Open main menu
Macedonia naming dispute was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed



I believe that the language has nothing to do with the naming dispute. It is clear that the languages are different. It seems that the Ancient Macedonian language was related with the Greek language, because most toponyms and names are Greek. It is possible that it was a mixed language, but it was not related with Cyrillic Macedonian. Jestmoon(talk) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want. Can you be more specific? As for the language, it is part of the naming dispute and this has nothing to do with how much the modern slavic language relates to the ancient hellenic one, but about whether the modern language shall be called as such and without any linguistic/cultural/ethnic/geographical qualifiers. I have the impression the article does explain the background of the issue. No? -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The language might be part of the naming dispute in Greek eyes, but this article is about the political dispute over the name of the nation, which is entirely different than any complaints over what the world calls, and has called, the South Slavic language. Linguists worldwide (excluding nationalists in Greece and Bulgaria) universally call the language Macedonian and this has been the case for long before there was a Republic of Macedonia. The whole issue is discussed in a separate article that is appropriately linked from here. Indeed, it's possible that the section in this article is inappropriately long because, as I stated before, the political dispute that this article covers has nothing to do with the linguistic issue. There should be a very short mention of the problems that Greeks and Bulgarians have with the linguistic label "Macedonian" and the link which already exists. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if the section isn't shortened. The only problem I would have is if someone wanted to expand the section in this article (where it is inappropriate). --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The Macedonia Naming Dispute involves the use of the words Macedonia/Macedonian for both the country, people and language. I recommend that you read the lead section: "Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia [...] Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language." This is exactly the naming dispute. We have 2 Macedonian people, 2 Macedonian languages/dialects and 2 Macedonia regions, with the Slavic side claiming monopoly over the name for itself even though historically and geographically it doesn't have the right to monopolise it. Hence the "Dispute". To say that "the language is part of the dispute in Greek eyes", only shows ignorance on the Macedonia Naming Dispute and its roots. To say this, is to exonerate the responsibility of the Slavic side and to incriminate the Greek side. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, you are conflating the political issue with the nonpolitical issue. The language is called "Macedonian" in the scientific community universally and there is exactly zero effort to call it anything else. It has been called "Macedonian" universally and without debate by the linguistic community since I was in grad school in the 1970s (at least). I'm not a Slavicist, so I can't tell you for how long it's been called universally "Macedonian" without debate in the scientific community. It is, indeed, a separate issue from this political debate in the eyes of the world. I separate Greece and Bulgaria (perhaps you missed my frequent mention of Bulgaria along with Greece in my previous post) from "universally" because there are issues with calling the language "Macedonian" in those two countries. They are separate issues, further distinguishing the language name issue from the copyright issue that Greece has with Macedonia separate from the language issue. But there are not "two languages" called "Macedonian". There is one. There is a dialect of the Greek language which bears the regional label of "Macedonian", but that's not a language. This is not unique on the linguistic map by any stretch of the imagination. There are, for example, three distinct linguistic entities known as "Scots" or "Scottish". But scientists don't care about Greece's copyright challenge or Bulgaria's ownership challenge. The label predates the breakup of Yugoslavia by decades. My point, however, is that the language name issues are separate from this article's point, which is the political row between neighbors over the flimsiest of reasons and that the language section should not be any longer than it is and that my personal opinion is that it is still too long. It should be mentioned, but not conflated with the point of this article. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Unless you are actually considering expanding the language section of this article (which I will oppose), then there really is no point whatsoever to continuing this discussion since I'm not proposing anything more than "leave it alone or shorten it, but leave it alone is OK". --Taivo (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not think anything in the article needs expansion when it comes to languages. But bear in mind that the article's 2017-2018 developments section will obviously be expanded and this will possibly contain info about the negotiations on the name of the Slavic language, as part of the Kotzia's seven proposals pack, which includes change to the: 1) country's name (Macedonia), 2) country's people (Macedonians), 3) country's language (Macedonian), 4) country's short name and codename (MKD) 5) country's trademarks and products (Made in Macedonia), 6) country's web domain (, 7) country's cars and vehicle IDs. etc. The Greek MoFA Nikos Kotzias is expected to arrive at Skopje next week according to the newspapers, and present the full 7-point package with the proposals for the final resolution of the name dispute, to the government of the Republic of Macedonia. If the name dispute is eventually resolved and if, hypothetically speaking now, an international treaty that includes the language's name, is signed between the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, then the linguists and Wikipedia will have no other option but to move on and the articles be renamed accordingly. History tends to repeat, and so, I suspect the resolution procedures will be similar to what was done in past naming disputes, such as the British Naming Dispute where Great Britain was forced to abandon that name for United Kingdom to appease to French concerns over ambiguity with the french province of Brittany. This is just my prediction. Nothing more. There is nothing else that can be discussed here, but I hope it has been made clear that the language's name is part of the dispute and the negotiations for its resolution. Whatever is agreed about the language's international name, will be reflected accordingly in Wikipedia and the linguistic world. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
First, there's no guarantee that all of Greece's copyright infringement demands will be met. Second, just because Greece and Macedonia might come to an agreement over what to call the Macedonian language does NOT mean that scientists are in any way, shape, or form bound by it. None of us are bound by the petty childishness of a country's government (in this case, Greece's) unless that government ties money to usage. So unless a scholar is doing research that is funded by Greece or Macedonia directly, that change simply isn't going to be required. And since Wikipedia is based on common English usage, don't get excited about seeing Wikipedia change any time soon when it comes to the name of the language used by linguists, and therefore used in general scientific work. Just look at Serbo-Croatian, for example. --Taivo (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
You got a point about Serbo-Croatian, however you are missing another: It is a linguistic group and a category which contains both Serbian language and Croatian language. The Macedonian language on the other hand isn't a linguistic group nor a category of its own, just merely language under the South Slavic group. Since it is a distinct language and is used only in the Republic of Macedonia and by the Slav Macedonians, it will be very weird for the scientists to not follow up, if the people who speak it, start calling it by a different name. Wikipedia's article will have to be updated soon or later, to accommodate both the readers and the editors, and that will be done only if the Naming Dispute is resolved and the language's name is covered by the dispute's resolution. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors' opinions, like governmental decrees, mean absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. If, and only if, linguists actually use some new name in a significant number, then Wikipedia will change. And not one minute before. Count on "later" rather than "sooner", if at all. --Taivo (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Editor's opinions, of course. When time comes, there will be discussion among the editors about this. That time hasn't come yet. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
And your opinion as an editor, of course, as it does in every discussion (as does mine as an editor), will count for nothing without solid evidence that common English usage has changed. You know this already. That's why Wikipedia has always called Macedonia "Macedonia" and ignored Greece's silly copyright infringement issue. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that was true, then Wikipedia could still call the United Kingdom by its previous name, couldn't it? Of course it is not a matter of how silly a naming issue is, just Wikipedia uses the names the states pick as official for themselves, like in the case of Myanmar. So if the Republic of Macedonia picked that name, Wikipedia followed suit. And if it picks another name, Wikipedia still will follow suit and rename the articles accordingly. Just common sense beyond our mere opinions. :-) -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You are completely mistaken about your characterization of "Wikipedia just following suit" concerning the name "Republic of Macedonia". You weren't here for WP:ARBMAC2 as I recall, during which there was great discussion about whether to call Republic of Macedonia "Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The main piece of evidence was always common English usage and there were detailed analyses of search terms used by readers, names used in English language atlases and geographies, names used in the English-language media, etc. It was always about common English usage and never about "just following suit" with regard to official Macedonian nomenclature. The Greek editors tended towards pointing out official UN usage and Greek sensitivity as indicative of the direction that Wikipedia should go, but in the end it was common English usage that prevailed. The same will happen in this instance. Hopefully simple demonstrations of the overwhelming shift of terminology (or not) will be all that is needed and that it will not require arbitration again. The name of the country is a different issue and will, of course, be subject to WP:CONSENSUS, I'm only referring to the name of the language following the topic of this thread. --Taivo (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. For the Republic of Macedonia, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Republic of Macedonia" and not mere "Macedonia"? I had the impression the WP:COMMONNAME was the "Macedonia" but Wikipedia chose "Republic of Macedonia" for the reasons I described above in my previous post (well, whenever you look on the web, you can see that the name "Macedonia" is prevailing over "Republic of Macedonia" in usage as far as I know). Apparently I will have to finally read the lengthy background of the WP:ARBMAC2. I wish I didn't had to as I know it was a very long discussion. Thank you Taivo for your time. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"Macedonia" is more common than "FYROM" or "former....". But because of the ambiguity between ancient and modern Macedonias, "Republic of M" and "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" were chosen as appropriate disambiguating titles. The common usage discussion eliminated FYROM et al. from the mix. --Taivo (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep thanks, Taivo. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Reading @TaivoLinguist: comments, he is right on the matter @SilentResident:. The negotiations regarding the naming dispute relate only to the official name of the country. Unless a agreement occurs between both nations, the name Republic of Macedonia will be the standard on Wikipedia as per wp:ARBMAC. Changes to renaming ethnic Macedonians or their language to terminology as say used by Greece is doubtful will change. Greek Wikipedia is the only place where that kind of alternative wording exits. All other Wikipedia projects are in sync on this. Albanian Wikipedia was the last that formally had the 'Greek view', but after much discussion i changed it over there to the Republic of Macedonia, and refering to ethnic Macedonians as Macedonians and their language as Macedonian and not something else. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari:, welcome to a discussion that has already came to a natural end. Taivo is very elloquent in his comments and he has convinced me on the wrong of my positions, hence why he is now finding me agreeing with him. I do not understand how your entry to this discussion is contributing anything new besides bragging for your edits in other Wikipedia projects for wich I am uninteresrted and is none of English Wikipedia's concern. I appreciate your time coming here but I do not think there are any. As for the negotiations regarding the naming dispute, like I have told you numerous time in the past in other cases: we stick to the sources and facts, not to editorial opinions. So if the one side of the dispute says that the name dispute *do* relate not just to the country name but also all spheres, including codenames, abbreviations, language and identity, then who are we to argue? This page is meant to reflect the thorny issues between the two sides, not Resnjari's views on the dispute. If that was the case, then the article could very well been titled "Resnjari's View On The Macedonia Naming Dispute".
Soon the Greek FM Nikos Kotzias is visiting Skopje to present a 7-point resolution on the name dispute, that, according to various newspapers, covers the issue of the language's name, the issue of the abbreviations and more, and the article will be updated accordingly to the sources, not our opinions. Have a good day, Resnjari. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, no need to get snippy there. I've been watching this discussion quite closely the whole time and @TaivoLinguist: has done well. If he hadn't said it, it would have been a discussion between you and me, as i dealt with a similar matter not long ago on Albania Wikipedia where i cleared out various absurdities that existed there for many years. And it was no easy feat, but i got it done in the end. Only one Wikipedia project now remains at odds with every other on the issue. With current negotiations ongoing, as its been groundhog day many times over among politicians on this issue, until both parties sign on the dotted line no administrator will even bother listen to a case to change the very name of this page. When it comes to Macedonians as an ethnic group and their language Macedonian those wanting change wont get it at all as per reasons given by TaivoLinguist.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Snippy? Not at all. Just, your notoriety in making talk page discussions prolonged is what wares me. Hence I am not too enthousiast to sit down and revive a discussion with an editor who has been notorious for failing to close past disputes with other editors, especially on the Albanian articles, and for failing to make even a single compromise in every one of the Noticeboards he has been involved in the past. So my sincere apologies, but do not expect more responses from me here.   And yes, thank you for sharing your *opinion* with us but this little serves, other than losing the point here, which is that the language name change is not my concern here, but the false perceptions the editors who have this article on their watchlist and believe that when the Greek side calls for "Erga Omnes", they assume it means only the country's name and nothing more. Have a good day and thank you for your attention.   -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
hehe, oh come now, reading your lengthy comments here could wear anyone out if they don't have the stamina.😎 Compromise, yeah i am all for it, where relevant and of merit. As you were told here by @TaivoLinguist:, on the ethnic group and language nothing will happen in the way of change. And for admins to accept change for this page, unless both sides singon the dotted line then it will be reflected here otherwise prior decisions as per wp:ARBMAC stick. For more than two decades the Greek side has officially stated that up for negotiations is only the name of the country and not other things. What everyday Greeks hold as a view about another people and their language, most of the world, say apart from Cyprus do not support. And yes i will keeping a very close eye on this matter. A good day to you too.😉 Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Just for the info: checking the Burmese language rename case, even if a country itself, as well as its people, constitutionally rename the language, it may still be called by its old name in the English Wikipedia due to WP:COMMONNAME, but with a note on what its new (official) name is, added. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@SilentResident:, your going to have a very difficult time getting that kind of change as there is consensus on all Wikipedia projects except Greek Wikipedia. The last holdout was Albanian wikipedia and i got it to change to be in line with the rest, as per consensus as i am all for consensus. And even on English Wikipedia, a new ARBMAC case on the lines of what your refering will attract a lot of people to it. There will be great difficulty on the change you want. Only the name of the country is as far as change will happen if both sides agree to a name and sign on it officially. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You aren't even reading before commenting, are you? You don't even need a consensus for adding a note about the official name on the lede. Just check the Burmese Language article for yourself. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Like that done with the Kosovo issue. On this you may have a have a difficult time getting it up and running. Support is not wide ranging, otherwise the first ARBCOM would have done that.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope. You need sources to point to constitutional use of the purpoted name. This isn't happening yet. First there has to be an agreement between the two countries. Then have the constitution ammended. And then, point to the documents of the constitution confirming its new name. Once these 3 steps are done, any filibuster editors trying to block or revert such information will most likely get into troubles. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Nah, because the only change that will happen will be one on the name -if both countries agree to a change, not anything else. Whatever everyday Greeks may hold as a view on ethnic Macedonian identity and their language, having a hatenote wont pass here because the Greek state has not made those issues part of the issue officially. Those who would push for hatenotes or other like changing the pagname of the ethnic group article or the language one will not get far, as the previous wp:ARBMAC threw out those arguments. The only change that is likely will be on the country name if an official agreement is struck.Resnjari (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't follow you. I am not talking about article name, but about the sentence inside the article's lead paragraph noting the official name which is different, just like how it was done for Burmese language. Now if you don't mind, I am done here. Good day -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Its hard to see that happening in this case. Say hypothetically it happens, if a hatenote goes into the main articles, then a hatenote will go all over Wikipedia where it says Macedonians and Macedonian language. Previous ARBMAC arbitration did not suggest that as a solution to matters and in any new ARBMAC on the issue, there will be great opposition to such a thing. Only the country name will be changed IF an agreement is struck as only that issue is disputed. The Greek state has not officially asked for Macedonians north of the border to rename themselves or their language (nor is that part of current negotiations), contrary to non-binding views aired by politicians in the Greek parliament or society.Resnjari (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[od] User:SilentResident is correct. That adding a note to the first sentence about a constitutional change of name doesn't require any consensus or arbitration. Changing the title of the article, which is what I was talking about, will require a demonstration of common English usage and a consensus. But simply adding a new sentence to the lead doesn't take that. Indeed, that's precisely the kind of information that we want to see in the first paragraph: "Macedonian, called XXX as a result of compromise with Greece in its copyright claim, is a South Slavic language....", etc. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If a hatenote does get placed it would need to be applicable to only one article otherwise we end up with the absurd situation like with Kosovo and its hatenote where everywhere Kosovo is mentioned in articles there is a wiki hatenote about the dispute. My concerns are that it may end up like that situation where a mention of Macedonia is made any given article. Also other editors out there may not be in favour of a hatenote.Resnjari (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
We are not talking about a hatnote--those are only directions to another article. All that is being mentioned here is a comment within the text of the lead paragraph at Macedonian language that mentions any new name. That's all. And that's appropriate. This thread began with a different topic and focus, but it has evolved to this point, where all that is being discussed now is a note within the text of the lead--not changing the name of Macedonian language without the demonstration of a change to common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been up for a long while. Ok, i know what is meant, like with the many Kosovo pages that have that note about the dispute. Still about a new name here, Greece has not compelled Macedonia to rename its language with a qualifier. Its still in the area of speculation that it even might happen. Internationally outside Greece, no one applies any suffixes or other terms for the people or language. I still don't see why qualifiers are needed to be outlined in a note regarding the language. The page has existed without one for very long time since the ARBMAC arbitration. I would need to see wording of this and its important that other imput is from editors is given from both sides before such a addition is made, because we might end up with these kinds of "notes" all over the place on many articles.Resnjari (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Resnjari you are quite right that it is currently premature to mention anything about a possible name change because nothing has happened. But if a change is made, then a brief sentence in the lead at Macedonian language on the new name (not a change in the article name) is completely appropriate without a lot of fuss since it would be a verifiable fact about the language. --Taivo (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @TaivoLinguist:, @Resnjari:, I think it is appropriate to ping you, given your involvement in the past discussion, about the latest developments on the name of the language, which occured today 12 June 2018. There is no need for any updates or changes to the article of the Macedonian Language, as Greece agreed today to recognize and accept the term "Macedonian Language", as is, and without any geographical or ethnic qualifiers, under the condition that the Republic of Macedonia will recognize that the language is a South Slavic language, completely unrelated to the Ancient Macedonian language, a condition which is purely political and meaningless for Wikipedia which already has this covered, hence no need for any changes to be made to it. Present article already updated with this info: [1] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. It still awaits approval by the governments of both countries and, apparently, a referendum in Macedonia, but I'm encouraged to see that both Greece's extreme name position and Macedonia's appropriation of the classical world have been abandoned. --Taivo (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The important thing is that some kind of resolution has been achieved. I agree with Taivo's sentiments that the process has still some way to go in both countries via a referendum in one and parliament of the other before its done and dusted. No hasty changes in Wikipedia until all of that has been accomplished.Resnjari (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Today most educated Greeks accept that there is a language spoken by the ethnic Macedonians,which is called "Macedonian language". However there is a propaganda that the Ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect, which seems to be wrong. Why must be emphasized in the article that this language was not Greek? Jestmoon(talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the vast majority of the historians, archeologists and linguists are agreeing today that the Macedonian (the Ancient one) is related to the Greek. However there is still no consensus on how much do they relate to each other. That is. Wikipedia's role here is is to highlight all aspects of the issue and the background of the dispute and how all this mess came to be. Now, the Treaty of Prespa resolves once and for all the political aspect (propaganda you called it) of the issue regarding the language. and that is a good step. Under the Treaty, Greece fully recognizes and acknowledges the Macedonian Language (the Slavic one), and the Ethnic Macedonian side acknowledges that their language is unrelated to the Ancient Macedonian. So I guess there is nothing else for us to tackle here unless you mean something else? Note: Whatever questions remain about the language, are not a politician's concern anymore, but a scientist's. Tsipras and Zaev already resolved the political aspect of the issue as far as I can tell. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A reminder about requests for moving Republic of Macedonia to Republic of North Macedonia

Quoting power~enwiki (original comment can be found here: [2]):

Per decree of the Arbitration committee (as seen at WP:MOSMAC) the title of this article is "Republic of Macedonia", and the article should refer to the country as the "Republic of Macedonia".  If/when that changes, we will conduct a formal RFC on the topic at WP:MOSMAC.  All other rename suggestions can be safely ignored, regardless of the status of the renaming discussions; of course the discussions themselves may be notable and worth discussing the section on the name of the country.  Apart from a one-sentence mention of the proposal to rename to the Republic of North Macedonia, I oppose discussion in the lead section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Republic of North Macedonia exists as a redirect but everyone is asked do not initiate requests for moving Republic of Macedonia to Republic of Northern Macedonia yet, as the deal does not go into effect immediatelly, but only after it is ratified by both Parliaments and the Constitution of the Republic is ammended. Until then, the articles have to stay as is, even if the deal has been reached between the two countries' prime ministers. Just a reminder to everyone. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh, for once I agree with you. It might be worth starting to think about some of the necessary changes that may have to be taken, but for now we should definitely wait and see how it all plays out. Fut.Perf. 18:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Quite right. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No premature changes need to be done until the Macedonian referendum is held and the Greek parliament signs off on it.Resnjari (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
At least, the good thing here is that the "Republic of..." can finally be dropped (after the agreement is ratified) from the articles where both Macedonias are mentioned, since "North Macedonia" stands as a distinctive term by itself, bearing no risk of semiological confusion with Greek Macedonia. I can predict that this will also drastically reduce the WP:ARBMAC-related vandalism across Wikipedia by IPs and editors alike, and certainly eliminate the disruptive edits where the country's name is changed from Macedonia to FYROM. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming the agreement wouldn't just replace "FYROM" as the official diplomatic name but also replace "Republic of Macedonia" as the official name, even then I'm not sure whether or not we should immediately change the title after the constitution is modified. This seems to be similar to the king of Swaziland renaming it to Eswatini, except it's more drawn out over a long period of time requiring the approval of many different politicians rather than the order of a monarch. Because of that, I feel that there would be a WP:COMMONNAME dispute here just like there's a dispute on that article. In short, even though the government of Swaziland, the United Nations, and many sources all recognize that the name is Eswatini now, it's very highly contested that the article's name should change. For that reason, I don't think it's likely that a consensus will be reached among Wikipedia editors to change the article's name from "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" either, even if the government of Macedonia, the United Nations, and many sources all recognize the change. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The Agreement replaces the official name on all documents, anywhere, and is for all purposes, both international and domestic, and will be the name the country uses in its diplomatic relations. Once all the procedures have been completed (Constitution ammendment, Parliamentary ratification, Presidential signature) We here in Wikipedia have no other option but to update the articles accordingly to reflect on this reality. Swaziland's case is not the same as Republic of Macedonia's case. In the case of Macedonia, it is an international treaty which goes into effect by replacing the Interim Accord of 1995. So it is two different cases and two different procedures. You point at WP:COMMONNAME, but frankly, this is a common name, not just for the Republic of Macedonia, but also for the Greek Macedonia, as well as the broader geographical region of Macedonia. Taking in account all these, I do believe that reaching a consensus here in Wikipedia for changing to a more specific name when referring to that country won't be an issue, because it was Wikipedia's community the one that has acknowledged the (Republic of) Macedonia being just one of multiple Macedonias and not the sole Macedonia, and we all have witnessed (and still are witnessing to this very day) firsthand this whole semiological confusion between the Republic of Macedonia and the Greek Macedonia on several of the project's articles which were engulfed in dozens of edit wars, corrections, reversions, heated debates and more. Unless the majority of the editors are nationalists of Macedonian ethnicity (who are opposing this name change), there could really be no problem in achieving a consensus for these much-relieving changes. In my opinion, Wikipedia has way more serious political disputes to pay attention on, and Macedonia's name certainly isn't one of them and I am sure everyone here, at least the most logical of all editors, could appreciate if this ridiculous name case is over once and for all so we can switch our attention and energy to other more pressing areas of the project. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 11:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, no, Brendan has a point here. No matter what happens officially, it is still an open question to what extent common English usage will follow suit, and common English usage is still what mainly determines our naming practices here. International treaties have no power to compel ordinary speakers to change their habits in everyday discourse, so it's quite conceivable that we might end up in a situation where we would want to say "Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia", just as we now say "Swaziland, officially the Kingdom of Eswatini" (or "North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", or indeed "Greece, officially the Hellenic Republic"). Fut.Perf. 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Brendan and Future are both right. Take, for example, the name of Ukraine's capital city. Here in Wikipedia, it is still "Kiev" because that is, by a wide margin, the most common spelling in English usage. Yet the government of Ukraine has declared the correct English spelling to be "Kyiv". "North Macedonia" may catch on in English sources very fast, especially if there is a lot of publicity. Good for Greece. But it might not. It may take a month, it may take a year. It may be like Kiev and never change. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, on the cutting edge of change. --Taivo (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Still, the country's new official name will be used in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is COMMONNAME. Let me explain - in some articles, where both the Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia are mentioned and a need for clarification arises, then the COMMONNAME (Macedonia) wont suffice, the new official name will have to be used (North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia) to distinguish it from the other Macedonias. So even if WP:COMMONNAME is not realized yet, the new official name will be used in areas where needed, while the COMMONNAME can still be used in areas where the Greek or regional Macedonia are not interchargeable with it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 11:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: I am just realizing this swapping between OFFICIALNAME and COMMONNAME is bound to lead to more problems than solve: when in parts of the article the clarification North Macedonia is required to distinguish it from the other Macedonias, and in other parts of the article, the COMMONNAME Macedonia suffices, then we will most likely end up with a case where a country, in the very same article, or on different articles, is mentioned by two different names: North Macedonia and Macedonia. This is pretty confusing especially to the readers and can be a problem for us all having to deal with. The readers will certainly be wondering about that, and no in-article explanation will suffice to address this in a satisfactory manner. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
That's why we have Arbitration. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Current edits on this article present the most recent news of what the Macedonian parliament did on 11 January as "ratification" of the Prespa agreement. Is this wording accurate? I thought the legal ratification of the treaty was already done in June, and what happened yesterday was a vote on changes to the constitution? Can somebody clarify please? Fut.Perf. 20:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. honestly I don't know to answer you on this with certainty. Since the international media used the term "Ratification" to describe the January's completion of the procedures, I reflected this on the article. Here some examples of sources calling it a ratification:
  • Daily Mail: "Macedonia passed a constitutional amendment Friday ratifying the June deal" [3]
  • Macedonian Information Agency: "[...] adopted Constitutional amendments needed to ratify the Prespa Agreement" [4]
  • The Guardian: "the Greek parliament must also ratify the accord" [5]
  • " the Prespa Agreement comes into force completely i.e. as soon as it is ratified in Greek parliament." [6]
From what I understood, the deal was signed in June by the two Prime Ministers, but is being ratified now by the two Parliaments. A signature by the PMs do not constitute automatic ratification. For that, it requires the parliamentary procedures (voting amendments, etc) to be completed first. Which is exactly what is happening now this January, and not in past June. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the ratification is a noteworthy event on its own, shouldn't this be on its own sub-section in the article? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
SilentResident is correct. "Ratification" is a term reserved for the approval of legislative bodies, not for the signatures of negotiators or even heads of state. In this case there were three legislative steps involved as I recall: initial vote by Macedonian legislature to proceed with terms of deal, vote by Macedonian legislature approving changes to the Constitution required by the deal, vote by the Greek parliament approving the deal. Technically, the first and the third steps are ratification of the Prespa agreement. The second step (the one that just occurred) is ratification of a change of name in the Macedonian Constitution, so it's not technically ratification of the Prespa Agreement, but is a requirement of that agreement. We all know that the technicalities of English legal terminology are often lost in mass media reporting. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
SilentResident: if you want to show that the 11 January vote was a "ratification", why are you now citing 4 sources of which 3 quite obviously aren't calling it that (while the 4th is the Daily Mail, of all things)? And Taivo, sorry, but if your are yourself saying that the 11 January vote was "not technically ratification", why are you saying that "SilentResident is correct" in claiming that it was just that?
To refresh your memories: The ratification of the treaty on the Macedonian side occurred in June and July. We are citing reliable sources to that effect in this very article. Remember, it was that vote which President Ivanov tried to boycott by not signing it into force, and then it had to be repeated and entered into force when the president of the parliament sidestepped Ivanov and had it printed in the official gazette on his own authority after the second round. That was the ratification; it's been completed and legally in effect since then. Then came another vote on initiating the further legislative proceedings, and votes about the referendum and all sorts of other things. What happened now was a political prerequisite for ratification to also happen on the Greek side, but it has technically nothing to do with the ratification process as such. Fut.Perf. 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, Future perfect, I didn't imagine the term "ratification" would be questioned, thought it was kinda obvious. Otherwise I would have added these sources as well. Now that you raised this, I can happily add them as well. About your arguments... I don't know if the events you described that occurred in the past, do constitute a ratification by itself, because according to media, the voting of the amendments is part of the ratification's completion... Unless a state can ratify an agreement without passing the amendments it is obliged to, by that Agreement? From personal experience - and I had the impression - Greece ratified the Istanbul Convention of the Domestic Violence against Women the very same day it passed the law that envisioned further protection measures against violence against women. But whatever you mean that ratification of an Agreement as being a progress of its own, independent of the progress of adopting the Agreement's provisions, then perhaps you better ask someone else, as I don't know for certain, nor I thought this to be a possible case. All I did is to reflect on what the world media do call it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you still claiming the four sources you just cited here are calling this thing a ratification? Learn to read. They quite obviously aren't. (Except for the Daily Mail one, which is probably typical of the quality of that publication, which is why Wikipedia has decided to never use it as a source.) What's so difficult to grasp about the simple fact: Whatever they are doing now can't be a ratification because the ratification was already done half a year ago? Fut.Perf. 19:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Future, I was writing my response and realized that the 11 Jan vote wasn't ratification of the Prespa agreement, but forgot to amend my first sentence. But there are still two ratification votes required. One by the Macedonian parliament and one by the Greek parliament. The Macedonian parliament voted to ratify last summer, but I didn't think that the Greek one had voted yet--they were waiting for the constitutional change in Macedonia as I recall (I'm working off memory here so I could be mistaken). --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So, ratification or post-ratification implementation, the ball is on the other side now. What remains is for the Greek side to ratify it before it goes into full force. According to local media, this will happen this or the next week if everything goes as planned. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist and Future Perfect at Sunrise: good news, the majority in the Greek Parliament is secured, and the Prespa Agreement will pass this week (precisely: Thursday 24 January) with more than the required votes for ratification. Not that I am supposed to inform, just a heads up.
And if you like, would really appreciate your opinion in the Talk Page: Splitting the article into 2 smaller ones, or re-ordering content? section, as well. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Can the article explain why 'Northern Macedonia' is an improvement?

I just added the following at this article's latest ITN nomination:

  • Comment- Re article quality, I fail to see any explanation in the article as to why the new name is an improvement (as distinct from a logical disimprovement that is being welcomed for other short-term reasons). Perhaps there are no reliable sources to explain this (possibly because it makes little or no sense to add a longer name, and one that logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia, which is seemingly at least partly why the Greeks objected to the old name in the first place, only the new name seems to make that problem worse). I suspect I may not be the only reader who is thus a bit confused and dissatisfied with article quality.

This may become an issue if and when a nomination looks likely to succeed at ITN (perhaps after a ratification by the Greek Parliament, or perhaps earlier). I know too little (and have too little interest) to try to fix the matter myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO). Indeed I'm not sure whether the necessary Reliable Sources even exist to allow it to be fixed. But I just thought I'd mention it here, just in case there are other editors around who are willing and able to try to address the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In theory at least, it comes with the implication that the Republic is quitting any Irredentist claim towards the rest of the Macedonia region. At least that is what the current Greek and Macedonian governments are claiming. In practice, we will have to wait and see. Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article into 2 smaller ones, or re-ordering content?

If the Prespa Agreement is successfully ratified by the Greek Parliament next week (the vote will occur between 20 and 26 of January month, as stated by the Greek authorities), then how about re-organizing the article or splitting it?

An idea would be: to reorganize it and divide it into 2 large super-sections: one super-section about the history of the Naming Dispute, (and merge to it the Greek and Macedonian positions which currently are on their own, at the bottom half of the article), and one super-section about the deal itself. This is suggested with the future developments in mind, which, as time passes, more information is being added to the article and is marking the the Prespa Agreement section much larger than originally expected. This pushes further down the sections about Greek/Macedonian positions, which I feel they are better (makes more sense) to be placed BEFORE the Prespa Deal, or at least, near the beginning, and certainly before the negotiations section. Readers would like to be updated on the views of the two parties, as part of their reading about the dispute's history, instead of reading about them after the the developments and negotiations (which are influenced by these national positions in the first place). (currently, the national positions are placed after negotiations/Prespa Agreement sections, which make no sense at all).

However, I think we should consider an alternative to the above idea: having the article split into 2 smaller ones: one for the Prespa Agreement (if and once it is finally ratified by both sides), and one about the Naming Dispute. Moving the Prespa Agreement to its own article solves more problems than it causes, such as easier navigation, and smaller article sizes, etc. That would allow us in adding freely more content and information about the developments relating more to the Prespa deal than to the Dispute. And to not mention, giving the Prespa Agreement its own article, would somewhat alleviate the current article from the sheer amount of information added to it due to the post-Prespa developments... What do you think? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly issues with the current article structure. I agree that Prespa agreement should be a stand-alone article, but that won't fix the issues here; we'll still need about as much content on that agreement in this article. The year-by-year timeline is certainly the least important part of the article; I'd be inclined to move almost all of it (between FYROM and Prespa) to a subpage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion. Those block quotes in the Greek and Macedonian sections get condensed into a sentence or two as a summary. That should go to some way toward cutting content.Resnjari (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thats an excellent idea. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 14:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Each new Nazi massacre that was discovered in eastern Europe after the war was news. However, with time the patterns emerged and histories of Nazi atrocities reduced 100 massacres into one representative one. As the events of the Greek trademark tantrum known as the "Macedonian naming dispute" fade into history, the daily log of "X said this" and "Y said that", etc. will become properly summarized into a few representative and most important events. That process could start as soon as the Greek parliament ratifies the Prespa Accord and Macedonia becomes North Macedonia (or will it be "Northern"?). That very act of summarizing might be enough (along with getting rid of the pointless quotes) to make the length of this article manageable. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
What you said, is true. Over time the X and Y details will have to go or be absorbed by summarizations. About the full name, the full name (well, only if the Agreement is ratified by Greek Parliament this week) will be "Republic of North Macedonia (Republika Severna Makedonia; Република Северна Македонија)" and the short name "North Macedonia (Severna Makedonia; Северна Македонија)". All institutions, bodies, and demonym will be "North Macedonian" (e.g. North Macedonian Presidency, North Macedonian Passports, North Macedonian Foreign Ministry) and, when referring to citizens, then "Citizens of North Macedonia" (however I didn't find clarification for the short term for that, i.e. North Macedonian Citizen) while the Slavic group will simply be called "Macedonians" as before, the Albanian group "Albanians" as before, etc, and the country's official language will still be called simply "Macedonian Language" as before. As for the North/Northern confusion, it is easy to remember if it is North or Northern, by looking at the examples of North Vietnam, North Korea, etc. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 22:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Now the Prespa agreement has its own article: Prespa agreement. I copied anything from here to there. But while I feel the information left here on the Naming Dispute article needs to be trimmed down, I am feeling undecided on which parts of the text do deserve a place here and which do not. International reactions? Debates? Political intrigues? Should they be removed or stay?--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

SuperGuy212 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I kinda think that the Political intrigues should go, because if the International reactions and Debates part stays there, people could see what was happening during the debates and what other countries reacted to, and in the other sense, Political intrigues may not be that interesting to people. Just reply to me if you think this is a good idea or not?
Return to "Macedonia naming dispute" page.