Talk:Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdunc2015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

FYROM EU accession bid...
...is perfectly acceptable English, as is US-EU relations, US Armed Forces, and other such common compound noun phrases containing abbreviations. Unless a source can be found to substantiate the claim that the EU uses the adjective "Macedonian", it should be avoided altogether. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Use English". That doesn't mean: mimick the politically correct bureaucratic usage of some organisation, but normal wide-spread English usage as evidenced in reputed news agencies and the like. "Macedonian" is the most natural adjectival form, and it's used all over the place.
 * Linguistically, no, "FYROM EU accession bid" does not work. You'd have to use a hyphen ("FYROM-EU accession bid"), but the template won't allow that and it's also slightly off semantically. It's not a common bid by FYROM and the EU, as "US-EU relations" are common relations between the US and the EU; it's a bid by the FYROM to the EU, the syntactic structure is [FYROM EU accession] bid. Thus you'd have a threefold nested, center-embedded compound. That's, if not ungrammatical, extremely poor style, especially if it can so easily be avoided by using a syntactically natural adjective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK then, "The fYROM's EU accession bid" should do it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I'm an aesthete. There's no reason to avoid the simple, elegant adjective "Macedonian". (Greek offendedness doesn't count.) But anyway, before this becomes yet another useless edit war, I'd rather remove the whole template. The article has lived just fine without it a long time, and there's nothing in it that couldn't just as well be integrated in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If this template is to stay there I am for a heading: "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's EU accession bid". Unfortunately no official EU document and no EU site text uses the term "Macedonian". If the template is to go OK, this is up to FutPer, but if it is to stay it should be retitled.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * About Yannis' most recent edits Yannis, please. The text now contains "former Yugoslav" twenty-seven times. That's a crime against the English language, if nothing else. I don't know where you guys get this bizarre idea from that merely because EU officialese does that, we have to do the same. We are not a mouthpiece of the EU. We are not bound to their usage. We talk about the EU and the RoM, in our voice, using our terminology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:MOSMAC says: "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed." ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, and Yannis' edits have just proven why that part of MOSMAC is untenable. This outcome is just absurd. If this is what applying MOSMAC leads to, then MOSMAC needs to be changed again. Twenty-seven times "former Yugoslav" in a single page is unacceptable, no matter how you look at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable to whom? You? Who cares? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note. Since what I do is more or less connected with the European Union and since I had a lot reading to do on the Official candidates, I've got to say that the documents tend to support Kekrop's position. They repeat fYROM time after time after time. That's just about the documents, I'm not sure if they apply here, but they're official. -- L a v e o l  T 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know they do that. They are bureaucrats stuck with a bureaucratic decision. We are encyclopedia writers. That's the difference. They use language to be on the "correct" side. We use language to inform. That's the difference. They can be forced by political circumstances to violate the English language, common sense and the patience of their readers, if political forces dictate it so. We can't. That's the difference. There is no reason why we should feel obliged to mimick them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My position is clear: Since EU's documents use only the term fYROM this should be used everywhere in the article. This is in accord with MOSMAC and with EU's policies. Now, if, according to my friend FutPer, the repetitive use of fYROM is an offense against English language, then the use of "Macedonian" or the mixture of fYROM, Republic or RoM is an offense against consistency and accuracy. If we use RoM then we obscure EU's stance, which is clear and sound: The fYROM is not recognized by the organization with its constitutional name, and it is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's obligation to try to find a solution with Greece on the naming dispute. Until then the country will be called by all the EU organs as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and the naming issue will remain an important parameter of the country's EU bid, until Skopje and Athens conclude an agreement. Therefore, if EU recognizes this state as fYROM, then the country's name should be mentioned like that, and I do not have a problem if this is seven twenty-seven or a hundred and twenty-seven times repeated. If there is a genuine interest in improving the article's prose, then anybody can submit an official application to the League of Copyeditors.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yannis, you haven't responded to the point I raised. We are not an organ of the EU, so the EU's POV doesn't decide how we talk about the EU. Why do you feel different? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why does the country's name have to be mentioned so many times anyway? It's not as if this is a "Македонска Радио-Телевизија" news bulletin, where every second phrase is "Република Македонија". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * EU's POV?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. It is (arguably) the EU's POV that the country is called "f.Y....". It is many other people's POV that it is called "R. o. M." or simply "M." We at Wikipedia have for a long time decided that the most appropriate way of referring to it, for our purposes, is R. o. M. Why would we suddenly be forced to bind ourselves slavishly to the naming preferences of somebody else, X, just because an article we are writing happens to be dealing with X? Seriously, I'm not getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because "when discussing the UN, the EU or any individual country, its internal policies on the naming issue should be respected", and because "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed." And this is inevitable when there is no uniform international recognition for this country. IO recognize it as fYROM, most ind. countries as RoM and some other countries (e.g. Greece and Cyprus) as fYROM. And if the current situration is IYO a paradox (which is inevitable IMO), it would be also a paradox if all the relevant documents, procedures, and sites of the EU refer to a "fYROM", and we refer to a "RoM". But is this the only paradox in Wikipedia. E.g. why the official name a government's country choses is Myanmar, I hear it in all the int mass media as Myanmar, and I see it in Wikipedia as Burma? Anyway, if the problem is the tiring repetition of the name, then I agree with Kekrops. The repetion of both RoM or fYROM or even Macedonia is tiring. Let's refer less to the country's name. After all what is stylistically or syntactically correct is proved something complex. FutPer thought FYROM wasn't stylistically correct in the template's heading, but me, Kekrops and obviously a user who reinstated the template had a different opinion.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed my question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] I think FP's problem is with WP:MOSMAC, full stop. If it were up to him, all references to the country would be piped to "Macedonia" and that would be the end of it. But we do have a MoS, for better or worse, and we're all bound by it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fut, if you think I have not addressed your question I am sorry. I think I have!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I still feel you very much didn't. But be that as it may, I of course agree with Kekrops' idea of cutting back stylistically by other means. In fact, I'm also considering cutting back on the title of the infobox. Somebody reinstated it; I won't insist on its renewed removal, but I don't accept that we should accept having yet another unnecessary POV dilemma forced upon us just by the accidental design of a template. I can never understand why infoboxes need titles anyway. Infoboxes are right at the top of an article, the page title and the lead sentence are right next to it, why does a box have to duplicate the page title at all? Out with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is named "Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union". Hence it has acknowledged that FYROM is the most correct name. Therefore FYROM (or former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) should not be controversial in the infobox. Those who think "Macedonia" is correct term for this article should try to build consensus to rename the article, instead of focusing on the infobox. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think we should use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) coherently throughout the article, simply because anything else will result in endless edit warring and vague language. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is where it is due to a compromise that is just barely tolerated, not acknowledged as appropriate. The corresponding "former Yugoslav..." in the infobox would be tolerable along the same lines – but it doesn't fit in there anyway, it's far too long and clumsy. "FYROM", in turn, is not an uncontroversial, neutral abbreviation that can be used in its stead just like that. In fact, if people want to make it a point that the usage of the EU should be followed at all costs: the EU does not use that abbreviation, they always spell out the full phrase in official documents. As for the main text, some usage of the fully spelt-out phrase might be okay if done responsibly. But did you even read the resulting prose? Can anybody honestly say they can read through a text where this phrase is used in every second sentence, and not be struck by the absurdity of it? (And it's not even yet consequently done throughout.) I maintain my position, using it mechanically all over the place is an assault against common sense and the patience of our readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we should use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" every time the country is mentioned; I just want to point out that those who blatantly insert just 'Macedonia' are being unconstructive, and that including FYR is the only feasible and sustainable solution. If "FYR Macedonia" is more 'acceptable' (e.g. it's used in Eurovision Song Contest) than "FYROM", we could use that term more. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify some simple things here. What FutPer says that "The article is where it is due to a compromise that is just barely tolerated" is completely wrong, and reveals a complete lack of knowledge of international and European law (which is no crime). As it is completely wrong what he said above about a "EU POV". Unfortunately, in this case there is no "EU POV"; there is just a "FutPer's POV".
 * I want to make clear that for the international community, namely for the European law and for the international law and the law of international organizations there is no "Republic of Macedonia"; there is only a "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The country has the right to call itself in the way it wants (and that is why its article is barely acceptable as "Republic of Macedonia"), but it has no right to impose to the international oganizations how to call it.
 * This article like all the articles analyzing the international organizations-fYROM's relations should reflect this reality; the only international reality, that there is no other state than fYROM. I do not ignore the fact that many countries have recognized this country as RoM (as many others have recognized it as fYROM), but this is a choice of each country individually; collective international reality is, however, expressed and reflected through the decisions and the practice of international organization.
 * Thus, me FutPer, Ssolbergj and any other user can support our POVs, but these POVs do not change the international reality; that the only internationally acceptable name for this country by the int. organizations it participates or wants to participate is fYROM, and this is something this country by entering the UN as fYROM has accepted, whether its leadership, citizens, editors and supporters in Wikipedia like or not.
 * So, when you propose the use of any other name than "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", the only official name of this country, you propose the blatant violation of the rules, the practice and decision of all international organizations, including EU, especially when this proposal is in obvious disaccord with MOSMAC (namely the guidelines every user and administrator here should implement). And is is inaccurate what FutPer said that RoM is the name we generally accepted to use it Wikipedia. No! This is the name we accepted, after a compromise I know regret, to use for the article's name, and per MOSMAC there are 6 cases explaining which name should be preferred; in one of these cases it is clearly stated that "the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed"; therefore by using the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" we follow the official guidelines of Wikipedia, whose FutPer and other users, sharing the same views with him, propose the violation, in order to avoid some vague "crimes against the English language". At the same time, per case 6 of MOSMAC the abbreviation FYROM is totally acceptable for this article.
 * After all this analysis, it is clear that
 * per international law,
 * per the practice and decisions of international organizations and EU,
 * per the formula Skopje accepted by entering the UN
 * per the official documents of the EU,
 * per MOSMAC's official guidelines, the only names for the country that this article should include are the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and its abbreviation. And that is what I'll implement.
 * FutPer talked about "crimes against the English language". Dear friend, if I have to choose between these crimes, and the crimes against international reality and law, Wikipedia's suggestions, and common sense, I'll prefer the first ones, and I'll let the second ones for you.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Yannis, but I find this argumentation so utterly without any reason and merit I have nothing more to say about it. I throw up my hands in despair. There is evidently no way any of us will ever convince the other here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The title here is simply not politically and/or institutionally correct. This article is supposed to describe the accession process (and relationship) of fYROM with the EU. However, the title is distorted by ignoring reputable sources for the naming reference of fYROM, which are very consistent to each other, such as: The net effect of this is, that the very international organisations that are the primary stakeholders are not followed up in a compatible manner and the question here becomes why Wikipedia takes a partial view on the naming, side-stepping its own sources. IMHO, it is difficult to refuse all these organisations' intentions, which at least include representation of both parties. Furthermore, the article naming scheme is inconsistent with the very body (EU) that it refers to. In effect, leaving the title as-is implies taking a side among two debating parties (=bias), in effect using the self-determination argument in favour of one side and against another.
 * EU
 * EU
 * UN
 * UN

212.76.243.136 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just confirmed that all the following organizations consistently refer to fYROM as such:
 * UN
 * EU
 * NATO
 * WTO
 * IMF
 * WHO
 * ICC
 * Council of Europe
 * WIPO
 * WMO
 * IOM
 * Interpol

So, the question is now with editors to explain why there has to be so much inconsistency between these bodies and wikipedia naming conventions. Picking a direction that is going against so many formal sources is a poor choice and will inevitably increase the work of authors of subsequent articles, when they wish to base their contributions on material coming from these sources (presumably reputable sources).

212.76.243.136 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death prevously, but for several years now we've had a solid consensus about how this is to be handled. We don't go by the officialese of those organisations, but by what reliable third-party sources (books, newspapers etc.) and the general public routinely call the country, in the context of these negotiations just as elsewhere. Please see WP:NCMAC for our binding guideline on this, and the page Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organizations for where this consensus was specifically discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment
The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Pages 2 and 4 deal with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been an explicit followup here... it looks like in Centralized discussion/Macedonia/other page titles the most preferred option was C. So, because no other Macedonia has an "Accession to the European Union" article, nor are they likely ever to have it, this page is fine using the simplest title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Uppercase and lowercase F, again
Excuse me Yanni, but why the capitals in "Former" again ? All the official EU documents and EU websites I see (e.g., , , ) consistently use the proper UN convention of the lower-case "f". (If there are cases where they don't, I suspect that will be largely because of syntactic context, for instance because it might be in a title, where everything is capitalised.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be correct. I rushed to capitalize, because during the last months I always see it capitalized. EU is not so consistent, but indeed I should have searched better in the official documents.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is also capitalized, but it seems that Fut. may be more correct on that.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the self-rv. You seem to be right that there are some inconsistencies, but as far as I could verify them (couldn't access your last link for some reason) they seem to be largely in the less formal contexts. I checked a few more of the official documents, such as the actual treaties and diplomatic exchanges, and they seem to be consistent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Croatia ramifications
I think that the accession of Croatia (and Slovenia for that matter) have more relevance to this article than currently comes through, but I am not sure where to add it in. Any suggestions? Here are some references that are relevant:   — Zujine |talk 17:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Accession of Macedonia to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061122102507/http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa to http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=388462&lng=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Accession of Macedonia to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302150053/http://www.greekembassy.org:80/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=24&article=18371 to http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=24&article=18371
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929024155/http://umdiaspora.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=150&Itemid=76 to http://umdiaspora.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=150&Itemid=76
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323170320/http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/march/eu-ends-macedonian-deadlock/76563.aspx to http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/march/eu-ends-macedonian-deadlock/76563.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010070929/http://www.independent.mk/articles/4801/Greek+Diplomatic+Sources+The+Name+Negotiations+to+Continue+after+the+Greek+Elections to http://www.independent.mk/articles/4801/Greek+Diplomatic+Sources+The+Name+Negotiations+to+Continue+after+the+Greek+Elections
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609183641/http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/macedonia-pm-greek-outburst-eu-summit/article-173577 to http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/macedonia-pm-greek-outburst-eu-summit/article-173577

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Accession of Macedonia to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=24&article=18371
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.mk/articles/4801/Greek%2BDiplomatic%2BSources%2BThe%2BName%2BNegotiations%2Bto%2BContinue%2Bafter%2Bthe%2BGreek%2BElections
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614115535/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_macedonia/relation/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_macedonia/relation/index_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203073930/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=30&nav_id=63395 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=30&nav_id=63395

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Move?
Given that the country was renamed North Macedonia so that it could enter the European Union, should this article be renamed Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Current consensus at the main Talk:Republic of Macedonia talkpage is that (a) the renaming still hasn't taken effect officially and will do so only in a few days' time; (b) we should first move the main article and wait for a more comprehensive RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia) before making large changes elsewhere. Yes, this article should probably also be moved when the time comes, but there's no rush yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the Accession of Macedonia to NATO got moved to one that has "North" in its name.Resnjari (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And how South Macedonia is written North Macedonia simply because it enetered the North Aliance NAto? I think Republic of Macedonia is applicable in EU accession topics. --Alexsports (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the new name is unrelated to NATO. The country agreed to change its name and exchange for no more vetoes on NATO and EU membership. "Republic of Macedonia" is the former name and should not be used for modern-day referrals. See also WP:MOSMAC. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Accession to the European Union
Could be placed as simply Republic of Macedonia? --Alexsports (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in the above and the below discussions, no. See WP:MOSMAC. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Content
Lets keep in mind that although officially it has became North Macedonia becouse of taking part in NATO, as in Natovian Macedonia (North, NATO, almost the same), however citizens are Macedonians. --Alexsports (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The name has been constituionally changed to the Republic of North Macedonia in accordance with the Prespa agreement. That the demonym continues to be "Macedonian" has no effect on the country's name and thus also none on this article's title. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Move
Move to Macedonia because that’s the real name. 2A02:C7E:3AA0:9200:2D37:7E00:97E1:2676 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)