Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:51, 7 April 2009

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

Need for a straw poll

• This matter has been demonstrated to be extremely contentious. Discussions, as easily observed above, quickly escalate to uncivil remarks, personal attacks, and accusations of racism, censorship, and bias. It is also an easily verifiable fact that Greek users take this matter very personally and vehemently object to any proposals meant to discuss this issue. Discussions are always disrupted endlessly; thus a straw poll, where each user shall provide their position in a simple and straightforward way, should be the only mechanism left to verify if the community, as a whole, would agree with the proposed changes.

Background for the proposal

• Greece recognizes this country as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). That country recognizes itself as the Republic of Macedonia. International recognition of the name of this country varies, with some countries and organizations recognizing it as "FYROM", and others as "Republic of Macedonia". On Misplaced Pages, the article on that country is under the title "Republic of Macedonia", as are all other Wikipedias (except the Greek one). Throughout Misplaced Pages, articles refer to that country as the "Republic of Macedonia", except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union. Elsewhere we have "Republic of Macedonia". The article Greece though, still uses "FYROM" in circumstances where we normally do not use it, such as in the first paragraph when the country is listed with the ones bordering Greece. Since this is not an exception, we should apply Misplaced Pages:MOS#Internal_consistency, and change all FYROM mentions to "Republic of Macedonia".

Opposition rationale

Note, most of the following text comes directly from where this discussion *ought* to be, a Macedonia naming guideline that came very close to become active but was eventually scrapped (WP:MOSMAC). It has been moved here as a rationale for opposing the proposal.

Hello, I am NikoSilver, a major contributor in many Macedonia-related articles, the best of which being the featured Macedonia (terminology). I am too familiar with the Macedonia naming dispute from both sides (another article I practically wrote), and an active Wikipedian with more than 10,000 contributions in various -mainly controversial- issues, which happen to interest me a lot (out of sheer masochism?) Anyway, I'm obviously qualified in terms of accumulated knowledge on the issue, but I have a serious defect, so this is an official warning to all sides: I am Greek!

I will start with a very important note: The actual dispute here is over the breadth of breaching the consistence in the use of the article name in other articles. Not of whether this consistence should be breached at all, because this has already been agreed upon for articles related to UN, EU, NATO and all international organizations.

Simply put, this dispute tries to solve a long-standing dispute that can't be solved in the real world... The MOSMAC guideline had incorporated parts of the wisdom used in other similar ones, and the standard practice in WP until now. It was mostly agreed upon, apart from the sensitive part of how the Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would be called in some Greek-related articles.

Specifically, for years now, the practice is to use the long appellation for the country (as officially used by Greece and half of the world countries and all international organizations) in all Greek-related articles. The recent dispute originated from the view of some editors that those Greek-related articles should not be an exception any more.

My view is that it is the wrong thing to do. Not only for practical reasons (hordes of Greeks randomly changing the articles they naturally write), not only for sentimental reasons (we're not here to condole), but for sound reasons based on WP policy and common sense, which I am about to set forth below:

1. Article name

The article is now in Republic of Macedonia. The article name issue is irrelevant to the MoS guideline in question, however, it is important to note that the article name is indeed maybe the closest call among two appellations ("Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This is mainly due to the interpretation of the WP:NCON guideline. For details, expand the following section:

WP:NCON and interpretations

Template:MultiCol

WP:NCON#Proper nouns text:

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

| class="col-break " |

Interpretations

• Most common: There is a clear dispute over which is the "most common name". Google-tests etc fail to provide a clear result due to the multitude of uses of the term "Macedonia" for various irrelevant places, notably that of Macedonia (Greece). Furthermore the longer term incorporates the shorter one with the mere addition of "Former Yugoslav". Finally, there are various slight modifications of the long name (such as "FYR Macedonia", "FYR of Macedonia", "FY Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYRO Macedonia" etc etc). An attempted test for establishing which is the most common name was run when the article name was discussed years ago, and it turned out unsuccessful in providing an undisputed result. For details see the archived Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position.
• Official: There are disputes over what constitutes "official", or even what constitutes a "name".
  • It is argued that both names are "official". One is used by the constitution of the country, about half the world countries, and the country itself. The other is used by the United Nations and all other international organizations, by the other half of the world countries, and -again- by the country itself. You will have to be the judge of which is "official" and why the other is not.
  • It is argued that the UN term is not a "name" to begin with, but only a "temporary reference". The distinction between the two terms has been made in an interpretation of the UN agreements, yet the country itself is quoted using the terms "name" and "we are called" to describe it. So does the UN in various other documents.
• Self-id: Clearly, the short term is used as a self-identifying name. The dispute is over if the the long term is used as a self-id too. It is argued that the country is forced to use the long name by the UN agreements (and by extension by Greece), and that this should constitute a least "preferred" self-identification. Nevertheless, the country does use it for all international organizations. Notably for the UN, NATO, EU, IOC, FIFA, FIBA etc and for bilateral relations with half the world countries which don't recognize its constitutional name.

Template:EndMultiCol

In my view it is also indisputable that in Greece-related subjects worldwide the "most common name" (per WP:NCON's first criterion) is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

2.WP:V

Again, to remind that it has already been agreed that the long name is used in all international organizations! The main rationale behind the choice of using the long name in the already agreed part of the policy (International Organizations etc) was that we cannot misquote those entities, and that anything else would not be verifiable. For example, as far as EU is concerned, there is only a "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accession talks, and we can't misquote the European Union, nor the country itself under this process, since anything else would not be verifiable by reliable sources.

In my view this rationale encompasses Greece. We cannot misquote Greece for the name of its side of the border, especially when the other country itself is addressed for all purposes to Greece as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". We can neither misquote Greece's administrative subdivisions when they say "we border the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", nor an ethnic Greek when he says "I was born in what is now FYROM". This practice is largely followed by other online media (such as the Britannica), while others have chosen to use the long name uniformly (such as Encarta and the BBC).

3.Clarity

In the context of Greece-related articles, the use of the short name may largely be confused with the Greek Macedonia. See the following example:

Florina Prefecture lies in the historic region of Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the north.

In my view the uninformed reader is immediately puzzled as to what the hell is a Macedonian republic doing outside of a Macedonian region. If I were that reader, I'd either demand an explanation, or a link to an explanation. The chosen disambiguating term among the two Macedonias ("Republic of") is not sufficient to illustrate the distinction. On the other hand, the long term speaks for itself: "Former Yugoslav": It states that this republic was previously part of Yugoslavia.

In my view, within Greek articles, it is unfair and unorthodox to devise disambiguating terms or texts for the Greek region (which is indisputably plainly called "Macedonia"), so as not to use a perfectly legitimate, close-call, and -most importantly- sourced term to describe the (otherwise irrelevant) country. It violates the very principle of WP:NCON (self-identification) for the other Macedonia, which is plainly called that.

4.Practice in WP

In various instances where there is a conflict in terminology, Misplaced Pages has chosen to provide similar solutions for using different article names depending on the article's context. For example:

• WP:NC-CHINA: See the section WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof.

• Talk:Gdansk/Vote: See that (the now Polish) Gdansk is called Danzig "for biographies of German persons"

• The situation now: An informal consensus right now uses always the long name in all Greece-related articles.

5.Why some editors disagree

This section is irrelevant to the policies of WP and the dispute in question. It is here merely for satisfying the curiosity of those wondering, in a brief manner. Expand it only if interested:

Greek position

This is the view of most "moderate" Greeks. The vast majority of the Greek population is annoyed not because of the name itself, but of how this name has been used. A name alone cannot harm anyone, however, the name "Macedonia" is constantly used by official sources and schoolbooks of the country as a means to advance historic and territorial claims:

Historic: Most Makedonskis (in the real world and in WP) believe to their bone that they descend from Alexander the Great and his kingdom/empire. This is the result of continuous governmental propaganda of years (cited in Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism). The problem of the Greeks is not necessarily to take their place in this genealogy tree (to which they arguably fit since the ancient Macedonians and their language/dialect were absorbed by the rest of the ancient Greeks). It is simply that the Slavs that came 1000 years later just don't have anything to do with them, yet they use that name to appropriate that part of history. I, as a Greek, don't see it as "stealing something which is mine". I see it as "monopolizing something which is everybody's, and definitely not only theirs".

Territorial: The persistence in the use of a name without the proposed qualifiers (such as Slav- or North) has been extended to territorial claims. It is the belief of most Makedonskis that Macedonia (Greece) (among others) is an "occupied region" of their country, merely because it carries the same name. This, again, is the result of governmental propaganda and is still endorsed by official printed material. For details, see the sourced article "United Macedonia".

It is worth to note that no Makedonski user of WP has ever criticized the above two fallacies, as it would be considered a "national crime"! On the other hand, there are many Greeks (in WP and in the real world) who have disputed the initial Greek position of "no Macedonia at all in the title". Hence, the Greek position has changed to demand just some sort of disambiguation. A disambiguation which would, of course, be totally unnecessary if the neighboring country didn't let those preposterous claims slip through official sources and if it didn't in fact endorse them.

Apart from those "material" claims, there is also the immaterial claim of the right to un-disambiguated self-identification. Most Greek Macedonians cannot understand why they suddenly have to use a qualifier for their regional name not to be confused with the ethnic group, while the ethnic group itself doesn't have to do the same in turn. The qualifier, in this case, may sound as signifying that the Greek Macedonians are a subset of the ethnic Macedonians, while in essence both groups are subsets of the Macedonian regioners (which is the only group which should be left without qualifiers, since it is the supergroup of both and others). In this sense, simple logic tends to erroneously equate the ethnic Macedonians to the Macedonian regioners, which further helps in the advancement of the above historic and territorial claims (quite successfully obviously -for the mindset of their own population at least). Just try to read this paragraph here by removing the qualifiers I used ("Greek", "ethnic", and "regioner"). See also Macedonism and The Ten Lies of Macedonism.

Given the above, the worldwide opinion has gradually started shifting towards favoring the (previously called "nationalist") Greek position. Check for a few examples below:

• France, Spain, and other important NATO allies supported Greece's veto towards the admission of the republic in the 2008 NATO summit. Sarkozy in particular said that they are "100% behind the Greek position".
• Australia (an English speaking nation) still officially calls the country with the long form name.
• The media are starting to heavily criticize these obsessive unhistoric and irredentist actions. (example)
• The US senate, passed a resolution for "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM." Here's the senate's link: , and just to note that this resolution has been signed by more than 72 senators, including (then) Senator Obama.

For those reasons above, I believe that the most correct solution is to use the long name in all Greece-related articles. It is a matter of verifiability, of clarity, of common sense, and of common practice in WP and elsewhere (such as most other online encyclopedias). NikoSilver 08:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

See for example the official site of the Prefecture of Florina, Greece.

See in Britannica Greece's borders vs e.g. those of Serbia.

BBC News, Encarta

I'd like to thank the Misplaced Pages community that effectively helps every time such agendas drop by within the scope of all relevant articles.

Straw poll question

• Do you support a proposal to have the article Greece refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" under that very name, and not under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"?

This is a straw poll, not a regular discussion. Please present your position in a simple way, without further comments. If you wish to discuss this straw poll, please use the sub-section "Discussion" below. This straw poll is open for 7 days starting at 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Support

• Support (as proposer). Húsönd 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support (Taivo (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
• Support no need for POV island is this article, the "Republic of Macedonia" is clearly something else than "Macedonia" the only reason to use "FYROM" or variants would be to promote a Greek POV which is unacceptable. man with one red shoe 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, obviously the only version compatible with NPOV, and the version that has had steadfast consensus among all outside neutral observers for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. FYROM is POV, despite what our colleagues might claim about international bodies and diplomatic recognition. Aramgar (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is just applying NPOV as in other articles. Also, what Aramgar said. Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The relevant policy, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, mandates that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." This rules out "Macedonia", which is widespread but ambiguous, and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is far less frequently used than the short form (see vs ). By a process of elimination, we are left with "Republic of Macedonia" as the name that best fits the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Call it what it is, a republic within the region of Macedonia. kwami (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because all of the cool kids are doing it and I want to fit in. But also because I don't see why this article shouldn't be consistent with the others. Local hero (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, this is the most natural name to use, and my own spot-check of the interwiki links showed other wikis (except for the Greek) favoring the equivalent of 'Macedonia' or 'Republic of Macedonia' rather than FYROM, as the title of their article on Macedonia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Every country has the right to its constitutional name, this includes the Republic of Macedonia. There is no reason to impose censorship in this article just to appeal to Greek users. Greece does not have a veto over the article Greece on Misplaced Pages.JdeJ (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, the country's constitutional name is honoured by other countries. However, sometimes the constitutional name is confusing, and can cause conflicts such as this. Another classical example is the issue of Republic of Ireland vs. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all know how many decades that took to sort out. Confusion can be tolerated in contexts where all participants understand the issue well -- such as international relations -- but confusions are the bane of encyclopædias. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support MatriX (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Tolerance for the "content must be written from a neutral point of view and following common English usage, unless related to Greece" status quo has lasted more than enough. The grievances of our Greek colleagues do not trump our polices. - Ev (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as written. After reading the discussion (and recalling the soc.culture.* votes on Usenet, which were spammed by Greek University student accounts; in at least one vote, the spam was automated in alphabetical order by From: address), it's important to have Misplaced Pages articles refer to it as the neutral and policy-compliant Republic of Macedonia except in articles where the source uses FYROM. The list of neighboring countries does not have a Greek source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes, as always, keep it simple and in accordance with standard English. Misplaced Pages has no place for the POV-wishy-washing over names that's standard in international diplomacy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would support to change the current name into FYROM, but as the Republic of Macedonia is used in all wiki and is the current consensus, I can not see why one page should use FYROM. FYROM should be used either in all pages, or in none (except when talking about the terminology itself).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because this entire conflict looks ridiculous from the outside and most uninvolved people just can't be bothered to use a silly name like "FYROM". This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support The name of a country is determined by the government of that country, not by a neighbouring country. On Misplaced Pages, we should apply naming conventions uniformly rather than allow those names to be changed locally by whatever subgroup of editors takes an interest in doing so, whether or not that group is associated with any particular racial, ethnic, religous, or political division. Imagine if a group of editors at Talk:National Front were to decide that that article should use the term "Pakis" instead of "UK immigrants from the Indian subcontinent". SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This analogy is simply unfair. There is no "Paki naming dispute", unlike the "Macedonian Naming Dispute" which has been discussed in many fora, including Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. logos 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That we disagree with one another is irrelevant. This isn't the place for a discussion. It's a straw poll, and my position has been made clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was a talkpage. Dr.K. logos 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page as a whole is indeed for discussing the article, but this part of the page is a straw poll regarding whether this page should use the naming convention that applies across all the rest of Misplaced Pages, and this part of the straw poll is for people to register their support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for the italics Sheffield. I understand the nuances of your reply and in fact I understood your point from the beginning. Mine was more of a rhetorical question indicating that since we are on a talk page we may, if we are willing, wish to exchange a few points with each other. Obviously you didn't want to discuss the point I raised. It's your prerogative and I accept it. No problem. Dr.K. logos 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If that's the name, that's the name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not really sure why this has become such a contentious issue, really, but I'm geographically and emotionally distant from the former Yugoslavia. (I'm geographically distant from Greece as well, but have treasured memories of visits there.) I can see why it might be desirable to refer to FYROM, but the reasons for doing so have no basis in Misplaced Pages's naming policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Whatever a county names itself is the accurate name by which to call the country for the sake of its use here. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Acknowledging that the UN first referred to it as the FYROM, it does seem that, at present, ROM is the name the people of that country currently use for it internally, and I always favor giving pride of place to the name the individuals involved use most frequently, as they are the ones who are most likely to seek out the content. And the name used in other articles should wherever possible be the same as the name of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support See my posts below. •Jim62sch• 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support As a country name Greece already has one, so doesn't have any dibs on Macedonia. If Greece wanted to change its name to Macedonia, then it might have a concern. As it doesn't, Macedonia is free. -- spin 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support. Follow English usage, not the contorted usage characteristic of international politicians of a compromising kind. Should we mention, however, that the present Greek Government uses Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as a fact about Greece? Of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support A country is entitled to decide its own name. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be the most NPOV name for our purposes. AniMate 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support The endless talkpage filibustering amounts only to so much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It certainly has not convinced me to support the existence of walled garden terminology perpetuated by nationalist interests. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support "Republic of Macedonia" is absolutely unambiguous. There is a parallel with this situation in the Middle East over Azerbaijan, a region split between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (in fact more Azeris live in Iranian Azerbaijan than in the republic). Yet nobody has any problem with the Misplaced Pages article on the Republic of Azerbaijan being at Azerbaijan because this is its common English name. (It certainly doesn't need to be at "Former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan"!). If this is the case then "Republic of Macedonia" should be unambiguous enough for anybody but the most rabid nationalist.--Folantin (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those arguments should be used against Greece's opinion in the international forums, not in WP. Unlike our case, there's no Azerbaijani naming dispute, nor is there any UN provisional reference for a country called fSRoA, nor will you find equal or more hits in Google about it. We're not here to judge Greece's right or wrong in insisting so. She just is, and all international organizations follow suit, and all mentionings in Google etc come up. Some may not like this, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. NikoSilver 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Republic of Macedonia. It's the consensus name on Republic of Macedonia, it's the shortest name, and it's consistent. As a parallel, in the US, Georgia is a state, but in the real world, Georgia is also a country. As a result, we have a disambiguation until either Georgia or Georgia decides to rename itself, both of which aren't going to happen. The good thing in the Republic of Macedonia's case is that it has a clear "Republic of" preceding the "Macedonia," which is sufficient to distinguish it from the not-Republic-of Macedonia (the State).

Note, I truly do not care. For all I care, they could both rename to random letters, like "zzzzfjfjkfdjkfgggf" and "blarggg," but at some point Misplaced Pages has to deal with its business, and the country & state deal with theirs. Edit warring is retarded.

--slakr 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) moved from section --slakr 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose, because: 1) a name all the international organizations and bodies use, as well as the participating country itself, can't be POV, 2) it is in perfect accord with MOSMAC, which may not be an official policy, but it is still an essay with a long history and an intrinsic coherence and consistency; by the way, I've repeatedly seen important essays to be evoked in our project (something like "soft law"), 3) it is the name RoM itself has accepted to be used in its bilateral relations with Greece, and a name it proposes as an acceptable bilateral arrangement in any future arrangement, 4) when no internationally acceptable arrangement has been reached in the naming dispute, using RoM in this particular article, the article of Greece, namely the country which leads the opposition to the RoM name, would constitute the most blatant promotion of RoM's POV.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, because of dubious arguments offered in support of this proposal. Apcbg (talk)

Further explanation of vote: I believe that the invoked policy of consistent use of ‘Republic of Macedonia’ throughout English Misplaced Pages is ill-founded, fueling confrontation among editors that is totally unnecessary.

I would have left the principle of consistency involving the two relevant name forms to be enforced on an article-by-article basis, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Misplaced Pages.

I don’t believe Misplaced Pages should take sides in this contentious and sensitive issue of name usage, more so that a solution of the issue itself is pending – unavoidably, as even the closest partners of the Republic of Macedonia now unequivocally insist that Skopje accepts a compromise the basics of which have already come up, with neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ being that compromise.

P.S. Should anyone here happen to have in mind, besides the belief in following some established Misplaced Pages policy of giving preference to one of the names, also the motivation that this way he/she is ‘supporting Macedonia and the Macedonians’, I am afraid that such ‘support’ is actually not in the best interests of that country and its people, but rather gives courage to the policies of the present government in Skopje that are increasingly questioned both at home and abroad, policies that have been leading the country into isolation, economic and social underdevelopment (the achievement of being outpaced by Albania ... for starters) and ethnic divergence with far reaching implications.

Needless to say, such ‘good wishers’ come and go, and it’s never them who pay the price.Apcbg (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I am surprised that some here want to restart these edit wars. sys < in (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale above. NikoSilver 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The self-identification right and the homogeneity in wikipedia articles might sound "nice", but things aren't that simple. Especially when we have such a serious matter, between two countries and a UN resolution, we must use a term that is accepted by the two parties. By using the term RoM, we automatically be with one side, which is not neutral! --xvvx (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The reasons have been stated clearly above. (Comment will follow soon enough in the Discussion section further down) Hectorian (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yannismarou's rationale.ギリシャ人 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, because the logic of this straw poll is based on a deliberately misapprehension of the Greek position on this matter. FYROM, is NOT the name that Greece proposes for this state, it is a name imposed to both countries by UN until a solution is reached. If those who proposed this poll feel that by using this acronym we are enforcing a Greek POV, is not fair for those who believe differently to assume that by the term Republic of Macedonia a Slavomacedonian POV is thrusted? Kapnisma (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per yannismarou and kapnisma. 'nuff said. --Athenean (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Yannismarrou --Cédric Boissière (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Look what has happened, an appalling manipulative backgrounder by Husond has persuaded people that fYRoM is Greek POV. If you accept that, then obviously you will vote "Support". However. People, this-is-not-the-case. It is an official name and more widely used than RoM. Moreover, so many support votes advocate consistency throughout Misplaced Pages. I'm wondering, aren't I justified then to go and change all "Macedonia" references to RoM on the basis of this reasoning? Why am I so sure that I will be accused as a WP:POINT POV warrior? Now think, if both names are equally official, why this vote is not a WP:POINT?--Avg (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose as per yannismarrou Reaper7 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with User:Yannismarou's points. Yannisk (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has only 17 mainspace edits, the latest in 2007. How did they learn of this poll? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you aware of the articles' talk pages and projects where this straw poll of yours has been already "advertised"? But, of course, witch-hunting is not forbidden.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess WP:AGF is DOA on this page. Dr.K. logos 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my vote as a sign of protest due to ethnic-identification and ethnic-based assertions about my vote. Dr.K. logos 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) *Strongly oppose I strongly oppose both the straw poll and the associated proposal. First the idea of the straw poll was a very unfortunate one. The principle of WP:VOTINGISEVIL is very well established and for a very good reason. The reason is of course the massive disruption it causes to the wiki by dividing and spreading disappointment and ill-will among the editors. Taking a poll is bad enough. Taking a poll on such a contentious issue is even worse. Predictably we are now divided in two camps with diametrically opposed views. Is this outcome desirable? Was this outcome predictable? This proposal, in the name of encyclopedic uniformity, tries to impose a naming convention which is steeped in falsifications of History, propaganda and political manipulation. Carrying these disputed names in the very article where these terms exist in their original form, (which originated from ancient times), thus mixing the retrograde falsification of History with the original terms, is a disservice to the reader at best and I am not going to describe the worst. Of course there are other reasons, eloquently put forward by, among others, Yannismarou, but I will not comment any further. This mess does not inspire me to continue. It's a sad day for Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. logos 04:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Agree with Yannis.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Pending resolution of the name issue between Greece and FYROM, and adoption of it by the UN, use of the acronym FYROM, instead of Republic of Macedonia, is not a Greek POV.Rizos01 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This user barely made any edits after 2007, has never edited this article or its talk page in the past. How did they learn of this poll? Húsönd 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a "naive" question... is it o.k to promote this poll by you here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Straw_poll when the reason is clearly to bring more people to vote "support" this way? And also, is it "illegal" for a user, that even though he is not active in editing, to find something insulting and to act by voting? The article is about Greece and it's normal to have a lot of readers, it's not an article about the reproduction of a kiwi. --xvvx (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on! The answer is simple! It is ok for them to advertise the poll in various discussion pages, and then come here and wonder "in italics": "Oh! My God! How did they learn about it?! Why haven't they missed all these advertisements?!"--Yannismarou (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "long" name was made for a reason. The largest international-relations organisation uses it for a reason.And that is not to please the inhabitants of the Greek province that was officially named Macedonia 150+ years before the Yugoslavian province. (but to avoid nationalism effusion, irredentism and general friction between neighbours until a reliable agreement is reached) People who want the de facto name, either: 1. don't know much about the subject and its history. 2. don't care about giving facts, but for making Misplaced Pages a place for simpletons to read. 3. Have a sense of pseudo-justice, where they like to think they are defending the interests of the weak in an unusual subject directly related to an objectively recent ethnogenesis and name/heritage/history appropriation. FutPerf for example said it must stay only Macedonia because he assumes English-speaking people recognise the country by that name. Even if that was true, still, we don't name Sildenafil: Viagra, even though Viagra is by far the most popular name of that same pill, we use Sildenafil because it's more accurate, closer to the truth. Misplaced Pages naming policy is not made by the vote or knowledge of the average English speaker, even more so in an article that disambiguation is needed.--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. Applying "uniformity" here is just a cover for forcing through the POV of one side of a dispute... Pending the resolution of this whole mess in the real world, no name can be regarded as NPOV. Constantine ✍ 10:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (for this specific article, based on published standards)

We have international standards as precedents for adapting country names according to context. The world-wide, Jane's Information Group (Security Assessment), has this arrangement regarding the usage of the terms, 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Fyrom', they resemble very much the guidelines agreed a while ago in Misplaced Pages by editors.

Its volume, "Balkans 2003, Jane’s Information Group, London" contains country analysis of all Balkan states.

In the chapter GREECE - we have a standard section called Foreign Relations, and there we find a sub-section titled, "Relations with FYROM". Because the chapter deals with Greece, RoM is always referred to as FYROM.

In the Chapter, BULGARIA... we have the "Relatioins with Macedonia" because Sofia recognised the name RoM, but the same Chapter uses FYROM when bringing Greece and ROM together.

In the Chapter ALBANIA we have, "Relation with FYROM".

In the Chapter Republic of Macedonia, of course we have RoM all they way exept when it concerns relations with Greece; there the name becomes FYROM.

I think the same applies to Economist Intelligence Unit and from what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here. Politis (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Given the name dispute, a reader of the article "Greece" would benefit from seeing FYROM as bordering country name as they would have a chance to learn about the problem. Given that the name Macedonia is not a UN officially recognised country name, third countries, when refered to in a country's article, would be better off mentioned with their official UN name, an organisation most countries participate in. aexon (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above oppose comments. _{El Greco} 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm obsessed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per reasons stated above. The name is disputed and, until the dispute is settled, use the official UN name. Pel thal (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Mostly focusing on Kekrop's impregnable rationale, next most common term is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by all indicators presented, hence our first choice since plain "Macedonia" is ambiguous, a clean-cut application of policy. The naming conflict guideline posed as an authoritative reference to bypass this is wide open to interpretations, it was also brought to my attention that the part of the guideline relating to this issue is a product of some photographic changes made by a heavily involved administrator, but it "didn't matter" cause it had become a "standard practice" following "community consensus". I don't see any clear consensus in this widely advertised poll and discussion to change the practice here. The current long name is, to say the least, perfectly usable in this project, and this is one of the last articles where it shouldn't be used, per Yannismarou's perspective.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not convinced that there's a difference between using FYROM in all international organizations articles (as is already agreed), versus articles such as Greece which is the country that has initiated this. I don't know why people think this debate is productive; myself, I find it unnecessary and insensitive. Biruitorul 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nasty issue, so let the principle of least surprise reign. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have always heard the country referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Oh, and I hope this goes a small way to dismissing the idea that the Opposers are all Greek nationalists. Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And the least surprising name of any country is the name that it chooses for itself. No one is surprised when the US calls itself "the United States of America" or when the UK calls itself "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or when Macedonia calls itself "the Republic of Macedonia". We are surprised when some other country or organization calls a country something other than what it calls itself. (Taivo (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

But you must understand that "the name that it chooses for itself" works also for this Macedonia, which happens to be a large part of the context of the country described in this specific article. And, still, "what it calls itself" is a secondary criterion per WP:NCON, the first being "common use of the name". Jack finds it simply more common, as he says. NikoSilver 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. --Kamikazi2 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The FYROM form is clearer and, for this confusing part of the world, clarity seems essential. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, I completely agree with the rationale above. -- Romanos V —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

  This is the only edit by this user. NikoSilver 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing this poll

A request was posted on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard for some uninvolved admins to weigh in on whether this straw poll's suggestions should be implemented or rejected. It was suggested that a number of admins do so, given the contencious nature of the subject. Full disclosure, I !voted on some Macedonian straw poll (details elude me) a while back on the side of ROM (I can only remember this because I had some talk page discussions about it with several editors). Nethertheless it seems clear to me that the poll should be closed, no concensus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that while hoping for discussion and "consensus" amongst admins would seem to make things clearer, it may simply invite further protraction of the debate, a more blurred consensus, and a more elite, privatised microcosm of the straw poll that has already taken place. After all, adminship does not confer superiority in discussions. —Anonymous Dissident 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, and my opinion on the matter should not be read as such. I wasn't presuming to judge the merits of the arguments. I was simply observing that the straw poll has not reached a point where one side or another has swung the consensus on their side. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Results summary

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's conclusions

Here's a useful summary of the poll result so far (as of 6 April, 10:00), for everybody who might still be in doubt about where the true consensus lies.

"Oppose" side (favouring "former Yugoslav...")

• Aexon79 (t c), Apcbg (t c), Athenean (t c) (formerly Tsourkpk), Avg (t c), Biruitorul (t c), Cédric Boissière (t c), Colonel Warden (t c), Cplakidas (t c) (Constantine), CuteHappyBrute (t c) (formerly DefendEurope), Digwuren (t c), El Greco (t c), Girisha-jin (t c), Hectorian (t c), Ioannes Tzimiskes (t c), Jack forbes (t c), Kamikazi2 (t c), Kapnisma (t c), Michael IX the White (t c), NikoSilver (t c), Pel thal (t c), Politis (t c), Reaper7 (t c), Rizos01 (t c), Romanos V (t c), Sakis79 (t c) (xvvx), sysin (t c), Yannisk (t c), Yannismarou (t c), Δρακόλακκος (t c), ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (t c)
• = 29 editors (discounting one that had only a single contribution, to this poll), of whom:
  • 23 Greeks, 1 Bulgarian, 5 from uninvolved nationalities
  • 2 users with only very minor contribution histories
  • 1 administrator
  • 10 users who have previously been blocked for Greece-related nationalist misbehaviour (edit-warring or incivility blocks: sysin, Hectorian, Kapnisma, Athenean, Avg, Reaper7, CuteHappyBrute, Politis, El Greco, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ)
  • 3 users who have had sanctions related to other nationalist disputes (Digwuren, Biruitorul, Jack forbes)
  • 2 editors that can be characterised as essentially single-purpose Greek POV advocacy accounts (Athenean, Avg)
  • at least 8 other users with a strong, permanent contribution focus on Greece-related drama areas and/or Greek POV advocacy, though also some other contributions (Kekrops, Politis, CuteHappyBrute, Michael IX the White, Reaper7, Sakis79, sysin)
  • 2 formerly productive users who have lately reduced their contributions virtually exclusively to Greek POV drama (NikoSilver, Hectorian)

"Support" side (favouring "Republic of...")

• Akhilleus (t c), AniMate (t c), Aramgar (t c), Arthur Rubin (t c), Balkanian`s word (t c), CalendarWatcher (t c), Charles Edward (t c), ChrisO (t c), Colchicum (t c), Doktorspin (t c), EdJohnston (t c), Enric Naval (t c), Ev (t c), Folantin (t c), Future Perfect at Sunrise (t c), Hans Adler (t c), Heimstern (t c), Husond (t c), JdeJ (t c), Jim62sch (t c), John Carter (t c), Kafka Liz (t c), Kwamikagami (t c), Local hero (t c), Man with one red shoe (t c), MatriX (t c), Pmanderson (t c) (Septentrionalis), SheffieldSteel (t c), slakr (t c), Taivo (t c), WereSpielChequers (t c)
• = 31 editors, of whom:
  • 2 (possibly 3) ethnic Macedonians, 1 Albanian, all others from neutral nationalities
  • 13 administrators
  • all active experienced editors in good standing
  • at least 4 active project-wide experts on Misplaced Pages naming practices
  • users previously sanctioned for edit-warring: MatriX, Pmanderson, ChrisO, Balkanian`s word

WP:NOTAVOTE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outing

We are told that 24 Users are Greeks, also some ethnic Macedonians and Albania. This either reads like WP:OUTING or ethnic tagging. Also, the emphasis on tarnishing the name of some Users as POV and 'nationalist' denies a balanced appraisal of the users. IMO the author or this sections should be given a sabbatical and his text deleted. Politis (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my vote and requested Future on his talkpage to remove my name from the list. I will no longer participate in any such votes as long as ethnic-id lists implying connection between ethnic origin and voting are going to be created at the end of such polls. Dr.K. logos 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr.K. if someone should be driven away is not you, who did absolutely nothing wrong, but whoever did actually commit the offense. --Avg (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Avg. First thank you very much for your nice comments. But let me explain. This is the complete undermining of the polling process. If I knew or I was threatened with my name appearing on ethnic-id lists (or any other id) at the end of any poll either here or IRL I would never have participated. Did anyone tell us we were going to be ethnically id-ed BEFORE we took the poll? Do you possibly think I would have participated under the spectre of this list? Do you possibly think I will ever participate in any poll from now on? Has this ever happened before on Misplaced Pages? Can you list any other examples where users names were paraded on lists after the poll closed? Why do we need a list? Aren't our names already listed in the oppose column? Why this redundancy, except to make a WP:POINT and besmirch our reputations? Dr.K. logos 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yannismarou's remarks

I think that an editor clearly involved in this situation cannot provide an authoritative summary of the poll, especially if he resorts to a constant effort of discrediting, and belittling those who disagree with him (or at least those he regards as easy targets). Therefore, for the shake of truth (at least, in the way I perceive it) I have to rspond to some of the aforementioned remarks (deplorable IMO):

• "at least 8 other users with a strong, permanent contribution focus on Greece-related drama areas and/or Greek POV advocacy". From this POV users, let me thank especially Michael for his contributions to the Greek War of Independence, and apologize for not having the article ready on time. My point is clear: Belittling some users' contributions in order to make our POINT is unacceptable.
• "2 formerly productive users": Define formerly. Is our productivity divided in time zones? I want to remind that NikoSilver is the co-editor and co-nominator of a FA where he was lauded for his NPOV, and one of the main editors in the Macedonia naming dispute article, where a miracle is achieved: an article on one of the most contentious areas, where there is no NPOV tagging. It also happens to know Hectorian's great contributions in history-related articles etc. etc. I am not going to elaborate on each one of the users Fut unfortunately attempts to discredit.
• "Productivity": In general, totally inappropriate to use such terms, especially when their definition is not clear enough. Why did Nikos stop to be productive? How do we assess productivity? By article-creation, main article contributions, FA and GA contributions? Well, if this is the criterion, then the "opposers" have a very good record. On the other side, I am afraid I've forgotten when was the last time Fut provided us with a substantial main article contribution. Of course, I cannot deny his diachronic sysop work, although he has recently preferred to expose his talents in edit-warring as well. How then can we attempt to discredit other people's presence and contribution in the project in order to make a point?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad

I don't see much future for Future in Misplaced Pages if he continues like this, threatening, insulting and disrupting the project. I'm disappointed really. Because before being a "Greek POV SPA", I used to actually collaborate pretty well with this guy (in all his incarnations) on Wikiarticles. I even voted support at his RfA because I saw something good there. I really don't know what has happened, I really don't, but it is simply sad. --Avg (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Misplaced Pages (Part 1)

I echo Yannis' comments about the definitions of "productivity" etc. I also noted Future's comment: "all others from neutral nationalities". First how does one establish the nationality of an anonymous account? Second how does that help in determining the "neutrality" of the user? The user might be sympathetic to the RoM and could hate the Greeks for all I know. How does one determine the affinities of a user? But this whole mess goes far beyond that. This analysis by Furure sets a terribly bad example for all such polls. Don't get me wrong. I don't like polls either. But they are used widely in Misplaced Pages regardless. According to Future's terrible precedent now all such polls have to be analysed this way. I can imagine the fun people are going to have in Palestinian related and other controversial polls. When people are going to be grouped as Jewish, Arabs, gay etc. and their votes dismissed en mass. What a vision for Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. logos 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Misplaced Pages (Part 2)

The rationale I submitted to the poll is clear and I am not going to reproduce it for brevity's sake. What exactly in that rationale is objectionable? Why did Future feel compelled to include ethnicity in his analysis? What did my ethnicity have to do with my arguments? What does ethnicity have to do with anybody's arguments? Is the discussion-consensus model of Misplaced Pages dead? Has the discussion-consensus model been replaced by the check user id and origin-so blame the nationalities/religious affiliation etc. model? Dr.K. logos 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Misplaced Pages (Part 3)

Let's look at some arguments for the supporting side:

• Support Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because this entire conflict looks ridiculous from the outside and most uninvolved people just can't be bothered to use a silly name like "FYROM". This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support If that's the name, that's the name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The first one includes no rationale of any kind. The second includes allegations about faking history that show a clear bias against Greece. The third one is eloquent in its complete absence of any logic. Yet we accepted them as votes, as, of course, we should have. What makes these votes better than a Greek vote, especially when the Greek guy got into the trouble of writing a complete rationale for their vote? The answer is of course, that it does not matter. When people vote they don't have their id, sexual orientation, religious affiliation etc probed because this would have a chilling effect on the whole process. I for one if I knew what I know now, would never have signed up on Misplaced Pages with my full name and nationality identified. Furthermore I now will not vote in the near future on anything because I feel that my integrity and value as a Misplaced Pages contributor have come under question as a result of my nationality. Is checking user identifiers and displaying them on lists the new criteria for participating in any activity? Is this the new vision for Misplaced Pages? Or is it reserved just for the Greeks? Dr.K. logos 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vision for Misplaced Pages (Part 4): Killing WP:AGF and the formation of the new ghettoes

Ghettoizing the Greek vote is not the answer. It's simply illogical and anti-intellectual. Discussion and research have always been among the pillars of the Wikipedian community. There is no substitute for reasoned discourse no matter how long it takes to reach consensus. Stigmatizing people to silence them might work in the short term, like any suppression does, but it will affect the psyche of the wiki, because the message it sends is clear in its anti-intellectualism: Discussion and consensus when inconvenient, will be replaced by ethnic background and other id checks and users will be analysed and discredited accordingly. This will make Misplaced Pages a barren landscape full of ghettoes of any description. WP:AGF has been one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages for a very good reason: Without it it's every man for himself and every ghetto for their own. Is WP:AGF dead? Is this part of the new vision for Misplaced Pages? Dr.K. logos 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Where the true consensus lies"

Future in his comments made the observation:

Here's a useful summary of the poll result so far (as of 6 April, 10:00), for everybody who might still be in doubt about where the true consensus lies.

That's a crucial question. Where does "true consensus" lie? Now Future and others advertised this poll everywhere on Misplaced Pages. Future even made a plea at AN/I. Yet only about thirty people came to vote for support. Few if any administrators came to vote. Other Wikipedians didn't bother. Why? Is it because Wikipedians tacitly agree with the Greek position? Why did they not heed the call to stump on the Greek POV in droves? I thought that WP:SILENCE meant tacit approval. Wikipedians may have voted already. By abstaining in droves, despite the advertising throughout Misplaced Pages. That's where the true consensus may well lie. All this ethnic blame game may well be just a smokescreen to hide this fact. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"all active experienced editors in good standing"

Future's comment on the editors of the support side included "all active experienced editors in good standing". Yet noone was identified from the opposing side as such. I can only guess as to the reasons. Dr.K. logos 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of reality

Whether you like it or not, the plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of opposing voices are those of Greek Wikipedians, while not a single Greek Wikipedian has joined the supporting side. That doesn't render those views invalid. What it does demonstrate is that ethnicity is a decisive factor in the composition of the opposing side. There is no common ethnic element in the supporting side, as Fut. Perf. and Husond's figures have shown. That's a clear indication that the opposing side is being driven by ethnically-based political considerations. If no such considerations were in play, we would not see every contributor from a particular ethnic group lining up on the same side. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic affiliation does not invalidate the arguments of the opposing side because arguments should be based on discussion and logic, not on casting aspersions about the motives of the opposing side. Therefore your point is irrelevant and in fact harmful to Misplaced Pages. I will not revert you again because I don't want to edit war. Edit warring is disruptive no matter how noble the cause may be. However your heavy handed block threat to me in your edit summary and on my talk page, as well as other comments you made recently at ANI, show that you are not an uninvolved or impartial admin and as such you should not threaten me with blocks. Dr.K. logos 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

"... except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union" — patently untrue; the UN nomenclature name "Former Yugoslav etc." is used (and increasingly so, too) at various international fora where there is no voting whatsoever let alone Greek veto. Sorry, poor try. Apcbg (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we have sources for that? You already said in the closed move request that usage of FYROM at international fora has increased since the 2008 Bucharest Summit and you didn't give any sources or examples either.

Actually, forget about sources, just explain why the heck this is relevant here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposer of this straw poll provided a certain 'Background for the proposal' that, presumably, was relevant to the proposal. Then so would be the factual validity of statements made in that 'Background', I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct reply by Apcbg and this should cover it, as also it was correct by Enric to strike his question. But, of course, we all need to have a sense of fairness in our subconscious for our decision to choose supporting the one or the other. So, for the curious ones, some indications are in the end of the last (hidden) section of my position above (under "#5.Why are Greeks so irked). NikoSilver 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased representation of facts by Husond, with a lot of plain false statements inside, - an example of how not to give background information. Thankfully, our own articles Macedonia naming dispute and Macedonia (terminology) explain the issue in a somewhat less biased manner. A Manual of Style for Macedonia related matters has been created in WP:MOSMAC and Greece-related articles are specifically catered for. There is no reason to treat this page outside the scope of the MoS and have a separate poll, unless someone wants deliberately to bypass the MoS.--Avg (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it just says that for Greece-related articles there's no consensus. However keeping then in line with Greek POV is not an acceptable solution. Sorry this article is not here to soothe Greeks sensibilities. man with one red shoe 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really getting tiring repeating again and again that fYRoM is not the Greek POV. This is the primary reason I consider you have a certain bias. No reasonable person can consider the official UN/EU name as "Greek POV". We clearly have two official names here. There is a choice depending on context, which one should be used. The far worse case that happens in Misplaced Pages is that the official name (RoM or fYRoM) is substituted by an unofficial and ambiguous name (Macedonia) by the same people who advocate policy and consistency. --Avg (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But FYROM is absolutely Greek POV because the only reason it even exists is because of the Greek position in these international organizations. Rather than annoy the Greeks, the international organizations caved in to Greek demands. Republic of Macedonia is the chosen name by the people of that country. The Greeks are 100% responsible for FYROM because of their POV. (Taivo (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

This is not the case. Greece never actively supported FYROM (which is admittedly ugly) before its imposition by the UN. It was imposed to Greece as much as it was imposed to the Republic. Greece's POV has been at the time that the word Macedonia should not be included in any appelation of this state (although for reasons of compromise it has later shifted to accepting the word Macedonia along with a geographical qualifier). FYROM is and has ever been the only bilaterally accepted name, anything else is a deviation from international agreements.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People here seem to not understand the simple fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't actually care about, of follow, UN or EU names and they bring that about ad nauseum. man with one red shoe 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And anybody who exercises common sense would recognize that FYROM name is only because of Greek POV (right or wrong, you can be for or against, but that's the clear situation) man with one red shoe 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but here in Misplaced Pages we do not prescribe, we describe. FYROM currently is an official name and the ONLY name that both states have agreed to. You might have your objections, but this is the reality. I'm not saying that RoM is not an official name, but FYROM is as much official and the only one sanctioned by international organisations. So it has every validity to be here.--Avg (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't prescribe anything, I just use the name prescribed by Misplaced Pages's naming conventions: WP:NAME, again the "official name" has minimum importance, why do you keep bringing it about? Misplaced Pages doesn't care about official names. If you don't like the policy try to change it but don't bring arguments that don't have weight because you become tiresome. man with one red shoe 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read what you quote? Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others.--Avg (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So? man with one red shoe 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So this whole discussion is counter-productive, both names are equally controversial, each one for its own reasons, and the very fact that someone requests a rename simply shows they simply want their own POV to prevail. Misplaced Pages policy suggests to leave this issue at rest.--Avg (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read that as a interdiction to discuss the issue, I also don't think should be used as a club to preserve specific POV in this page. You say the discussion is counter-productive, however you are part of it, what you actually want is that your POV to triumph by using the excuse that the "discussion is counter-productive". Actually I think it's pretty productive, I've seen already a number of people who support "Republic of Macedonia" form and on the other side I heard only arguments that don't have weight "official name", "discussion is counter-productive", are these the only arguments you have? man with one red shoe 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already listed a series of arguments and I have a lot more, however, since I know your style, if I continue you will accuse me of flooding the talk page and diverting from the real subject, which is that the bad Greeks have hijacked the page etc etc. --Avg (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not FYROM is "Greek POV" is irrelevant because it occurs outside of wikipedia, it's not like there are a certain few with an agenda, it is an internationally recognized term. I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but why are we using either term? Shouldn't the link say just show Macedonia? We don't refer to other countries in articles as the Hellenic Republic or Republic of Bulgaria, etc., other than stating their official names in the lead. If you are referring to the area in Greece say the Macedonian region of Greece or something, but what is proposed seems to never actually be used anywhere. I can't think of where you would ever say FYROM or Republic of Macedonia in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People should stop citing MOSMAC here because on this issue MOSMAC clearly and unequivocally states that "there is no consensus". That means that there is no policy because no one could agree on one. So stop citing MOSMAC because that is like saying "We have never agreed on this". That's exactly what is being said here--no agreement has ever been reached. (Taivo (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Presumably the point of this discussion is to see if a majority view can be reached? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. man with one red shoe 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "Republic of Macedonia" has only a few more hits than "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so the example isn't quite strong. I would argue that the are both equal in use depending on where you are. . Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Link with correct parameters and thanks for the fresh and constructive input.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite interesting what some users are claiming, that the article of Greece is a "POV island" in Misplaced Pages. If I remember correctly, though it has been a long time (id est: prior to Bush's recognition of FYROM as "Macedonia"), there had been a concensus reached that this country would be refeared in Misplaced Pages as the "Republic of Macedonia". Perhaps, someone should start by clearing and fixing any sentence in this that uses te term Macedonia, without refering to the region. Then, we should proceed in the other articles as well. If the current usage of the reference to this country in the article of Greece is nothing but unacceptable Greek POV (as a user said above), then change in this is unacceptable FYROMian POV, or, at least, a clear offer of support to the American foreign policy. The pretext that "Macedonia" is the most widespread, common and natural term to use (as also claimed above by users), does not sound appaling, since the same attitude is not followed in a great rage of article were an opinion or thesis that favours Greece/Greeks is continually and blatantly blocked by well-known users, in favour of minority opinions (and as we all know, examples are many). Not to mention that the same attitude is not followed in a great number of articles for other countries/nations/so on elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Apropos, maybe the RTL uses the term "Macedonia" to refear to FYROM, thus in the minds of some making it widespread, but, if it was that widespread, Germany would have formally recognised it as such. And if some believe that pure diplomacy and politics are the reason for Germany not doing this, they should be start by wondering is pure diplomacy and politics are the reasons that the USA did... Hectorian (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hectorian, you need to read more carefully, I think. No one above is saying to use Macedonia. Everyone above is saying to use Republic of Macedonia. We are all quite aware of the problem with using Macedonia to refer to the country called Republic of Macedonia. So your argument is moot since no one is taking the position you claim. (Taivo (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

That isn't quite the case. See for example this controversial edit to a protected template by one of the involved administrators, which effectively imposed the use of plain "Macedonia" in countless articles. This was done without any explanation on the relevant talk page. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hectorian, I just went through Republic of Macedonia and made references to Republic of Macedonia consistent, so your argument about that is now also moot. Misplaced Pages is not bound by UN resolutions or Greek politics. It is bound by the consensus of its editors and internal consistency. Right now, there is a consensus among non-Greek editors that Republic of Macedonia is the best reference for this political entity. It is only a handful of Greek editors who are blocking this usage with no more reasoning than "the UN says no". (Taivo (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Ahem. You're picking at straws, Hectorian. That's a simple flag template and the shorter name makes the flag graphic fit better into the templates. Improving the technical performance of Misplaced Pages is a noble effort. That's not much of an argument and if it's your only piece of "evidence" then your argument is awfully weak. I'm sure you'll find other places where some article on the distribution of Cretaceous granites in the Balkans "incorrectly" refers to Macedonia rather than the Republic of Macedonia as well. That's just life in Misplaced Pages--there are an infinite number of places where we can nit and pick ourselves to death over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But overall, in the big picture, the Greeks are blocking the usage of the normal "Republic of Macedonia" without any more reasoning than the fact that they don't like it. (Actually, "normal" would be to refer to this country as Macedonia, but using Republic of Macedonia is already a compromise to clarify that we are not including the Greek provinces.) (Taivo (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

No, my argument is not moot! Imagine what: admission of three Balkan countries (Croatia, Albania and Macedonia), Torlakian and Shop dialects spoken mostly in southern Serbia and western Bulgaria (and by speakers in the north and east of Macedonia), Macedonia is amongst one of the countries with the most beautiful preserved Byzantine fresco paintings, etc etc. You made some changes (but did not correct all of it), but why didn't you go through that article before? Didn't you know what was going on there? Or maybe you have no idea of what is going on in other articles as well? I have every right to believe that, had I not drawn attention to that, no changes would have been made. And those that were made, I believe are made "temporarily"... soon, they will be altered to simply "Macedonia" again.

Excuses of the kind "looks better", "improving the technical performance of Misplaced Pages", etc, are not convincing enough. We are not supposed to alledgedly chose what looks better over what is more correct. In the recent months many changes have been made in a great variety of articles, where the "Republic of Macedonia" was changed to simply "Macedonia", with many of these changes made by admins involved here as well, eternally accusing the Greek editors of POV-pushing on the issue. Shall I proceed in all the articles changing "Macedonia" into "RoM"? Will any of the parties who voted "support" in the sraw poll above, help me in it? Of course not! Al least some of them, will try to block me on the grounds of a wiki policy they will suddenly remember is valid... Apart from yourself, no one bothered to replace "Macedonia" with "RoM", despite their claims of neutrality, concensus and encyclopedic behavour. With your act, you explosed many other users' (admins, of course included) double standards and hidden open agendas. Thank you. Hectorian (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)