This RFC was complex and it took some time for us to close. We appreciate the community's patience while deliberations were being made. Furthermore, we would like to thank the community for its participation in this RfC and for the generally civil discussion. In accordance with the directive from the Arbitration Committee in 2018, we have considered only those comments accompanied by "a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation," and have disregarded comments that lacked such a rationale or were inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. Following this directive, and in the exercise of our own judgment, we also accorded diminished weight to single-purpose accounts, the comments of which generally failed the test set forth by the Arbitration Committee. There is new consensus in this RfC that we have to accept as a community, a detailed summarization of which is given below:
Disambiguation: What should be the entry for "Republic of Macedonia"/"North Macedonia"? Additionally, the following four entries are in the first section of the Macedonia disambiguation page (Macedonia most commonly refers to) [...] What should the order of these items be?
Option A: "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"
The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option A. As many editors noted, this option is supported by policy, as it is the official (WP:OFFICIAL) and current short-form name (WP:CONCISE), and is commonly used within the universe of reliable sources. (WP:COMMON). The panel found many Option B comments to be not supported by policy.
The closing panel finds no clear consensus as to the ordering of articles on the disambiguation page, and therefore we default to retention of the status quo until a new consensus emerges.
Nationality of people: What should people from North Macedonia be called?
The closing panel finds no consensus to adopt a mandatory rule for how to refer to people from North Macedonia. However, there is a preference among non-SPA editors for Option B, and this option is also supported by both the universe of available sources (WP:COMMONNAME) as well as the principles of WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:CONCISE. Therefore, use of "Macedonian(s)" to refer to people from North Macedonia should not be changed to "North Macedonian(s)" universally. However, the closing panel does find a consensus that "North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion; for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicity.
State-associated and other public entities: What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?
Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME.
Adjective: What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above?
The closing panel finds no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times and in all places. Rather, the closing panel finds that the consensus, based on policy, is to follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue. The usage of the reliable sources will often be dependent on context and common sense (for example, whether there is any meaningful risk of confusion or ambiguity exists in the specific context).
Historical names: What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?
Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".
The closing panel agrees that there is a clear consensus for Option B. The terms "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" retain their meanings within the context of articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019 and thus, should not be changed, although an optional note such as "now North Macedonia" may be added where appropriate.
The main article should be titled North Macedonia
North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in articles about the present.
The language, ethnicity, and culture should be called Macedonian.
The closing panel agrees that there is a clear consensus for Option A.
The closing panel agrees that there is a consensus for "Northern Macedonia" to redirect to North Macedonia. The closing panel finds no consensus as to the title to which "Southern Macedonia" should redirect. Therefore, we default to maintaining the status quo—keeping the current redirect to Macedonia (Greece)—but without prejudice against a separate RfC being opened with respect to that specific redirect.
Neutral on exact wording; Outside scope of this RfC for the ordering question. This RfC shouldn't attempt to micro-manage particular details on individual pages, but concentrate on general things we need an actual guideline for. (But if we have to micro-manage: it should continue to be ordered according to prominence of reader interest, which is well documented, and that means country > ancient kingdom > Greek region > wider region.) Fut.Perf.☼ 18:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: seeing so many people below argue for orderings with the "region" on top: That one is absolutely the worst. We are dealing with a section in a dab page headed by the sentence "Macedonia most commonly refers to:". Having that sentence followed by the least common meaning first is downright absurd. The readership of Macedonia (region) has always trailed that of Macedonia (country) by more than one order of magnitude, and the "region" meaning is also far, far less frequently encountered in outside sources. It's a logical fallacy to think that because it's geographically the article with the widest scope it must also be the one with the widest interest to readers. Disambiguation pages must be a service to readers, and by that criterion, the only acceptable ordering remains:
North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
Option A and sorted per Michail, Despotak, Antondimak and Tom I initially voted "Option A and sorted per Google hits" but after reading the arguments in the discussion bellow, I changed my opinion and now I believe, that, this disambiguation shall follow the same rationale as other politically sensitive disambiguations such as the Korea Disambiguation. I can't see why this one here should be different from the others. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The North Macedonian government has agreed not to use "Macedonia" and use "North Macedonia". Since it the country is now called North Macedonia, people and media will increasingly start using North Macedonia and no longer confuse the it for another entity. Macedonia will become a historical and geographical term. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) should go first followed by Macedonia (Greece) since it encompasses most the area of the ancient kingdom. Dash9Z (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A with the following order:
Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe, formerly known as Republic of Macedonia
Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
I know this order may not be popular, but my reasoning is that, under consideration of all the options playing out in my head, "(region)" is the most relevant now. Thus, this goes at the top, no matter what. But what to do with the rest? "Macedonia (Greece)" and "North Macedonia" are equivalent in my mind (they both describe current political administrations, so these should be alphabetical. "(ancient kingdom)" could thus go before or after these two, but I prefer it before because it keeps the list 'mostly' alphabetical. This means my second choice (given the likely unpopularity of the first one) would be the reverse alphabetical of this; #1 Macedonia (region), #2 North Macedonia, #3 Macedonia (Greece), #4 Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This just so happens to correspond with the earlier entries by Michail, Despotak, Antondimak, and Argean for unrelated reasons. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B: ’’’A’’’ is incorrect. It should be ‘’’Macedonia’’’, officially the ‘’’Republic of North Macedonia’’’. For now, Macedonia is its common name. That may change some day. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. As for the order, we should take into account that readers may not be sure which article they are looking for. Such readers are best served by listing the articles in order of likelihood to be what readers searching for Macedonia are looking for. Per today, that means the following order:
Option A, normally we do not use "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" in front of country names, except in cases of deliberate disambiguation, which is not applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A with the following order:
North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
This order gives the region as a whole - which I think is probably the most obvious thing that "Macedonia" alone might mean - then the modern political entities starting with the sovereign state, then the historical entity.
I would, however, not incorporate the order into MOSMAC and allow the order to be changed by talk page consensus in the normal way. Kahastoktalk 10:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. The ordering is outside the scope of this RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A in main article. Imagine that Wikipedia got started in 1991 rather than 2001. Would we have said "Zaire, now Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a country in central Africa" in 1998? No, we would have switched things over and provided the old name later in the first sentence. Also see Burkina Faso, which doesn't even mention "Upper Volta" until the fifth sentence. As far as the disambiguation page, use this order:
Just treat it as a matter of alphabetical order, or even frame the last one as "Macedonia (republic)" to make the alphabetical focus more obvious. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe, formerly known as Republic of Macedonia
The reasoning for the order is that North Macedonia is not 'Macedonia' anymore while the three other entities are. Of course, we keep it in the list because it was know as such until very recently.--APG1984 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A for the moment in the following order (although I got no hard feelings about it
Without strong feelings, I would propose this order because its the alphabetical. Any other order would need justification that would lead to endless arguments
Option B and Abstain from Ordering issue.
While originally I considered this issue to be trivial, Nyttend changed my mind by raising some excellent points. It certainly important that we get this right. However, now that I actually reviewed the issue, I have realized my preference is for Option B. To quote WP:D, [The third important aspect to disambiguation is ensuring] that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. It is my understanding that, for the moment, "Republic of Macedonia" does that even if it is no longer accurate.
As for the ordering issue, that is most certainly Outside scope of this RfC as pointed out by Fut.Perf. ―MJL-Talk-☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, and in the order: region, country, part of Greece, ancient place. Not sure why everyone above is being so long-winded in specifying these. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, and in the order: region, country, part of Greece, ancient place. Per SMcCandlish. Option A, because Option B looks to me incorrect and misleading (why to prioritize a non-existing name?). As regards the order, it serves the logic "going from the general to the more specific": whole region→counry in the region→region in a country, being part of the whole region→non-existing ("osolete") ancient kingdom in the region. Any other order seems to me incoherent and confusing.Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That specificity-logic argument is both true and fortuitous; my own (unstated) rationale was relevance to most readers (broad topic, modern major nation, modern region, very old news). So there's at least two separate and compatible rationales for this order. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, and in order: country, region, administrative units in other countries, ancient kingdom - Македонец (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, and in order: country, region, administrative units in other countries, ancient kingdom - The name of the country is not North Macedonia. It is Republic of North Macedonia. You cannot use Option A as is, unless you change it into Republic of North Macedonia - GStojanov (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Prespa agreement, ‘[t]he short name of the Second Party shall be "North Macedonia"’. Libhye (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, as I agree with comments of Fut. Perf. If you have to chose list order then country > kingdom > region in Greece > historical region. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, because UN Security Council has not yet officially approved the Prespa Agreement. Namely, according to Article 3 of the UN Security Council Resolution 845 from 18 June 1993, after the Secretary-General reports on the resolution of the differences between the two parties, the UN Security Council would "resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report". So, the UN Security Council Resolution 845 is still open, and the name issue is not yet closed as far the United Nations is concerned. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I agree with Michail and Despotak about the order. It is the same as we do with other disabiguation articles regarding wider regions. Fut.Perf. and FlavrSavr have pointed out that this disambiguation page differed from others because in this case user interest was obviously tilted toward the country. I will counter this by saying that when the country was named "Macedonia", it's natural for readers to search for "Macedonia" when looking for the country article. Howerver, now that the name has changed and there is a geographic identifier, the country no longer monopolises the name. Thus the situation becomes a lot more like the "Korea" disabmiguation page. --Antondimak (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That, to me, would seem to give undue weight to the position that anything ever named “Macedonia” could only ever be Greek (or Greek-ish, but certainly not Slavic.) Like it or not, a sovereign country calling itself Republic of Macedonia existed. That Greece insisted on (and many countries and international organizations accepted) a “former Yugoslav” clarifying prefix for official communications does not negate the existence of the country. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it existed, but it was known under both names. We don't want to be partisan against Greece, we accept that Kosovo is partially recognised. We shoudl accept that North Macedonia's name was partially recognised. --Antondimak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don’t care about the order (or the phrasing), but I can see how this might lead to edit wars (if it hasn’t already.) But I don’t see any easily explainable objective standard based on human judgement calls about the importance of the different entities. Would a purely technical solution be feasible? E.g., is it possible to retrieve the frequency of links clicked on the dab page and strictly order the entries by that? —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know pretty well what the relative reader interest in each article is, based on page clicks (it's country > ancient > the others, each by a very wide margin ). What we don't know with as much certainty is how many of the readers who enter "Macedonia" in the search box really want to go to which of the four. There'd be an easy (if somewhat unconventional) way of measuring it: Create four temporary redirect pages (let's say "Macedonia dab redirect 1", "2" and so on), each redirecting to one of the four target articles, then pipe each of the four dab entries through one of these redirects. Make sure these redirects are not linked to from anywhere else. After a few weeks, look at the pageview statistics for just these four redirects. Those figures would tell you exactly how many readers went to the dab page and then chose which of the four targets. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not directly linked to the above, but I believe we should include Socialist Republic of Macedonia and FYROM in another paragraph Former Entities for example for more clarity.--APG1984 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SR Macedonia could be added to that, but FYROM = Republic of Macedonia = North Macedonia = Macedonia (same continuous entity, different names) so this should be just one listing I think ("Swaziland" isn't considered a former entity). --Local herotalk 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For current usage of respective terms for the people of Republic of North Macedonia, see the reliable sources list.
What should people from North Macedonia be called? The selected term shall be used as a short form instead of the official term "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia", when nationality is required by the Wikipedia manual of style (such as in lead paragraphs of person biographies), and is irrespective of people's ethnicity.
Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian(s)".
Option B: The people from North Macedonia should be called "Macedonian(s)".
Option B, as per the emergent practice of reliable external sources, which follow the stipulations of the Prespa agreement, and also per the principle of conservative Wikipedia usage (don't force a change unless there's clear evidence that usage outside Wikipedia has also changed). There's also no disambiguation issue (since there's no other state on earth that would have a "South", "East", "West" or whatever other "Macedonian" nationality, so a sentence of the form "XYZ is a Macedonian football player" remains just as unproblematic as it was before. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A – seeing as my original vote has not garnered support, I am switching my vote to Option A as a second-best alternative. I find it more appropriate to use the term 'North Macedonian(s)' as a descriptive name as opposed to the current practice of linking the term Macedonian(s) with Ethnic Macedonians. The 25% of (North) Macedonians who are ethnic Albanians certainly are not ethnic Macedonians. --Michail (blah) 14:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I would be happy to change my vote to B if, as Argean most recently suggested, the official policy of Wikipedia changes to my original proposal of linking 'Macedonian' to People of North Macedonia. The article ethnic Macedonians will obviously not be changed at all - some people of North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians, but a good 25% of the population is not – and to forcully label them as such is not really an ideal solution when a separate article can be created which represents everyone who is a 'Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia'. It is akin to saying "Nichola Sturgeon is a British politician" and linking the word British to English people. --Michail (blah) 01:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. The Prespa Agreement states that the nationality remains Macedonian (or citizen of North Macedonia), but never North Macedonian. — Tom(T2ME) 20:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, as it is the only one that is unambiguous. Common use isn’t everything, as we can see with Republic of Ireland. That’s not the most commonly used term for the sovereign state, but it is the most unambiguous. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither A, nor B separately, while both are acceptable, depending on the context. Jingiby (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A As a solution to avoid the lengthy, though necessary use of the term "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", exactly as neweurope.eu states ("New Europe will describe the country's citizens as North Macedonians hoping to avoid the term "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"). "Macedonian" cannot be used alone to describe nationality anymore (in terms of citizenship, not ethnicity) and will cause further confusions with the ethnic group in English usage (since the geographic compound of the name). "North Macedonian(s)" stems from the country's new name and covers all citizens of North Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (including Albanians, Turks, etc. which make up a great percentage of the country's population, the reason the country is officially bilingual). Regardless of the Agreement, Wikipedia focuses on common usage, something that "North Macedonian(s)" is eventually coming to and has already been used to describe the citizens (e.g. deutschland.de article "Based on the Franco-German model").StevenHal (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option B. It doesn't seem to be a mistake that "North Macedonian" is excluded from the Prespa agreement. It gives us "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" for nationality. From this, it seems reasonable to deduce that "Macedonian" is acceptable terminology. Regardless of this agreement, however, "Macedonian" is now (and for the foreseeable future) the most common usage. If there is any ambiguity, which should be very limited since there is no other Macedonian nationality, "North" can be added. --Local herotalk 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A as per StevenHal. If however we see in the future that common usage goes heavily in the other way we should revert it, but I worry that the current system we are working with doesn't allow for such corrections, so I will consider changing my vote. --Antondimak (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option BFor the time being, I am convinced that the agreement was meant to give the nationality "Macedonian", as a simplification of the longer name. Furthermore, that the leadership of the Albanian community wanted it to be referred as "Macedonian". Trusting the people who worked to reach this agreement, knowing the possible consequences, I think we should abide by their decisions, as most English publications have. --Antondimak (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B is the only reasonable option at the moment. The context that the term is used in wikipedia has not changed (e.g. nationality in biographies per WP:MOSBIO), no need for disambiguation has occurred since there is no other nationality that uses the term "Macedonian", and the alternative has no validity, neither as WP:OFFICIALNAME, nor as WP:COMMONNAME currently. Additionally, the profound lack of any reliable sources using the term "North Macedonian" to describe people brings the term into WP:OR territory. I can't see how the already established use of the term "Macedonian(s)" could be challenged for now, since the issue of self-identification has never been contested by the officials, and MOS:IDENTITY sets priority to the term that person or group uses for themselves in case of possible discrepancy, which is actually not currently present. Finally, any arguments that disregard present usage and reliable sources and deploy the logic of WP:Commonsense or future use are not consistent with the rules that govern this RfC according to withstanding ARBCOM decisions. --Argean (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Since the RfC is heading to a closure with various levels of consensus, I would like to bring back to the table Philly boy92's proposal to create an article on People of North Macedonia, since many editors bring up the issue of the recognition of ethnic minorities in North Macedonia. I don't agree with the argument that the actual name should encompass all minorities, since this does not happen with all other multiethnic states/nations, or countries with large ethnic minorities, but the creation of such an article is a good idea to address the multiethnic character of the state, which is also recognized by North Macedonia's constitution. The name of the people could then be linked to the article of the country, the article of the ethnic group, or this newly created article, depending on context. --Argean (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentArgean – I would support this and would change my vote accordingly to B if this were to become policy. As I have explained, the current position is to redirect all references of 'Macedonian' to ethnic Macedonians, which is ludicrous; 25% of 'Macedonians' are not ethnic Macedonians but ethnic Albanians. It is the equivalent of having British redirect to English people when talking about someone who is ethnically Scottish but whose nationality is British. I cannot bring myself to support Option B as it currently stands, since it forcefully and wrongly labels all non-ethnic Macedonians as the largest ethnic group in the country, regardless of if their ethnic consciousness is different. --Michail (blah) 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. because option B is very confusing if used to describe Albanians, Turks and other North Macedonian people who are not ethnic Macedonians. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A It is the simplest way of referring to something/someone from North Macedonia without causing confusion. Dash9Z (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A Some people think that there exist two options for the citizenship, i.e., it is either "Macedonian" or "citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". However, the citizenship is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", according to (a) the Prespa agreement, (b) the modified constitution of North Macedonia, and (c) all official travel documents. If the citizenship were "Macedonian", then there would be no reason to put "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" in all these aforementioned documents, because it's obvious that the citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia are citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia. The fact that the citizenship is neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" is a result of a compromise between the two countries, North Macedonia and Greece. We have to respect that two countries made an agreement after 27 years. We should not try to introduce more problems. It's clear that people in both countries do not agree with this compromise, the vast majority is not happy, but it is a step towards peace in Balkans. If people all over the world used the official term FYROM to refer to North Macedonia the last 27 years, maybe, it wouldn't be necessary for North Macedonia to change its constitutional name. The reason for this change is that Greece was not convinced that a solution with two names (Macedonia for internal use and North Macedonia for international use) would work because of what happened with FYROM. Please take seriously this issue and respect people on both countries. Otherwise, any abuse of the term "Macedonian" may result in more problems between the two countries in the near future. People in North Macedonia need a name that identifies them, which means uniquely. The name "Macedonian" does not identify them, because there are people with different identities that are called Macedonians. This is not my personal opinion. This is the opinion of people in both countries, North Macedonia and Greece, and this is the reason for the name dispute for almost 30 years. It's up to us if we want to have peace in Balkans. Moreover, the name "Macedonian" does not identify Albanians in North Macedonia. Albanians wanted to remove completely the term Macedonia from the citizenship, and this is the reason for the additional clarification in the constitution. Last but not least, the argument that wikipedia uses common names and not official names is vague, for the simple reason that if wikipedia uses the incorrect term "Macedonian" then the majority of the world will use it because of wikipedia. In my opinion, wikipedia has to be a reliable source, and not a source of propaganda. There is no reason to believe that the people of North Macedonia will be called just Macedonians unless wikipedia and other sources with significant influence spread wrong information. The goal of wikipedia is to be neutral and objective, not biased. The use of the term "Macedonia" is inappropriate for Wikipedia.Peace in balkans (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option A As a short form for the citizens of North Macedonia and because it's unambiguous as well. --StanProg (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, because:
1) North Macedonian is simpler, clearer and less confusing as it is consistent with the name of the country. Particularly if the adjective used to describe the country is 'North Macedonian', having the nationality be different will lead to all sorts of awkwardly inconsistent constructions like North Macedonian government but Macedonian government officials, North Macedonian film but Macedonian filmmakers, North Macedonian population but population of Macedonians etc., violating WP:PLAINENGLISH and WP:REMEMBER.
3) North Macedonian is completely unambiguous while Macedonian will be highly ambiguous in many use cases, as it could also mean the ethnicity or the regional identity. Since many North Macedonians are not Macedonians and many Macedonians are not North Macedonians, making the distinction will make everything clearer.
4) Since the official nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" and, for Albanian citizens, may be listed as "citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" , 'North Macedonian' and 'Macedonian' are both equally formally inaccurate, so it makes sense to use the former one which is simpler.
Option B - as its in line with the Prespa agreement, continues the current practice on Wikipedia to describe Albanians, Turks and other people from the country who are its citizens and its not WP:CRYSTAL like option A.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A: Akin to the concerns raised by SilentResident, I think nationality (citizenship, etc.) should contain the "North". I imagine in my mind two Albanians, or two Swedes (pick any identity really and it still applies), the first one living in North Macedonia, the second living in Macedonia in Greece, and both saying they are "Macedonian" Albanians, or "Macedonian" Swedes. This is both technically correct (because of the regional stuff), but at the same time completely unhelpful as a descriptive/distinguishing label. The one living in North Macedonia simply using the "North Macedonian" label resolves this, which is not incorrect, as he LIVES there, i.e. 'belongs' there or 'belongs' to the state. Making the ownership term by the actual state name sensible -"North Macedonian", (this has no bearing on normal North Macedonian individuals who are claiming a purely "Macedonian ethnicity" label, naturally.) So, from a citizenship perspective, "North Macedonian" seems justifiable. As most people living in North Macedonia are "Macedonian" ethnic peoples with a 'belonging' to the state "North Macedonia", thus making them "North Macedonian" citizens (belonging term). I know this is kind of counter to Prespa, but Prespa is all about what is WP:OFFICIAL, we deal with WP:COMMONNAME here on Wikipedia, and since it is early in the historical development of this "North Macedonia" terminology change, it is hard to say which of the two will be WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that they BOTH are to be considered as such, as either COULD ultimately be WP:COMMONNAME, and it is not our place to predict this. Yet, one must be chosen over the other, and the reason I mentioned earlier seems sensible enough distinction to me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, and the term Macedonian is expressly allowed in reference to the people of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, for consistency with the country name and since option B is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. I think we're guessing whatever we choose here, as we've had to move so quickly that I don't think that the WP:COMMONNAME given WP:NAMECHANGES has had time to bed down yet. So we should remain open to revising this in the future. But I see North Macedonia in the same bracket as South Korea or East Timor, where the ethnicity is Macedonian, Korean or Timorese, but general people from the country are North Macedonian, South Korean or East Timorese.
The contrivance "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" from the Prespa Agreement - assuming that's intended to be a single term including the slash - should never be used except when explicitly discussing official terminology. Kahastoktalk 10:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. "Macedonians" can include people from the parts of the region that aren't part of North Macedonia, and it excludes people living in North Macedonia who are Albanians, Arabs, etc. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A because Macedonian/s refers to the ethnic Macedonians and if is used and for the all citizens of North Macedonia will be very confusing for the readers. Make an article on North Macedonians that will include all ethnic groups who live in North Macedonia (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romani, Serbs, Bosniaks, Aromanians, Bulgarians etc.)--APG1984 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B the Prespa agreement gives two options: Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia / Macedonian. The 1st option is too lengthy and can be used as an alternative for those citizens of NM who don't want to be associated with the Macedonian ethnic group.But as default Macedonian can be used in wikipedia -- Stevepeterson (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A per SilentResident, ThorstenNY, and Wiz9999. They said it all better than I could ever have. To address Stevepeterson's concern from above: it doesn't matter what Prespa says. From an WP:Official standpoint, steve is correct. However, from a WP:Common standpoint, they are not. Separately, I also don't like the idea of picking Option B for now. Are commenters we propose that seriously considering we will be willing to do this all over again? When does it stop being "for now" and when it start being "forever"? I can't wrap my head around that. Let's just call a spade a spade. It would be so odd if I said: "they are from North Macedonia; that makes them North Macedonian... for now." I don't get why saying that the citizens of North Macedonia are called Macedonians "for now" makes any bit of sense. I suggest we put this to rest and pick for the present and near future the option that is both short and not confusing: That's option A. Also, leave it unlinked per Argean below. ―MJL-Talk-☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A per much of the above and, well, WP:Common sense. "Macedonians" is a larger-scope ethnonym even when confined to modern-day people. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, as it the way and free self declaration to the vast majority of the people in the country, the other one besides it is imposed it is completely artificially and non-existent in the every day life and it is offensive. - Македонец (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B The agreement clearly stipulates the use of 'Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia' and does not even mention the use of 'North Macedonian'. The former is not the same as the simple 'Macedonian' but is much farther from 'North Macedonian'. The possible ambiguity between 'Macedonian' used as nationality with 'Macedonian' as regional designation for other people from the region of Macedonia (e.g. Greece or Bulgaria) is a very weak argument because these people are described by their respective nationalities (e.g. Greek or Bulgarian) rather than the regional designation. So to say, this might have been a problem had people from other countries come out to self-identify as 'Macedonian' by nationality even though a simple wikification could easily solve the problem in that case as well (Macedonian is not the same as Macedonian). Furthermore, there are many reliable sources, including the United Nations, advocating the use of 'Macedonian' for the nationality of people from the country, which makes 'North Macedonian' closely border an original research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B per Prespa Agreement and reality. I agree with Fut.Per. comment. MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Nationality is either Macedonian(s) or a citizen of Republic of North Macedonia. Please do not use North Macedonian(s). That is offensive to ethnic Macedonians. GStojanov (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, While people may be ethnically Macedonian, they are citizens of other countries, such as Greece or Albania. They should be called Greek Macedonians or Albanians of Macedonian origin, etc., This should theoretically limit confusion. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A seems logical. If the disambiguation page exists for "Macedonia" then obviously this one should follow the same logic.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A It is less confusing. As long as the ethnic Macedonian ("slavic" speaking North Macedonians remain "Macedonians" of course)--Lepourquoipas (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B This option is in order with Prespa Agreement, as other term in option A is not stated in that agreement and it is debatable and more importantly it is not confirmed by any major institution and/or does not have any scientific papers regarding this, so Wikipedia will take a stand in near future for this term, which clearly breaks rule of original research. Additionally, did anybody notice that CIA Factbook make changes for country North Macedonia, but still use only Macedonian as adjective and nationality of the people who live in Macedonia, besides their ethnic origin. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. Legal justification: The Article 1(12) of the Prespa Agreement requires amendment to Article 49 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. In compliance with the Prespa Agreement, on 11 January 2019, the National Parlament of Republic of Macedonia adopted the amendment to the Article 49 (i.e., Amendment 36) to the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. The first sentence of this amendment explicitly mentions "Macedonian people" by stating: "The Republic protects, guarantees and nurtures the peculiarities, historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people". Since the Prespa Agreement was ratified by the National Parlament of Hellenic Republic on 25 January 2019, it means that Greece has officially recognized the new Article 49, thus officially recognizing "Macedonian people" (i.e., Macedonians) in Republic of Macedonia. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option B, but we should revisit the issue, if we see that—contrary to the provisions of the Prespa Agreement, the clear position of North Macedonia, and the concessions of the Greek side—"North Macedonian" prevails and becomes the common term.Yannismarou (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. It is the only unambiguous option of the two that are given. Nationality  is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. The state in this case is called "North Macedonia" by the UN since 14 February 2019, which renders "North Macedonian" (its adjectival form) the natural choice for the respective nationality, for any purpose other than official. Besides, any appeal to Article 1.3.b of the bilateral agreement of June 2018 between this state and the Hellenic Republic, which defines the examined nationality as "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", is irrelevant in this context, as the purpose of usage of the discussed term in Wikipedia is not official. Astrophysician1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC) — Astrophysician1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option Ahistorically linguistically genetically the term Macedonia should not be used to describe the newly named NATO statelet but given the abhorrent circumstances, let it be North Macedonia in order to differentiate from the authentic province of Macedonia of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparcadia (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A Most people will never see a passport/ID of North Macedonia and they will never try to learn the history of North Macedonia or the preferences of people. By listening to country's name, it's natural to think that the people of North Macedonia are North Macedonians. Why different names for the country, the people, the state-associated entities and for the rest? They all feel wrong to me. All these are for sure explained with the Prespa agreement for political reasons and that's great, but if wikipedia will not adopt the "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" which is the reason for this rfc, then any official restrictions about North Macedonian do not restrict wikipedia either. We cannot expect 8 billion people to read the Prespa agreement and figure out when they are allowed to use Macedonian, when North Macedonian, why of North Macedonia is correct and if North Macedonian is wrong. They will just use North Macedonian for everything because is natural, for the same reason that they used Macedonia and not F.Y.R.O.M.. People will forget the Prespa agreement the next years, and North Macedonian will dominate. North Macedonian is the only option for everything unrelated to the ethnic group. Mir suaar (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option A. Using Macedonian(s) instead of North Macedonian(s) is a bit like using Africans and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from South Africa only, or using Irish and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from Northern Ireland only. Place Clichy (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Using Macedonian(s) is like using Americans and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from the United States only. In both cases, there is a long tradition of using the technically-ambiguous term, and in both cases, this does not lead to any appreciable number of misunderstandings. Libhye (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. This is a fallacious analogy. It is natural to refer to people from the United States of America as American, because the name of the country is America, just like people from the United States of Mexico are Mexican. Further, American is also the adjectival form and the form used to refer to state-associated entities. The word America is indeed ambiguous (since it is both a country and a continent) but the nationality matches the name of the country. In this case, the country is called North Macedonia and the term 'North Macedonian' will most likely be used as both an adjective and for state-associated entities, so referring to the nationality of 'Macedonian' would not match either of these AND be ambiguous with other meanings of the word Macedonian which are related to things actually called Macedonia (the region of Greece, the ancient Kingdom, the region of Bulgaria, the broader geographic region and the ethnicity). It would therefore lead to much confusion and many appreciable misunderstandings. Kkyriakop (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian(s)". Since the country is called North Macedonia it goes without saying that its people should be called North Macedonian(s). Use of the word Macedonian would allow the part to present itself as the whole (in the sense that there are Macedonians who do not live/originate from/belong to the country called 'North Macedonia'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moschova (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Moschova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
About User:Philly boy92 (Michail's) proposal of using "Macedonian" but linking it to the ethnicity rather than to the country page: I'm afraid that suggestion is self-defeating really, because an ethnicity simply isn't a nationality. And our biography guidelines are crystal-clear on the matter that we should routinely describe people in their bios by their nationality first, not by their ethnicity. There's no reason not to link that description to the country, just as we do with every other country on earth. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Macedonian' linking to North Macedonia is an adjectival reference, and should be done in the "of North Macedonia"/"North Macedonian" manner in line with how it's done in other cases, ex. North Korean. --Michail (blah) 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems this discussion further demonstrates how confusing it is to have Macedonian be the adjective of North Macedonia. Right now nobody is sure how this will shake out, so I favor clarity over ambiguity. If (!!!) RS clearly gravitate towards Macedonian over the coming weeks, we’ll know and I’ll change my vote. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do get your point Michail and it's valid, so I would suggest as an alternative to leave the term unlinked when not necessary, e.g. we don't have to link both "x is a Macedonian football player, ... playing for the North Macedonian National team". This requires further discussion, I agree. --Argean (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m afraid such constructs would cause quite a bit of confusion, as it suggests — to anyone without prior special knowledge that “Macedonian” is supposed to be the adjective for “North Macedonia” — that being “Macedonian” is something that is somehow special, different or particularly noteworthy for a player of a North Macedonian national team. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is not much different as a construct from "a Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland" which is something that I'm sure that I've heard before. I'm aware that I might becoming a bit annoying of trying to separate the name of the people from the name of the country (I'm so frustrated that they didn't go for an untranslated version like Moldova vs Moldavia, or Republika Srpska vs Serbia), but I can't see how people speaking the Macedonian language, and self-identifying as Macedonians, will incorporate an adjectival attribute before their name that will apply depending on context (ethnically Macedonian + nationally North Macedonian?), without creating confusion on who are the Macedonians after all... --Argean (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That right there Argean is why I crystal-ball-predict that, ultimately, the people of North Macedonia will come to accept the "North Macedonian" label, and come to terms with the loss of the individually "Macedonian" one. It may take 100 years for this change to happen, but I think that the complex way of having to describe themselves like this will eventually compel this shift. I could be wrong of course, I'm not saying I'm right, it is just the way I perceive it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't be so daring in my predictions Wiz9999 for the same reasons I don't see Turkish Cypriots being called Northern Cypriots any time soon. Ethnic identity in regions like Balkans and the Middle East is very sensitive issue and the whole stability of such regions is based on the balance of self-identification and perserving the feeling of distinction among others. "North Macedonians" as a concept of national identity wouldn't be much more viable than the Bosnians one in the long term --Argean (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always dare to predict ;) Life is just more interesting that way. You don't have to listen to my ramblings, often they are just mad ramblings. I hesitate to compare this to the Cyprus dispute that is a far more serious point of contention, with the possibility of real conflict occurring in future. Sorry, but the Macedonian naming dispute is just not on the same scale. It was always going to be largely addressed by an agreement between Greece and "North Macedonia". The issue has not nearly built up to the seriousness of Cyprus and is largely just one based on entomology, identity, nationalism, and culture. The TRNC is backed directly by turkey, a NATO country, Cypriots in the south don't enjoy as much luxury as this. Not to mention the other states in the region with an interest in the situation, Greece, Russia, Israel, UK, EU, etc. The Bosnian identity example is more comparable, but still quite different to that of the Macedonia dispute. There is always the potential for Bosnia to self destruct, whereas Greece and "North Macedonia" would be incredibly unlikely to have ever come to actual blows over this. It may not seem this way, but it is just a fact that neither state has ever said anything meaningful to the effect. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I dare to dream that people will stop having disputes over names or even borders, but at the same moment I'm trying to be realistic and see the whole picture. You've painted well the picture of Cyprus dispute, but on the other hand I think you are missing many points over the Macedonian one. Luckily, it's more than a century ago when Macedonian Question led to 2 Balkan Wars, but don't you think that Balkans have too many irredentist claims for such a small region, and lots of "Greats" Albanias, Bulgarias, Serbias, etc, to be overlooked and disregarded as a potential destabilizing force? --Argean (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary! I am well aware of the multitude of irredentist claims that much of the Balkan countries have over each other, and many of these are issues stemming back to long prior to WWI, as you exemplified with your mentioning of the Balkan wars. However, the situation in the Balkans at the moment is sort of akin to that of a post WWII east & west Europe as a whole. The yugoslav wars of the 1990s were a devastating conflict for the region, and no-one wants to see any violence flare up again. This is because, as with post WWI europe, any return to war would be so catastrophically destructive that it is just better to use diplomacy, all parties know that any conflict between them would devastate their own homelands and ultimately not be worth the effort (yes I know there are no nukes involved with regards to today's balkans unlike cold war era europe, but the capacity for large scale destruction and ethnic cleansing still remains high). Greece was not directly involved with the 90's conflicts, yes, but they followed those conflicts intensely and the lessons from the wars are not lost on the Greeks as a whole. Thus there is HUGE incentive for nations to cooperate right now, and work towards a peaceful relationship with their neighbors. The ongoing expansions of the EU and NATO are the most obvious manifestations of this trend, so long as radical elements in each state do not rise up to power. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really wish that Bosnia and Herzegovina was Switzerland in terms of national/ethnic identity and Albania was Austria in terms of willingness to join NATO and abide to their policies. But they are not. Trust me, as a Greek Macedonian that grew up near the borders and as an educated individual, I have a good picture of both the history and the current political issues of the region. But let's not turn this discussion to a political forum, I think we both made our point clear enough. --Argean (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very anxious about this and I would like to make the reasons for this known in case others would want to take them into account. I will actually argue against my current vote. There's a larger and more sensitive issue at play here, and I trust the diplomats' and lawmakers' assessment. Listening to them and to other experts, it's clear that North Macedonia is in an unstable state, and it will likely get worse soon. The country is in a state of polarisation and there is a nascent possibility of violence. There is currently talk about border changes in the area, and it's likely one will take place (between Serbia and Kosovo). In this climate, if there is a perception among many Macedonians belonging to the VMRO side that they have been betrayed, that everything is lost, violence could break out. The deal essentially giving the term "Macedonian" for the nationality was mainly to pacify that part of the population. Wikipedia is a major English language source. Even though it isn't supposed to influence, only reproduce what other do, it does anyway. So it plays a role in establishing common usage, which in turn plays a role in shaping the perception in North Macedonia, and therefore shaping the people's reaction. We can't know the future, but I'm very concerned. --Antondimak (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely share your concerns, Antondimak. However, we don’t know how this will shake out. It is also possible that ethnic Albanian citizens of North Macedonia will object to being called Macedonians (now that the country has a different, “non-ethnic” name) and accuse the majority of attempted “Macedonisation.” We just don’t know. We also don’t know how English-language RS will treat the issue: pragmatically or legalistically. My guess is the former, but we just don’t know. In the meantime, it seems pretty obvious which option is less ambiguous. Just imaging constructs such as “a Macedonian (but ethnically Albanian, not Macedonian) athlete” on some North Macedonian team. Huh? —ThorstenNY (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the reason I voted for "North Macedonia". About your point about Albanians though, I know that it was the Albanians too that pushed for the nationality to be called "Macedonian", so that they wouldn't be excluded if it were only an ethnic term. --Antondimak (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes they did. Zaev conceded on that point and is what secured Albanian votes for the name change in parliament. There was nothing about a geographic qualifier of "north" for citizens, nor does the Prespa agreement stipulate one.Resnjari (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The purely grammatical way this RfC is structured right now gives significant undue weight to the term 'North Macedonian(s)', given the fact that at the moment of the start of the RfC, it is used in little or virtually no reliable sources (to refer to the people in question, some media have just begun to use it to refer to the state-associated entities covered by the section below), it's not official and it has never been used as a common name in the past. It is there solely on the assumption that it will be used by the majority of sources which at some point in the future (while being used in few, if any reliable sources at the start of the RfC). Given the legal context of the Prespa Agreement which specifically defines the nationality as Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia (article 1.3.b) and the adjective Macedonian when denoting the people of North Macedonia (article 7.3) it is unsurprising that the official position of the government of North Macedonia is that its citizens should continue to be called "Macedonians," not "North Macedonians.". It is extremely unlikely that 'North Macedonian' will ever be used as an WP:OFFICIALNAMES in any international organization. The UN defines the inhabitants also as Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Since nationality is closely linked to sensitive issues such as identity and self-determination, the usage of North Macedonian(s), is likely to spur major controversies, especially when used in biographies of living persons. European Union officials have been known to publicly apologize for the usage of North(ern) Macedonian to refer to the people. The notion that Wikipedia editors, basing their decisions on personal grammatical preferences or sadly their ethnic background, will even consider prescribing how an entire nationality should be referred when they refuse to be called 'North Macedonian', never were called or agreed to be called like that, and in fact, simply aren't even after the state name change (according to the majority of current reliable sources)- well, this notion, strikes me not only as contrary to basic NPOV policy (Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them) but also as borderline culturally insensitive. For these reasons, and many more - I've even opposed the inclusion of this option in the drafting of this RfC. I've also proposed a modified format including a research of reliable sources before every section - that'd be helpful on determining what's the actual, not the futureWP:COMMONNAME should the Wikipedians choose to use it over WP:OFFICIALNAME, for some reason. Sadly, even that has not yet met the consensus - clearly giving way to Wikipedia being a crystal ball. While we're in that territory, The Economist actually speculates it might take years for the state name to take hold, let alone the nationality. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To address Kahastok's point, this in fact isn't like East Timor or South Korea. In this case, we are talking about a region with the same identity, but where there is political division. In this case, there isn't one Macedonian nation. Somebody from North Macedonia and South Macedonia would have completely different identities, the same way as people from Western, Northern and Eastern Thrace. --Antondimak (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is true. And I'll be quite upfront about the fact that I'm making an vaguely-informed guess that may turn out to be completely wrong. But my expectation is that, for most native English-speakers, the parallels between the situations will be more significant than the differences. Kahastoktalk 11:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of that source, I'm not basing my opinion on it, it was an example. I was pretty clear on what I said. "North Macedonian" is the best option for a) Consistency with the country's name b) Avoiding the lengthy and impractical, though necessary term of the Prespa Agreement (which basically renders the usage of "Macedonian" for describing nationality, officially obsolete, in a way it wouldn't create major backlash to North Macedonia's public), c) Accurately describe ALL citizens of North Macedonia (an overwhelmingly multicultural and multiethnic country with Albanian as an official state language) regardless of ethnicity d) Avoiding major confusions and ambiguity that arises both within the very country (nationality-ethnicity), as well as between the regional people of Macedonia (Greece) and North Macedonia, as others have stated. --StevenHal (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I raised concerns over the neutrality and reliability of that source quite early. () --Argean (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wiz9999, SilentResident, StevenHal, and ThorstenNY: (and others). I'm really trying to follow your train of thoughts on the need for disambiguation and I really fail to see the point. The issue is already addressed and we have a bunch of articles over Macedonian Albanians, and when it's necessary to refer to ethnicity/origin (although not required by the MoS) we do so, as here, or here (randomly selected). This is not an exception, because we follow the same style in many other cases, such as footballer Bixente Lizarazu who is ethnically Basque and nationally French, or MMA fighter Khabib Nurmagomedov who is ethnically Avar and nationally Russian. On the contrary using the term "North Macedonian" as an introductory term to someone's bio, will probably create a new ambiguity, and in many instances the need to further specify ethnicity not only for Albanians, but also for ethnic Macedonians. Now imagine introducing a sentence that it would read "x is a North Macedonian of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity". Now this is confusing. --Argean (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Argean, we've had this lengthy discussion before and ended up nowhere. You seem to be desperately trying to convince us that a North Macedonian citizen (ethnic Albanian) would cause more confusion than a Macedonian citizen (ethnic Albanian) even though a Macedonian (ethnic group) and Macedonian (Greek regional people) exist at the same time! This is greatly problematic, especially now that the name has changed (and reference to the citizens naturally follows a country's name in the English language), and will most likely lead to unprecedented confusion and need of specifications in the future. --StevenHal (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see how you call problematic the logic of making the less possible disruption to an established consensus instead of introducing new terms that seem to me as a desperate effort to fabricate a concept that goes much further of serving the goals of wikipedia. Macedonian Greeks will always be Greeks, and I'm really glad that finally there is an agreement that distinguishes that the identity and history of Macedonian Greeks is completely different to the one of their neighbors to their North, something its' importance many people fail to recognize. --Argean (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considerable, fundamental changes have just been made such as the CHANGING of the country's name (and many other aspects behind it) and constitution, as well as the significant Albanian minority officially gaining a more influential role and presence in the country, yet you speak of disrupting something established and introducing new terms as if nothing has happened these last few months. For reasons other users, and I, have already explained, I strongly insist on what I said, believing it will solve many issues while being accurate at the same time. Finally, you claim you are glad the agreement distinguishes Macedonians (Greeks) from Macedonians of North Macedonia while supporting the (officially invalid) usage of a nationality that does the EXACT OPPOSITE. --StevenHal (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was never an advocate of revanchism, and will never become one, neither going to take the chance to jump on the train of opportunistic negationism. Trying to deal with all the sides of the dispute that are not being resolved by the agreement, in a way that will make our lives easier inside and outside of wikipedia, is one thing, but failing to recognize the potential benefits of a finally accomplished agreement to systematically eradicate misconceptions over history and identity is a stubborn mindset that I will never abide to. --Argean (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly hope you are not accusing me of these things, because this is clearly not my intent, as I have provided, and continue to do so, clear arguements and reasons for supporting what I claim. I don't see where you are going with this. Disagreeing with me is one thing, accusing me, indirectly, of having a "stubborn mindset" in such a snobbish way is something I wouldn't have expected from you. --StevenHal (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't know each other so I don't think that we should have any expectations. I will not follow the blame game that started in this very row of edits and certainly will not play the card of WP:AAGF. --Argean (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true we don't know each other but you did cry "personal attacks" on a couple of discussions we had for otherwise trivial and laughable "offenses" I made, so I assumed you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to freely try to insult someone like that, just because he has a different opinion. Maybe it's your way of arguing, who knows. Have a good day. --StevenHal (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean:"North Macedonian of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity" That is EXACTLY what the Prespa agreement does though, except with the less controversial "North Macedonia" instead of "North Macedonian". If I just swap the order of how you just said what you said: Now imagine introducing a sentence that it would read "x is a person of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity of North Macedonia", this is in full alignment with Prespa. The only thing we are really doing differently is applying the more naturally linguistically modified term (in English) of "North Macedonian" which allows us (again in English sentences) to place the order in the way that you specified. I didn't draft Prespa, but I do think its adherence is confusing. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wiz9999: Still, can't follow your example and this is EXACTLY what the Prespa Agreement does NOT do, since it doesn't mention the term North Macedonian not even once. Do we ever need to use sentences like "a Russian from Russia", or "a French(man) from France" for Russians/French that are both ethnically and nationally Russian/French to distinguish them from their compatriots that are not? And to make it even more descriptive, do we have to mention that "x is a Bosnian of Bosniak ethnicity"? Wikipedia MoS requires one term for nationality and we need the one that is more appropriate and does not introduce new problems. --Argean (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is confusing North Macedonian of Macedonian ethnicity?, for me is isn't at all, there are people from North Macedonia (North Macedonians) who are of Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish etc. ethnicity. Also, in Bosnia there are Bosnians of Bosniak, of Serbian, of Croatian etc. ethnicity. In North Korea there are North Koreans of Korean, of Han Chinese, of Japanese etc. ethnicity. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is precisely why the demonym should not direct to Macedonians (ethnic group) like it does now. We can't say on the one hand that "Macedonians" refers to all people of North Macedonia, including non-ethnic Macedonians, and then direct the reader to a page about 65% of the population of North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 13:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree, this thing with the demonyms who linking to the dominant ethnic group of the countries is wrong, I said that before and we opened a discussion here to resolve the problem. Isn't the case just with the demonym Macedonians who link to the ethnic Macedonians, there are many other cases like that, for example the demonym Russian linking to Russians and ethnic Russians in Russia are 81%, the demonym German link to the ethnic Germans and the ethnic Germans in Germany are 80%, etc. etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a problem of directing the demonym to the right page, but rather changing the demonym to suit the new name. A demonym according to Wikipedia itself, "is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place.". This makes it pretty obvious what the demonym should be, in agreement, also, with the demonyms of other countries, states, cities, regions, etc. bearing directional names. --StevenHal (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's very logical if someone is from North Macedonia to be called North Macedonian, doesn't metter if by ethnicity he/she is Macedonian, Albanian, Turk or whatever.
@Philly boy92: As I said before I'm siding with the argument that this needs to be adressed and indeed an article on "People from North Macedonia" seems a sensible approach. --Argean (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: Good idea, but such an article wouldn’t really help someone being confused about “Macedonian soccer players from North Macedonia” on a gazillion sports pages. Is not much different as a construct from 'a Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland', you wrote. I’m sorry, but it is fundamentally different from “a Macedonian athlete representing North Macedonia.” The area where Northern Irish people come from is only 1/6 of the size of the area represented by all-Irish sports teams. That this false analogy was mentioned here illustrates “beautifully” the pitfalls of using “Macedonian” (with no further explanation) to describe citizenship of North Macedonia. People are just going to assume “Macedonian” (citizenship) and “North Macedonia” (country) describe different entities, when in fact they don’t (or at least are not supposed to.) With (politician-proposed) language so confusing, I think that WP:REMEMBER should take precedent. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThorstenNY: You misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear enough): my comment was not meant to provide an analogy on content, but merely on linguistic constructivism and I didn’t even use it in the way that you rephrased it. Per sea Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland wouldn’t make any more sense to an uniformed individual either, or even more a person from Northern Ireland holding British citizenship, if the logic of WP:REMEMBER was to be applied and such oversimplification was the preferable solution. You say that people will assume that “North Macedonia” and “Macedonians” are 2 unrelated entities, but still you seem to forget the fact that Macedonia and Macedonians are already 2 different entities. Well, I guess that this problem can be easily solved if we remove the factor "Macedonians" from the equation, but I don’t think that we are here to provide people lessons on self-identification so they can fit our expectations on appropriate terminology. And honestly do you really think that a “North Macedonian of Macedonian origin” is an expression that will not confuse the readers, or do we have to explicitly suggest the editors to avoid using ethnic terms? --Argean (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we’re both missing each other’s points, Argean. Yes, I do claim that the wording of “a Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland” is not (really) confusing. The phrase uses two different terms for two different entities. (People not familiar with the existence of all-Ireland teams might be surprised by the circumstances of people from different sovereign states playing on the same “national” team, but the wording is not what gives rise to questions here.) On your second point, on the contrary, I am all-too-aware of the difference between Macedonian ethnicity and (North) Macedonian citizenship. That’s even more reason to use one term for the ethnicity and another term for citizenship. None of the supposedly confusing examples you have given elsewhere seem as confusing to me as “a Macedonian athlete of Macedonian ethnicity playing for North Macedonia.” Others have pointed out that Prespa does not prescribe a short form for citizenship, only a long form, which, however, is completely impractical for most article about people from N.M. So we essentially have to create our own short form. Should we pick one that is intuitive and unambiguous or one that is confusing and ambiguous? —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ThorstenNY Well I guess we do, since it seems that we have different understanding of some ideas, but that's fine. Possibly coming from different backgrounds means that we are seeing things from different perspectives and thus failing to follow each others train of thought. I will not go back to the Northern Irish paradigm and your interpretation of it, where honestly you completely lost me, going from the two different entities to the same nation, which is already one of the two entities, and yet being also a sovereign state which is a different entity, but anyway. I will say that I still fail to see your reasoning on what has created in the present case the need to separate the two terms of ethnicity and nationality/citizenship, especially in such a way that one of the terms (North Macedonians) contains the other (Macedonians), without the former group of people being part of the latter, but rather the opposite. You keep raising the issue of being practical, and yet you are still avoiding my most practical question by referring to the content of the problem, but then you go back again to present the issue as a practical problem that we have to deal and create our own short form so yeah I don't think that you are really trying very hard to convince me, are you? --Argean (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sliceofcodes: Please do not spread misinformation. The Prespa Agreement DOES NOT state the nationality is "Macedonian", but rather changes that to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (indivisible) which will replace the "Macedonian" on ID's, passports etc. It's obvious this was done as a step to stop the usage of "Macedonian" when referring to nationality, but in a more moderate and neutral manner in order to avoid major conflict and backlash, and not to establish it, as it was already simply "Macedonian" before the Agreement. So not only is the nationality "Macedonian" officially defunct, but will create major confusion and issues if it is used now that the name is "North Macedonia". --StevenHal (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Argean and Antondimak: The citizenship is neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian". Zaev says that people can still be called Macedonians, and this is true. But the right of self-determination is an individual right. Nobody can enforce all people in North Macedonia to be called Macedonians. Moreover, Zaev told to people to say it, not to write it. The written term is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" as stated in every official document/organization/source. This is confirmed by Nikos Kotzias who said that we cannot control what people say in North Macedonia, but we can control the official name of them. In wikipedia, we need a name that identifies all people of North Macedonia. If a name does not identify the people or does not identify uniquely the people, then it's not an identity. The term Macedonian is not an identity because different people use it, and they all admit that they have different identities. Geographically speaking, everybody who lives in the region of Macedonia is Macedonian, but in this case, we have to explicitly say that we talk about geography. The pure term "Macedonian" is not an identity and causes confusion. First, because there are people in North Macedonia that do not call themselves Macedonians. Second, because there are people in other countries who call themselves Macedonians. Unless we clarify in which sense we use the term Macedonian, we cannot use it to identify people. For example, if we say the Macedonian football player, why should we mean someone from North Macedonia and not someone from Macedonia, Greece? If your answer is that we call Greeks those from Macedonia, Greece, then you already took a side and this is problematic. What makes you believe that all people in North Macedonia want to be called Macedonians and all people in Macedonia, Greece do not want to be called Macedonians and they prefer the term Greeks? In other words, who says that people in Greece have to make a choice? Is there a limit of identities per person? Did you ask all Macedonians from Greece if they want you to call them Greeks and not Macedonians? The right of self-determination applies to the Greek people too, not only to people in North Macedonia. Moreover, Did you ask the Albanians in North Macedonia if they want to be called Macedonians without a clarification of what you mean Macedonians? We have to be objective and respect the identity of all people. If there are conflicts between different identities, we need a way to treat all people equally. Nobody says that Macedonians in Greece must be identified with the term "Macedonian". It's fine if we use the term "Greek Macedonians". But, this doesn't mean that the term "Macedonian" is ready for sale, and someone else can use it without a qualifier. This is also part of the agreement, nobody has exclusive ownership on the terms Macedonia and Macedonians. 40% of people in North Macedonia don't call themselves "ethnic Macedonians". North Macedonia is a country of people with different ethnicities, and nobody feels North Macedonian. The same happens in Cyprus, nobody is Cypriot. In official level, according to the constitution, there exist Greeks and Turks. But we don't call all people of Cyprus, Greeks or Turks. Therefore, North Macedonian is the only neutral name to refer to all citizens of North Macedonia. Otherwise, we take a side. I don't see any reason for negotiations that sacrifice the reliability of wikipedia. Finally, if the criterion for the choice of the name is the name used by people, we should notice two things. First, we don't know if people in North Macedonia want to be called Macedonians. Second, people in Greece call themselves with a name that nobody uses, and I don't see wikipedia using this name either. Everybody calls people from Greece, Greeks except of the Greeks. And the Greeks do not complain, they even introduce themselves as Greeks because it's a widely-used term that avoids confusion. Why people in North Macedonia have to be treated differently? Peace in balkans (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: sorry, TL;DR, I didn't read more than the couple sentences in your comment, but reading the first couple of sentences show that you have confused nationality with ethnicity. You wrote: "The citizenship is neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian". Zaev says that people can still be called Macedonians, and this is true. But the right of self-determination is an individual right. Nobody can enforce all people in North Macedonia to be called Macedonians.". But that's incorrect. Self-determination is about ethnicity, not nationality. The Macedonians have every right to be called however they want. None interferes to their ethnic rights. This survey here is about nationality only. Here this discussion is about how to call ALL the people of the country regardless of ethnicity (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romas, Arabs, etc), irrespective of how they want to be called. This is a complicated issue and I am not too much to it, but I voted for North Macedonians which I believe is unabiguous enough and can cover all ethnic groups regardless. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilentResident: I haven't confused nationality with ethnicity. My intention was to explain to people who talk about ethnicity what is the difference of the two terms in my previous comment. We need a name that refers to all people, e.g., a name like the citiznenship of people. The ethnicity is the individual right of self-determination, 60% of people in North Macedonia can be called Macedonians if they want, and 2.5 Millions in Greece can also be called Macedonians if they want. I can also be called Macedonian, but my passport doesn't say Macedonian. As you can see, we say exactly the same. What is incorrect in my comment? The citizenship is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", so it's neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" as I said. Zaev says to people that they can be called Macedonians, but it doesn't mean that they are Macedonian citizens. And it certainly doesn't mean that they have to be called Macedonians (e.g., the Albanians). Zaev says nothing more than the obvious thing. He refers to ethnicity and not to the official name of the citizens. In wikipedia we certainly don't discuss about the name used for their ethnicity. I hope now the misunderstanding is gone. One problem is that the title survey is "Nationality" which is a synonymous of the word "ethnicity" in Balkans, and a synonymous of the word "citizenship" in Western Europe. Maybe it makes more sense to change the title from "Nationality" to "Citizenship". Peace in balkans (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: Indeed your first post was far TL;DR, so my apologies that I didn't reply. Yes, the differences among ethnicity, nationality and citizenship can be interpreted as very subtle ones depending on the context and this is not helped by linguistic issues either. The term nationality has caused a lot of confusion to Greeks and Albanians, because its' common translation in Greek, and Albanian would translate as ethnicity in English. My understanding so far is that nationality (who as a general term means belonging to a nation as being a member of an organized community, i.e. a country) is used in the sense of meaning only citizenship which equals with the legal bond of a citizen to the state). Kotzias' earlier interviews Officially, the term 'North Macedonia' will be in the title of their institutions, as well. But if you think I can make it so every citizen is called 'North Macedonian', I will ask you the following simple question: There is a resident of Skopje and he tells his girlfriend that he is "Macedonian". What do we do in this case? Will we set up a thought-police state that will put him in prison? What we said is that the citizens of this country have the right to self-determination. and Katrougkalos' recent remarks [The Agreement cannot regulate issues related to a people or to a nation. The reason is simple: States recognise States, not people. Issues of nationality are legal issues that pertain to the relationship of the citizen with the State while, on the contrary, issues of national identity and integration into an ethnicity are issues of conscience and self-determination. In International Law no generally established characteristics exist, nor accepted general definitions for a nation or people. The right to self-determination is a right based in jus cogens and cannot become the subject of a contractual arrangement. confirm that this was the agreement. Now, as it has been said many times before we (wikipedia) are not here to create a new reality, but to record the facts. We cannot decide about how the citizenship will be called, because this is a legal term and if we decide on arbitrary criteria how to rephrase it will be rejected as WP:OR. The only thing that we can do is to agree on a term that should be used to describe a person as an introduction to who he/she is, like we do in opening paragraphs of person biographies and this term is called "nationality" by wikipedia. To do so we must take into account both WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, neither of which is "North Macedonian". There was a lengthy discussion more than 10 years ago on what terminology should be used to disambiguate Macedonia, and there was a consensus on that. The Prespa agreement has changed the name of the state to North Macedonia, but hasn't changed anything regarding people, except the legal relationship between a citizen and the state, something that I'm sorry we don't have any word on it, but to record it as it is "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia". No circumstances have arisen to change the way that we are using to describe people in wikipedia and even if we decide that there is a discrepancy we have to respect the right to self identify. Circumstances indeed might change in the future, and if they do we then have to document them, but we are not here to predict them. --Argean (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: Thank you for your time. I absolutely agree with all you said. All people in North Macedonia who want to be called Macedonians have the right of self-determination to do it, and the same applies to all those people who want to be called Albanians or Turks in North Macedonia. We do not discuss that. We discuss only the name that we (not every individual person) use for them, and since we refer to all of them collectively, this cannot be the name of one of these groups, because it does not identify all of them. Unless you know that a specific person of this country is an ethnic Macedonian, you cannot call him Macedonian, for the simple reason that it is offensive. And even if you call someone Macedonian, you have to explicitly say an ethnic Macedonian to avoid confusion. Macedonian is not the national identity of people in North Macedonia. The country is called North Macedonia and we have to accept it. If we start negotiating the name of the people, why we don't do it for the name of the language too, e.g., Slavomacedonian? Either we accept everything or nothing. It's fine if you want to have a different opinion for your own reasons, but we cannot call it a reasonable opinion without respecting the reality and official agreements. Peace in balkans (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: Everybody can call them as he/she wants, and they have the right to call themselves also as they want not only as individuals but as a collective group of people. Tsipras, Kotzias and Katrougkalos have said that many times , , , ,  and they never said that someone can identify as Macedonian ethnically and as a North Macedonian nationally. It's the right to use a single term for self-identification, no matter how this translates to everyone's language or minds. A French person is always a French no matter what ethnic identity might have (Basque, Breton, Alsatian, Catalan, etc). The term Macedonian has been being used for ethnic Albanians with no problem so far and as Antondimak notices below they still want the term to be used to describe them. If the Albanians were unhappy and wanted to be called North Macedonians I believe that it would be clearly stated at some point, but obviously this is not the case. And sure it's good for everyone to have their own minds, but as I said before wikipedia is here to record the facts, not to to make a poll of what people think is right or wrong. --Argean (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: Albanians officially asked to replace the word "Macedonian" with "Albanian" in the citizenship, i.e., "Albanian/citizen of North Macedonia". And Albanians didn't agree with the word Macedonian in the end before the change of the constitution, when Zaev was looking for two votes. Albanians were also the reason for the extra clarification in the constitution, because they are not Macedonians. Please don't spread wrong information. Peace in balkans (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in Balkans: Sure you can go on and shout that other spread misinformation, but when you do so please say things how they are not how you interpret them. The problem was never the ethnicity question because this was never part of the agreement, but the translation of the word nationality in Albanian, i.e. In Albania and Kosovo, the word nationality (kombësi) is never used to stand for membership in the Albanian, Macedonian or Kosovan nation states. The word citizenship (shtetësi) is used instead. (a native Albanian speaker could help us further in that issue). Anyway as a result they had to negotiate to find a middle ground for the official documents . Something similar happened to many Greeks (including K. Mitsotakis) confusing the words "ιθαγένεια" and "εθνικότητα", which led to the Greek government asking for the note verbale to clarify the issue , . In any case the fact is that the term "North Macedonians" was never negotiated from anyone and for anyone. I have no idea if the Albanians will prefer to be called Macedonian Albanians or North Macedonian Albanians, but this is just a speculation far beyond of what we are trying to do now. --Argean (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you said, the official term is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". However, it has been made, in my opinion, abundantly clear by both sides and by the UN, and the short for should be "Macedonians". I agree, this isn't intuitive. It's very confusing for readers when we talk about "North Macedonia", "North Macedonian mountains", "the North Macedonian PM" and "Macedonian citizens". We are going against readers' best interest. However, at least for the time being, I am convinced that this is the options that will cause the least problems for the future. I trust that the people that made the agreement know the dangers and preferred it being that way. I'm waiting for Kotzias' interview today, he might give some new information that changes my mind. But for now, I firmly believe that's what the deal meant to happen. --Antondimak (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Antondimak: If it were abundantly clear, it would be in the official documents. UN state explicitly that the Inhabitants of North Macedonian are called: "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" as you can confirm yourself with the link on the bottom of this page. Indeed, Matthew Nimetz talked about Macedonian identity, but identity is not the citizenship. It's the ethnicity. Otherwise, Albanians would have the same identity with rest of the people in North Macedonia. Do you see that this makes no sense? The agreement says that when we talk about the state the qualifier North is used. The people of North Macedonia are about the state, because we talk about all of them collectively. If we talk individually about someone then we can use the term "ethnic Macedonian" and this is also confirmed from the agreement. Could you please explain me what do you mean "least problems for the future"? What is wrong with the term "North Macedonian"? Is the name of the country "North Macedonia" or am I missing something? What do you mean you trust the people that made the agreement? Zaev and Tsipras interpreted the agreement in a different way to convince the people in the two countries. Moreover, if you see what the opposition says in North Macedonia, the agreement changes their identity. Do you think we can interpret the agreement in the way we want or we have to accept what is officially written there? Tsipras said that the citizenship is not Macedonian anymore, if you think it is Macedonian, does this mean that the Prespa agreement is not valid anymore? Did you think about the danger of Greece blocking North Macedonia again in joining EU because they use the term Macedonian instead of North Macedonian? We have seen that game with the term FYROM, and this is why this country had to change the constitutional name. Do we want to build friendhsip or we want to introduce more problems? Peace in balkans (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: Greece, North Macedonia and the UN have all either said or implied that the short form for "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" should be "Macedonian". This can't be in the agreement, because then it would mean that "Macedonian" could be used in official documents. When the deal was discussed in the Greek parliament, it was done with the common understanding that the term "Macedonian" was being given away for the language and the ethnicity. I'm almost sure that Ali Ahmeti pushed for "Macedonian" to become a term for citizenship, not only ethnicity, so that Albanians wouldn't be marginalised. By danger I mean the people behind this seem to consider a "Macedonian" citizenship a key for stability in the area, and we are heading toward possibly very distabilising times, where there is a threat of violence. --Antondimak (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said Antondimak. The uncertainty of the Albanian factor right now in Balkans is very important, and both resolutions of the Macedonia naming dispute and the Kosovo dispute with Serbia are key factors to push all West Balkan countries to NATO and European Union as a platform to provide stability. Yes the term "Macedonian" has been given away, but if you want a personal opinion that might be irrelevant to the discussion, this didn't happen now, it happened 27 years ago when Greece rejected the term Slavomacedonia that was proposed by Kiro Gligorov  opening the road to misconceptions and abuse of historical facts, which hopefully will find an end with the agreement. --Argean (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to butt in at this point and add that Dimitrov, North Macedonian foreign secretary, has also clarified that "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" is the nationality, and "Macedonian" is the ethnicity. In his interview that he gave, linked at the beginning of this post, he makes it clear that nationality for him is the relationship of the citizen to the state, not the ethnic identity of the individual. He says that "Macedonian" can be the ethnicity because he considers that to go under Article 7 of the agreement (where it is guaranteed that both Greece and North Macedonia use the term Macedonia(n) to mean different things), but that the nationality is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". To quote Dimitrov: The nationality is the relation of a citizen with their country. If you open your current passport, under nationality it states Macedonian. We are a multi-ethnic society, we have the Macedonian people and we have parts of other peoples, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Vlachs, Romani, Bosniaks and in that sense this does not determine ethnicity. Article 7 talks of people, talks of cultural heritage, identity qualifiers are given there. This provision of Article 1 considers nationality, and nationality, because we live in Macedonia is Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. This makes perfect sense to me and it is why I think there should be a page called People of North Macedonia like there is one called British people. To give an example from personal experience, I am British in nationality but I am neither English, nor Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, or any other ethnic identity native to Britain. The same paradigm applies to North Macedonians that are not members of Macedonians (ethnic group). --Michail (blah) 18:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the link. This link is very important because it comes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, and the statement was made by The Foreign Minister. @Argean and Antondimak: I hope this explanation will make you understand what we are talking about. Argean You made a good point before about the name Slavomacedonia. This is one more reason to think twice about your opinion. We should not repeat the mistakes of the past, we should make progress. Peace in balkans (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans and SilentResident: It is funny how reading the exact same thing we can come to so different conclusions! I was well aware of this statement and already wanted to post it earlier, because I'm afraid to say, it actually confirms the reasons why they decided explicitly to include the term "Macedonian" in the definition of citizenship (=nationality=ιθαγένεια=Државјанството=shtetësi, to avoid linguistic misunderstandings), eventually surpassing the narrow definition of ethnic identity. In any other case the statement would be just "citizen of North Macedonia", just like in Bosnia and Herzegovina where the citizenship is exactly "citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina". In my understanding Prespa was always going to be a compromise: "give me back my history, I'm giving you the identity". If you read carefully between the lines, when Tsipras and Katrougkalos say that Greece does not recognise, nor would it be able to recognise a “Macedonian nation” or “people” through this Agreement and Issues of nationality are legal issues that pertain to the relationship of the citizen with the State while, on the contrary, issues of national identity and integration into an ethnicity are issues of conscience and self-determination, this is actually an indirect way to say that the Greek official state cannot and will not object to the right of self-identification of a "Macedonian nation", which in Dimitrov's definition of nationality is a multi-ethnic society, where we have the Macedonian people and we have parts of other peoples, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Vlachs, Romani, Bosniaks and in that sense this does not determine ethnicity. I will use your same exact words We should not repeat the mistakes of the past, we should make progress and add that we cannot undone the mistakes of the past. After 27 years of banging our heads against the wall we have to realize that things have changed and all we have to do now is try to figure out what is our best interest for the future. I'm currently inclining towards Philly boy92's proposal to make a page for that multiethnic Macedonian nation/society that lives in the state now known as North Macedonia and adding it at the disambiguation page of Macedonians. After all we are all Macedonians, in one sense or another. --Argean (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean and Antondimak: Sorry for another too long response, but you give me no option. So far I see that you don't respond to my questions, you just avoid giving an answer by opening unnecessary topics that I don't disagree with you. For example, you open a topic about how the word nationality is translated in Greek and Albanian that says nothing about my questions. This is how politicians respond in the parliament due to lack of reasonable arguments. But I don't think this is supposed to be how people discuss in wikipedia. On the other hand, I am trying to address your specific questions/points. We should not repeat the mistakes of political parties in Greece that did not work all together, and they preferred to focus on a blame game for political benefits. Our goal is not to blame which political party is responsible for the current situation and who is the great dealer. We should discuss with arguments and try to choose the best for our region with respect to all people. I wrote a message to you because I thought that you expressed a honest opinion, but from your response I see that you both spread incomplete or false information, which implies propaganda. Maybe, I am wrong and that's why I will list you the following facts/questions. If you have good arguments, it is very likely that I will change my opinion.
1) As you can see here in an article published in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, the Foreign Minister Dimitrov clarifies that "Macedonian" is the "ethnicity", and the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Is there anything else to negotiate?
2) What Kotzias, Tsipras, Katrougkalos, Zaev and other people said does not support your opinion that the people of North Macedonia must be called "Macedonians". All of them refer to the identity/ethnicity, and they all say that people in North Macedonia can say it, but they don't say that they can write it. In wikipedia, we discuss about what we will write, not what we will say. If you have links from reliable sources that support your opinion, please report them. For example, I would like to see thousands of Albanians from North Macedonia to say "We are Macedonians, not North Macedonians".
3) North Macedonia is a country where nobody is North Macedonian in terms of ethnicity. Cyprus is an identical example (there exist Greeks and Turks). There are more examples. Why should we treat only North Macedonia differently? Is the role of wikipedia to take a side or it has to be reliable source of information?
4) We have to be very careful with one aspect. If we decide to use the term "North Macedonian" instead of "of North Macedonia" for whatever is related to the state, which means that we do not follow the Prespa agreement, then there is no excuse to say that the term "North Macedonian" does not exist in the Prespa agreement for the people, and this is why we should call them "Macedonians". Therefore, if we call the people "Macedonians" then we have to accept the very restricted form for the state too, i.e., "of North Macedonia". In other words, either we accept the whole Prespa agreement or nothing. We are not here for negotiations.
5) The Prespa agreement does not use the term "North Macedonian" about the people, but it does not use the term "Macedonian" either. Therefore, the safe way is to use the term "People of North Macedonia". The role of wikipedia is not to start a new round of negotiations and change the agreement that took 27 years. If the people in terms of "citizenship/nationality" were "Macedonians", it would be clearly written in the agreement. If you think that they put this long term in the agreement so that people can cheat later and violate the agreement, then you understand that you have very wrong mentality. The term "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" is a diplomatic trick, which served as a compromise between the two countries. The greek parliament ratified the agreement based on the official document that doesn't say "Macedonian". If you think that we should modify the content of the agreement after the ratification (in favour of any country), you understand that the agreement will not be accepted by people of both countries in the long term. You talked about stability in the region before.
6) There was an intermediate agreement about the name FYROM, and it was ignored by both countries. After 27 years, the two countries made a new agreement because Greece blocked North Macedonia in NATO and EU. And, they decided to make a compromise for the simple reason that if one country gets everything, the other country is not motivated to accept/respect the agreement. Do you think the people in any of these countries are silly to accept any amendment of the agreement after the ratification? Please keep in mind that Mitsotakis officially said he will block North Macedonia in EU. Is your goal to prove that Mitsotakis is right? In my opinion, we should do our best to show that this agreement was the perfect deal for the two countries. We should not forget that North Macedonia cannot block Greece, but Greece can still block North Macedonia in EU. So, North Macedonia cares about this agreement, not Greece. Do you see that the term "North Macedonian" is the only option to make this agreement viable in the long term? It makes a distinction from Greek Macedonians, and it allows room for a Macedonian ethnicity to the 60% of North Macedonia, which is confirmed from the Macedonian language. The future of North Macedonia depends heavily on this agreement.
7) You said that the term Macedonian has been used for Albanians without problem so far. How do you know that? The name of the country changed less than a week ago. Albanian members of the parliament officially stated that they don't want the term "Macedonian" in the citizenship and they want to delete it or replace it with "Albanian". This is why they added extra clarification in the constitution. And two Albanians didn't want to vote the final amendments of the constitution because of that. These facts are available everywhere. How can you ignore them? Can you report reliable sources of Albanias who say that they prefer "Macedonian" from "North Macedonian"? If not, please don't spread wrong information.
8) You talk about "Macedonian Albanians" or "North Macedonian Albanians", but none of them are names of all people in the country called North Macedonia. With every message you open unnecessary topics. We need a name that identifies all people of North Macedonia. So, the question is do the Albanians prefer "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" for their simple version of "citizenship"? The answer is very simple according to Albanian members of the parliament in North Macedonia, but you try to make it complicated and I don't know why. Please keep in mind that in the end, it's not about what people prefer. If it's all about their preference, what did this country change the name? If you ignore the reality, then you will see similar problems in the near future. We have to respect all people.
9) Your statements are full of assumptions about what you think, and what was the intention and how you interpret things. This is speculation. Wikipedia is a place for neither negotiations nor political discussion. Please report only facts according to official documents. As far as I know, UN said that we do not negotiate the identity of people because it's sensitive, but they didn't say that identity is the citizenship. It's clear that all statements about the term "Macedonian" refer to ethnicity and UN explicitly say here that the "inhabitants" of North Macedonia are called "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Dimitrov also confirmed that here. Could you please prove the opposite? If not, please respect this effort of two countries for peace in Balkans and stop giving arguments to nationalists.
10) Your arguments are similar to those used by politicians who want to spread propaganda (left-wing and right-wing). A great example is Nikos Filis who said in the Greek parliament that the Treaty of Bucharest splits Macedonia in three countries. But if you read the Treaty of Bucharest, it says nothing about Macedonia. The point is not who says what, but who has arguments. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, TL;DR either. I just read the first couple of points but I think we are just going around in circles. Just a few quick comments. If "Macedonian" in "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" is clearly not to define or predetermine ethnic affiliation/ethnicity then what is it? I never said that the people should be called Macedonians, I'm saying that there is nothing that currently justifies to call them "North Macedonians" and they were very careful in the agreement to avoid that. Pushing the other side to accept a term that they will never accept, is like trying to take all benefits for ourselves, when obviously there was an agreement that meant to make a compromise. This is not an effort to create peace in Balkans as your name suggests, is a plan to take revenge for the last 27 years. No, I'm not going to jump on this train. --Argean (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ArgeanIf "Macedonian" in "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" is clearly not to define or predetermine ethnic affiliation/ethnicity then what is it? It's the definition of nationality; a legal description of your status as a citizen of North Macedonia; not as an ethnic Macedonian. The Macedonian people shown the image of To Vima are ethnic Macedonians, and North Macedonia can still call its people that under Article 7. That is not a description of legal status though (Article 1); it is a description of cultural/ethnic heritage (Article 7). To quote Dimitrov again, It does not denote ethnicity. That is a term which in the legal tradition of former Yugoslavia referred to ethnical groups, to the peoples that lived in one of the six republics. So we had peoples and we had nationalities. Nationalities referred to the ethnicity of those who lived in one of the two Provinces. This refers only to nationality. You can see that the image on To Vima also refers to the Albanian people, Turkish people, and others. I think this is what Greeks are freaking out about, it is especially hard for a country as homogeneous as Greece to separate Greek (ethnicity) from Greek (nationality). --Michail (blah) 22:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Philly boy92: Ehhm, thas was exactly my point, if you read my previous comment above . It's the very exact thing that every official has been saying directly or indirectly: the acceptance that there is a multethnic society/nation (by its definition being a stable community of people) called Macedonians, that consists of various ethnic groups, which are the Macedonians (ethnic group), and parts of the ethnic groups of Albanians, Bosniaks, Roma, etc. It's not much different as a model (but under very different circumstances), from the definition of the civil French nation consisting of various ethnic groups, or the distinction of русский (ethnicity) and россияне (citizenship) both translating as Russians in English. Yes, Greeks are indeed freaking out with this concept (and they are not the only ones, the Bulgarians are not very different for example.) --Argean (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry about that, it was pointed out to me that I should change it back to what it was and I will do it after this discussion has quieted down. I will probably end up switching usernames. Sorry for the confusion ) --Michail (blah) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! I'm just wondering who is the Michail getting all the notifications when I try to write your username correctly. --Argean (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: The whole term defines the citizenship, not the word "Macedonian". What is that you don't understand? This is clearly defined everywhere. Do you want to negotiate it for you? "North Macedonian" is justified with the name of the country, like we do with every country. Indeed, they were very careful to avoid that in the agreement, but this applies to both Greece and North Macedonia, they avoided both terms "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian". Why do you still try to spread propaganda and you don't present the whole truth? Indeed, pushing the other side to accept a term that they will never accept doesn't make sense, this is what I am trying to tell you but you fail to understand. And for one more time you respond by opening topics that I don't disagree with you, but you avoid responding precisely to my questions. If you have arguments you should show that. Please avoid spreading propaganda. I want to see data for all your arguments. Peace in balkans (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: Oh boy, that escalated very quickly. OK, let's start (I apologize beforehand for citing all of your comments, I hate to do that in such an extensive way, but I feel there is no other way): The whole term defines the citizenship indeed, not the word "Macedonian" well we don't know, because noone has explained, but that is a legal issue, since it refers to a legal term. What is that you don't understand? What do you want me to understand? they avoided both terms "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" not really, the term Macedonian is referred in Article 7, as Philly boy92 mentioned before in a way that delineates the mutual understanding of the different origin of the cultural and historic narrative used by the 2 sides. Dimitrov's interview includes many references to article 7. Why do you still try to spread propaganda and you don't present the whole truth? If propaganda is to include sources to support arguments, which clearly I've been doing all time along, then I rest my case. this is what I am trying to tell you but you fail to understand can you please make it clear in a short well defined way that I will? but you avoid responding precisely to my questions I apologized already for TL;DR but if you want me I can go through, and I'm happy to present you arguments for all of them. Peace --Argean (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: You still spread wrong information. The term "Macedonian" is not referred in the Prespa agreement for the citizenship as you think. The citizenship includes the word "Macedonian" but it's not only "Macedonian". The term "Macedonian" is referred in Article 7, but not in the sense that the citizenship is "Macedonian". For example, the term "Macedonian" is also mentioned for Greece in Article 7, but this agreement says nothing about how the Greeks will be called. Think rationally, the term "North" is also mentioned in the agreement. Does this mean that the two different terms "North" and "Macedonian" give us the term "North Macedonian"? Or do you think that since Article 7 does not call the Macedonia region in Greece with its name, that means that this agreement implies that the region in Greece is not called Macedonia anymore? Your arguments are weak, you try to find something in the Prespa agreement to present it in a way different than the reality. This is NOT report of sources to support your argument as you think. You present the data the way you want. I still don't see your arguments. I want to see clear facts about your arguments, not what you think or how you interpret the agreement or under what assumptions the agreement was ratified. I don't care about these. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Philly boy92: Thanks for the data. I agree that it doesn't have to be mentioned as Macedonia, but this is the detail that I wanted to point out. Because right now we play with this kind of details about "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" and who said what and what he/she meant. However, regarding the maps in the report here, I am very interested in this topic and I have a short question even though it's not within the topic. Who defines the borders of Macedonian region? During the Ottoman Empire, there was no Macedonia; there were three Vilayets. And if back then there were loosely-defined borders, who clearly defined the borders later? This region never belong to the same country after the Balkan wars, so what's the point to give such a definition which resulted in all these conflicts? Moreover, why the borders of modern Macedonia match perfectly that of United Macedonia? Regarding the maps in the report here, I see the term Macedonia only in the region that belongs to Greece. Does this report clarify what are the borders of Macedonia region? I am sorry, but there are 448 pages in this report and I cannot immediately find this information. Please note that this modern definition is not used in Greece, and the Prespa agreement in Article 7 says that the two countries have different definition about the term Macedonia, and for Greece is the region in the North of Greece. This sounds to me like this definition is not even accepted by Greece with the Prespa agreement. Only North Macedonia uses this modern definition. Am I wrong? Peace in balkans (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The borders of Ottoman Macedonia were varied but generally the same. Thrace didn't exist as a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire either, are you saying there was not a region called Thrace before the Balkan Wars? why the borders of modern Macedonia match perfectly that of United Macedonia – because ethnic Macedonian ultranationalists want to unify Macedonia (region) into Macedonia (republic). That's a bit like asking, "wow, isn't it amazing that the Evros river runs right along the Greek-Turkish border?!" when the river was there first. I see the term Macedonia only in the region that belongs to Greece – in the coloured map found at the section called the Balkan states as they are now you can see the word "Macedonia" arced across Greece, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. You can also see a number of ethnographic maps of the entire region. This discussion is not immediately relevant to this topic so please take it to my talk page if you must. My username is Philly_boy92 by the way. --Michail (blah) 23:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Obviously. That's the basic assumption we are starting from. The ethnicity isn't discussed in the deal. The nationality is officially "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", not "North Macedonian" and not "Macedonian". We're searching for a shortened version. If you want to be so strict about the deal, then why do you disregard it and propose "North Macedonian", that isn't mentioned anywhere in it?
2) Nobody talked about the ethnicity. Greeks especially only talked about the nationality, and, from watching the Greek pariament debate for days, I know it was generally accepted by all parties that the short term "Macedonian" had been given away as a nationality. As I remember so many members of Syriza saying "Δεν δώσαμε μακεδονική εθνότητα, δώσαμε μακεδονική ιθαγένεια." ("We didn't give Macedonian ethnicity, we gave Macedonian nationality."). There was a whole debate in parliament as to whether the English term "nationality" refers to culture, where it was quickly decided that it refers to citizenship. I remember also listening to an interview of Kotzias, where he said how helpful the Albanians where, and how they pushed for "Macedonian" to refer to nationality so that they would be included. (here is the interview: )
3) Because we are not the ones who make the deal. The deal nowhere mentioned "North Macedonian" as a term. Most sources don't use it for the nationality either.
4) What? Why?
5) I know that the deal was passed by the Greek parliament with the assumption that "Macedonian" would be used as an ethnicity, whether with a clarification or not. I gauge that tost people in Greece don't know about the long term either. You also propose a term that is against the agreement as much, and in my opinion more, as the proposition you are against.
6) Mitsotakis won't do anything. It's very obvious he does all this for political reasons. If he were PM he would have passed the same deal. The problem right now is North Macedonia. That's where there's danger of violence. That's where VMRO could turn into a terrorist organisation (again).
7) Do you have any sources that they don't want to be called Macedonians? All that happened because of a problem with the terms, and that's where Argean's argument about the Albanian terms came from.
8) I am convinced that the deal, as well as the Albanian leaders, want the name of the nationality to be "Macedonian". Do you have any proof otherwise, apart from the one that was debunked before and you used again?
9) Why do you keep saying that? You speculate all the time, and you use the official deal as if it supports your position. The deal reads, again, "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", not "North Macedonian", and it has been made abundantly clear that the latter shouldn't be use. by the North Macedonian government and by the UN.
10) But Fillis was right. His point was about Macedonia as a region not being Greek only. Macedonia at the time was recognised as that region, and it was indeed split. --Antondimak (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Antondimak: 1) Personally, I refer to people of North Macedonia with the term "Macedonian/citizen of the republic of North Macedonia". I chose "North Macedonian" because there is no option with the full term, and it clearly stated in the survey that we want a short term to replace it.
2) You support my argument in (9). You make assumptions all the time. Nobody in wikipedia cares about what you think, and what was generally accepted by all parties. You know how the agreement was ratified in the Greek parliament, millions of people protesting in 3 big rallies, and maybe 80% of Greeks don't accept the term Macedonian at all. And again you try to spread propaganda. Indeed, the Greek Government said that they gave citizenship and not ethnicity. But you hide the truth. They said that they gave citizenship not ethnicity in order to explain to people that the term Nationality mentioned in the agreement means citizenship, i.e., the term "Macedonian/citizen of the republic of North Macedonia" is citizenship and not ethnicity, but they NEVER said that the citizenship is "Macedonian". Do you understand why I say that you spread propaganda? Because you rephrase what people said to achieve your goal. Moreover, you spread propaganda because you don't report that the opposition in North Macedonia fought strongly against the Prespa agreement because they claimed that the agreement changes the "Macedonian" identity. So, based on what VMRO says, the "Macedonian" ethnicity and citizenship are both gone. Why you don't say that? However, even if some people said that the citizenship is "Macedonian", why does this matter? If important people said it and it were indeed "Macedonian", they should have put it in the document. If it's not in the document, then accept the reality. Do you understand that Wikipedia doesn't care about what people assumed or thought. We care about the official documents, i.e., the compromise of the two countries. It's not that hard to get it. Sorry for not responding about the video, could you please tell in which minute of the video, Kotzias said that? Thank you.
3) If you are not the ones who make the deal, why do you want to chose "Macedonian"? Again you spread propaganda. You say that the deal nowhere mentioned "North Macedonian", but you intentionally hide that the deal doesn't mention the term "Macedonian" either. What do you mean most sources either?Why do we care about most sources? Did these sources make the agreement? Did these sources make the compromise? What is that you don't understand?
4) Please read it again. I am happy to answer specific questions.
5) You support my argument in (9). You make assumptions all the time. I am in favor of whatever is included in the agreement.
6) I am sorry but I really don't care about Mitsotakis, Tsipras, Zaev or Gruevski. I said that we should do our best to make this agreement viable for the future of these people, and not to give arguments to nationalits. But of course you understood whatever you want to understand.
7) @Argean and Antondimak:You can read here and here that Albanians wanted to remove completely the term "Macedonian" from the citizenship, and the citizenship must be only the term "citizen of North Macedonia". Do you still believe that Albanians want to be called "Macedonians"? Please stop spreading propaganda.
8) Please see proofs in (7).
9) No, I am happy to accept the whole Prespa agreement completely, which means fully official terms as stated there. Otherwise, we can use the term "North Macedonian" for every use except of the "ethnic Macedonians and their culture". You see... I am very objective. I propose a solution that respects all identities. One more time you spread propaganda. You say that the deal says not "North Macedonian", but you intentionally hide that it doesn't say "Macedonian" either. What do you mean that it has been made clear by the North Macedonian government and by the UN. As I said Mitsotakis also clarified that he will block North Macedonia from EU in the future. Since he said that, does this mean that Greece has the right to block North Macedonia even though the agreement says this is not true? Do you understand what you are saying? In other words, did North Macedonia and UN make the agreement themselves? I thought that Greece was involved. If not, why did North Macedonia change its name? Did the UN enforce it to do it? You understand that you spread propaganda. Otherwise, if you really don't understand what you are writing here, please let me know and I am happy to explain you.
10) I have already answered above about this issue, and I don't want to further discuss it since it's out of the scope of this page. Peace in balkans (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(my apologies to all uninvolved editors for the long post)
7} When you cite sources make sure that you present the whole picture: not all Albanians, but only the 2 minor parties Besa Movement (and actually only its anti-government fraction) and Alliance for Albanians protested for the use of the term Macedonian in the citizenship and they wanted it to be erased (not replaced by Albanian as you claimed earlier) (all this infromation it's included on the source you provided here). What you are not mentioning though is that the reason was that before Macedonian voters, Zaev insisted that this agreement guarantees their right to call themselves Macedonians and said that Greece is recognizing that right as well. This prompted Kasami to demand a different solution for ethnic Albanians, if it is understood that the designation “nationality” also means ethnic background and not merely citizenship .By the way and interestingly enough one of the alternatives was e "Maqedonise” which translates as “from Macedonia”. Eventually they got confirmation that this is not the case as I explained earlier and also they were promised that the Albanian translation of the constitutional law...will be determined under BESA’s wishes
8) I already posted a source that even those Besa Movement's hard protesters discussed about the option of using the term "from Macedonia". Additionally as Dimitrov explained in his interview all passports before the name change used the term "Macedonian" you open your current passport, under nationality it states Macedonian. We are a multi-ethnic society, we have the Macedonian people and we have parts of other peoples, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Vlachs, Romani, Bosniaks.... It's a logic argument that if the Albanians wanted to change it to "North Macedonian" they would have requested it. Instead they (part of them) wanted to remove the term Macedonian because they considered that its inclusion in the citizenship was a reference to ethnicity, which was confirmed that is not the case , or with earler Dimitrov's words :Journalist question: The question regarding the slash (/), citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, in that case, there is either no need for the first or no need for the second. One of them denotes ethnicity, the other… MFA Nikola Dimitrov: It does not denote ethnicity)
9) We are not scholars of international law trying to interpret a bilateral agreement, nor politicians trying to implement it, we are just people spending some time on an online encyclopedia trying to find a term that respects the guidelines and the scope of wikipedia and document the current situation in a neutral and reliable way. It doesn't say "North Macedonian", it does say Macedonian in two very specific and different contexts (one as part of the legal term defining citizenship, and Article 7 with its' very specific unrelated to nationality meaning). The rest are quite irrelevant (what does Mitsotakis and EU accession have to do with the discussion?). You can read the position of the Greek officials in all the sources I cited earlier, I'm not an official of the Greek government. RoM changed its name to allow Greece uplift veto for NATO accession (and eventual EU too). UN did not enforce, but facilitated the process and M.Nimetz witnessed the signing of the agreement. And no I don't understand what you mean that I'm spreading propaganda, when I'm citing sources. Your position seems to be a priori prejudiced and I guess that for you propaganda is when someone doesn't agree with your ill-fated by the lack of sources mission to convince others for the rightness of your WP:NPOV. Thank you very much, but personally I dont't need your WP:ADVOCACY.
7) You focus again on how people (Zaev) interpret the agreement and if they can be called Macedonians. We are not here to interpret and negotiate the agreement for another time. You are right, the sources I report show that there exist at least two Albanians in the parliament that they don't want the term Macedonian, we don't know for the whole country. And this is why I said that we don't know what people want, and this is why we should use the name of the country for all of them, unless we know that a specific person wants to be called "ethnic Maceodnian". And your links about what Albanians want support my arguments that they don't want the term "Macedonian" in the citizenship. Anyway, I gave you links that prove that at least two members of the parliament don't want to be called "Macedonian". Do you have counter-examples where it is clearly stated that they want to be called "Macedonian"?
8) Again you talk about what you think, you say: "It's a logic argument that if the Albanians wanted to change it to "North Macedonian" they would have requested it." How do you know that? Do you think that Albanians care for the difference between the terms "North Macedonian" and "of North Macedonia". Can you provide sources?
9) None of the sources that you cite support your arguments. You interpret even what the sources report. You should report data, not interpret data in the way you want.
@Argean and Antondimak: A general piece of advice for both of you and everybody else. When you report sources to support your arguments, the argument should be "crystal-clear" and the source must be reliable. Arguments like we/they think/interpret/assume don't count because people on both countries think/interpret/assume different things. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is becoming unreadable and is disrupting the RfC. Can we please either cut and paste it to somewhere else, or collapse it? Argan, I would strongly recommend no longer engaging the single-purpose troll account in debate here. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it is too long, and there is nothing to be added here. However, hiding it or collapsing it means that you hide the arguments reported here from people with different opinions. The goal is to discuss and not hide arguments that you don't like. You can call it single-purpose troll account, but I would recommend you to judge the account based on the arguments and not based on what makes you happy. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: The common name when referring to the nationality is Macedonian(s), according to the reliable sources before and after the name change. How is it common sense to call them by a name that is a) not official, b) not common and c) not desired or agreed by the nationality in question? --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FlavrSavr, I meant that in such a way that the term "North Macedonian" is easily recognizable per WP:UCRN. It's shorthand for "Citizen of North Macedonia." Otherwise, what should we refer to ethnic minorities in North Macedonia as? Maybe you have a better answer than I in this regard. ―MJL-Talk-☖ 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: Well, with the terms that were used previously, those being Macedonian Albanian, Macedonian Turkish, Macedonian Serb etc. Those are also their self-identifying terms. Except from some fringe Albanian parties protesting, but ultimately accepting the Prespa Agreement, the ovewhelming majority of non-ethnic Macedonians do not identify as 'North Macedonian'. You can ask @Resnjari: who is an Albanian from (North) Macedonia, I believe. Also, this section is related to biographies of living persons, and most of them will refer to ethnic Macedonians, not to non-ethnic Macedonians. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Parents and grandparents are from the old country, i'm an Aussie :) . But back to this, really there has not been an issue regarding the use of the word Macedonian except among certain fringe elements of the Albanian public or politicians. The big Albanian parties supported the agreement in whole and opposition came from fringe firebrands like Ziadin Sela who a few years ago got a few knocks to the face during the storming of parliament due to his calls for federation and other statements challenging the cohesion of the state etc. Interestingly he has ceased with those these days. Anyway post 2001, Albanians have been largely been integrated into the country and its civic and political life. Sure there are issues, but they overall relate to bread and butter issues of employment and corruption in the country. Simple terminology is ok for here. We have had Macedonian work fine for many years now with no complaints. The two countries struck an agreement and it provides for the formula we use here. Why make it cumbersome and complex?Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why make it cumbersome and complex? Actually the Prespa Agreement isn't helping us much when it comes to making the "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" (unbreakable, undividable) into something more manageable that can be used in Wikipedia for encyclopedic terms. We are called to choose a short form for it while taking in account that the country to which they are citizens, is now called North Macedonia, not Macedonia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia is mandatory on travel documents, it obviously isn't meant to be used in running text. The Prespa agreement explicitly allows the use of Macedonian to refer to the people of North Macedonia (Article 7(3)). Libhye (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect! The Agreement only allows this term when it comes to nationality: Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia on official documents for all purposes when referring to the nationality of the people. The Agreement doesn't explicitly tells us that we can use a shorter form. It is up to us to decide whether the short form, for Wikipedia's needs, has to be Macedonian or North Macedonian. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Libhye is right: Article 7 (3) - when reference is made to North Macedonia, Macedonian denotes its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those of the Greek Macedonians. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect again. This article 7 has nothing to do with nationality, but about people and their language. The article's purpose is to establish that there are multiple Macedonian people in the region (Slavs and Greeks), and that the term Macedonian has multiple meanings and can refer to distinct cultures (Slavic for Slavs, Greek for Greeks), acknowledging that they are different to each other. Nothing more, nothing less. This article doesn't address nationality, is meant to address the monopolization of the term Macedonian which the extremists/nationalists from both sides claim for themselves. Article 7 establishes that no side has exclusive rights to the use of the term Macedonian for people and language. I don't know why people think people = nationality, because this is incorrect as these are two totally different concepts. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just quoting Kotzias' words But if you think I can make it so every citizen is called 'North Macedonian', I will ask you the following simple question: There is a resident of Skopje and he tells his girlfriend that he is "Macedonian". What do we do in this case? Will we set up a thought-police state that will put him in prison? What we said is that the citizens of this country have the right to self-determination. I'll say it once more, I don't think wikipedia is some legal service trying to interpret or implement a legal document, and decide on our own about the correct terminology based on arbitrary criteria, even if they seem to be WP:COMMONSENSE to many. There are policies and guidelines that we need to follow when deciding for WP:NAMECHANGES and none of them is creating a new term without using WP:RS, and it's clear that when we are talking about peopleMOS:IDENTITY puts extra weight on self-determination when there is inconsistency (which we don't even know yet if it will be the case). --Argean (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Wikipedia's purposes, we should have picked temporarily a name for the time being, and have agreed to call for a new RfC in 6 nonths, specifically for the nationality section, per WP:CCC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way since we are stuck with the legal definition of nationality, I'm just adding WP:UKNATIONALS in the discussion as a relevant case indicating that wikipedia is not a legal service or border control checking peoples' passports to describe them correctly in terms of nationality. --Argean (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None says tat Wikipedia is a legal service or border control. This RfC is meant to choose how to shorten the Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia because in its official form, is unusable for the project's needs. Thats all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we approach the issue per WP:OR like you do, then I am afraid that both of the options ("Macedonian" and "North Macedonian), will have to be disregarded on WP:OR grounds, since, officially, the nationality is none of these two RfC terms and I am sure you know that. Whats the purpose of this RfC then, if WP:OR is your concern here? We should cancel the RfC voting and stick with "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" instead. Oh wait... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not WP:OR to say Macedonian has been the official and the most commonly used name for the people up until the renaming as documented by a zillion of reliable sources, for example, the CIA World Factbook. Even after the state name change media tend to prefer it. It is almost certain than North Macedonian will never be used in an official capacity. Perhaps it will become the most common name in the future - but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If that happens we could discuss it whether we should use it instead of the official and the self-identifying name them. So in a way, yes, I think that this RfC has started too early. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Greyjoy: The page has been moved here as you can see, which is the right place for discussion.
[In response to Peace in balkans]: Dimitrov did not say that the term Macedonian may only refer to the ethnic group and not to the entire population. According to the Prespa agreement, Macedonian may be used for the population of North Macedonia (Article 7(3)); there is nothing in the agreement restricting Macedonian to the ethnic group. Libhye (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He didn't say that because 60% of the people are "ethnic Macedonians" and they don't see problematic the term "Macedonian" for the citizenship too. But, Dimitrov clarified that the citizenship is not "Macedonian" and this is enough. Albanians did the same as explained for the simple reason that if you call someone "Macedonian" it's unclear if you mean in terms of ethnicity or citizenship. Albanians want this distinction to be clear, and that's why they don't like the term "Macedonians" for the citizenship. It's like you call "Romanian" someone from the Hungarian minority in Romania. It can be very offensive unless you make clear that you mean "citizen of Romania" which is the truth. Therefore, we cannot use the same name for both the citizenship and the ethnicity, especially since the name of the country is North Macedonia, and the term "Macedonian" sounds clearly the ethnicity. The Article 7(3) doesn't say that the citizenship is Macedonian, it just confirms what everybody says. Some people in North Macedonia can be called Macedonians, that's clear. But nothing in the agreement says that all people are Macedonians. Here, we talk about a neutral name for all people that makes a connection to the country, regardless their ethnicity. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not saying that the Prespa agreement is right or wrong on this point; I am just saying that you are misrepresenting the agreement. Article 7(3) says that the term Macedonian may be used for the (entire) people of North Macedonia. You are free to express your dislike for that, but you don't get to claim that the agreement doesn't say that. As for Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, that is mandatory on travel documents, but it obviously can't be used in running text, and the agreement purposefully doesn't provide for the use of North Macedonian at all. So the population of North Macedonia may be referred to as the people of North Macedonia, North Macedonia's population, people in North Macedonia and the like, but they may also, according to the Prespa agreement, be referred to as Macedonians – even though some people might not like that (and might even take issue with the very fact that they are citizens of North Macedonia). Libhye (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* @Libhye, Argean, and Antondimak: Since you use the Article 7 to claim that the term "Macedonian" is correct, I will prove you with math that your claims are wrong. Indeed, Article 7 says that term "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" for the second party refer to the country, people etc. So let's assume that people shall be called "Macedonians" according to Article 7. This assumption implies that the country shall also be called "Macedonia" based on the same article (argument). But as you know the country is North Macedonia and this is clarified in the agreement. As you see, we ended up in a contradiction because of the wrong assumption that you make, which was that the people shall be called "Macedonians". The conclusion is that you cannot claim that the Article 7 clarifies that all people shall be called Macedonians based on Article 7. If you interpret the article 7 in this way, then the country is also called Macedonia which is certainly wrong. But, strictly mathematically speaking the agreement doesn't clarify if people can be or cannot be called "Macedonian". But it certainly clarified the nationality of people and it's not "Macedonian". @Libhye: I am sorry for moving your message here, but this is supposed to be the discussion page. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans and SilentResident: Article 7 must be read in conjunction with Article 1 (3) (f), which is about which adjectives to use for North Macedonia. Article 1 (3) (f) doesn't mention North Macedonian at all, but establishes that no adjective but a construction with North Macedonia shall be used in certain cases, while in all other cases, the adjective mentioned in Article 7 may be used. Hence, Article 1 (3) (f) expressly allows the use of Macedonian in reference to the population of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, that's just your conclusion. Prespa Agreement separates the two articles for a reason. not to mix and match them to our likings. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. Article 1(3f) clearly says that other adjectival usages,..., may be in line with article 7(3) and 7(4), which in turn describe that the terms "Macedonian" and "Macedonia" when used for the Second party (North Macedonia) denote its territory, language, people and their attributes. Basically it cannot be more explicit (but carefully phrased) that the term "Macedonian" may be used by people in North Macedonia to describe themselves. --Argean (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argean: As you said the terms "Macedonian" and "Macedonia" denote its territory, ..., people, ... according to Article 7. If your conclusion/opinion is that based on this Article, it is clear that people are called "Macedonians", do you think that based on the same article the whole country can be called "Macedonia"? The answer is either "yes" or "no" for both people and country. Please read carefully, I don't ask if people in this country can be called "Macedonians", I ask if the rest of the world must call them "Macedonians" based on what the agreement says. Please consider article 7(5) which clearly states: "Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party." This means that people in North Macedonia can still call their country "Macedonia" and themselves "Macedonians", and people in Greece can still call the country "FYROM" and so on. And this has been officially clarified by the Greek government. Here we talk about how the rest of the wolrd calls this country and the people of this country. Peace in balkans (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans: The Prespa agreement offers the terms North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia in reference to the country, but it doesn't offer any alternative to Macedonian in reference to the population other than Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, which obviously isn't intended to be used in running text. So the only term the agreement offers for use in running text is Macedonian. That's not just my personal interpretation: the contracting parties themselves have made clear that the agreement's intention is for the term Macedonian to be used in running text in reference to the population of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both sides have implicitely agreed that North Macedonian is not to be used. Perhaps the Greek side has good reasons for it - maybe they've estimated that using the North/South Korea analogy would implicate a „South Macedonian nationality“ in the minds of many, which will raise very uncomfortable questions for Greece. The media there seem to be in uproar about this recent BBC article. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Libhye: Again you make assumptions that "the only term the agreement offers for use in running text is Macedonian", but I accept your opinion, even if it's wrong. I will not try to convince you about the truth because you have no arguments, you have only assumptions. It's certainly wrong that the name "Macedonian" will be used for the people.
@FlavrSavr: You also make assumptions that "Both sides have implicitly agreed that North Macedonian is not to be used", and I will not argue anymore due to lack of arguments. You make only assumptions.
@Libhye and FlavrSavr:To prove that your assumptions are wrong, for one more time, please read what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece) just reported to clarify this misleading interpretation about the agreement and especially about the term "North Macedonian". They explicitly said that the term "North Macedonian" is as correct as the term "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. Please read my new message below regarding that. Thank you for your time. I am sure you will see the truth. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This whole discussion about the difference between the "ethnic" and "nationality" sense of "Macedonian" is a red herring, as are all the arguments by people above who !voted for "North Macedonian" on the ground of avoiding "ambiguity" with the ethnicity. The ethnic vs. national ambiguity of "Macedonian" is no more of a problem than that of "Greek", "Turkish", "German", "Russian" and any number of others. Almost all European nation states have the same ambiguity between the term for their citizens and the term for their majority ethnic group. That doesn't stop us from using these terms, and disambiguate them (as "ethnic X'ians" vs "X'ian citizens") only where needed. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair this case is different since North Macedonia is now pretty officially a multicultural state. So the comparison isn't that valid. --Antondimak (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no difference whatsoever how "officially" recognized that state of affairs is. The principle is the same: Not every Russian is a Russian, not every Turk is a Turk, not every German is a German, not every Macedonian is a Macedonian. No reader has ever had any problems with that. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
except that in those cases ‘Russian’, ‘German’ and ‘Turkish’ are the natural adjectives of ‘Russia’, ‘Germany’ and ‘Turkey’. The natural adjective for ‘Macedonia’ was ‘Macedonian; but that’s not the country’s name anymore. The natural adjective for ‘North Macedonia’ is ‘North Macedonian’.--Michail (blah) 12:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
while "Burmese", "Swazi" and "East Timorese" are definitely not the natural adjectives for "Myanmar", "Eswatini" and "Timor-Leste" respectively (all of which are cases of renamed states). I'm afraid that we are completely missing the point right here --Argean (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noticed a suspicious influx of biased users lately (i.e. "MacedonianBoy", "Македонец", "MacedońskaKrewetka" to name a few) contributing to this discussion. I obviously have no problem with people from North Macedonia voicing their opinion on this matter, but this should be definitely taken to account ultimately, as opinions are expressed more emotionally rather than logically. I also find it a bit misleading, especially in this nationality discussion, people stating "Macedonian per Prespa Agreement" as this is strikingly false as the Prespa Agreement changed the nationality FROM "Macedonian", and NOT TO "Macedonian". In reality neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" are officially correct; the real debate here, is as to what is more practical, logical, and easier for people to grasp, whilst accurate. That, in my opinion, is "North Macedonian" for consistency reasons, as well as differentiating between the different peoples of the region of Macedonia, as well as between citizens of North Macedonia (including ethnic minorities) and ethnic Macedonians, something that could create awful confusions if the nationality remains (CONTRARY to the Prespa Agreement) simply "Macedonian". --StevenHal (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, a single-purpose account talking about "suspicious influx" of biased users. Irony detector broken? Fut.Perf.☼ 17:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those first two have been on Wikipedia for years. I guess we ought to take into account which users are Greek as well. And the differentiation thing that keeps getting brought up is such a non-issue. We've had no problems differentiating for the past decade, so why are we inventing problems now? --Local herotalk 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kiril Simeonovski where exactly does the UN "advocate the use of 'Macedonian' for the nationality of people from the country"? Please don't spread misinformation and take the time to actually read the UN's manual. It says "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". It does not say "Macedonian". That is original research. --Michail (blah) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOTE: The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia". Other adjectival references, including "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used in all of the above cases.
Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad may be "Macedonian". The adjectival usage for activities may also be "Macedonian". This is without prejudice to the process established by the Final Agreement regarding commercial names, trademarks and brand names and to the compound names of cities that exist at the date of the signature of the Final Agreement.
The second paragraph advocates that 'Macedonian' may be used in the context of 'Macedonian singer', 'Macedonian actor' or 'Macedonian writer' (examples of people's occupations) but not 'Macedonian prime minister', 'Macedonian finance minister' or 'Macedonian parliament speaker' (examples of people holding public offices that are exempted); 'Macedonian company', 'Macedonian association of artists' or 'Macedonian music band' (examples of private groups/entities) but not 'Macedonian government' or 'Macedonian parliament' (examples of public entities that are exempted); and 'Macedonian wine' or 'Macedonian traditional dish' (examples of objects/brands). For the examples where the second paragraph does not apply, the first paragraph advocates the use of the possessive construction 'of the Republic of North Macedonia' or 'of North Macedonia' and recommends that the adjectival references 'North Macedonian and 'Macedonian' may not be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kiril Simeonovski It's interesting that you should bring up adjectival usages in the section on nationality, because nowhere does it say in that page that the nationality is "Macedonian". It does say that the nationality is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", however. It's also interesting that you chose to specifically point out that "Macedonian" is not allowed as an adjective by the UN, and yet in the section regarding adjectives for state-associated entities you voted to only allow the use of "Macedonian" as an adjective. You are using internal UN guidelines meant for the UN diplomatic corps in favour of your argument on one section, and choose to go against it in the section immediately below. A little bit of an inconsistent position, if I may say so. --Michail (blah) 01:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Philly boy92: You seem to bring two separate things and my response is accordingly divided for the sake of clarity.
On the nationality vote, the nationality is 'Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia' and that is required by UN per the agreement but what the introduction to the voting in this section says in parentheses is such as in lead paragraphs of person biographies, which clearly indicates that it refers to the adjectival forms of people's occupations like the examples given in my previous comment, for which 'Macedonian' is advocated by UN. There seems to be a slight contextual ambiguity of this section with that on the adjective because in both cases it is about an adjectival form.
On the inconsistency issue, my vote in the section on state-associated entities relies on the current state rather than future predictions (please read it carefully). The possessive construction 'of Macedonia' in the names of the public entities that contained it was changed to 'of North Macedonia', while the names that contain the adjective 'Macedonian' have not been changed yet. That is, in practice we have exactly what Option C says. If the agreement is outrightly implemented, we would probably end up with Option A, but yet this is just a crystal-ball reasoning. It should be also noted that the vote in that section is premature while the name change of public entities is still underway (in fact, it may take few months) but, since it was brought up as an issue, it is reasonable to go for what we have at the moment.
At the end, please note the difference between 'requires' and 'advocates'. The first is derived from a must clause and equates to a necessary condition for something to be correct (anything else is wrong), while the second is derived from a may clause and equates to a sufficiency condition for something to be correct (anything else is not always wrong).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can read here and here that Albanians wanted to remove completely the term "Macedonian" from the citizenship. They proposed the citizenship to be only "citizen of North Macedonia". And here and here, it's crystal-clear that another Albanian, Ziadin Sela, proposed to replace the term "Macedonian" with "Albanian" in the citizenship, which results in the term "Albanian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Ziadin Sela also said that the term "Macedonian" is offensive for the Albanians. Finally, you can find here an article published in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, the Foreign Minister, Dimitrov, clarifies that the citizenship (nationality) is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", and the term "Macedonian" is only the ethnicity of some of the people who live in North Macedonia. Therefore, the term "Macedonian" doesn't make sense for all people of North Macedonia, because it doesn't identify Albanians and Albanians have explicitly said that.Peace in balkans (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macedonian citizen should certainly not link to Macedonian (ethnic group). I think a new page should be created: Macedonian (citizen) and/or Citizen of North Macedonia similar to British_nationality_law or British subject where Macedonian citizenship is explained and there are statistics of the ethnic groups that makeup the Macedonian citizens ie ethnic Macedonians, Albanian Macedonians, Aromanians etc. British citizen doesn't link to English, Scotish ethnic groups etc. A similar page exists for Greek citizens (Greek_nationality_law). Our wording for citizen should be: Macedonian / Citizen of North Macedonia both linked to the Macedonian citizenship site. -- Stevepeterson (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a new page that explains the different viewpoints might be the only sensible way out at this point. But its title should be neither of the red-linked proposals above, both of which are contentious themselves (because they are parts of the supposedly “unbreakable” construct agreed to for passports and state IDs). How about something like Nationality of people from North Macedonia? All resonable versions used in bio entries, i.e., North Macedonian, Macedonian, citizen of North Macedonia, perhaps even from North Macedonia would redirect to that page. This way, editors could use whatever term is appropriate in context, similar to WP:UKNATIONALS. At this point, I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to arrive at a meaningful consensus on a binding, binary choice of either Macedonian or North Macedonian in the next few weeks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Libhye, FlavrSavr, Argean, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Tomica, Local hero, Thryduulf, Stevepeterson, Kiril Simeonovski, MacedonianBoy, and Antondimak: Please read here the diplomatic correspondence as announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece) in order to clarify the incorrect interpretations about the Prespa Agreement. It is the first time that it is clarified that whatever is not related to the state can be called either "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". They also give us a great example "North Macedonian society". Fortunately, the propaganda or wrong assumptions (intentionally or unintentionally) used/made by some people here is now officially over. The Prespa agreement neither proposes nor forbids the usage of the term "North Macedonian". According first of all to the Prespa agreement, second to rationality, and third to the Greek government, the term "North Macedonian" is as correct/suitable as the term "Macedonian". The best part is that if people of North Macedonia are related to the state, then their name is determined by the Prespa Agreement, which means they are "... Of North Macedonia". Otherwise, if people are not related to the state, then the term "North Macedonian" is as correct/wrong as "Macedonian". This means that your argument about the intentional non-existence of the term "North Macedonian" in the Prespa agreement is officially invalid according to the reliable source that you want to use every time that it helps you to support your wrong claims. The Greek government also clarified for one more time, and without referring only to official documents, that the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia", and this is one thing, it cannot be separated. I hope now, all of you understand the obvious thing: the Prespa agreement leaves everything open such that both governments can convince their people that this is a good agreement. Please don't make the mistake and introduce more problems to our countries. If you read carefully the Prespa agreement, everything makes sense and is carefully written such that both sides can interpret it in different ways. Now, we have officially a clarification about the term "North Macedonian". This doesn't mean that wikipedia should use it, but this certainly means that this argument is automatically gone. Please find other arguments to support your opinion and stop making assumptions. Please support your opinion only on data. Last but not least, please learn a lesson from the article published by BBC that talks about "Macedonian" minority in Greece. Greece has already officially sent a letter of complaint to BBC. BBC is not North Macedonia, BBC is something like wikipedia, and you see how BBC and Wikipedia can introduce problems to the two countries that made an agreement after 27 years. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peace in balkans:Here you can find an equivalent in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the other signatory forbids the use of the term 'North Macedonian' but it is not worth commenting because it is biased in the similar way as the other one you are referring to. If you have regressed so low to the level of using non-English explanations by state authorities of the signatory countries to make an argument about what is allowed and what not on the English Wikipedia, then it is definitely very unfortunate for the quality of this discussion. On the issue about the Macedonian minority in Greece and the use of the Macedonian language there, it is simply off-topic and should be discussed elsewhere on the English Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: Thanks for admitting that it doesn't matter how the government of Greece/North Macedonia tries to interpret for their own reasons the Prespa agreement after ratifying the Prespa agreement. This is what I am trying to explain to everybody here. Please tell the same to them... What matters is only the text of the Prespa agreement, and the Prespa Agreement does not forbid the usage of the term "North Macedonian". I am sorry, but what is the problem with non-english? Other users have already used this reliable source to report the official state of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece, and the same happened with the state spokesman of North Macedonia as reported by CNN. Please don't be biased, the same rules apply to both countries. The minority issue was just an example of what problems can be introduced by people who make wrong assumptions and misinterpret the Prespa agreement. That's all. Peace in balkans (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Article 1(12) of the Prespa Agreement requires amendment to Article 49 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. In compliance with the Prespa Agreement, on 11 January 2019, the National Parlament of Republic of Macedonia adopted the amendment to the Article 49 (i.e., Amendment 36) to the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. The first sentence of this amendment explicitly mentions "Macedonian people" by stating: "The Republic protects, guarantees and nurtures the peculiarities, historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people". Since the Prespa Agreement was ratified by the National Parlament of Hellenic Republic on 25 January 2019, it means that Greece has officially recognized the new Article 49, thus officially recognizing "Macedonian people" (i.e., Macedonians) in Republic of Macedonia. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ObjectiveBoy: you should read more carefully the RfC's question. Here we are voting about nationality, not people. Don't confuse "People" and "Nationality", they are two completely distinct concepts and this RfC's question is solely about nationality. The Prespa Agreement defines nationality only as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", nothing else, not even "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian". The first one is the term's full form, and we are called to pick up one of the two latter ones to describe nationality in its shorter form. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilentResident: I believe I have addressed exactly the question raised in this particular area of discussion. Furthermore, although internationally acclaimed, the Prespa agreement was rejected on the national referendum in Republic of Macedonia, which took place on 30 September 2018, since the turnout was far below the legally binding (50%) threshold (as per "Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia", No. 186, page 12, 8 October 2018). It is an indisputable (also legal) evidence that the country's citizens do not want their original nationality (Macedonian) being brought into question. -ObjectiveBoy (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel I must point out to you that since the referendum failed to achieve a consensus, this means that there is a lack of "proof" of anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence that the contrary is true. There is an astounding leap in logic that you are making in your statement above, and I highly doubt that there is anything legally binding resulting from the referendum not meeting its threshold. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For current adjectival usage of respective terms for state-associated entities, see the reliable sources list.
What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?
(Note: Other forms like "North Macedonia's" could still be used in sentences where this would normally be used to form the possessive, as for other countries)
Option A: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "... of North Macedonia" only e.g. Government of North Macedonia, not (North) Macedonian Government.
Option B: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
Option C: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "Macedonian", e.g. Macedonian Government. "... of North Macedonia" can be used where a similar form would be used for other countries.
Option C. The Prespa agreement may prescribe the possessive construction ("of North Macedonia") here, but having only that is syntactically far too restrictive to be linguistically viable (we couldn't even write a straightforward sentence about what happened at Prespa itself if we took it at face value: "The Greek and Macedonian prime ministers made an agreement"; are we really going to distort that to "the Greek prime minister and the one of North Macedonia"?). If we are going to use adjectives (and I mean real adjectives, not the "of" constructions the agreement falsely describes as such), then there's no reason not to use the same adjective as in all the other contexts (nationality etc.), i.e. plain "Macedonian". This, too, is in line with what seems to be the emerging practice of outside reliable sources (which is ultimately the sole criterion we have, not the Prescriptions of the Prespa agreement). Fut.Perf.☼ 19:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B: The use of North Macedonian is already emerging in reliable media usage, and not allowing Wikipedia to utilise it as an alternative to 'of North Macedonia' is restrictive. Nationality does not apply to state-sponsored entities, since state-entities are not people. There is also precedent on Wikipedia for the natural adjectival form of names: someone from XYZia is an XYZian. This would also help avoid confusion with the other definitions of 'Macedonian'. --Michail (blah) 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C. A is too restrictive. C is superior to B because that's been common usage up till now and there is no concrete evidence that this will change in the foreseeable future. --Local herotalk 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. Even though it isn't binding for Wikipedia, the agreement clearly states that the identifyer "North" should be used for any organisation that refers to the state. That means that in Macedonian the entities are going to include "North", and we would be removing it, creating a bit of confusion. However, the real confusion would stem from the fact that we would be using a different name for the state and its public entities. How do we expect a reader that isn't familiar with all this to figure out that when they read "Macedonian parliament", it refers to the parliament of North Macedonia, especially when there are other kinds of Macedonia too? The topic is already confusing as is, and we should not make it worse, as our primary goal is to present to inform the readers, who are almost entirely ignorant on the subject. Using "North Macedonian parliament" instead seems much simpler, follows stipulations of the agreement, and is flexible as an adjective. We also have no problem with sources, as there are already a lot of reliable sources that use the term. --Antondimak (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. The third option should be out of the question for a reliable source, as Prespa is crystal clear when it comes to state/public entities following the new name. The first option on the other hand, though accurate is highly restrictive on everyday usage. Finally B is both accurate, easy to use, and already starting to become very common in international media usage.StevenHal (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option C as per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES & WP:CRYSTAL. The Prespa Agreement being less explicit here than in the case of nationality the choice is really between sticking to the official formulations (Option A) or with the common name (Option C). Up to the recent events, the common name has been overwhelmingly Macedonian, but even after the state name change Macedonian is used by the majority of reliable sources (see section at the bottom). Seeing Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment made on the practicality I chose Option C after some deliberation. There was a surge in North Macedonian references immediately after the name change, but these seem to have dropped down considerably after the publication of North Macedonia's MFA media guidelines and major media agencies such as The Associated Press have stopped using it. The usage is very far from becoming a common name. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and at this moment it's simply wrong to choose a term that might some day become the dominant one. On the disambiguation issues - the parallel with North/South Korea is misleading - there is no "South Macedonian Prime Minister", "South Macedonian Army", "South Macedonian Parliament" that could potentially cause confusion. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (updated on 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Option B obviously! Like Antondimak has said, I do not even imagine what mess the Option C can cause, if we start calling the institutions of North Macedonia simply "Macedonian", when there is ambiguity between 3 different Macedonias. History has taught us that when a term is ambigous, it is bound to cause problems for everyone. Now that the country changed its ambiguous name "Macedonia" to a new but more distinctive one, we, as Wikipedia, should respect this instead of calling the country's institutions by demonyms that are no longer legally/politically true for/reflective of the country and its official name. Yes, the international media which in the past couple of days resisted on changing the name, such as Balkan Insight (BIRN), started switching lately to the new demonym for that country. Sure, not all media use the new name and demonym yet, but the country was just renamed. It is natural that this takes time, as we are in a transitional period from the old to the new name, but since we are called to decide, we have to take in account the new political and legal reality. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B is reasonable. "of North Macedonia" seems to be the only appropriate choice for page titles, given that it is the only WP:OFFICIALNAME as defined by the agreement and acknowledged by all involved parties (e.g. "Government of North Macedonia", "Prime Minister of North Macedonia"). I don't see however what should prevent us to use the natural adjectival equivalent, within articles, when we would do exactly the same for any other case. WP:COMMONNAME can't be easily established currently, based on current WP:RS, but "Macedonian" can easily be rejected as equivalent to "of Macedonia", which in turn is against the logic of WP:OFFICIALNAME that requires just the confirmation of the name change by a number of WP:RS, that I think are already enough. Just as a side note, I believe we shouldn't translate the name of officially renamed entities in an inconsistent way (e.g. North Macedonian Radio Television ↔ Radio Television of North Macedonia) when not required. --Argean (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. Number57 22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B The country's name is now Republic of North Macedonia and it should be reflected as such. North Macedonian is the appropriate term. Dash9Z (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B It's not restrictive as Option A, and it's not ambiguous as the first form of Option C. --StanProg (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B It's not the job of Wikipedia to enforce the bureaucratic formalism of the Prespa Agreement by needlessly restricting editors to use 'of North Macedonia' but not North Macedonian. In normal English language usage, these two forms are synonymous. Therefore, if one is used, the other should also be allowed. Since not using 'of North Macedonia' is out of the question, North Macedonian must be allowed to be used as well. --Kkyriakop (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option C - as per reasons outlined by @Fut.Perf. and @FlavrSavr.Resnjari (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B: Yes, as SilentResident stated, Option C will just cause a massive mess, and cause lots of cases to elevate up to some kind of arbitration. Also, as I stated in the #Nationality of People section above, "North Macedonian" is a term implying 'belonging' to the state of "North Macedonia", so I don't see its use here as unjustifiable. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, differentiating instead between terms incorporating North Macedonia (such as of North Macedonia), to be used in this case, and the term Macedonian, expressly allowed in all other circumstances. Libhye (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A or B, so at least mentioning 'North', which is consistent with the country name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. --Sharouser (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. Xaris333 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B as this is what people will use even if this RfC attempts to prescribe one or the other only. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A I don't see how option C is permissible given that the reason for the dispute in the first place was to deny the FYRM the use of the term "Macedonian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B if I understand it rightly. Tet Offensive, for example, consistently uses "South Vietnamese", not "of South Vietnam". Ditto with Berlin Wall, which has dozens occurrences of "East German". And although I'm merely a Virginian (not an "East Virginian"), we're comfortable with saying that people living 100 miles northwest of me are "West Virginians". Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C Maybe it 's too soon to decide on this matter, we should wait and see what term RSs are using. But as for now, option C seems better. It avoids the overuse of "North".Cinadon36 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B In accordance to the Prespa agreement. Public entities in North Macedonia are in fact being renamed into North Macedonian or of North Macedonia ie names of institutions, museums, buildings and labels are already being changed. Going against the Prespa Agreement is something that none of the two republics want and would contribute to futher confusion as Macedonian relates to geographical region and several regions outside North Macedonia -- Stevepeterson (talk)
Option B is the only viable one. Opt. A would deny people the ability to use everyday English and dictate their exact word order, which is something we don't do. C is no longer accurate and innately ambiguous and confusing. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C The agreement does not mention 'North Macedonian', so Option B automatically fails, while Option A is not practical and unnecessarily excludes the common practice. Importantly, no restriction has ever been made on the use of the shortened and simpler 'Macedonian' after the agreement took into force and there is no other country in the world with names of public entities that could create ambiguities. The information above that the public entities are renamed to 'North Macedonian' is incorrect. In fact, those that contained the possessive construction 'of Macedonia' are being renamed to 'of North Macedonia' (e.g. National Bank of the Republic of North Macedonia), while those that contained the adjective 'Macedonian' remain unchanged for now (e.g. Macedonian Radio Television). Shall the renaming continue in the same way, it would give additional weight to Option C. But if those containing 'Macedonian' in their names are renamed to 'North Macedonian', it would give weight to Option B; similarly, if all are renamed to include the possessive construction 'of North Macedonia', it would give weight to Option A. Clearly, if the official name of a public entity retains 'Macedonian', the corresponding article will not be renamed, and any mention of it as 'North Macedonian' would be wrong (e.g. Macedonian Radio Television can not be referred to as North Macedonian Radio Television). For now, the final outcome of the renaming process is in the domain of crystal-ball reasoning.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. The rationale for changing the main article's name and start this RfC was the Prespa Agreement. Per the Prespa agreement the institutions are all renamed to match the country's name. Therefore, the most accurate choice is A, but for more flexibility I would prefer B, which is also serving the spirit of Prespa Agreement. After the Prespa Agreement, Option C is inaccurate and confusing. Of course, we should watch in real life which possessive/adjectival construction will prevail, and re-examine our choice if this not in agreement with reality. However, my strong belief and prediction is that, as regards the country's entities, the "North Macedonian/of North Macedonian" structure shall prevail.Yannismarou (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C. - as per reasons outlined by @FlavrSavr. Moreover, besides the changed there is only one sovereign state in the world which bears the term Macedonia in its name thus it is the only entity which has governmental bodies (on the highest level), continuation of naming them as Macedonian will not do any confusion anywhere. - Македонец (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C - FlavrSavr comment and the others C supporters outlined the issue quite well.MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B as the least ambiguous, and apparently what NM government already uses. Place Clichy (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C, As there is no country of South Macedonia using Macedonian should be fine. If the region of Greece is being discussed, one should use Greek Macedonia, or the region of Macedonia in Greece --Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B to distinguish from things relating to Macedonia as a region, to Macedonia in Greece or to Macedonian entities outside North Macedonia while not being restrictive in terms of grammar that is to be used.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. Looks like I didn't vote here! My bad. Similar to the concerns expressed by Libhye, I am in support of Option A. It is pretty clear (at least for me) that the preferred term by the Government of North Macedonia (See this). I am inclined in especially this one instance to align ourselves and the project closest with the terms of the Prespa Agreement. It would feel disrespectful for us to address a government's institutions and leadership by something that they explicitly do not want to be called (Historical example: Persia --> Iran). Thank you all for your time! (especially the people who end up having to close this thing!)―MJL-Talk-☖ 06:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C. Per Future Perfect's comment. Additionally, "Macedonian Government" (for example) uniquely and unequivocally identifies a government of the only internationally recognized sovereign state whose name contains the word "Macedonia". ObjectiveBoy (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option C. The new, imposed name is not well accepted by the citizens of the country, especially by the ethnic Macedonians. Last week, during the biggest annual pop culture event [Buba Mara na popularnosta], the new name was used only once in a joke: How would we now say it will be windy in the northern part of the country? It will be windy in north North Macedonia!!? GStojanov (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B ... of North Macedonia is (officially and unofficially) correct! No common sense can explain that someone/something of North Macedonia is not North Macedonian. It's not natural... and nobody in the world will read the Prespa agreement and say... WOW sorry it's not North Macedonian... it's of North Macedonia.... Mir suaar (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
[Moved from above – in response to Fut.Perf.]: It is in no way the case that of North Macedonia is too restrictive to be linguistically viable, nor is it the case that ‘we couldn't even write a straightforward sentence about what happened at Prespa itself if we took it at face value’. The sentence in question could easily be rewritten to say ‘The prime ministers of Greece and North Macedonia made an agreement’. I defy anyone to give an example of a sentence that couldn't easily be rewritten to conform with option A and remain natural-sounding. Libhye (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to the one of North Macedonia"? ;-) Fut.Perf.☼ 08:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to North Macedonia's.
This is the correct adjective based on North Macedonia's MFA Note. And it is perfectly correct linguistically. @Fut.Perf. it would be more honest to admit that are just trying to make it look funny so that you push your prefered "Macedonian" adjective for political reasons despite being obsolete -- Stevepeterson (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and after signing the agreement on the shore of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to that of North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 10:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you seriously consider that decent English prose? It isn't. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"... and after signing the agreement on the shore of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek to the North Macedonian side of the border". Option A is restrictive, while Option C has ambiguous terms, which is why I voted for Option B. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ambiguity is a red herring. The theoretical ambiguity of "Macedonia(n)" never was a problem, hasn't been a problem for our readers for the last 10 years, and won't be a problem now. (Where there really is ambiguity, i.e. real, contextual ambiguity and not just the imagined ambiguity that's such a bogeyman in the minds of Greeks, we can of course still use ad-hoc disambiguators as dictated by common sense.) But thanks for confirming that English has country adjectives for a reason: because it needs them to write proper prose; that was my whole point here. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason to be condescending. Reducing this discussion down to "a bogeyman in the minds of Greeks" is a little bit disingenuous given that numerous non-Greek editors have raised serious concerns not only relating to the ambiguity of Macedonia(n) re Macedonia (region), but also non-ethnic Macedonians within North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 20:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Philly boy92: If it has been unproblematic to describe the population of the republic as Macedonians until now, why would it not be unproblematic to continue to do so? Libhye (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise and SilentResident: This is actually not one of those situations where the Prespa agreement provides for the use of a construction with North Macedonia, so the text could easily be rewritten as ‘... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek to the Macedonian side of the border’. The Prespa agreement prescribes constructions with North Macedonia for such a narrow range of situations that it doesn't constitute a problem in practice. Libhye (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I was only making the linguistic point that the possessive constructions are less flexible, and that goes independent of the exact topic domain. I think this whole RfC section suffers from a lack of clarity what those "public entities" are, and what kinds of references should fall under this part of the rule. I'm beginning to think we should have taken more time to hash out more detailed proposals, with clear explanations, examples and everything. This RfC is getting messy. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise:I think the same for most sections. I also think that there was an unusual haste to start the RfC. Is there a possiblity to make clarifications or this is a no-go territory and the questions/examples are forever fixed since the voting has already started? --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Place Clichy: - actually the government doesn't use North Macedonian, or Macedonian for that matter, it just avoids the adjectival use altogether. Greece does the same. Yeah, it's a bit weird but this was agreed in Prespa and it is now entered UN terminology. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FlavrSavr: What I meant is that the North Macedonian government uses "North Macedonia" with a very large understanding, including bodies and events prior to the name change. For instance, the official announcement of the renaming reads: Amendments [...] which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019, which is prior to the entry into force of the renaming. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to propose a 4th option North Macedonia's and of North Macedonia which is the recommended by the North Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affair: https://mfa.gov.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2975:prespa-agreement-media-guidelines&catid=52&Itemid=684&lang=mk). If North Macedonia's MFA and Greek counterparts recommend these terms to media and organizations and send notes against incorrect adjectives such as Macedonian and North Macedonian , then its a matter of time that the term will be widely adopted by all reliable media. And our Consensus based on the survey of current media, not familiar yet with the content of the Agreement will look very obsolete and incorrect. My advice has always been: stick to the Prespa Agreement as much as possible as this is the foundation of correct use of all terms. --Stevepeterson (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After the governments of Greece and North Macedonia recently published notes about how adjectives should be used, and they stressed that both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" should be avioded, I think it's critical to use "of North Macedonia" wherever syntactically possible. --Antondimak (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree also North Macedonia's in addition to "of North Macedonia" and this is the only way forward when referring to the state.
Then Macedonian can be used for the ethnic group, its language, culture, history etc, but not for all citizens of North Macedonia. So demonym and adjectives should be North Macedonia's which is inline with Prespa and is not any less practical linguistically than (North) Macedonian -- Stevepeterson (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For current adjectival usage of respective terms for other entities, not specified above, see the reliable sources list.
What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above? This includes article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article. Question clarified by alteration on 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC), as per discussion on talk page.
What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above? This excludes any adjectival usage relating to aspects of culture and/or ethnicity. This will impact article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article.
Option A: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "Macedonian" only, eg. the Macedonian countryside, Macedonian economy, Macedonian football team
Option B: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "North Macedonian" only, eg. the North Macedonian countryside, North Macedonian economy, North Macedonian football team
Option C: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be either "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian", depending on context.
Option COption A with a bit of an allowance for Option C (i.e. there's no problem adding "North" if and when there's a true need of disambiguation; otherwise, the plain adjective is as good here as everywhere else, and seems to match what the majority of reliable sources have been doing.Fut.Perf.☼ 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updating: In light of what we've seen the reliable sources doing, I have to concur with User:Thryduulf below: the sources are fairly even between plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian", so there's really no good policy reason to exclude either. This leaves open the question of what "depending on context" means. I'd say it would be reasonable to prefer "North Macedonian" when first referring to the country in an unrelated context, for the sake of greater clarity, but prefer plain "Macedonian" when the topic of this country is already established in context, for example inside the text of articles about Macedonian topics/entities etc., for the sake of simplicity and concision. But if we can't agree on some reasonable approach to what "depending on context" means, I'd still prefer Option A, as this is both in line with (part of) current usage and with the official prescriptive norm set by the country's authorities. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C: Both, North Macedonian in case of something connected with the country North Macedonia and Macedonian in the case of something connected with the Macedonian ethnicity. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (struck because this editor was evading a topic ban from the topic area of Macedonia at the time of participating. ––––)Reply[reply]
Option A. Again, agreeing with Future's comment. No need to complicate things. — Tom(T2ME) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B: this is the most logical choice. It avoids ambiguity and follows established norms of 'someone from XYZ is an XYZian'. The claim that "the majority" of sources are using 'Macedonian' as the adjective for North Macedonia is, as of writing this, at best dubious and at worst untrue. I would have gone for C but it was not defined what "context" means prior to opening the RfC so I am going for option B instead. --Michail (blah) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Only reason I voted for C was because of the culture. Any other usage I find to be state-related, so I will vote for the non-ambiguous "North Macedonian". --Antondimak (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. Agreeing with per Fut Perf. The agreement that brought all this up doesn't even use "North Macedonian". With common usage till now being "Macedonian", I see no good reason to change our treatment on WP. --Local herotalk 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B as I find it to be the natural language in this case. Someone with no knowledge of the naming dispute, the history, even the existence of the country, will have no problem to discern that something "North Macedonian" is from "North Macedonia". On the other hand, "Macedonian" does not naturally lead to "North Macedonia" and it will confuse people with no knowledge of the issue. --Despotak (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B, but Option C isn't that bad either. As long as context is written in an way that eliminates any confusion. Initially, I favored only the Option C since I feel there may be any context where both may be needed, but after reading the arguments in the Discussion, I believe Option B can avoid some of the ambiguous issues Option C entails. --✿ SilentResident ✿(talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B as already being used in the media. Offers the most clarity. Number57 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C and further specify the content. As such my logic says that we shouldn't rename terms related to people, the language, and the culture in all its' aspects (e.g. the Macedonian cuisine, a Macedonian film, etc), especially in all cases that it hasn't been required so far by the need to disambiguate with the respective attributes associated with Greek Macedonians, per current policies of WP:MOSMAC. Same policies should apply to any new articles and when necessary clearly differentiate the attributes of the 2 people that arise from their different history and culture. In case that adjectives refer to the country, as a legal or a geographic entity, including any international representation or any official activity within the country of North Macedonia, I think that the term North Macedonian should be the first and in some cases the only option, when an adjectival reference is used e.g. "North Macedonian National Team", "North Macedonian Football Championship, "North Macedonian economy", "North Macedonian banking system", etc. Beware that WP:COMMONNAMES may take a very long time to be valid in some instances. --Argean (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. Comes naturally. It should be use for everything to give the most clarity. Dash9Z (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. With the exception of topics related exclusively to the Ethnic Macedonians, like Macedonian cuisine, Macedonian traditions, etc, which are not limited within the state boundaries. --StanProg (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B The dispute over the name Macedonia is unimportant for the majority of the world, but it took 27 years to be resolved, showing how important is for the people of the two countries. Some of the comments that I read show me that people do not understand that the confusion of the last 27 years was the reason for all the problems of North Macedonia. We have the chance to make progress and avoid any confusion by respecting the Prespa agreement, which means the decision of both countries. What is the motivation to still use a term that created confusion and introduced only problems for North Macedonia and Greece? When North Macedonia changes signs and all names in the whole country, I fail to understand why we discuss here whether we should use the same names in wikipedia or not. Simplicity is always good but is different than using confusing terms. I don't think that someone of us is more important than the two countries, such that we can decide the name of the country. There was a negotiation that lasted more than six months, which end up in the Prespa agreement. Why do we need to re-negotiate everything from scratch? Both countries made a compromise; it's a difficult compromise, but we have to accept it. Unless we refer to people who call themselves Macedonians (self-determination), we should use the term North Macedonian since it's about the country North Macedonia. If we talk about food, it makes sense to call it "Macedonian" if we want to make a connection to the ethnic group, which means we want to explicitly exclude other ethnic groups. However, if we want to talk about a food that is well-known in the whole country, it makes no sense to call it "Macedonian". Peace in balkans (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option B: "North Macedonian" only, for the reasons I stated in the last two sections. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A as that is the nationality of the people and they did not give that up under the Prespa Agreement, one they were forced to enter into by a neighbournig bully-state that would not respect their right to self-determination. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, differentiating instead between terms incorporating North Macedonia (such as of North Macedonia), to be used in a set of specifically defined circumstances, and the term Macedonian, expressly allowed in all other cases. Libhye (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B As done with all adjectives referring to countries, states, regions, etc. bearing directional names. Xaris333 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. Sashko1999 makes an interesting point here, that is addressed below. I take this section to mean the adjective for things of or pertaining to North Macedonia, as opposed to things of or pertaining to the Macedonian people or culture. My arguments elsewhere apply here too (we're guessing at future usage whatever we do and the situation is parallel to South Korea and East Timor) but this seems to me to be the more likely finishing point. If things of or pertaining to the Macedonian people or culture are included, then my choice is Option C. Kahastoktalk 10:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C. It is impossible to specify either one or the other exclusively without allowing for context, so we should explicitly allow whatever is best in context. For example it is not unlikely that reliable sources in different fields will adopt different conventions and forcing our articles to depart from that is just going to cause confusion and acrimony. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking back on this I'm not sure why this question is even being asked - we should always follow the reliable sources and option C is the only one that allows us to do this. Either option A or option B directly contradict fundamental policies of Wikipedia that a local consensus cannot override. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option D Avoid adjectives altogether. "The countryside of North Macedonia". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Treat like Korea. I assume that's closest to B, since we don't use "Korean" to refer to something only pertaining to Pusan or Seoul, but if we're talking about a cultural or physical-geographic topic that extends into Bulgaria or Greece, use simply "Macedonian", just as we do when talking about something like climate that's present in both Pyongyang and Seoul. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A per Prespa agreement, Article 7 regarding terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian". Wikipedia should not invent terms. The agreement was specifically careful with this. When it needs to be disambiguated, then " of North Macedonia" or similar form should be used. sliceofcodes (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option Bis the least ambiguous. I agree with the argument about ethnic Macedonians but here we talk about something country-wide. Option B does not exclude usage of Macedonian for ethnic Macedonian-related things.--APG1984 (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B if it's about the country, then use the country name in the adjective to avoid any confusion. – BrandonXLF(t@lk) 07:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C and in accordance to the Prespa agreement. For anything except the following 3 uses: 1) Language (Macedonian, a South Slavic language), 2) Ethnic group (Macedonian, a Slavic ethnic group) and nationality (Citizen of North Macedonia / Macedonian) the North Macedonian should be used. Going against the Prespa Agreement is something that none of the two republics want and would contribute to further confusion as Macedonian relates to geographical region and several regions outside North Macedonia -- Stevepeterson (talk)
Option C. Bearing in mind that I pretty much read everything above my comment before I write it, I pick Option C. I will highlight statements made by Thryduulf, Argean, Kahastok (especially the part with this diff), and Stevepeterson in order by whom I most agree with here. I would say that, like this question, the policy we adopt here should be intentionally vague. What concerns the country, the culture, or the country's culture is only limited by our collective imagination. Both can be fine, and neither will always work. I am pretty sure most editors here would agree with that. ―MJL-Talk-☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. Using Opt. A is no longer accurate, and was always innately ambiguous and confusing. Option C isn't really viable, since "Macedonian", even if confined to modern-day people, is a broader ethnonym and isn't limited to people living in that country. There will be cause to use it, but not to specifically refer to North Macedonia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A The agreement does not mention 'North Macedonian', which should apply for the first of the following cases, while the others might not refer to the country. Firstly, for non-public entities (e.g. sport clubs, music bands, companies, associations etc.), there is also an additional argument that no other country-related adjective including the term 'Macedonian' is used on the English Wikipedia (e.g. OFC Pirin Blagoevgrad and Koza Mostra are described as Bulgarian and Greek but not Macedonian football club and music band, respectively). Secondly, for objects originating from the territory but somehow linked to the country (e.g. traditional food, authentic products etc.), they generally pre-date the modern country and are associated with the entire region of Macedonia (e.g. Pastrmajlija is a traditional dish from the region of Macedonia that was also prepared in the past). Thirdly, for the rare use of adjectives describing landforms and other grographic terms, they might also be associated with the entire region of Macedonia (e.g. Jakupica is a Macedonian mountain because it is entirely located within the region of Macedonia).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B. It is the most unambiguous and encyclopedically accurate term to be used for any entity related to the country, and history indicates that it will become the prevailing structure in common languate. "Macedonian" makes sense to me to be used only for the language (recognised as such by the Prespa Agreement, Greece and the international communitiy with the exception of Bulgaria) being again an unambiguous term (there is no other "Macedonian" language; there was only an obsolete "ancient Macedonian" language").Yannismarou (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A. As it is clearly stated by Kiril Simeonovski, especially with the fact that non-public entities from the regions belonging to other countries are identified and determined outside in the world by its belonging to their countries regarding that those which are coming from the only country that bears the Macedonia have the allowance by the agreement to use the plain name Macedonia it is reasonable to be recognized as Macedonian in English speaking Wikipedia and internet space. - Македонец (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A, Again, there is only one country in the world with the term Macedonia in it official name. Using the example of countryside, if one is in Greece, then its the Greek countryside. But if one is in North Macedonia, it is the Macedonian countryside. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B to avoid confusion with Macedonian entities outside North Macedonia.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A Neither Prespa Agreement, neither any major institution use other adjective than Macedonian, so Wikipedia try to introduce original research in this. Did anybody read official announcement of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of N. Macedonia, about usage of adjectives. Additionally, I will bring again my comment about important mentioning in CIA Factbook (major outlet for country data), that they stick with Macedonian as only adjective. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A Macedonian is the only logical adjective since North Macedonian is not to be used by anyone, Wikipedia should not invent adjectives for this purpose. --Macedonicus (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option A I am against the use of adjective "North Macedonian" in any context. The state government does not use it. It asked politely all media not to use it. People of the country don't use it. Why would Wikipedia impose it? If we can't say "of North Macedonia" then we need to say "Macedonian". GStojanov (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Nobody will read the Prespa agreement and say.... wow wait... this is not state-associated (CHECK MARK), it's not financed by the state (CHECK MARK), it's not established by law (CHECK MARK), so... "Prespa agreement, Article 1(f) says I am allowed to call it Macedonian". nobody will do that, and nobody will make the distinction between state-associated entities and non-state-associated entities. Everybody will use North Macedonian for everything because this is the only natural way in every language and for every country. Mir suaar (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Option B with flexibility. North Macedonian should be the standard adjective for anything relative to the country, in any context, but tolerance should be given to specific topics where "Macedonian XYZ" is an established expression or a proper noun, such as Macedonian Radio Television. Place Clichy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option B Of course I might be considered as biased here because I am Greek (and Macedonian from Greece on top!) so I don't know I my vote can count according to your rules. For me even North Macedonian seems strange but since the country is called this way now, I think it is the options that makes more sense. Also, I have very few edits on the English WP but have been quite active in the Greek WP which you can check here Thanks anyway:)--Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Future Perfect at Sunrise As of writing this note, the claim that a majority of sources are using 'Macedonian' as an adjective is dubious at best given that the list of media links was uploaded without considering a number of issues raised with some of the sources in the talk page. --Michail (blah) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you are mentioning methodology once more I will copy-paste what I already wrote on the Talk page: In research when you want to report accuracy you need to have a set of predetermined criteria that meet the standard of reproducibility. That means that the same results should be able to be obtained by anyone that follows the reported methodology. If this is not possible the study can be rejected as biased. If we don't set a specific set of criteria that should apply for all sources that are included in the media repository, I'm really sorry but I feel that we are failing the criterion of accuracy and we could be accused of bias, thus failing the criterion of neutrality as well. I can't see where your objections stem from. I'll remind you that if we include articles before 12/02 we should also check how common are the sources that use the term "Macedonian" for the same time frame --Argean (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: if the most voted option is "C per Sashko1999", does that mean that Sashko's reasoning becomes part of the RfC? What I mean to say is, if his option becomes the most popular choice, does the official interpretation of this policy will be North Macedonian in case of something connected with the country North Macedonia and Macedonian in the case of something connected with the Macedonian ethnicity? If that is the case, I would consider switching my vote to C. --Michail (blah) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent point, Philly boy92! Yes, I would hope this reasoning becomes part of the RfC. If it doesn’t, I would consider changing my vote to Option B. After re-reading the description of the item, I would be declined to distinguish between entities from North Macedonia (which, by definition, are of the modern country) and entities connected to culture, language, ethnicity etc., which would fall outside the scope of the country. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the original intention of this section of the RfC related to the national adjective and didn't relate to anything to do with ethnicity/culture (as this was being addressed by another section entirely). However, through the revisions during drafting it seems to have lost some of this intent in the phrasing of the question. I'm sure that many editors voting option B at the moment are under the belief that this section relates to the adjective on a country wide scale and not to the principal ethnicity. For instance, if I order a kettle that is made in North Macedonia to be delivered to my house, then when it arrives is that a "Macedonian" kettle, or a "North Macedonian" kettle? Similarly, what is a commercial company from North Macedonia called? Is it a "Macedonian" company, or a "North Macedonian" company. What Sashko1999 has pointed out by his edit here is the deficiency in the section's principal question. I simply say this is a consequence of the short time we had to bring this RfC to life. However, now that it is here, the RfC is more than just a mechanism to perform voting in Wikipedia. It is a discussion process. If we see a section is deficient, we can discuss an improvement and either put that in place, still considering all prior votes to be valid (if the change is small), or to start a whole new vote on the re-worded section. We have 30 days to sort all this out now, there is still plenty of time to hold a proper vote on a re-worded section if need be. We only just started after all. Just because we drafted it like this previously does not mean it is set in stone. So if you have reservations about this section as it currently stands, we can put a pause to the voting till we can figure out how best to fix the issue and ultimately come to a consensus on the "adjective". - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t really see a lot of problems here, Wiz9999. Corporations are incorporated under state laws, so: North Macedonian company. If a pretty generic/utilitarian kettle is merely manufactured in the country, it’s a North Macedonian kettle. If it’s made in a specific Macedonian style (which presumably predates the term RoNM), it’s a Macedonian kettle. It it’s also manufactured in the country, it could be a Macedonian and North Macedonian kettle. But yeah, the next 30 days should give us a better idea how this shakes out in practice. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option C does not necessarily exclude option A or B. 'Depending on the context', if the context is broader than North Macedonian then obviously one can use Macedonian. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to clarify something about the UN's stance on adjectives, posted in the "Media Link repository". It means that the law doesn't bind private associations from naming themselves "Macedonian". Obviously we follow that, like with the Macedonian Patriotic Organization, it isn't bound by anything. However, it has essentially nothing to do with using adjectives in naturally in language (a North Macedonian forest), so I'm not sure it should belong there. --Antondimak (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to point out that the position of the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union among others, which prescribed the use of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", did not guide the previous RfC and they should not guide this one. --Michail (blah) 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previously the UN used a different name than the country itself. Now they are in agreement. --Antondimak (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the United Nations the terms North Macedonian and Macedonian can't be used officially, but here we must use one of them, and because in the Prespa agreement exist the term of North Macedonia, it's logical to use the term North Macedonian, even if didn't exist, this term is logical. Macedonian, as I said before, should be used in cases where something is connected with the Macedonian ethnicity.
NOTE: The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is of the Republic of North Macedonia or of North Macedonia. Other adjectival references, including North Macedonian and Macedonian may not be used in all of the above cases. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (Struck because the editor was evading a topic ban. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]
These are just the internal guidelines of the UN. Wikipedia is not obliged to follow them - are the people who are presenting it as proof suggesting that we should use the UN’s guidelines on wikipedia over what is common and natural in English, not to mention that which will avoid any semiological confusion? Three points:
The UN is not an encyclopaedia and therefore does not have the same requirements for clarify as Wikipedia might have. The context in which the UN guidelines will be applied, i.e. the UN diplomatic corps, has far fewer opportunities for confusion as an article relating to the various definitions of Macedonia on an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia did not follow the UN/EU/NATO/OECD guidelines before when they prescribed the name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. I find it highly unlikely that the people so enthusiastically presenting the UN guidelines and the Prespa Agreement as a reason as to why North Macedonian should not be allowed on wikipedia would have also argued with the same fervour to impose the nomenclature of the Interim accord instead of the name “Republic of Macedonia”.
The Prespa Agreement recognises that Greece also has a right to use the term Macedonia and explicitely states that neither of the two can monopolise the term. If we are using the Prespa Agreement as an argument for validity, should this not become policy too? Who decides that ‘Macedonian’ culture can only mean ethnic Macedonian and not Greek Macedonian? The agreement makes it clear that it is both, furthering my point regarding the need to avoid ambiguity.
This pretty much sums up my opposition to using the Prespa Agreement or the UN guidelines as definitive proof that North Macedonian should not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia, especially since in ghe media links section is it (as of writing this) more common as an adjective. The original NCMAC reasoning made it clear that international agreements are not how Wikipedia determines things, and I do not think that this logic is less valid in this RfC. —Michail (blah) 16:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sliceofcodes: Misquoting the Prespa Agreement again, as you did above. Article 7 clearly refers to respective [sic] understanding of the terms between the two nations/peoples and does not work in establishing an adjective for the country (something that should obviously follow the state's name) for any form of international usage. --StevenHal (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply