Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lexicon (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 14 May 2007 (→Ireland / Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:16, 14 May 2007 by Lexicon (talk | contribs) (→Ireland / Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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. Niko Silver 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 Misplaced Pages. We have the simple English Misplaced Pages 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. Niko Silver 15:02, 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... Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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)

Textual antecedent with subsequent shortening for brevity: "Germany held separate talks with Rumania, Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia. While an agreement was soon reached with Rumania, the negotiations with Bulgaria and Macedonia stalled".
Topic domain "countries" established by context: "The festival has been held in several different southeast European countries, namely in Bulgaria, Greece, and Macedonia".
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? Niko Silver 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another little thing: As per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, 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. Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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.) Niko Silver 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). Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Niko Silver 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.

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 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)

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" , 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)#In geography and Macedonia (terminology)#In politics 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)#In demographics, 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)#In linguistics, and Macedonia naming dispute#Macedonian language 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). Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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). Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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)

My edits

I've been bold and adjusted a few things.

We should allow the use of Macedonia in second references to the Republic, when no sane reader could interpret it as meaning any other Macedonia. We should not impose clutter on ourselves.
WP:NCGN says that when Misplaced Pages has established a name for something, we should use it in other articles. I really don't care for having modern Greece be an island in its own reality; when we represent the views of the Greek government, or Greeks who agree with it, we should use their term. But Misplaced Pages's voice shouldn't change between Greece and Vardar River.
- I recognize that in fact it probably will; but we shouldn't give a guideline that supports PoV pushing.
My only authority for the offensiveness in both directions is Macedonia (terminology); but considering what it's been through, it's probably right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first point about second references. To be absolutely honest, the reason I made Greece "an island in its own reality" was purely pragmatic. Articles about modern Greece are most likely to be edited by Greek nationalists and enforcing the use of "Republic of Macedonia" across all such articles is likely to ignite a prolonged edit war with Greek editors. Using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" would be a reasonable compromise, as it's a legitimate name (not purely a POV one), it's what Greeks themselves use officially, and its meaning is clear enough. We should, however, oppose the use of POV metonyms like "Republic of Skopje" and we should also not permit the usage of the unexpanded acronym "FYROM" as a POV means of avoiding the use of the term "Macedonia".

BTW, note that I specifically confined this to modern Greece (a distinction which needs to be made in the guideline). The naming dispute is completely irrelevant to articles which touch on ancient Greece. In such instances, we should use the default term, i.e. "Republic of Macedonia", just as we would in any other article not covered by the exceptions listed in the proposed guidelines. -- ChrisO 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Greece, the Gdansk/Danzig precedent also comes to mind. Re ancient Greece, I'm not sure where we could find an applicable example. Niko Silver 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the FYROM spelout is neither the Greek POV. It is supposed to be a compromise. Regardless, I admit that it has become almost obsolete in the USA (to the point of being misinterpreted as the Greek POV), but we should not disregard the other English speaking countries. UK, Canada and Australia all use "FYROM" officially. I cannot say what goes on unofficially, though... Niko Silver 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC uses Macedonia routinely. The only stories using FYROM since 2001 are a handful, specifically discussing the naming issue. Someone else can search the Sydney Morning Herald. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See for yourself: Niko Silver 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to one hit (from their blog) for FYROM. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are following the same convention that is proposed here. Niko Silver 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes; reports for the Athens Olympics reflect the usage (and POV) of the organizers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Sept, try to see this the way it is, and not as if we're after hot-headed nationalists at the expense of portraying reality correctly. BBC uses the fyrom spellout very frequently (even on the recent article on Beckam for his car). Actually it uses it on every article on top, and then it goes on to say simply "Macedonia" (for brevity and because it has established non-ambiguity). Check my search below. Niko Silver 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic question

The basic question here is what to do about issues where nationalist editors can be expected to be obnoxious. My approach is to fight where it seems likely to be productive, and concede as little as possible; see Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), for example. Writing a guideline which authorizes misbehavior, instead of one that can be quoted by editors who want to fix it, strikes me as counterproductive. (repost; this seems to have been mislaid, but I would like comments.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you proposing we rename the country article to Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)? Niko Silver 23:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not; I am proposing that we say that we should use "republic of Macedonia" everywhere - except when quoting someone who isn't, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part exactly would you argue that "authorizes misbehavior"? Do the int'l org article series fall in that category in your opinion? Niko Silver 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is still the "in articles about Modern Greece"; if no-one disagrees with the tweak I gave that, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree for sentimental reasons, for practical reasons, due to precedent, and because the use at least in Greek-related articles is not POV.

Sentimental because you can't slap something to a country when she fiercely denies it (like you don't do it on the other one). Niko Silver 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Practical, because we both know it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. A law that cannot be enforced is a useless law. Niko Silver 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat the Gdansk/Danzig precedent, which IMO should be our guide in this. Niko Silver 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't see why fyrom is POV when it is accepted by both sides and only Greece keeps its part of the deal. I also don't see why it is less frequent (hence non-WP:UE) when BBC (that you quote above), uses the fyrom spellout at least once in every article, and then goes on with "Macedonia" for brevity. A full search will be enlightening: check the dates please. Niko Silver 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Sept, first we disagree on the criteria for judgment, second we disagree in the assessment for that criteria, and finally we disagree on the implementation in this convention. I will remove the "Gr gov views" part (which is POV btw, because Greece is far from alone in this) and replace it with "Greek related". Niko Silver 19:33, 13 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. Niko Silver 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)