Talk:Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union/Archive 1

The Sun, too...

What does the motto mean, "The Sun, too, is a star," in terms of the progress towards EU membership? If the Sun is a symbol of Macedonia, could that be mentioned so someone, like me, who comes to this page from elsewhere understands too? Lindsay 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I thought it was pretty obvious from the flag of the Republic of Macedonia what the sun and the stars symbolise...? —Nightstallion (?) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union → Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union — Wikipedia doesn't tend to abid by the Greek dispute over the name of this country, and follows its own official designation (as in Republic of Macedonia and all other articles about this country). By all means the name dispute should be mentioned in the article, but the name of the article itself must not be affected. The proposed name has always been used for this article, but the highly POV FYROM-derived name has been unilaterally pushed in several times. Time to make a name official before a move war erupts here. —Húsönd 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - this is the way the EU refers to the Republic - http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r18013.htm. -- Beardo 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. WP:MOSMAC may require tweaking, but this is certainly close to the borderline there drawn. MoS would certainly support "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in List of European Union member states, for example; but this is as much about the Republic as it is about the EU. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is about the relationship between the two parties. This relationship only exists between the EU and FYROM; the EU does not acknowledge any applicant named "Republic of Macedonia", and the Republic has itself agreed to use this name in this process. The use of the 5-word name here is a matter of substance, not a matter of style (also see my comments, below). Regards, sys < in 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "former Yugoslav" part of the name is of the essence, as its use (during the talks) is a requirement for the talks to continue. As far as the European Union is concerned, there is no applicant for entry named "Republic of Macedonia". Both sides have agreed to exclusively use the "former Yugoslav..." name in this process; using any other name is non-canonical and a misquotation of the source materials.sys < in 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's not an issue of "who is concerned", it is an issue of core Wikipedia policies: WP:V vs WP:NOR. Explanation: It is 100% sourced by the sources concerned (i.e. both EU and the state itself -links to both within the article-) that there's a country in EU accession process referred to as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While it is 100% original research that the country with the constitutional name of "Republic of Macedonia" would ever be accepted in such accession talks under that name. In fact, it wouldn't, as proven by the relevant treaties. There is not one authoritative source that supporters can provide for the EU accession of a country called "RoM". NikoSilver 17:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The wording of MoS(Mac.), as Niko knows, is "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should be used in articles about organisations, states, events and international relationships where the subject in question uses either of these names." The question, therefore, is: Is this about the Republic, or about the EU? and the answer is: Both.
  • On the contrary: this, for example, is an official statement of the President of Slovenia; doubtless there are many others. But Andrewa is right: the fundamental question here, in Wikipedia, is conveying information to our readers. We discuss the naming controversy; it should not determine our naming. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Sept, but Slovenia << EU (for non math-symbol familiars "<<" means "much smaller than"). There is no official statement that is more authoritative than EU and the country itself in its accession process. Therefore, the proposed title remains terribly unsourced, and Mosmac's gray-area is very black and white when it comes to core WP policies. No "devilish" poll can overturn these. NikoSilver 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is the title that comes naturally to any English speaker IMO, with the added benefit that Republic of Macedonia is an official name of the country (one of several). Andrewa 22:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Officiality is not an issue. Sourcing is the issue. How would we feel if EU said "we put words in their mouth"? NikoSilver 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If "officiality is not an issue", why insist on it above? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Where? All I'm saying is there's no source. In fact there are counter-sources against a possible RoM acceding EU. NikoSilver 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • • Three comments up, in the same edit. Please try to argue either that official statements decide the matter, or that they don't; not both at the same time. Our policy, I remind you, is that they don't. 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Huh? The one relates to an official statement of a mere pico-subset of EU and the other to an official name of a country. I'm saying that regardless of if the name is an official name or not, it is unsourced in that context. What are you trying to say? NikoSilver 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Republic of Macedonia" rolls off the tongue? Come off it. "Macedonia" is the most common term in English usage, admittedly, but everyone knows that ain't ever gonna happen. The next most common, when people bother to spell out the long name, is actually FYROM, not "Republic of Macedonia". The latter is in fact only used by the country itself and the governments that recognise it under that name, Wikipedia of course being the notable exception. See this example, where FYROM is used in the title as the long form, without subscribing to the Greek position at all in the rest of the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose of course; a "Republic of Macedonia" cannot and will not ever accede to the European Union. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Blatant POV and wishful forecast do not seem any productive here.--Húsönd 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a simple statement of fact. Greece has repeatedly stated that it would veto the accession of a "Republic of Macedonia" (under that name), while the European Union has never indicated that it would even consider such an application. Actually, it is the "accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union" that is the real blatant POV and wishful forecast in this case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that's while we still have a veto. And what would happen if a country vetoes the country to be admitted as FYROM? Just a thought. :-) Honestly, I think that Greeks should stop nitpicking, it's not like the Republic of Macedonia is going to grab the Greek Macedonia for itself.--Húsönd 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no indication that the national veto will be abolished for decisions of such gravity as the accession of new member states. If another EU member were to veto the country's accession as FYROM, then it wouldn't join at all. Again, Greece's opposition to the country's accession as the "Republic of Macedonia" is an objective fact. With all due respect, your personal opinions regarding what Greeks should or shouldn't do are just your blatant POV. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, my personal opinions about Greek matters or about any other conceivable matters are always POV. But luckily my POVs often turn out to make sense.--Húsönd 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think any of this discussion actually belongs in the survey. I have no intention of acting as closing sysop myself, having chosen to join the debate. But were I to come to this debate fresh, and act as closing sysop, I'd have to heavily discount ΚέκρωΨ's vote, as the reason given is blatantly irrelevant to the issue at hand in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It wouldn't be completely ignored, but it would be unlikely to have any effect on the decision as to whether a valid consensus had been reached. Food for thought? Andrewa 13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree on the "will not ever" part, although not that improbable, but still a speculation we are not entitled to make. The "cannot" part, however, is a statement of fact. See Article 11 of the Interim Accord.[1] Surely that's a valid reason to oppose, since it shows that the title proposed is at the moment unsourced and impossible. NikoSilver 10:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • At the risk of committing one of the very sins I've been criticising, I'll answer that here. What I'm trying to do is to see that ΚέκρωΨ and others get a fair hearing. The truth of those statements is not the issue, what I'm suggesting is that they are irrelevant in terms of Wikipedia's naming conventions. That's why that particular vote is a witness against itself, as are a number of others, but not quite so blatantly. Andrewa 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Please cite the exact Wikipedia naming conventions that contradict my argument, which in my understanding are based on the principles of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nikos appears to disagree with you, but unlike me he's a WP policy whiz. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The naming conventions regard the entities themselves, not specific issues for which other conflicting entities are involved, (e.g. see the Gdansk/Danzig precedent) and certainly not those covered by MoS guidelines (WP:MOSMAC). Curiously, though, your guideline-sensitive vote disqualification analysis does not address votes suggesting violation of core WP policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. The proposed title is unsourced, not true or untrue. We're not after "the truth". The proposed title should direct to a page which explains why the title is currently impossible, such as the controversy section here, or the Macedonia naming dispute article. It certainly cannot direct to a topic which could not be titled as such in verifiable sources. NikoSilver 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • See discussion below. Andrewa 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not clear at all under which name (if ever), the country will appear in the EU. The current name reflects the international situation with the name recognition. Mr. Neutron 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can not understand why the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is considered a Greek POV. It was proposed by the international community as a temporary solution and this state is called by that name in EU accession negotiations. Kapnisma ? 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This argument would be more convincing, if made by an editor who did not identify himself as a native speaker of Greek. It's regarded as a Greek PoV, because only Greeks (and those international bodies which the Greek government has prevailed upon) hold it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • To argue that the Greek government has the capacity of "prevailing upon" all international bodies is _laughable_. To misinform that "only Greeks hold it" is troubling. To discredit users with sound arguments by stressing their ethnicity is unfair. To help shatter the very guidelines you helped create in the first chance you get is patently unconstructive. To uphold a position contrary to WP core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR is simply unacceptable. This won't pass. Let it go. NikoSilver 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, show me someone who finds "Republic of Macedonia" unacceptable, and is neither a Hellene nor an international body; then I'll retract, or at least rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Take the Francophonie, to which Greece is not a member. They still managed to use FYROM. So "Greece pushes FYROM" argument does not hold. Mr. Neutron 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sept, you just retracted and rephrased. First you said "nobody supports the one", now you say "show me someone who objects the other". NikoSilver 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Both are members; for Greece, see here; you nay have missed it, over Thanksgiving weekend, 2004. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true, but see, FYROM was admitted 2001. So from 2001 to 2004 it was fair game. Mr. Neutron 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Plus there's no Thanksgiving in Greece (only Evangelismos on March 25th) and your retraction went uncommented. NikoSilver 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • As for the Greek government prevailing; as long as the EU continues to act by liberum veto, any member state will be able to prevail upon by threat of veto. Several of the sources to Macedonia naming dispute say this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There's a bunch of int'l orgs. out there where Greece has no veto whatsoever. All use the compromise. NikoSilver 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps because that is the sensible thing to do when the country's name is a matter of international dispute? Just a thought for the conspiracy theorists. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support RoM is the constitutional name of the country. Denying the country's right to exist under its constitutional name is racially prejudiced. FYROM is POV and a racial slur as it is considered derogative to Macedonians.Alexander the great1 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who was talking about blatant Greek POV pushing? Jesus... Mr. Neutron 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you see something that I do not? Where did I mention Greek POV pushing?Alexander the great1 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not you. Someone else at the bottom of the page. Mr. Neutron 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the opportunity, it's worth to mention that denying the existence of the Greek province under its historic (and administrative) name is also "racially prejudiced", that the FYROM spell-out used here is not considered or cited "derogative" (in fact it's used by the country itself), that the plain RoM reference is cited as derogative to most Greeks, and that none of the above is based on policy or guideline. Perhaps not, so you can strike my irrelevant comment (along with that vote, of course). NikoSilver 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No one denies the existence of the Greek province under its historic name. Everyone knows that that is a part of United Macedonia in present day Greece. Greece calls it Greek Macedonia and RoM also calls it that, it respects Greece’s wishes. RoM does not claim to have exclusive rights on the name. It is Greece that does not respect Macedonia’s wishes and constantly refers to it as FYROM and its inhabitants as Skopjans. That is derogative. The name RoM should not considered derogative to Greeks considering that it does not include them or represent them. It represents the name that the republic has democratically chosen to call itself. The Greeks should know that RoM is part of United Macedonia and therefore is also entitled to the name. RoM has also had the name for longer then northern Greece. That region of Greece only became re-named in 1992.Alexander the great1 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You confuse United Macedonia with Macedonia (region) which troubles me a lot. You also have all facts wrong! I marked them with {{fact}} and clarifications and copied the whole comment below. Still, all this is highly irrelevant to policy, as is your vote. All these "thoughts" you shared with us only justify the Greek fears (and the Greek nationalists that share them). Again, I personally have no issue with the name "Macedonia" itself, I have issues with how this name is [ab]used, both as an irredentist term and as a means to falsify history. Your username is another indication of what simple semantics can do to brainwash people with absurdities. Your previous comment, along with my notes follows: NikoSilver 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "No one denies the existence of the Greek province under its historic name. ^{- UN: country names and adjectives are reserved} Everyone knows that that is a part of United Macedonia ^{see United Macedonia} in present day Greece. Greece calls it Greek Macedonia ^{strike "Greek"} and RoM also calls it that, ^{calls it "Aegean" see also "mk:Егејска Македонија"} it respects Greece’s wishes. RoM does not claim to have exclusive rights on the name. ^{country names are exclusive per UN} It is Greece that does not respect Macedonia’s wishes and constantly refers to it as FYROM and its inhabitants as Skopjans. That is derogative. The name RoM should not considered derogative to Greeks considering that it does not include them or represent them.^{it represents them without referring to them which is worse} It represents the name that the republic has democratically chosen to call itself.^{who chose it?} The Greeks should know that RoM is part of United Macedonia and therefore is also entitled to the name.^{yes, but not the name on its own} RoM has also had the name for longer then northern Greece. ^{see regions of Greece} That region of Greece only became re-named in 1992. ^{- regions of Greece} Alexander the great1 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)" (edited by User:NikoSilver)

The bottom line is that Greece’s actions are racially prejudiced considering that there are over 10 Macedonia’s in the world and Greece only claims that RoM cannot use the name. Greece does not object to The US, Australia and Brazil for using the name for their cities it only singles of RoM for using the name even though RoM is part of the United Macedonia region. By purposely ignoring the fact that all of these more influential countries use the name and only denying RoM the right to exist under its chosen name and what its people are known as and what it has been called eternally Greece is making a human rights violation. When you single out someone because of who they are and not give them equal rights that is an act of racism. Greece singles out RoM because of who they are and only deny them the right to self determination. Alexander the great1 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Husond, FYROM is indeed POV, but it is the POV of EU, and that of the country itself in its accession talks. It is also the POV of the UN and of about half the countries in the world. It is a "compromise reference" for accession talks in EU and NATO. Please read Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia naming dispute. It has been discussed to exhaustion, that the reference to the country will be that of the frame where it is discussed. See also WP:MOSMAC. NikoSilver 16:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me WP:MOSMAC, NikoSilver. I was going to withdraw this discussion in order to comply with the guidelines stated therein, but after carefully thinking about it I've decided to leave it. If this discussion results in a consensus to move this article back to Accession of the Republic of Macedonia, then I'll consider joining further discussions to change the manual of style, as I personally don't agree with FYROM article names under any circumstances.--Húsönd 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM" are not quite the same thing. The guideline, however, was written (quite recently) by two Greeks and myself, and could probably use some fine tuning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears borderline to me. But I must say WP:MOSMAC looks excellent, well done those who contributed and will no doubt continue to fine tune it. Andrewa 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've finally identified what worries me about this debate... it's that we should be thinking not about official names but about what English speakers (native and otherwise) call it. And I'm very doubtful that many use the legalistic title that the EU does, and other diplomats do. I think we just say Macedonia, but as that's ambiguous, Republic of Macedonia will have to do. It's the disambiguation that comes naturally to any English speaker IMO, with the added benefit that it's an official name of the country. Andrewa 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it. English-speakers say "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia". When the long name has to be used, it is almost invariably "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", precisely because in that context the need for accuracy and thoroughness trumps the desire for brevity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can establish that When the long name has to be used, it is almost invariably "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", then I'd concede the argument. It appears the other way around to me, but I admit I'm working from a very small sample space, basically some of the people I know. Google is probably not a lot of help, but for what it's worth it gives 1,780,000 for Republic of Macedonia and exactly the same for Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which supports your contention, as the first search should be a superset of the second, so these (approximate) results suggest that the shorter name is (almost at least) never used on its own. But this doesn't seem right in that many hits; It's too good a result to be true. And then I get 1,810,000 for what should be an intermediate set - not terribly consistent! And I'm not convinced Google is representative enough for this anyway.

What other test could we use? Andrewa 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no test in Google that can work. See my early tendentious attempts in Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position. There are Google tests and rationales there, but I'm afraid the result is as moot as your searches above. Plain "Macedonia" is indeed more frequent, but you can't separate why and where it refers to. Arguably, most links for plain "Macedonia" are for the Greek region, since it has seven times the economy, two times the population, tourism, governmental agencies etc. People, please: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not as POV as some want to make it sound. It is the official UN compromise reference that has been accepted as a stop-gap measure by the country itself. All international organizations use it (see Macedonia (terminology)#In politics for examples and sources), half the world countries use it, most English-speaking countries use it (save for the US alone) and anyway, it is the only sourced term for the country in its accession course. How can we disregard the latter? NikoSilver 10:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't disregard it, but we should also recognise that, in terms of Wikipedia's naming conventions, its relevance is secondary. Andrewa 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the naming conventions could ever be in conflict with WP core policies? Are you saying that even if such a conflict existed the prevailing opinion would be that of a guideline over that of policy? How is it "secondary"? Please explain. NikoSilver 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. I didn't intend to say either of those things. By it I refer to what you called the latter, which I took to be the statement it is the only sourced term for the country in its accession course. This is secondary because in this particular discussion it is of little relevance. Is that any clearer? Andrewa 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was "the latter". I'm saying the title proposed is unsourced. Still not clear though: Please explain how this is "of little relevance". NikoSilver 09:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, although frankly I'm getting the impression that you don't want to understand, just in case that understanding challenges an opportunity to promote your political views.

To be of relevance, it would need to relate to Wikipedia's guidelines or policies regarding article names. It doesn't seem to do that, so it's of little relevance at best. Perhaps I've muddied the waters by saying of little, but we bend over backwards here to listen to everyone, and the polcies reflect this, so it's dangerous to say irrelevant, and IMO unnecessary for the point to be made.

The policy on article names isn't identical to that on article content; You can't argue from one to the other, either way. (We've tried to bring them into step on many occasions, but it doesn't seem to work.) That confuses many, and may be the problem here. Is your appeal to the name being unsourced based on an article content policy, perhaps? Andrewa 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply for your first sentence (responses for the rest later): Actually you're talking to a Greek who can be convinced he is wrong. Ask around, and see my featured contributions on the subject. NikoSilver 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good reply. See also User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, nice sub! See User:NikoSilver/Nationality quiz. NikoSilver 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re the rest, I think I covered your concerns with guideline content (NCON regards entity-articles), with precedent (Gdansk/Danzig), with superior guideline (MOSMAC), and with policy (V) in my previous comment.[2] No need to repeat and flood. NikoSilver 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And why are Greeks always to blame for something that is proven to not only regard semantics, but also expansionistic nationalistic irredentist claims (see United Macedonia), and governmentally endorsed historical and genetic pseudoscientific fringe theories (see Arnaiz-Villena controversy among others, and Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism (Extreme and moderate) -and count the governmental sources)? I myself, have no issue with the term "Macedonia" used by anyone. I only have an issue when it is used in the context of equating irrelevant things like: Macedonia (country) = Macedonia (region) = Macedon = Bulgarian Empire (called "Macedonian Empire" by them), and like Macedonians (ethnic group) = Macedonians (regioners) = Ancient Macedonians). Why do we close the eyes on these when they are even injected in the poor little kids' brains in that country through their schoolbooks, through governmental publications (see the sources above), and through governmental actions (like renaming the Skopje Airport)? NikoSilver 10:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, who's blaming the Greeks, what for, and why does it matter here? Andrewa 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it was a preemptive comment before people start blaming the Greeks for being stubborn with that name again. :-) Seriously, the intention was to give a brief idea of the general background, because I hear very often stuff like "Greeks are responsible for this awkward name against those people's self-identification". Just use the background for your own info and dump the rest, as I'm sure you'd disqualify such views too. NikoSilver 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me if I believe that a term alone could suffice to discourage this shameless propaganda, my answer is I'm skeptical. But then again, if it discourages some, then that's indeed something. And I'm not of those who try to find distinction through their ancestor's balls. I don't even care, since I believe that all people are born equal (but that argument serves much more for them who are a totally irrelevant people, than it serves for the Greeks). I believe that contemporary Greeks have many things to be proud of, regardless of the extreme past. In any case, however, twisting history to advance nationalistic claims is unacceptable. Those who self-identified as Greeks in the past were Greeks -period. Whether modern ones are genetically, culturally, linguistically or otherwise related to them is immaterial, and I don't care if there were no other connection than the same ethnic name. I do care if some want to use the same ethnic name to advance such connections and claims. NikoSilver 10:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, My reply would have been three words (i.e. "WP:V vs WP:OR"), but my comment was triggered by Husond's perception that his own POV makes sense. You need to evaluate the whole situation in order to have a POV, and I've showed that there are more POVs around that arguably make sense after this "rant" of mine. NikoSilver 10:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt all these political concerns are valid. But they don't concern us here. The question is simply, what do people call the country when they are speaking English? There seems to be a consensus that the answer is Macedonia (unqualified).

Unfortunately, Macedonia has other meanings, so Accession of Macedonia to the European Union isn't a good article title. So the next question is, what's the disambiguation that will be best recognised by English speakers? The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is often heard on news broadcasts, but it's legalese to the point of sounding like something out of a Monty Python sketch. I think the onus of proof is on those who would use the longer name in the article title, and I don't think they've yet delivered the goods.

I notice that the article on the country is titled Republic of Macedonia, and that the other obvious disambiguation Macedonia (country) redirects there, and that (surprise surprise) there's been a lively debate about this too. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive12#Use of constitutional name by other countries and elsewhere. Andrewa 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute here is over the name to be used in an EU-related article as per the relevant MoS. Your personal distaste for the most common long-form name cannot and should not be taken into consideration. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrewa, the question you pose above is for the country article. For this article, the question is: "How do people call the country in relation to its accession talks?" And the answer (if not delivered yet) is obvious, both in terms of EU, and of self-identification! [3] [4] [5]

Agree as to the question as you state it, but I think you're splitting hairs. It is most unlikely that people code shift to the point that these questions are materially different. The links you quote, on the other hand, seem to still be answering a different question: What do diplomats and lawyers call the country?. And that's a materially different question. Andrewa 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Diplomats and lawyers? Where does it say that in the sources? And where is a source calling for an RoM acceding? NikoSilver 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the debate, you're looking for (the huge) Archive 10 (hope you have a fast connection), but that was for the country article, apart from the fact that it ended as an obvious no-consensus. NikoSilver 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's a large archive, that's part of the point I was (subtly perhaps) making by not piping the link... I'm sure the fact that it's Archive12 is not lost on many. Disagree that there was no consensus in Archive10... there was and is rough consensus on some issues, but certainly not all of them. I didn't find it as helpful, however. Andrewa 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a "rough" consensus. The whole thing started then when there were people who wanted to even remove the "f...y...r...o...m" designation from the intro, and the result in that regard was clear IMO. That was what the poll was originally about, but it turned into all sorts of things, and the poor design was one of the reasons it became so complicated to extract a proper consensus. Anyway, I'm not arguing about how to name the country article, I just brought it up to show you how flimsy the consensus was even there. It's this article we are talking about. NikoSilver 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on the relevance of my opinion is noted. Your rhetoric in describing it as personal distaste is unhelpful, in my opinion. We all have backgrounds and biases. Andrewa 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First you call on the closing administrator to disregard my vote, a vote based on the simple fact that there is no "Republic of Macedonia" in accession negotiations, and now you brand my comments "unhelpful rhetoric". Pray tell, if "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is often heard on news broadcasts, but it's legalese to the point of sounding like something out of a Monty Python sketch" is not an expression of personal distaste, what on earth is it? A serious argument? Please. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's go past this, guys, please. For me, an article titled "Accession of RoM to EU" would have to redirect to either the controversy section in this article, or to the Macedonia naming dispute. There's no country by that name applying for EU, and every possibility that such a thing may happen remains original research. No matter how likely or unlikely that possibility may be (and it is indeed unlikely, as Kekrops said. Just look at the sources in the controversy section). NikoSilver 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments were intended for you, not the closing sysop; I'm not sure they will even read them, and I'm very hopeful they won't be influenced by them. All they need to read, ideally, is the survey... and that means the first level of bullet points in it. I tend to read the discussion second, and any discussion {mis)placed in the survey section last if at all. It, and the discussion section, is there to help us to fine-tune our votes, and ideally to build consensus. Sometimes it takes longer than others, see Caleb. And sometimes it may not converge at all. But I live in hope! Andrewa 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally receive your comments as well-intended. NikoSilver 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)¨

Του κώλου τα νιάμερα. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: When closing this discussion, please have in consideration the Greek background of several users opposing this proposal. Blatant POV is pouring in instead of sound arguments.--Húsönd 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where specifically? Maybe in the part where someone criticizes a factual and sourced statement as "blatant POV" and a sourced projection as "wishful forecasts"? BTW, check your move rationale and tell me where the argument is. I'd discount it for being "blatant POV" (to use your own words). I also think an ethnic NPA warning is in order for your repeated statement that "blatant POV is pouring in instead of sound arguments", which is the very definition of "pot calling the kettle black" (or "donkey calling the rooster big-headed", to give you the Greek parallel). NikoSilver 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically everywhere. No, a NPA warning is not in order. No drama please. --Húsönd 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. The arguments against the move are based on fact and Wikipedia policy. User:Husond's is based solely on (his bias against) the nationality of other editors. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. What User:Husond's said is not based solely on the nationality of other editors. It is just important to note that over 50% of the editors that oppose referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name are Greek. This is important because the current name dispute is between Macedonia and Greece, so it would not be irrational to assume that there might be a bias amongst these users. Alexander the great1 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clear precedent

There is a clear precedent for an almost identical situation: Chinese Taipei at the 2004 Summer Olympics. The name "Chinese Taipei" is far less commonly used than the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" designation, but this is the name that the Olympic Games admit the country in question to participate as, and this is the name of the article. I don't see what the [FY]RoM should receive special treatment in this case. sys < in 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw no one go there and post nonsense of the sort "it concerns both CT and SO" or "I'm personally opposed to CT name usage in article names", as it would also be factually incorrect to list an entity which doesn't participate in SO (let alone ...accede to SO!) NikoSilver 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One bad idea does not justify another. We don't work by precedent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not relevant, as it deals with notability of subjects, which is not at issue here. Second, precedents are non-binding, but are a good indication of what others feel is fair and reasonable. Quoting WP:NC-CHINA:

For organizations and international events, such as the Olympic Games or APEC, official terms should be used. In the case of the Olympics, one refers to the Chinese Taipei team, instead of the "Taiwanese team" or the "ROC team." Special care should be taken to put these terms in context—the "China" team in the 1952 Olympics, for example, should not be called the "Chinese Taipei" team as the latter term did not exist yet.

To paraphrase an old story, "if a billion people in China think that this is fair and reasonable..." sys < in 07:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sept, you can't discredit the work of numerous people on the long-standing consensus in Chinese related articles, which are facing similar if not worse controversies, on the aphorism of "othercrapexists". The same is valid for the Gdansk/Danzig precedent. None of these are "crap", and calling them that would be an insult to the hundreds of people who contributed for them. NikoSilver 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comments

The comments below were posted below the vote of "alexander the great1" after the survey closed, and are copied here below for parties interested to continue that discussion.

• Well, this is half of the story, and still, I told you where I stand on the name issue myself. The other half is:

• Those other Macedonias are neither adjacent and with common borders, nor independent states, nor are they claiming the history and the whole region along with the name! Be certain, even if it were the US doing all that, Greece would still raise issue, and Greece would still have a serious point.
• There's no United Macedonia for Christ's sake! Check the article to see what that means! There's just a contemporary region of Macedonia, and that "vaguely defined".
• Self-determination and self-identification are double edged knives: If someone self-identifies as something, that something cannot also be used by someone else without disambiguation, or it is considered misrepresentation by the first. You demonstrated that yourself in your very previous edit-summary lol! [6]
• All this irrelevant to policy and to the debate at hand, so please stop. NikoSilver 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• RoM only claims the history of its people, the Macedonians.
• United Macedonia existed before the partition of 1913. Look at any map before that year.
• There are over 2 million people world wide that identify as Macedonians you cannot deny that. Alexander the great1 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

   * Macedon (town), New York
   * Macedon (village), New York
   * Macedonia, Alabama
   * Macedonia, Georgia
   * Macedonia, Illinois
   * Macedonia, Iowa
   * Macedonia, Ohio
   * Macedon, Victoria, Australia
   * Macedônia, São Paulo, Brazil
   * Mount Macedon, Victoria, Australia

Alexander the great1 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "RoM" also provenly claims the history of most adjacent peoples, especially that of the Greeks (see renaming of Skopje Airport to "Alexander the Great", see your username, see your schoolbooks cited with sources in Macedonia (terminology)). It also claims the history of the Bulgarians, notably that of the Bulgarian Empire of Samuil. Both are mocked internationally by scholars, and even pro-"Macedonian" scholars. Citations on request.
• A "United Macedonia" never existed (the region arguably did) and if it did, more than 54% of the 5 million population would be the 2.6 million Greeks. How would you like that? Or are you planning to exterminate them?
• Yes, there are 1.3 million people in your country that identify as "Macedonians", along with a diaspora. Nobody denies that, it is just too confusing, since there are many other Macedonians, and provenly even also confusing for you-yourselves since it makes you believe in absurd theories which are even propagated by your government.
• I replied about your list. Please also notice what others tell you, not only what you write. What is your response to my first bullet in my previous comment? What would you do? (Not you-singular, you-plural. You-singular we know: [7] )
• You did not reply on the self-determination issue. Am I to suppose you agree that it pisses off someone when you identify as he does? (Your diff above says yes.) NikoSilver 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• You need to understand that Alexander the Great was an ancient Macedonian, not a Greek. Genetic tests have been done other then the one in Madrid which show that the residents of RoM are closest to the living relatives of the ancient Macedonians the Kalash peoples.

• The 2.6 million Greeks came from Turkey. When there was a population exchange in Asia Minor. Greece is the only one that has exterminated people by using genocidal ethnic cleansing during the civil war, such atrocities should never be happen to anyone. Greece needs to realize that people can live together.

• There are only one type of Macedonians, Macedonians. There are some Greeks and some Bulgarians that live in the occupied territories. They are not Macedonian.

• Self-determination means that if someone feels they are Macedonian (ethnic), their wishes should be respected. If someone feels that they are Greek (ethnic) then that is what they are. You cannot be Greek and Macedonian, you cannot have it both ways. Alexander the great1 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for being an example of what I stated above. I stop the discussion here, and hope everyone sees what you just posted. Then they can go read the Arnaiz-Villena controversy, Alexander the Great etc. NikoSilver 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Although it is not the one I was referring to. I think it is only fair to note that the study that was dropped was the Israeli-Palestinian one not the Macedonian one. Alexander the great1 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Macedonian, therefore Greek. Beat that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment was made after the survey closed

• Oppose - europa.eu is the best place to find out what the EU policies are. If it says "Former..." I do not see why there should even be a discussion about it... until (if ever) EU changes its policy - it's that simple. I come from the country which was the first to recognize the state under the name Republic of Macedonia, but my country happens to be a part of the Union, too. Btw I have four colleagues from RoM in my course (European studies) and they made a whole presentation "Accession of FYROM to the EU". They seemed to take it well. ...I couldn't help noticing the "over 10 Macedonia’s in the world" just above - what should that mean? What should the whole post mean? Alexander? --Laveol ^T 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My luck - I missed the deadline with 2 minutes. As for Alexander he said it all with that sentence: "There are some Greeks and some Bulgarians that live in the occupied territories. " For the third time, maybe, I'll try to stop even reading his comments. --Laveol ^T 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

I see now that there was actually a move request (I should have been more careful, my fault). All the same, I decided not to return to the previous move, as if there's a thing I deeply dislike, its unilaterally moving a controversial article and then passing to a vote survey, with the knowledge that the article will remain if its place if there's no consensus, thus favouing guys who proceed unilaterally. I wasn't also greatly impressed by the anon who blanked the redirect, I find difficult not to believe he did it to obtain an unfair advantage, as you can't move over a redirect with more than one edit. So please, please, PLEASE play nice now and avoid questionable actions as the ones I've told of.--Aldux 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - as strange as it may seem, the country is acctually named Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, not Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so the F should be capitalized. -Ulla 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)