Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Naming

Sequel of the "officially?" discussion

You're missing all the point dear admin,this website is not a place to publish your ("constitutional") ethnic manifesto,it's an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are all about science and history. And since this is a modern slavic country deriving from the breakup of Yugoslavia,whose nationals have no relation to ancient Macedonians,we shouldn't be plainly calling it "Macedonia", mainly in spite of the existence of the modern greek Macedonia that comes in disagreement with this naming decision. There can't be 2 Macedonia(s?) populated by two different nations. Since there is the known conflict,we must refer in the article descriptions to the modern greek Macedonia as greek Macedonia and to the modern "country of Macedonia" as you like to call it, as FYROM.(usual strategy of using "Macedonia" inside each article for practical reasons) -Naming strategy of the type "Macedonian people","macedonian language" and "Macedonia(country)" is unscientific and arbitrary.In any case,these controversial articles should be debated and modified by proven scientists ,NOT admins that use their power to do whatever they want --94.70.87.23 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There are two articles, Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece), which clearly distinguishes the two political entities. Indeed, this is an encyclopedia, not the on-line propaganda office for Greece. The most common English name for Macedonia is "Macedonia", the most common English name for the Macedonian language is "Macedonian", and the most common English name for Macedonians is "Macedonians", therefore per WP:COMMONNAME, these articles are given their most common English names. We are subject to neither the policies of the UN nor the state of Greece. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Kidding me! So FYROM already ESTABLISHED worldwide it's "Macedonia" sign in 30 years of it's existence? .Even if your argument about common name is true,it still comes in conflict with the already existant macedonia ,which the Greek inhabitants claim to be the righteous name owner.It's copyright! What distinction is made?They are still both called "macedonia's" in the article descriptions.--94.70.87.23

Read this please signed by the two countries and then change all the articleshttp://www.mfa.gr/en/fyrom-name-issue/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.86.122 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Name

Why did you choose to use Republic of Macedonia for its name? Because US recognised it? It should be FYROM or its full form because it's not recognised as Macedonia from the UN which is more important. Or at least us F.Y.R. Macedonia LabradorXMK (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to look at, which should help answer your question: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia. There are a lot of links in there dealing with the name, which one to use and how to use it. What that page holds is links to all the discussions we had about it - it has nothing to do with US bias per se since this isn't a US-only site. But the consensus was that Republic of Macedonia be used. This isn't me being confrontational - I'm genuinely trying to help you understand why we've done something that you clearly disagree with. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In 1993, that part of Former Yugoslavia was named “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Just using “Republic of Macedonia” is not accurate. The prefix “the former Yugoslav” is essential to the history and the geography of that country. So important, that the UN had the Resolution 817 (1993) to make it clear. It is not the same as omitting the “People's Republic of” from China. How can you accept that a couple of geeks in Wiki got it better than the UN? This choice is offensive, illegal and inaccurate. Get off your high horses and fix it.

121.44.140.8 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LOLOL. What a joke..."Macedonia" is illegal? What are you smoking? Wikipedia is not an arm of the UN, nor is it an agency of the Greek government. Common English usage prevails here and the common English name for Macedonia is "Macedonia". Simple. If you are offended by the English language Wikipedia, then use the Greek one. --Taivo (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess am smoking a kebab. Can not be offended by a language that is based in Greek. if you think wiki is above everything and connecting with nothing, then you will end up with this type of posts and then spend more energy deleting them. This invites flaming. Is that what your wiki is about? Free the world from the tyranny of rules. Lets invade the weak. UN ? whats that? who needs it. This is wiki, we roll the way our the English language dictate us. Why don't you just take a breath and make an argument or do nothing Taivo? If i wanted to read or talk crap, there are many sites on both sides to go and cheer. This is not it. This is something more than a forum. Keep it serious, make a contribusion or just move away and let me have a chat with people who care about the subject and about the benefits of having a wiki. 121.45.181.111 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your post is that you make no new argument whatsoever that wasn't already discussed ad nauseum during the arbitration process, which was worked by a large number of editors over the course of several months. You are simply pushing the same "But the UN calls Macedonia 'FYROM'" argument that is meaningless in Wikipedia. If you can prove that the majority of English language publications use "FYROM" instead of "Macedonia" and that the majority of English speaking users of Wikipedia look for "FYROM" instead of "Macedonia" then you would have a valid argument for changing the name. Those are the only valid arguments per WP:COMMON. You've made zero attempts to introduce any new evidence whatsoever (because you have no new evidence). You are simply pushing the same old argument. Without new convincing evidence, Wikipedia policy doesn't change. --Taivo (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok boss, your argument was gold, as usual. You persuaded me. Good job. 121.45.181.111 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not that country but the country had a name since ancient times and the name was KINGDOM OF MACEDON,founded about 850 BC,long before creation of new state and nation known as Greece, created 1831 ( AD ). The name MAKEDONIA has been established as a name of a country,ethnicity,and language since antiquity. In modern time name MACEDONIA continue to exists from Roman time,to Ottoman time, and in 1944,Aug.02, on the end of WW2 was made decision of reestablishing Macedonian state on one part of liberated Macedonian land, under the name of Socialist Republic of Macedonia, as a part of Yugoslavian Federation.In 1991 with disintegration of Yugoslavian Federation,Republic of Macedonia gained independence,and was recognized as Republic of Macedonia from more than 110 UN member countries.

Wikipedia has to look into their decision making process, specially so-called " decision based on consensus" which open the door for manipulation and untrue facts to be accepted as true and real,based on opinion of a group. That is why common belief in public is that WIKIPEDIA IS UNRELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Kubratt (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with the biased use of the name 'Republic of Macedonia' here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is taking a political stand in doing this, and allows for FYROM propaganda to have a safe haven on here. I thought this was a neutral encycpoledia, but I have been proven wrong. Wikipedia is commiting multiple offenses in supporting supporters of the FYROM. That is the only officla name to call this state, as has been agreed upon by Greece and the FYROM and the UN. Stating otherwise is a lie and is completely biased propaganda in favour of the FYROM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfentami (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually instead of seeking the truth about the name in discusions in wikipedia you can see the pdf of the agreement signed of these countries here which its says that is illegal fyrom to be called as macedonia, or as republic of macedonia etc. It must be called only as fyrom. http://www.mfa.gr/en/fyrom-name-issue/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.86.122 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is any propaganda, that is propaganda that comes from newly created countries on the Balkans, created on parts of Macedonian land, and those are Greece and Bulgaria, which came into existence more than 2700 years after Kingdom of MAKEDON. Present day Republic of Macedonia is a legal successor of Kingdom of Macedon and her rightful name is Macedonia, or Republic of Macedonia,according the Macedonian Constitution . Kubratt (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Stuff

The article Republic of Macedonia creates the following conflicts.

1. It refers to a country by the name Republic of Macedonia which is not an officially recognized name for this country by all nations. The official name according to the United Nations is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and this one should be used no matter if some countries have accepted the county under the name Republic of Macedonia.

2. In this article the country is referred many times with the single word Macedonia. There is more than two thousand years of history behind this single word with a wider meaning and therefore cannot be associated to a country of less than 20 years of history. Macedonian history is a part of the Greek history and originates from the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia back in the ancient Greek times.

3. There is a mention in the article about a language so called "Macedonian" language which is spoken by the people living in this country. The only Macedonian language that ever existed is the language spoken by the ancient Macedonians which apparently is the ancient Greek language. The official language of the modern country (FYROM) is a Slavic dialect that has nothing to do with the ancient Greek language and therefore cannot be refereed as Macedonian language.

4. Last and most important of all which creates the most dangerous conflict, is the mention to a "Macedonian" ethnic. There is not such an ethnic and never exited. People in the northern Greece may refer themselves as Macedonians, people in FYROM may do the same, perhaps some people in Bulgaria too, but the only real Macedonians were the ancient Greek Macedonians of the kingdom of Macedonia. The majority ethnic in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the Slavic ethnic.

Wikipedia should consider all those historical facts before imposes editing rules for this article. The name issue of this country remains under consideration by the United Nations and until there is a solution to this the current official name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should be used in all references. Greek history is a part of humanity history and if you don’t respect your history you put your future in danger. --Clicklander (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither history, what the United Nations think or how the Greeks feel about this, matters one bit. Any sovereign state can, by definition, decide how it is to be called. In this case the Republic of Macedonia. Sometimes historical and geographical definitions shift and sometimes change meaning entirely. Learn to live with that! Countries that recognize Macedonia (all in the world but one) accept it under it's own name. The UN is not a country and the terms under which the Republic of Macedonia joined that particular organisation are menaingless where international law is concerned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

who says there is not such a thing as Macedonian ethnicity ? MACEDONIAN ETHNICITY exist for the past 4000 years,or at least with creation of KINGDOM OF MACEDON around 850 BC , more than 2700 years before the creation of newly created nation and state of Greece . Macedonians spoke MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE, lived on clearly defined territory , practiced same religion , and had same ethnic origin in biological/ genetic sens . Kubratt (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand history of Makedonia ,or pretend not to understand. Macedonian political entity,language,culture have been established with creation of KINGDOM OF MACEDON , about 850 BC, 2700 years before creation of newly created Balkan states of Greece and Bulgaria. MACEDONIAN ETHNICITY was created much longer than that,as logic dictates the conclusion.

In antiquity there was no country ,people ,and language known as Greece or Greek , until 1831 AD. The ancient language you are talking about is known as MACEDONIAN KOINE , the universal language of Macedonian Empire , and the original Macedonian language known as OLD MACEDONIC, to your surprise similar to all present day Slavic languages,including contemporary Macedonian language. If I mention the proofs that exist to confirm my statements, one who claim otherwise going to hide because cannot prove his counterclaim. Kubratt (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

For Clicklander

I deleted your multi-paragraph posting here in favor of "the former...". This issue was decided by the Wikipedia community and you can read the discussion, arguments, and community agreement on the links provided in this policy statement. Trying to reopen the debate is counter-productive. (Taivo (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Congrats!!! That's very democratic way on behalf of wikipedia!! They forbid us to edit pages according to facts, and they forbid us to express our opinion in the talk pages! An open issue for the United Nations is closed for Wikipedia. Well done!!--Clicklander (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an official outlet of the UN, nor of any other body including the US and UK governments. The UN does not dictate English usage and that is the guide for Wikipedia. Since the issue of Macedonia's name is closed until common English usage changes, then I suggest you expend your energies in more productive pursuits in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

English usage??? I thought Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia not a linguistic site! And after all, who determines what the proper English usage is? Wikipedia moderators?? Encyclopedias are based on historical evidences and facts, and if this is the case for Wikipedia keep in mind that there are many ambiguities in this page about the “Republic of Macedonia”. Before making any suggestions to me, I suggest you first to open a book and study a little bit about history and first of all learn what the word “-pedia” stands for! --Clicklander (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WIkipedia is a collection of iniline encyclopedias available in many language. Each langauge version is self-governing for the most part. This policy on Macedonia applies only to the English Wikipedia. Please read up Wikipedia:About for more information about what Wikipeida is and is not - It's already been decided. And please be a bit more civle. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the main ingredients of a civilized behavior is to respect others’ opinion. This obviously doesn’t happen in Wikipedia by deleting arguments against Wikipedia’s policies. I respect your policy on Macedonia name, but you don’t respect my right to argue. Thanks--Clicklander (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You have the right to discuss on Wikipedia, but not to argue. Discussion is civil and respectful. Please bear that in mind. Read WP:NCON and you will find a nice listing of the types of facts that are gathered in order to determine common English usage. These facts were gathered in the case of the Macedonian arbitration and it was quite clear that the common English name of the Republic of Macedonia was "Macedonia". Since, however, this was potentially ambiguous as to whether the country or the Greek region was being referred to, it was decided that Republic of Macedonia would be used for the title of the article on the republic, Macedonia (Greece) for the article on the Greek region, and Macedonia would be the disambiguation page. We spent three or four months on this discussion with editors on all sides of the issue involved. Please respect this process. Since further comments concerning the name of Macedonia are not helpful to the furtherance of Wikipedia and do nothing but stir nationalistic fervor to no useful end, comments about this "done deal" are regularly deleted with a reference to WP:MOSMAC2 in some form. Since this article is MOSMAC2, I simply referred you to the text of the article itself. (Taivo (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Discussion without arguments is not discussion! Either I have a different perception about the meaning of the word "argue", or you think that in such a discussion all opinions should be always matched. From my first deleted post, I think it was very clear that there was nothing nationalistic in my writings. I respect your process of taking decisions but I am not obligated to agree with those decisions. By not accepting further comments about this "done deal" I assume that you guys in Wikipedia think never make mistakes. You shouldn’t be very proud of that!--Clicklander (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your post contained nothing new whatsoever. Every single point you were making has already been made and rejected dozens of times before now. The very proposal to use "FYROM" is nationalistic to its core since there is only one country that has fought against the use of "Macedonia" from the day of its inception. Whether you agree with the carefully worked out compromises and decisions of the other Wikipedia editors or not is your business, but continuing to stir the flames of nationalistic sentiment by dredging up old arguments and stirring up settled debates, is Wikipedia's business. Sure, there are times to revisit old decisions, but not unless you bring something new to the table. Sorry, Clicklander, but you brought nothing new, just the same old arguments that have been used and rejected before. People are tired of talking about the name of Macedonia. It's settled and we have moved on to more productive aspects of Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same. (Taivo (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

You very easily judge what nationalistic is and what is not, and very easily arrive at conclusions! There is only one country that objects on the name of Macedonia because this is the only country its land instantly became subject of territorial claim by this name. And that’s why the whole issue for the UN that you keep ignoring it. So be careful and do not simplify things! What stirs the flames of nationalistic sentiment, are those references inside the Wikipedia article about the imaginary Macedonian ethnic and Macedonian language. My intension was not to bring something new on the table; it was to remind you that this name issue is not closed for many people around the world, counties and organizations are still working to find a solution, and therefore Wikipedia cannot close the eyes in front of this. Those sensitive issues that concern people’s history, culture and global peace, require more responsibility from the mass media like Wikipedia and of course do not require the contribution of tired people like you. --Clicklander (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very contentious issue, as your own comments show. That contentiousness became such a disruption on Wikipedia that something had to be done. The Arbitration Committee very rarely makes editorial decisions by fiat, and this is one of the rare cases (probably less than 5-10 such decisions total) where that has been done. If the UN ever makes a final decision on the issue, then WP will most likely follow that, but that will be decided then. You are welcome to your opinions, and your are free to continue to work constructively to voice those opinions in appropriate places, in an appropriate manner. Howevere, you are not allowed to change articles to conform to your views. If you can accept that, then fine; if not, then the policy will be enforced per the ruling on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally somebody talks reasonably here! I am not going to make any changes on the article “Republic of Macedonia”, as I said I respect your protection rules. However until there is a final common accepted decision by the UN on the county’s name, I keep my disagreements on the way Wikipedia handles this issue, and I would be very glad if you could show me the appropriate places to voice my opinion about that as you said. Apparently this talk page is not the appropriate place because when I tried to do that, my writings were immediately deleted. Thanks. --Clicklander (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint is not about how Wikipedia handles Macedonia, but about how Wikipedia policy establishes names in general, so your complaints about Wikipedia's naming policy belong at WP:NCON. Naming Macedonia simply follows that policy--common English usage prevails over the dictates of any government, inter-governmental organization, or nationalist agenda. (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

My complaint is how Wikipedia handles Macedonia name specifically in this case of the country, not how Wikipedia establishes names in general. Since this is a special case which falls under special editing protection, name policy should not be the same as in other cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicklander (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But the decision on how to name Macedonia is entirely based on Wikipedia policy. It is not a special case. It has a special page because of the controversy, not because it is an exception to Wikipedia policy. If you read the arbitration documentation surrounding the decision, you will see that. Perhaps an admin can set up a subpage of this one where nationalists can "express themselves" without interfering with the productive aspects of Wikipedia. That seems to be a workable solution at Kiev (see Talk:Kiev/naming). Comments about changing the spelling to "Kyiv" are regularly moved there so as not to interfere with improving the article. (Taivo (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

What I am saying here is that this case needs a special treatment and cannot belong to the generic name policy where many things are not very clearly defined. For instance, it is very relative what “recognizable” for someone is. And please do not mix things; I never mention anything about nationalistic views. People, no matter which side they are on, should be free to express their opinion about the article and the name, based on historical events and other facts. I am totally against any fanatical nationalist from both sides. What I am trying to say is that currently there are many nationalistic elements inside the article that need to be rephrased. You must be more careful for what is written in this article.--Clicklander (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is the result of a very thoughtful and well-discussed arbitration. You're not the first to come along wondering why Wikipedia is the way it is. Macedonia isn't a special case. It's just another case of the same thing that Wikipedia deals with all the time in many parts of the world. Read the arbitration case and the referenced Wikipedia policies. This wasn't a dictate from "on high". It was the result of a long process and this is the result. This article is very carefully written and takes due consideration of all sides of the issue, but as stated before, Wikipedia is not an arm of the UN, the US or UK governments, or the Greek or Macedonian governments. If common English usage ever changes, then Wikipedia will respond to that change. But until then this is a well-thought-out policy and is clearly and thoughtfully written. (Taivo (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

You keep telling me how well written is the article and how correct is, leading the conversation between you and me to nowhere. Either you do not understand or you pretend that you don’t understand! And because I very doubt you are that stupid, I think me and everybody else here reading all these got the message. It’s very clear what type of democracy exists in wikipedia . Only public opinion can say whether or not an article is properly written and only by the composition of all voices! Voices that you muzzle! I have a strong clue now to believe that you serve nationalistic purposes! --Clicklander (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Something happened here at last! Thanks for restoring my post and creating this page. --Clicklander (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

It's high time, I think, to move past a four-year-old case and assess the evidence; the primary topic in our language for the word "Macedonia" is the present-day sovereign republic. I would like to put in a requested move where such evidence could be presented and analyzed in depth, but I've been told that that is not allowed as per the ArbCom case. How would you suggest that we get the ball rolling on a requested move? Red Slash 22:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to make an edit semi-protected request on 14 April 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators and privileged users

I must request that this page be edited to portray the correct facts of current standing and decisions. This page concerns a country's origin and history and it must mirror the true facts that modern scholars and historians agree upon, something that simple users, who are clouded by the popular opinion and their own personal belief, cannot understand. Writing history is about truth and not a one sided belief. Not anyone can write history correctly, something must be researched and studied before it is considered a historical fact. If you still don't understand where I'm going at, I will lay this out flat, I am talking about the naming "dispute" (which really shouldn't be a dispute) of FYROM, which you, in a very disrespecting and ignorant way call Macedonia. The internationally recognised name of this country is "FYROM - Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia" and not the "Republic of Macedonia" which you so blatantly refer this country as and have taken upon yourselves to create documents that dispute internationally recognised agreements. This site acts as a encyclopaedia (from the greek word ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία, meaning "general education" or "circular education") and not a self acknowledged legal entity that sparks a flame between countries.

The following sources were used, please care to read them clearly, as you have obviously not:

Wikipedia article about "Historiography"

Wikipedia article about "Encyclopedia"

Wikipedia article about "Historians"

The name FYROM is officially recognised

Read the last paragraph of the introduction please

WP:ARBMAC No propaganda please. Also I cant believe that this article starts with the name "Macedonia"..

I hope these sources are adequate enough. Thank you for your time.

Leventopoulo (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Leventopoulo I don't know what you think you're doing or what you're aiming to do with the "Removed the Template" above, but whatever it is, you're most likely not doing it. And no, there is no consensus for the strong POV you want to push, there is a consensus, even a policy, to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I must apologise for the "Removed the Template", I didn't know if you could see that I edited out the template. So what you're saying is that there's no consensus for my POV but another person's one, which is contrary to mine? I don't think that there is fairness in that. Also I expressed not only my point of view but, in fact, the views of the whole scientific community that studies history, no need to mention the whole Hellenic nation. What I ask, is for there to be a clear distinction between the historical region of Macedonia, of which FYROM is only but the northern part, and the reality that Macedonia is not the official name of this 25 year old nation. Seeing the rejection of previous user attempts to revert this erroneous claim that reverts historical facts, I don't have high hopes that my request will be answered. I do hope that someone less close-minded and able to accept new ,although in reality old, facts reads this. Leventopoulo (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You ask what difference there is between the region and the country. The difference is quite clear, the region is Macedonia (region) and the country is Republic of Macedonia. Users typing in Macedonia come to a short page explaining the different definitions, in a perfectly neutral manner.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Leventopoulo, When the Wikipedia consensus that led to WP:MOSMAC was worked out, there were as many Greeks as anyone else involved in the discussion. It took several months to complete the process, and in the end it was the result of 1) careful consideration of all points of view and 2) careful analysis of common English language usage. Official positions of the Greek government are irrelevant. Official positions of the Macedonian government are irrelevant. Official positions of the UN are irrelevant. The only relevant matter is common English usage and it was determined through a complete analysis of usage in a wide variety of English language sources that "Macedonia" is the most name in English for the Republic of Macedonia. You mention "official" usage. "Republic of Macedonia" is the official name of the country as found in the only official document that matters--the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. It doesn't matter what other countries call it, the only official name of any country is the name it calls itself in its constitution. "Greece" is not the official name of Greece, it is the most common English name. The official name of Greece is "Hellenic Republic" (that's probably close to the correct translation, but you get the point). So "official" doesn't matter or else we'd have to move the article on "Greece". You are working under a completely false assumption. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz I did not ask what the difference is, I know what the difference is. I asked you to make it clear. When someone types in "Republic of Macedonia" the first word that appears is only "Macedonia" and after that it says its self declared "official" name. I believe that it only confuses the matter more, and its not at all neutral.

Taivo I did not dispute the process of which of this WP:MOSMAC was conducted, I only dispute its outcome. As for your logic on FYROM's self declared title, its entirely one sided, let me explain why... Greece is not the official title of Hellas (its "Hellenic democracy" which is the exact translation), yet everyone uses it. Does it cause any problems to the identity of another country? What if Greece changed its official title to "The republic of France" does it make it the official document that everyone will follow? If you think that a country that lives by non-democratic standards and no fair-play can change History and copy the identity of over a million people who have lived in the region for over 3000 years, and everyone decides to grant them this infringement, not an infringement upon Hellas but the entire legacy of those people to humanity, then I believe that this conversation is meaningless and its as if I'm talking to a wall. It really is a moral and a philosophical question, let me ask you. If everyone believe it, does it make it true? And as Orwell would have said, if everyone thinks 2+2=5, does it make it so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leventopoulo (talk • contribs) 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAPBOX, carefully. And we're not going to change the name of a country because you don't like it, or don't like Wikipedia's decision. This talk page doesn't have the authority to overrule WP:MOSMAC even if such a consensus were reached here, so the discussion is rather pointless. We've explained the policy to you, and whether you like or not doesn't really matter.Jeppiz (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Leventopoulo, if you don't dispute the process by which WP:ARBMAC was conducted, then you have no basis whatsoever to dispute the validity of the result of that process. That's the end of the matter. WP:MOSMAC is the English Wikipedia standard. If you can't live with the fact that the most commonly used name of the Republic of Macedonia in English is "Macedonia", then I invite you to use the Greek Wikipedia where the Greek POV is pushed without restraint. --Taivo (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz Again you confuse the matter.. First of all I am disputing what wikipedia says about this country in a perfectly democratic way, I am not politically powerful enough to change a whole country's name. Secondly its not as simple as "I don't like it", this has nothing to do with me, this has to do with the legacy of those people who lived and still live in the region and the historical facts that follow them. You told me to read WP:SOAPBOX? Why don't you read it yourself? You are the one who confuses facts with fictional propaganda.

Taivo Excuse me? A court decision can be conducted fairly and yet its outcome might me unjust and untruthful, so anyone can dispute its outcome. It is unbelievable how you derive to this deranged logic.. I'm just in awe. As for the second part of your "logical" response, clearly you didn't get what I was saying in my previous response. If everyone wished to write whatever he thinks is true, without reading facts from all sides, or whatever is common in his language then the world has really gotten dumber. What happened to the neutral point of view? I thought that's what wikipedia is about. It doesn't look like that if I can insult someone in Greek and say its the Greek Wikipedia standard. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so do you have a point in any of that or should we close the discussion. We're not renaming the article, and whatever you think of that is irrelevant. Anything else on how to write the article? If not, I'll just remove further soapboxing as this is not the place to vent personal opinions about Macedonia.Jeppiz (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz Please do not remove my response again, it deserves to be seen. If you disagree with me, fine. Please review section 2 of WP:POINT and Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism. Here is my response:

Jeppiz If you can't understand what my point is, you probably can't have a logical discussion with anyone. As for your allegations of soapboxing, more evidence that you are clearly confusing facts with fictional propaganda. And calling FYROM, Macedonia at the end of your response clearly indicates your intentions to spite me, instead of have a normal conversation. Alas, I do not wish to talk to immature people, which is how you are behaving. I still ask for a consensus, with more mature users to discuss this with. leventopoulo(talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.