Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/Greece-related/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Discussion of proposal A
Re:: "insensitive"? Another emotion-based argument? It's been made abundantly clear that we don't make our decisions based on someone else's sensitivities to a name and that Greek articles are not exempt from this any more than any other article. As for the worries that it'll be contentious and start edit wars, I think we're a bit behind the times on that one. Not to mention that avoiding this solution to avoid edit wars would be giving in to pressure from those with a POV axe to grind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposal A.1
Shadowmorph, can you please clarify if you mean to propose that additional note in all Greece-related articles, or only in the main Greece article? Either way it is unacceptable, but in the first case more so than in the second. In contexts where simple geographical facts are being described, the political issues of the naming recognition are plainly irrelevant, and enforcing artificial notes in those places has no other function than to symbolically bow down before the Greek POV sensitivities. The naming issue is as irrelevant for the lead of Greece as the non-recognition of Israel is in the lead of Lebanon (where the neighbouring country is mentioned in the same way, simply in a description of what borders on what.) Same comparison for mentioning the Republic of Macedonia in Florina prefecture, and mentioning Israel in Bint Jbeil.

You might also want to remove some beating-dead-horses material from the rationale. The fact that the "f.Y." position in the naming poll was overwhelmingly represented by Greek editors and that the results were polarised along Greeks-versus-Non-Greeks lines was noted as a fact even by Arbcom, and the need to overcome such polarisation is a central and compulsory part of our task here. Also, WP:AGF has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue – saying that the proponents were Greek editors in no way implies they were acting in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean only the Greece article. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe some official Greece and Greek administrative regions too but not in anything in Wikipedia that is Greek-related. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This clarification in a hatnote or footnote or whatever is totally unnecessary. If a reader is looking for information about a country, they do not care that some other countries or organizations don't recognize said country under the name that the page title or link uses. J.delanoy gabs adds  02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that the naming dispute will need to be discussed in the article, but I can't see any reason it belongs in the lead. It's not anything that sums up the article as a whole, as a lead section is suppose to do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article about Greece is about Greece, and not about Macedonia or its name, then anything that detailed about Greece's neighbor in the lead is silly and POV pushing. The lead should summarize Greece.  As Heimstern says, the naming dispute is only a matter of Greece's foreign policy.  It should have a mention there, but nowhere else.  (Taivo (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

To support this, and just as a background reminder of what the status quo in the Greece article actually is. There are currently three references to Macedonia in that page: Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In the intro: enumeration of neighbouring countries as part of the standard geographical overview. Uses "Republic of Macedonia", currently with a footnote "see naming dispute" (which I'd suggest we should remove)
 * 2) In the "foreign relations" section: mentions "the naming dispute with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ('FYROM')". (which uses "former Yugoslav" not as part of the name but as a useful bit of relevant historical background information)
 * 3) In a map in the "geography" section: uses abbreviated "Rep. Maced." (for space reasons)

Discussion of Proposal B
It is not Wikipedia's policy to use alternative names according to topic area, with one exception: when our reliable sources do the same. If you can show that either "Macedonia (Skopje)" or "Macedonia (FYROM)" are used by a clear majority of independent English-language sources dealing with Greece, we might begin to talk about this. Domain-specific alternate names, where they are used in Wikipedia, are never used with the purpose of making things more palatable to the POV sensitivities of some political group associated with the topic area. If at all, they are only ever used with the purpose of making facts more easily recognisable to the outside English-speaking reader. This is not the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Macedonia (FYROM) would additionally be deprecated as it would introduce an unexplained (and frankly redundant) term into the article. There's already a general agreement that the term FYROM should not be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say to use Macedonia (Skopje) as the name. I said to use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" as the name and (Skopje) or (FYROM) as a reference to the name that is used in Greece. The f.Y.... spelled out is used in many Greek related English texts (including some maps). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is "the name used in Greece" relevant for a general, English-speaking audience? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For one thing it will be included in almost all of the English texts that are written by an ethnic Greek. That includes Americans and Australians of Greek descent. Also international geologists, biologists... you get the point. Anything that a Greek wrote in English would use probably use one of those terms.
 * For another thing the reader might have encountered it just prior to searching for something Greek related in wikipedia. For instance he might have been reading about seismology in Greece in an English article (most of those are written by Greek seismologists) Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any examples? This seems very hypothetical to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

None of these forms is the most common English term and none of them are even in the running for "common" English term. That should be enough to disqualify this option. (Taivo (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * They are not supposed to be. Think of it this way: it's like Macedonia (ΠΓΔΜ) or Macedonia (Σκόπια). Shadow mor ph ^"^ 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be up front here. In my view, ideally, we should never refer to the same entity by different names. In reality this is not possible, thus we use different terms where there is a reasonable possibility of confusion about what a word is referring to. (For example, the word "Macedonia" alone may not be enough to differentiate between the Greek province and the sovereign nation in an article which refers to Greece.)

When referring to a single entity, we should use no more than the absolute minimum number of terms necessary to provide sufficient differentiation between possible meanings of a word. In my opinion, "Republic of Macedonia" is sufficient to differentiate the modern country, as there has never been any other republic named Macedonia. I see using any term other than "Republic of Macedonia" or possibly simply "Macedonia" to refer to the modern country, on any article on this project, as redundant, inconsistent, and unnecessary. "Any article" includes articles about or relating to Greece. (I will add my thoughts things such as the UN, the EU, and so forth on /other page titles later.)

I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but before this discussion goes any further, I want to make it clear that I am inclined to follow my above reasoning on this matter. I believe that it represents a very good implementation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines relating to disambiguation and general consistency across the project. Unless I see a good reason to make Greece-related articles a special case, I will not support any proposal that suggests doing this. Note that I consider to be insufficient reason to justify making Greece-related articles a special case. If you are trying to change my mind, show me, from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, why there should be a third term to refer to the modern republic. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Greece does not recognize the modern country under this name
 * The country is recognized by the UN, the EU, NATO, and the Kingdom of Gondor as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
 * Agreed, the remit laid down in the Arbcom decision was to consider this in conjunction with our existing policies and guidelines. I will stem off any suggestion of pre-judgement on our part here, but those who support this proposal should heed this advice if they want to make their case Fritzpoll (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record that proposal is not my first choice and I am not so concerned about the Greece-related part of this discussion. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Using the Greece used term in parenthesis will allow us to use the simple name Republic of Macedonia or even the short Macedonia while stemming off ambiguity with the Macedonia in Greece. "Republic of" might not be a substantial disambiguator for Greece related texts. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, considering the lay reader (the uninformed one), clear distinction should be made that Republic of Macedonia is unrelated to the region of Macedonia in the context of Greece. For instance By using "Macedonia (FYROM)" we achieve three things mentioned in policy
 * 1) Simple common name used. This proposal actually is the only one that allows for "Macedonia" to be used as the name of the country in texts where Macedonia (Greece) is referred to as "Macedonia" too in the same text (or even paragraph).
 * 2) Simplest name that is not ambiguous is used in the text. In Greece-related text "Republic of Macedonia" alone, might be confusing to the reader. If the reader does not go ahead to read Macedonia (terminology) article, then the relation of the two "Macedonias" is left open in that sense.
 * 3) Added info in parenthesis (unlinked, so it is not a qualifier of the name), NPOV is met by mentioning the alternate name that Greece uses in its part. By being parenthesized and not linked, NPOV is not violated by means of not using "Wikipedia's editorial voice" because it is not part of the name. In that concern the parenthesized part is just a supplement. Significant confusion is in all the parts of Greece-related text. Since we have navigation boxes in WP, the first occurrence of Republic of Macedonia might be missed (unless it is in the lead) and "Macedonia" referring to the country might be falsely associated with the region in Greece. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not certain how "Republic of Macedonia" alone could be confusing. Has there ever been another entity which called itself the "Republic of Macedonia"? J.delanoy gabs adds  05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A lay reader does not have to know any of that (and what entities existed or not). Furthermore while Republic of Macedonia is part of the name, the connection between Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia is not apparent (obviously) while some room for fatal misconceptions exists. E.g. When one hears the name "Republic of Kosovo" what does he think is the connection with the Kosovo region of Serbia? The connection of Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh with the region of Azerbaijan? What comes into mind to the lay reader? Only in this case Republic of Macedonia has a gravely different connection to the region and no connection to the region in Greece. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg and Azerbaijan. And what's more, they are fully recognised independent countries, just like Macedonia. Unlike Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh, which have a completely different status.  Balkan Fever  06:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that you did not mention any, I am going to assume that there has never been an entity (other than the modern country) that referred to itself as the Republic of Macedonia. But you did bring up the Greek region called Macedonia, so I will ask you about that as well.
 * How could someone possibly confuse "Republic of Macedonia" with the region in Greece named Macedonia? Does the Greek region have any special autonomy that could make someone confuse it for a sovereign country (which the delimiter "Republic of" explicitly infers)? Surely it is ludicrous to suppose that Greek Macedonia is a separate Republic, and not part of the Hellenic Republic. When replying, please give me a direct answer. I do not care about any implications that they may possibly be related in time/space/history/culture/whatever. I want to know specifically, explicitly, and directly why "Republic of Macedonia" is not sufficient to ensure that a reader knows that the text is referring to the modern country. The sole point of disambiguation is to ensure that readers know what the text is referring to, not to "teach" the reader or whatever. J.delanoy gabs adds  06:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I will attempt to be more direct. Yes, There was no other Republic of Macedonia that I know of. I agree with all the above, of course it is ludicrous to mistake the Greek part as being autonomous (although it has a regional bureocracy). One would not confuse one for the other, but it is plausible that he might confuse the affiliation of the country with the region. I wanted to focus on that reverse case, that is that the relation of the Republic of Macedonia to the region is not immediately apparent. We have to have a concern to the reader that knows nothing about that. A reader will definately know that in the text, "Republic of Macedonia" is referring to the modern country (I didn't challenge that). The affiliation of the modern country to the region in Greece is what he might not know about (it is zero). Regarding that "United Macedonia" is a real and existing ideology, any possible confusion about that should be reduced to zero. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of speculation here. Do you have any hard evidence? The Greek region of Macedonia is relatively obscure - most reference works surveyed do not have separate articles about it, and it is not shown on maps of the region (apparently only on maps of Greece). How likely is it that most of our readers will even have heard of Greek Macedonia? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Have we gotten to the point that we speculates that the region of Greece is non existent or "obscure"? I suggest you read Macedonia (Greece). The atlases and other reference works rarely cover regions or administrative divisions of other countries, they focus on countries only. The ones not including Macedonia (West, Central or East) wouldn't include Tetovo either, I am 100% positive about that and I checked out many sources myself. ChrisO, you seem to ignore the fact that generic encyclopedias and dictionaries mention the region of Greece. If you think that West Macedonia is an obscure thing then I guess we have nothing to discuss. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Confusion only arises if there is something to be confused about. Take Luxembourg for instance. Far more people will know of Luxembourg the state - since it's included on maps of the world and of Europe and has its own entries in numerous reference works - than Luxembourg the Belgian province, which is not indicated on anything other than local maps and has far less reference coverage. People who live in the region would certainly be aware of the overlap between the two. However, the general purpose reader, our target audience, will almost certainly not be aware of the existence of the Belgian province and will associate the term exclusively with the country (since that is how it is used by most sources). If you don't know that an overlapping entity exists, you're not likely to be confused about it. That's why the term Luxembourg is applied to the country rather than to a disambiguation page. Similarly, Greek Macedonia is certainly significant relative to Greece, but in global terms - as represented by its coverage in reliable verifiable sources - it is far less well covered than the country and has a far lower profile. If anything, it probably has an even lower profile than Belgian Luxembourg, since the latter is a political entity and therefore actually does things that attract coverage, whereas Greek Macedonia is a mere geographical expression, like "New England" or "the Great Plains". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Macedonia as referring to a region of Greece is widely known in its own. That was even more so prior to 1992 where no confusion existed. If one said that I'm going to Macedonia for vacation, he meant in Greece. The English speaking world is not only 17-year-olds :) Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 09:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Citeneeded, I'm afraid. Not about the 17-year-olds, but about the idea that Greek Macedonia was once the standard usage. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Come over into Macedonia, 1943, when "Macedonia" in book titles was not ambiguous; in English, it was the Greek region. I am sure everyone used "traveled in Yugoslavia" rather than "traveled in Macedonia" in the case of traveling in Socialist RoM. No time to find you a better citation now. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 09:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess it's my fault for asking for the cite in the first place, but I am a bit surprised you mention a source over sixty years old. Oh well. I was off-topic in even asking for a cite, so never mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Delanoy: If disambiguation (or uniqueness) is the only concern, then you may be right.  However, an encyclopedia is about teaching the reader. It is also about providing the correct teaching. The article title already predisposes the reader with a condensed message upfront.  I do dot say at this point what the name should be, but it should be one that is consistent with the contents of the article, and the contents of the article should convey the truth (i.e. verifiable facts).  Esem0 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the opening line of Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." In this case, it's already been exhaustively verified that the term "Macedonia" is primarily used to refer to the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Republic of Macedonia has no connection to Macedonia, Greece is both verifiable and true. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However it is not the purpose of disambiguation to point that out. It's the purpose of article text. The sentence that I am replying under is a perfect example of adequate disambiguation.  Balkan Fever  10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sentence cannot be usually found in article text and we cannot include that sentence everywhere. We can infer however its meaning by our choice of naming convention for Greece-related pages. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal C
Wikipedia's editorial voice is solely its own. When it speaks for itself, it should use consistent terminology as much as possible. In Greece-related articles, "Macedonia" alone will not be sufficient under any circumstance I can anticipate, since there's a Greek region with the same name, but "Republic of Macedonia" is sufficient to distinguish the two. Using the term "Former Yugoslav..." is unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and is just a concession to Greek foreign policy. Wikipedia speaks with its own voice, not that of its subjects. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to accurately quote Greece in Greece-related articles, then you'll have to use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the articles anyway. Using both "Republic of Macedonia" and the longer form in the article would sacrifice internal consistency. That is why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the best option to use in Greece-related articles. --Radjenef (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about consistency across the entire project. Namely, he's saying that "Macedonia" should be used in all places where there is no ambiguity, and "Republic of Macedonia" should be used where there is a possibility of confusion. As I stated in the section above, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Using three terms to refer to an entity when two terms are sufficient is illogical, and it is against policy. J.delanoy gabs adds  02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) That guideline is solely about Wikipedia's own voice, not its quoting of others. How others write is completely outside our control, and we have the duty to reflect what they say. For example, in same places, there are quotes with patently incorrect spellings and word usages that we nonetheless reflect faithfully. That doesn't mean we do likewise in our own writing. Internal consistency doesn't apply to quotes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) I think this proposal needs a bit of wording in order to differentiate from the one about international orgs. Applying the same principles of that proposal for Greece (a country, not an organisation) only, sounds a little awkward. Maybe it was supposed to be that the convention used by any country should be followed in the articles related to that country (although I doubt e.g. Panama related articles will have any reasno even mention the RoM). In that case it might be subject to POV concerns because it puts the internationally political position of one country over another because organisational conventions is one thing (they are usually neutral and not one sided), conventions used by countries are biased to the POV of one country. So while the rationale for int.orgs might be valid, I believe it is problematic to be used as is for this case. What I understand is that this proposal means to copy the conventions of the subject entity of any article all around Wikipedia. It is supposed to be used in conjunction with the other proposal about organisations, if that one there is also selected. Maybe that has to be stated in the proposal or some more justification should be added. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All this proposal does is open up every single article in Wikipedia to a plethora of unintelligible and contradictory names. For example, applying this principle to the Persian Gulf would mean that it would be called one thing at Iran and another thing at Saudi Arabia.  This is unacceptable in Wikipedia.  One name must be used for every article in Wikipedia without regard for political niceties or nationalistic POVs.  (Taivo (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree with you and in the sense of that last sentence I suggested that Republic of Macedonia should be used in all the article titles without the need to choose which are ambiguous and which ones are not (see other page titles section). By what you say I judge you agree with that proposal too, do you? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 06:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)