Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles/Archive 1

Disagree
Unless there is significant reason to think someone will consider the term "Macedonia" to refer to ancient Macedonia, or the current Greek region of Macedonia, then the use should not include "Republic of". The only reason we have "Republic of China" is because there's another country named China.

There really are relatively few instances where "Republic of Macedonia" is actually needed to disambiguate the country from the region. The context of the use will make it almost certain what is meant in every instance. If, for instance, an article contains a list of countries, or relates to international relations of countries, nobody will mistake Macedonia to mean the ancient or current Greek region of Macedonia. Therefore, to use "Republic of" when it is not necessary is actually bowing to a Greek POV, and should not be allowed. Lexicon (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the reasoning and the parallel, Oz, but we are not exactly "bowing" when Greece specifically rejects "Republic of" as a means for disambiguation. Indeed, you and I may never be confused, but there are people out there who know zilt about all this. People who don't necessarily know that the ancient kingdom is dead. People that don't know there's a wider region by that name. People that don't even know Greece (let alone its province). Unlikely? Not quite, think of the readers of Eurovision for instance... IMO, we should probably help educate those, instead of confusing them. NikoSilver 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree. There really are few who will mistake the use of "Macedonia" in context.  Anyone who does, honestly, is far below average intelligence, or maybe has little knowledge of English, and would likely be confused by half of what they see on Wikipedia.  We have the simple English Wikipedia for those users.  We're not here to "educate" in the sense of informing people of near-common knowledge, we're here to serve as an encyclopedia to educate when people look something up.  We cannot design our policies around the few.  Lexicon (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could bet the majority of the readers have no clue on the different Macedonias, let alone on Macedonia (terminology). Many people having seen my contributions in Macedonia (terminology) have contacted me for a summary of what is the whole fuss about, and I don't consider them "below the average intelligence". I would drop names here, but it would almost seem like an insult, so I will refrain. NikoSilver 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand
Summary: We should expand this convention to the other "Macedonias", to the "Macedonians", and to the "Macedonian" languages.

I applaud this initiative as a great means to stop silly and useless edit warring. I note with great attention the comments above, and would like to set forth some additional issues, partly addressed by Fut.Perf. Our attention should be focused to Macedonia (terminology), and I would recommend that all future commentators here have a good knowledge of that featured article before expressing an opinion.


 * First, and foremost, this page should be moved to Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) (without the "Republic of"), in order to be able to encompass the naming conventions for the other "Macedonias" [sic], that do not normally bear a disambiguating element (such as Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (region) which are plainly called "Macedonia" as well). Those other Macedonias should have a respective treatment, and should use the disambiguating elements when needed, in respective terms to the country. See Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia (terminology) for more details.


 * Second, we need to extend this to people. I would propose "Macedonian regioners" for all ethnic groups indiscriminately, "ethnic Macedonians" for the largest ethnic group of the country (65%), "Albanian Macedonians" for the second largest (25%), Macedonians (Greek) or Greek Macedonians for the Greeks, Piriners or Bulgarian Macedonians for the Bulgarians of Blagoevgrad province, Macedo-Romanians for the Aromanians/Vlachs of the region, and finally ancient Macedonians for the late ones (not recently :-)). See Macedonia (terminology), especially the table on the right.


 * Third we need to extend this to languages. Probably we could use "Macedonian branch of the South Slavic languages" (if not "Macedonian (Slavic)"), "Macedonian dialect of Greek" or "Macedonian (Greek)" for the modern Greek dialect, and "ancient Macedonian" for XMK. See Macedonia (terminology), and Macedonia naming dispute for details.

In short, those other Macedonia/n/s should always be disambiguated in the presence of any other, and should not be disambiguated in their own turfs. For the special case of the name of the country, we can use the present consensus, that uses the name of the international organization which refers to the country (which is the only WP:ATTributable option). NikoSilver 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do a draft; I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is a draft. I was commenting here in order to start including it in the proposed convention. NikoSilver 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "other" Macedonias don't need a lot of extra rules - each of them has only that one name, "Macedonia", no alternatives to choose from, plus the obvious need to disambiguate when and where necessary - the latter is just a matter of commonsense, and most of the time it has successfully been handled by wikilinking. As for the people, "Macedonian regioners" and "Piriners" is out because it is not English. "Ethnic Macedonian" or "Slav Macedonian" works well when and where necessary for disambiguation. I don't think we've had much of a problem so far, so this looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. The languages don't need any disambiguation rules at all; in a 20th-century context (outside the narrow topic area of Greek dialectology) a sentence like "X spoke Macedonian" or "X was written in Macedonian" can only mean one thing. Clarification can be provided by means of wikilinking if so desired, which is most often done anyway, and if a user follows the links they will see the relevant articles plastered with all the disambiguation notices they could desire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We didn't have much problem lately with the country name either. This proposed convention describes the apparent status quo. Is it all "a solution in search of a problem"? My view is we should describe all aspects regardless of the "problems" (which were often in all country, people and language articles, and we all know it). NikoSilver 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the other suggestions, as I said, we only need to dab when there's a reason for confusion, so we agree. NikoSilver 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Yeah, I guess the one problem we really need to solve yet is how to stop the occasional bouts of deaustraloslavopristinification and reaustraloslavopristinification  that we still get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Nice work in general. I'm open to the suggestion by Lexicon to allow for a somewhat freer usage of "Macedonia" alone. While I consider "Republic of Macedonia" a good common ground in general, it should be made clear that practical needs of disambiguation, and not the danger of touching this or that party's national sensitivities, are the first and foremost driving force for our naming decisions. At a minimum, I'd suggest to add that using "Macedonia" alone, for brevity, may be appropriate in some cases, namely in subsequent text after a full reference to "Republic of Macedonia" has already been made, and provided the context leaves no room for ambiguity with the Greek region. This is analogous to the provision that allows occasional usage of "FYROM", for brevity, in articles where previously the full "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has been introduced.

We might also need to address the issue of adjectival usage. Since there are no handy adjectives of the other versions ("FYROMian", "Republic-of-Macedonian"?), we'll often be left with simply "Macedonian". It should be clarified that this is legitimate, for instance when stating the nationality of the subject in an article about a person. In cases where ambiguity might result but a disambiguating textual paraphrasis would be cumbersome, it should be considered sufficient to wikilink the word to the appropriate article (e.g. Macedonians (ethnic group) or Republic of Macedonia, as the case may be). In contexts where the topic has been established clearly enough that the context doesn't suggest ambiguity, simple "Macedonian" should be unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO the use of "Macedonia" always carries ambiguity. Eg. why are people obliged to know that Greek provinces do not compete separately in FIFA World Cup, unlike England, Scotland etc? Regardless, I find the exact risk of defining subjective criteria according to one's POV extremely risky in inflaming edit wars. I wouldn't want to start debating in all pages over if the use of the name can rationally refer only to the country or not. Let us have straightforward, objective, robotic guides. Otherwise, I'm afraid I see it coming again... NikoSilver 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People generally consider England, Scotland, etc. to be countries, unlike provinces of Greece, which I'm sure the average non-Greek has no knowledge of whatsoever (including that there's one called Macedonia). We don't, as far as I know, insist that Ireland is called "Republic of Ireland" whenever it is mentioned, to distinguish it from the island as a whole, even though I'm certain that most people also know that the Republic of Ireland does not comprise the only political entity on that island.  Why?  Because in most situations, the context will make it known what is being referred to, as it will be with Macedonia. Lexicon (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked for examples below where the reference to the country would be unambiguous. NikoSilver 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Macedonia defeats Greece in football world championship final". Hypothetical example ;-). Basically, every context where it is clear that we are dealing with countries will do. Your argument that some people might think Greek Macedonia might also act like a subnational quasi-country in some of these contexts (like Scotland or Wales in football) seems far-fetched to me. Either a person is clueless about Greece, in which case it will never even occur to them that "Macedonia" could refer to anything other than the independent country of that name; or a person knows about Greece, in which case they will know that Greek Macedonia is just a region and doesn't engage in international issues as an autonomous entity. That a person should know about the existence of Greek Macedonia but entertain such a far-fetched hypothesis about its role seems not a very serious danger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! FIFA calls the country FYR Macedonia! Other example? NikoSilver 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The example still stands. FIFA may call it that, but not out of a need for disambiguation, certainly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it doesn't stand, because the country will be called as FYROM in the said article according to the proposal ("The name FYR Macedonia should be used in articles about international organisations or events"). That was my initial point by asking examples: Mentioning the country falls (a) either within Greek context (so it will be called fyrom) or (b) within the context of int'l orgs. (such as FIFA) where it will be called fyrom or (c) on its own turf, where it may be called plain Macedonia if no Greek Macedonia exists. -- I doubt there will be substantial instances where it will be seen in an international context which both doesn't fall within the scope of the quote above and without GrMk. NikoSilver 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We've been talking at cross-purposes then. I meant the example to illustrate Lexicon's contention that even if we did not follow the present proposal but instead allowed simple "Macedonia" in a lot more contexts, we'd not be running into a lot of ambiguity problems. -- Apart from that, your comment makes me think you may be misinterpreting the present proposal. You seem to be interpreting "Greek context" very widely. The text is currently saying: "in representing the official view of the government of modern Greece", it's not saying: "in articles that somehow touch on Greece". So we'd still say, per the proposal, "Greece and the Republic of Macedonia held bilateral talks about issue X" (if not even, per Lexicon, "Greece and Macedonia held bilateral talks about issue X"), because that sentence is not about "representing the views of the Greek government" but a neutral description of what the two governments did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't understood the context, but I'm not talking about Greece related (or remotely relater). I'm talking about the phrase "The name FYR Macedonia should be used in articles about international organisations or events, where the organisations or events in question use that name" (direct quote). So your hypothetical example would say "FYR Macedonia defeats Greece in football world championship final" not because it is next to Greece (of course), but because it is in the FIFA World Cup article series. So, can you find an applicable example? NikoSilver 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what exactly do you want an example of? An instance where we would use plain "Macedonia" under the present proposal and it would not be ambiguous? But under the present proposal we'd hardly ever do that (except when propped up by an immediate disambiguated antecedent). I thought we were talking about an alternative solution where we'd use plain "Macedonia" much more freely. But okay, let's try something within the framework of the present proposal, where reference is "already unquestionably clear from the context": (un-indenting)


 * 1) Textual antecedent with subsequent shortening for brevity: "Germany held separate talks with Romania, Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia. While an agreement was soon reached with Romania, the negotiations with Bulgaria and Macedonia stalled".
 * 2) Topic domain "countries" established by context: "The festival has been held in several different southeast European countries, namely in Bulgaria, Greece, and Macedonia".
 * 3) Topic domain established by previous reference to ethnic Macedonians etc.: "X is a Macedonian movie actor. He was born in Skopje in 1980. At the age of 22, he left Macedonia to settle in Germany"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs)


 * I see no issue with any of these. If that's all, can you add the antecedent clarification in the proposal please? NikoSilver 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another little thing: As per Redirect, I don't see much need to insist on wikilinks being always piped directly to the ultimate article destination Republic of Macedonia. Unpiped links to redirects (e.g. FYROM, where that is the expression the article uses and where such a redirect exists), are just as fine. This convention shouldn't be understood as mandating going through all the wiki and mass-changing links. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that struck me as odd too. I agree. NikoSilver 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland / Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland
On my talk page, Corticopia has pointed out a parallel with Ireland / Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland. The name "Ireland" (referring to the island) is also commonly used for the Republic of Ireland, although that name (and the Republic's!) also overlaps with Northern Ireland, a province of the United Kingdom. This strikes me as being very similar to the frequent colloquial use of "Macedonia" to refer to the country rather than the region or the Greek province. -- ChrisO 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but does a neighboring country reject Republic of Ireland's constitutional name? Do people of Northern Ireland self-identify as Irish too? Does the article Ireland direct to the country, or to the region (island)? Are Irish less than half of the British on the island? Does Republic of Ireland occupy a minority part of the region, with UK occupying more than half? Do they speak completely unrelated languages with the same name? Do the Irish have a separate history of centuries (let alone millenia)? I checked British Isles (terminology) as a guide in creating Macedonia (terminology), but I didn't spot many similarities of the sort. NikoSilver 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are more similarities than you would think! Yes, it's often been the case that British and Northern Irish politicians have consciously rejected the name "Republic of Ireland", calling it the "Irish Republic" or "Eire" instead (don't forget that the RoI claim ownership of Northern Ireland in its constitution, until as late as 1998). About 40% of NI's population - basically the majority of the Catholics - self-identify as Irish. The article Ireland directs to the island, but Names of the Irish state notes that "Ireland is used for almost all official purposes" and "it is also used in the state's diplomatic relations with foreign nations, so the state is known as 'Ireland' at meetings of the United Nations." The UK used to occupy the entire region until 1920. The people of Ireland speak two separate languages (actually three, but we'll forget about Ulster Scots for now): Irish Gaelic and Hiberno-English, but confusingly, both are often referred to simply as "Irish". And the Irish do indeed have a separate history of centuries; they only came into contact with the ancestors of the English at around the same time that the Slavs were settling to the north of Greece.


 * I agree, the parallels aren't completely exact, but it's an interesting one to ponder. -- ChrisO 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A good parallel; one reason I changed things. We do call that Republic simply Ireland, where it's clear what's meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious for a couple of examples. Can you give me some? NikoSilver 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is entirely invented, and on the other side of the border, but the principle works both ways. After a mention of the Greek province, "Macedonia elects 23 members of the Greek Parliament." This is not the Republic; "The Republic of Macedonia elects 23 members of the Greek Parliament" would be nonsense. So we don't need to add Greek province of either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem with that one either (see above discussion with Fut.Perf.) NikoSilver 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW, the constitutional name of the Republic of Ireland is plain Ireland (see art.4); while the country's in question is "Republic of Macedonia" (see preamble and art.1). NikoSilver 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, although the difference is somewhat more subtle than that, as the Republic of Ireland's official "description" is "Republic of Ireland", which, I'd argue, is near the same thing as calling it that officially. I'm sure we could find other lower profile instances of countries whose descriptor (in these cases part of the actual official name) is different from that historically used in the country (such as a republic that used to be called "Kingdom"—there are probably many of those), where the need for the "Republic of" part of the name has never even been considered as a possibility.  Lexicon (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it's technical, but let me just drop something for consideration: Have you ever thought that the name plain "Macedonia" may be a POV also? If yes, why wouldn't you feel "bowing" to it, yet we are so sensitive about a reference erroneously characterized as "Greek POV", while it is the international POV (per UN et al orgs and half member states), and while it has been agreed by both members of the dispute that this is an acceptable reference? They signed a bilateral agreement on it, you know... How can that be considered a mere "Greek POV", especially under the auspices of the UN? NikoSilver 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Left) Personally, I would use "Macedonia" for both the Republic and the Province on second reference; my only PoV here is Use English. At the moment this convention doesn't cover that, but perhaps it should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't considered that using "Macedonia" is POV, no. The people who chose to name their country that obviously have a point of view, and it may, according to some other people, be an illegitimate POV, but if the country is called that (by the country itself—and I think we must agree that a country called "Republic of Macedonia" is called "Macedonia"), then there can be no POV in calling the country that on Wikipedia.  Iran could rename itself "America is Dumb" tomorrow, which would obviously be an incredibly POV-laden name, but if it was the name of the country, I would certainly support its being called that on Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we define POV differently: To me everything has a POV. Even the ultimate truth, without any opposition whatsoever is a POV (=point of view). Now that POV may be global, or it may be "an island of its own reality". In this case, the two (actually three) POV's at hand share significant notability. It is indeed a gray area which POV is more notable. You make it seem like it is indisputably more notable; would it have reached the present stage if it was? I seriously doubt it. NikoSilver 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue you're trying to introduce is the POV of those who want a country to be named a certain thing and the POV of those who want the country to be named something else. That is, of course, a significant reason why there is conflict on this issue, however, it should not be considered a significant issue, ultimately, in determining naming policy. In a perfect world, nobody would mention the fact that anyone objects to any name.  In a perfect world, the only issue would be need for disambigation, and nothing more.
 * To my disappointment many Greek nationalists refuse that it is only the disambiguation issue that is of importance and argue against the use of the name, even with proper dab. NikoSilver 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is, really, only one valid point of view as to what a country is named (except, I suppose, in cases of civil war or whatnot where there are competing factions within a single country who might have different names, and there is no clear legal authority whose opinion is considered superior), and that is the point of view of the country itself (its government). The country of the Republic of Macedonia is, without a doubt, called Macedonia, in the very same way that the Kingdom of Spain is called Spain.  This is an incontrovertible fact of logic.  Countries are called what countries call themselves (here I'm ignoring WP:UE, which shouldn't really have an impact, since all suggested versions are English).
 * I do not agree, sorry. A country (or a person) is called [not sic] as it is called by others. The passive voice in everyday speech, (also only in plural in the languages that support it -i.e. called by many-) is not a random coincidence. The opposite of "is called" (in our case) is "calls itself" (active voice, and singular, again not random). I cannot understand how you argue that what you are saying is an incontrovertible fact of logic. In fact, I have the exactly opposite view, but I suppose both views hold water since both views may find active supporters with some sort of reasoning. NikoSilver 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less what Greece wants. I couldn't care less what the United Nations has currently agreed to use (different, I think, from what it would probably like to use, if it were a perfect world, which, given the idea that countries are sovereign, would, I think, be Macedonia and Macedonia alone—of course this is just my opinion).  I couldn't care less what the European Union uses, or FIFA, or Eurovision.  Luckily, I'm not Greek, and I'm not Macedonian (for disambiguation purposes, if you really couldn't tell from the context, I mean I'm not a speaker of a language in the Eastern group of the South Slavic Languages called "Macedonian", nor do I claim that I am ethnically connected to speakers of that language), so I speak without any emotional preference whatsoever.  I care only a) what the country calls itself, and b) what sort of disambiguation is absolutely necessary in relation to the use of that name.  Lexicon (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even in the perfect world you are talking about, untold sovereignty would not be, of course, disambiguating. Unless of course you always said "Macedonia country" or the "sovereign Macedonia"; but that would not just be "Macedonia". Luckily,(?) we don't have to care how FIFA, Eurovision, and EU call the country. We just have to make sure that we are addressing the country. Greek users have learned to deal with that. Asking them to remove the only thing that signifies we're talking about a country (i.e. "Republic of") is twisting the knife in the wound. It is implying that "Macedonia" (of all) is so unambiguous, that it can only refer to the exact part that they don't want called like that. It is also implying that the other part is far less significant or notable to even require the need of being ever addressed, so the whole meaning can be equated to the country. This is both generously handing over an identity to someone, and ripping off the identity from someone else. IMO this is POV. Continuing your logic about being called as I am calling myself, I will now sign: Lexicon 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoSilver (talk • contribs)
 * But you don't call yourself Lexicon, luckily. Yes, I don't care one iota about the history of the name.  That's all emotion, and emotion is not welcome here.  And no, there really are many instances where we can be clear that we're talking about the modern country of Macedonia without saying "Macedonia (country)" or "Republic of Macedonia", and you know it, and that is the real (and only valid) issue here.  Your last response makes it clear that your argument really is 90% emotion and only 10% logic, and we will never be able to see each other's point of view here, I'm afraid.  I really don't care that Greeks think the country being referred to simply as "Macedonia" is equal to them "having their heritage stolen" (heritage that, I could add, is questioned by several scholars, who argue that Macedonians weren't actually Greek, but that's an entirely different issue).  It is unfortunate, but Macedonia really is called "Macedonia".  Lexicon (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me see... when did I refer to the history of the name? When did I appeal on emotion? When did I say that I care what Greeks think (when I actually said the opposite on the first comment)? What does the "stolen heritage" have to do with anything I said? Where does the [fringe] theory of Macedonians not being Greek stick with anything? And why can I understand your point of view but you cannot understand mine? And by whom is Macedonia called Macedonia? You mean to suggest that Macedonia is not called Macedonia? Or do you mean that Macedonia is not called Macedonia? I only appeal to the disambiguation issue, and I already said that where it is not ambiguous it can be used. So where exactly do we disagree? And please, do not change my self-identification again, because the premise [I call myself]==[I'm called by others] is an incontrovertible fact of logic (in your logic)! Republic of Lexicon 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Niko, are you really so blind to your own bias and emotional state that you cannot see what I'm sure everyone else here has seen in your comments? Okay, so you never said "I'm appealing to emotion here" (who does, that would be stating the obvious), but re-read the following:


 * Asking them to remove the only thing that signifies we're talking about a country (i.e. "Republic of") is twisting the knife in the wound. It is implying that "Macedonia" (of all) is so unambiguous, that it can only refer to the exact part that they don't want called like that.


 * If that's not an appeal to emotion, nothing here ever will be. And no, you never used the exact words "stolen heritage", but think about it.  Look at your own words:


 * This is both generously handing over an identity to someone, and ripping off the identity from someone else.


 * Certainly seems like you said "stolen heritage" to me. Your entire opposition to the use of "Macedonia" for the country rests on your emotional attachment to Macedonia as a Greek concept.  I only mentioned the possible non-Greekness of ancient Macedonia to try to take you down a notch in your emotional appeal in an attempt to bring you just one tiny step closer to reason, but I see that it has obviously done the exact opposite.  As for your question as to whether Macedonia or Macedonia are not called "Macedonia" as well, of course they are.  But despite your emotional appeals that basically shout "Please don't let them steal our name!", there is ample room for the use of a non-disambiguated "Macedonia" to refer to the modern country.  Any argument that we should never use just "Macedonia" for Republic of Macedonia has to be an appeal to emotion, because logic simply dictates that disambiguation will not be necessary in many instances (everything else is emotion).  I'm certain that Macedonia and Macedonia are very often not disambiguated from each other, because it is damn clear in most contexts which "Macedonia" is meant there, in the same way that Macedonia will be clear in many contexts.  Finally, as for your "stunt" to disprove my argument (which, BTW, might perhaps be considered to be a violation of WP:POINT), a) we're not countries, so we cannot assume that the same rules of sovereignty of countries and the rights accorded to sovereign countries, such as choosing a name for themselves, apply here, b) Wikipedia has its own rules about usernames that override such arguments, if they could be made, and c) in case you didn't notice, both you and I are editors of Wikipedia—not to say were the same, we're obviously very different people, but in the relevant fact, we are the same—whereas the entities calling themselves (or which are called) "Macedonia" are fundamentally different in nature from each other, and so the issue is somewhat more complicated than the argument which your stunt is apparently supposed to disprove. Lexicon (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon, if we generally agree, why do you have to say all that? Signing: the Stunt-man Crack a smile once in a while, it helps! 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the knife/wound bit was kinda emo, but the following sentence (that you gracefully repeat and thank you for including it as well) says the whole point: (It is implying that "Macedonia" (of all) is so unambiguous, that it can only refer to the exact part that they don't want called like that.) Your 90%emo/10%logic criticism is IMO unfair. NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the handing-over/ripping-off bit did not aim to heritage or anything. It aimed in clarifying that 2.6 million people share an identity now, and that your approach is not single, but double "harm" in their eyes. Past is irrelevant (unless we're talking government endorsed pseudoscience,[1][2]|undefined where it has to be relevant) NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please don't let them steal our name!" I could have never said that, as I emphatically criticize those compatriots of mine that denounce its inclusion in the country's name completely. How can I be "shouting" that when I only appeal to dab and request that they do include it in their name (and even that not obligatorily)? How can I be "shouting" that when I write articles like this, and when I make comments like this? (just grabbed one I remembered at random -see my "personal opinion" in the end and browse all my contribs on the subject for heaven's sake!) NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that the other Macedonias are sometimes not disambiguated, so the same should happen to this one. I say yes, by all means, and I agreed to all examples given by Fut.Perf. and Sept. Why do you have to repeat that? Is there somewhere a disagreement I have not understood? NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re my "stunt", the WP:POINT comment is laughable (in a talkpage lol!), and regarding your abc:
 * (a) point taken, but why are country self-id's any better from human self-id's not understood. Care to elaborate? Also, where did you get that it is part of the "rights accorded to sovereign countries" to choose any name for themselves? Do you have an international law to link maybe? At least I have a single case which says otherwise. NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (b) as WP has its own rules, so does the ultimate country authority: the UN. Point? NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (c) no, you are an admin, I am a mere user, so that would be enough for dab in your logic! Countries/admins seem to have higher status than mere provinces/users. (Wow, you are stealing my name, because you are the one with the higher status here lol!) NikoSilver 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm pretty good at cracking a smile when one is called for. Your responses which have clearly come from an emotional view, despite your claims to the contrary, however, make this a fairly serious matter.
 * 2) This discussion has nothing to do with administrator powers, so I don't think that that makes us different enough.
 * 3) The whole idea of sovereignty is that a nation does not have to answer to another for any of its actions, decisions, etc. Now, international law in the last couple hundred years has changed that somewhat, but the idea is still that sovereignty means not having to answer to other nations as to anything internal, which would undoubtedly include the name of the country.  Custom has (as far as I can tell) been that countries call themselves what they want, and as international law is very much custom-based, it would appear that international law would be on the side of a country being able to choose its own name.
 * 4) Finally, the UN isn't really the ultimate authority on anything. The UN is a voluntary organization, and while it is certainly a huge part of our modern political world, it does not have the right to make decisions against international law as agreed to by nations, whether they are part of the UN or not.  It does not decide what is and isn't a country.  Before the UN (and the League of Nations) we had countries, I assure you.  And with the inception of the UN the idea of what is and isn't a country, and the rights of sovereign nations did not magically move under its domain.  The UN denies membership to the Republic of China, but I assure you that that country is a fully sovereign nation.  It has obligations under international law, and can enter into treaties with other sovereign nations.  UN recognition does not equal sovereignty, just as the views of the UN do not equal international law. Lexicon (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject please? We were in the part where I thought we had agreed. NikoSilver 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure where we agree. Do you agree that we can use simple "Macedonia" for the modern country whenever it's clear that we're talking about the modern country?  If so, great.  We're agreed. Lexicon (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have agreed to all rational examples presented by Fut.Perf. and PMAnderson below. I've also been telling you that since three comments above (where it starts "Let me see..."). Of course it was also evident if one took the time to see the other sections below (as was prompted for "examples below please"). You chose to call me "blind in my own bias" instead. NikoSilver 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Lexicon (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You need not apologize. On mature thinking my comments were largely emotional and this may have blurred the original message that we generally agree. NikoSilver 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision F.Y.R. Macedonia
Tonight is Eurovision night, one of the candidates is "F.Y.R. Macedonia". We wish it well. The presenter in the UK will introduce it as, 'the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. Both these appelations are correct and in current use. Politis 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Three names for the same entity?
I do not think it is a good idea to use three different names for one state, depending on whether a a particular international organization is mentioned in an article or not. I would suggest a consistent use of "Republic of Macedonia" whenever an article refers to the country of that name. An explanatory footnote like the one in United Nations member states is obviously welcome in those few cases, where it adds some information value. Otherwise, three names would just confuse readers. Tankred 13:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, it is insane, but check the perfect dab to see why. NikoSilver 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I give up
This page served little purpose to begin with; it should not become a platform for nationalist self-pity. Wikipedia has too much of that to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear that, thanks. If I extend my "same to you" will that be productive? Sit here and talk. Rationally, and without insults. I need you. NikoSilver 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice to hear; but what do you need me for?. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I need you to sort this out, and I know how to push your buttons so as to promote my nationalist agenda, so stay here. Come on Sept, I think you know me better than that. Just let's keep discussing and I'm sure we'll work it out. I responded to your comment in my talkpage. Take it from there. NikoSilver 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)