Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 29

Today I realized that my previous question has been locked because it was too generic, sorry for that. I am back with two questions:

1) The Macedonian Radio Television has been renamed to National Radio Television, see here in the entry 25.

Is there a reason that we have not updated it?

2) Macedonian music, cuisine, clubs, films seem to be about the whole country and not the ethnic group of Macedonians. If so, North Macedonian is the form that precisely describes what the text refers to. I don't say Macedonian is wrong, but Macedonian is very misleading here, and WP:MOSMAC actually suggests North Macedonian in this case.

WP:MOSMAC says: In all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). 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. One general example of this may include subsequent and repetitive references to the country in articles that are primarily about topics related to North Macedonia, its culture, and its people.

I agree that the topic is already established in context but this is exactly the problem because although the topic is North Macedonia most of the time we talk about the history of ethnic Macedonians. This makes the reader think that we focus on ethnic Macedonians and not all people of North Macedonia, and then we talk about cuisine, music, clubs, films, and we still say Macedonian, but we mean North Macedonian. I find this very misleading. I had to read the text more than 5 times to understand what it says, and I am still not sure if it talks about the ethnic group or all people. Nikokiris (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In the context of an article on "North Macedonia", which is stated unambiguously at the top of the page with the title, first sentence, and infobox, the normal interpretation will always be that "Macedonian" means "North Macedoniian" unless specifically stated otherwise. In the context of the article on the United States of America, the normal interpretation of "American" will always be a resident of the United States rather than anyone who lives on the North American continent unless specifically stated otherwise. I will assume good faith on the part of Nikokiris, but we have to make sure that we are not placing burdens on these articles about Macedonia that have nothing to do with the natural reading of a text in English and everything to do with political issues. (Did my use of "Macedonia" confuse you here even though I had clearly established the context of "North Macedonia" in my previous sentences with no reference whatsoever to a broader context? If so, then perhaps you are reading from a hyper-political context and not from a context of natural English prose.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Although you claim that everybody who gets confused about Macedonian and North Macedonian reads from a hyper-political context your answer focuses only on the second question, and not on renaming the Macedonian Radio Television which is a fact. It's also interesting that you talk about context of natural Enlglish but you don't understand that the only natural english for North Macedonia is North Macedonian. There are even dictionaries that include the adjective North Macedonian, see here. How can you claim that Macedonian is less ambiguous than North Macedonian? By using Macedonian instead, we assume that the reader has all the hyper-political context. It is not natural for a reader to see Macedonian for a country called North Macedonia. Why we don't do the same for South Korea and North Korea. I appreciate your answer, but it's a personal opinion and not a neutral answer based on WP:MOSMAC and consensus. Nikokiris (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nikokiris. When, as pointed above, Collins English Dictionary uses North Macedonian in British English as both: adjective related to North Macedonia or its inhabitants, and as noun about natives or inhabitants of North Macedonia, and moreover, if WP:MOSMAC does not forbid its use, then it is no reason to avoid this designation everywhere in articles on Wikipedia related to this issue. I insist that we can use it simultaneously with Macedonian, of course carefully and depending on the context. It is obvious that this notion has begun to be imposed in the English-speaking world. Jingiby (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Both of you make the utterly incorrect assumption that dictionary English matters. What matters in Wikipedia is common English usage. And the evidence is quite clear (presented elsewhere here) that "Macedonia" was the most common English name for North Macedonia long before Prespa and that it continues to be the most common term used for Macedonia after Prespa. Nikokiris' comment, "the only natural english for North Macedonia is North Macedonian" is utterly false. Your insistence that all occurrences of "Macedonian" in Wikipedia be changed to "North Macedonian" regardless of context is hypercorrecting based on a particular political POV. In the context of the article on "North Macedonia", there is utterly no confusion about the meaning of "Macedonian" to a neutral reader of English and WP:MOSMAC recognizes that fact. And the example of Korea is irrelevant. The Korean population of the world is about evenly divided between North and South, so it's important to draw the distinction often. But 99% (that's a rough guess) of the world's Macedonian population (aside from the diaspora) is in North Macedonia, so drawing the distinction is not important. No, Nikokiris, I didn't answer your question about the Radio Television station because that's just a question of looking up the official name and changing it if need be. If the official name is still "Macedonian", then it should remain that here. Simple answer. But you and Jingiby are both pushing a universal change of "Macedonian" to "North Macedonian" that is not warranted either by English usage of the terms in context or by WP:MOSMAC, which explicitly allows "Macedonian" when the context is clear (as here), and is in accord with common English usage (which is the primary arbiter in the English Wikipedia). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist (Taivo) please take it easy...

What I really like about you is what you said before: the normal interpretation will always be that "Macedonian" means "North Macedoniian"

you accept that Macedonian means North Macedonian, but for some reason you don't want to say it explicitly. What should I say about that? :-)

1) I didn't change the Radio Television because I want to reach consensus. Maybe there is a reason that this hasn't been updated. My goal is to improve Wikipedia.

2) No we don't make assumptions here. The consensus has been reached based on the Prespa Agreement, dictionaries, reliable sources, and etc. But now WP:MOSMAC is the only thing that matters, nothing else. For this reason examples like South/North Korea and USA are all bad, and they have been discussed already to reach consensus and have WP:MOSMAC. I mentioned Koreas to show you that the USA example doesn't make sense. Thanks for understanding that.

You said But you and Jingiby are both pushing a universal change of "Macedonian" to "North Macedonian" that is not warranted either by English usage of the terms in context or by WP:MOSMAC, which explicitly allows "Macedonian" when the context is clear (as here), and is in accord with common English usage (which is the primary arbiter in the English Wikipedia).

Nobody said that all occurences of Macedonian in Wikipedia should be changed to North Macedonian. Everyone can read what I said, so no need to explain further. I made specific suggestions for specific cases that are in line with WP:MOSMAC and cause confusion in my opinion. We all try to improve Wikipedia, but you comment on different things than what we discuss here, and you try to give a wrong impression of what has been said. Please read the messages before you respond. Nikokiris (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You actually don't really know what common English usage consists of or else you would cease talking about Prespa and dictionaries. Those are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to common English usage. Reliable sources in determining common English usage are things like websites and media outlets. Common English usage is what the average English speaker uses, not the know-it-alls who write dictionaries and certainly not the non-English speakers who wrote Prespa. We have looked at this before on this page and common English usage still uses simply "Macedonia" for North Macedonia. Leaving the text alone is also "in line with WP:MOSMAC". MOSMAC neither requires using "North Macedonian" nor prohibits it. In the cases which you cited earlier, I found nothing whatsoever ambiguous or confusing about them so no change is necessary except to push the WP:POINTy editing that certain editors use to further the political agenda of one of Macedonia's neighbors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, what means that: Jingiby is pushing universal change of "Macedonian" to "North Macedonian, etc.?" Are you kidding? My proposal was that we can use north Macedonian and Macedonian simultaneously, but carefully and depending on the context. Jingiby (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jingiby, that may have been your intention, but the message that came across was "We can change them all to North Macedonian because MOSMAC says we can" with this direct quote: "if WP:MOSMAC does not forbid its use, then it is no reason to avoid this designation everywhere in articles on Wikipedia related to this issue". Once you said this your next comment was colored irreparably by the context which you had created. Perhaps you should not have led with the demand for "everywhere" if your actual intent was to retain the status quo where articles already lead with "North Macedonian" and then use "Macedonian" appropriately thereafter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, that above is your biased interpretation. I personally don't use the term North Macedonian. My idea is that this use is not forbidden. It means it may be used on Wikipedia, but with caution and only based on the specific context. Jingiby (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist (Taivo) I live in the US and I can tell you that the country is called North Macedonia, and expressions like North Macedonian people, and North Macedonian food are very common when people talk, because they haven't read the Prespa Agreement, and they don't know all the details that you and me know, and actually they don't care. Do you expect from people that look on google maps and see a country called North Macedonia to believe that the cuisine, music, films of North Macedonia are called Macedonian or North Macedonian? It's natural to call everything North Macedonian when you don't know the political background of this country. This is what you fail to understand. In any case, what matters is WP:MOSMAC, so no reason to discuss what people think and common english usage.

Macedonia is common only in North Macedonia, not in the rest of the world, and this is confirmed by reliable sources. If you do a quick google search and you set the right criteria to get results from the last month or year, then you will see that North Macedonia is used for the country and North Macedonian is also very common even in governmental documents and international organizations.

There are people even in North Macedonia who understand that North Macedonian is correct when it refers to all people, you see an example here, where a professors says "the flag is North Macedonian, because it is not only the flag of the Macedonians, but of all the citizens of the country."

Another interesting example is here, where you see that the cuisine of North Macedonia was presented as North Macedonian cuisine. Indeed people of North Macedonia don't like that, but we have evidence that even the North Macedonian Government uses the adjective North Macedonian for the cuisine, so my suggestion to say North Macedonian cuisine in Wikipedia is absolutely reasonable. Please don't tell me that this is a mistake, because the mistake was last year when it was called Macedonian cuisine which violates the Prespa Agreement, and Greece reacted immediately and then they removed Macedonian. So this year they wrote directly North Macedonian which is natural and only nationalists complain. The word North cannot be offensive.

I cannot understand why you attack to us and what is this insanity about using North Macedonian when the text is ambiguous. We are a cyclopedia here, not a TV show. Nikokiris (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that it was decided that when referring to the state (e.g. the flag), "North Macedonian" is to be used when using an adjective. When it comes to ambiguous usage (e.g. cuisine, films, art), it is decided on a case by case basis. During the last year, after the initial implementation, most instances of the first category have been changed into "Macedonian", as well as virtually all those belonging to the second category. --Antondimak (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For a single purpose account whose only reason for being on Wikipedia is to keep quibbling about WP:NCMAC, you are remarkably persistent in misunderstanding and misrepresenting that guideline. No, the distinction is not between "referring to the state" and "ambiguous" usage. All the contentious cases where we had to consider "N.M." versus bare "M." are cases where the adjective refers to the state. There's cases where the adjective refers to the ethnicity or language, where we only ever use plain "M.". Then there's cases where the adjective refers to the state, and it is exactly these cases where we use either form on a case-by-case basis. Then there's the special case where the adjective refers to the state and the following noun together with it refers to an official institution of the state (e.g. the parliament); this is where the guideline opts for a preference for "N.M." or the possessive/compounding constructions instead. (Even though that special rule has no basis whatsoever in either Wikipedia policy, outside usage or official prescription, but be that as it may). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want semantics to be an issue, so, looking at the examples I gave, are they wrong? Isn't the flag a state related entity for which "North Macedonian" should be used? Can't both forms be used for things such as cuisine, films or art? I the answer is yes then there is no point arguing. --Antondimak (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) apparently I am not the only problem you have, every time you don't know what to say, you call users single-purpose account. You attack now to Nikokiris (talk · contribs). I find his comments short and to the point, and thanks to this user, there is already a correct update on this page. So no reason to attack to him. You should thank him.

In any case, the user Antondimak (talk · contribs) is not a single-purpose account as you may know, so why you avoid answering by giving a very clear answer in line with the decisions of the RfC? We don't care about your personal opinions here, only for the decisions of the community.

Because you constantly talk about your personal opinions, I will remind you what the Arbitration Committe of the RfC deciced, which is here and says:

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).

I will also remind you what 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).

Conclusion: the user Antondimak (talk · contribs) is absolutely right and both the RfC decision and WP:MOSMAC support his claim and show that the opinion of Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is his personal opinion and is not important for the community of Wikipedia.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) I would recommend you, first, to talk to people in a nicer way, and second, to give a responsible answer here as an administrator and not as personal opinion expressed by someone who makes arbitrary decisions. Please respect all those users who worked during the RfC. Peace in balkans (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's always amazing how you anti-"Macedonian" POV pushers quote the first half of the MOSMAC paragraph, but completely ignore the second half: The shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context. One general example of this may include subsequent and repetitive references to the country in articles that are primarily about topics related to North Macedonia, its culture, and its people. In other words, if the context is clear, then don't go pushing "North" just because your side "won" in Prespa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist It's always amazing how you completely ignore the second half of the Arbitration Committe decision about people shown here:

The RfC decision says: Therefore, use of "Macedonian(s)" to refer to people from North Macedonia should not be changed to "North Macedonian(s)" universally. However, the closing panel does find a consensus that "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 ethnicity.

TaivoLinguist Can you explain to me and everybody here, how is it possible to completely ignore this second half of the decision? Or will you tell me that there is no confusion in a page that uses the word Macedonian to refer to at least five different things?

- ancient Macedonians

- Macedonian Bulgarians

- ethnic Macedonians

- Macedonian nationals

- Macedonian Jews

What else do you need to be told so that you respect the RfC decision? Peace in balkans (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your basic problem, User:Peace in balkans, is that you do nothing whatsoever but generalize here. You have presented not a single concrete sentence in this article that confuses you. You are simply making blanket statements without a single, solitary word of context. Your argument is "since this article mentions all these things as Macedonian, then it can mention none of them as Macedonian without 'North'". That's not an argument, that's a political ploy to push your anti-"Macedonian" POV. In a section on "history", there were no "North Macedonians" so the context is clear. In a section on language, there is no "North Macedonian" language. In a section on economy, the article is entitled "North Macedonia" so there is no context where non-Macedonian Macedonians can be interpreted. You just throw out a list of words in different contexts and expect us to accept your argument. Point out specific paragraphs or specific sentences where you are confused. But your blanket contextless accusation is ridiculous and pointless. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist The user Nikokiris has made specific comments here about music, cuisine, clubs, films. I would recommend to all of us to focus on that, and not to start giving arbitrary answers that end up to long discussions. The problem is that the RfC decision written by the Arbitration Committee includes some clear cases were North Macedonian is used, and the way WP:MOSMAC is written made these cases unclear. There was indeed consensus about the form of WP:MOSMAC but no user knew that even WP:MOSMAC will be ignored later in practice, and we will have these long discussions now. That's the problem here and the reason for so many different opinions. So I will wait for Future Perfect at Sunrise to take an action that guarantees the usage of WP:MOSMAC in practice without contradicting the RfC decision. Otherwise, this issue will go back to the Arbitration Committee. There is no reason to continue this discussion here. I contributed to the RfC, and then I left you to write WP:MOSMAC. After 14 months WP:MOSMAC has not been implemented yet. It seems you need someone next to you to tell you what to do. It was a big mistake to leave you alone, and this time I will be here until this problem is solved by respecting all those who worked hard during the RfC. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Peace in balkans That is the biggest bunch of nonsense that you've written so far. All you said was, "There are problems everywhere I think there are and I don't care to discuss them. I have made my dictatorial demands because I interpret MOSMAC to mean put 'North' everywhere that you can put 'North' and if you don't then you are ignoring my interpretation of MOSMAC." And you are wrong. User:Nikokiris has not "made specific comments". He made very general comments with no examples of where there was a problem, just a lot of [[WP:IDLI|"I don't like having 'Macedonian' without 'North'"}}. If you think that a laundry list of general topics is "specific", then your English dictionary is certainly not serving you well. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I have already submitted two requests on the bottom of this page, but in your opinion, I don't care to discuss. The way I see it is there is already an issue discussed reported by another user. The issue is very concrete although you think is generic because you have never read the page of North Macedonia. Otherwise, you would realize that the references to music, cuisine, clubs, films, are all in the same section, and they are not many to confuse you. The conclusion of the discussion is that there is a problem from the jump between the RfC decision and what is written in WP:MOSMAC, and then another big jump from WP:MOSMAC to what happens in practice. So there is no reason to open another topic, because we will face the same problems. First, we need to update WP:MOSMAC. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice that those two edit requests have flown through without opposition because they were specific. I'm not talking about those. What I'm talking about is the blanket comment that is nonspecific, that basically says, "I'm confused," without any specific options for fixing. I'm not confused, not at all. The two big words at the top of the page explain it all: North Macedonia. MOSMAC is fine, it accurately describes common English usage. What you apparently want it to do is push a political agenda that isn't based on common English usage (as Wikipedia is supposed to be based on), but on the political agenda of one party to Prespa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that I need to send a request, I added my concrete comment in a request. Thanks. Nikokiris (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In the culture section, music, cuisine, clubs, films seem to be about the whole country and not the ethnic group of Macedonians. If so, North Macedonian is the form that precisely describes what the text refers to. I don't say Macedonian is wrong, but Macedonian is very misleading here, and WP:MOSMAC actually suggests North Macedonian in this case.The page is about North Macedonia, and it may be obvious to someone that music/cuisine/clubs/films refer to North Macedonia, but most of the text in the page focuses only on ethnic Macedonians although the page is about all people of North Macedonia. I suggest a clear explanation in some elegant way that music/cusine/clubs/films are about the culture of all people and not only of ethnic Macedonians.

I don't want to push North Macedonian. Music/cuisine/clubs/films of North Macedonia is good as well.

4 people including me agree with my suggestion, and 2 people oppose my suggestion so far. Comments from more users are welcome. Nikokiris (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done. This is far too unspecific. This template is meant for simple "Change X to Y" requests, not for vague suggestions of general nature. --T*U (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

North Macedonia called recently its cuisine North Macedonian cuisine in official level. Click here to see the picture. This is a rational decision after the last year's fight with Greece because the cuisine of North Macedonia was presented as Macedonian cuisine and they had to correct it. This year they decided to use the adjectival reference North Macedonian which is correct, although people may not like it.

Given that the North Macedonian government calls it North Macedonian, we have reliable sources to make a change and call it North Macedonian cuisine in the page North Macedonia. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, that's blatant fake news anti-government source you are citing there, probably one of the worst in the country, so is far far far from reliable source. Second, of course on the official products, the country is using 'product of North Macedonia', however, no one in daily life or on TV, news, or wherever refers to the cuisine as North Macedonian (in the cultural sense). So okay, I think it was enough, stop with this propaganda. It's becoming lame... — Tom^(T2ME) 10:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please give us a link of reliable sources that says it is fake news? If you do it, it's done. Btw I hear North Macedonian every day in the UK, not only cuisine. If you live in North Macedonia then of course you haven't heard it. People in Greece have the same problem, they still think the country is called Skopje. Peace in balkans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I find your anecdotal evidence dubious - I doubt NM is relevant enough to pop up in the daily discussions of average UK citizens or news outlets. I also doubt the average Greek citizen seriously thinks it's called "Skopje" as was the case pre-Prespa, despite its common usage and other forms of denialism from nationalists. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, clearly no consensus for this change. CMD (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you know there is no consensus for this change? it is in line with WP:MOSMAC and people have already expressed positive comments for an update in the previous comments that some users tried to avoid for many different reasons (too unspecific...). Now it is specific comment, we have reliable sources here from official sources of North Macedonia that suggest North Macedonian cuisine and we should allow other users to tell us their opinion. Nikokiris (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nikokiris: This is just not the proper way to discuss it. Edit requests templates are meant for simple requests of the type "Change X to Y", basically for non-disputed changes. If you want input from more editors, the way to go is to open a WP:RfC or use other tools for dispute resolution, see WP:DR. --T*U (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no consensus because you state "we should allow other users to tell us their opinion". That necessarily is a step prior to reaching a consensus. CMD (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear there is no consensus because the proposer cited WP:MOSMAC as an authority and it does not support his edit. MOSMAC says that "Macedonia can be used when the context is clear in order to avoid unnecessary repetitiveness". The paragraph where the proposer wants to add "North" has already used the term "North Macedonia" twice so the context is crystal clear for any editor not trying to push a political agenda. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is beyond the scope of my closure of this edit protected request. CMD (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Before or Until. Simple lesson on English prepositions for the non-native speakers. "Before 2019" means that something ended prior to the start of 2019. "Until 2019" means that something ended sometime during 2019. Prespa went into effect in February of 2019, so the correct English preposition is "until", not "before". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We write in English. With English words. With their English meanings. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Does it not make more sense to have,

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was annexed by the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then incorporated into the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans conquered the region in the second century BC and made it part of the much larger province of Macedonia. The area remained part of the Byzantine Empire, but was often raided and settled by Slavic tribes beginning in the sixth century of the Christian era. Following centuries of contention between the Bulgarian, Byzantine, and Serbian Empire, it was part of the Ottoman dominion from the mid-14th until the early 20th century, when, following the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the modern territory of North Macedonia came under Serbian rule.

instead of,

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was incorporated into the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then annexed by the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans conquered the region in the second century BC and made it part of the much larger province of Macedonia. The area remained part of the Byzantine Empire, but was often raided and settled by Slavic tribes beginning in the sixth century of the Christian era. Following centuries of contention between the Bulgarian, Byzantine, and Serbian Empire, it was part of the Ottoman dominion from the mid-14th until the early 20th century, when, following the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the modern territory of North Macedonia came under Serbian rule.

I mean, for one, the Persian empire was a much more foreign power than Macedon and secondly, some parts of North Macedonia were (arguably) not annexed. I think "incorporated" is more general and therefore more suitable in the case of Macedon rather than the Achaemenid Empire, given the complexity of the situation with Macedon. Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We cannot make assumptions on what Empire was "more foreign". Paeonia wasn't peacefully incorporated into Macedonia. It was conquered as much as Thrace and Illyria were. --Antondimak (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

North Macedonia does not 100% overlap with Paeonia. Better to stick to more general wording as some parts of North Macedonia were likely not annexed i.e see: Philip II of Macedon absorbed[52] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon in 356 BC in Ancient and Roman periods section. My proposed change is consistent with the rest of the article. Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Modern political technical terms have little or no meaning when applied to the ancient world. "Vagueness" and "general wording" only have meaning when trying to use vague and general words. "Annex" is a modern technical term that is meaningless when applied to the distant past and thus cannot be included in "general wording". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the implications of "annexation" get less clear moving back before the concept of the nation-state, and even more so in the era of city-states. The real issue here is history alone taking up half of the lead. CMD (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. "annexed" is indeed a poor choice of wording in the article.

My quick fix would be,

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was incorporated into the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then into the kingdom of Macedonia during the fourth century BC. The Romans conquered the region in the second century BC and made it part of the much larger province of Macedonia.

I also agree that history takes up a fair chunk of the lead and I will go further to propose trimming and merging the two paragraphs focused on history. Beat of the tapan (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Still I think "incorporated" sounds weird, especially when it comes to Persia, since it was more of a temporary unequal alliance, dissimilar to the Satrapies. Maybe "subjugated"? --Antondimak (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

incorporated does sound weird, but it still has that generality which is suitable for the uncertainties of ancient history. I think "subjugated" can be implemented in the following way,

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was subjugated by the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then incorporated into the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans conquered the region in the second century BC and made it part of the larger province of Macedonia. The area remained part of the Byzantine Empire, but was often raided and settled by Slavic tribes beginning in the sixth century of the Christian era. Following centuries of contention between the Bulgarian, Byzantine, and Serbian Empire, it was part of the Ottoman dominion from the mid-14th until the early 20th century, when, following the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the modern territory of North Macedonia came under Serbian rule.Beat of the tapan (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest:

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was subjugated by the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then by into the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans conquered the region in the second century BC and made it part of the larger province of Macedonia. The area remained part of the Byzantine Empire, but was often raided and settled by Slavic tribes beginning in the sixth century of the Christian era. Following centuries of contention between the Bulgarian, Byzantine, and Serbian Empire, it was part of the Ottoman dominion from the mid-14th until the early 20th century, when, following the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the modern territory of North Macedonia came under Serbian rule.

But I still find your version better than what is currently in the article. --Antondimak (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Subjugated" is good. The second verb could be something as non-technical as "then was ruled by Macedonia", thus avoiding "incorporated". That's basically what happened on the ground--one day the Persians showed up for tribute and the next day the Macedonians showed up. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is what we should convey, but doesn't "rule" imply the administrative system that didn't exist? --Antondimak (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically dropping the "into" in your suggestion could work: The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, presumably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[10] In the late sixth century BC, the area was subjugated by the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then by the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how that got in there. --Antondimak (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I still favor a 2nd non-technical verb for comprehensibility, if possible. Beat of the tapan (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If other people prefer it too we could go with that, and I myself find it better than the current version. However I think such terms imply a non-existent local administrative apparatus. --Antondimak (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated. What to replace incorporated with can remain open in this discussion. Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Why you’ve done this ? The official and constitutional name of this country until 2019 was Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia beside the denial of Greece. The name FYR Macedonia was only used in international organization and by small number of countries. Please change this immediately! Lizzz22 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Before 2019 the country had no single internationally recognized name, and, more importantly for Wikipedia, had no single commonly used descriptor in English. --Antondimak (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

yes but Macedonia was recognised and used in more countries then FYR Macedonia. Lizzz22 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not actually true User:Antondimak. It was demonstrated conclusively in WP:ARBMAC2 that the most common label in English was "Macedonia". It wasn't even close. The US government even used "Macedonia" as the official name. That's the reason that WP:MOSMAC was definitive in using "Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When it came to reliable sources it was pretty mixed, and when it came to specific organisations, like Eurovision, fYRoM was the only form used, yet despite that Wikipedia artificially removed almost all mentions of that term. Anyway it isn't of much importance now, the situation is now different and the decisions have been taken. --Antondimak (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

FYROM was a provisional reference. The constitutional name was Republic of Macedonia. Something very different. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The official temporary description in most international institutions was fYRoM, in the absence of a recognised name. --Antondimak (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That was because Greece was opposing the use of the official name. Not that there was not a recognised name. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Antondimak have you ever actually read the discussions at WP:ARBMAC2? Obviously not. Wikipedia measures usage by actual usage and FYROM never, ever caught on in English-speaking countries except in a limited number of rarified diplomatic circles among people and organizations who had to deal with Greece. It was never, ever in common usage across the broad spectrum of English usage. What the UN does has no bearing on Wikipedia or on common English usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It was used in reliable sources, who tend to be closer to diplomatic circles, and by certain organisations, and that was not reflected in Wikipedia. I will again will use the example of Eurovision because it perfectly demonstrates that. Even though the name "Macedonia" was never used in the competition, it was always called that in the equivalent articles in Wikipedia, and is stilled used in these articles today. Not the current name, not the name used then, but an old name that wasn't recognised and was never used there. Anyway this conversation is mostly pointless, because it's mostly about former policy. --Antondimak (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and even though "Macedonia" will still be commonly used for years to come in English, Wikipedia, which had always used Macedonia's official name despite Greece's objections, switched readily to the new official name following Feb 2019's referendum to change Macedonia's constitution. It was the right call to end years of acrimony (hopefully). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Macedonian Radio Television where there is ongoing discussion about forcefully renaming this broadcaster when a name change has not yet occurred. Pickette (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of the discussion I will provide this document which officially renamed it. --Antondimak (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the argument on the other page User:Antondimak. I've been involved in too many of these discussions that creep to other pages and they are a nightmare to track. I realize that you posted here because User:Pickette's announcement wasn't NPOV and it should have been. But please don't make the problem worse. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I did it for exactly the reason you understood, so that's that. --Antondimak (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this change because beside the politics and the actually name change that went into force in 2019, North Macedonia is still referred as Macedonia in many informal occasions.

“North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia, colloquial known as Macedonia is a country in the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe.“ Lizzz22 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that in the basic information box about North Macedonia, that below Republic of North Macedonia should be only the translation in Macedonian (Република Северна Македонија) in italic and the translation in the other minority languages and in the co official language (Albanian) should be displayed in reference next to the Macedonian translation.

This will be according the language law and the macedonian constitution. Because there are parts of North Macedonia where the official tables and documents are only issued in Macedonian, not in Albanian. [[User:|Lizzz22]] (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry in citation not in reference (for example look the Croatia’s information box) Lizzz22 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your section above, the current wording in the first sentence is the result of a consensus achieved here a while ago. As for the infobox changes, I'm not opposed to it. --Local hero ^talk 03:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lizzz22, I washed my hands from any so-called "North" Macedonian matters a long time ago when editors refused to get the point that the majority population rejects that name, and studiously uses "Macedonia" by itself as a short form (something not official), and deliberately sidesteps the constitutional name. But just to provide an answer to your point: it's funny that you call Albanian "co-official" yet are aware that Albanian is not used at every level. That more makes it a minority language with a privileged status. That said, I don't think it really matters for the infobox since the feature is a Wiki creation and its properties do not have to conform to anything particular. When a country doesn't have a codified constitution, by consequence it won't have an official language. Great Britain is a case in point. I have found over the years that this whole project is not about consistency but about keeping the community happy, and often at the expense of unequivocal facts and flagrant manipulation of Wiki policies. In this case, the inclusion of Albanian is small potatoes particularly as the majority population feel that the name change was unconstitutional and contrived to promote the interests of the Albanian population there. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

oh I see, I don’t know what to say, I’m new here and I thought that the whole idea of Wikipedia was to serve real informations and facts and don’t involve politics in it. I’m disappointed and I don’t think that I will consider Wikipedia as valid source from now on :/ Stay safe!! Lizzz22 (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Lizzz22, despite the best efforts of the Wikipedia organization, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference in the vast majority of college classes (including mine). Wikipedia is the strongest when it comes to listing references and further reading, but weak when it comes to presenting factual material since each article's accuracy is based solely on the interest level and expertise of the editors involved with it. There is also a great deal of inconsistency between articles. In articles such as this one, factual information must be sifted through three different groups of editors--the editors who back the Greek nationalist point of view and insist it owns exclusive trademark rights to the word "Macedonia", the editors (of which there are very few) who back the Macedonian nationalist point of view and insist that the ancient Macedonians were Slavic ancestors of modern Macedonians, and the neutral editors (who balance out the Greek editors) who look at the facts through a neutral point-of-view (although the Greek nationalist editors insist that we are Macedonians just because we don't uncritically take the Greek side). Thus controversial articles like this one are not written from a completely reliable neutral point of view letting facts dictate, but through a pseudo-factual compromise situation that all sides can accept even when it doesn't precisely state the facts. I teach my college students when they can use Wikipedia and when they should steer away. This is one of those articles that should be treated like a rattlesnake--look at it and notice that it's a dangerous snake, but walk far around it so that you don't get bitten. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As you decided to define the "Macedonian side" as those that "insist that the ancient Macedonians were Slavic ancestors of modern Macedonians", then obviously the "neutral" side will be biased. If somebody "neutral" supports the middle ground between the position supported by the practically entirety of international academia, all Greek official institutions, and all official institutions in North Macedonia, and that supported by a minority in an opposition party in North Macedonia, that person isn't really neutral. --Antondimak (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You have provided a perfect example of a Greek nationalist claiming that anyone who isn't 100% on the Greek side is "Macedonian". I have never once said that following Prespa Macedonia's name wasn't "North Macedonia" officially--both domestically and internationally. But the simple fact that YOU ignore and refuse to admit is that common English usage still tends to favor "Macedonia". But that's not the issue here. There was a compromise that the Greeks begrudgingly allowed ("until 2019") which is the text in the article. The initiator of this thread was asking an honest question, "Why don't we write the actual truth in Wikipedia?" and they were provided with an answer concerning Wikipedia process and why it sometimes isn't perfectly accurate for reasons related to politics and nationalism. And I fully realize that you will respond to this and try to prove that your Greek position is the only thing that matters, but that's not what this thread is about and the issue has already been settled. I will ignore any future input from you here because it is utterly predictable and off-topic. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm definitely not nationalist but that doesn't really matter right now. If you aren't aware, in Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and here are the sources regarding this issue. The name of the country wasn't even included in the final list structure as it was overwhelmingly "North Macedonia" so there was no real point keeping track of minor developments. My answer was about comparing the "Greek" and "Macedonian" sides when it comes to history. It's like comparing the positions of scholars and conspiracy theorists. Of course somebody not being on the "Greek side" (which isn't Greek, it's what international academia as well as official institutions in both Greece and North Macedonia support), is biased towards the "Macedonian side" (which isn't Macedonian, it's only supported by a minority of politicians in an opposition party in North Macedonia, and a small minority of citizens). --Antondimak (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the part you added later as I was looking at this through the recent changes. Oh well, at least other people that might read it may get something from it because it's important that foreigners that deal with this issue that understanding that stuff. --Antondimak (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone off on a bit of tangent, maybe we should get back to discussing the infobox and how to make it more consistent with wikipedia articles of other states that are multilingual on an official level. Kromid (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at European examples, I can only find the Netherlands as being most comparable to the Macedonian situation as it has Dutch as the official language, with three others as co-official, yet only the Dutch name is in the lead and the infobox. --Local hero ^talk 03:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should follow the Netherlands example, especially because it is rated as a B-class article while this one is C-class. Kromid (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Netherlands are not the best European example for the situation in North Macedonia. Belgium is better suited to be compared with, it has three official languages and they are all mentioned in the infobox. Contradictory to North Macedonia, the three "co-official" (actually they are referred as regional languages) languages of the Netherlands are not recognized at state level, as it is the case with the Albanian language in NM. N.Hoxha (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Antondimak, @TaivoLinguist, do we Bulgarians get a say in things?? :))))) I never meant that offensively or remotely seriously in this case but remember that it is a tripartite dispute and all three of us have our official narratives. As far as the big two are concerned, middle ground does not exist and neutrality is impossible both from ideological and editing viewpoints. There is no third group and nobody is able to edit or discuss the subject without exuding bias one way or the other. This is not because the conflicting parties are radicalised knuckleheads but because of the nature of the dispute: it's either matter or antimatter! The editor to start this thread wasn't concerned about the rights and wrongs of the Greek-Slavic impasse but of the status of Albanian within the country in question. "Reliable sources" are a dung heap and if you ask me just an invented concept for the stronger constituent of the community to bully the weaker (and I can point you to conversations which went into overdrive over the matter) and even when sources support the "weaker" party, the stronger always find a way to wag the dog and push through their own perspectives. The only thing both of you can do is use the article space to present both viewpoints, otherwise Taivo will be absolutely correct that WP falls down as a respectable outlet. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not part of any side. I just want Wikipedia to present the historical reality, as it is usually very clear. I only intervened to to clarify a misunderstanding of the issue. As can be seen here, Wikipedia should not find the middle ground between any two narratives, and the supposed "Greek" and "Macedonian" narratives, regarding history, are definitely not equivalent. This isn't even an issue, as Wikipedia correctly and almost unanimously disregards the narrative that used to be pushed by VMRO as clearly ahistorical, as it never got any academic support (and therefore there were no reliable sources to quote), and by now VMRO isn't in the government, and it itself abandoned the narrative. It is incorrect to claim that people who support the moon landing happened are dogmatic because they view all other positions, even the "neutral" observers that say that part of it was faked, as false. The person who tries to find a middle ground between a conspiracy theory and reality is still pushing a softer conspiracy theory, simple as that. When it comes to the name, it's long been established that Wikipedia does no original research and instead uses reliable sources. This could have its problems, but that's how it is, and if somebody thinks this should change, this is not the place to do it. Anyway, I have really gotten off-topic, but I think it's important editors talk to each other about this stuff, as I have seen similar misunderstandings cause significant problems down the line. --Antondimak (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I get your point. I'm another one who doesn't buy "reliable sources" either and I am speaking from personal experience here. But just to help you for future reference if seeing you need to reiterate the point you made above, where you say "The person who tries to find a middle ground between a conspiracy theory and reality is still pushing a softer conspiracy theory, simple as that.", you are spot on there, and this is known as an argument to moderation. Hope that helps! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In Wikipedia's case, it's essentially what is called undue weight in the guidelines. --Antondimak (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the Netherlands model will work better for North Macedonia because in some parts of the country documents are issued in Serbian and Macedonian, but not in Albanian. This doesn’t mean that Serbian is official national language (like Macedonian) but that can be used also in official documents so I suggest that we should do like Netherlands and in citation to add translation in all languages (Albanian, Turkish, Serbian, Romani and Aromanian). Also I don’t think that is appropriate to have to consider greek or bulgarian opinions because for now this is the real situation. If the Government of NM decide different and change something we will adapt the page according that. Lizzz22 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis since there are rarely two situations that are identical. There are several layers to the issue and one-size-fits-all simply doesn't work.

• A multinational organization determines language policy beyond national official language use (EU)
• Two (or more) languages are official and must be used equally on all documents (Canada)
• One language is official, but other languages are regionally official and used only regionally
• One language is official, but other languages are used regionally for convenience
• One language is official and no other languages are used
• No language is official, but one language is traditionally used and other languages can be used in official communications for convenience (US)
• No language is official and different languages appear regionally

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So, in other words, think logically about THIS situation and don't get tied in knots about what happens in other countries' infoboxes. If there is one national language for North Macedonia, then that goes in the infobox. If there are regional accommodations, whether official or not, then those should go in footnotes. The infobox should be reserved for national information and regional specifics or exceptions should be relegated to notes. But it all depends on the size and relative importance of the region. That's my point--take the situation for North Macedonia on its own merits. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According your sayings then in the info box should be only the Macedonian language. Also I think that North Macedonia’s situation is best described with “ One language is official, but other languages are regionally official and used only regionally” because beside that Albanian is co official, major of the documents are issued only on Macedonian and this is protected by the law of languages. If you need proves I’ll send. Lizzz22 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also you can’t get document only on Albanian or only in Albanian and Serbian/Turkish but u can get only on Macedonian. Also u can’t get document on Macedonian, Albanian and Serbian. Take for example the ID Cards and passport, the Albanian language is optional. Lizzz22 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no comparable case in Europe. The Albanian language is official in NM per constitution. After the last amandment every language that is spoken by at least 20 % of the population is an official language. Since 25 % of the population of NM speak the Albanian language there is nothing more to add or to change in the infobox. The current version describes the case very clear. Crazydude1912 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the language law isn’t part of the constitution of North Macedonia. In the constitution there is only Macedonian language. Some albanian parties gave this as condition about entering in coalition with the winner of the recent election. Montenegro is good european example, compare Macedonian language law and Montenegrin language law and then compare their info boxes. Lizzz22 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please check out this part of the constitution: The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet"Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Crazydude1912, the constitution you are quoting is clearly pre-Prespa. After Prespa, was a new constitution written to replace "The Republic of Macedonia" with "The Republic of North Macedonia" or was the old constitution just amended to reflect the name change? It makes a difference over whether or not the language section is still in the new constitution. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: You are right since North Macedonia is mentioned in my quotation without the North. The language law yet is still the same and wasn't affected by the latest amendment. Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Taivo's categories above, the situation in NM probably best reflects One language is official, but other languages are regionally official and used only regionally. Because the languages are not on equal levels I personally think we should drop the second translation in the infobox as the Official languages section already specifics Macedonian and Albanian being official. Again, best to keep everything concise as possible. Kromid (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Albanian language is not treated as any other minority language in NM. Since we got the reference for the status of the Albanian language in NM in terms of clarification everything is done. In Wikipedia we constantly use the 20 % law in correspondence with the constitution. There is no reason why the infobox should be changed in this case. Don't forget that in the last census more than 25 % of the whole population declared the Albanian language as their first language. Crazydude1912 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way this whole thing here looks like a political motivated movement by Lizzz23 who tries to delete the Albanian language out of North Macedonian related articles like he did in these recent edits [1][2] . Crazydude1912 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

haha wtf if u see the whole changes of on the Kicevo page u will see that albanian languages is everywhere but not in the info box Lizzz22 (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

i dont want to remove albanian from anywhere and it should stay as official language in the info box, but since all languages of NM can be used in official documents in some parts of NM, I think that it would be good to provide translation of the official name in all languages and my idea of how to do that is the one that I represented above Lizzz22 (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

nothing political dear ;) Lizzz22 (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Should this article be nominated for GA? I've nominated it once, but another user removed it. Thoughts on the article? Is it good, bad, need improvement? Andrew012p (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs a lot of improvement. The history section is biased and goes into unnecessary detail, sources are missing for entire paragraphs, too much weight is given to political topics, while other sections like the infrastructure and education are very short and superficial, there are some unreliable sources and dead links too. So, again a lot of things need to be improved. Maybe take a look at the French Wiki where this article is featured to see how much better it is covered there. DD1997DD (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the nomination because the alternative would be to immediately fail it. This article is not close to meeting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Please do not nominate articles you have not significantly worked on yourself for GA. If you feel an article might be GA quality, use the talkpage like you have done here and/or contact the most significant contributors. CMD (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright guys. Thanks! :) Andrew012p (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Re your revert here, I will not remove the bolding, since I do not do edit wars. I would, however, ask you to reconsider. Your edit summary says We usually bold alternative names beside the one used in the title. It was a name used widely in the press before last year and many people would recognise it. No, this was never an alternative name. It was not even a name, but a completely artificial description created for one purpose only, to facilitate UN membership for Macedonia without hurting anyone's feelings. If you think back, I think you will have to agree that it was never "used widely in the press", at least not in the English langage press. It was mainly used in "official" contexts and because it was "the thing to do". And yes, many people would recognise it, but only because of the weirdness of the whole thing. Do you really insist on using bold text for no less than three versions of the awkward description that no-one will miss? --T*U (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It was used in the press, just because it was the official name. It was just uncommon in common language. The fact of it officially being a description and not a name, and somebody's perceived legitimacy of it, is largely irrelevant regarding its use in the English language. We even added a the other former name in bold in brackets just after the name of the article in the first paragraph, just because people could have been used to seeing it before the agreement. The same can be said for this provisional description, which is placed in the third paragraph and not right at the beginning. --Antondimak (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

FYROM was never an official name for the country. It was a provisional reference used to refer to the 'Republic of Macedonia' in international organisations/events as a result of Greece's oppose on the name 'Macedonia'. It definitely should not be bolded in the lead. Plus, it was never common in English-language press releases and articles. And people who saw it before the agreement can see it now too. It doesn't need to be in bold. — Tom^(T2ME) 16:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As Tom says. Also: The bolding was removed in April 2019, and as far as I can see, it has not been challenged. So why should it now suddenly become necessary again? --T*U (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As if you needed further confirmation, FYROM was never even a "name". The UN called it a "temporary designation", but never a "name". Our previous discussions, included at WP:ARBMAC2 showed definitively that it represented never more than a tiny minority of usage in English. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't get much time to edit these days.

In February I left a note suggesting we say somewhere that the name Macedonia is still used and asked for opinions. Nice to know it attracted masses of feedback which I have just got round to reading. It took hours. As the page is archived, I cannot go back and add to it.

I feel my point was misconstrued entirely by everyone because I never sought to place Macedonia in any official context, but within some de facto arrangement. In all honesty, the talk took a U-turn but if something productive came about, I am glad! So as to clarify myself more clearly I am going to explain myself once more putting a new angle on what I was hinting at.

Imagine you go on holiday to any country, especially one where English is not an official language. An example is Italy. There you can be sure to buy souvenirs and other merchandise containing "I love Italy" or "I love Italia" etc. Asides the public and even a great many publishers and broadcasters abstaining from uttering "north", this article is about what I am certain is the only country in the whole of history where you cannot find the name celebrated, i.e. there is no "I love North Macedonia" t-shirt, mug, thermometer, fridge magnet or badge. Everything is raw mention of "Macedonia". Now I fully understand people may want sources and in time I can dig some up. But is my point now clearer? Comments welcome. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, but since Wikipedia is consensus-driven, logic sometimes takes a back seat to the politics of simple nationalism, and the size and dedication of a nationalist delegation makes a difference. As you have read no doubt, it took a lot of effort just to get "(until February 2019, Macedonia)" in the lead. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and full understanding. I think you might be right with regards wide consesnsus. Macedonia until 2019 only is factually wrong because they still call it that today across the board. I truly feel that its omission sends a false message of conformity over North albeit indirectly. I can't control the masses and so I will have to cease trying. Thanks again for all your help. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is biased, it mostly or exclusively reflects the opinion of Northern Macedonians (term which I use for clarity, not prejudice). As so, it should contain a bias warning near the top. Bowzee (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dream on. Kromid (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with this [3] set of edits by User:Åttiotrean 226. First, the passage is heavily ungrammatical, to the point of being incomprehensible. What on earth is "the internationally legal subjectivity of the state" supposed to mean? Second, the edit creates the impression that independence was somehow not validly achieved until validated by UN membership two years later. This is factually incorrect. It is not the UN's job to endorse, or refuse to endorse, a country's existence as a sovereign independent state. A country that successfully declares independence ("successfully", in the sense that its independence isn't factually challenged by others) is an independent country the moment it does so, no ifs and buts. UN membership plays no role in making this act a valid one. (Incidentally, neither does recognition by individual other countries or organizations.)

In this sense, putting emphasis on the timing of UN membership in this very early position right at the top of the lead section is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, as it insinuates independence was somehow incomplete until then. The UN membership process can be covered appropriately in the "international relations" section below, as it has been. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree, I think you explain the whole issue well Fut. Perf. I do not understand why the UN admission is so important as to have it in the first few sentences, not to mention the comprehensibility issues you state. I guess the infobox addition is fine, but the rest is definitely not an improvement. --Local hero ^talk 15:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If other users disagree with my edit, I have no intention of pushing for the edit I made. Accusing me of edit warring, however, I think is way over the top. I admit to reverting an edit once, which I concede was unnecessary (and I can apologise for that as well), but the second time, I actually inserted two sources that, as I interpreted it, showed that my disputed claim was correct to begin with. This is not edit warring in any sense of the word. It is fine by me to remove the information from the lead, but I still maintain the information has an important place in the infobox. There is nothing ungrammatical about the sentence I wrote. “International legal subjectivity” is a valid term, as shown by a simple Google search. I fail to see what is ungrammatical here. In any case, I have reverted the edits I made (including deleting the sources). Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason they changed was Greek protests that wanted Macedonia changed to north Macedonia because according to them they had owned south Macedonia they forced them to change because the protests were so heavy police were with gas masks and deadly gas (about 10 meters big) was thrown at the protesters and in 2019 the name was changed to North Macedonia (Macedonian: Северна маседонjа) Wikivanov (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't completely understand that, but there was an agreement to change the name. Are you referring to the incident when Greek protesters, who were against the idea of the word "Macedonia" being included in the name, were confronted by riot police in the summer of 2018 near Prespa, where the agreement was signed? --Antondimak (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikivanov, per Antodimak, you are referring to an incident. That it itself had no bearing on the wider proceedings. No sentient Greek person wanted "Macedonia" to be part of the name even if most did not engage in unrest. Likewise no sentient Slavic Macedonian was prepared to accept a qualifier, least of all when considering that its only reason for the self-humiliation had been for the regime to shoehorn the land and resources towards capitalism and lock the population into Euro-Atlantic security and economic structures. The constitutional name changed for the simple reason that the powers that be changed it. All as simple as that. --Edin balgarin (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Guys, regarding conspiracy theories, we need to look at the facts. "Skopia" became "North Macedonia" for Greeks by Tsipras, and in the next election, Tsipras was voted out. In North Macedonia, "Macedonia" became "North Macedonia" by Zaev, and in the next election, Zaev won. Not only that, but only after 2 months after the treaty was put into effect, Zaev's candidate for the presidency of the country won the election. Yet, people here claim that North Macedonians still want to be called Macedonia... It's pure madness. Instead of claiming that Greeks want to call North Macedonia still "Skopia" and that's why they voted Tsipras out, people here claim that the people who gave Zaev (the guy who made "Macedonia" into "North Macedonia") a win in the elections do not like the name change or use the old name. This is typical Wikipedia, where 10 people from VMRO can come and form a "consensus" that is totally opposed to reality. 2A01:C23:C401:7200:4C0A:5D1C:2B80:482C (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

People living in the US or New Zealand can come and claim that no, because their great-grandfather lived in Montenegro, THEY know that everyone uses the old name still. It doesn't matter that Zaev and his party won the elections AFTER the name change, THEY know. And, THEY know that nobody was using "FYROM" or "Skopia", because THEY know, as their communist great-granddad told them all about how the great communist Alexander the Great was not a Greek. THEY know. The rest of us just live in reality, where Zaev kept winning the elections in North Macedonia AFTER he personally got the name change both signed and ratified. 2A01:C23:C401:7200:4C0A:5D1C:2B80:482C (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? This "discussion" here opened by the -now banned- User:Wikivanov actually contributes nothing to the article's improvement and should have been removed all together per WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. What is claimed about unpopularity of the deal, here in this "discussion", is also untrue; the polls confirmed a strong public support for it (more info here). Any use of this talk page for things other than improving the article, is unhelpful and needs to stop. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As the title says, NM joined the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) on 9 Nov 2020, but it is not reflected in the country's Wikipedia article.In the fourth paragraph, you can read: "North Macedonia is a member of the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the World Bank, OSCE, CEFTA, and the WTO." But nothing about the mentioned BSEC.

Wikipedia's own article about BSEC states: "North Macedonia's application was vetoed by Greece after Turkey vetoed the previous application of the Republic of Cyprus, prompting Greece to cease to approve future applications from any country.[3] However, North Macedonia was admitted into the bloc on 9 November 2020.[4]", topic that seems to be accepted and not under any kind of discussion in such article.

For that very reason, I suggest the following:in NM's article, in that line I just quoted at the beginning, I'd add: "North Macedonia is a member of the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the World Bank, OSCE, CEFTA, BSEC and the WTO."

It may seem a small change, but not a harmful one at all in my opinion! Aviracoc (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi can we mention in the history section that the state has no relation to the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia due to the prespa agreement and to avoid confusion. ^{[1][2] [3]}