Luxembourg is not called "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg" as its official name, but only Luxembourg, people of Belgium are not so ignorant like the Greeks... please. --MacedoniaBitola (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion page regarding the improvement of the Wikipedia article, not for general discussion, or pushing a side's POV. Both sides have arguments backing their case, it is not Wikipedia that will decide the outcome of the dispute. Please post comments regarding the improvement of the article, not what you think about the dispute or we will get nowhere with this.Alfadog777 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many users have explicitly stated their dislike for the current title of the article, as it is confusing. This is because of the ongoing controversy regarding the naming issue. Greek Macedonia's history spans millenia, in contrast to 16 years that FYROM (or RoM) is a country. No side has the right to monopolize the name as you imply. This is why a disambiguation page is necessary in this case.Alfadog777 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYROM isn't the only country in the region and doesn't have the name Macedonia exclusively. The Republic of Ireland, which bears bears this name in order to avoid confusion with Ireland, the island as a whole. Kyriakos (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1.There is no Luxemburgism like Macedonism
• 2.Luxemburg does not have the historic significance and connotation of Macedonia.
• 3.There was never a Luxemburgish question.
• 4.Luxemburg region in Belgium has not been the main Luxemburg like South Macedonia region for centuries.Nickanor (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is no Luxemburgism like Macedonism", oh the fail... chandler ··· 06:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

.. Rosa Luxemburg ..not Luxemburg (state) that's the fail.. Nickanor (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then learn to spell. BalkanFever 10:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that English isn't his first language and that he trying his best to be grammatically correct. So there is no need to bite him. Kyriakos (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just having a bit of fun. And biting a single-purpose account can't be that bad, anyway. BalkanFever 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, biting will get you nowhere... And in fact, we have the pleasure of seeing you frequently, so maybe you are something similar to a one-purpose account yourself...Alfadog777 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

16 years existence of Macedonia?? LOL If talk in that way than we can say that Greece exists only 188 years (declared independence in 1821), Macedonia as a country existed in the Yugoslav federation since 1945, not 1991. No matter we declared indpendence in 1991, the Macedonian nation exists for centuries and its homeland is Macedonia. Greek Macedonia doesn't exists, Macedonia was never a part of Greece (it is since 1912), Greece occupied Macedonia in 1913. And Alexander the Great and his empire of course are not Greek. --MacedoniaBitola (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What About Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan (Iran)? Maybe we should called the country Azerbaijan, the "former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan" Ijanderson (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What if it was California?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question about an area you are not indifferent about: Supposedly the rest of the world would speak some other language (say Roman, so this would be Roman Wikipedia). In that scenario think of the US as the only country opposing the monopolization of the name by a hypothetical country called "Republic of California". Imagine that hypothetical country was the former Mexican province of Baja California. Imagine that they initially had embraced this flag or this as their own. Then imagine that people from all over the world out of indifference started calling them just "California" and ignoring or doubting parts of the history of the US state, making allusions that it is their own. Furthermore their president was taking oaths[56], under a map of California that looked like this map. How would the Californians handle that case? Remember that in that scenario they would be called by everyone as "American Californians" and Californian would be reserved for the hypothetical country's residents. I'm trying to give you a taste of the realities of the Balkans in the past 20 years (not to mention the wars). Well, we know how they reacted for a mere advertising campaing[57], imagine if it was the real deal! Shadowmorph (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy might be correct but this doesn't necessarily make it relevant. I read this essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/MOSMAC2 which, assuming in good faith that it doesn't contain outright lies, states that in Wikipedia naming disputes, political points of view are ignored. I glanced over that text out of curiosity, and I certainly don't have any knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but the approach of ignoring political arguments when choosing a name seems quite reasonable.

Back to your analogy: yes, you're making a valid point, but I think that this is a different dispute. I sympathize with Greeks defending their historical heritage (the ancient Macedonians) which were obviously Greek. But, as long as the only Wikipedia articles that claim otherwise are in Macedonian and Serbian, it's all good. :)

What you say is correct, but keep in mind that one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason Greeks and Greek Macedonians, in particular, try to prevent monopolization of the name is that if the FYROM (or RoM) side claims sole right on the name today, then tomorrow they will claim rights of the Ancient Macedonian history. In fact we have seen quite a few examples of such claims right here, in this discussion page, check previous posts if you like. You should note that history as perceived by the state of FYROM (or RoM) is very different than the rest of the world. The fact that practically every scholar, with very few noted exceptions, dismisses their claims does not seem to deter them. The fact is, that this is merely the first step. They claim direct connection to the Ancient Macedonians, when in fact they are of Slavic descendance, they speak nothing like Ancient Greek, the language of Ancient Macedon (and yes, Ancient Macedonian are an Ancient Greek dialect), and still they claim heritage of Alexander and Phillip (both Greek names, by the way). This is the reason that Greeks and Greek Macedonians, in particular, feel so strong regarding this dispute. Alfadog777 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that Macedonia has been known as Macedonia under Yugoslavia like 50 years before their independence while Baja California isn't known as California in Mexico. chandler ··· 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if Mexico decides tomorrow to rename the province to just "California" (like Yugoslavia did 50 years ago with Vardar Banovina) then in 2060 if Mexico breaks up it would be the same case. By the way I'd like to express my sympathy to everyone in Mexico and in the adjacent US regions that are worried about the recent pig flu epidemic Shadowmorph (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If that happened, who knows, but at least in the western world I'd say California is already a such a known thing, its already so commonly known. I mean, how many other countries than your own do you know provinces/regions/states in? Most would probably only know the USA. Macedonia in Greece isn't I would say even widely known to non-Greeks, just as Lapland probably isn't widely known to non-Swedes. chandler ··· 07:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The state of Macedonia, I('m pretty sure would be much more commonly known than Lapland. Interesting point by Shadowmorph. Kyriakos (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the country would be, and is. But not necessarily Macedonia the greek region or Peloponnese, or regions from other countries. chandler ··· 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Peloponnese and the Greek part of Macedonia would be better known world wide than the average naitonal state due to their rich history, which is learnt worldwide. Kyriakos (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Macedonia (Greece) is commonly known worldwide, (the claim that it is not known inside Greece is outright ridiculous, do Englishmen not know of Scotland ?), much more than Lapland or most other state regions around the world due to its history. The same history FYROM (or RoM) is trying to falsify as their own. The same is being done with Bulgarian history. Just because they recently decided they are a separate nation and even more recently formed a sovereign state (recently compared to the millenia Macedonian Greek history spans) they are not entitled to monopolize such a historic name, or to claim the history that goes with it. History does not change, at least not without overwhelming evidence. Evidence that FYROM (or RoM) is trying to invent, instead of finding (because simply such serious evidence do not exist). I ask you what would be the case if some Scandinavian region became independent and claimed the name Scotland? How would the UK respond to that? I guess your attitude and arguments to that would be very different from what you display here, just like the stance of the rest of the world would. Isn't this plain bias towards Greece? Thing is you are calling everyone else biased because of Greek nationality, when in fact you are the one biased against Greece, as displayed by your arguments and stance.Alfadog777 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Chandler is right but in my scenario what is "known" and what is "not known" would be different. I.e: EU and US would be in reverse roles. Oh, and doesn't a Wiki-pedia exist supposedly to present knowledge? Shadowmorph (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia once used to be known widely, like in 1900's[58]. I would hate it if the same happened to California in 100 years from now. But as I have said so in another section above[59], today's and future battles are fought for the information, not the land mass. Shadowmorph (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Νo comment.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alfadog, the state propaganda in Macedonia is a valid concern for the Greek, in particular because as far as I can tell most people around the world know about Alexander the Great -- fewer make the connection with ancient Greece. IMO Greece is doing the right thing politically. My point was that if Wikipedia strives to ignore politics, political arguments against the name Macedonia for this article should be ignored. And if you have any doubt that this is a political argument, look at the title of this section. 76.90.31.1 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Times change and so does context, so if there was a country called Republic of California, I would expect to type in "California" and be lead straight to the country article. Ijanderson (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting response. I note that the state of California as is would be the 35th most populuous country, and would have a GDP placing it roughly in the top 10 in the world. What would you do if there were both the extant state of California and a separate country which also called itself California? I'm only asking because that would be a closer approximation to the current situation than simply talking about the possibility of their being a separate country by itself. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

@John, I would expect the Country California to be under the title 'California' and have 'California (Country)' as a redirect to 'California', then the state California should be under 'California (State)'. There should also be an article called ' California (Disambiguation)'. Ijanderson (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the country

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article must change title. The name of the country is in dispute by United Nations (UN), European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Additionaly, many countries in Europe, America, Africa, Asia and Oceania have not reckognize this country as "Macedonia". There is also the Intermediate Agreement in the UN to use the name FYROM for the country until FYROM and Greece find a solution to the name. All people in this planet know that the problem is that the government of Skopje using the term "Macedonians" for that nation, comes to a very appropriate result. That is; the real Macedonians can't use their subnational identity because someone else will be using it. When I say real, I mean those who kept the language, the culture and the castoms of ancient Macedonians in all periods of history until today. Because the Macedonians (Greek) were almost the same in these levels for all those years of history; in ancient times, hellenistic times, roman times, byzantine times, ottoman times and modern times. It is strange for someone to called "Macedonian" to cannot read an ancient label written in stone by ancient Macedonians, when in the same time, a real Macedonian can read it. As the situation is right now, I don't see what kind of scope leads Wikipedia to have an article like this, participating by this way in the name dispute and adopt the thesis of the one side. The real article is FYROM. Macedonia is something else.... (Pyraechmes (talk) Chrusts 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Pyraechmes, but you are just the next in a long line of Greek editors saying exactly the same thing (over and over). 1) Wikipedia is not bound by international political usage or agreements. 2) Wikipedia is guided by common English usage. 3) Common English usage by a wide variety of measurements is plainly and clearly "Macedonia" for the Republic of Macedonia. You're just on the wrong side of common English usage. To the majority of English speakers, "FYROM" is just a meaningless string of letters. (Taivo (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC And what about the Macedonia (region), the Macedonia (Greece), the Macedonia (Bulgaria), the Macedonian (Greek) etc?? Aren't they parts of the rich English vocabulary? Or maybe the English speaking people don't care about those terms? And what about Georgia? Isn't a country? Why Wikipedia leads into two pricipal meanings? After all there are over 6 millions of Greeks who speak English as mother tongue, and over 20 milions English speakers who care about the real Macedonia, such as historians, anthropologists, linguists, archeologists and ethnologists, politicians etc. (Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) There's nothing about them. Don't you know Macedonia is in fact Macedonia and should in its own right incorporate Macedonia fulfilling the dream of Macedonia? You can't have possibly missed that. Joke aside, I don't know about common English, but I hope common Sense prevails and we go back to (probably) the only NPOV "Republic of Macedonia". --Laveol T 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'll just reiterate, Pyraechmes, there isn't anything you're saying that hasn't been said ad nauseum a score of times before. Wikipedia uses the most common meaning for "Macedonia" which leads to the name of the country. If you don't want to read about the country you can follow one of the hat links below the name to join the minority of readers who want to read about one of the other meanings of "Macedonia". But most users of Wikipedia (about 5 to 1) are looking for the country when they are looking for information on "Macedonia". That's about all that needs to be said on the subject at this time. (Taivo (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)) Wikipedia does NOT use this name in this case as an official policy... don't forget Taivo that it is under arbitration, because it was "conveniently" imposed some weeks ago. Pyraechmes, this whole issue is under arbitration and is to be resolved. Some weeks ago things were different and consensus was achieved. Then, an admin changed the naming that was used in Wikipedia for many years (Republic of Macedonia), eliminated the disambiguation page and locked his changes so that his actions would not be reverted. Now, he and his actions are under judgment by the Arbitration Committee, which has temporarily ruled that no change be done until its ruling. Taivo is just one who supports the current situation (a history of about 4-5 weeks) over the preexistent one (4-5-6 years...) and is of course acting as if this temporary situation is permanent... Click here for more info on the ArbCom's proceedings [60] GK1973 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) When someone is writiνg an encyclopedia, he makes policy, he is promoting his beliefs. It's a mean of propaganda. You know, the first printing machine that was invented some centuries ago had the scope to promote propaganda leaflets. So, an encyclopedia on the internet is a very strong mean of propaganda. Because the knowledge is interactive. It is not depended only by the reader but also by the editor. If the editor wants to teach his readers to use his terminology he can make it easily. And that's what wikipedia does right now. It teaches the world how to call the country. If someone wants to read about that country, he can do it even if he has to write its name a little bit different or different at all. When you write in Wikipedia China, what a surprise; there's no China country. Ask 10 people in the street of your town what is China...they all will answer the country. What that example shows? It shows that Wikipedia is making policy here. And now the policy of Wikipedia is to help the FYROM thesis to strengthen. Because most of the people that want to read about China are of chinese descent. Why Wikipedia don't lead them to Zonghua, as they know the name of the country? Because Wikipedia does not want to teach them that name. And it does not want to teach them to use the term China for the country, either. I think it is obvious what is going on here... Wikipedia found an easy way to make propaganda by taking advantage of its large popularity. (Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) No, that's just because "China" is the most common name of the country in English language, so the article gets that name per WP:COMMONAME. Conspiracy theories about Wikipedia trying to change the name of countries are not helpful. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC) First it was the self identification right, then the common English usage, i don't know what it will come up next. If we talk about the self identification right of 2.5million Greek Macedonians vs 1.3 in the Republic, they say nationality comes first, if we say 51% of the region is in the Greek territory and 38% in the Republic, they say country comes first. If we say Greece have historical and cultural connection with ancient Macedonia, they say no one can have a connection with them, or that the ancient Macedonian was not a Greek kingdom. This conversation is going on and on, but always for some strange reason, points only on one side! --xvvx (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)