Talk:North Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position

message: Comment copied by User:E Pluribus Anthony:
:One of the counts presented, and concomitant logic, is highly misleading: there are 1.35 million references to the "Republic of Macedonia" (less FYROM spellout) online, not zero as presented.  As well, there are 2.38 million for the FYROM spellout. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% right. The same applies to vice-versa, i.e. many sites that refer to the FYROM option, will be left out because they happen to have one of the exclusions above. I am not trying to oversimplify this with the simplistic approach "let's call it even", but indeed, I suppose this is a highly complicated issue, and I tried my best to illustrate it and find a solution. I suppose that counting all those millions of sites is not an option either. This is one more example why I believe that the name issue has to be solved with a clear disambiguating factor (but this is another's decision). See, we wouldn't have this problem! •NikoSilver• 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about Google test

message: :Comment copied as is by User:E Pluribus Anthony:
:Moreover, I suggest addressing this title issue (if at all) through a usual move request or the like after the poll is resolved, since the currently preferred option (#2, noting RoM) is garnering a plurality of support.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: (a) There are 14 more days for that poll to end. I wouldn't be so sure about option #2 in view of this reasoning. (b) If the poll does not resolve this, I will follow your advice and chase it down to ArbCom.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: Nikosilver, you have made a nice review of the usage of the terms for the naming of my country. And I say that, finding NPOV info but presenting it with PPOV you might succeed to persuade other people to take the name FYROM.
But that's lame. I don't want my country to be called FYROM and you won't call it that way. Period. <The previous unsigned comment was posted by anonymous User:82.114.78.8 on 20:36, April 25, 2006 at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and was transferred here as-is.>
:As you see, I have even used all sources that do not match what you call my PPOV. Furthermore, the proposal is not for renaming the article to FYROM, but to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Finally, as a personal note, I hate the FYROM term (or its spellout) as much as you do. My personal view on the matter is along the lines of: New Macedonia, Slavomacedonia or Vardar Macedonia. Unfortunately though, Wikipedia is not the place for inventing names...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice. 

message: Thank you ChrisO for explaining this just now, and have a nice time in your holiday. Your explanation would really bring an end to the debate if you hadn't endorsed the previous poll (with the exact same reasoning) about the name of the inhabitants of this country, for which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that their self-identifying name is Macedonians, rather than the other option Macedonian Slavs and totally unlike the present poll, where there are two huge differences:
 
*The country does self-identify as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under certain circumstances
*The name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is more common in English, as proven above.
 
Furthermore, if what you say was the case, then I strongly suggest that you or somebody else, alters the wording in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms policy to reflect the following:
*"Self-identifying name" as a term, must be re-examined. I propose "preferred self-identifying name". (because FYROM in this case indeed is self-identifying under certain circumstances).
*that the (new) preferred self-identifying name must "...be the name of articles", rather than merely "...used within articles".
 
If that was the wording, then I wouldn't have bothered creating this, you wouldn't have endorsed and closed the previous poll with the exact same reasoning, and my points above would be invalid.
 
Moreover, if WP wants to be:
:...descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.
...then I propose that since any article will be named after the preferred self-identifying name, there should be a sizable box, on top, with the following information (with the ROC/current example):
*Preferred self-identifying name: Republic of China / Republic of Macedonia
*Local Official name (e.g. constitution): Republic of China / Republic of Macedonia
*International Official name (e.g. UN, other int'l organizations): Chinese Taipei / Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
*Local name(s):
**Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó / Macedonian: Republika Makedonija
**Tongyong Pinyin: JhongHuá MínGuó / Albanian: Republika e Maqedonisë
**Wade-Giles: Chung-hua Min-kuo / -
*Other Specific names:
**China: Taiwan(?) - / Greece: Republic of Skopje
 
Something along these lines is descriptive, NPOV and complete, much like the intro in Republic of China and like the versions you wanted to upload earlier (with this comment supporting it). Much like the one that the designers of this poll were opposed to. Again and again and again and again and again.
 
And now something else:
 
To E Pluribus Anthony and the others who designed this carnival of a poll:
WTF would Option #4 and Option #9 still be doing in this poll? After 10 whole days from their creation and dozens of apparently "invalid" votes that would otherwise certainly fall in Option #2?
Why did you allow these options that start with "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so as to imply that the name of the article would be changed as such?
Is there a fraction of logic in naming an article Mobile phone and then starting the intro paragraph like "Cellular phone is..."?
Or didn't you know about that? Didn't you even find out after the long debate in Option #4 between FlavSavr and Avg (creator of #4)? Not even after my repeated comments about the many relevant options that exist so as to divide and conquer the supporting votes? And why didn't you dissallow it (or should I say "dissavow it") right after its creation? Wasn't that interpretation of the policy active then and it is now? Shouldn't you have deleted them at sight, then?
Actually, I think you are wrong about your interpretation of the guideline. The key paragraph to this article naming issue (it's even called "Article names"!) precedes both paragraphs mentioned by the two sides. The text follows word by word. Bolding has been used to illustrate the parts that make the difference:
 
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names:
----
===Article names===
Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.
 
Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.
 
The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).
----
End quote.
 
I guess "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" obviously falls in the "proper nouns" category, rather than the "descriptive names" one (like the United Nations example, rather than the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season one). The underlined text within my rationale above is an exact copy-paste of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper names section with no omissions whatsoever.
 
I could understand people who disagree with my reasoning, but it is another thing to reinterpret the guideline according to the preferred end result. Especially when the guideline text is accurate and in clear English.
 
Finally, I think it is a huge mistake to write an article about the UN or EU and include within these articles names of countries that do not conform with the UN or EU standard appellation. This is like "putting words in UN's mouth!" It is highly unacceptable, biased, POVish and confusing. Check above in my rationale to see many other examples of that fallacy with all international organizations! Maybe, since Wikipedia is now prescribing new international appellations, we should change it's slogan to: "It's your world..."
 
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks but WHAT???

message: Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.
 
Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.
 
The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).
----
End quote.
 
I guess "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" obviously falls in the "proper nouns" category, rather than the "descriptive names" one (like the United Nations example, rather than the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season one). The underlined text within my rationale above is an exact copy-paste of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper names section with no omissions whatsoever.
 
I could understand people who disagree with my reasoning, but it is another thing to reinterpret the guideline according to the preferred end result. Especially when the guideline text is accurate and in clear English.
 
Finally, I think it is a huge mistake to write an article about the UN or EU and include within these articles names of countries that do not conform with the UN or EU standard appellation. This is like "putting words in UN's mouth!" It is highly unacceptable, biased, POVish and confusing. Check above in my rationale to see many other examples of that fallacy with all international organizations! Maybe, since Wikipedia is now prescribing new international appellations, we should change it's slogan to: "It's your world..."
 
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article names