This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naming conventions (Macedonia) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
I want to get everyone's feedback on my take on Fut.Perf.'s proposed guidelines. I combined it with the pre-existing guidelines over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and made the whole thing into apart of Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional).
We might want to include one more heading for the remaining points of the closing panel's statements, but I do like how it turned out for the most part. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Please include culture as discussed above with Argean and SilentResident: The
Macedonian language, the
Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the
Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.
. Again, culture was specifically voted to be "Macedonian" in the non-contentious housekeeping section and the adjectival references to culture where excluded from the question mid-RfC because of this. Also, please add Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc.
in the "Adjectival form of North Macedonia". This is also non-contentious, I believe. --
FlavrSavr (
talk) 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.and another example
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc.. This is to avoid any further ethnic/national culture discussions that might occur (a film is part of Macedonian culture, but a film can not be an ethnic Macedonian film). -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 14:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement[1], the adjectival...... => footnote goes in the bottom section: {{This is a background information only, Wikipedia is by no legal or other means obligated to follow the provisions of the Prespa agreement }}or something to that effect. I know it's cumbersome but it's better than having entire paragraphs of actual policy demoted into a footnote. Or as Argean proposed, make some minor rewording just to reduce the impression of a legal obligation (I'm lacking creative ideas on how to actually reword it.) -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 20:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Comment Some word-smiting: the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Background section should read: "On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute." This is more accurate, factual and NPV. Starting a paragraph with "Then...", using "renamed itself" are problematic stylistically. GStojanov ( talk) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement" Nope, it feels as if it implies that the Prespa Agreement was imposed on the Republic of Macedonia, which isn't the case, since the Treaty is the result of mutual concessions from both sides. If a different wording is chosen, I wouldn't mind then. To clarify myself: while the provisions of the Prespa Agreement contain obligations for both sides, there is a popular narrative in both countries, especially on nationalist circles, that give the term "obligation" a negative spotlight, which is too POV, depending how one views it. Thats why I don't feel this word to be the most appropriate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment @ MJL: In general I like the idea of formatting the guideline in a way consistent to the previous one, as well as having a similar style to other regional MoS, but I have to admit that there are a few issues that need some fixing. Some of them have been already been mentioned by Fut.Perf. above, and I just want to say that I agree with all of them. A few more things that I would like to add, keeping in mind the discussions so far:
This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")has been lost in the new text. I think it's useful and explains as well why the issue of nationality is actually contentious.
In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible. The rationale behind this proposal is that since we are already suggesting to the editors to avoid all other adjectives when not necessary, why not do the same for nationality as well, since the dichotomy between "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" has created so heated discussions and lead to lack of consensus. Just repeating myself to avoid misunderstandings, this exception should be limited only to cases where ambiguity with ethnicity might be an issue and shouldn't affect introductory sentences to persons' biographies.
adjectival forms should be avoidedin one way or another. I mean, it should be easier to give a guideline on when to avoid adjectives, i.e. try to avoid them completely in
article names, categories, and templatesand don't change the official names of ranks and institutions except if simple grammar rules of English language require it. That should suffice.
Argean ( talk) 18:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.-- FlavrSavr ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possiblein the nationality section (4.2). First of all, the use od adjectives will be pretty much covered by the additions for culture, historical, state-entities and other entities. Second, the adjectival forms that relate to nationality, namely "Macedonian / North Macedonian" are identical to the nouns so I don't see how this helps. I think this can create a lot of problems, seeing how widely this ethnicity/nationality confusion is misinterpreted. I don't think that there are a lot of cases that refer to nationality adjectivally, except "Macedonian / North Macedonian citizenship", "Macedonian nationals" etc. As it is, it might actually create the impression that you can't say, for example "Ezgjan Alioski is a Macedonian footballer", because you would use "Macedonian" an adjective. This undermines the entire policy, so it's better left out. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"Macedonian" is used for the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles, so the rule to avoid such adjectival references shouldn't affect the opening paragraphs. I don't know, does anyone have any other ideas about this? -- Argean ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible) in the nationality section (4.2) to be removed from the draft guideline. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 00:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion, for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicityand respects the policies on disambiguation. I'm still worried though that we are leaving the door wide open for potential disputes over the use of North Macedonian vs. Macedonian on the grounds of ambiguity. We really need to find a way to either overcome this binary dilemma in such cases (thus I proposed the avoidance of adjectives over e.g. forming the possessive when possible) or create a more solid policy with more examples on how to deal with disambiguation. -- Argean ( talk) 01:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjective... The closing panel finds no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times and in all places. Rather, the closing panel finds that the consensus, based on policy, is to follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue. The usage of the reliable sources will often be dependent on context and common sense (for example, whether there is any meaningful risk of confusion or ambiguity exists in the specific context).
The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing.
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc..
Support on content, some minor nitpicking on style. First of all, great job, MJL! If we used your draft as is, we’d be well off. (There are a couple of typo/punctuation issues which will soon be fixed, I’m sure.) My only recommendation would be emphasize what over why. Consider the guideline’s intended audience: Who is this for? Wikipedia nerds elbow-deep in policy or “regular” editors simply looking for guidance on terminology? If the latter, I would recommend putting ALL mentions of previous guidelines, RfCs (perhaps even the term “RfC” itself), “Macedonia 2”, and the Prespa agreement in a short Background section at the end of the guideline. In short:
This guideline was informed by the changes agreed upon by Greece and now-North Macedonia in the Prespa Agreement.to the Background section.
After all we’ve been through, this may seem radical, but, again, consider the audience and the purpose of the guideline. Editors mostly want and need to know what to do. Why might be interesting to some, but it’s not really material. — ThorstenNY ( talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
These two things are viewed as not contentious, MJL, please update accordingly:
Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or:
Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)).
Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or:
Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)). Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .
The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing.
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc.is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .
-- FlavrSavr ( talk) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanative notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.. Hope this works for all? You have a point for 4.2. Just adding "Macedonian film" should do the trick. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Always use Macedonia and Macedonian to refer to the country, its people, institutions and events before 2019. Only when absolutely necessary to remove ambiguity you may add a clarifying parenthetical remark that the topic is related to the current country of North Macedonia as opposed to the wider or Greek region, e.g.— ThorstenNY ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanatory notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.is in the wrong section. It should be in 3.2 ('Article text') right after the Kiro Gligorov sentences. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 08:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit (We have discussed this above and agreed on this) Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019
Republic of Macedonia changed its name to
Republic of North Macedonia following the
Prespa agreement that
GStojanov (
talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph one strike: . This version of the guideline was in place in its place add: , who were named as referees by the Arbitration Committee.[1] This is an edit from the original page. I guess something went wrong when you copied it. The paragraph should remain as is.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph two strike: and replace the ones in previously place since 2009
. in its place add: and amend the ones previously in place since 2009 Also add "by" at the end of this paragraph, so it reads: was ultimately closed by BD2412, QEDK, and Neutrality.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The country will generally be called by its new name, North Macedonia, or the longer and official term, Republic of North Macedonia, where appropriate (ie. when one might use the term Russian Federation vs Russia or United Republic of Tanzania instead of Tanzania). in its place add: The country will be referred to by its short name
North Macedonia. The official name
Republic of North Macedonia will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names (e.g. "Russian Federation", "Federal Republic of Germany", etc.) This is much closer to the text that is in the current
Naming convention. We don't need to deviate from it without a good reason.
GStojanov (
talk) 18:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit In the very first sentence: "This is a guideline on how to..." strike the new name: "...name, North Macedonia, whose...". In this historical context the new name is not needed and it reads awkward. The sentence works better without it.
GStojanov (
talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The term, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or any of its abbreviations should generally be avoided. in its place add: The temporary reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any of its abbreviations and acronyms will not be used.. I updated the request to reflect the consensus from the conversation below.
GStojanov (
talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
and acronyms. Yes, my primary objection was with the term
temporary referenceas it felt like an endorsement for its use by the Greek government. I don't have many real opinions in this debate, but I do think that the use of the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and all its variations is disrespectful. Separately, I do believe saying abbreviations and acronyms instead of
Request for edit Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019
Republic of Macedonia changed its name to
Republic of North Macedonia following the
Prespa agreement that
GStojanov (
talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.1 strike: For example, Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc. is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. in its place add: (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is a shorter and more standard way for citing examples that are permitted and we use it in the current naming convention.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.2 strike: can be avoided in its place add: should be avoided This is in line with the semantics of the first paragraph of this section.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Three more small, purely stylistic nitpicks:
Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I made a few very simple copy edits to the draft, but there is one problem I found that I thought needed a little more discussion. "When referring to such state institutions by their official names, the article should respect the newly established forms of these names that follow this convention (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia"). " This is somewhat clunky and seems to once again present the Prespa agreement as binding on us. I would recommend something more like: "When directly referring to state institutions, the newly established forms (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia") should be used." Basically, use the exact names when we would do the same for any other country. For example, an article about Australia's military alliances would still refer to the "United States Department of Defense", but could conceivably say "American defence forces" as a proper paraphrase. -- Khajidha ( talk) 15:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural." -- Khajidha ( talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the aforementioned copy edits I made was reverted, so I am bringing it here. The established text is "However, contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." I feel that "contrary to the provisions of the Prespa agreement" is both an inappropriate implication that outside source are subject to said agreement and (regardless of that) is redundant to the rest of the sentence. I do not see how the current phrasing adds anything that is not covered by my suggested phrasing " However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
, but I feel we need more consensus to removeexact naming
from this section. I believe this phrasing has been discussed above. ( edit conflict) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement,
Request for edit Under section 1 strike: "On Feb 12th 2019, the Republic of Macedonia changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia following..." I don't think we need these definite articles. The sentence reads better without them.
GStojanov (
talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
officially the Republic of North Macedonia,[ emphasis added. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.1: Move examples after the rule. In style guidelines we should follow the pattern: Rule, Example, Explanation. So the chapter should read: "The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be referred to as such (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is in line with both the Prespa agreement and the large majority of reliable sources." GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.2: Move the example after the rule: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian" (e.g. XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 3 and 4 to switch places and paragraph 4 to start with: "In most other contexts... " GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 4 replace Therefore in most contexts, both with In all other contexts, both I thought we did this already, but now I noticed it wasn't updated. This formulation is more precise. If the adjectival use is already described in previous text, use that, otherwise, use this default rule.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The proposal for consensus now looks good. What is our next step? GStojanov ( talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Just one more final nit: In the "background" section, remove "several" in the phrase "several editors on Wikipedia conducted a new RFC". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess that the next step would be for an administrator to be bold and to put the final policy draft into the policy namespace. The RfC is complete, it has been refined to be in line with existing Wikipedia policies, and polished to have a stylistic consistency. Future Perfect at Sunrise would you have the honor? :) -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible.In a discussion with Argean and MJL above it was established that it will probably create more problems than solve them. MJL please kindly remove it. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 12:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible.This adjectival usage was not part of Future Perfect at Sunrise's draft. It was proposed by Argean but we quickly realized that it creates more problems than it solves. Somehow it was left in the final draft. I really think it is important for it to be left out. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 15:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
QEDK gave us a guidance how to proceed (on Apr 22nd, in this page): "The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming)". Let us all read his message and check if we are ready for the update. GStojanov ( talk) 13:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Folks, as you may have noticed, I've performed the page moves and thus brought the new guideline "live". Congratulations to everybody who participated in this final effort as well as in the earlier planning and managing of the RfC; I think this was ultimately some pretty good collaborative work from multiple sides. Let's hope the new guideline becomes similarly stable and widely accepted as the previous one.
You may also have noticed I've moved this talkpage to the main guideline talkpage, merging its history with the existing page there and folding both pages' archives into a single sequence. I hope this will make finding things easier in the long run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone! This has been a long, and sometimes exhausting process, but we should be proud of the result, it is a very Wikipedian outcome, indeed! I'm especially proud of fellow Macedonian Wikipedians, regardless of whether they're of Macedonian or Greek ethnicity, who have been able to leave aside their axes and work in a civil, respectful and deeply Wikipedian way. This issue has been a tough burden to bear for both nations, and hopefully real-life events will emulate the process we had here (a man can dream). I'd also like to thank editors outside the region, who had the wisdom to understand the sensitivity of the issue and the patience to overlook the often bizarre intricacies of the Prespa agreement. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 08:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
For me this was an emotional roller-coaster. But I think we achieved a workable and a decent compromise. I have special thanks for MJL and his enthusiastic involvement and help. GStojanov ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very happy and surprised with the positive outcome of the whole progress. Well done everyone. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I am finally caught up with the last 6 weeks worth of edits. Yes, I certainly approve of the well structured new guideline that you all have been busy generating in my absence. Well done to all for wrapping this process up and generating an outline that meets the conclusions established from the RfC. This has been a very positive process overall, with a lot of hard work and effort put into it by many in the en.wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I was unavailable for the last period to help out with the drafting process, but I think that we have ended up with something that works. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: @ QEDK:
An action is required here. The following sentence should be deleted or rewritten in a way that reports facts and does not express personal mis-interpretations.
According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, it suggests the plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts; while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia".
This paragraph is misleading in the best case and wrong in the worst case. This is a personal (mis-)interpretation of the Prespa agreement and not a report of what the Prespa agreement says.
The truth is very different.
The adjective "North Macedonian" is not mentioned in the Prespa Agreement, but this does not imply that "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. This is just a personal interpretation that is not important for Wikipedia that reports facts and not personal opinions. Another interpretation is that North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for North Macedonia, so there is no reason to explicitly put it in the agreement. And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for a country or region or village or area called North Macedonia, the Prespa Agreement needs to clarify that for stated related entities the correct form is "of North Macedonia". And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective, the Prespa Agreement also needs to clarify that for everything not related to the state, the adjective "Macedonian" may be used in line with the Article 7.
The Prespa Agreement says that everything reported in the 19 pages is about official level. So the possessive form "of North Macedonia" is about official level and only about state related entities. This is also explained with Paragraph 5 of Article 7 that says: Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party.
So the Prespa Agrement is not binding for the people of Greece and North Macedonia either. So how can it be binding for other people or other countries or make any suggestions?
The Prespa Agreement is a bilateral agreement between two countries, and it is signed only by two countries. So the Prespa Agreement cannot enforce every other country to accept it. Does Germany have its own agreement that stipulates what adjective has to be used and what not? Of course, not! Does this mean that we are not allowed to use the adjective German for everything related to Germany (people, culture, food, etc) until we get a document with a stamp and a signature from all the other countries including Germany?
The Prespa Agreement does not say that "Macedonian" is suggested in other cases. The Prespa Agreement simply says that, in official level, for example, North Macedonia has the right to issue documents that use the adjective "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. This is a right that North Macedonia has and is accepted by Greece. So North Macedonia can talk about Macedonian food in a governmental website, and Greece cannot complain about this. But this doesn't mean that Greece has to call the food of North Macedonia, as Macedonian food. Greece and all other countries can still call it North Macedonian.
The right of North Macedonia to use the adjective "Macedonian" in official level is not an obligation for other countries. This is what people fail to understand here.
Greece accepts the right of North Macedonia to call its food "Macedonian", because there is no legal way to stop it. Many countries in this world produce and sell "Greek yoghurt" or "Greek cheese", because Greece cannot stop them, unless the name "Greek yoghurt" is protected like in the EU. If there is no legal way for Greece to stop people in other countries to sell products with the adjective "Greek", how can you believe that Greece can stop North Macedonia using the adjective "Macedonian". Even if Greece could stop North Macedonia to use the adjective Macedonian for its own products, other countries could still call their products Macedonian. For example, do you think that Germany is not allowed to sell "Macedonian food" unless this is protected? So North Macedonia can call its own products "German", "French", "Italian", "Greek", "Macedonian", and "North Macedonian", unless these names are protected for a specific product according to the legislation. If calling them "Macedonian" is a good or bad idea, this is another story. Products of North Macedonia can also be called "Smart", but the right of North Macedonia to sell "Smart yoghurt" does not imply that "North Macedonia is Smart". Smart is just another adjective. :-) Peace in balkans ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
...seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itselfis the right way to go, as I said before. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ MJL: @ QEDK: @ Neutrality: @ BD2412: Please take a look here: President_of_North_Macedonia. Before renaming the country, the adjective Macedonian was used twice in the first paragraph as you can see here, and based on WP:MOSMAC, some users try to update it to North Macedonian. Since then there is a clique of users like @ Jingiby:, @ TU-nor: @ Local hero:, and @ FlavrSavr:, who constantly find excuses to avoid the adjective North Macedonian against consensus. You can see the history of revisions to have a clear picture of the problem. If these users really removed the adjective North Macedonian to improve the quality of the page, I would accept it. But they do it in every Wikipedia page of North Macedonia. The result is that WP:MOSMAC is ignored and all pages of North Macedonia is a mess. You cannot find the adjective North Macedonian anywhere, although WP:MOSMAC says that it can be used. This clique of users ignores WP:MOSMAC, and they enforce their rules. How can we handle this issue? Can we allow a clique of people to block us from improving wikipedia? Peace in balkans ( talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Will someone kindly elaborate on what the policy on sport is regarding North Macedonia? Everyone knows the country plays as North Macedonia per its sovereign name but apparently its governing body "Football Federation of Macedonia" has been a bit slow on the uptake in getting its name modified properly. Today I am learning things I never knew before but I get the impression I'm being taken for a ride. Any comments? Sportspop ( talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement at the
Gun law in North Macedonia article on how to interpret MOSMAC when the adjective form is used in the first sentence of an article. Previously some edit warring occured over whether is should start Macedonian law allows... or North Macedonian law allows..., which has been changed to Gun laws in North Macedonia allow... to avoid the contentious adjective form. However the disagreement still stands, specifically should the first sentence of an article about North Macedonia that uses the adjective use Macedonian or North Macedonian.
The 4th point of the close of the
2019 RFC was no consensus on which form should be used, and
WP:MOSMAC says In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic). The shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context.
.
I've tried to describe the situation as fairly as possible. If anyone believe this should be changed just say so.
Kluche,
Local hero,
Carpaniola,
FrederalBacon,
Nil Einne,
Ivanavram,
Cullen328 (that should be everyone who has commented on the issue at the article talk page or ANI). -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Socking only hurts you argument |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This comment doesn't deal with the specific question at hand, and risks derailing the discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naming conventions (Macedonia) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
I want to get everyone's feedback on my take on Fut.Perf.'s proposed guidelines. I combined it with the pre-existing guidelines over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and made the whole thing into apart of Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional).
We might want to include one more heading for the remaining points of the closing panel's statements, but I do like how it turned out for the most part. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Please include culture as discussed above with Argean and SilentResident: The
Macedonian language, the
Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the
Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.
. Again, culture was specifically voted to be "Macedonian" in the non-contentious housekeeping section and the adjectival references to culture where excluded from the question mid-RfC because of this. Also, please add Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc.
in the "Adjectival form of North Macedonia". This is also non-contentious, I believe. --
FlavrSavr (
talk) 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.and another example
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc.. This is to avoid any further ethnic/national culture discussions that might occur (a film is part of Macedonian culture, but a film can not be an ethnic Macedonian film). -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 14:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement[1], the adjectival...... => footnote goes in the bottom section: {{This is a background information only, Wikipedia is by no legal or other means obligated to follow the provisions of the Prespa agreement }}or something to that effect. I know it's cumbersome but it's better than having entire paragraphs of actual policy demoted into a footnote. Or as Argean proposed, make some minor rewording just to reduce the impression of a legal obligation (I'm lacking creative ideas on how to actually reword it.) -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 20:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
References
Comment Some word-smiting: the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Background section should read: "On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute." This is more accurate, factual and NPV. Starting a paragraph with "Then...", using "renamed itself" are problematic stylistically. GStojanov ( talk) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement" Nope, it feels as if it implies that the Prespa Agreement was imposed on the Republic of Macedonia, which isn't the case, since the Treaty is the result of mutual concessions from both sides. If a different wording is chosen, I wouldn't mind then. To clarify myself: while the provisions of the Prespa Agreement contain obligations for both sides, there is a popular narrative in both countries, especially on nationalist circles, that give the term "obligation" a negative spotlight, which is too POV, depending how one views it. Thats why I don't feel this word to be the most appropriate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment @ MJL: In general I like the idea of formatting the guideline in a way consistent to the previous one, as well as having a similar style to other regional MoS, but I have to admit that there are a few issues that need some fixing. Some of them have been already been mentioned by Fut.Perf. above, and I just want to say that I agree with all of them. A few more things that I would like to add, keeping in mind the discussions so far:
This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")has been lost in the new text. I think it's useful and explains as well why the issue of nationality is actually contentious.
In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible. The rationale behind this proposal is that since we are already suggesting to the editors to avoid all other adjectives when not necessary, why not do the same for nationality as well, since the dichotomy between "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" has created so heated discussions and lead to lack of consensus. Just repeating myself to avoid misunderstandings, this exception should be limited only to cases where ambiguity with ethnicity might be an issue and shouldn't affect introductory sentences to persons' biographies.
adjectival forms should be avoidedin one way or another. I mean, it should be easier to give a guideline on when to avoid adjectives, i.e. try to avoid them completely in
article names, categories, and templatesand don't change the official names of ranks and institutions except if simple grammar rules of English language require it. That should suffice.
Argean ( talk) 18:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.-- FlavrSavr ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possiblein the nationality section (4.2). First of all, the use od adjectives will be pretty much covered by the additions for culture, historical, state-entities and other entities. Second, the adjectival forms that relate to nationality, namely "Macedonian / North Macedonian" are identical to the nouns so I don't see how this helps. I think this can create a lot of problems, seeing how widely this ethnicity/nationality confusion is misinterpreted. I don't think that there are a lot of cases that refer to nationality adjectivally, except "Macedonian / North Macedonian citizenship", "Macedonian nationals" etc. As it is, it might actually create the impression that you can't say, for example "Ezgjan Alioski is a Macedonian footballer", because you would use "Macedonian" an adjective. This undermines the entire policy, so it's better left out. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"Macedonian" is used for the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles, so the rule to avoid such adjectival references shouldn't affect the opening paragraphs. I don't know, does anyone have any other ideas about this? -- Argean ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible) in the nationality section (4.2) to be removed from the draft guideline. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 00:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion, for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicityand respects the policies on disambiguation. I'm still worried though that we are leaving the door wide open for potential disputes over the use of North Macedonian vs. Macedonian on the grounds of ambiguity. We really need to find a way to either overcome this binary dilemma in such cases (thus I proposed the avoidance of adjectives over e.g. forming the possessive when possible) or create a more solid policy with more examples on how to deal with disambiguation. -- Argean ( talk) 01:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Adjective... The closing panel finds no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times and in all places. Rather, the closing panel finds that the consensus, based on policy, is to follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue. The usage of the reliable sources will often be dependent on context and common sense (for example, whether there is any meaningful risk of confusion or ambiguity exists in the specific context).
The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing.
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc..
Support on content, some minor nitpicking on style. First of all, great job, MJL! If we used your draft as is, we’d be well off. (There are a couple of typo/punctuation issues which will soon be fixed, I’m sure.) My only recommendation would be emphasize what over why. Consider the guideline’s intended audience: Who is this for? Wikipedia nerds elbow-deep in policy or “regular” editors simply looking for guidance on terminology? If the latter, I would recommend putting ALL mentions of previous guidelines, RfCs (perhaps even the term “RfC” itself), “Macedonia 2”, and the Prespa agreement in a short Background section at the end of the guideline. In short:
This guideline was informed by the changes agreed upon by Greece and now-North Macedonia in the Prespa Agreement.to the Background section.
After all we’ve been through, this may seem radical, but, again, consider the audience and the purpose of the guideline. Editors mostly want and need to know what to do. Why might be interesting to some, but it’s not really material. — ThorstenNY ( talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
These two things are viewed as not contentious, MJL, please update accordingly:
Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or:
Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)).
Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or:
Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)). Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .
The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing.
Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc.is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .
-- FlavrSavr ( talk) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanative notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.. Hope this works for all? You have a point for 4.2. Just adding "Macedonian film" should do the trick. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Always use Macedonia and Macedonian to refer to the country, its people, institutions and events before 2019. Only when absolutely necessary to remove ambiguity you may add a clarifying parenthetical remark that the topic is related to the current country of North Macedonia as opposed to the wider or Greek region, e.g.— ThorstenNY ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanatory notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.is in the wrong section. It should be in 3.2 ('Article text') right after the Kiro Gligorov sentences. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 08:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit (We have discussed this above and agreed on this) Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019
Republic of Macedonia changed its name to
Republic of North Macedonia following the
Prespa agreement that
GStojanov (
talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph one strike: . This version of the guideline was in place in its place add: , who were named as referees by the Arbitration Committee.[1] This is an edit from the original page. I guess something went wrong when you copied it. The paragraph should remain as is.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph two strike: and replace the ones in previously place since 2009
. in its place add: and amend the ones previously in place since 2009 Also add "by" at the end of this paragraph, so it reads: was ultimately closed by BD2412, QEDK, and Neutrality.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The country will generally be called by its new name, North Macedonia, or the longer and official term, Republic of North Macedonia, where appropriate (ie. when one might use the term Russian Federation vs Russia or United Republic of Tanzania instead of Tanzania). in its place add: The country will be referred to by its short name
North Macedonia. The official name
Republic of North Macedonia will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names (e.g. "Russian Federation", "Federal Republic of Germany", etc.) This is much closer to the text that is in the current
Naming convention. We don't need to deviate from it without a good reason.
GStojanov (
talk) 18:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit In the very first sentence: "This is a guideline on how to..." strike the new name: "...name, North Macedonia, whose...". In this historical context the new name is not needed and it reads awkward. The sentence works better without it.
GStojanov (
talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The term, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or any of its abbreviations should generally be avoided. in its place add: The temporary reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any of its abbreviations and acronyms will not be used.. I updated the request to reflect the consensus from the conversation below.
GStojanov (
talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
and acronyms. Yes, my primary objection was with the term
temporary referenceas it felt like an endorsement for its use by the Greek government. I don't have many real opinions in this debate, but I do think that the use of the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and all its variations is disrespectful. Separately, I do believe saying abbreviations and acronyms instead of
Request for edit Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019
Republic of Macedonia changed its name to
Republic of North Macedonia following the
Prespa agreement that
GStojanov (
talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.1 strike: For example, Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc. is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. in its place add: (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is a shorter and more standard way for citing examples that are permitted and we use it in the current naming convention.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.2 strike: can be avoided in its place add: should be avoided This is in line with the semantics of the first paragraph of this section.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Three more small, purely stylistic nitpicks:
Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I made a few very simple copy edits to the draft, but there is one problem I found that I thought needed a little more discussion. "When referring to such state institutions by their official names, the article should respect the newly established forms of these names that follow this convention (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia"). " This is somewhat clunky and seems to once again present the Prespa agreement as binding on us. I would recommend something more like: "When directly referring to state institutions, the newly established forms (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia") should be used." Basically, use the exact names when we would do the same for any other country. For example, an article about Australia's military alliances would still refer to the "United States Department of Defense", but could conceivably say "American defence forces" as a proper paraphrase. -- Khajidha ( talk) 15:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural." -- Khajidha ( talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the aforementioned copy edits I made was reverted, so I am bringing it here. The established text is "However, contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." I feel that "contrary to the provisions of the Prespa agreement" is both an inappropriate implication that outside source are subject to said agreement and (regardless of that) is redundant to the rest of the sentence. I do not see how the current phrasing adds anything that is not covered by my suggested phrasing " However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
, but I feel we need more consensus to removeexact naming
from this section. I believe this phrasing has been discussed above. ( edit conflict) – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement,
Request for edit Under section 1 strike: "On Feb 12th 2019, the Republic of Macedonia changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia following..." I don't think we need these definite articles. The sentence reads better without them.
GStojanov (
talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
officially the Republic of North Macedonia,[ emphasis added. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.1: Move examples after the rule. In style guidelines we should follow the pattern: Rule, Example, Explanation. So the chapter should read: "The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be referred to as such (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is in line with both the Prespa agreement and the large majority of reliable sources." GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 4.2: Move the example after the rule: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian" (e.g. XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 3 and 4 to switch places and paragraph 4 to start with: "In most other contexts... " GStojanov ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 4 replace Therefore in most contexts, both with In all other contexts, both I thought we did this already, but now I noticed it wasn't updated. This formulation is more precise. If the adjectival use is already described in previous text, use that, otherwise, use this default rule.
GStojanov (
talk) 17:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The proposal for consensus now looks good. What is our next step? GStojanov ( talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Just one more final nit: In the "background" section, remove "several" in the phrase "several editors on Wikipedia conducted a new RFC". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess that the next step would be for an administrator to be bold and to put the final policy draft into the policy namespace. The RfC is complete, it has been refined to be in line with existing Wikipedia policies, and polished to have a stylistic consistency. Future Perfect at Sunrise would you have the honor? :) -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible.In a discussion with Argean and MJL above it was established that it will probably create more problems than solve them. MJL please kindly remove it. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 12:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible.This adjectival usage was not part of Future Perfect at Sunrise's draft. It was proposed by Argean but we quickly realized that it creates more problems than it solves. Somehow it was left in the final draft. I really think it is important for it to be left out. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 15:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
QEDK gave us a guidance how to proceed (on Apr 22nd, in this page): "The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming)". Let us all read his message and check if we are ready for the update. GStojanov ( talk) 13:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Folks, as you may have noticed, I've performed the page moves and thus brought the new guideline "live". Congratulations to everybody who participated in this final effort as well as in the earlier planning and managing of the RfC; I think this was ultimately some pretty good collaborative work from multiple sides. Let's hope the new guideline becomes similarly stable and widely accepted as the previous one.
You may also have noticed I've moved this talkpage to the main guideline talkpage, merging its history with the existing page there and folding both pages' archives into a single sequence. I hope this will make finding things easier in the long run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone! This has been a long, and sometimes exhausting process, but we should be proud of the result, it is a very Wikipedian outcome, indeed! I'm especially proud of fellow Macedonian Wikipedians, regardless of whether they're of Macedonian or Greek ethnicity, who have been able to leave aside their axes and work in a civil, respectful and deeply Wikipedian way. This issue has been a tough burden to bear for both nations, and hopefully real-life events will emulate the process we had here (a man can dream). I'd also like to thank editors outside the region, who had the wisdom to understand the sensitivity of the issue and the patience to overlook the often bizarre intricacies of the Prespa agreement. -- FlavrSavr ( talk) 08:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
For me this was an emotional roller-coaster. But I think we achieved a workable and a decent compromise. I have special thanks for MJL and his enthusiastic involvement and help. GStojanov ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very happy and surprised with the positive outcome of the whole progress. Well done everyone. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I am finally caught up with the last 6 weeks worth of edits. Yes, I certainly approve of the well structured new guideline that you all have been busy generating in my absence. Well done to all for wrapping this process up and generating an outline that meets the conclusions established from the RfC. This has been a very positive process overall, with a lot of hard work and effort put into it by many in the en.wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I was unavailable for the last period to help out with the drafting process, but I think that we have ended up with something that works. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: @ QEDK:
An action is required here. The following sentence should be deleted or rewritten in a way that reports facts and does not express personal mis-interpretations.
According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, it suggests the plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts; while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia".
This paragraph is misleading in the best case and wrong in the worst case. This is a personal (mis-)interpretation of the Prespa agreement and not a report of what the Prespa agreement says.
The truth is very different.
The adjective "North Macedonian" is not mentioned in the Prespa Agreement, but this does not imply that "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. This is just a personal interpretation that is not important for Wikipedia that reports facts and not personal opinions. Another interpretation is that North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for North Macedonia, so there is no reason to explicitly put it in the agreement. And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for a country or region or village or area called North Macedonia, the Prespa Agreement needs to clarify that for stated related entities the correct form is "of North Macedonia". And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective, the Prespa Agreement also needs to clarify that for everything not related to the state, the adjective "Macedonian" may be used in line with the Article 7.
The Prespa Agreement says that everything reported in the 19 pages is about official level. So the possessive form "of North Macedonia" is about official level and only about state related entities. This is also explained with Paragraph 5 of Article 7 that says: Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party.
So the Prespa Agrement is not binding for the people of Greece and North Macedonia either. So how can it be binding for other people or other countries or make any suggestions?
The Prespa Agreement is a bilateral agreement between two countries, and it is signed only by two countries. So the Prespa Agreement cannot enforce every other country to accept it. Does Germany have its own agreement that stipulates what adjective has to be used and what not? Of course, not! Does this mean that we are not allowed to use the adjective German for everything related to Germany (people, culture, food, etc) until we get a document with a stamp and a signature from all the other countries including Germany?
The Prespa Agreement does not say that "Macedonian" is suggested in other cases. The Prespa Agreement simply says that, in official level, for example, North Macedonia has the right to issue documents that use the adjective "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. This is a right that North Macedonia has and is accepted by Greece. So North Macedonia can talk about Macedonian food in a governmental website, and Greece cannot complain about this. But this doesn't mean that Greece has to call the food of North Macedonia, as Macedonian food. Greece and all other countries can still call it North Macedonian.
The right of North Macedonia to use the adjective "Macedonian" in official level is not an obligation for other countries. This is what people fail to understand here.
Greece accepts the right of North Macedonia to call its food "Macedonian", because there is no legal way to stop it. Many countries in this world produce and sell "Greek yoghurt" or "Greek cheese", because Greece cannot stop them, unless the name "Greek yoghurt" is protected like in the EU. If there is no legal way for Greece to stop people in other countries to sell products with the adjective "Greek", how can you believe that Greece can stop North Macedonia using the adjective "Macedonian". Even if Greece could stop North Macedonia to use the adjective Macedonian for its own products, other countries could still call their products Macedonian. For example, do you think that Germany is not allowed to sell "Macedonian food" unless this is protected? So North Macedonia can call its own products "German", "French", "Italian", "Greek", "Macedonian", and "North Macedonian", unless these names are protected for a specific product according to the legislation. If calling them "Macedonian" is a good or bad idea, this is another story. Products of North Macedonia can also be called "Smart", but the right of North Macedonia to sell "Smart yoghurt" does not imply that "North Macedonia is Smart". Smart is just another adjective. :-) Peace in balkans ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
...seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itselfis the right way to go, as I said before. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@ MJL: @ QEDK: @ Neutrality: @ BD2412: Please take a look here: President_of_North_Macedonia. Before renaming the country, the adjective Macedonian was used twice in the first paragraph as you can see here, and based on WP:MOSMAC, some users try to update it to North Macedonian. Since then there is a clique of users like @ Jingiby:, @ TU-nor: @ Local hero:, and @ FlavrSavr:, who constantly find excuses to avoid the adjective North Macedonian against consensus. You can see the history of revisions to have a clear picture of the problem. If these users really removed the adjective North Macedonian to improve the quality of the page, I would accept it. But they do it in every Wikipedia page of North Macedonia. The result is that WP:MOSMAC is ignored and all pages of North Macedonia is a mess. You cannot find the adjective North Macedonian anywhere, although WP:MOSMAC says that it can be used. This clique of users ignores WP:MOSMAC, and they enforce their rules. How can we handle this issue? Can we allow a clique of people to block us from improving wikipedia? Peace in balkans ( talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Will someone kindly elaborate on what the policy on sport is regarding North Macedonia? Everyone knows the country plays as North Macedonia per its sovereign name but apparently its governing body "Football Federation of Macedonia" has been a bit slow on the uptake in getting its name modified properly. Today I am learning things I never knew before but I get the impression I'm being taken for a ride. Any comments? Sportspop ( talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement at the
Gun law in North Macedonia article on how to interpret MOSMAC when the adjective form is used in the first sentence of an article. Previously some edit warring occured over whether is should start Macedonian law allows... or North Macedonian law allows..., which has been changed to Gun laws in North Macedonia allow... to avoid the contentious adjective form. However the disagreement still stands, specifically should the first sentence of an article about North Macedonia that uses the adjective use Macedonian or North Macedonian.
The 4th point of the close of the
2019 RFC was no consensus on which form should be used, and
WP:MOSMAC says In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic). The shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context.
.
I've tried to describe the situation as fairly as possible. If anyone believe this should be changed just say so.
Kluche,
Local hero,
Carpaniola,
FrederalBacon,
Nil Einne,
Ivanavram,
Cullen328 (that should be everyone who has commented on the issue at the article talk page or ANI). -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Socking only hurts you argument |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This comment doesn't deal with the specific question at hand, and risks derailing the discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|