Please post your comments in this page. An exact copy of the rationale that follows has been pasted in the special sub-page: Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position. Feel free to post your comments here, under the respective arguements, for discussion.
Every sentence which is underlined below is from the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline. The rest are the comments that support renaming the article to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The three key principles are:
The search uses all possible forms of FYROM: |
The search excludes some obvious words that refer to ...other Macedonias [sic]. Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions:
|
vs
Comment copied by User:E Pluribus Anthony:
Answer: Thank you for supporting my arguement (2.38M>1.35M, so FYROM is still the winner), but I think that this is highly misleading. The word "Republic" is NOT excluded from the test, so the test for "macedonia" includes the sites that mention it as "Republic of Macedonia". Therefore, I think you wanted to mean to examine the term "macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia". In that case, please illustrate how it would be fair to include:
Thank you. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Another Problem with the Google Test: When searching for "Macedonia", by leaving out things like "Greece", "Greek", "Hellas", "Cyprus" etc., it not only cuts out sites that refer to Greek Macedonia (as desired), but ALSO sites that are referring to the Republic of Macedonia and happen to mention Greece. I don't know how many sites that is, but presumably a significant number. On the search "Greece +Macedonia -Wikipedia", the 7th hit is "Macedonia Versus Greece" on the United Macedonians of Canada website, http://www.unitedmacedonians.org/macedonia/stefov1.html, a webpage using the name "Macedonia" that would have been left out by your search. Fokion 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:
Criterion | FYROM | Macedonia |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 1 | 0 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 1 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of ex aequo score, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).
Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred (see also
#Ambiguity persists below).
Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.
The most common name for the country is definitely Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Even if we disregard that fact and proceed into examining objective and subjective criteria, the name should still be Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia In view of all this, the name " Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should be used as the name of the article. Any other solution is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline.
A diagram that summarises the above follows:
|--Google test (6.5M vs 10.6M)--| |----(internally)----The Republic----(externally)*---| |----(externally)---Greek Govt--(internally)--| |--UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD--| |-------------------Major News sites-----------------| |----------------Other referenced works--------------| |-------------------Geographic sites-----------------| |---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------| |------Major English speaking countries (1 to 3)-----| Name 1: |----"Republic of Macedonia"-----------------------------------------------| Name 2: |----------------------------------------"FYROM"---------------------------| Name 3: |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"| Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate----------|---------------------| *Except strictly bilateral relations of the country with those (many) countries that have recognised its constitutional name.
Nikosilver, you have made a nice review of the usage of the terms for the naming of my country. And I say that, finding NPOV info but presenting it with PPOV you might succeed to persuade other people to take the name FYROM.
But that's lame. I don't want my country to be called FYROM and you won't call it that way. Period. <The previous unsigned comment was posted by anonymous User:82.114.78.8 on 20:36, April 25, 2006 at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and was transferred here as-is.>
Actually Francis, I am not trying to re-frame the debate (it is already evident from the votes so far that FYROM will be included in the intro paragraph); I am trying to rename the article. I am not trying to rig the google test either. I am just trying to follow the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline by the book. The guideline says (among other things):
So before proposing a name change poll via WP:RM, consider whether the odds are worth it: you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result (but it happens, and also, as said above, the Google test frequently has no *clear* result).
If you can think of a clearer google test that excludes sites like the ones below, feel free to enlighten me. For example, please check the results for "+macedonia +greece" 151M!!. Do you see any results that account for the country? Browse further if you wish. The fact that "Macedonia" is more common is indisputable (that is why people may think "Ah, yes! I know that!"). I dispute the fact that it commonly refers to the country, as opposed to the Greek part and the Greek history.
So if you definitely want the article to keep the current name, I think that the only thing you can do is... change the guideline. Still sounds absurd? Prove me wrong! NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ChrisO for explaining this just now, and have a nice time in your holiday. Your explanation would really bring an end to the debate if you hadn't endorsed the previous poll (with the exact same reasoning) about the name of the inhabitants of this country, for which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that their self-identifying name is Macedonians, rather than the other option Macedonian Slavs and totally unlike the present poll, where there are two huge differences:
Furthermore, if what you say was the case, then I strongly suggest that you or somebody else, alters the wording in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms policy to reflect the following:
If that was the wording, then I wouldn't have bothered creating this, you wouldn't have endorsed and closed the previous poll with the exact same reasoning, and my points above would be invalid.
Moreover, if WP wants to be:
...then I propose that since any article will be named after the preferred self-identifying name, there should be a sizable box, on top, with the following information (with the ROC/current example):
Something along these lines is descriptive, NPOV and complete, much like the intro in Republic of China and like the versions you wanted to upload earlier (with this comment supporting it). Much like the one that the designers of this poll were opposed to. Again and again and again and again and again.
And now something else:
To E Pluribus Anthony and the others who designed this carnival of a poll:
WTF would Option #4 and Option #9 still be doing in this poll? After 10 whole days from their creation and dozens of apparently "invalid" votes that would otherwise certainly fall in Option #2?
Why did you allow these options that start with " Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so as to imply that the name of the article would be changed as such?
Is there a fraction of logic in naming an article Mobile phone and then starting the intro paragraph like " Cellular phone is..."?
Or didn't you know about that? Didn't you even find out after the long debate in Option #4 between FlavSavr and Avg ( creator of #4)? Not even after my repeated comments about the many relevant options that exist so as to divide and conquer the supporting votes? And why didn't you dissallow it (or should I say "dissavow it") right after its creation? Wasn't that interpretation of the policy active then and it is now? Shouldn't you have deleted them at sight, then?
Actually, I think you are wrong about your interpretation of the guideline. The key paragraph to this article naming issue (it's even called "Article names"!) precedes both paragraphs mentioned by the two sides. The text follows word by word. Bolding has been used to illustrate the parts that make the difference:
Quoted from
Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names:
Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.
Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.
The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).
End quote.
I guess "
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" obviously falls in the "proper nouns" category, rather than the "descriptive names" one (like the
United Nations example, rather than the
2005 Atlantic hurricane season one). The underlined text within my rationale above is an exact copy-paste of the
Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper names section with no omissions whatsoever.
I could understand people who disagree with my reasoning, but it is another thing to reinterpret the guideline according to the preferred end result. Especially when the guideline text is accurate and in clear English.
Finally, I think it is a huge mistake to write an article about the
UN or
EU and include within these articles names of countries that do not conform with the
UN or
EU standard appellation. This is like "putting words in
UN's mouth!" It is highly unacceptable, biased, POVish and confusing. Check above in my rationale to see many other examples of that fallacy with all international organizations! Maybe, since Wikipedia is now prescribing new international appellations, we should change it's slogan to:
"It's your world..."
NikoSilver
(T)
@
(C) 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please post your comments in this page. An exact copy of the rationale that follows has been pasted in the special sub-page: Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position. Feel free to post your comments here, under the respective arguements, for discussion.
Every sentence which is underlined below is from the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline. The rest are the comments that support renaming the article to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The three key principles are:
The search uses all possible forms of FYROM: |
The search excludes some obvious words that refer to ...other Macedonias [sic]. Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions:
|
vs
Comment copied by User:E Pluribus Anthony:
Answer: Thank you for supporting my arguement (2.38M>1.35M, so FYROM is still the winner), but I think that this is highly misleading. The word "Republic" is NOT excluded from the test, so the test for "macedonia" includes the sites that mention it as "Republic of Macedonia". Therefore, I think you wanted to mean to examine the term "macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia". In that case, please illustrate how it would be fair to include:
Thank you. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Another Problem with the Google Test: When searching for "Macedonia", by leaving out things like "Greece", "Greek", "Hellas", "Cyprus" etc., it not only cuts out sites that refer to Greek Macedonia (as desired), but ALSO sites that are referring to the Republic of Macedonia and happen to mention Greece. I don't know how many sites that is, but presumably a significant number. On the search "Greece +Macedonia -Wikipedia", the 7th hit is "Macedonia Versus Greece" on the United Macedonians of Canada website, http://www.unitedmacedonians.org/macedonia/stefov1.html, a webpage using the name "Macedonia" that would have been left out by your search. Fokion 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:
Criterion | FYROM | Macedonia |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 1 | 0 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 1 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of ex aequo score, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).
Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred (see also
#Ambiguity persists below).
Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.
The most common name for the country is definitely Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Even if we disregard that fact and proceed into examining objective and subjective criteria, the name should still be Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia In view of all this, the name " Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should be used as the name of the article. Any other solution is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline.
A diagram that summarises the above follows:
|--Google test (6.5M vs 10.6M)--| |----(internally)----The Republic----(externally)*---| |----(externally)---Greek Govt--(internally)--| |--UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD--| |-------------------Major News sites-----------------| |----------------Other referenced works--------------| |-------------------Geographic sites-----------------| |---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------| |------Major English speaking countries (1 to 3)-----| Name 1: |----"Republic of Macedonia"-----------------------------------------------| Name 2: |----------------------------------------"FYROM"---------------------------| Name 3: |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"| Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate----------|---------------------| *Except strictly bilateral relations of the country with those (many) countries that have recognised its constitutional name.
Nikosilver, you have made a nice review of the usage of the terms for the naming of my country. And I say that, finding NPOV info but presenting it with PPOV you might succeed to persuade other people to take the name FYROM.
But that's lame. I don't want my country to be called FYROM and you won't call it that way. Period. <The previous unsigned comment was posted by anonymous User:82.114.78.8 on 20:36, April 25, 2006 at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and was transferred here as-is.>
Actually Francis, I am not trying to re-frame the debate (it is already evident from the votes so far that FYROM will be included in the intro paragraph); I am trying to rename the article. I am not trying to rig the google test either. I am just trying to follow the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline by the book. The guideline says (among other things):
So before proposing a name change poll via WP:RM, consider whether the odds are worth it: you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result (but it happens, and also, as said above, the Google test frequently has no *clear* result).
If you can think of a clearer google test that excludes sites like the ones below, feel free to enlighten me. For example, please check the results for "+macedonia +greece" 151M!!. Do you see any results that account for the country? Browse further if you wish. The fact that "Macedonia" is more common is indisputable (that is why people may think "Ah, yes! I know that!"). I dispute the fact that it commonly refers to the country, as opposed to the Greek part and the Greek history.
So if you definitely want the article to keep the current name, I think that the only thing you can do is... change the guideline. Still sounds absurd? Prove me wrong! NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ChrisO for explaining this just now, and have a nice time in your holiday. Your explanation would really bring an end to the debate if you hadn't endorsed the previous poll (with the exact same reasoning) about the name of the inhabitants of this country, for which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that their self-identifying name is Macedonians, rather than the other option Macedonian Slavs and totally unlike the present poll, where there are two huge differences:
Furthermore, if what you say was the case, then I strongly suggest that you or somebody else, alters the wording in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms policy to reflect the following:
If that was the wording, then I wouldn't have bothered creating this, you wouldn't have endorsed and closed the previous poll with the exact same reasoning, and my points above would be invalid.
Moreover, if WP wants to be:
...then I propose that since any article will be named after the preferred self-identifying name, there should be a sizable box, on top, with the following information (with the ROC/current example):
Something along these lines is descriptive, NPOV and complete, much like the intro in Republic of China and like the versions you wanted to upload earlier (with this comment supporting it). Much like the one that the designers of this poll were opposed to. Again and again and again and again and again.
And now something else:
To E Pluribus Anthony and the others who designed this carnival of a poll:
WTF would Option #4 and Option #9 still be doing in this poll? After 10 whole days from their creation and dozens of apparently "invalid" votes that would otherwise certainly fall in Option #2?
Why did you allow these options that start with " Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so as to imply that the name of the article would be changed as such?
Is there a fraction of logic in naming an article Mobile phone and then starting the intro paragraph like " Cellular phone is..."?
Or didn't you know about that? Didn't you even find out after the long debate in Option #4 between FlavSavr and Avg ( creator of #4)? Not even after my repeated comments about the many relevant options that exist so as to divide and conquer the supporting votes? And why didn't you dissallow it (or should I say "dissavow it") right after its creation? Wasn't that interpretation of the policy active then and it is now? Shouldn't you have deleted them at sight, then?
Actually, I think you are wrong about your interpretation of the guideline. The key paragraph to this article naming issue (it's even called "Article names"!) precedes both paragraphs mentioned by the two sides. The text follows word by word. Bolding has been used to illustrate the parts that make the difference:
Quoted from
Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names:
Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.
Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.
The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).
End quote.
I guess "
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" obviously falls in the "proper nouns" category, rather than the "descriptive names" one (like the
United Nations example, rather than the
2005 Atlantic hurricane season one). The underlined text within my rationale above is an exact copy-paste of the
Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper names section with no omissions whatsoever.
I could understand people who disagree with my reasoning, but it is another thing to reinterpret the guideline according to the preferred end result. Especially when the guideline text is accurate and in clear English.
Finally, I think it is a huge mistake to write an article about the
UN or
EU and include within these articles names of countries that do not conform with the
UN or
EU standard appellation. This is like "putting words in
UN's mouth!" It is highly unacceptable, biased, POVish and confusing. Check above in my rationale to see many other examples of that fallacy with all international organizations! Maybe, since Wikipedia is now prescribing new international appellations, we should change it's slogan to:
"It's your world..."
NikoSilver
(T)
@
(C) 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)