Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 9

message: Check this:
WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."
After this, and keeping in mind the equal-votes poll, reverting is considered vandalism!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C)
That is why the naming dispute section exists. Bitola 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just bolded the two words in the previous quote that make the difference between section and initial paragraph. I think, that since the name of the article is still negotiable (both in WP and in a diplomatic level), the very LEAST we can do (for now), is to include the other name in the top. Sorry, tough luck!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Round of Reverts 

message: :::::FYROM stays in the initial paragraph. And in bold. WP:CON does not apply to 5 users discussing in a page. Until you can provide TRUE concensus, deal with the reverts, based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does it apply to a position beheld by less than five users with NO consensus.   E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not democracy, and i am sure we all know that. and this goes to all the users involved in this topic. i am saying and insisting in keep being compatible with what is going on with the name problem of this country. and it is so simple:it is recognised by both names, so both names will be stated in the first paragraph. anything different than that is simply POVish. --Hectorian 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a democracy, but various users insinuate edits without requisite consensus or sufficient discussion beforehand.  Problems result ... and nothing herein solves them.    Moreover, the article can't possibly be partial given the note linking to a dedicated section regarding this issue.  And I'm sure Macedonians would take issue.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The article can't be POV-ish because it has a compatible dispute section. High Elf 22:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just listen to what you are saying, E Pluribus: If there was even a true WP:CON by 5 users that we should change the name of the article to "Banania", that would supersede the rule of WP:NPOV and we'd rename it? Let aside that the "consensus" you are referring to is not valid.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument = red herring.  Pot, meet kettle.  Given the presence of a dedicated section (and link), accusations of partiality are bogus.  Moreover, given the contentious nature of this article, my point is that NO consensus exists for said changes, no matter how proper they are.  Perhaps you should try to constructively discuss and propose changes before insinuating them ... or should have expressed dissent in January when the conciliatory note was first implemented.  In cyberspace, noone can hear you scream.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Jkelly. That is exactly my point. There was no real discussion as to which viewpoint is the majority one, nor was there any discussion about which are the minority ones. The alleged "consensus" was conducted under our noses, in no time, by irrelevant users. On top of that, I disagree with your edit summary comment. It is evident to me that WP:NPOV is much more powerful than WP:CON, because NPOV is what the consensa seek.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are pages and pages dedicated to this issue, openly discussed; if discussions were conducted under 'noses', it's only because said users had them elsewhere or were otherwise indisposed or not compelled to dissent.  And I'm unsure who or what the inchoate "irrelevant users" is supposed to refer to.  And, still, little has been presented to substantiate that the status quo is not impartial.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I should have stepped forward then, but I was a newbee. We learn as we age (see my favorite motto in my userpage). Irrelevant users, means that I haven't seen the names of the involved parties of the "consensus" as frequently appearing in this talk, as I have seen tens of other users. Status quo substantiation, can be described in 20 characters: WP:NPOV#Undue weight It is obvious that the "Naming dispute" is the hottest issue and the reason why we have 7 arcives of talks already. My POV is that this is THE most serious issue, for the article and for the readers. I think the "Naming dispute" section is definitely unequal in strength to: (1) the name of the article and (2) to the initial paragraph. That's all I've been substantiating about since the beginning of this talk!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I just saw this: The Note. See how many users are trully involved in this "concensus"!!!   NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is rather inchoate and am unsure what it demonstrates; the wikilink to "The Note" and that discussion differs from that which has been in place for the last two months.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus and NPOV 

message: About the bolding of FYROM in the first paragraph, we've been having a dispute similar to this over at the Persian Gulf page. It seems that according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, alternative names should be bolded. However, the dispute is ongoing, whether "Arabian Gulf" is an alternative name or not. The issue here is different - FYROM is definitely an alternative name - however this whole issue seems too controversial to make things simple. What does everyone else think? --Khoikhoi 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that if we can bold, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, an alternative name of a gulf that has been called mostly Persian for far too long, we should definately bold the alternative name of a country that has been using the other name for just 15 years(for as long as the alternative name). not to mention that this name is in use officially by many countries and organizations in diplomatic level. --Hectorian 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Adding the bolding per... WP:BOLD !!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding 

message: A simple google search is not clear to see how often the names are used. One needs to eliminate all possible mentionings of the name "Macedonia" for purposes that do not refer to the country. Also, since this is the English version of WP, one has to search for pages written in English. Such a test has been conducted below. The results are obvious, please compare:
*"FYROM" (10.6M results).
The search uses all possible forms of FYROM:"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia""Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia""FYRO Macedonia""FYR of Macedonia""FYR Macedonia"Excluding:  Wikipedia and "Republic of Macedonia" (to avoid double inclusions).Please note that this exclusion, does not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).	
*"Macedonia" (6.49M results).
The search excludes some obvious words that refer to ...other Macedonias [sic]. Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions:
{| border="0"	
-Greek-Greece-Hellas-Cyprus-.gr (ie all Greek sites)-Thessaloniki (the capital of the Greek part of Macedonia)-Salonica (other name for the above)-Bulgaria	
-Ohio (yes, there is a... Macedonia in Ohio!)-Pittsburgh (in Pittsburgh too!)-Connecticut (you guessed right)-"South Carolina" (here too)-Canton (also)-Texas (also)-Alabama (also)-"Michael Macedonia" (there is an artist by that name)-Corinthians (The Bible mentions the name –as Greek, ofcourse)-wikipedia	
-Former (to exclude all possible mentionings of the name for FYROM)-Yugoslavian (also)-Yugoslav (also)-"F.Y.R.O.M." (also)-FYROM (also)-FYRO (also)-FYR (also)Same note as left: These exclusions, do not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).
:(Nobody has disputed the validity of the above tests yet.)
Why did you exclude Yugoslav??? It doesn't seem fair. The country name in the Yougoslav federation was Socialist Republic of Macedonia. And it was an integral part of the Yugoslav federation. Not to mention that until 1991 Greece had NEVER objected the name of the country. --Dipazi 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At last! A dispute for the Google test! Did you even bother to check what the result would be if I didn't exclude "Yugoslav" and "Yugoslavian"? Check it here: 6.64M results!!! Thank you for your contribution in my point!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Fifth'''

message: In view of all this, the name "FYROM" should be used as the name of the article. If not (for now), then at the very least, it should appear in the intro sentence along with a well presented link to a Naming dispute section as well. Whatever more arguments are presented by the other side, they are just one more justification that BOTH names are under strong debate. I am NOT taking sides in this debate (as the FYROM users are), I am only saying that BOTH names are strongly considered, they are BOTH significant and they should BOTH be presented in the article EQUALLY. Any other solution is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be treated as mere vandalism.
As you see, there is a strong case for including the name FYROM in the intro. For those not yet convinced, that their view is naive, POV and nationalistic, or just "any-version-is-fine-as-long-as-there-are-no-reverts-so-let's-get-done-with-it" I will keep reverting the article, unless there is true consensus. I am closing my statement now, I have an article to revert.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Conclusion'''

message: #FYROM in the intro -OR- rename article as such
#CLEAR link to Naming dispute section in the intro (not *, but at least ¶).
#Naming dispute section with a neutral summary of the Naming dispute article (as it already is).
*A version that incorporates all three points, to an acceptable level, had been created by admin ChrisO [here] at 02:35, February 20, 2006, but it was reverted by E Pluribus Anthony with the edit summary comment: '"(while not disagreeable, restoring prior intro, which was the result of prior discussions; talk to propose changes)", which is no longer valid. Naturally, all subsequent changes (that do not affect any of the above points) can be added.
*The alternative is request for comment for moving the article to the exact new title "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (which can not be considered offending, since it incorporates the current title with the addition of 2 factual words, and without the abbreviation "FYROM").
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: :Perhaps,NikoSilver,there is nothing to be said against the statements u have made here. or there is noone willing to reply and contrantict your edits... --Hectorian 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please disregard my last 'edit summary comment', as it was written under extreme psychological pressure. Naturally, I do not intend to performing 3 rv's for ever, I am willing to discuss this, and hopefully one of the two sides will be convinced.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note, that since I consider the above "strong case" indisputable, I will be glad to participate in the WP:RFC procedure, or a new poll if you wish.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the answer why somethimes nobody bothers to answer some of the stuff written here: often it is irational and pure nonsence (and insulting also). So when you dont get a comment, don't jump into a conlusion that nobody dares to opose you. Maybe nobody thinks that some comments deserve an answer. Furthermore I tried to clear some pretty obvious stuff, but I didn't get attention from some users whatsoever. Instead it was promptly burried under a ton of mostly irrelevant stuff. --Realek 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for including your wisdom in this talk. Anybody else? or shall we start the poll and the WP:RFC with these as the comments for your party?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realek,these things are relevant to the issue. instead of denying what is true, better try to find something to contrantict the edits. what NikoSilver wrote is not his ideas or thoughts, and not replying to them seems that u silently accept them as a fact. --Hectorian 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hectorian surely you should be more critical towards your self. Many relevant issues didn't get answered here. They got buried under greek nationalistic comments. So dont claim Victory quite yet. Lately I avoid commenting about my name/nationality issues. I consider those "discussions" irational and they are also insulting me. NikoSilver, If you want a poll on this issue, you surely wont object to polls on similar issues, or am I wrong? --Realek 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please illustrate your point and I will gladly answer, as I always do (unlike you). I am signing off for tonight. We will continue tomorrow. This blind nationalistic POV pushing to exclude vital information without discussion will be highly criticised in the poll/RFC.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: NikoSilver you are of course 100% correct. The fact is that narrow minded administrators here who do not get this issue at all, will threaten you with the 3RR. It happened to me. --Avg 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least consensus among greek users is not an issue :))) --Dipazi 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U are right Dipazi! the same goes for the skopjian users as well :))) --Hectorian 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least you should decide what insulting term for my nationality you will use in the furure. We can't be Skopjians, Fyromijans, Bulgarians and Slavomacedonians at the same time --Realek 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realek, I stopped to answer insulting comments from a few users a long time ago because, believe me, they don’t deserve an answer. Bitola 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh huh, I see, so a Greek that comes from the region of Macedonia would be a...? Because this is who Macedonians are to Greeks. You are Macedonian as per yourselves. Sixty years ago you decided to appropriate a name and a history that was someone else's. It happens that there are people here who know a thing or two about how you came up with this name. Of course I don't blame you personally, since you were born within this propaganda and it's virtually impossible to think out of the box. So there is no "insult" in calling you with a neutral name (and not the one you stole from us). --Avg 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This still reminds me of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Bomac 14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Opening paragraphs should make reference to FYROM. Indeed, the above statement is true: the Republic willingly accepted the official provisional name "FYROM" provided by the UN. All wiki contributors to this question have done exhaustive research and seen that international organisations also use the term 'FYROM'. Some people object to this; I respect their objections but facts are facts. The bottom line is that RoM/FYROM and Greece are very good neighbours who co-operate and agree on all important issues. Athens supports a united Republic to its north, secure and free of corruption. The 'FYROM' issue is a temporary fact between friends. Politis 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hi, thanks for your help with protection of Republic of Macedonia article. I'm just asking you if you can make a little change and protect the compromise version of the page. Namely, before several months, after a long and exhaustive edit warring around the name, all relevant editors (both Macedonian and Greek) agreed to make a compromise. The compromise was to create a new section especially intended to describe the naming dispute and to include ALL DATA related to this dispute there (although such sections are unspecific in all other articles about a country).  The compromise was related to the intro section as well: we agreed to include a piped/wikified superscript note (*) to the initial sentence/reference that will lead to the naming dispute section. Now some users are not satisfied with that and initiated the current ongoing edit war, but I think it is fair to protect the compromise solution as the only one relevant at the moment. One of the compromise versions is this:
. Bitola 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't see them because they are like the Yeti! You can also not see any counter-arguements, because there aren't any. You can ONLY see POV-nationalistic replies like "insulting (?) comments", "insulting nationality term", "these discussions are irrational and insulting me", "your comments don't deserve an answer" and "there used to be a concensus between Me, Myself, and I". Nobody from the FYROM side has true arguements, nobody dares to point out the consenting users, and nobody has what it takes to call for an RfC or a poll.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every user can check that archive and see that you, user:NikoSilver was pretty much involved in the discussion before the reaching of the compromise solution. Where have you been then to say something against the compromise?  Bitola 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks LionKing. User Bitola has a point, I should have stepped up. Trully, I didn't see it, as I was kept busy discussing with him irrelevant matters in other sections of the talk. And even if I had, I'd not know what to do since I was (and may still be) a newbie (I didn't even know how to check 'history' so as to see messages posted in other parts of the talk). The fact that something unjust had been unilaterally decided without me and other users noticing it, doesn't mean that we must not rectify this injustice. Does it? On the contrary, the more time the allegged consensus version was on air, the greater the harm that has been done and the greater the remedy needed.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection of [[Republic of Macedonia]] article

message: There is a dispute since last weekend (April 2-3, 2006) between mainly Greek and FYROM users, as to whether the alternative name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" has to be inserted in the intro paragraph of the article. The Greek position has been outlined just above in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Straw-ncensus and WP:NPOV#Undue weight section. Until now, only a part of the outline of the FYROM users position has been posted at the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Compromise solution section by User:Bitola. The new readers of this page should not base their judgement on the complete arguements of just one of the sides.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! At last we have an attempt for a list of the allegged consenting parties. Can you please also add links to the quotes of their approval in this parody of a consensus?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bitola, why don't you click the only consenting "Greek" User:Erath to see his/her Babel? Even if s/he is Greek, do you call "consensus" 4 pro-FYROM users and only 1 allegged Greek user? Are you writing this seriously? Do you have what it takes to ask for a new true consensus, since this one is disputed already by more users than those who participated?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to New Editors

message: Guys, please be more constructive instead of riding the tall horses and throwing personal comments to everybody else. We all can understand feelings of people forced to name their motherland by such an ugly name. On the other hand, while UN and many countries use this name we have a duty to our readers to somehow mention it in the intro. Any ideas how to do it without upsetting understandable feeling of Macedonians would be very welcome. abakharev 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not discovering America here and this argument has been repeated countless times, but since there is a bilaterally accepted name, which is FYROM, why not use it in Wikipedia? Neither side likes it, but they both have to use it until they reach a solution. It seems obvious to me that deviating from that name would be taking a position on the issue. --Avg 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no bilateraly accepted name! The refference is a temporary solution forced on my country in a time and circumstances in wich it wasn't able to refuse it. Greece should be ashamed for doing that. Anyway it's not bilateraly accepted name - there is no bilaterally accepted name. And there's the whole point: a country doesnt need bilateral agreements for its name, it gets to choose its own name! Furthermore the last proposal of the mediator Mathew Nimitz was rejected by Greece. Meanwhile Greece is loosing even more ground (and the trend is unreversible - those 110+ countries that recognize the constitutional name can't unrecognize it). This is irational problem created by Greece and is slowly moving towards is righteous solution. You can't just impose a irational problem and then expect a compromise. Not to mention that Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore so now the situation is even more ridiculouis: greeks would like us to be a former republic of a former country. Sad. --Realek 13:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You completely miss the point. Greece has no problem with you. In fact, as you probably know, Greece is your biggest economic partner and an advocate of your EU and NATO membership application. We want the best of relations with our neighbours and we have made many compromises in order to achieve that, think for example of Greco-Turkish relations. Our issue with FYROM is that while there were plenty of names to choose from (for example Vardar Republic, it was used previously anyway), Tito decided to name your region Macedonia and start to teach Greek history as yours. How can you really expect us to accept that? And STILL, we are at talks with you RIGHT NOW in order to find an acceptable solution to both parties. --Avg 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please be more constructive here

message: Change:
:As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.
To:
:As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it is sometimes formally referred as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
As I understand it, there is a dispute if the country voluntarily adopted such a strange name. On the other hand it is clear that some authors use this title. abakharev 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that the provisional reference shouldn't be mentioned at all. To repeat again, I will accept it in the first paragraph only if we remove the Naming dispute section as I created that section as part of the compromise. I will never accept overloading of the article with the naming dispute and mentioning of that in more than one place in the article. Bitola 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bitola try to put your patriotic sentiment aside for a moment. It's not degrading to say that FYROM is the official UN name, since it is TRUE. How about making FYROM link to the naming dispute? Miskin 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: On 4 April 2006, the RoM/FYROM parliament apologized to the victims of the communist regime. Does the apology extend to the Greek Slav-Macedonian victims who suffered at the hands of Slav Macedonian communists in Greece, during the Greek civil war? Many of those perpetrators moved to southern Yugoslavia and some continued their oppressive policies. The Skopje parliament said some 50,000 people were subjected to communist oppression in Macedonia (Fyrom). Politis 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont try to look sad about the faith of Macedonians under communism. Your feelings towards Macedonians are well known. Now about the apology - it was needed. Everybody must face the facts from their countries past. I just wonder when Greece is going to do that. After all Macedonians suffered much more at the hands of extreme-right Greek governments than from the Yugoslav communists. --Realek 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk is irrelevant. Please FOCUS or the protect tag may remain here forever.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliament apologizes in Skopje

message: The provisional reference and naming dispute between two countries are important to be mentioned in the article, but we already have a whole section dedicated completely to this dispute. What I and other users are opposing is not the mentioning of the provisional reference itself, rather, for us is unacceptable to overload the article with this dispute as the article about a country should deal with many other aspects of one country, not with dealing with one single issue in several sections.  This article shouldn’t be focused on this dispute in such extent. For that reason, I invite you to vote only for the first option.
Bitola 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What we are supporting

message: It is argued that the alleged "compromise" was a parody. Please see the position of the Extended version supporters analytically here.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended Version Supporters

message: "Republic of Macedonia" as  state name of FYROM included Greek History of Macedonia!It is a falsification of Macedonia.
*See:http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD
:Vergina/Macedonia 09:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fyromian history falsification

message: The name "FYROM" is only one spare name as description of the state.
:Vergina/Macedonia 06:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To User:[[User:Kunzite|Kunzite]]