Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles

Option "B.1"

B1 was added very shortly before the beginning of the RfC phase and with little discussion. Since it appears to be similarly "non-standard" as the previous Proposal H, do we really want it to be on the RfC page? There's no discussion about its conformance with the rules or its perceived advantages or disadvantages so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur - it should be removed. It was added after the deadline stated by Fritzpoll. Options that have not been discussed should not be put forward in the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we removed H, I agree. However only the B1 option should be removed. Some of the other edits by this user deserve some thought before reverting them. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to not start now a discussion about B1 (and implicitly, I will not try to re-add B1). I was not aware of a deadline for proposals, and I am surprised there exist deadlines for common-sense things. IMHO, instead of insisting on procedural strictness (to continuously in flux rules that are not crystal-clear to everyone) anyone of you could have said "your proposal complicates the debate while referring to a minor stylistic issue. let's discuss this later." To any reasonable person this is more than enough to indicate "I better remove the proposal". IMHO, you have an incorrect PR approach. Or maybe this is the bitterness effect of you dealing with too much vandalism... Dc76\^talk 19:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Option C vs. G

What happened to proposal C? BalkanFever 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems they eliminated it when they reduced the number of candidates from 5 to 4. It had no first preference votes, that's probably why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yea, really what? Proposal C was the second choice of more than half the participants here. Hey if I knew that at least one should have placed it first for it to go through I would have placed it first. Macedonia (country) is a perfectly Ok proposal and as seen in the parallel Ireland case. I am going to be direct: removing this proposal has a seriously consequence of inflating the probability of A to pass since it now is the only proposal that uses the name Macedonia for the country without having any of the potential problems of D (which has Macedonia (country) as one of its options).

I request that C is reinstated in the page. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked J.delanoy for clarification. Perhaps he meant to remove proposal G :)BalkanFever 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing G would have made more sense since it could be thought of as the one that would only satisfy the ARBCOM mentioned "faction" more than others ...right? But by removing a perfectly good proposal (C) and keeping a proposal that is unlikely to receive any significant support (G) solely because of a minor voting technicality is strange to say at least. It is not justified by anything that was stated from ARBMAC2 to here. Removing [C] will just force every single supporter of "Macedonia" as a name of the country to accept [A] as the only choice. Why did we tie the common name to the primary topic clause? These two can exist apart from each other.

At the parallel Ireland case almost all proposals are in the form of Ireland (something). Georgia (country) is already used and accepted. This is very peculiar that one of the proposals that were less likely to cause any problems was removed like that. It wasn't against policy nor was it influenced by any "block" effect (quite the opposite). If the voting details were disclosed prior to the selection - especially the clause that every proposal should have been the first choice of at least one user - I am 100% sure it would have passed. I would have placed it first, I only voted B first by a very small margin.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken out B1 since it appears that late addition was overlooked. As far as G vs C, lets wait for J.delanoy - I have to admit I don't know the math behind the voting system used. Shell ^babelfish 09:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as G goes, I'll have to emphasize the point that was made by J.delanoy, it is a proposal that was the first choice of more than one person. Any further refinement of the number of choices should be done by the greater community itself. --Radjenef (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• • We wanted to aim for about 4 proposals or so, and on the preferential system used (STV), the results came through as (in order from the top of my head) BADC, followed by G if we expanded to five proposals. Because G is the "hot potato" of the bunch, I think I agreed with J.delanoy that we bump C and include G instead. We maintain that five proposals or above is an excessive list of options and compromised to four - we can always replace G with C if it is desired. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is four the magic number? If both proposals had significant support they should both go through. We could also include Macedonia (country) as the other WP:NAMEy option under B and call it a day. B is about Macedonia being a dab page. We can emphasize that Macedonia country is also a possibility that is compatible with having a dab page at Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of course partial here, but if I my nevertheless register my opinion, I believe that the STV counting method reflects something quite sensible here, in honouring the fact that C had a very large number of second-choice votes, being regarded by many a reasonable compromise candidate while not being very sharply distinguished from B; whereas G is the hardline position preferred by a minority but with little to no chance of gaining an overall consensus. Why serve us the "hot potatoes" by preference? I think following the STV method would be more conductive to finding common ground rather than further polarisation in such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, am beyond a doubt convinced that the two who put proposal G as their first choice were not acting in good faith. By allowing this proposal, the referees are basically asking for the canvassing to continue and for the discussion to be derailed by new nationalists. If you're going to discount opinions not grounded in policy anyway, why have a proposal that is only attractive to opinions not grounded in policy? BalkanFever 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did it pretty much for the reasons that Fritzpoll listed, but if you want me to remove G and add C, I have no problems with that. Also, new accounts, cf. accounts that were created after the start of the arbitration case, or after the start of this particular discussion on June 12, will be given the weight that they would be given in any discussion, so I don't think that canvassing will be a big issue. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced G with C. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't we have both? There are really good arguments in support of both proposals. The initial consensus was that we would only be removing Proposals that are supported by one person. I really do not see why we should narrow our choices that much at this stage. If the community truly doesn't support G, then that will show through their comments! It isn't really fair to agree on a method, vote and then backtrack and change the way by which this process works! --Radjenef (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I only included G in the first place because I thought it would be less of a hassle if I did. To be completely honest, I included it assuming that it would not gain much support. If it had, I feel that it would be my duty to reject it, as I do not believe it lies within policy to use such a long, confusing name when three other choices, including one that is indisputably unambiguous, are available. I apologize for including it in the first place. I should have just gone with my original thoughts (don't include it at all), as now this creates even more drama than it would have if I had simply not included it to begin with. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be a valid reason for not endorsing it, but it doesn't justify not allowing the community to consider it. The original plan was to vote in order to leave out the options that weren't supported by at least two people. This is the only reason I hadn't objected to the winnowing down of proposals. It isn't exactly fair to (ex post facto) go back on what was agreed before the voting began, at least not if we want this process to remain credible... --Radjenef (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this exercise is to try to achieve some kind of consensus. Besides the fact that G was not compliant with any of Wikipedia's naming policies, the possibility of any consensus forming over G is as close to zero as one can get without actually being zero. (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Fairness? Is it fair to allow the community to consider a proposal that I believe I would have no choice but to reject? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid J standing on his own on this issue, I would like to indicate my concurrence that in my interpretation of the Arbcom case, specifically the aspect cited by J above, proposal G would be difficult to acknowledge as having consensus even if it had significant local support. In this respect, I am happy with J's action above. (after e/c) The original plan was a preference voting system, not the system you describe - that system is enacted properly by J's alteration Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The referees are all in agreement on this issue. While I understand that editors may strongly feel their point of view is best in this case, we have to be guided by community norms and existing policy. Shell ^babelfish 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A non-referee would have any right of not endorsing proposal G, but I do not think that it would be fair for G to be ruled out by referees as "not compliant with policy". That is particularly so since it does provide a policy rationale and since evidence has been provided to prove that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a more common term than "Republic of Macedonia". There is also an argument, albeit contentious, about de facto self-identification. If anything, community norms and especially existing policy make proposal G a very valid thing to consider. How can we even judge difficulty in acknowledging G as having consensus if we don't allow the greater community to consider it? This is what some people had to say about winnowing down proposals [1], [2], [3]. I do not see who and on what grounds decided on leaving out a proposal preferred by more than one user. By that same reasoning, perhaps proposal A should also be removed for violating wikipedia's disambiguation policy! --Radjenef (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration decision indicated explicitly that we had to consider community consensus in line with existing guidelines, conventions and policy. There was no point presenting to the community a proposal that had no significant support (it was fifth in the rankings of support) and had an excessively dubious foundation in Wikipedia's practices, whilst for the others that is either less clear or non-existent. I understand and empathise with your frustration, but at the end of this process, someone was always going to be unhappy with the outcome. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It feels a lot better to know that someone at least empathises with my frustration. I would have been perfectly ok with it if the proposal had gone through, only to be rejected by the wider community. It's just that I don't understand why we can't have 5 proposals; is it really that irregular? A large part of rejecting it has to do with complaints by the same "block of editors" who have accused other editors of stonewalling. Does it really have a dubious policy foundation? ...and if you think it does, is it really for the referees to make such a call, or for the community? I thought the purpose of refereeing was to maintain decorum and enforce !vote by making sure that all endorsements were backed up by a policy rationale. Assessing that policy rationale is a completely different thing, as is preventing things from being considered by the wider community. I am really disappointed. At least as far as I'm concerned, the results of this discussion will never be truly valid, because options were kept away from the community's consideration. --Radjenef (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef, read the ArbCom decision more carefully. These referees have much more power and responsibility than just traffic cops. They are specifically empowered to remove proposals and discussions that are not relevant or compliant. They are not here primarily to "maintain decorum" or to "enforce a vote". Indeed, this isn't even a vote, it is a means for them to get input on forming a consensus and a final decision. They are not bound to even follow the majority here if another proposal has stronger policy foundations. (Taivo (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

(outdenting) While there might have been some value in putting proposal G to the community in order to get a firm consensus against it, the fact is that - as others have said - it's fundamentally incompatible with existig policies and guidelines. There's a standing rule that "consensus does not trump policy" and there is simply no point in putting a proposal to the community that could not be implemented, even if it had achieved consensus, which this one certainly wasn't ever going to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal G included a policy-based rationale. You obviously disagree with that rationale, but that is your POV on the interpretation of policy, not necessarily that of the community or NPOV. If proposal G were included, then there's a chance the community might agree with me that it doesn't "trump policy" and that the policy rationale is valid. Whether they would support it is another question, but I guess we'll never know unless it is added back to the list of available options. --Radjenef (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether you or I think that Proposal G was policy-compliant. The three arbitrators/referees did not think that it was. Their opinion is what matters here. (Taivo (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

If the arbitration committee clarifies by saying that this is acceptable and not out of line, then I am willing to drop the whole case of arguing for Proposal G's reinstatement. I will still view this as a discussion whose credibility was lost, at least in my eyes, but I'll stop in recognition of the fact that there is nothing further I can do about this. --Radjenef (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef, if you will scroll up the page just about 4 inches you will see all three of the abritrators saying that they were in agreement that Proposal G does not comply with policy and should be excluded. (Taivo (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

He's asking about arbitrators, not our three referees. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom has already given the referees this authority. Might I refer you to the text of WP:ARBMAC2? "In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline." The onus is clearly meant to be on the panel - the referees - to make this judgement. Since they're all very experienced editors and admins, with experience across a wide range of topic areas, it's not unreasonable to defer to their judgement on this. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?). If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the consensus is not that "version G is not in compliance with policy". I formally requested clarification from ArbCom here, before reading your comment. If it turns out that it is a violation of policy, then by all means I will respectfully back down. --Radjenef (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. The consensus being referred to clearly means the consensus of the referees. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

True consensus, no, however, this is such a rare occurrence on Wikipedia (where anyone can edit) that a super majority is often considered the same for practical purposes. Radjenef, you must be aware that you only have one other editor who agrees with your view that version G is appropriate, so certainly, we do not have a consensus that the proposal should go forward. It may be difficult, but dropping your particular feelings on the issue and deciding what version you can compromise on is really the only way to go. Shell ^babelfish 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because some editors didn't vote for G, doesn't mean that they thought it constituted a violation of policy or that it relied on dubious policy rationale. I already know what versions I would compromise on, though they are distant alternatives... --Radjenef (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine... I wish it noted for the record that I believe that ArbCom's decision was misquoted in this case. I certainly don't agree with this, but I am respectfully backing down as there doesn't seem to be any way Proposal G would come back. Sorry for all the time this took. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of all referees throughout this centralized discussion and I acknowledge the good will driving their actions. --Radjenef (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong here

I find the format of this poll deplorable, even though (in some ways because) I agree with the result that now appears likely. I strongly resent the tendency in these polls to insist on the bed of Procustes of !voting for one option only, with no possibility of a second choice or opposition; especially if this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, it should address the question of which choices users can tolerate and then rely on their preferences to decide between those which a large number can tolerate; this is what a consensus-based decision would be; as opposed a majority or plurality vote, which is against policy.

More seriously, of course we should include "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" among the choices; I write as one who would very strongly oppose that choice, or omit it as intolerable. This is straight John Stuart Mill; if we invite all policy-based arguments to a final hearing, we must include those. If we do, no one can then complain they were not heard; and if no policy-based arguments are found, we have evidence (conveniently quotable) that there aren't any. I don't think there are any such arguments ("Think of the poor suffering Greek Macedonians" isn't one); but we cannot say so otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should be allowed to support multiple options, for example there's no reason to split the vote for "Macedonia (country)" and "Republic of Macedonia". Not so sure about including the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" since seems to go against the policies, including it only for sake of giving a sense of "equality" is wrong. man with one red shoe 23:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am a libertarian and a huge fan of John Stuart Mill; I was actually inspired by what you said in your message, so I've decided to list "Republic of Macedonia" as my second choice, even though I wasn't planning on having second choices. It's a pity that Proposal G was removed and that everyone adopts such a paternalistic attitude towards the community. I guess there's nothing that can be done, though, so I won't push for this any further... --Radjenef (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, this isn't a vote. I know that's a bit confusing, but it's not a poll at all and we've worked hard to dispel that notion whenever we've encountered it. The referees have made it clear that just because one proposal might get 25 endorsements and another just 1 endorsement, if the 25 is a violation of policy it won't fly. Policy trumps the level of endorsement here completely. That's why the FYROM proposal was deleted--it violated policy. (Taivo (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

It should not be a vote; that's principally what I object to. Compelling users to !vote under one choice makes it a vote; it makes much more difficult the consideration of any solution which is nobody's first choice but tolerable by almost everybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to allow post facto editing of proposals, especially without discussing first?

Immediately after I wrote my endorsement which stated that Proposal A doesn't violate any policies, Radjenef added a tendentious edit to Proposal A to artificially make it look like it's violating a policy. It is not, especially not the one he mentioned, given the evidence produced and discussed ad nauseam in the archived talk page.

The whole point of that tortuous discussion was to settle on the proposals to present for RfC. Are we going to allow random editing after the fact without at least discussing on the talk page first? --Grnch (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Question answered by Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Changing_proposals. --Grnch (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Option A

It is clear that one the fundamental arguments in support of Proposal A is that the Republic is the alleged primary topic of the term "Macedonia". This is being disputed with evidence in the evidence section. I made an edit to explain that, should the Republic not be the primary topic, Proposal A would be in violation of WP:DISAMBIG. User:Grnch reverted my edit [4]. We are obviously in disagreement about this as the domains he calls narrow are what I would call reliable sources. How could we explain that without primacy of topic, the proposal would violate WP:DISAMBIG? I would welcome a few extra opinions on the subject. --Radjenef (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my whole point, that it should be discussed here first and only changed after rough consensus was reached. Why didn't you bring this up while the proposals were being actively developed? I have to wonder if it's only because my endorsement put it in a unexpectedly favorable light. In any case, your point about primary topic was already well covered in the archived discussion and it was the general opinion of most editors including the referees that the status of primary topic in general usage was not disputed. The only disagreement comes from you and Shadowmorph which is understandable. --Grnch (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD change of what I thought would be universally acceptable. I do not understand why you assume otherwise, why you misrepresent the facts of what happened in the archived discussions or why you try to marginalise users such as Shadowmorph or myself. I have noticed that your edits seem to be mainly Macedonia-related; may I ask why you responded with all these assumptions but failed to address the issue at hand? I see that you have reverted my edit again [5] yet, on the talk page, you aren't really responding to the questions I ask. How could we explain that without primacy of topic, the proposal would violate WP:DISAMBIG? I would also like to remind you that you just violated the 1RR rule that is in place for these pages. --Radjenef (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like I was marginalizing you, that was certainly not my intention. I was just stating facts, not misrepresenting anything. The archived talk page is right there for everybody to read. Your change is obviously not universally acceptable, and WP:BOLD cannot be used as justification for reckless editing. Now to address your assertions:

First, "what if" scenarios do not constitute an argument. We could clutter all the proposal arguments with things like "if evidence was different, then this proposal may violate some policy", or "if some WP policy were different than this proposal might violate it". That's a tautology that doesn't help anything, it only adds more noise to the already lengthy list of proposals.

Second, I refer you to the background section of the main RfC page. In there it says that it is a largely agreed upon fact that in general contemporary usage the word "Macedonia" refers to the country, as well as that in recent academic literature the meaning also predominantly points to the country (except in specific domains like history, obviously). These facts were already accepted through the previous discussion and your edits are in clear contradiction to them. They are disruptive and anything but universally acceptable. --Grnch (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The archived discussion on the main RfC page made it abundantly clear that the things listed as "generally agreed upon facts" [sic] were not really "unanimously agreed upon" [6]. Other users like John Carter and El-greco expressed similar concerns towards some of the evidence [7]. The only reason why the phrasing of those "facts" [sic] remained as it is, is because attempts to alter it where stonewalled by an incivil group of people. I had warned people that these "facts" would later be used to prevent people from posting arguments for or against certain proposals (remember Fritzpoll?) by classifying them as disruptive. The clearest thing to do is look at the evidence section [8], where I explain why the country is not the primary topic in scholarly academic literature (i.e. the one described by WP:RS). Sure, objections were raised, but those were as to whether the ancient kingdom was the primary topic; they never provided enough to claim the primary topic for the country. --Radjenef (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We are going in circles now, all this was already discussed. Editors new to the discussion are welcome to visit the archived talk pages (link can be found at the top of each talk page). I defer to the referees for further decision about your proposed edits. We are in the RfC phase now, it would be hard for the community to discuss and endorse the proposals if they keep changing from under them like quicksand. Don't make edits to proposal text without discussing it here and getting feedback from at least a few editors first. --Grnch (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, as they really are not conducive to resolving this dispute. I, too, look forward to hearing from the referees about this. While new proposals may not be acceptable during the RfC, new endorsements or arguments against are still sought for. --Radjenef (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you're happy about this; you just reverted [9] a third edit of mine, basing your action on a personal attack instead of challenging my policy rationale. I believe that, in addition to a WP:SPA, you now fully qualify as an edit warrior. I am disengaging you for now to let the referees take appropriate action. --Radjenef (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Radjanef, stop making changes to the verbiage of "Option A" without discussing your proposals first. The fact that you and Grnch obviously disagree upon the change indicates that it is controversial, and needs to be discussed first. Horologium (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I notified the referees. If they decide that my reverts were wrong, then I will of course accept any sanctions they deem appropriate. --Grnch (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Horologium you seem to have this the wrong way around. I haven't been changing the wording of any proposals! I tried to add additional arguments against, which were all reverted by Grnch. I am the one who has attempted to discuss this, yet Grnch has responded with personal attacks. Just look at his last revert where he doesn't address my policy rationale at all. If anything, he is the one who is edit warring by consistently reverting every edit I have attempted to make. --Radjenef (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss and address your first two edits. Since you and I obviously disagree, you should wait until at least a few other editors chime in before proceeding with your edits. --Grnch (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(response to Radjanef) I am aware that you haven't changed the wording of the proposal itself, but you are still changing the verbiage of the section, after people have voted. Some of your changes are most assuredly going to run into opposition, not only from Grnch (whom you have tried to paint as an SPA, despite the fact that he has been here for five years and has absolutely no edit history in the area of this dispute), but also from me. I have almost 13,000 edits and have passed an RFA; you'll not be able to use that particular line of attack upon me. Horologium (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I never intended or tried to use anything upon you, don't worry. Grnch may have "been here" for five years, but what do his contributions consist of? A few minor edits (fixing typos, etc) more than two years ago and then just Macedonia stuff. I believe this qualifies for WP:SPA. I was under the impression that the arguments against part can be enriched during the RfC stage. We have invited so many people to participate, so it makes sense that we wouldn't prohibit people from providing things that hadn't been thought of before. People may have voted, but they have voted on the actual proposal and its rationale, both of which remain unaltered. In any case, since you disagree, I will wait until the referees clarify this for us. --Radjenef (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef your participation here is quickly heading toward disruptive. There is no further editing of the proposals, that time is over. You've had your say, go find something else to do and let others have theirs without intereferance. Shell ^babelfish 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for us. I understand now that the only parts to be edited are the endorsements, with everything else remaining the same. In light of the fact that we've recently invited many people to comment on these proposals, I would like to ask how they are supposed to voice their disagreement with the policy rationale of specific proposals. I apologise if my edits were seen by some as disruptive. I look forward to a fruitful cooperation with everyone in this case. --Radjenef (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You could try something in your endorsement, for instance "Proposal Z is my choice because of these policy reasons. Additionally, Proposal Y fails this policy and is not an acceptable choice." If its something that's going to be prohibitively long, I'd suggest a brief statement in your endorsement and a link to a page in your userspace will the full details. Shell ^babelfish 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, I couldn't have hoped for a better answer than this one, thank you! --Radjenef (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the United Nations say?

Since we are obviously divided amongst ourselves, let's appeal to an outside higher authority.

What does the United Nations say about the use of the term Macedonia?

If they don't have a firm answer, what do governments of English-speaking countries say about the term? Absent a UN position, I would go for a statement that lines up with enough countries to represent a majority of the English-speaking world. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the evidence and discussion pages here, and at WP:ARBMAC2. It's pretty obvious from your statement that you did not do so. Horologium (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To give a very brief answer nevertheless: it was the UN that introduced the provisional appellation "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", in order to avoid use of plain "(Republic of) Macedonia". As for the majority of English-speaking governments, the US, UK, Canada and Ireland use the constitutional name; Australia, New Zealand and South Africa use the UN term. But your question is misguided. This is not how our policy works. We in Wikipedia don't have political "higher authorities" to go by, neither the UN nor this or that government. Our only authorities are the English language, as used by the world-wide English speech community, and secondarily the named entity itself. Those two are perfectly sufficient to solve this, and that's what we are here to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For the shake of accuracy, UK (I suppose this is also the case for Ireland?) uses the constitutional name in bilateral fora and the internationally recognised provisional appellation in multilateral fora (e.g. EU, NATO, UN).--Yannismarou (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a clarification about that "UK/Ireland in international fora". When Macedonia participates in an international forum such as the UN, the forum produces documents that say "FYROM" (long form, of course), but when Macedonia produces a document for use in or by the forum it says "Republic of Macedonia". When the UK produces a document for use in or by the forum, does it use "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia" in those documents? We assume that the leadership of the forum uses "FYROM", but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the members of the forum use that term when they produce documents for use in or by the forum. We just automatically write that Macedonia is "FYROM" within the forum, but is that true in a detailed sense or is it true only of documents actually produced by the forum itself and not by individual members of the forum? An example was given somewhere in this discussion of a UN agreement or something like that where the cover sheet was produced by the UN, but the subsequent attachments to the agreement were produced by each of the two agreeing countries, one of them being Macedonia. The cover sheet and the first attachment had "FYROM" while the Macedonian attachment had "Republic of Macedonia". If one of these attachments had been produced by the UK, would it have used "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia" (and is there evidence either way)? (Taivo (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

The UN, like pretty much very powerful body, will almost always have anybody who appears in relation to any of its proceedings accept the name by which that body calls them. Most every other governmental body, NGO, or even company that contracts with a government will also uniformally refer to that entity by the name that is used in the "contract" or other binding agreement between the two bodies. On that basis, while knowing the name by which the UN or any other entity is useful for knowing which names to use, and is one which I could see being used in an article when referring to a specific contract or other statement between the entities, like, for instance, "in this contract between Blackwater and Macedonia, Macedonia, or Republic of Macedonia as it is named in the contract, says, "(Quote)". Whatever name is used in the contract could reasonably be included in the body of the article in these circumstances. But the UN is not such an overrridingly important entity that the name it gives the country is necessarily the name by which the country should be referred. Other governments and entities use other names, and the public and press use even more, and those names have to be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia in geography and history

In trying to verify some of the sources in MOSMAC2 (which is difficult in that no verification links were provided) I noticed the one about Merriam-Webster geographical dictionary. In that dictionary "Macedonia, Republic of" is used in a section title that is under a list of country maps [10]. If one goes on to read the book, he can find easily that under multiple entries (cities, rivers etc) in the entirety of the book, "Macedonia" alone is used only for the country in ancient Greece or for the modern Greek region.(preview, query for "Macedonia", click on view all). In all cases where the modern country is mentioned it is called "Republic of Macedonia".

To preemptively answer the responses to this, I cannot be expected to verify what all the sources of MOSMAC2 use in their text so I started with this one because it is one of the well-known. Given that geography and history cover about 80% (I think) of the content of the Macedonia-related articles, I'd say they are the most relevant domains in this discussion. In both those domains it is evident that "Macedonia" is ambiguous at least or the region and the ancient kingdom are primary topics respectively at most. One of the most reliable sources about geography, that Merriam-Webster dictionary uses "Republic of Macedonia" to disambiguate. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, the best verifiable and reliable sources are published books and not on-line references. "Verifiable" doesn't mean that you can sit at home and click on links. It means that the reference includes enough bibliographical information that you can go to your library, find the book (or order it through interlibrary loan) and examine it for yourself. I'm sorry, but your arguments that deal only with one source at a time because that's the only one that you can reference on-line are weak and give the impression (as has been stated before many times) of nit-picking. Go to your library and verify actual sources rather than just sniping at the one or two that you can easily access on-line. (Taivo (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

To me, one of the most important problems we will have to address is not the noun but the adjective. How can we describe anuything "Macedonian"? Will we use the nouns "of the Republic of Macedonia", "of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia", "of the region of Macedonia"? If an article is about the antiquity, we might assume that there is no problem, but if it is about current issues? What is "Macedonian cuisine", a "Macedonian custom", a "Macedonian city"? Will we use the adjective only when it is relatively certain that thre is no danger of ambiguation? GK1973 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's now a draft covering this issue at the "miscellaneous" subpage, see link in navbox-sidebar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One would follow common sense. In most cases a "Macedonia" will have been mentioned previously and, if needed, disambiguated. Hence the adjective wouldn't be ambiguous. If no "Macedonia" was mentioned then the term "Macedonian" can be wikilinked to its meaning the first time for disambiguation - Macedonian, for example. BalkanFever 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)