Talk:Greece/Naming poll

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

Need for a straw poll

• This matter has been demonstrated to be extremely contentious. Discussions, as easily observed above, quickly escalate to uncivil remarks, personal attacks, and accusations of racism, censorship, and bias. It is also an easily verifiable fact that Greek users take this matter very personally and vehemently object to any proposals meant to discuss this issue. Discussions are always disrupted endlessly; thus a straw poll, where each user shall provide their position in a simple and straightforward way, should be the only mechanism left to verify if the community, as a whole, would agree with the proposed changes.

Background for the proposal

• Greece recognizes this country as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). That country recognizes itself as the Republic of Macedonia. International recognition of the name of this country varies, with some countries and organizations recognizing it as "FYROM", and others as "Republic of Macedonia". On Wikipedia, the article on that country is under the title "Republic of Macedonia", as are all other Wikipedias (except the Greek one). Throughout Wikipedia, articles refer to that country as the "Republic of Macedonia", except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union. Elsewhere we have "Republic of Macedonia". The article Greece though, still uses "FYROM" in circumstances where we normally do not use it, such as in the first paragraph when the country is listed with the ones bordering Greece. Since this is not an exception, we should apply Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency, and change all FYROM mentions to "Republic of Macedonia".

Opposition rationale

Note, most of the following text comes directly from where this discussion *ought* to be, a Macedonia naming guideline that came very close to become active but was eventually scrapped (WP:MOSMAC). It has been moved here as a rationale for opposing the proposal.

Hello, I am NikoSilver, a major contributor in many Macedonia-related articles, the best of which being the featured Macedonia (terminology). I am too familiar with the Macedonia naming dispute from both sides (another article I practically wrote), and an active Wikipedian with more than 10,000 contributions in various -mainly controversial- issues, which happen to interest me a lot (out of sheer masochism?) Anyway, I'm obviously qualified in terms of accumulated knowledge on the issue, but I have a serious defect, so this is an official warning to all sides: I am Greek!

I will start with a very important note: The actual dispute here is over the breadth of breaching the consistence in the use of the article name in other articles. Not of whether this consistence should be breached at all, because this has already been agreed upon for articles related to UN, EU, NATO and all international organizations.

Simply put, this dispute tries to solve a long-standing dispute that can't be solved in the real world... The MOSMAC guideline had incorporated parts of the wisdom used in other similar ones, and the standard practice in WP until now. It was mostly agreed upon, apart from the sensitive part of how the Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would be called in some Greek-related articles.

Specifically, for years now, the practice is to use the long appellation for the country (as officially used by Greece and half of the world countries and all international organizations) in all Greek-related articles. The recent dispute originated from the view of some editors that those Greek-related articles should not be an exception any more.

My view is that it is the wrong thing to do. Not only for practical reasons (hordes of Greeks randomly changing the articles they naturally write), not only for sentimental reasons (we're not here to condole), but for sound reasons based on WP policy and common sense, which I am about to set forth below:

1. Article name

The article is now in Republic of Macedonia. The article name issue is irrelevant to the MoS guideline in question, however, it is important to note that the article name is indeed maybe the closest call among two appellations ("Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This is mainly due to the interpretation of the WP:NCON guideline. For details, expand the following section:

WP:NCON and interpretations

WP:NCON#Proper nouns text:

---

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

---

Interpretations

• Most common: There is a clear dispute over which is the "most common name". Google-tests etc fail to provide a clear result due to the multitude of uses of the term "Macedonia" for various irrelevant places, notably that of Macedonia (Greece). Furthermore the longer term incorporates the shorter one with the mere addition of "Former Yugoslav". Finally, there are various slight modifications of the long name (such as "FYR Macedonia", "FYR of Macedonia", "FY Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYRO Macedonia" etc etc). An attempted test for establishing which is the most common name was run when the article name was discussed years ago, and it turned out unsuccessful in providing an undisputed result. For details see the archived Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position.
• Official: There are disputes over what constitutes "official", or even what constitutes a "name".
  • It is argued that both names are "official". One is used by the constitution of the country, about half the world countries, and the country itself. The other is used by the United Nations and all other international organizations, by the other half of the world countries, and -again- by the country itself. You will have to be the judge of which is "official" and why the other is not.
  • It is argued that the UN term is not a "name" to begin with, but only a "temporary reference". The distinction between the two terms has been made in an interpretation of the UN agreements, yet the country itself is quoted using the terms "name" and "we are called" to describe it. So does the UN in various other documents.
• Self-id: Clearly, the short term is used as a self-identifying name. The dispute is over if the the long term is used as a self-id too. It is argued that the country is forced to use the long name by the UN agreements (and by extension by Greece), and that this should constitute a least "preferred" self-identification. Nevertheless, the country does use it for all international organizations. Notably for the UN, NATO, EU, IOC, FIFA, FIBA etc and for bilateral relations with half the world countries which don't recognize its constitutional name.

In my view it is also indisputable that in Greece-related subjects worldwide the "most common name" (per WP:NCON's first criterion) is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

2.WP:V

Again, to remind that it has already been agreed that the long name is used in all international organizations! The main rationale behind the choice of using the long name in the already agreed part of the policy (International Organizations etc) was that we cannot misquote those entities, and that anything else would not be verifiable. For example, as far as EU is concerned, there is only a "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accession talks, and we can't misquote the European Union, nor the country itself under this process, since anything else would not be verifiable by reliable sources.

In my view this rationale encompasses Greece. We cannot misquote Greece for the name of its side of the border, especially when the other country itself is addressed for all purposes to Greece as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". We can neither misquote Greece's administrative subdivisions when they say "we border the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia",^[1] nor an ethnic Greek when he says "I was born in what is now FYROM". This practice is largely followed by other online media (such as the Britannica),^[2] while others have chosen to use the long name uniformly (such as Encarta and the BBC).^[3]

3.Clarity

In the context of Greece-related articles, the use of the short name may largely be confused with the Greek Macedonia. See the following example:

Florina Prefecture lies in the historic region of Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the north.

In my view the uninformed reader is immediately puzzled as to what the hell is a Macedonian republic doing outside of a Macedonian region. If I were that reader, I'd either demand an explanation, or a link to an explanation. The chosen disambiguating term among the two Macedonias ("Republic of") is not sufficient to illustrate the distinction. On the other hand, the long term speaks for itself: "Former Yugoslav": It states that this republic was previously part of Yugoslavia.

In my view, within Greek articles, it is unfair and unorthodox to devise disambiguating terms or texts for the Greek region (which is indisputably plainly called "Macedonia"), so as not to use a perfectly legitimate, close-call, and -most importantly- sourced term to describe the (otherwise irrelevant) country. It violates the very principle of WP:NCON (self-identification) for the other Macedonia, which is plainly called that.

4.Practice in WP

In various instances where there is a conflict in terminology, Wikipedia has chosen to provide similar solutions for using different article names depending on the article's context. For example:

• WP:NC-CHINA: See the section WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof.

• Talk:Gdansk/Vote: See that (the now Polish) Gdansk is called Danzig "for biographies of German persons"

• The situation now: An informal consensus right now uses always the long name in all Greece-related articles.

5.Why are Greeks so irked in real life

This section is irrelevant to the policies of WP and the dispute in question. It is here merely for satisfying the curiosity of those wondering, in a brief manner. Expand it only if interested:

Greek position

This is the view of most "moderate" Greeks. The vast majority of the Greek population is annoyed not because of the name itself, but of how this name has been used. A name alone cannot harm anyone, however, the name "Macedonia" is constantly used by official sources and schoolbooks of the country as a means to advance historic and territorial claims:

Historic: Most Makedonskis (in the real world and in WP) believe to their bone that they descend from Alexander the Great and his kingdom/empire. This is the result of continuous governmental propaganda of years (cited in Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism). The problem of the Greeks is not necessarily to take their place in this genealogy tree (to which they arguably fit since the ancient Macedonians and their language/dialect were absorbed by the rest of the ancient Greeks). It is simply that the Slavs that came 1000 years later just don't have anything to do with them, yet they use that name to appropriate that part of history. I, as a Greek, don't see it as "stealing something which is mine". I see it as "monopolizing something which is everybody's, and definitely not only theirs".

Territorial: The persistence in the use of a name without the proposed qualifiers (such as Slav- or North) has been extended to territorial claims. It is the belief of most Makedonskis that Macedonia (Greece) (among others) is an "occupied region" of their country, merely because it carries the same name. This, again, is the result of governmental propaganda and is still endorsed by official printed material. For details, see the sourced article "United Macedonia".

It is worth to note that no Makedonski user of WP has ever criticized the above two fallacies, as it would be considered a "national crime"!^[4] On the other hand, there are many Greeks (in WP and in the real world) who have disputed the initial Greek position of "no Macedonia at all in the title". Hence, the Greek position has changed to demand just some sort of disambiguation. A disambiguation which would, of course, be totally unnecessary if the neighboring country didn't let those preposterous claims slip through official sources and if it didn't in fact endorse them.

Apart from those "material" claims, there is also the immaterial claim of the right to un-disambiguated self-identification. Most Greek Macedonians cannot understand why they suddenly have to use a qualifier for their regional name not to be confused with the ethnic group, while the ethnic group itself doesn't have to do the same in turn. The qualifier, in this case, may sound as signifying that the Greek Macedonians are a subset of the ethnic Macedonians, while in essence both groups are subsets of the Macedonian regioners (which is the only group which should be left without qualifiers, since it is the supergroup of both and others). In this sense, simple logic tends to erroneously equate the ethnic Macedonians to the Macedonian regioners, which further helps in the advancement of the above historic and territorial claims (quite successfully obviously -for the mindset of their own population at least). Just try to read this paragraph here by removing the qualifiers I used ("Greek", "ethnic", and "regioner"). See also Macedonism and The Ten Lies of Macedonism.

Given the above, the worldwide opinion has gradually started shifting towards favoring the (previously called "nationalist") Greek position. Check for a few examples below:

• France, Spain, and other important NATO allies supported Greece's veto towards the admission of the republic in the 2008 NATO summit. Sarkozy in particular said that they are "100% behind the Greek position".
• Australia (an English speaking nation) still officially calls the country with the long form name.
• The media are starting to heavily criticize these obsessive unhistoric and irredentist actions. (example)
• The US senate, passed a resolution for "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) [please note the name used in the title] should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM." Here's the senate's link: [1], and just to note that this resolution has been signed by more than 72 senators, including (then) Senator Obama.

---

For those reasons above, I believe that the most correct solution is to use the long name in all Greece-related articles. It is a matter of verifiability, of clarity, of common sense, and of common practice in WP and elsewhere (such as most other online encyclopedias). NikoSilver 08:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

[1] See for example the official site of the Prefecture of Florina, Greece.

[2] See in Britannica Greece's borders vs e.g. those of Serbia.

[3] BBC News, Encarta

[4] I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community that effectively helps every time such agendas drop by within the scope of all relevant articles.

---

Straw poll question

• Do you support a proposal to have the article Greece refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" under that very name, and not under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"?

This is a straw poll, not a regular discussion. Please present your position in a simple way, without further comments. If you wish to discuss this straw poll, please use the sub-section "Discussion" below. This straw poll is open for 7 days starting at 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Support

• Support (as proposer). Húsönd 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support (Taivo (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
• Support no need for POV island is this article, the "Republic of Macedonia" is clearly something else than "Macedonia" the only reason to use "FYROM" or variants would be to promote a Greek POV which is unacceptable. man with one red shoe 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, obviously the only version compatible with NPOV, and the version that has had steadfast consensus among all outside neutral observers for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. FYROM is POV, despite what our colleagues might claim about international bodies and diplomatic recognition. Aramgar (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is just applying NPOV as in other articles. Also, what Aramgar said. Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The relevant policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, mandates that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." This rules out "Macedonia", which is widespread but ambiguous, and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is far less frequently used than the short form (see [2] vs [3]). By a process of elimination, we are left with "Republic of Macedonia" as the name that best fits the requirements of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Call it what it is, a republic within the region of Macedonia. kwami (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because all of the cool kids are doing it and I want to fit in. But also because I don't see why this article shouldn't be consistent with the others. Local hero (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, this is the most natural name to use, and my own spot-check of the interwiki links showed other wikis (except for the Greek) favoring the equivalent of 'Macedonia' or 'Republic of Macedonia' rather than FYROM, as the title of their article on Macedonia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Every country has the right to its constitutional name, this includes the Republic of Macedonia. There is no reason to impose censorship in this article just to appeal to Greek users. Greece does not have a veto over the article Greece on Wikipedia.JdeJ (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, the country's constitutional name is honoured by other countries. However, sometimes the constitutional name is confusing, and can cause conflicts such as this. Another classical example is the issue of Republic of Ireland vs. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all know how many decades that took to sort out. Confusion can be tolerated in contexts where all participants understand the issue well -- such as international relations -- but confusions are the bane of encyclopædias. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support MatriX (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Tolerance for the "content must be written from a neutral point of view and following common English usage, unless related to Greece" status quo has lasted more than enough. The grievances of our Greek colleagues do not trump our polices. - Ev (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as written. After reading the discussion (and recalling the soc.culture.* votes on Usenet, which were spammed by Greek University student accounts; in at least one vote, the spam was automated in alphabetical order by From: address), it's important to have Wikipedia articles refer to it as the neutral and policy-compliant Republic of Macedonia except in articles where the source uses FYROM. The list of neighboring countries does not have a Greek source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes, as always, keep it simple and in accordance with standard English. Wikipedia has no place for the POV-wishy-washing over names that's standard in international diplomacy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would support to change the current name into FYROM, but as the Republic of Macedonia is used in all wiki and is the current consensus, I can not see why one page should use FYROM. FYROM should be used either in all pages, or in none (except when talking about the terminology itself).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because this entire conflict looks ridiculous from the outside and most uninvolved people just can't be bothered to use a silly name like "FYROM". This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I guess we learned from the masters. You can guess who I mean. Dr.K. logos 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Initially I could not, but after reading the absurd discussion below about myself I am guessing that you wanted to lose this discussion through the first corollary to Godwin's law. Is that it? No, I wasn't trying to support a pro-German version of the second world war in the region. I know that the Germans were the bad guys, and I am not proud of that. Most Germans do, whereas the official history in Greece still says that the atrocities suffered from the Turks were one-sided and unprovoked. (There are of course good reasons for the difference, including the fact that the Germans were far worse than the Greeks and lost more spectacularly.) Similarly, the existence of a "Macedonian" state populated by Slavic speakers threatens the Greek illusion of a homogeneous Greek ethnicity dating back to the ancient Greeks, with only negligible Turkish, Vlachic, Albanian and Slavic influences. That seems to be the root of the conflict, and as much as I like Greece and the Greeks, I see no reason to humour them in this delusion. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) How very Fallmerayeresque of you. Wasn't that the Germans' excuse for their occupation of Greece? I suppose the continuously documented history of the Greek language is a "delusion" too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC) @Hans Adler: No. I don't think Godwin's law applies here, for the simple reason that I was not referring to WWII Germany specifically, but rather to the behaviour of Germany since Kaiser's time. I was not expecting however a reply that included a psychogeopolitical theory of the Balcans based on racial ethnicity parameters to explain the Greek positions. Of course I don't agree, but let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. logos 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Following Hans Adler's reply below I corrected racial to ethnicity to reflect his comments better Dr.K. logos 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Fallmerayer? "Race"??? It obviously makes no sense to continue this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, Fallmerayer claimed that the modern Greeks have no connection to the ancients other than geography. Isn't that what you wrote above? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) No. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) You called the idea of Hellenic continuity an "illusion" and "delusion". What's the difference? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Did I? Is "not everything" the same as "nothing"? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Ok. Granted. Hans did not mention "nothing" but rather claimed some unspecified degree of influence from other ethnicities. So he was not nearly as absolute as Fallmerayer. Also he did not talk about "races" but about "ethnicities", so my comment above should have mentioned "ethnicitities" not "races". Having said that I don't believe that the Greeks are under the delusions or illusions he claims, and that the root of the Macedonian problem lies distinctly somewhere else, but we just agreed to disagree, so Hans, no need to reply to my comment. Danke und auf wiedersehen. Dr.K. logos 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we wouldn't have to make such assumptions if after hurling his insults he took the time to explain his position rather than speak in riddles. So he thinks the "Turkish, Vlachic, Albanian and Slavic influences" (he forgot Latin, Venetian/Italian, French, Catalan, "Frankish", Bavarian and Anglo-Saxon, among others) were somewhat less negligible than Paparrigopoulos might have us believe. Good for him, but I still don't see how that's relevant to Macedonia. Unless "not everything" really is the same as "nothing". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. I agree. Like every nation, Greece has had multiple influences from many sources. But these influences have no relation to the Macedonian problem. That's what I mentioned above. But since this discussion is going nowhere and in addition I agreed to disagree with Hans, let's leave it at that. If someone thinks that Greeks are delusional about their past and that's at the root of the Macedonian problem, at the end of the day there is nothing you can do. Being delusional is a psychiatric condition and I have no psychiatrist credentials to analyse such claims. Dr.K. logos 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Mind me but it would be a lot cheaper if Mr.Adler checked himself up first before making blind attacks, defining a whole ethnic group as having a corrupt view of history due to nationalist tendencies.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Δρακόλακκε, psychoanalysis can be very messy when mixed with politics. Especially when those who try to apply it or use its terminology are not properly accredited experts. So it is easy for a non-expert to diagnose a whole nation with some psychiatric condition such as delusion or even obsession. However since this fact is uncited, because no real psychiatrist would ever perform a mass diagnosis on a population, it is also pure POV. Since we are an encyclopedia our first reaction should be adding a tag every time we encounter such statements. But since this is a talkpage such statements can be added without fear of being tagged. However these statements are pure WP:OR and normally they should not be depended upon to reach any rational conclusion, including how to vote. WP:OR is WP:OR. You cannot depend on it in article mainspace and for sure you cannot depend on it to advance any serious points on an article talkpage. Dr.K. logos 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support The name of a country is determined by the government of that country, not by a neighbouring country. On Wikipedia, we should apply naming conventions uniformly rather than allow those names to be changed locally by whatever subgroup of editors takes an interest in doing so, whether or not that group is associated with any particular racial, ethnic, religous, or political division. Imagine if a group of editors at Talk:National Front were to decide that that article should use the term "Pakis" instead of "UK immigrants from the Indian subcontinent". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This analogy is simply unfair. There is no "Paki naming dispute", unlike the "Macedonian Naming Dispute" which has been discussed in many fora, including Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That we disagree with one another is irrelevant. This isn't the place for a discussion. It's a straw poll, and my position has been made clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was a talkpage. Dr.K. logos 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page as a whole is indeed for discussing the article, but this part of the page is a straw poll regarding whether this page should use the naming convention that applies across all the rest of Wikipedia, and this part of the straw poll is for people to register their support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for the italics Sheffield. I understand the nuances of your reply and in fact I understood your point from the beginning. Mine was more of a rhetorical question indicating that since we are on a talk page we may, if we are willing, wish to exchange a few points with each other. Obviously you didn't want to discuss the point I raised. It's your prerogative and I accept it. No problem. Dr.K. logos 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If that's the name, that's the name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not really sure why this has become such a contentious issue, really, but I'm geographically and emotionally distant from the former Yugoslavia. (I'm geographically distant from Greece as well, but have treasured memories of visits there.) I can see why it might be desirable to refer to FYROM, but the reasons for doing so have no basis in Wikipedia's naming policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Whatever a county names itself is the accurate name by which to call the country for the sake of its use here. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Acknowledging that the UN first referred to it as the FYROM, it does seem that, at present, ROM is the name the people of that country currently use for it internally, and I always favor giving pride of place to the name the individuals involved use most frequently, as they are the ones who are most likely to seek out the content. And the name used in other articles should wherever possible be the same as the name of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support See my posts below. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support As a country name Greece already has one, so doesn't have any dibs on Macedonia. If Greece wanted to change its name to Macedonia, then it might have a concern. As it doesn't, Macedonia is free. -- spin^control 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support. Follow English usage, not the contorted usage characteristic of international politicians of a compromising kind. Should we mention, however, that the present Greek Government uses Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as a fact about Greece? Of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support A country is entitled to decide its own name. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be the most NPOV name for our purposes. AniMate^talk 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support The endless talkpage filibustering amounts only to so much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It certainly has not convinced me to support the existence of walled garden terminology perpetuated by nationalist interests. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support "Republic of Macedonia" is absolutely unambiguous. There is a parallel with this situation in the Middle East over Azerbaijan, a region split between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (in fact more Azeris live in Iranian Azerbaijan than in the republic). Yet nobody has any problem with the Wikipedia article on the Republic of Azerbaijan being at Azerbaijan because this is its common English name. (It certainly doesn't need to be at "Former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan"!). If this is the case then "Republic of Macedonia" should be unambiguous enough for anybody but the most rabid nationalist.--Folantin (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those arguments should be used against Greece's opinion in the international forums, not in WP. Unlike our case, there's no Azerbaijani naming dispute, nor is there any UN provisional reference for a country called fSRoA, nor will you find equal or more hits in Google about it. We're not here to judge Greece's right or wrong in insisting so. She just is, and all international organizations follow suit, and all mentionings in Google etc come up. Some may not like this, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. NikoSilver 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Republic of Macedonia. It's the consensus name on Republic of Macedonia, it's the shortest name, and it's consistent. As a parallel, in the US, Georgia is a state, but in the real world, Georgia is also a country. As a result, we have a disambiguation until either Georgia or Georgia decides to rename itself, both of which aren't going to happen. The good thing in the Republic of Macedonia's case is that it has a clear "Republic of" preceding the "Macedonia," which is sufficient to distinguish it from the not-Republic-of Macedonia (the State).

Note, I truly do not care. For all I care, they could both rename to random letters, like "zzzzfjfjkfdjkfgggf" and "blarggg," but at some point Wikipedia has to deal with its business, and the country & state deal with theirs. Edit warring is retarded.

--slakr^\ talk / 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) moved from section --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the most commonly recognised name by countries, also this is the name the country calls itself, also the most common name in the english language world and this is english wikipedia, not greek wikipedia Ijanderson (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Greece doesn't own the name...Smarkflea (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose, because: 1) a name all the international organizations and bodies use, as well as the participating country itself, can't be POV, 2) it is in perfect accord with MOSMAC, which may not be an official policy, but it is still an essay with a long history and an intrinsic coherence and consistency; by the way, I've repeatedly seen important essays to be evoked in our project (something like "soft law"), 3) it is the name RoM itself has accepted to be used in its bilateral relations with Greece, and a name it proposes as an acceptable bilateral arrangement in any future arrangement, 4) when no internationally acceptable arrangement has been reached in the naming dispute, using RoM in this particular article, the article of Greece, namely the country which leads the opposition to the RoM name, would constitute the most blatant promotion of RoM's POV.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, because of dubious arguments offered in support of this proposal. Apcbg (talk)

Further explanation of vote: I believe that the invoked policy of consistent use of ‘Republic of Macedonia’ throughout English Wikipedia is ill-founded, fueling confrontation among editors that is totally unnecessary.

I would have left the principle of consistency involving the two relevant name forms to be enforced on an article-by-article basis, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia.

I don’t believe Wikipedia should take sides in this contentious and sensitive issue of name usage, more so that a solution of the issue itself is pending – unavoidably, as even the closest partners of the Republic of Macedonia now unequivocally insist that Skopje accepts a compromise the basics of which have already come up, with neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ being that compromise.

P.S. Should anyone here happen to have in mind, besides the belief in following some established Wikipedia policy of giving preference to one of the names, also the motivation that this way he/she is ‘supporting Macedonia and the Macedonians’, I am afraid that such ‘support’ is actually not in the best interests of that country and its people, but rather gives courage to the policies of the present government in Skopje that are increasingly questioned both at home and abroad, policies that have been leading the country into isolation, economic and social underdevelopment (the achievement of being outpaced by Albania ... for starters) and ethnic divergence with far reaching implications.

Needless to say, such ‘good wishers’ come and go, and it’s never them who pay the price.Apcbg (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I am surprised that some here want to restart these edit wars. sys < in (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale above. NikoSilver 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The self-identification right and the homogeneity in wikipedia articles might sound "nice", but things aren't that simple. Especially when we have such a serious matter, between two countries and a UN resolution, we must use a term that is accepted by the two parties. By using the term RoM, we automatically be with one side, which is not neutral! --xvvx (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The reasons have been stated clearly above. (Comment will follow soon enough in the Discussion section further down) Hectorian (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yannismarou's rationale.ギリシャ人 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, because the logic of this straw poll is based on a deliberately misapprehension of the Greek position on this matter. FYROM, is NOT the name that Greece proposes for this state, it is a name imposed to both countries by UN until a solution is reached. If those who proposed this poll feel that by using this acronym we are enforcing a Greek POV, is not fair for those who believe differently to assume that by the term Republic of Macedonia a Slavomacedonian POV is thrusted? Kapnisma (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per yannismarou and kapnisma. 'nuff said. --Athenean (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Yannismarrou --O Kolymbitès (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Look what has happened, an appalling manipulative backgrounder by Husond has persuaded people that fYRoM is Greek POV. If you accept that, then obviously you will vote "Support". However. People, this-is-not-the-case. It is an official name and more widely used than RoM. Moreover, so many support votes advocate consistency throughout Wikipedia. I'm wondering, aren't I justified then to go and change all "Macedonia" references to RoM on the basis of this reasoning? Why am I so sure that I will be accused as a WP:POINT POV warrior? Now think, if both names are equally official, why this vote is not a WP:POINT?--Avg (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose as per yannismarrou Reaper7 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with User:Yannismarou's points. Yannisk (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has only 17 mainspace edits, the latest in 2007. How did they learn of this poll? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you aware of the articles' talk pages and projects where this straw poll of yours has been already "advertised"? But, of course, witch-hunting is not forbidden.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess WP:AGF is DOA on this page. Dr.K. logos 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my vote as a sign of protest due to ethnic-identification and ethnic-based assertions about my vote. Dr.K. logos 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) *Strongly oppose I strongly oppose both the straw poll and the associated proposal. First the idea of the straw poll was a very unfortunate one. The principle of WP:VOTINGISEVIL is very well established and for a very good reason. The reason is of course the massive disruption it causes to the wiki by dividing and spreading disappointment and ill-will among the editors. Taking a poll is bad enough. Taking a poll on such a contentious issue is even worse. Predictably we are now divided in two camps with diametrically opposed views. Is this outcome desirable? Was this outcome predictable? This proposal, in the name of encyclopedic uniformity, tries to impose a naming convention which is steeped in falsifications of History, propaganda and political manipulation. Carrying these disputed names in the very article where these terms exist in their original form, (which originated from ancient times), thus mixing the retrograde falsification of History with the original terms, is a disservice to the reader at best and I am not going to describe the worst. Of course there are other reasons, eloquently put forward by, among others, Yannismarou, but I will not comment any further. This mess does not inspire me to continue. It's a sad day for Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 04:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Agree with Yannis.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Pending resolution of the name issue between Greece and FYROM, and adoption of it by the UN, use of the acronym FYROM, instead of Republic of Macedonia, is not a Greek POV.Rizos01 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This user barely made any edits after 2007, has never edited this article or its talk page in the past. How did they learn of this poll? Húsönd 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a "naive" question... is it o.k to promote this poll by you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Straw_poll when the reason is clearly to bring more people to vote "support" this way? And also, is it "illegal" for a user, that even though he is not active in editing, to find something insulting and to act by voting? The article is about Greece and it's normal to have a lot of readers, it's not an article about the reproduction of a kiwi. --xvvx (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on! The answer is simple! It is ok for them to advertise the poll in various discussion pages, and then come here and wonder "in italics": "Oh! My God! How did they learn about it?! Why haven't they missed all these advertisements?!"--Yannismarou (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "long" name was made for a reason. The largest international-relations organisation uses it for a reason.And that is not to please the inhabitants of the Greek province that was officially named Macedonia 150+ years before the Yugoslavian province. (but to avoid nationalism effusion, irredentism and general friction between neighbours until a reliable agreement is reached) People who want the de facto name, either: 1. don't know much about the subject and its history. 2. don't care about giving facts, but for making Wikipedia a place for simpletons to read. 3. Have a sense of pseudo-justice, where they like to think they are defending the interests of the weak in an unusual subject directly related to an objectively recent ethnogenesis and name/heritage/history appropriation. FutPerf for example said it must stay only Macedonia because he assumes English-speaking people recognise the country by that name. Even if that was true, still, we don't name Sildenafil: Viagra, even though Viagra is by far the most popular name of that same pill, we use Sildenafil because it's more accurate, closer to the truth. Wikipedia naming policy is not made by the vote or knowledge of the average English speaker, even more so in an article that disambiguation is needed.--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

CuteHappyBrute thank you. I have the same opinion and i completely agree with you concerning the individuals that give their support to FYROM. --79.166.18.27 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. Applying "uniformity" here is just a cover for forcing through the POV of one side of a dispute... Pending the resolution of this whole mess in the real world, no name can be regarded as NPOV. Constantine ✍ 10:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (for this specific article, based on published standards)

We have international standards as precedents for adapting country names according to context. The world-wide, Jane's Information Group (Security Assessment), has this arrangement regarding the usage of the terms, 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Fyrom', they resemble very much the guidelines agreed a while ago in Wikipedia by editors.

Its volume, "Balkans 2003, Jane’s Information Group, London" contains country analysis of all Balkan states.

In the chapter GREECE - we have a standard section called Foreign Relations, and there we find a sub-section titled, "Relations with FYROM". Because the chapter deals with Greece, RoM is always referred to as FYROM.

In the Chapter, BULGARIA... we have the "Relatioins with Macedonia" because Sofia recognised the name RoM, but the same Chapter uses FYROM when bringing Greece and ROM together.

In the Chapter ALBANIA we have, "Relation with FYROM".

In the Chapter Republic of Macedonia, of course we have RoM all they way exept when it concerns relations with Greece; there the name becomes FYROM.

I think the same applies to Economist Intelligence Unit and from what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here. Politis (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Given the name dispute, a reader of the article "Greece" would benefit from seeing FYROM as bordering country name as they would have a chance to learn about the problem. Given that the name Macedonia is not a UN officially recognised country name, third countries, when refered to in a country's article, would be better off mentioned with their official UN name, an organisation most countries participate in. aexon (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above oppose comments. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm obsessed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per reasons stated above. The name is disputed and, until the dispute is settled, use the official UN name. Pel thal (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Mostly focusing on Kekrop's impregnable rationale, next most common term is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by all indicators presented, hence our first choice since plain "Macedonia" is ambiguous, a clean-cut application of policy. The naming conflict guideline posed as an authoritative reference to bypass this is wide open to interpretations, it was also brought to my attention that the part of the guideline relating to this issue is a product of some photographic changes made by a heavily involved administrator, but it "didn't matter" cause it had become a "standard practice" following "community consensus". I don't see any clear consensus in this widely advertised poll and discussion to change the practice here. The current long name is, to say the least, perfectly usable in this project, and this is one of the last articles where it shouldn't be used, per Yannismarou's perspective.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not convinced that there's a difference between using FYROM in all international organizations articles (as is already agreed), versus articles such as Greece which is the country that has initiated this. I don't know why people think this debate is productive; myself, I find it unnecessary and insensitive. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nasty issue, so let the principle of least surprise reign. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have always heard the country referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Oh, and I hope this goes a small way to dismissing the idea that the Opposers are all Greek nationalists. Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And the least surprising name of any country is the name that it chooses for itself. No one is surprised when the US calls itself "the United States of America" or when the UK calls itself "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or when Macedonia calls itself "the Republic of Macedonia". We are surprised when some other country or organization calls a country something other than what it calls itself. (Taivo (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

But you must understand that "the name that it chooses for itself" works also for this Macedonia, which happens to be a large part of the context of the country described in this specific article. And, still, "what it calls itself" is a secondary criterion per WP:NCON, the first being "common use of the name". Jack finds it simply more common, as he says. NikoSilver 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. --Kamikazi2 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The FYROM form is clearer and, for this confusing part of the world, clarity seems essential. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

There are so many different Republics of Macedonia in this part of the world, it's hard to keep them straight.<sarcasm off> Sorry, but that is the lamest comment when there is exactly one Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Please see our article on Macedonia which starts, "The definition of Macedonia is a major source of confusion...". When the term FYROM is used, I know exactly what is meant by it. Other formulations are less clear and so should not be preferred as we are here to inform and educate, not to wave flags. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) "Macedonia" may be confusing, but I didn't say "Macedonia", but "Republic of Macedonia". How many of those are there? That's the question here. And your link to Macedonia says no such thing about a "major source of confusion"--it is to a disambiguation page so that the user of Wikipedia can go to exactly the place that they want--whether Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (Greece) or Macedonia, Georgia. (But there is still only one "Republic of Macedonia".) (Taivo (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Your comment indicates familiarity with the topic. What we are writing here is an article for a general audience of English speakers which will include many readers who only have a vague understanding of the issue. We cannot expect readers to know how many republics of Macedonia there are or have been, when the essence of the issue is that there are competing claims. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) You are absolutely right, Colonel. "Republic of" would have worked to disambiguate that entity from others only if the latter were another independent state (or states) named say "Kingdom of Macedonia" or "Sultanate of Macedonia" etc. As there are none, readers with less familiarity with the topic would naturally regard "Republic of" as a formality as it always (excepting this unique case) is, as in "Republic of France", "Republic of Turkey" etc., and invariably disregard that "Republic of", reducing the name to "Macedonia". That's precisely the reason why "Macedonia" is a most commonly used English name for that country, as the supporters of "support" vote themselves admit. Apcbg (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, Apcbg, you are once again twisting the issue. There is one "Republic of Ireland" and that is sufficient to distinguish it from "Ireland" (as an island) or "Northern Ireland" (if someone were to confuse it with the British dominion in the corner). There is one "Republic of Azerbaijan" and that is sufficient to distinguish it from "Azerbaijan" (as a regional entity) or "Azerbaijan" (as a province of Iran). Indeed, in both of these cases the articles on the countries don't even include "Republic of" even though there is potential ambiguity. In distinguishing two republics named "Congo", it is sufficient to simply revert to the the formal self-identifications between them, "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo", despite the closeness of the two (and the very real fact that many, many readers don't know the difference and are honestly confused). The two Chinas are disambiguated in the same way--"Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China". No, the disambiguation argument is invalid for choosing between "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". In all these cases, the common names are reduced to a simple name--Azerbaijan, Ireland, Congo, and China. Your argument implies that somehow "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are different. They are not except in the single sense that Athens doesn't like it. So vote oppose if you want, but don't rely on disingenuous reasoning based on disambiguation because there are plenty of examples in the world that prove the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. Vote oppose and be honest about your reasons--you want to support the naming claims of the Athenian government here in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Thanks for your kind suggestion; I've already voted and explained my reasons above; twice would be a little bit excessive I guess :-) The two Congos and two Chinas are sovereign states (at least the respective Wiki article considers Taiwan as such) so they fall under the 'Republic-Kingdom-Sultanate' disambiguation pattern I mentioned above. As for the Ireland case, a notable difference is that the Republic occupies most of the historical territory, three out of the four historical provinces of the island, plus three out of the nine counties of the fourth province (Ulster), including also the historical primary city of Dublin, justifying the priority use of the name 'Ireland' by the Republic; in the case of Macedonia (region), the greater part of that territory including its historical primary city of Thessaloniki (Solun) belongs to Greece, and still another part belongs to Bulgaria. With 30-odd percent of the region's territory to try to monopolize the name by the identification "Republic of Macedonia" = "Macedonia" ("the common names are reduced to a simple name" as you say) is too much of a claim indeed. Apcbg (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) What the f#ck is this topic doing to people ? You've lost the cool approach you had in the start, that's for sure.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I am still cool about this. But when the same invalid "disambiguation" argument gets trotted out over and over and over and over even though it is no different than a hundred other disambiguation cases in other places it becomes clear that there is a 500-pound gorilla in the room that no one is willing to discuss. And when someone does mention the gorilla, they are accused of being "racist" or resorting to "ethnic profiling", etc. even though the gorilla is a government and not an ethnic group per se. The government of Greece has made the Macedonia naming issue one of political pride and successive governments in Athens have staked their national reputation on their strength in "standing up to Macedonia". If any Greek government were to compromise on this issue they would lose the next election. That's the simple political reality. Expatriate Greeks tend to be a very loyal group--I have many friends who are expatriate Greeks so that is a compliment and not an insult. But in this case, that loyalty has led them down a particularly blind and unproductive path. That fierce Greek loyalty to the homeland has been quite clearly on display here, with every comment and fact written in support of "Republic of Macedonia" being hotly and sometimes quite rudely and personally flayed on this page. Not every argument in support of "Republic of Macedonia" has been a good one, but the personal attacks have been more in evidence on this page than on many others where there has been a serious debate on an issue. I have worked a lot at Book of Mormon. I am not LDS so I disagree with that POV. But since it is a religious article, you would expect a lot more heat there. That is not the case, however. Occasionally there is heat there, but not the constant flame that one finds here. This article's topic has inspired more blind loyalty, personal attack, unyielding positions, etc. than I have seen in that religious article. I will be accused of "Greek-bashing" I am sure, but this has become the Religion of FYROM. There are exceptions, but the words "former Yugoslav" are a line in the sand that few are willing to cross. I think that this discussion has had one success in changing the map to "Rep. Mace." and the map was what I considered more important than the text at this point. But the hubris thrown at anyone advocating any use of "Republic of Macedonia" in the text is extreme. (Taivo (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Dear Δρακόλακκος, as you might have noticed my contribution to this particular discussion thread has been confined to debating Colonel Warden's explanation of his vote, namely that "The FYROM form is clearer and, for this confusing part of the world, clarity seems essential." Apcbg (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah i wanted to leave a PM to avoid a possible misunderstanding, i only left my comment below yours because you were focusing more on the productive part of Taivo's position. He was also addressing you, not me. I hope this clears my intentions, i accidentally pressed "enter" before filling the edit summary. Sorry.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC) No problem. This page is becoming a mess though, with relevant pieces of discussion thrown here and there; that's why I supported Balkanian`s word's proposal to have a topical discussion on Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of the two names but anyway. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, I completely agree with the rationale above. -- Romanos V —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

  This is the only edit by this user. NikoSilver 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I agree with the arguments of Yannismarou. --79.166.18.27 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's been discussed before. The name Greece refers to and the International Community uses as represented by the UN is former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing this poll

A request was posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for some uninvolved admins to weigh in on whether this straw poll's suggestions should be implemented or rejected. It was suggested that a number of admins do so, given the contencious nature of the subject. Full disclosure, I !voted on some Macedonian straw poll (details elude me) a while back on the side of ROM (I can only remember this because I had some talk page discussions about it with several editors). Nethertheless it seems clear to me that the poll should be closed, no concensus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that while hoping for discussion and "consensus" amongst admins would seem to make things clearer, it may simply invite further protraction of the debate, a more blurred consensus, and a more elite, privatised microcosm of the straw poll that has already taken place. After all, adminship does not confer superiority in discussions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, and my opinion on the matter should not be read as such. I wasn't presuming to judge the merits of the arguments. I was simply observing that the straw poll has not reached a point where one side or another has swung the consensus on their side. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Results summary

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's conclusions

Here's a useful summary of the poll result so far (as of 6 April, 10:00), for everybody who might still be in doubt about where the true consensus lies.

---

"Oppose" side (favouring "former Yugoslav...")

• Aexon79 (t c), Apcbg (t c), Athenean (t c) (formerly Tsourkpk), Avg (t c), Biruitorul (t c), O Kolymbitès (t c), Colonel Warden (t c), Cplakidas (t c) (Constantine), CuteHappyBrute (t c) (formerly DefendEurope), Digwuren (t c), El Greco (t c), Girisha-jin (t c), Hectorian (t c), Ioannes Tzimiskes (t c), Jack forbes (t c), Kamikazi2 (t c), Kapnisma (t c), Michael IX the White (t c), NikoSilver (t c), Pel thal (t c), Politis (t c), Reaper7 (t c), Rizos01 (t c), Romanos V (t c), Sakis79 (t c) (xvvx), sysin (t c), Yannisk (t c), Yannismarou (t c), Δρακόλακκος (t c), ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (t c)
• = 29 editors (discounting one that had only a single contribution, to this poll), of whom:
  • 23 Greeks, 1 Bulgarian, 5 from uninvolved nationalities
  • 2 users with only very minor contribution histories
  • 1 administrator
  • 10 users who have previously been blocked for Greece-related nationalist misbehaviour (edit-warring or incivility blocks: sysin, Hectorian, Kapnisma, Athenean, Avg, Reaper7, CuteHappyBrute, Politis, El Greco, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ)
  • 3 users who have had sanctions related to other nationalist disputes (Digwuren, Biruitorul, Jack forbes)
  • 1 editor that can be characterised as essentially a single-purpose Greek POV advocacy account (Avg)
  • at least 9 other users with a strong, permanent contribution focus on Greece-related drama areas and/or Greek POV advocacy, though also some minor other contributions (Kekrops, Politis, CuteHappyBrute, Michael IX the White, Reaper7, Sakis79, sysin, Athenean)
  • 2 formerly productive users who have lately reduced their contributions virtually exclusively to Greek POV drama (NikoSilver, Hectorian)

"Support" side (favouring "Republic of...")

• Akhilleus (t c), AniMate (t c), Aramgar (t c), Arthur Rubin (t c), Balkanian`s word (t c), CalendarWatcher (t c), Charles Edward (t c), ChrisO (t c), Colchicum (t c), Doktorspin (t c), EdJohnston (t c), Enric Naval (t c), Ev (t c), Folantin (t c), Future Perfect at Sunrise (t c), Hans Adler (t c), Heimstern (t c), Husond (t c), JdeJ (t c), Jim62sch (t c), John Carter (t c), Kafka Liz (t c), Kwamikagami (t c), Local hero (t c), Man with one red shoe (t c), MatriX (t c), Pmanderson (t c) (Septentrionalis), SheffieldSteel (t c), slakr (t c), Taivo (t c), WereSpielChequers (t c)
• = 31 editors, of whom:
  • 2 (possibly 3) ethnic Macedonians, 1 Albanian, all others from uninvolved or unknown nationalities
  • 14 administrators
  • two national POV advocacy accounts (Balkania`s word, Matrix), all others active experienced editors in good standing and independent contribution profiles
  • at least 4 active project-wide experts on Wikipedia naming practices
  • users previously sanctioned for edit-warring: MatriX, Pmanderson, ChrisO, Balkanian`s word

---

WP:NOTAVOTE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outing

We are told that 24 Users are Greeks, also some ethnic Macedonians and Albania. This either reads like WP:OUTING or ethnic tagging. Also, the emphasis on tarnishing the name of some Users as POV and 'nationalist' denies a balanced appraisal of the users. IMO the author or this sections should be given a sabbatical and his text deleted. Politis (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my vote and requested Future on his talkpage to remove my name from the list. I will no longer participate in any such votes as long as ethnic-id lists implying connection between ethnic origin and voting are going to be created at the end of such polls. Dr.K. logos 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr.K. if someone should be driven away is not you, who did absolutely nothing wrong, but whoever did actually commit the offense. --Avg (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Avg. First thank you very much for your nice comments. But let me explain. This is the complete undermining of the polling process. If I knew or I was threatened with my name appearing on ethnic-id lists (or any other id) at the end of any poll either here or IRL I would never have participated. Did anyone tell us we were going to be ethnically id-ed BEFORE we took the poll? Do you possibly think I would have participated under the spectre of this list? Do you possibly think I will ever participate in any poll from now on? Has this ever happened before on Wikipedia? Can you list any other examples where users names were paraded on lists after the poll closed? Why do we need a list? Aren't our names already listed in the oppose column? Why this redundancy, except to make a WP:POINT and besmirch our reputations? Dr.K. logos 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, making straightforward & quite pertinent observations on the straw poll does not constitute either "ethnic tagging" (or racial/ethnic profiling), harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). Claiming so implies a lack of understanding of those concepts or a deliberate exaggeration aimed at distracting from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). - Ev (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ev, this is the issue. And it is worth an ArbCom itself alone, spare the Macedonia part. Are we entering a Wikiculture where user contributions are judged by nationality?--Avg (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that certain contributions are motivated mainly by editors' nationalities has been a part of Wikipedia's reality for a long time, whether we like it or not. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that this is not the case is counterproductive: ignoring the root of the problem does not facilitate solving it. - Ev (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know, everybody belongs in a group, be it ethnic, racial, social, sexual, whatever. So should we discredit their view just because they belong in this group? This is exactly why we should never judge the contribution by the contributor but by the content. Never, ever should ad hominem arguments be accepted in Wikipedia.--Avg (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing straightforward and pertinent about using mass observations based on ethnicity or other identifiers. This is the wrong way to evaluate peoples' contributions. To paraphrase Martin Luther King: I have a dream that editors in Wikipedia will one day contribute in an encyclopedia where they will not be judged by their userpage identifiers but by the content of their edits. Either that or simply don't have silly polls which are not free and fair because you know that when you are Greek at the end of the poll the forensic crew will arrive and blame you as a nationalist just because you're Greek, while at the same time will validate any vote coming from anonymous or "neutral nationality" users just because they happen not to be perceived as Greek. Never mind how silly their vote rationale may be. Dr.K. logos 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be exact, it's not that certain contributions are motivated by editors' nationalities; it's that they're motivated by political considerations shared by editors of particular nationalities. This is the same all over Wikipedia. It's why you see Russians and Estonians lining up on opposite sides on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn; why you see Koreans and Japanese on opposite sides on the East Sea; why you see Armenians and Turks on opposite sides on the Armenian Genocide. It's a similar situation with Greeks versus Macedonians, though perhaps one exception is the degree to which it's actually Greeks versus everyone else on this issue. It's entirely natural for members of a particular group to line up on the same side of an issue. That doesn't invalidate their views. It does however indicate that they are probably being influenced by something other than strict adherence to Wikipedia policy. We know that's certainly true in this case - certain editors have repeatedly put forward explicitly political arguments, with no basis in wikipolicy, for taking particular approaches to the Macedonia naming issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with many of your points. It is natural that various ethnicities and other denominations will be at odds. If, as you mention, other editors put forward purely political statements, then they were wrong. But still their vote is their vote. Their reasons, political though they may be, are not any sillier than another voter's non-reason or not very logical or hostile to Greece reason. Every voter has a reason. Analysing the reasons that motivate each voter is very difficult and counter-productive in the end, because it solves nothing. When you call people for a vote you don't tell them ahead of time: "I will analyse you so that I can attack your credibility". This way noone would ever vote. Finally, believe me, even when I saw in Future's analysis some votes being analysed as Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian etc. I found it objectionable. The thing here is just don't solve problems by voting, especially in political subjects such as this. That way you avoid all the silly forensics (and associated drama) after the fact. Dr.K. logos 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Taso, welcome to the new world.--Avg (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe Wikipedia defalcates personal data this way via these users-sysops-whatever and we should not disclose such data again whatsoever and advise newcomers to be careful since such acts are not averted by the Wikipedia community.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Horrors! It's spreading! But seriously. This, sadly, kind of shows that the beautiful wiki mechanism of discussion-consensus is becoming endangered and could possibly become extinct. That's why I gave all these warnings in my previous edits. Colourful as they may be, these editor-centred lists are an intellectually bankrupt method to present statistics and they are an indirect admission that words are no longer effective. In a discussion-based, word-dependent, wiki type encyclopedia these kinds of stunts are a colourful early requiem for the whole word-based, intellectual discussion/consensus fuelled system. These precious discussions are slowly being replaced by anti-intellectual name and symbol parades. Con-sensus is being replaced by Con-flagus. Dr.K. logos 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, consensus is important, but let's not exaggerate its importance. Policy is more important. It cannot be overriden by a local consensus, and a consensus that agrees on a policy violation is invalid. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy, despite appearances. Ths supremacy of policy over consensus is particularly true for NPOV issues, such as this naming issue, which are heavily influenced by off-wiki ideological concerns. That's why it's so significant that all the editors from one particular group lined up on one side of the issue. It's a clear indication that an off-wiki ideology shared by that group is the driving force, either overriding NPOV or influencing them to interpret NPOV in one particular way. The fact that the editors supporting the opposite position were so disparate is equally significant, as it shows a true consensus, free of nationalist ideological concerns that have no place in Wikipedia's policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But I just showed you below that true consensus cannot be achieved by the support side putting reasons forward such as "A name is a name" and some other people just supporting and not commenting. It for sure cannot be achieved either using flags as weapons. Being from a neutral country is a silly way to assure NPOV. Someone from Timbuktu may be a certifiable anti-Greek bigot. Same goes for anon accounts. Conclusion: Don't hold polls. But if you must don't ever bring the forensic crew after the fact. Dr.K. logos 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that policy should override consensus, taking for granted that your own interpretation of policy is correct and the other is not. And to "prove" that the other policy interpretation is not correct, you are again using the same user profiling argument to substantiate what you regard as "true npov". A reasoning based on false premises and wrong values can never be right. A "true npov" based on racial profiling can be anything but "true". NikoSilver 09:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no better example to prove the absurdity of playing the ethnicity card than the dialogue above between Dr.K. and ChrisO. A third party, prompted by the ethnic profiling, would be led to believe that Dr.K, being Greek, is a POV pushing nationalist, extremely involved in the issue, while ChrisO, being from a "neutral nationality", is an uninvolved party with no particular POV on the issue. As everybody who frequents the Macedonia topics knows, ChrisO is heavily involved and with a very strong POV. Dr.K. on the other hand, has barely ever participated in any Macedonia discussion. However, the third party would not know that. They would be led to a false conclusion. Just because Dr.K. is Greek.--Avg (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Avg. But this goes far beyond that. Nationalism is a very blunt instrument. If you try to use it against people it's like trying to kill a a spider with a frying pan in the kitchen. If you persist long enough in this pursuit of the spider, at the end of the day there will be no kitchen and the spider might well be alive and well. Dr.K. logos 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yannismarou's remarks

I think that an editor clearly involved in this situation cannot provide an authoritative summary of the poll, especially if he resorts to a constant effort of discrediting, and belittling those who disagree with him (or at least those he regards as easy targets). Therefore, for the shake of truth (at least, in the way I perceive it) I have to rspond to some of the aforementioned remarks (deplorable IMO):

• "at least 8 other users with a strong, permanent contribution focus on Greece-related drama areas and/or Greek POV advocacy". From this POV users, let me thank especially Michael for his contributions to the Greek War of Independence, and apologize for not having the article ready on time. My point is clear: Belittling some users' contributions in order to make our POINT is unacceptable.
• "2 formerly productive users": Define formerly. Is our productivity divided in time zones? I want to remind that NikoSilver is the co-editor and co-nominator of a FA where he was lauded for his NPOV, and one of the main editors in the Macedonia naming dispute article, where a miracle is achieved: an article on one of the most contentious areas, where there is no NPOV tagging. It also happens to know Hectorian's great contributions in history-related articles etc. etc. I am not going to elaborate on each one of the users Fut unfortunately attempts to discredit.
• "Productivity": In general, totally inappropriate to use such terms, especially when their definition is not clear enough. Why did Nikos stop to be productive? How do we assess productivity? By article-creation, main article contributions, FA and GA contributions? Well, if this is the criterion, then the "opposers" have a very good record. On the other side, I am afraid I've forgotten when was the last time Fut provided us with a substantial main article contribution. Of course, I cannot deny his diachronic sysop work, although he has recently preferred to expose his talents in edit-warring as well. How then can we attempt to discredit other people's presence and contribution in the project in order to make a point?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad

I don't see much future for Future in Wikipedia if he continues like this, threatening, insulting and disrupting the project. I'm disappointed really. Because before being a "Greek POV SPA", I used to actually collaborate pretty well with this guy (in all his incarnations) on Wikiarticles. I even voted support at his RfA because I saw something good there. I really don't know what has happened, I really don't, but it is simply sad. --Avg (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Wikipedia (Part 1)

I echo Yannis' comments about the definitions of "productivity" etc. I also noted Future's comment: "all others from neutral nationalities". First how does one establish the nationality of an anonymous account? Second how does that help in determining the "neutrality" of the user? The user might be sympathetic to the RoM and could hate the Greeks for all I know. How does one determine the affinities of a user? But this whole mess goes far beyond that. This analysis by Furure sets a terribly bad example for all such polls. Don't get me wrong. I don't like polls either. But they are used widely in Wikipedia regardless. According to Future's terrible precedent now all such polls have to be analysed this way. I can imagine the fun people are going to have in Palestinian related and other controversial polls. When people are going to be grouped as Jewish, Arabs, gay etc. and their votes dismissed en mass. What a vision for Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Wikipedia (Part 2)

The rationale I submitted to the poll is clear and I am not going to reproduce it for brevity's sake. What exactly in that rationale is objectionable? Why did Future feel compelled to include ethnicity in his analysis? What did my ethnicity have to do with my arguments? What does ethnicity have to do with anybody's arguments? Is the discussion-consensus model of Wikipedia dead? Has the discussion-consensus model been replaced by the check user id and origin-so blame the nationalities/religious affiliation etc. model? Dr.K. logos 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Wikipedia (Part 3)

Let's look at some arguments for the supporting side:

• Support Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because this entire conflict looks ridiculous from the outside and most uninvolved people just can't be bothered to use a silly name like "FYROM". This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support If that's the name, that's the name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The first one includes no rationale of any kind. The second includes allegations about faking history that show a clear bias against Greece. The third one is eloquent in its complete absence of any logic. Yet we accepted them as votes, as, of course, we should have. What makes these votes better than a Greek vote, especially when the Greek guy got into the trouble of writing a complete rationale for their vote? The answer is of course, that it does not matter. When people vote they don't have their id, sexual orientation, religious affiliation etc probed because this would have a chilling effect on the whole process. I for one if I knew what I know now, would never have signed up on Wikipedia with my full name and nationality identified. Furthermore I now will not vote in the near future on anything because I feel that my integrity and value as a Wikipedia contributor have come under question as a result of my nationality. Is checking user identifiers and displaying them on lists the new criteria for participating in any activity? Is this the new vision for Wikipedia? Or is it reserved just for the Greeks? Dr.K. logos 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Update I have just voted on the Battle of Vilnius (1655). Does that mean that I rescinded my statement above that I would not vote again? Not exactly. This is how all my votes are going to look like from now on. (I copy and paste my vote from the Vilnius talkpage):

• Conditional^* Support I support the move proposal. The sources provided by Piotrus seem reliable. Also if it could be done for Constantinople (Siege of Constantinople and not Siege of Istanbul) I cannot see why it cannot be done here. ^* Vote will be withdrawn if nationality-based analysis is undertaken at the end of the poll to analyse the poll results Dr.K. logos 14:44, 8 April 2009

This is not a vision for Wikipedia (Part 4): Killing WP:AGF and the formation of the new ghettoes

Ghettoizing the Greek vote is not the answer. It's simply illogical and anti-intellectual. Discussion and research have always been among the pillars of the Wikipedian community. There is no substitute for reasoned discourse no matter how long it takes to reach consensus. Stigmatizing people to silence them might work in the short term, like any suppression does, but it will affect the psyche of the wiki, because the message it sends is clear in its anti-intellectualism: Discussion and consensus when inconvenient, will be replaced by ethnic background and other id checks and users will be analysed and discredited accordingly. This will make Wikipedia a barren landscape full of ghettoes of any description. WP:AGF has been one of the core policies of Wikipedia for a very good reason: Without it it's every man for himself and every ghetto for their own. Is WP:AGF dead? Is this part of the new vision for Wikipedia? Dr.K. logos 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Where the true consensus lies"

Future in his comments made the observation:

Here's a useful summary of the poll result so far (as of 6 April, 10:00), for everybody who might still be in doubt about where the true consensus lies.

That's a crucial question. Where does "true consensus" lie? Now Future and others advertised this poll everywhere on Wikipedia. Future even made a plea at AN/I. Yet only about thirty people came to vote for support. Few if any administrators came to vote. Other Wikipedians didn't bother. Why? Is it because Wikipedians tacitly agree with the Greek position? Why did they not heed the call to stump on the Greek POV in droves? I thought that WP:SILENCE meant tacit approval. Wikipedians may have voted already. By abstaining in droves, despite the advertising throughout Wikipedia. That's where the true consensus may well lie. All this ethnic blame game may well be just a smokescreen to hide this fact. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"all active experienced editors in good standing"

Future's comment on the editors of the support side included "all active experienced editors in good standing". Yet noone was identified from the opposing side as such. I can only guess as to the reasons. Dr.K. logos 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of reality

Whether you like it or not, the plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of opposing voices are those of Greek Wikipedians, while not a single Greek Wikipedian has joined the supporting side. That doesn't render those views invalid. What it does demonstrate is that ethnicity is a decisive factor in the composition of the opposing side. There is no common ethnic element in the supporting side, as Fut. Perf. and Husond's figures have shown. That's a clear indication that the opposing side is being driven by ethnically-based political considerations. If no such considerations were in play, we would not see every contributor from a particular ethnic group lining up on the same side. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic affiliation does not invalidate the arguments of the opposing side because arguments should be based on discussion and logic, not on casting aspersions about the motives of the opposing side. Therefore your point is irrelevant and in fact harmful to Wikipedia. I will not revert you again because I don't want to edit war. Edit warring is disruptive no matter how noble the cause may be. However your heavy handed block threat to me in your edit summary and on my talk page, as well as other comments you made recently at ANI, show that you are not an uninvolved or impartial admin and as such you should not threaten me with blocks. Dr.K. logos 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue about ethnicity and identity. The Greeks in any case would be more vocal, as it is (also) their identity that is being polled. Note that the WP name for the UK is not the shortest, simplest or most common name (England, Britain or Great Britain) rather it is the United Kingdom and I think used to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The reasons for adopting that name internationally were similar to those for the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Should the same editors take a poll on how to call the United Kingdom in WP one would expect especially the French editors to object to “Britain” or “Great Britain” because the French are only affected. Skamnelis (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

"... except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union" — patently untrue; the UN nomenclature name "Former Yugoslav etc." is used (and increasingly so, too) at various international fora where there is no voting whatsoever let alone Greek veto. Sorry, poor try. Apcbg (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we have sources for that? You already said in the closed move request that usage of FYROM at international fora has increased since the 2008 Bucharest Summit[4] and you didn't give any sources or examples either.

Actually, forget about sources, just explain why the heck this is relevant here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposer of this straw poll provided a certain 'Background for the proposal' that, presumably, was relevant to the proposal. Then so would be the factual validity of statements made in that 'Background', I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct reply by Apcbg and this should cover it, as also it was correct by Enric to strike his question. But, of course, we all need to have a sense of fairness in our subconscious for our decision to choose supporting the one or the other. So, for the curious ones, some indications are in the end of the last (hidden) section of my position above (under "#5.Why are Greeks so irked). NikoSilver 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased representation of facts by Husond, with a lot of plain false statements inside, - an example of how not to give background information. Thankfully, our own articles Macedonia naming dispute and Macedonia (terminology) explain the issue in a somewhat less biased manner. A Manual of Style for Macedonia related matters has been created in WP:MOSMAC and Greece-related articles are specifically catered for. There is no reason to treat this page outside the scope of the MoS and have a separate poll, unless someone wants deliberately to bypass the MoS.--Avg (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it just says that for Greece-related articles there's no consensus. However keeping then in line with Greek POV is not an acceptable solution. Sorry this article is not here to soothe Greeks sensibilities. man with one red shoe 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really getting tiring repeating again and again that fYRoM is not the Greek POV. This is the primary reason I consider you have a certain bias. No reasonable person can consider the official UN/EU name as "Greek POV". We clearly have two official names here. There is a choice depending on context, which one should be used. The far worse case that happens in Wikipedia is that the official name (RoM or fYRoM) is substituted by an unofficial and ambiguous name (Macedonia) by the same people who advocate policy and consistency. --Avg (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But FYROM is absolutely Greek POV because the only reason it even exists is because of the Greek position in these international organizations. Rather than annoy the Greeks, the international organizations caved in to Greek demands. Republic of Macedonia is the chosen name by the people of that country. The Greeks are 100% responsible for FYROM because of their POV. (Taivo (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

This is not the case. Greece never actively supported FYROM (which is admittedly ugly) before its imposition by the UN. It was imposed to Greece as much as it was imposed to the Republic. Greece's POV has been at the time that the word Macedonia should not be included in any appelation of this state (although for reasons of compromise it has later shifted to accepting the word Macedonia along with a geographical qualifier). FYROM is and has ever been the only bilaterally accepted name, anything else is a deviation from international agreements.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People here seem to not understand the simple fact that Wikipedia doesn't actually care about, of follow, UN or EU names and they bring that about ad nauseum. man with one red shoe 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And anybody who exercises common sense would recognize that FYROM name is only because of Greek POV (right or wrong, you can be for or against, but that's the clear situation) man with one red shoe 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but here in Wikipedia we do not prescribe, we describe. FYROM currently is an official name and the ONLY name that both states have agreed to. You might have your objections, but this is the reality. I'm not saying that RoM is not an official name, but FYROM is as much official and the only one sanctioned by international organisations. So it has every validity to be here.--Avg (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't prescribe anything, I just use the name prescribed by Wikipedia's naming conventions: WP:NAME, again the "official name" has minimum importance, why do you keep bringing it about? Wikipedia doesn't care about official names. If you don't like the policy try to change it but don't bring arguments that don't have weight because you become tiresome. man with one red shoe 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read what you quote? Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others.--Avg (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So? man with one red shoe 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So this whole discussion is counter-productive, both names are equally controversial, each one for its own reasons, and the very fact that someone requests a rename simply shows they simply want their own POV to prevail. Wikipedia policy suggests to leave this issue at rest.--Avg (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read that as a interdiction to discuss the issue, I also don't think should be used as a club to preserve specific POV in this page. You say the discussion is counter-productive, however you are part of it, what you actually want is that your POV to triumph by using the excuse that the "discussion is counter-productive". Actually I think it's pretty productive, I've seen already a number of people who support "Republic of Macedonia" form and on the other side I heard only arguments that don't have weight "official name", "discussion is counter-productive", are these the only arguments you have? man with one red shoe 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already listed a series of arguments and I have a lot more, however, since I know your style, if I continue you will accuse me of flooding the talk page and diverting from the real subject, which is that the bad Greeks have hijacked the page etc etc. --Avg (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not FYROM is "Greek POV" is irrelevant because it occurs outside of wikipedia, it's not like there are a certain few with an agenda, it is an internationally recognized term. I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but why are we using either term? Shouldn't the link say just show Macedonia? We don't refer to other countries in articles as the Hellenic Republic or Republic of Bulgaria, etc., other than stating their official names in the lead. If you are referring to the area in Greece say the Macedonian region of Greece or something, but what is proposed seems to never actually be used anywhere. I can't think of where you would ever say FYROM or Republic of Macedonia in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People should stop citing MOSMAC here because on this issue MOSMAC clearly and unequivocally states that "there is no consensus". That means that there is no policy because no one could agree on one. So stop citing MOSMAC because that is like saying "We have never agreed on this". That's exactly what is being said here--no agreement has ever been reached. (Taivo (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Presumably the point of this discussion is to see if a majority view can be reached? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. man with one red shoe 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "Republic of Macedonia" has only a few more hits than "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so the example isn't quite strong. I would argue that the are both equal in use depending on where you are. [5]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Link with correct parameters and thanks for the fresh and constructive input.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite interesting what some users are claiming, that the article of Greece is a "POV island" in Wikipedia. If I remember correctly, though it has been a long time (id est: prior to Bush's recognition of FYROM as "Macedonia"), there had been a concensus reached that this country would be refeared in Wikipedia as the "Republic of Macedonia". Perhaps, someone should start by clearing and fixing any sentence in this that uses te term Macedonia, without refering to the region. Then, we should proceed in the other articles as well. If the current usage of the reference to this country in the article of Greece is nothing but unacceptable Greek POV (as a user said above), then change in this is unacceptable FYROMian POV, or, at least, a clear offer of support to the American foreign policy. The pretext that "Macedonia" is the most widespread, common and natural term to use (as also claimed above by users), does not sound appaling, since the same attitude is not followed in a great rage of article were an opinion or thesis that favours Greece/Greeks is continually and blatantly blocked by well-known users, in favour of minority opinions (and as we all know, examples are many). Not to mention that the same attitude is not followed in a great number of articles for other countries/nations/so on elsewhere in Wikipedia. Apropos, maybe the RTL uses the term "Macedonia" to refear to FYROM, thus in the minds of some making it widespread, but, if it was that widespread, Germany would have formally recognised it as such. And if some believe that pure diplomacy and politics are the reason for Germany not doing this, they should be start by wondering is pure diplomacy and politics are the reasons that the USA did... Hectorian (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hectorian, you need to read more carefully, I think. No one above is saying to use Macedonia. Everyone above is saying to use Republic of Macedonia. We are all quite aware of the problem with using Macedonia to refer to the country called Republic of Macedonia. So your argument is moot since no one is taking the position you claim. (Taivo (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

That isn't quite the case. See for example this controversial edit to a protected template by one of the involved administrators, which effectively imposed the use of plain "Macedonia" in countless articles. This was done without any explanation on the relevant talk page. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hectorian, I just went through Republic of Macedonia and made references to Republic of Macedonia consistent, so your argument about that is now also moot. Wikipedia is not bound by UN resolutions or Greek politics. It is bound by the consensus of its editors and internal consistency. Right now, there is a consensus among non-Greek editors that Republic of Macedonia is the best reference for this political entity. It is only a handful of Greek editors who are blocking this usage with no more reasoning than "the UN says no". (Taivo (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Ahem. You're picking at straws, Hectorian. That's a simple flag template and the shorter name makes the flag graphic fit better into the templates. Improving the technical performance of Wikipedia is a noble effort. That's not much of an argument and if it's your only piece of "evidence" then your argument is awfully weak. I'm sure you'll find other places where some article on the distribution of Cretaceous granites in the Balkans "incorrectly" refers to Macedonia rather than the Republic of Macedonia as well. That's just life in Wikipedia--there are an infinite number of places where we can nit and pick ourselves to death over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But overall, in the big picture, the Greeks are blocking the usage of the normal "Republic of Macedonia" without any more reasoning than the fact that they don't like it. (Actually, "normal" would be to refer to this country as Macedonia, but using Republic of Macedonia is already a compromise to clarify that we are not including the Greek provinces.) (Taivo (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

No, my argument is not moot! Imagine what: admission of three Balkan countries (Croatia, Albania and Macedonia), Torlakian and Shop dialects spoken mostly in southern Serbia and western Bulgaria (and by speakers in the north and east of Macedonia), Macedonia is amongst one of the countries with the most beautiful preserved Byzantine fresco paintings, etc etc. You made some changes (but did not correct all of it), but why didn't you go through that article before? Didn't you know what was going on there? Or maybe you have no idea of what is going on in other articles as well? I have every right to believe that, had I not drawn attention to that, no changes would have been made. And those that were made, I believe are made "temporarily"... soon, they will be altered to simply "Macedonia" again.

Excuses of the kind "looks better", "improving the technical performance of Wikipedia", etc, are not convincing enough. We are not supposed to alledgedly chose what looks better over what is more correct. In the recent months many changes have been made in a great variety of articles, where the "Republic of Macedonia" was changed to simply "Macedonia", with many of these changes made by admins involved here as well, eternally accusing the Greek editors of POV-pushing on the issue. Shall I proceed in all the articles changing "Macedonia" into "RoM"? Will any of the parties who voted "support" in the sraw poll above, help me in it? Of course not! Al least some of them, will try to block me on the grounds of a wiki policy they will suddenly remember is valid... Apart from yourself, no one bothered to replace "Macedonia" with "RoM", despite their claims of neutrality, concensus and encyclopedic behavour. With your act, you explosed many other users' (admins, of course included) double standards and hidden open agendas. Thank you. Hectorian (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What a scandalously deliberate misinterpretation of a basic English sentence. The policy is clear: use the most common term that isn't ambiguous. That means the next most common term after "Macedonia", regardless of its relative popularity. And that isn't "Republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you fail to see that Republic of Macedonia is a needed disambiguation in this case -- yes, following the naming convenitions we should use "Macedonia" because of possible confusion we need to disambiguate and use "Republic of Macedonia". Also, I thought the discussions will be limited in "discusion" section, I can go on and reply to any point for "oppose" but I respect people and don't do this, why are you special in this respect? man with one red shoe 13:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. It prescribes the use of the most common unambiguous term, not the arbitrary disambiguation of the most common ambiguous one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And you mean to say that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is more common than "Republic of Macedonia"? That's not clear to me, at most they are close in usage with "RoM" leading (it's also not clear to me that the articles that mention "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are not actually using "RoM" form most of the times and only mention the "FYROM" once saying something like "Greeks like this form" -- only a mention of that would put the paper in the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" category, which is of course not accurate) But nevertheless, "RoM" seems to be more common even if not by much, so how can you support a form that's less common? Talking about consistency.... man with one red shoe 21:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the google scores for instance: ~2M vs ~1M hits. And BTW, it's a little crazy to think that the long form (which is obligatorily used in all UN/EU/NATO/OSCE/FIFA/FIBA etc documents and in all other international organizations and wherever else Greece is a participant) isn't used more than the RoM form... NikoSilver 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In the second link you remove all the results that contain "former Yugoslav", that's absurd, I would imagine that in many articles about Macedonia is mentioned that's a Former Yogoslav republic, or at least they mention the name controversy, so you actually remove from search any article that talks about the controversy. As for your guess, is just that, a guess. man with one red shoe 01:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide any evidence to support your claim that "RoM" is more common than fYRoM? We know that "Macedonia" is, but "RoM"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have, but don't pretend that you have the proof that fYRoM is more popular. As I explained those searches are ambiguous. man with one red shoe 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How about User:ChrisO's "survey of mainstream encyclopedias", which produced 5 hits for fYRoM and only 1 for "RoM"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that conclusive... but you forgot to mention that "Macedonia" is clearly more popular, maybe we should simply use "Macedonia" and disambiguate the Greek region. "Greek Macedonia" or "Greek Province of Macedonia", OK with this? man with one red shoe 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But of course, it would only be conclusive if it favoured your side of the argument. As for your silly proposal, no chance. It would violate Wikipedia policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What policy would that violate? As for conclusiveness you can't be serious that survey of encyclopedias should determine anything and that 5 vs. 1 out of dozen of encyclopedias is in any way statistically significant. man with one red shoe 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again? WP:NC. Read it. As for the survey, it was first brought up as an argument by your side of the debate. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NC? So, I bring serious arguments against a survey and your only reply is that it was used as an argument by "your side of the debate" for what is worth I argue for myself and my ideas, not for any side. The fact that a bad survey was brought up by somebody who by chance supports one of the things that I support doesn't invalidate what I support, nor does it validate the survey. man with one red shoe 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The part that says that ambiguous article names should be avoided. As for whether or not we should be talking about "sides", I wasn't the one who painted an entire group of editors with the same racist brush. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist? Hold your horses, now you add racism to your accuses? I still wait for appologies for claiming that I have adopted "anti-Greek" positions (multiple times on this page). If you can't bring any shread of proof you should simply appologize. As for ambiguous names there's nothing ambiguous about Republic of Macedonia, or about Macedonia (region). man with one red shoe 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a racist, I was simply noting that the racist division between the "obsessed Greeks" and the "rest of the world" was not my invention. But why should I apologize for my comments regarding your anti-Greek positions? You yourself have explicitly defined what you regard as the "Greek POV" and expressed your opposition to it on multiple occasions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, but I also haven't noticed racist behavior here so maybe we should tone down the comments. As for Greek POV as I explained I'm concerned about having majority of Greeks that watch this page that they will impose their specific point of view, as it happens in this matter it looks like the Greeks are pretty united, do you disagree on this point, can you present some proof that there is a significant number of Greeks that support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" name? It does look like the Greeks vs. the rest of the world (not talking about UN, I'm talking about editors) This is a typical situation when people push a specific national POV (point of view)... and I've seen this on other national pages so it's not only Greeks who do it. Again is not an accusation of bad faith, it's just what I notice, if I'm wrong please correct me by showing me a significant number of Greeks who agree to use "Republic of Macedonia" name. man with one red shoe 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Appalling

A "background" section that ought to be the support position is shameful. The text obviously tries to portray Greeks as a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction. How deceitful, manipulative and devious. Those should be Husond's own opinions, and he has every right in the world to have them, but to portray them as "background" information for the uninvolved users is appalling. Shame. NikoSilver 08:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet almost all of the editors to oppose this proposal - and conversely to support Kekrops' move proposal over on Talk:Republic of Macedonia - are a small number of exclusively Greek editors. What are we to make of this? Why is this, in effect, a few Greek people versus everyone else? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You admit it is a successful manipulation then. And you continue it, to make sure that it stays that way, instead of just waiting to see what happens. Bravo. NikoSilver 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What I find particularly appalling is how the 'support' side tries to invalidate the views of the 'oppose' side by claiming it is just "a few Greek people" (above), or a "handful of Greek users" (below). A user's nationality has no bearing on the validity of their views or vote. A vote is a vote is a vote, whether the editor is Greek, Albanian, or Martian. To try to undermine one side of the debate on the basis of ethnicity borders on racism, and is frankly quite disgusting. It also reveals the intellectual paucity of the 'support' side's arguments, and that some people in that camp are driven more by animosity towards the Greek side (no need to mention names) than reason. --Athenean (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "invalidate" votes. A Greek vote is - of course - of equal weight to one from an editor of any other nationality. But there are some things here which it's impossible to explain away in terms of simple policy differences. Let's consider the facts:

• Support votes have come from a wide range of nationalities - American, British, German, Swedish and others. Not a single Greek editor has voted in favour of this proposal.
• Oppose votes have come almost exclusively from Greek editors. Almost every editor who has voted against this proposal self-identifies as Greek. Every Greek editor who has participated in this discussion has voted the same way.

So how do we explain this?

• Greek editors have a different understanding of Wikipedia policies to everyone else?
• Only Greek editors understand Wikipedia's policies, but nobody else does?
• Greek editors are voting as a block for reasons other than Wikipedia's policies?

It's pretty obvious what the answer is... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Greeks are smarter (they don't get fooled by wrong arguments) and less biased than other people. :) And of course it doesn't have to do with pushing a POV at all... man with one red shoe 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:So what? What is your point? Where are you trying to go with this? For the second time, the ethnic background of the partcipants to this poll should be no more relevant than what their favorite food is. I find your insistent focus on the ethnic background of those who happen to vote 'oppose' disturbing to say the least. --Athenean (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that's a specific POV pushed here, not an interpretation of a policy (it would be strage that people who are from a specific country to interpret a policy in a different way than all the people from other countries). But I agree, we don't need to examine the background of the people involved which can be offensive and doens't prove anything. Beside I'm sure there are non-Greek who oppose and Greeks who support, so let's drop it here. man with one red shoe 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To sum up: I'm claiming that nobody is trying to invalidate Greek votes but I'm writing an essay just below to invalidate Greek votes. --Avg (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO your argument would be valid after the poll, when all the votes were in. Now it's not valid, because those thinking to oppose are reading your post and are reluctant to be accused of helping a "faction", so they are extorted/intimidated/scared away. Way to go ChrisO. Keep sending them away, and then claim that this carnival of a poll was fair! How brave and gallant of you! NikoSilver 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this and other relevant discussions at some points read like a lecture on the power of denial, "isolation" by ethnicity is constantly abused as an argument to divert from some valid points that have to do with basic wikipedia principles, but it's abused as a plain term as well along with "Greek POV", "Greeks versus everyone else" or "national faction" and others creating an atmosphere for good faith outside readers. The broader context to me is that very few editors in this community give a shit on which reference should be used (reflecting the world at large), and that makes "everyone else" as isolated in their own stubbornness as the other side is supposed to be in ChrisO's comment above. The community expects something stable that abides with wikipedia policies. Best case for "RoM" supporters is that it's as legit a "fYRoM" following Kekrop's reasoning and counterarguments posed, adding (for example) the more case-specific arguments by Yannismarou to that, things become clearer. And i think most people which aren't carried away by their inner (noble or in some occasions not so noble) motives/inspiration-to-participate that favour the constitutional name can see that right now.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

People can have different POVs without being of bad faith. Nobody (or at least not myself) is accusing Greek people who have a specific POV of bad faith, the problem here is not bad faith (so don't pretend you get offended), the problem is pushing a specific POV (AKA Greek POV). I think the discussion is still open if a specific group that has a specific POV can influence Wikipedia, it's not about invalidating votes, besides "Wikipedia is not a democracy" exactly because of this issue, many people pushing their specific POV (for example I would imagine Chinese or Indians would be very successful to push they national POV then) But I agree, let's discuss this issue when the poll is over, at least to satisfy my curiosity and I would still like to know who other than Greeks voted against. man with one red shoe 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons." Is this statement going to be tolerated ? Fascist groupings and vague accusations of "faking history", we managed to see that too.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascist? I've seen somebody talking about racism on this page, can you please tone down the debate? You can disagree with something without throwing loaded words around. man with one red shoe 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "Fascist groupings" is a good way to get blocked for personal attacks. Please keep this discussion cool, do not resort to ad-hominem attacks. Discuss the content of the argument and not the people you are arguing with. If I see the tone here getting out of hand then I will attempt to protect this discussion from that by removing the worst offenders. Neutrality requires that discussions like this be based on reason and not a big nasty fight. Chillum 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never called anyone a "fascist grouping", i said he groups Greeks in this way. What do you make of his generalisation ? Extreme to say the least.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, I misread your comment to be that fascists groupings were making vague accusations. Okay, sorry about that. Regardless, the general tone of this debate is becoming unnecessarily personal. Chillum 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I misread the same way, and that's because nobody used the word "fascist" before, I think that's at best a poorly constructed strawman and I agree that people should not use loaded terms: fascist, racism, etc. man with one red shoe 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't see Red using the term fascist anywhere. If anything I see only accusations of bias. Chillum 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the "Support" comment of Hans Adler above, i quoted his second sentence, all subsequent comments made there were usually transferred in the discussion section for some reason, so i posted here.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And no, man with one red shoe, i won't tone down, since i'm not getting any answer i'm repeating: do i have the right to say "Germans are still nazis deep inside" ? wouldn't this be a grouped treatment resembling the good old fascist way of thinking ? Does it have any place in here ? I see no reaction on these collective accusations of nationalism and falsification of history by Mr.Adler.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why construct such offensive strawmen? Nobody mentioned fascism here but you. man with one red shoe 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well find me the equivelant of accusing Greeks as a group of nationalists that falsified history according to your own set of values then. I was very specific, my problem is with Adler's comment, not with anything previous. I don't know what's the problem with the term "fascist", those blind sixteen year olds in Athens back in December, throwing stones at police officers and considering them all murderers, that was a fascist behaviour, not enough to define them as fascist individuals of course. You'll probably have a more reserved usage for the term in English. Anyway, i thought it was pretty much obvious that his statement went over the line, i have no reason to insist on passing my point if we can't share even that.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole escalation in rhetoric is very disturbing. The only one talking about "fascism" or "racism" is Δρακόλακκος. There have been numerous comments about the Greek faction, but that is because one side of the discussion is nearly entirely populated with Greeks and there are no known Greeks on the other side of the issue. This exactly correlates with the origin of the issue in the first place--Greece objected to the name Macedonia and forced a few international bodies to accept FYROM as a substitute. That is not a racist comment. "Greek" is not a race, but a nationality. There is nothing perjorative about being called "Greek". I would think that it would be a compliment to someone who was actually Greek. And to point out here that the proponents and opponents of the issue being discussed here exactly correlates with Greek nationality doesn't seem to me to be either a "racist" or a "fascist" comment. It seems to me to be a normal part of understanding the motivations behind each of the sides in a dispute so that a compromise and, maybe, a consensus can be reached. Tone down the rhetoric, no one is a "fascist" or a "racist" here. Those of us who oppose the Greek position on "FY" do so not because we hate Greeks or are "racist" or "fascist", but because we think that Greece was being silly to oppose another country's name for itself when it did no harm to Greece. It was just political posturing. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree, I have one amendment though: Greece silliness/wiseness is not the object of the debate, we should concentrate on Wikipedia's policies and the common use in English, we are not here to decided what's good or bad. man with one red shoe 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. In general, we can think about whether or not Greece was silly in its political posturing, but here our only concern is Wikipedia and following Wikipedia policy and practice. (Taivo (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I would say the line of thinking that by naming itself Macedonia meant no harm to Greece is at least questionable and does not exhibit great historical depth. So I'll try to help by asking why would a country name itself after one of Greece's regions, adopt an ancient Greek symbol as its flag and claim the ancient history of Macedonia if they did not have any other ambitions? Dr.K. logos 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not at all uncommon for an incoming group of people to adopt the history of the land beneath their feet. The ancient kingdom of Macedon included much of the territory of Macedonia. Look at what happened in America--Americans have claimed much of the heritage of the Native Americans even though 90% of the U.S. population is not of Native American descent. I live in one of many states with a Native American name. Should we give that up just because we are mostly not Native Americans? When the Magyars moved into the central plain of the Danube, they adopted much of the history and heritage of the Avars and Huns who preceded them. Should we ask all Hungarians named Attila to change their name? This pattern is repeated over and over in history and is not at all unusual. Why deny the Macedonians the right to claim the heritage of the soil they occupy? Even the Greeks moved into the land which they now occupy and adopted the heritage of that place. Denying the Macedonians the right to the heritage of their soil is akin to denying the Greeks their rights to parts of their heritage that predate the Hellenic invasion. Indeed, there is so little of the ancient Macedonian language preserved that scholars are not totally certain that ancient Macedonian was even related to Greek, let alone closely related. Alexander, by blood, may have been something quite other than Greek on his father's side as well as his mother's. (Taivo (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

As far as the American Indian analogy I think given the troubled history of the Indians and their uprooting form their heritage by the settlers, this can hardly be a model of cultural adoption or even assimilation. Plus last time I looked the American flag did not look like the Apache or Comanche flags. This analogy also breaks down because the settlers did not adopt the culture of the Indians so that they can expand in Indian territory. The modern day inhabitants of FYROM adopted artificially, and not by gradual evolution over thousands of years, the ancient Macedonian identity in a very short span of time precisely so as to have territorial claims to the rest of Macedonia. I am not an expert or a scholar on this subject but the boundary conditions are rather transparent. Dr.K. logos 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may is not our place to judge intentions and decide which behaviors are good or bad, that's "original research" and also nobody here is qualified to impart justice. I could contribute with my opinion about the issue but I feel that's irrelevant, here we care about English usage not about the political implications of using one name or another (or at least that's how things are supposed to work) -- man with one red shoe 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taivo I appreciate the effort you make to learn about history in this remote (to you) part of the world. I truly do. However, I wonder if I may correct some inaccuracies regarding "heritage to soil". The territory of Ancient Macedon was located in what today is Greece. The Vergina Sun was discovered in Greece. Alexander the Great was born in Greece. So isn't a bit offensive for an ethnic group to claim history and symbols of something that was never physically located in their land, but in their neighbors land? --Avg (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Avg, if you look at the maps of "Ancient Macedonia" you will see that it extends northward beyond the current border of Greece. And the issue of Macedonia wanting to control Greek Macedonia was solved by the (1994?) accord wherein Macedonia gave up the Vergina (sp?) flag and removed territorial claims of "Greater Macedon" from its constitution. In return, Greece lifted its embargo and agreed that it would not oppose Macedon's NATO and EU entry. The territorial argument is now past tense and is not relevant anymore. (Taivo (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Not on this map, it doesn't. Paionia and Dardania, the ancient lands which covered almost all of is now the fYRoM, were later annexed to the Macedonian kingdom, of course, but then so was Afghanistan. As for the territorial argument being no longer relevant, you obviously haven't had the privilege of opening a school textbook from Skopje. It is naïve, at the very least, to think that the irredentist fantasies cultivated over decades under Yugoslav rule were swept away by the stroke of a pen in 1995. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops, as usual, was faster and better :-) I had this map in mind. Anyhow, you can simply visit our article about United Macedonia and have a look at the links in the end.--Avg (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in the 5th century BCE, Macedonia was small, but by Roman times Macedonia had expanded much further north. And, of course, the Byzantine Greeks got Macedonia and Thrace mixed up. (Taivo (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

And it had expanded all the way to the Indus before Roman times. Why don't the Punjabis call themselves "Macedonians"? Unlike the Slavs, they actually did come into contact with the ancients. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the old argumentum ab absurdum. It was cute the first time you used it yesterday or the day before, but it's old now and not cute anymore. It's also an argument that is beneath your intelligence level. Roman Macedonia covered most of both modern Greek and Slavic Macedonia so the Macedonian use of the name is not at all inappropriate. Indeed, even Philip and Alexander had moved the northern boundary of their homeland well into the territory of the Republic before Alexander embarked across the Hellespont and left Macedonia, never to return. But, in the end, it doesn't matter whether ancient Macedonia extended more than a mile beyond the gates of Pella. A city, a province, a country can name themselves whatever they want and should expect to be free from outside pressure to change that name. Thus, Athens is in Georgia, the Parthenon is in Nashville, there are no less than 13 Spartas (two in Wisconsin alone), and six Macedonias scattered from Georgia to Iowa. Ancient heritage is not required for a place to adopt a name. For much of its history, the Holy Roman Empire did not include Rome and the bulk of its territory was outside the borders of the ancient Roman Empire. Names are just names, they are not realities. Here at Wikipedia it is not our place to judge the rightness or wrongness of a given name, only to apply the simple rules of a) common English usage and b) self-identification to a place. We are enjoined to ignore political and emotional issues in applying these two principles. Thus, the northern neighbor of Athens is not "Skopje" as that is neither the common English name nor the self-identification. Nor is the northern neighbor of the former Turkish province of Greece "FYROM" as that is also neither the common English name nor the self-identification. Its common English name is "Macedonia" and its self-identification is "Republic of Macedonia". Those are the names to be applied in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

In other words, a spade has the right to be known as a TBM, because "TBM" is an arbitrary string of letters that doesn't "really" mean anything anyway. Whatever. I prefer to call a spade a spade. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you can call it however you want, but if the majority of English speakers would call it TBM then that's what we should use in Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 12:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, relax, don't you know the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"? man with one red shoe 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you call that flattery, sure...--Avg (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can always "unite" Macedonia within Greece ;) Is more likely anyway, Greece is a bigger and richer country. man with one red shoe 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course this concern doensn't make Greeks to have a specific POV... man with one red shoe 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(reply to the long post of Taivo above): Taivo, I am one of the Greeks who has absolutely no objection on the Macedonicity of his northern neighbors! It is the exclusivity of that Macedonicity that I object to. They are Macedonians, just not the only ones. What I wish is them to accept it. If they had accepted it, nobody would be pushing for them to also include it as a "qualifier" in their name. (I for once wouldn't care.) NikoSilver 09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The time for Arbcom has come

We simply cannot leave these fundamental questions as posed above in the hands of a couple of Admins who are too involved to see things clearly. It is time for Arbcom to clarify the rules under which polls can be conducted and when can lists based on ethnicity be used to justify or insinuate conclusions about the participants. I think we need the guidance of the Arbcom when race, ethnicity or other sensitive parameters are used as social or semantic separators to justify conclusions. Dr.K. logos 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear here what has happened. The Greek side tried to take on the world, and failed! Despite the fact that the majority of the Oppose were from the GReek POV, and the majority of Support votes were from users of unrelated POV's, is something which should be take into account. It is clear here that nationalism tried to take on common sense, and lost. PMK1 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you PMK1 for your input. As you know very well I am not interested in these debates and I almost never participate in Macedonia related discussions. The points I made above apply equally well to any ethnicity. You see I value your vote. Even though your background is from RoM, I believe, (I hate doing background checks on people), I would never dismiss your vote as a nationalist vote just because of your background. That's anti-logic, anti-debate, anti-WP:AGF, anti-intellectual etc. etc. When you vote you vote. I respect your vote. Period. I find it offensive for people to be listed by nationality no matter what the nationality may be. Now if you tell me that you are going to hold a kangaroo vote and you will at the end of the poll bring the forensic crew to besmirch my reputation only on the basis that I am Greek and no other criterion, then I would choose not to participate in this poll. Such a poll would be neither free nor fair. Such is the state of this pitiful excuse of a poll. Mousetrap tactics and vote apartheid techniques don't belong in anything serious, let alone an encyclopedia. I am actually disappointed with Future. I thought that a man with his obvious academic and linguistic skills would bring a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to this discourse rather than the crude nationality hammer that he chose to reveal from his toolbox. The crudeness of this approach reminds me more of Archie Bunker. But what can you do. C' est la vie. Dr.K. logos 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K., if you have seen i did not participate in the above vote. I have gained much respect for you based on your decision to withdraw from the vote, based on personal principles and not other resons. However i think FutureP was just interested in raising the issue that Nationalism, it would seem, was the dominant force in the above vote, not common sense or anything which would benefit the encyclopedia. :-) PMK1 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much PMK1 for your nice comments. The respect is mutual. I respect you unconditionally, without even looking at your contributions. All human beings deserve respect. As far as Future is concerned I know in his heart he thought he was trying to do good. As my analysis above suggests he just went about it the wrong way. Take care and it's been a pleasure meeting you. Hope we'll meet again under better circumstances :) Tasos (Dr.K. logos 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

So who won the edit war

It was a very close thing with Greek editors being outed and investigated by a pro Fyrom editor. I can see the Greek article has been edited by a future perfect to show the Fyromian side got its wish. So who won? Reaper7 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is no "winner". Things are not decided by votes here, but by reaching a consensus (except in the case of deleting or retaining articles). The issue never reached consensus and will be going to arbitration. The general tone of your comment is naive at best and inflammatory at worst. (Taivo (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your analysis of my at best naive at worst inflammatory edit. I am afraid I am going to ignore it however. To someone else.

If no agreement was reached, why was the article edited according to the Fyomian side? Should it not be left as it was previously as there is no consensus despite the ethnic tagging of the votes? Reaper7 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is in the state it was in at exactly the moment that the admin froze the article for edit warring. At that point, it is what it is and it is going to ARBCOM. (Taivo (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

The article was stating Former yugoslav republic of macedonia for most its life. Some pro Fyromian editors then started an edit war by changing it as much as they could. Warnings were distributed. So we are leaving it at the conflict edit point. I see. Reaper7 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "pro-Fyromian"--that is the Greek position--"FYROM". But it doesn't matter. The article won't change unless ARBCOM says it should. (Taivo (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo firstly, please don't make things up/. Fyrom is the term used by most organisations (that are not controlled by the UK or US) and most of the important nations in the EU. So stop saying Fyrom is the Greek position. Fyrom is the position of the UN and many nations and organisations that aim to protect the world. You can say fyrom is the UN, Fifa, EU, French, Italian and German position too to name a few, but I understand it may annoy you. This is a hugely volatile part of the world and as I have stated before, I will happily educate you on why this is so dangerous through neutral sources.

Secondly, the article has changed as I stated before. If the idea was to leave the article altered and that side won, fair enough, but I believe the vote was too close to call, despite all the hard efforts of certain pro Fyromian editors such as ethnic profiling the voters that made one voter retract his vote in disgust. Reaper7 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've said before that external politics don't matter a hill of beans to the processes of Wikipedia. I'm aware of them and they are irrelevant to our discussion. The article is the way it is until Arbitration says otherwise. So your words here and at Talk:Greece trying to "educate" us are wasted. No one is listening. (Taivo (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

You brought in politics by saying 'Greece's position, I simply pointed out how Greece's position is global. I knew it wouldn't sit well on your 'hill of beans..' As I am sure you realise, there is not a consensus in the English speaking world (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to name a few) on what to call this country with Fyrom being the only neutral. Finally, 'educate us'? I am afraid the only person I have ever deemed in need of an offered education on the matter in my life is you. Get future perfect to do the historical and ethnic research on me if you don't believe me. Peace. Reaper7 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in who you are, actually. You are new to the debate on Talk:Greece and you are just repeating the same old things that have been said a dozen times before and rejected as being not relevant to Wikipedia usage. I'm done here. (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

(Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia

Hooray for compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your kidding right!?!??! You are no better than the rest of the racists trying to erradicate the Macedonian Identity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.96.194 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for trying. Was such a remark really necessary? Cmiych (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)