Talk:Greece/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• In Greece the country is known as Skopje. That is Greek POV.
• Neutrally,
  English speaking world Taivo..) New Zealand, South Africa
  etc all call it FYROM.
• In Fyrom, - Republic of Macedonia.

Reaper7 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's all been said before, Reaper. You are new to this discussion. I suggest you read the entire page of discussion before you start throwing in totally irrelevant comments about either Greek or Macedonian politics. You're wasting your time doing so. Wikipedia relies solely on common English usage. All editors, whether Greek or not, agree that common English usage calls the Republic of Macedonia, "Macedonia". But to disambiguate between the Greek provinces called "Macedonia" and the Republic of Macedonia, the question is whether Wikipedia policy prefers the self-identification Republic of Macedonia or the term imposed by outsiders former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That's really the only question. Politics, whether Greek, Macedonian, or international, don't matter at all here. (Taivo (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I wonder is it really that difficult to at least try to be unbiased? Common use supersedes self-identification in Wikipedia policy. This is crystal clear and this is why this very page is not in Hellas but in Greece. And FYROM is simply more common than ROM. But you simply do not like that and start inserting your POV interpretations like "imposed by outsiders". --Avg (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Avg, FYROM was imposed by outsiders on Macedonia. The Macedonians didn't invent it themselves. There's no POV there, just historical fact. (Taivo (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

And, Avg, Wikipedia policy specifically says that political considerations are irrelevant in determining what name to use. That's why the article is

Republic of Macedonia and not FYROM. (Taivo (talk

) 06:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

"And FYROM is simply more common than ROM." ^[citation needed] Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Common English term is "Macedonia" not "FYROM", we should use the self-identifier when the common English term is not existent or as in this case cannot be used because of disambiguation need.

man with one red shoe

06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated reply below.

To Taivo: It is a bit surreal that you repeat my own arguments to state your position. The fact that FYROM is not an invention of the Republic has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy states that what is more common prevails. The fact that you use the POV wording "imposed by outsiders" on the other hand is pure

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

and it directly contradicts that "policital considerations are irrelevant in determining what name to use".

To Heimstern: Well, instead of opining "bullshit", perhaps you could bother checking the Google search results presented many times earlier plus the "survey of mainstream encyclopedias" by ChrisO himself. No, I will not do you the courtesy of typing the links here because of your incivility.

To Man with one red shoe: Since the most common term is ambiguous, we proceed to the next more common term, we do not change the criterion.--Avg (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Avg, you are, as usual, not reading Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk

) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo sorry to break the news to you, but you're arguing against yourself. It is not me who keeps bringing the political and moral rights argument in the conversation. It is you and it has always been you. I haven't even implied such a thing. So good job proving who's actually supporting Wikipolicy here.--Avg (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear; and yet we still need to go to Arbcomm because we're "interpreting" policy incorrectly. If an airplane crashes, do we really need someone to tell us that it was ultimately due to loss of lift? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What a colossal waste of time and effort on this silly Republic of Macedonia / FYROM thing! Surely there are many more important things to improve about the Greece article than whether FY should be written before ROM. --macrakis (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You could say it's a matter of principles, for both sides. Personally, i would easily agree with you if we hadn't seen the amount of mud being thrown, already from the beginning.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to nerds, this must be Nerd Heaven, for what other subset of society would devote this titanic, monumental, utterly unjustifiable effort for a few occurrences of FY before ROM? Maybe Hollywood can step in and make this epic waste of effort into a movie: For a Few "FYs" More along the lines of For a Few Dollars More. Dr.K. logos 07:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But to truly capture the futility--"An FY Too Far". (Taivo (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

So true. I tried to bridge the gap of both sides using your proposal. But it was

The Good the Bad and the Ugly :) Dr.K. logos

15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Three good movies there. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Horologium has done a great job until now. I don't know if anybody else has done it, but I have to laud him: 1) for his courage to act instantaneously in such a contentious area, 2) for executing his sysop duties twice in a careful way, not allowing his impartiality to be questioned. Nevertheless, I am afraid that by acting in the way he acted he undertook the responsibility to execute his duties till the end. Therefore, if his protection ends and no solution is found, then inevitably he'll have the burden to bring the case to the next phase. A third protection is definitely no solution.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am keeping a close eye on this, and I will protect it indefinitely if the editors here cannot come to a consensus; I will extend it before it expires, so as not to repeat what happened the last time protection expired. I really want a solution here, and if it means getting the Arbitrators involved, I am all for it. There are other steps in dispute resolution, however, and I'd like to see if both sides can resolve this before going to the arbs. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, i hate to be a pessimist. But if the two countries havent solved their disputes in 18 years of diplomacy a group of wikipedia editors are not going to solve this issue. It would be a good idea to go to Arbitration, with the possibility of revising WP:MOSMAC. This could also be extended to other related issues such as Aegean Macedonia/ns etc. Just a suggestion? PMK1 (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with PMK1. (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

The extent of ARBCOM's competence (at least, in the way I perceive it) is exposed in my comment above (section " Enough with the edit warring already"). Within this framework, of course, MOSMAC's policy-status, possible revising, importance etc. etc. is going to be one of the major issues. As we have been taught in the law school, the special law overrules the general one. But is it MOSMAC a special {wiki}law (=policy)? Is it like a soft law? Is it something else? I would prefer to find a solution here and not to have to go to ARBCOM, but I see that Fut has no willingness to compromise and I am also against half-meters. We need concrete rules about how to refer to RoM throughout WP. Even if we agree here, what happens with the other articles? I proposed and I still believe that the best place to discuss all that, and articulate concrete, consensual, and final rules is MOSMAC. You don't agree with that? Then, ARBCOM is waiting for us (and if not, it should!).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Yannismarou, but you accuse Future Perfect of not being willing to compromise? You have no moral high ground from which to make that

accusation as if you are innocent. I see your words right above this that it should be FYROM all the way in this article. That's not compromise. That's staking out a position and not being willing to move. I have seen not one half-step from you away from your original hard-line position during this entire discussion. Yannismarou: "My opinion is that there should be fYROM throughout the article...Full stop!" Where's your willingness to compromise? (Taivo (talk

) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree with PMK1. Note however that in the previous Macedonia arbitration, this issue has been explicitly proposed to the Arbs and they declined. They seemed to favour the continuation of the community discussion at MOSMAC, which now certain parties consider "dead". This sabotage of the consensus process that was actually agreed at the previous arbitration is one of the main reasons I want to go back to ArbCom. --Avg (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Avg, you need to actually read MOSMAC where in Greek-related articles no consensus was reached. MOSMAC does not apply here therefore since no agreement was reached. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you seem to have completely missed what has happened here. An editor started mass reverting article names, insulted a host of editors, threatened of imposing bans to every single one of his opposers, launched a full-fledged smear campaign, engaged in edit warring in almost every article he was reverted, outrightly admitted he was on a

WP:POINT crusade and all that by falsely claiming that the community has decided to change the status quo of using FYROM in article Greece and replace it by ROM. There was never such a decision. MOSMAC is the written proof that there was no consensus and no consensus means exactly that. So if you show disregard for the community process and unilaterally declare your own war, the community should respond decisively and drastically.--Avg (talk

) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the community did respond--by nearly unanimously supporting Future Perfect and his actions. I think that only one admin opposed his actions--Yannismarou, as I recall. And the community pretty solidly rejected the position of the followers of Greek national policy and declared that nationalistic walled gardens were against Wikipedia policy. The whole discussion has been archived now, but I'm sure you read most of it before that. I'm surprised you even bring it up since your side of the argument took a pretty heavy beating from both admins and generally uninvolved editors. (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

This is your own POV assessment of the situation. My assessment is that third party admins clearly distanced themselves from Future Perfect's actions but were reluctant to impose sanctions (this closed as "no consensus"), so no "heavy beating" or whatever else you want to call it. Probably you need to revisit what "no consensus" means, it is the second time you make the same mistake.--Avg (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. So you just choose to ignore all the admins and others heaping praise on Future Perfect for finally taking on the issue of walled gardens head on. Selective reading, I guess--you only see what you wanted to see. (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

ARBCOM is not like case-law in real life! It can evaluate a situation or a policy differently now. For me it is not a content dispute, it is a policy-related issue. But, of course, I am not a member of the ARBCOM (unless Jimbo appoints me in the meantime; improbable, heee?!).--Yannismarou (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course I agree it is a policy related issue and God knows how much I want ArbCom to opine of this, since what we have been experiencing is a continuous changing of the goalposts from a couple of editors, as soon as they thought the previous consensus did not satisfy them. I'm more than certain that your legal background will enable you to express the issue in much better terms than me. --Avg (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot move goalposts that don't exist. No consensus was ever reached at MOSMAC on the use of "Republic of Macedonia" in Greek-related articles. That means that MOSMAC doesn't apply here and Greece was never set up as a walled garden immune from Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, in every legal setting, if there is no consensus, you cannot change the status quo. The status quo, especially if it has been established many years ago and has not caused any controversy at all, acquires a de facto prevalence over any controversial change. And the lawmaker has a very good reason behind this.--Avg (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a legal setting, Avg. (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

"Agree with PMK1", I never thought it would happen. PMK1 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dogs and cats, living together... See, Greeks and Macedonians can agree on something. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Great -- now the sun will turn black as sackcloth and moon as blood, and we'll see Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! .  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Every one knows by now that the Republic of Macedonia is the term which is used by the citizens of that country. They self identify with the term "Republika Makedonija" which is the name used int he constitution of that country. The term Republic of Macedonia has been used since 1945, from 1945-1991 with the appelation "Peoples" and later "Socialist". From 1991 is has been just Republic of Macedonia.

However FYROM, is a term which arouse from UN sponsor name talks in the mid 1990's. The citizens of that country do NOT self identify with that name.

Now how are we to decide which of the names is more commmon in the English speaking world. Well John Carter just showed us a list of English speaking populations/countries, where ROM was by far the most prominent usage. Many people in the English speaking world refer to ROM simply as Macedonia, the same way in which they do not call Albania, the Republic of Albania or Greece, the Hellenic Republic. This is only for simplicity. Thus, it can be assumed that in their direct reference to Macedonia, they are refering to the country not as FYROM but ROM. Apart from some International organizations, whereby ROM had to enter as FYROM in order to be accepted, is their any evidence suggesting that FYROM is more common then ROM? Please give some evidence so that this whole chapter WILL END. If some users from a radical POV seriously continue to object to ROM, even after extensive proofs, then we should take this to ARBCOM. I hope that this can be resolved ASAP. PMK1 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the name FYROM seems to have been forced on the country against its will by the UN. There is an open question whether that any terms you had to accept because you, basically, had no choice in the matter should really be given much weight. And it does seem, at least to me, that the UN's having forced this name on the country seems to be almost the only reason the name is used, as the international orgs all, basically, are really closely tied to the UN. If I am correct in the above, that even further weakens the argument for the FYROM. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John, the FYROM name was not forced against the country's will by the UN. The UN does not have to power to do that. Rather, the country's government negotiated and agreed to it. They might hate it, but they did sign off on it, and it is a mutually agreed upon. Don't buy the "victim" card so often played by the other side. --

talk

) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How quaint, Athenean, but inaccurate. When the UN says, "You cannot join unless you accept FYROM", that is power. You better believe that the UN has power and that is exactly what the UN did to Macedonia--"If you want to join the UN or any other international organization that listens to us, you will accept FYROM as your designation because Greece will veto your membership otherwise." Yes, Macedonia has been the victim of Greece's intimidation in the international organizations. Greece continues to block Macedonia's membership in NATO as well for the same reasons--a name. But this whole issue is still a sidetrack--"Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifier and that is what Wikipedia cares about. (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I know this is totally off-topic, but I feel I cannot leave your above post unanswered. The UN did not say "You cannot join unless you accept FYROM". The UN itself said no such thing, and it cannot force anything on anyone. What actually happened was that Greece said "You cannot join as "Republic of Macedonia because we object to it". Remember, the FYROM name was anathema to Greece back then because it contains the word "Macedonia". The FYROM name was the results of negotiation between the two parties, and they both accepted, both equally unwillingly. I remember at the time it was actually considered a diplomatic defeat in Greece at the time. But regardless of the reasons behind it, it still is a mutually agreed upon compromise, and in the end that's the only thing that matters. The

talk

) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the UN actually said, "You cannot join unless you accept the compromise provisional reference of FYROM. You don't accept the compromise, you cannot join." Sorry for simplifying it. And it doesn't matter what the Greeks thought of the compromise. They were already in the UN and lost nothing. But, this is off topic, since the only question is consistency in Wikipedia and no longer allowing Greece to be a walled garden against Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Careful with the misinformation again Taivo, this is becoming a strange fetish of yours - explaining what Greece won and lost, felt - didn't feel.. - in this case, 'Greece lost nothing because it was already a member of the UN.' Greece lost, most Greeks will openly admit this, in allowing even the name Macedonia within the composite FYROM, Greece was robbed of its history and open was a pandora's boxof problems that are getting worse by the day due to extreme FYROMIAN nationalism. Luckily Greece defeated FYROMIANS' flag of the time, an ancient Macedonian star - they were forced to replace that, however the name was a definite defeat for Greece. Reaper7 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that that name was accepted as a temporary solution, but regardless of the reason it was accepted, Macedonia does have a preferred self-identifying name and that's what we are after. Victim or not victim the country has a preferred name, Wikipedia guideline make it very clear that a preferred name is not to be ignored because somebody thinks they don't have the rights to use it.

man with one red shoe

01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not ignored, as most wikipedia articles refer to the country by that name. The debate here concerns how to refer it in this article. --

talk

) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and since this article is part of Wikipedia, it should consistently follow Wikipedia policy and usage. Since Wikipedia uses "Republic of Macedonia" throughout, that should be the usage here as well. (Taivo (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not use "Republic of Macedonia" throughout. Just so I'm clear regarding your position, do you support that for internal consistency and Wikipolicy reasons, any reference to the country throughout the project should be changed to "Republic of Macedonia"? --Avg (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And why should this article be special?

man with one red shoe

02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is going to ARBCOM after next Sunday. Both sides are quoting policy. We can effectively ignore all the arguments based on Macedonia's foreign policy. It comes down to two issues--1) Can a group of editors create a walled garden where Wikipedia policy does not apply and 2) is a self-identification more important than an externally-imposed name. Nothing more need be said on the issue for now. (Taivo (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

It is not about victim or perpotrator, BUT it has become clear that FYROM is clearly not the accepted name that people like Athenean and Avg want you to believe. Had FYROM been "accepted" then the country would have ended this dispute in 1995 and the consitution would have been changed to reflect this "acceptance".

Taivo i hope that you take this to ARBCOM when you have the time to do so. I would look forward to commenting on the process. PMK1 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an agreement above (somewhere) that it would be taken to ARBCOM once the two Easters were over (on the 19th). So I suspect that on the 20th or so there will be a formal submission made--if not by me then by someone else. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

If there is not a submission by the 20th, I will submit a request myself. I have been working something up offline; my biggest decision is determining which editors should be listed as involved parties. I will probably be conservative, and only include a few editors, with the proviso that more may be added if there is consensus to do so. I really don't want a train wreck with 20 or more editors listed in the involved parties section, but the crux of the issue on this article tends to spill over into others as well, and I really think that most of the contentious articles can be covered by a single arbitration case. The previous arbitration explicitly avoided issuing any corrective actions on the naming issue, sending it back to the community for action. That didn't work, and the content issue is now a behavioral issue, causing instability and disruption on a wide range of articles. Hopefully the current Arb Com will recognize that, and issue a definitive answer on the issue. We have experienced users (and admins) on both sides of the issue, which indicates a fairly basic breakdown in the community's ability to forge a solution. Horologium (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok Taivo, i did not read that section, it is hard to keep up with all of the comments going on! I guess that it is considerate of both Catholic/Protestant and Orthodox faiths. Horologium would you seek intervention as a sort of enxtension of WP:ARBMAC, which was needed in order to prevent another crisis nearly two years ago, or as a completely seperate request? PMK1 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be a separate request, because the original arbitration case specifically and explicitly punted on the name issue. Addtionally, there have been a rather substantial turnover in the committee since the original case was closed, which makes reopening the case potentially very messy. I think a new case is the best way to go; adding links to the original case will accomplish any referencing that needs to occur. Horologium (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not fool ourselves: The issue here is the POV of some people that there is an unfair real world situation, where evil Greece is "bullying" the poor little Republic of Macedonia. It is not a coincidence that every each one of the supporters shares a very strong real-world POV against Greece's objections to the name. There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns. The supporters try to extend their real-world beliefs into the articles of Wikipedia while ignoring policy.

On the other hand when the arguments of the opposers appear to be based on policy, the supporters go as far as to suggest changes of that policy according to their wishes so that their POV is finally reflected in the new policy. They go as far as to call all opposers (including third parties) "nationalists", a "faction", etc. They go as far as to do this while the poll is running, so as to influence incoming voters to disregard the policy-based arguments of the opposers, to dismiss them under the veil of a "nationalist-POV" of an "ethnic faction" and therefore to (mis)lead them towards reflecting their own real-world POV in Wikipedia, while at the same time ignoring Wikipedias policies. This is also evident in the vote rationales of many supporters. NikoSilver 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns." -- I'm sorry but Wikipedia shouldn't be tweaked to favor concerns, that's the very principle that you'll find in

man with one red shoe

12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant "...in real life", obviously. Your confusing of the two separate cases (real life pov vs Wikipedia policy) proves exactly my point. Your opinion here is an exact reflection of your real life pov. NikoSilver 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you know about my "real-life" POV?

man with one red shoe

18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am very curious about that statement. Niko seems to me to be indicating that he can read minds here. If that's true, I'd like some more solid evidence, please, as we could make lots of money off that. Otherwise, I have to see this as being an explicit failure to assume good faith and very likely personal insults/attacks. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind these personal attacks, I still don't see how that "...in real life" addition can salvage the "There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns." Tweak its name in Wikipedia to appease Greece's concerns? Tweak it in real life... I still don't get it! The point is that Greece's concerns should not be Wikipedia's business and we shouldn't even discuss them here.

man with one red shoe

18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have two equally important replies for John's comment:

1. It could be that I am unfair to red shoe especially, and I'll check for diffs, but I was addressing many of the other voters whose opinion I happen to know. And how I know is evident from many talkpage comments I've seen above, and some of the vote rationales. They address the real world issue, as if we're debating to/against Greece in the real world. They speak about e.g. self-identification, and that if some people use a name for themselves then that's what must be used by everyone. This is only an extension of that philosophy to the WP reality, and I maintain that IMO it is in contrast with the present verbatim text of the relevant policy (which wants the first non-ambiguous most common name). I know e.g. Fut.Perf.'s real-life opinion on this from private and WP conversations we've had, and I simply don't share it. But that's the real world argument and we shouldn't bring it in WP. That's why, if you noticed, I've hidden the section describing how the Greeks feel in real life from my opposition rationale, and I've put a warning on top that says that it should not affect our judgment here in WP. Now my influence from my real-life POV is in no way inferior to that of the other side (provided the latter exists). And when I see from talkpage comments that it indeed does, I cannot help not pointing it out. NikoSilver 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. See how it feels when people give real-life motives (e.g. "nationalism") to your editorial preferences? How many times have the Greeks been accused for sharing their government's POV? Isn't that an assumption of bad faith? NikoSilver 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko, everybody has a Point of veiw, this is one thing which i hope ALL users can agree upon. What Wikipedia is trying to do, is to represent the Point of Veiw of the English speaking community. If the prevailing opinion on Wikipedia is accepted, then through the use of large polls it can be assumed that to some extent this is true back in the Real world, the thing which Wikipedia writes about.

In the real world only 15% of countries recognise the ROM as FYROM. This is cannot seriously be considered as the most common or even most "non-biased" representation of the name. I am sure that the accusations of "nationalism" etc. will stop and people will calm down. If a decision which is predominant in the Wikipedia community is reached then this conclusion should be used where appropriate. I would not object to another poll, whereby only 3rd parties are allowed to vote, however 1st (Macedonian) and 2nd (Greek) parties are allowed to comment and to express their concerns/opinions. PMK1 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the Greek Wikipedia, Niko. It is the English Wikipedia, so Greek POV is not relevant here. Massaging Greek sensibilities is not relevant here. The English Wikipedia reflects English norms and usage. You might even say that the English Wikipedia offers the English-speaking world's POV as neutrally as possible. The Greek Wikipedia will, of course, offer the Greek-speaking world's POV as neutrally as possible. What the non-Greeks here have been trying to do is make a Greek article conform to the English-speaking world's most neutral POV. UN and EU decisions don't matter here. Greek foreign policy doesn't matter here. All that matters here is English Wikipedia's "most neutral" POV. (Taivo (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Niko, while I believe we are all English Wikipedia editors here, one cannot help noticing some people behave on this occasion as sort of English Wikipedia spokespersons, and claim to be ‘more English-Wikipedian’ than others; it might be a coincidence it's the same people that are also seen resorting to a variety of ad hominem fallacies (guess who is usually in wont of such arguments) — a feature of English Wikipedia that I for one have seldom encountered in such volume and intensity before. Apcbg (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo my argument is that your pov is not the English one or the neutral one, and mine is. Mine is based on policy (according to my "opposition rationale"). My argument here is that yours is based on your real life beliefs, and is in contradiction with WP's policies. NikoSilver 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Niko. That is exactly my argument, that your English position is not the neutral one, that my position is based on Wikipedia policy, and that you have confused your real life beliefs with what you are advocating here. Indeed, that is exactly why we are going to arbitration with this issue. Both sides are quoting Wikipedia policy, both sides are claiming logical arguments, both sides are claiming to speak for the English Wikipedia world, and both sides are claiming NPOV and accusing the other side of bias. We aren't getting anywhere arguing here. The Greek trench is just as entrenched, the "international" trench is just as entrenched. After Easter, ARBCOM will come and try to sort things out. And, Apcbg, there is no ad hominem in these comments. I have never called you anything other than a proponent of the viewpoint of the Republic of Greece. Is that an ad hominem? I don't think so. And you are right in one sense--I have never encountered nationalistic fervor in such volume and intensity before as I have here in dealing with the Greek POV. (Taivo (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

It is completely obvious to me you need to research the topic in far greater depth than you have already attempted Taivo. If you would like a better neutral picture of what is going on in the former yugoslav republic concerning propaganda and an accelerated acquisition of history through shall we say colourful means, contact me via my talk page and I will attempt to increase your learning on the matter. Then hopefully you will see why this is a massive issue in Greece and why organisations such as the

UN refuse to recognise the name wikipeadea has so willingly. Reaper7 (talk

) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

viewpoint of the Republic of Greece? Why can't you just say Foreign policy? We've been through this before. Dr.K. logos 16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My dear Dr. K., I have said many times before that "Greek POV", "Greek viewpoint", etc. is just shorthand for your correct, legal phraseology. And Reaper, we have said many times before you decided to join this discussion that the foreign policies of Greece and Macedonia are irrelevant to the issue of what to call Macedonia in Wikipedia--as are the UN, EU, etc. The only relevant issues are what the English-speaking world calls it and whether Wikipedia policy prefers a self-identification over a foreign imposition to disambiguate it from the Greek provinces of "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Taivo. The reason I insist on this is because I think "Foreign policy" lowers the temperature of the debate ever so slightly. Don't forget my background is Engineering. Temperature must be

controlled :) Dr.K. logos

16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a good reason to use "foreign policy". I'll try to spell it out more often (but I won't guarantee perfection). (Taivo (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

You have a nice sense of the value of Engineering and the applicability of its principles to seemingly unrelated topics. No perfection is required. Take care :) Dr.K. logos 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to know which policy Niko thinks those who favor the use of the ROM name are violating. It is a very serious accusation, and one that should not be made lightly or without clear substantiation. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"what is going on in the former yugoslav republic concerning propaganda " is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(to John) I am not saying they are violating any policy. I am saying that their opinion is personal and it is not based on WP policy. I maintain my right to interpret the WP policies myself and according to my own logic.

For example my logic says that there is a hierarchy of choices in the policy: (a) we choose the most frequent name --> (b) unless when it's ambiguous, so we choose the second most frequent name --> (c) unless there's no clear candidate so we use the self-identifying name. Now in (a) we clearly have "Macedonia" which is clearly ambiguous. So we go to (b) which brings us clearly to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" which isn't ambiguous. We don't have a reason to go to (c), and even if we did fYRoM, is arguably also a self-id (although less preferred, but policy doesn't talk about preference -only users here). NikoSilver 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What drugs are you using, Niko? FYROM is no more a self-identification than if I started calling you "Jocko" because I didn't like "Niko". You are simply blowing smoke in an effort to sound "reasonable" and "authoritative". And your logic is seriously flawed. We don't use "common names" that are not also self-identifications (or common English translations of self-identifications, thus, "Greece" instead of "Hellas"). When disambiguating the two Congos, we start with the most common name "Congo", but that doesn't work to disambiguate them. Then the next most common name for the country whose capital is Kinshasa is "Zaire". But this is no longer a self-identification. Therefore we reject "Zaire" and move on to the next self-identification in the list--Democratic Republic of Congo. The same goes for the two Chinas--"China" is ambiguous, so the next most common name for the China whose capital is Taipei is "Taiwan", but since that is not a self-identification, we move on to "Republic of China" and reject "Taiwan" as the unambiguous name for that country. That's the process, not the artificial one which you have constructed based on the foreign policy of Greece and not on Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Retract your insulting comment and read the China policy to see that we are using different names for Taiwan according to context. It's

here, and I've already linked it to you three times, which means that you are not reading my posts, and you reply blindly. NikoSilver

17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So you've never actually read the

WP:NCON for instructions--1) common English name, then 2) self-identification.) And it's hard to read your posts when you make wildly ridiculous claims such as "fYRoM is arguably also a self-id". When you must say silly things like that, you are reaching for arguments in order to bolster your increasingly untenable position vis a vis Wikipedia consistency and policy. (Taivo (talk

) 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Finally, John, I would appreciate if you extended your civility concerns to the apparent verbatim "nationalism" accusations above, so that we treat both sides with equal standards. An explicit "nationalism" accusation is in no way inferior to a supposition that the real world reasoning can affect the WP judgment of some users. NikoSilver 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia region of Greece a Republic? No. So, RoM is enough of a disambiguation. The rest is grasping at straws. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia region of Greece a former Yugoslav Republic? Neither. So why definitely go for RoM when both are disambiguating enough? NikoSilver 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's utterly unnecessary. "I have the flu" means "I am ill and sick because I have the flu", the last being an utterly unnecessary amplification as well. Remember that Macedon was not originally a part of Greece proper -- in fact there was no Greece proper. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, newsflash, there was and is a

talk

) 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The flu example is irrelevant because you are not always former Yugoslav when you are a Republic (unlike you being always ill when having the flu). "Unnecessary amplification" is therefore not an apt term, but even if it was there's nothing against it in

Wikipedia:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof) but not for "Macedonia"... NikoSilver

17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko: "I am saying that their opinion is personal and it is not based on WP policy". That's utter trash talk. You know good and well that your opponents in this issue are quoting valid Wikipedia policy just as actively, if not more so, than you are. Indeed, we can very well call your opinion personal since we believe that it is based on your loyalty to the foreign policy of Greece. Your analysis of Wikipedia policy is also wrong. Self-identification is always more important than foreign-imposition in Wikipedia policy, which specifically says that political and emotional reasoning in choosing a name is invalid. Nowhere does Wikipedia policy say you go to the second most common name if that name is motivated by political or emotional considerations (which "FYROM" most definitely is). It says that self-identification is the most important criteria after most common English name. Since the loyal supporters of Greece's foreign policy are unwilling to accept Wikipedia's policy and want to set this article up as a walled garden, we will be going to ARBCOM. That is a good thing so that the arbitrators can, once and for all (hopefully), show the importance of consistency within Wikipedia and the unambiguous supremacy of self-identification over political imposition and bullying from another country's diplomats. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

I am quoting again your last sentence (emphasis mine): That is a good thing so that the arbitrators can, once and for all (hopefully), show the importance of consistency within Wikipedia and the unambiguous supremacy of self-identification over political imposition and bullying from another country's diplomats. It is so funny how you disagree that your real life opinion is not reflected in your position here, and then you back your position with real-life arguments! We don't care if there's "bullying" going on! WP policy does not specify "no bullying"! You are not qualified to dictate what "bullying" is! We only follow policy. And my interpretation is correct. Re-read the policy. NikoSilver 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me that "I don't give a flying fuck about Macedonia and Greece" is apparently seen ambiguous or hard to comprehend. Perhaps Niko is intimating that I'm lying -- would surprise me given the number of ad homs he tosses about in his nationalistic fervor.

Two other points, dude: 1. Taivo was referring to diplomats -- are you a diplomat? (seems unlikely); 2. read

WP:HARASS -- it covers bullying quite well. •Jim62sch•^dissera!

19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Another btw: Greece Proper refers to an integrated Greece: in the 4th century BCE, Greece was an area dominated by various city-states and kingdoms -- it was neither integrated nor unified. Do learn some history, Niko. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There certainly was a "Greece proper" in the cultural sense, and

talk

) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he conquered the rest of Greece, midway through the 4th century. Obviously, I should have used until, but in my haste used the wrong peposition. As for the rest of the piffle, you missed the boat. "United Macedonia"? What are you on about? But, nonetheless, before Phillip, there was no unified Greece, just as Italy was not united until the Romans rose to prominence, and then disunified after the fall of Rome until the 19th century. As for being patonising -- no, I'm just following the example of a number of the fYRoM supporters. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has deteriorated to the point that my comments are not understood and are completely misinterpreted, while I am receiving insults. I am really sorry. I stop now. NikoSilver 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad to hear that, Niko. But, if you feel your statements are being misunderstood, it might mean that the statements aren't clear. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot. First of all to remind you that "the Greek users" were accused of bringing their POV in WP. (I said it politely, in essence the accusations were much more insulting). All I'm saying is that also for some supporters, some opinions here are a reflection of the real-life opinion of the bearer. Someone who in real life is against all this fuss that Greece has created about the name, is also against calling the country with the "wrong" name anywhere in WP. This shouldn't be the case IMO, and those who do it should give WP-policy based arguments, rather than real-life arguments. E.g. "

WP:NCON says so and so" vs "Greece is bullying RoM in the international organizations". Now why do I deserve what you wrote for me above for this? And where's my "ad hom"? NikoSilver

21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the ad hom -- but I have the flu and all eight cylinders aren't fiing. I don't recall myself or Taivo or John Carter talking about bullying except maybe that the perception of real-life bullying isn't relevant to WP. Besides it seems to me that both the R"epublic of Macedoniaand Greece need to grow up. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Of course myself I agrre with the official greek view about the issue: The greek Macedonians (the only true ones) have only then the ethical right to use the term "Macedonia" for thereselves and their territory.
• A war is over only if all in both sides stop to fight. The war just started and will continue until the last true greek and all true friends of truth and justice stop to live. Having survive for so many thousands of years we rightful think that we can win in the end.
• Although the previous, I think that when there are such issues, with two or more serious supported, should be all appear to a project like Wikipedia.
• In this case I propose that both views must be appear in each related article. Anyone who use a Wikipedia article must have all serious information and all serious views about it to choose. Only Mathematics are realy absolute. All others topics are relative.

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought that those who supported "FYROM" were not Greek patriots, but were simply interpreting Wikipedia policy differently. How silly of me! </sarcasm off> (Taivo (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

You work so hard, Dr. K., to try convincing us that this isn't a Greek national issue, but then we get a juicy new participant like Vchorozopoulos or Reaper7 before him who states his or her true feelings in beautiful living color without any sugar coating--"The war ... will continue until the last true greek ... [is dead]." I hope he's just referring to edit wars. (Taivo (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, stick to Wiki policy, political correctness and arguing policy and don't comment on what other greeks think or feel please. Your knowledge on the whole issue is a detailed as a comic drawn by a 4 year-old in play school before nap time. </sarcasm off> Reaper7 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7, My knowledge of this issue is quite extensive, but not colored by loyal adherence to the foreign policy position of Greece. Just because I don't think your position is either valid or relevant doesn't mean I don't know the situation. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Fortunately for us Wikipedia has a clear policy about this which says that's irrelevant what people think about the historic or ethical right to use a name and these arguments should not be used in determining Wikipedia content.

man with one red shoe

12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, the feeling of a few people aren't an indication of the rest of the people involved. Some people have a harder staqnce than others. Kyriakos (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that, Kyriakos, but I still find it ironic that no matter how hard "the moderates" try to keep the discussion away from Greek nationalism, the moderate policy-based arguments are often drowned out by the flag-waving. As much as you tell us that the FYROM position is not based on Greek nationalism, the extremists tell us it is. It's sometimes hard to hear the quiet voices when the people around us are shouting slogans. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, Taivo, very good points. I tire of the accusations of lack of knowledge, and the type of tripe spewed by Vchorozopoulos and others. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and the sensitivities of a certain group are utterly irrelevant. There are 19 cities/towns/villages named Athens in the US -- should the Greek government demand that the all change their names? There are also 19 places named Berlin -- should the Germans demand changes? And what of the 16 places named Paris, and the 15 places named Vienna? And guess what -- there are 5 places named Macedonia in the US, as well as one in Romania and one in Brazil. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to live in Ontario, California, and got no grief from the Canadians, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And none of them has claims to nationhood, as far as I'm aware. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, I never said this is not a Greek national issue. Of course it is. And as such it attracts nationalists. The thing is not to reject the arguments of the nationalists based on their nationalism but on logic. Vchorozopoulos' statements about true Greeks and dead etc. are obviously political in nature and are rejected as unfit for an encyclopedia. Meanwhile Reaper7 voted support for your proposal above. That proves my point that even people you call nationalists can act in ways similar to yours and therefore you do not need to judge them by their alleged nationalism in a discourse but by their logic. Dr.K. logos 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't judging Reaper7 for what he is contributing now, but when he first came onto the scene, his comments weren't so neatly filtered and, while quite so "Republic of Macedonia over my cold, dead body" as Vchorozopoulos' comments, they were nonetheless based less on Wikipedia policy and more on an exposé of Macedonian foreign policy. I hope that Vchorozopoulos can learn the same lesson that Reaper7 did. But I still find it ironic. (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Yep, there is much irony. I've always admired ancient Greece and the classical Greek language, and this entire debacle, and the illogic I see on the fy side is really pissing me off. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The arguments of the fy side are perfectly logical, actually: use the most common term that isn't ambiguous. It's the other side that is loath to apply Wikipedia policy without regard to the kind of blatantly political considerations that colour so much of the anti-fy rhetoric. Yes, we know it's "ugly", we know it's "ridiculous", we know it's "offensive", we know it's "nationalist", but none of that should matter one iota. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Kekrops, Wikipedia policy is use the most common English term that is also a self-identification or a direct English translation of a self-identification. That's the issue, self-identification. No one would care if Macedonia called itself FYROM, but it doesn't--it's not a self-identification or the direct English translation of a self-identification. That's Wikipedia policy and that's why we no longer call the Democratic Republic of Congo "Zaire", because it is no longer a self-identification even though it is the second most common term found in English after the ambiguous "Congo". (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Tell me about

EU and no NATO. They are all not nationalists because ........ Fill in blank Taivo while pretending to remain neutral on the issue.(Good luck).Reaper7 (talk

) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And which policy would that be?

WP:NCON does not prescribe the use of autonyms over common English terms, nor does it restrict the number of the latter. In fact, it explicitly lists "a number of methods [that] can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English". As for the former Zaire, its most common name in English is its current article location, as the English-language media take care to use the full and unambiguous form. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

· 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

North Korea should be Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Period. That is the self-identifier and is what the articvle should be called with a redirect from NK. ROM is the self-identifier for Macedonia (the country). That 70% of ancient Macedon is in Greece is irrelevant.

Additionally, in the US, the largest English-speaking country, the most common term is ROM. "Republic of" is already a disambiguation. I fail to see how, other than for nationalistic/political reasons, this is unclear. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, most folks still refer to Democratic Republic of Congo as "Zaire". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And it should be noted that above even one of the opponents of the name ROC noted that both the US and UK refer to it by that name. So, in effect, that individual has helped establish that the name ROC is in fact the appropriate one to be used in the English wikipedia as per

WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name. The name that the UN unilaterally imposed on the country for its own purposes, whatever they might be, also seems to have differed even from the name the country had already taken for itself. The argument seems to be "Because the Greeks and UN say it, it's right for wikipedia. We don't care what the English-speaking countries of the world themselves say, or, for that matter, the country itself. They're not just as important." Rrrrright. John Carter (talk

) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN has as much value as mammary glands on a bull. Unless they are doing one's bidding, in which case they are great. </sarcasm> &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please stop with the lies. It is because the UN, NATO, FIFA, the EU - 99% of organisations and many many countries do not recognise it there is a problem. If you do not understand why, as you seem extremely confused as to why the UN blocked Fyrom, please use all your energies to click on this link. It was built for people who have below par knowledge on the issue and is extremely neutral to help those

politically correct not get scared away/, it was not built as an insult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute

Right. It's all a pack af lies. Or maybe we all bathed in the River Lethe. Not agreeing with you (and your unproven, un-cited stats) does not indicate lack of knowledge. Maybe it represents a lack of politically correct sympathy. Maybe, what is far more likely, is that it represents logic. "Joe calls himself Joe because that's what he wants to be called. I call him Bob because I don't think he's really a Joe." Unh-hunh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally

MENENDEZ, OBAMA AND SNOWE TAKE TO U.S. SENATE EFFORT TO END FYROM HOSTILE AND IRREDENTIST PROPAGANDA AGAINST GREECE 03 August, 2007

Legislation to stop state-sponsored propaganda by FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), which is potentially dangerous for Greece, was introduced in the U.S. Senate today by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), along with Presidential candidate and Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

More than 72 Members of Congress and climbing are sponsoring similar legislation (HR 356) in the House of Representatives.

The Resolution (S.Res. 300) points to a television report showing students in a FYROM state-run school being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully parts of FYROM. The legislation also points to various recently-published textbooks which contain maps of ‘Greater Macedonia’ extending many miles into Greece and Bulgaria. The Resolution points out that FYROM propaganda, contrary to the U. N. Interim Accord, instills hostility and a rationale of irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece.

The legislation urges FYROM to adhere to the U.N. brokered Interim Agreement, which directs the parties to “promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility” and review the content of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information. The bill also urges FYROM to work with Greece within the U.N. framework process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually acceptable official name for FYROM. Reaper7 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try to at least to understand AGF, even if you cannot apply it. My point, and I believe that of several others, is that those bodies are not relevant to which name is most recognized in the English speaking world. So far, I have yet to see that point responded to directly. So a body of international organizations, which do not speak or communicate primarily in English, call it something. So what? What is of primary importance here is

WP:NAME

, the policy I cited. I have yet to see how any of the organizations you named are anywhere near as important to the recognizability factor as the name the governments of the English speaking world choose to recognize the country by. I think I haven't seen it because, basically, no evidence has been presented to indicate why they are more important, and why the name they choose to use should take priority over the name that is used by the English speaking governments, and, by extension, the news organizations that deal with them more frequently than any of the bodies you name, and, again by extention, the people who get their news from those organizations. Please cease the name-calling and address the issue head-on, as opposed to trying to raise what seem to me to be at best tangential points. Thank you.

And, regarding the point that I was caught in edit-conflict with, frankly, I don't see how much that matters yet either. The current president of the US is a Democrat, and that party has traditionally been much closer to the UN. Also, please note that the above mentioned bill, not yet a law, seeks to change the existing naming, indicating that the name FYROM is not the most recognized name. It seems to me that citing that piece is basically

WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We have to deal with the realities of the day, not what might happen if a bill is passed. And, even if that bill is passed, there's still the matter of the UK and other English speaking countries of the world, and whether that bill itself will be in effect once another person takes the US Presidency. John Carter (talk

) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What Obama did as a Senator is largely irrelevant. People change in the Oval Office. Additionall, did the Sec of State support the bill while she was a Senator? Did the VEEP? Where's the link? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, see Diplomacy -- the Senate passes many resolutions, but they aren't binding per se, they usually are done for diplomatic or political reasons. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To Carter, you seem to pretend all the English Speaking nations call FYROM Macedonia? lol. Please refrain from that statement as it is a lie. Again,

UN blocking Fyrom. Reaper7 (talk

) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to answer a direct question regarding establishing the legitimacy of the other organizations you cited as support for your claim. While I appreciate your actually pointing toward some evidence that other countries do not use that name, I would welcome direct evidence supporting that. Also, I would appreciate actually getting an answer to the question I clearly and directly asked for a direct answer to. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I thought he said RoM, not Macedonia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All the evidence you need for organisations and countries recognition of the name is in the link I asked you to read which clearly you haven't. I am afraid there is little hope. To anyone else who can actually be bothered to read, remember, The south English speaking hemisphere of planet Earth knows the nation only as FYROM as well as 99% of english speaking global organisations. Don't let those

politically correct editors who have a vacuum of knowledge on the matter tell you different. Reaper7 (talk

) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be very little hope of getting a direct answer from you to the matter I raised regarding how the name those organizations choose to use is directly relevant to the applicable policies, as you have now apparently tried to ignore it twice. Please do me the honor of actually reading what I wrote so that your following comments directly relate to what was asked. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there might be some hope for Reaper -- as a propagandist if for no other reason. He's also quite quick with insults -- perhaps he can be the Greek Don Rickles. As for answers that address your questions without hyperbole -- ouk. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably Reaper takes it for granted that anybody participating in this talk will have at least glanced the most relevant article (Macedonia naming dispute) and especially its relative section with the world map and the countries and flags right in the middle. NikoSilver 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one I would suggest is Macedonia (terminology), an article I had the honor of bringing to feature article status. Very illuminating. NikoSilver 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like how I might have taken it for granted that anyone seeking to respond to my request for clarification regarding why the name chosen by the various international organizations should be relevant in determining how

WP:NAME applies would actually address the question, as opposed to indulging in repetition and possible insult? I assume you knew that was what I was asking for, as the content of the thread seemed to indicate. But, as some of you apparently even find it too much trouble to try to read even this single thread, the points were raised here. I guess anyone who wanted to respond to these points would at least bother to try to find the salient posts on this thread, but I guess maybe I was assuming too much? ;) John Carter (talk

) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you obviously were. I'm sorry I didn't understand you for the second time (also elsewhere above)). Maybe it is my level of English, or maybe the way your comments were written. Or both. Anyway, I'll get back to you with why I think policy actually says otherwise. NikoSilver 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"vacuum of knowledge" -- please stop the personal attacks, now. Admins who watch this page, please enforce

Frequency of terms

(ec) Ok, here goes: the policy says we choose the most common English name first. That would be plain "Macedonia", and I don't dispute that, although I don't like it (as you would point out). So we would go to "self-identification", but that could also be "Macedonia", or "Republic of Macedonia", or even "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The country happens to identify with all three. It may not prefer the latter, but policy does not state "preferred self-identification". It only says "self-identification" and on top, it also says we're not supposed to evaluate the motives/reasons/"bullying" etc behind the facts (as we are not supposed to evaluate the "irredentist" reasons Greece claims the country has wanting the other self-ids). We're only supposed to see that this self-id does happen. And it does, and it's sourced. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You know I have never seen any evidence that the country is most often referred to as "Macedonia", as you seem to be indicating. And I am referring to the present day, not a few months back. Also, there is the matter of ambiguity of that name. Republic of Macedonia is a very unambiguous name, and meets

WP:NAME better than Macedonia, so, in fact, I think the name ROM actually complies with the naming conventions better. Please produce evidence regarding the greater popularity of the name "Macedonia", as I'm afraid I haven't checked that myself anytime recently (OK, ever). John Carter (talk

) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said (now it is third post from the end in this section below), apart from Google, we also checked atlases and other encyclopedias. Anyway, there's no dispute about plain "M" being most frequent from either side of the discussion, but so you have an indication, just see the numbers below:

• "Macedonia": 76.4M hits. (Just to note that this search obviously includes all "Macedonias" as well, including the present
  ancient kingdom, the present Bulgarian subdivision, and the whole region of Macedonia). But the sheer order of magnitude
  of the hits vs the others below is sufficient even if the country is referred to as such for a fraction of the other "M"s.
• "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia": 1.3M hits.
• "FYROM": 2.2M hits.
• "Republic of Macedonia" -"former Yugoslav": 0.8M hits

For the online encyclopedias, ChrisO (a supporter) posted this "survey of mainstream encyclopedias". I only remember Encarta's link which says "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

For the Atlases, we check by popularity, first Google Earth (says "Macedonia (FYROM)" -can't link it, you need to download the app), then Microsoft Live Search Maps (says "F.Y.R.O.MACEDONIA), and for the rest of the atlases, Taivo made a nice research here. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now if we choose the most frequent of the two remaining names (the RoM vs fYRoM spellouts) that would definitely be the latter. We checked Google, we checked the online encyclopedias, we checked atlases, we checked many sources, and this is where we ended up. (again, after plain "Macedonia") NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are only one indication of notability, although they are a good one. So, in effect, useful information, but in and of itself not necessarily even close to decisive. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my long post right above which covers this point as well. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We already had a discussion why Google searches are not much reliable, see [1]. About the mainstream online encyclopedias, I was looking for a list of the most popular online encyclopedias, here is one Internet article that lists the most popular ones: [2]. The research showed that all mainstream online encyclopedias (except Encarta online) use the term Macedonia when referring to the country: Britannica: [3], Columbia: [4], Encyclopedia: [5], Information please: [6], The Canadian encyclopedia: [7],[8]. The research made by Taivo shows that the same naming policy (of simple usage of the term Macedonia when referring to the country) is in place in atlases as well.[9]. I think it is pretty much obvious that overwhelmingly the common English usage for Macedonia is "Macedonia". MatriX (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko, I have pointed out on many occasions how inadequate Google hits are as a research tool. They are totally inaccurate. First, if a page is labelled "Republic of Macedonia" and down in a footnote it says "Greece calls this [FYROM]", then it would be counted as "FYROM" in your search. Second, if a page is about "Republic of Macedonia" and the website designer is smart, he will include "FYROM" in the keywords even if the phrase isn't used in the text itself. So Google hits do not measure popularity or anything other than how often website designers use a given phrase at least once in the text or in the keywords. That's not research. That's not accuracy. So hanging your hat on Google hits is like buying a used car based solely on the advertisement in the classified ads and not on actually looking at the car to see what "gently used" really means--it could be anything from a ding in the paint on the driver's door to a fender that is hanging by a coathanger to something more. Google hits should be totally ignored unless you actually inspect the sites (as I did with my examination of atlas names for Macedonia). But in the end it doesn't matter because FYROM is not a self-identification. That's the whole point--Wikipedia policy clearly and unambiguously prefers self-identifications. (Taivo (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

As I said earlier, it is "self-identification", it's just not the "preferred self-identification". But our policy does not mention "preferred". On the contrary, it instructs us to see the facts (name being used as self-id) and to not evaluate or judge the motives behind them (if it would be otherwise if Greece did not "bully" them etc). Doing the latter is similar to using subjective criteria in general. And Greece has a lot of subjective criteria that you'd have to take into account in that case. (eg. "irredentism behind the monopolization of the name" etc) NikoSilver 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But: Your thesis would be much more pertinent if we were discussing here for how the article of the country will be called. This is not what we discuss. We discuss if the article of Greece will fall in the fYRoM category (like all intl orgs etc) or in the other category (like all other articles). My view is we have to see the naming conventions according to context. And IMO there's no article more appropriate than Greece for making the exception to the RoM rule! NikoSilver 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like you said, we are to evaluate and judge the motives behind them. And if one is a true self-identification, freely arrived at, and the other is a forced self-identification for the purposes of joining the UN and receiving international aid, I think the clear difference between the two may well be enough to make the true self-identification more weighty and useful than that imposed on the country by one single outside group, the UN. Variant spellings of commonly held names of people tend to be judged by the same guidelines so far as I am aware.

Your own POV is, of course, your own. Like I said earlier, I have no objections to using a variant name if that name makes sense in context. So, for instance, when referring directly to a document from an international organization in the body of an article, I would prefer seeing the name used in the document used in the article, because that helps reduce confusion. Yes, I know, comments can be added in footnotes saying "'FYROM' in this context refers to ROM", but I hate reading footnotes.

Why doesn't policy simply and clearly state "preferred self-identification", or "not-forced self-identification"? Why, on the contrary, does it say that we are not supposed to judge on subjective criteria about moral right to use a name etc? NikoSilver 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't know directly, because I doubt it has been discussed. Although I would caution some others (not you) to note that the subjective criteria about moral right are not allowed. My guess is that the policy was written to cover the situations they foresaw arising, and this particular one, which deals with, for lack of better phrasing, degrees of self-identification and external identification is a difficult one. They might not have foreseen it, or, maybe, they did foresee it and realized that a policy or guideline to deal with all the various degrees of various factors involved would be soo long that it would be preferable to just not talk about it and hope the situation never arises? John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I cannot see how your "context" argument makes much sense. To the best of my knowledge, all wikipedia articles are intended to be made as easy to read by outsiders as possible. In this case, that would mean individuals who are not familiar with Greece or its politics. In this of all cases changing the name of an outside entity to something that is used rarely outside of the article does nothing but potentially confuse readers who come to the article for information. I cannot see how we can say "We have the right to confuse people in this article because it's about the country we as individuals are most interested in" makes much sense. If you can clarify your statement, that might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not share your confusion concerns, since it is proved from the various searches that the FYROM acronym and its spell-out are very widely used. Apart from the various

Olympics... NikoSilver

21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My statement has to do with the logic behind the exceptions, and certainly not with where individual interest lies. Since Greece is the one state in the world that has objected to this name, and this is Greece's article, I think that the most logical thing would be to use the name the country uses towards Greece. And, again, I have not understood why Greece should be treated differently from all other intl orgs articles she influenced (as you say) in the first place? What's the fuss about this specific article versus all others I linked to you just now? NikoSilver 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

They may be widely used. "Widely" however doesn't indicate percentage, or the locations from which they originate, or any number of other factors which could be relevant. I full well understand that others wouldn't share my concerns, as there are clearly two sides here. I am also sure that many others do not share mine. However, what will I believe ultimately be decisive is not whose concerns are being favored or disfavored but what policy and guidelines indicate is required. At this point, that is still an open question. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree it is open, and I look forward to it closing the soonest at the most neutral solution. I too see the other side's position as an interpretation of policy which can be considered valid by some, but to which I happen to disagree. Thank you for your valuable input, and for the civilized discussion. NikoSilver 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Then there were those who spoke about "consistency" and they would link

Talk:Gdansk/Vote. NikoSilver

14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating that this possibility might be covered by that policy, and you might be right. But ROM is already a synonym acronym, why not use it first? It would probably be incumbent on you to indicate why FYROM would be the preferable of the two acronyms. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ROM is improvised. There's no such acronym, unless if we're talking about computer memories. When people use ROM in this talkpage, they usually refer to its spell-out (i.e. "Republic of Macedonia"), unless I've missed any comment which actually speaks about the improvised acronym. To your question "why not to use it first", I will reply "why not use the other first", plus that if we definitely needed for reasons: the latter is sourced, the latter is used in many sources according to context, and the latter is how the subject of this article would call its side of the border. NikoSilver 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Further we also saw that the long fYRoM is used in WP, in all international organizations articles (even in article names!). Notably in

Accession of FYROM to EU. So Greece is not an "inconsistent" exception! It is just one more exception. NikoSilver

14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as I indicated earlier, I have no objections whatsoever to using the name used on a specific document when the group using that document is being referenced. And, frankly,

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a decent argument, but again far short of decisive. John Carter (talk

) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're right about not decisive. But the same criterion that applies to these intl orgs (which btw is not othercrap, since the other side has fully agreed to it) also applies to Greece: The country self-identifies to all intl orgs and to Greece as FYROM. So why should Greece be treated differently? Especially when it is Greece that is responsible for all this havoc? I don't get it. NikoSilver 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, After it was forced to accept that name, against its own wishes, by the UN. That is an essential factor. The ROM wanted to be a member of the UN, and it wants aid from international organizations. The UN said the only way you get either is by accepting our terms, which include primarily this name that their president at the time said was completely unacceptable. Therefore, it is in effect a total mis-statement to say that it "self-identifies", because that phrase implicitly indicates that it is a matter of choice, which is a key to true self-identification. You are, in effect, saying that the bride who married with a gun to her head has "chosen" to be married and accept the husband's name. That is not self-identification, that is acceptance of coercion. I realize you have not yet seen the difference between the two yet. Perhaps you can see it now. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes John, I have seen what you say from the start, and I am replying all the time. Your argument is "subjective" and should explicitly not be taken into account according to

WP:NCON. Otherwise you also have to take into account e.g. Greece's concerns for "irredentism through the monopolization of the name of a wider region". We are not judges here to evaluate facts. We do not prescribe. If fY/RoM is forced or not, the fact that it uses the name as self-identification remains. Where does the policy say that self-identification has to be a matter of choice or a matter of preference? NikoSilver

17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." (my bolding)

man with one red shoe

22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And it has been repeatedly noted that the name was objected to by the people and government of the country from the beginning. I would not call those objections "subjective" in the sense that policy is talking about, which is when we attempt to put our own opinions or those of others into the content. This is more a matter of reflecting the documented, objective realities of the situation, which in this case include the country's profound objection to being basically forced to take on a name. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Both examples regard previous names. None of the examples regards concurrent use of names in the present. Neither Muhammad Ali nor Gdansk call themselves by two names today in alternate situations and according to the context. Not even reluctantly. But I will agree that your point is strong, which makes the whole issue of double self-identification indeed debatable. Just to remind that here we're not trying to rename the

Republic of Macedonia article across WP though... We're only debating if it will be called in the article for Greece as it's called in all intl orgs articles. NikoSilver

00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the real-world argument of "the country's profound objection to being basically forced to take on a name", its not this way. First there's also the "

regional group's profound objection to being basically forced to disambiguate themselves from their new neighbors who use the same name". Self-id is a double-edged knife. Also, nobody is trying to shove that specific name fYRoM down their throats. It is supposed to be a stop-gap measure until the end of the negotiations for if they will use a qualifier or not next to their ambiguous name. That's all, and nobody likes "fYRoM". NikoSilver

00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Now if you do not agree with this interpretation of policies, that's another story. But at least you have to recognize that there is a policy-based reasoning. And in the end, the article was stable for years like this, and the (counter-productive IMO) change was initiated by those who support RoM. There are explicit concerns for that in

WP:NCON (and elsewhere). NikoSilver

22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(What follows is the comment I intended to put in before being caught in an edit conflict with Niko. Please bear that in mind.) I think Niko was referring to my apparent lack of familiarity with the Australian, New Zealander, South African etc., governments refer to the ROM. However, as he is one of those individuals who apparently decided that the US has already changed its own stance on the name, as per the thread which has since been deleted for being completely off-topic here, I thought it might be reasonable to ask whether there is any reason for the other countries might change their own views as well. However, on a purely numerical basis, I guess the countries break down as follows:

• Australia - FYROM, 21.7 million
• United States - ROM, 306.2 million
• United Kingdom - ROM, 60.9 million
• New Zealand - FYROM, 4.2 million
• South Africa - FYROM, 47.9 million
• Canada - ROM, 33.6 million
• Saint Kitts and Nevis - ROM, .04 million
• Saint Lucia - ROM, .01 million

So, by the list, 5 countries for ROM, 3 for FYROM (62% ROM). By populations, 75.8 million for FYROM, 490.7 million for FYROM (~82% ROM). Even by those standards, ROM seems to be quite a bit ahead under the criteria "most people would most easily recognize". However, I still would like to see why the international organizations namings should be counted as even significant to this discussion on this page. I acknowledged above that it makes some sense when discussing their own actions, as per their pages. But even there it is probably less than a really good reason. And, of course, the fact that the name hasn't been challenged and removed there doesn't mean that it might not be in the future. In fact, if this goes to ArbCom, as everyone expects it will, I personally think they will almost certainly address the issue throughout wikipedia, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I go to Easter dinner and come back to find pages of comments. John, I believe you actually meant "75.8 million for FYROM, 490.7 million for ROM" above. But the data I have used for claiming the supremacy of "Macedonia" is its usage on maps and atlases. I did a Google (or Yahoo) search for "on-line atlas", navigated to the map(s) covering the area on the first ten links that actually pointed to atlases and all but one of the ten I looked at labelled the country "Macedonia". One labelled it "F.Y.R.O.M.". I also looked at the three atlases I have in my home and all three of them labelled it as "Macedonia". Since maps and atlases are the best places to see usage for places, that is fairly definitive. Reaper7's ad hominems are becoming rather tiresome. He has also failed to realize that political issues are irrelevant here. The only relevant issue is the application of Wikipedia policy vis a vis English usage. Macedonian tanks could be lined up at the border ready to drive to Thessaloniki, but that's still irrelevant to the issue of what we call the Republic of Macedonia in Wikipedia. The difference between "North Korea" and "FYROM" is that "North Korea" is long-established usage in English based on the division of the country following the Second World War when the post-Japanese administration of the country was divided between the USSR zone and the US zone. The northern part of the peninsula has been called "North Korea" commonly in English for 60 years just as the southern part of the peninsula has been called "South Korea". These quickly became the most common English terms. The most common English term for the Republic of Macedonia is "Macedonia". Outside formal diplomatic documents from some English-speaking organizations and other political uses, "FRYOM" is virtually unknown. So comparing "North Korea" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has no relevance since they are two completely different situations. And perhaps Wikipedia should change "North Korea" to "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". Wikipedia isn't perfectly consistent--that's why we're working to make this article consistent with Wikipedia policy which states that it's "Republic of Macedonia" except in direct quotes of lists from international organizations that use FYROM. We can work on "North Korea" later. One step at a time. (Taivo (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

You're right about my typo above. I'll strike through the mistaken FY. And, based on the evidence you just presented, it seems that the maps at best do not directly relate to the ROM/FYROM question, as the majority of them do not use either name. So, that would seem to continue to give the ROM name an advantage. It should also be noted that many countries do have "Republic of" or something similar in their formal names, and that these are routinely kept off the map for space purposes. On that basis, it could be argued, very weakly, but argued, that the countries are, by not including the FYROM name, where FY is not a standard part of any country's name, seem to be possibly favoring ROM, as dropping the "Republic of" words is in line with their apparent policies regarding other countries. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't change "North Korea" to "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". The policy is clear, North Korea is the common English term and that's what should be used, but that's not what we discuss here, these are just diversions launched by the losing side along with personal attacks and irrelevant political opinions.

man with one red shoe

01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "North Korea", I was only saying "perhaps" to make a point. But I completely agree with you that this is a

red herring. (Taivo (talk

) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Updating figures for English speakers around the world as per English language#Countries in order of total speakers and the various "Demographics of" pages in wikipedia:

• Anguilla - British Overseas Territory (implicitly ROM), .01 million
• Australia - FYROM, 18.1 million
• Bahrain - FYROM, no data
• Belize - FYROM, roughly .22 million
• Botswana - ROM, about .03 million
• British Indian Ocean Territory - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• British Virgin Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .02 million
• Brunei - ROM, no hard data, but English is official language, giving around 75% .3 million
• Canada - ROM, 25.2 million
• Cayman Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .07 million
• Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Federated States of Micronesia - FYROM, .13 million
• Gibraltar - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .02 million
• Guam - US Territory, implicitly ROM, .17 million
• Guernsey - British Bailiwick under UK control even if independent of it, implicitly ROM, .06 million
• India - ROM, 90.0 million
• Ireland - ROM, 4.0 million
• Isle of Man - British Bailiwick, implicitly ROM, .08 million
• Malaysia - ROM, roughly 25.0 million
• Marshall Islands - republic in Free Association with US, implicitly ROM, .06 million
• Montserrat - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Nauru - ROM, .01 million
• New Zealand - FYROM, 4.0 million
• Nigeria - ROM, 79.0 million
• Pitcairn Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Puerto Rico - US Commonwealth, implicitly ROM, 3.9 million
• Saint Helena, British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Saint Kitts and Nevis - ROM, .04 million
• Saint Lucia - ROM, .16 million
• Singapore - ROM, 4.4 million
• South Africa - FYROM, hard to tell, guessing 35.0 million
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Sri Lanka - ROM, 1.9 million
• Turks and Caicos Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .03 million
• United Kingdom - ROM, 59.6 million
• United States, ROM, 251.3 million
• United States Virgin Islands - US Territory, implicitly ROM, .1 million

This basically produces 6 countries with significant English speaking populations favoring FYROM, and 15 countries favoring ROM, about 70% ROM. By population, not counting the populations of territories/subnational entities separately, about 57.4 million people from countries favoring FYROM (without any info on Bahrain, with a total population of 1.2 million), and about 531.8 million in countries favoring ROM, or just over 90% in countries favoring ROM. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the logic behind this, but where is the connection between how a state refers to a country and how its inhabitants refer to a country? Are you implying that if tha US govt decides to switch from ROM to FYROM it would automatically mean that Wikipedia has to switch as well? --Avg (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you use this logic, maybe you'll see, applying the same logic, how irrelevant is how UN/EU calls the state since their citizens don't follow the UN/EU rules.

man with one red shoe

16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevancy, if any, of the data I pointed out is to the application of

WP:NAME

. That policy states that the name used should be the one that is most easily recognized and least ambiguous. Roughly 90% of the English speaking world resides in countries which recognize the ROM by the name Republic of Macedonia. I think it probable that, in most if not all of those countries, the local media will use the name that the government itself recognizes the country by. If true, that would mean that 90% of the English speaking world would probably recognize ROM over FYROM, making it the clearly easier to recognize name.

There is also a slight logical advantage to the name ROM over FYROM. A person is much more likely to recognize a shorter version of a recognized name as referring to the same entity than a name longer than the one they are used to dealing with. So, someone used to the name FYROM is more likely to be able to see that ROM refers to the country he knows as FYROM than a person who is used to ROM is to seeing FYROM referring to the same country. Personally, in similar situations in the past, I tended to think that the name with the additional prefixes referred to some other entity, and that the additional names were added to help differentiate this new entity from the older, better recognized, one. I seem to remember having been taught something similar in marketing class as well. On that basis, FYROM as opposed to ROM could actually lead to more confusion, not reduce it.

Anyway, back to my point in coming here in the first place. According to wikipedia article traffic statistics at grok.se,

Macedonia (state)". Personally, I can see no objections to actually making such a page and turning it into a redirect to Macedonia. My thinking is that a lot of citizens of the US might use "state" either for an independent country or a major subnational entity, based on personal tendencies. Therefore, it seems to me that at least some of them might be looking for someething other than the ROM, like maybe the region of Greece. If I'm right in that, taking them to a page which makes the situation clearer to them would probably be a good idea. Opinions? John Carter (talk

) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it belonged to the English speakers alone, did I? I only stated that, possibly, depending on local media, the name ROM might be more easily recognized by the English speaking world, which is the readership of this encyclopedia. Also, as I remember it, the name FYROM was basically chosen by others outside the country and accepted by the country itself on a "take it or leave it" option. To say that a name someone uses to identify themselves to themselves, which is I think more or less the psychological meaning of "self-identification", is effectively equivalent to a name that they reluctantly agrees to when it is imposed on them by outsiders is to my eyes a mistake. On that basis, I think the phrase "self-identifies" is perhaps not completely accurate to describe the externally-imposed name FYROM. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The readership of the English encyclopedia is everybody because it happens to be the fullest and most understandable one. I cannot agree or disagree with your interpretation of "self-identification", so I'll simply say I don't know. However, I must repeat the explicit suggestion of WP:NCON to exclude subjective criteria, which adds to my point. In any case, when this is over, I will be very glad if we two can cooperate in clarifying the policy accordingly so that there are no further misunderstandings for other cases (e.g. by adding "preferred", or the opposite by explicitly stating that preferred or not, a self-identification is as good as any). NikoSilver 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the awkward long name was imposed to both countries. At that time the country was ready to agree to any composite name ("Slavomacedonia" was a popular alternative), but the Greeks played the hard-nationalist card of "No Macedonia in the Title"^TM, which brought them to the sad position of asking for the obvious today ("composite name", the one they had rejected), and receive intrasigence from the other side which is used to be called by many simply "Macedonia" for 15 years or so already... This background info I mention so that you don't think that it ever was a "take it or leave it" offer. It was debated and almost agreed not to end in this mess we are today. NikoSilver 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Almost" unfortunately isn't quite good enough, here or a lot of other places, but I appreciate the information. Personally, if and when this gets to ArbCom, as I'm virtually certain it will, among the proposals I have in mind for them are a rewording of a policy or two to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation of policy as seems to be happening on at least one side here. I don't know which "side" is wrong here, by the way, the policy isn't clear enough for me to know precisely. I do however hope I'm right, and I think everyone else who agrees or disagrees with me does hopes they're right too. Another proposal will be to try to get a more exact definition of "self-identification", so that the ambiguity disappears there as well.

I agree that this situation seems to have been one that many people had been trying to avoid, hoping it would go away, sorry, be resolved. Unfortunately, the "stop-gap" measure seems to have been hanging around longer than anyone probably anticipated. And I understand that the Greek region isn't really happy with the situation either, through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, despite all the best intentions of both sides, we're still stuck with the situation. Let's hope it can resolve fairly quickly once it gets to ArbCom. The current "restructuring" or whatever they call it might make a decision a bit faster than it would have been earlier. I hope so, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am with you 100%. Arbcom can in no way solve the real world issue, and some editors here are fooling themselves to think so... BTW, in the real world, the diplomatic position of fY/RoM is that there should be a naming compromise for the relations with Greece only, and it should be called "Macedonia" by everybody else... So, if WP decides to allow the long name in Greece's article, that will obviously go hand-in-hand with the present (Slav)Macedonian diplomatic POV. Awkward eh? :-) NikoSilver 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia content shouldn't be aligned to diplomatic positions, WP should simple use the common English term or if that's not available or not usable, the self-identification term, name deals between Macedonia and Greece or any other parties should be of no concern to Wikipedia (unless the article describes these deals, but they should have no power over the WP content)

man with one red shoe

13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see here what are the principles that need (or don't need) to be followed (copy and pasted from guidelines):

"Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."

Funny as it is that this illustrative example was written by no other than ChrisO, who actually has made some other pretty sneaky edits in this guideline like this at some other point, the fact remains that Wikipedia should describe and not prescribe. Meaning that if a country uses the name FYR of Cabinda as its official name in its interactions with the international community, we shouldn't examine why it uses it but simply acknowledge that this is the name it uses.--Avg (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If a country calls itself "Cabinda" but cannot use this name in an international forum because another country opposes it and they decide to use "FYR of Cabinda" as a provisory name, the name of "Cabinda" is still the self-identifying and constitutional name of the country and it's still the preferred term (which we are after, not the name used for political necessity), sophistry won't help your cause here.

man with one red shoe

16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It just so happens that if the world uses FYR of Cabinda and not R of Cabinda, no matter who, what, how, this should be the preferred name. According to WP:NCON. Again, you prescribe that because it is "provisory" or whatever it has somehow less value. Wikipedia doesn't care. If FYROM is used more than ROM, end of story. --Avg (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Avg,

WP:NCON specifically states that self-identifications are preferred over other names when the most common English name ("Macedonia") is unavailable for some reason. End of story, full stop!, italics and bolding. That's why we don't use "Zaire" for "Democratic Republic of Congo" anymore even though it is the most common English disambiguating term--it is no longer a self-identification. (Taivo (talk

) 16:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like that "liberal" concept of self-determination. Tsk. <end sarcasm> Seriously, Taivo is, for the forteeth time, correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see you proposing this page to be renamed Hellas. --Avg (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The Wikipedia naming policy is clear in that respect, "Greece" is the common English term for Hellenic Republic.

man with one red shoe

19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It just so happens that's only used in some official settings, the normal English use is "Cabinda" and in other notable cases "R of Cabinda", see US for example, one of the biggest English speaking country (biggest except India I think, and India's status as "English speaking" is debatable).

man with one red shoe

19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is destined for everybody who speaks English and that would include you and me who are both not native English speakers. And you seem to be engaging again in ethnic profiling of English speakers or is it my idea? --Avg (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's your idea, besides I explained clearly what I'm profiling about, you don't need to use sneaky attacks on that, I have my cards on the table, read the section that I started on that matter and reply there. As for whom is Wikipedia is destined I didn't claim anything to the contrary, moreover from your post you make it clear that Wikipedia is not for official use, so hopefully you'll drop that idea that somehow the official and provisory form that Rep. of Macedonia adopted only for international use where it cannot use it's chosen, preferred name, matters somehow here.

man with one red shoe

00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course, several of us who see RoM as the logical choice, do actually read Greek. So, I'd wager, do some folks who live in RoM. Hence, following Avg's logic, I suppose I should demand that the Greek article on Greece be changed to reflect what the English Wiki uses. <sarcasm> &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but if the Greek Wikipedia was following this logic, the article would be named Σκόπια (Skopje), since this is by far what the Greek speaking world calls the Republic. However, the Greek Wikipedia follows the middle path.--Avg (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Greek Wikipedia has the same guidelines as the English one, if it does then it should rename the article (if it's true that in Greek "reliable sources" R. of Macedonia is called mostly (or only) "Σκόπια". I don't have an account there to propose that, but if you have, please do so (Again, given that 1. Gr Wiki has same rules/guidelines. 2. Greek reliable sources use "Σκόπια") -- if that's true, I don't see any other way the article should be named.

man with one red shoe

18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No they do not have the same guidelines. They prefer the internationally recognized name. Which is of course a much better encyclopaedic criterion. It is a sad situation that here in en wiki we're argumenting under WP:NCON, which may I remind you is a creation of ChrisO.--Avg (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You,re right, avg, screw what 90% of English speakers users -- they're all idiots anway.

Re WP -- Russian:Республика Македония ; afrikaans: Republiek van Masedonië; French: Macédoine (pays) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Asturian: República de Macedonia; Belarussian: Рэспубліка Македонія; Catalan: República de Macedònia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Breton: Republik Makedonia; Czech: Makedonie; Danish: Makedonien; German: Mazedonien &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

spanish: República de Macedonia; Hungarian: Macedónia ; Italian: Repubblica di Macedonia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And your point is...?--Avg (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely, avg, you can figure it out. Seems that Greek is in the minority. I cancontinue if you're still unclear. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess: that everybody else is an idiot, only Greeks are smart.

man with one red shoe

19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you repeat that WP:NCON is a creation of ChisO, is that supposed to be something bad about WP:NCON or about ChrisO? Don't you think that all Wikipedia policies are written by... people? Do you know of some Wikipedia policies that come from Gods?

man with one red shoe

19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard that Zeus was, but Hera complained of being a Wiki-widow. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(after massive edit conflicts: this is addressed to Avg) And the fact that ChrisO created that guideline has absolutely no bearing on this case. ChrisO is involved in other contentious areas of Wikipedia, including those under the purview of

WP:NC, which ChrisO has not edited, ever. That page also specifically references the dispute over FYROM/ROM/Macedonia, so please stop using your disagreement with ChrisO's statements as a pretext to exclude the guideline from the discussion here. Horologium (talk)

19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec again and again)I simply want to remind you that NCON is a guideline, not a policy and it was written by a heavily biased editor (and some text look very much like a photographic reference to the Macedonia issue) and that other Wikipedias do not follow it. And of course that I disagree with it. However, I'm not a rogue editor to proclaim it dead as Future Perfect did and start my own Wikicrusade. I'm trying to cooperate within its boundaries although I'm finding it hard when I face irony and arrogance.--Avg (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And Horologium, I hope you commented by mistake that this content dispute arose with ARBMAC. This dispute precedes Wikipedia by a long time and it appeared from the very first days of the project. And of course ChrisO was involved even back then in this content dispute. He was editing the ROM article since January 2004.--Avg (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So you disagree with a guideline, take it out on that guideline page, don't try to argue in other pages that the guideline is written by a "heavily biased editor" and therefore it should be ignored.

man with one red shoe

19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, these are two separate issues. In this talk page all my arguments till now are solely within the provisions of the guideline. And that is even if I disagree with it. It is because I respect Wikipedia and the community that I conform to a guideline I do not agree with. And as ChrisO takes the liberty to throw mud at me labelling me as a nationalist editor, I can certainly point out some hard facts that prove he may not be the guardian of NPOV here. The difference between us, is that he has used his position to influence the decision process.--Avg (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are nationalist, nor do I care, however I've seen people pushing a national(ist) POV in this talk page under the cover of "assume no bad faith" commandment, as I made my argument in the paragraph that I opened about the use of biased straw-polls and their use (none).

man with one red shoe

20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, that ‘Cabinda’ example (it’d be FPR rather than FYR :-)) gave the game away ... yet the scheme malfunctioned, with WP:NAMECON effectively failing to support the present name replacement effort. Guess what? Some ‘supporters’ already wrote in this talk page that the ARBCOM ought to recommend the guideline be changed so as ‘to avoid future ambiguity’ “so that the ambiguity disappears”! I cannot say if that succeeds or not, wouldn't surprise me if it did. What I do know is that it was very much the same arrogance and insensitivity towards other people’s positions and interests at state level that originally created the name problem itself. (With a different initial approach by Skopje, it could have been as in the Grand Duchy vs. Belgian province of Luxembourg case, no problem to speak of.) As it is, here is the problem in real life, and there can be no good Wikipedia solution to it as far as it exists outside. That’s why my proposal would be a moratorium preserving the present RoM/FYROM status quo in English Wiki until the compromise solution between the two countries is reached as it no doubt will. (Which status quo has successfully been destroyed in the ‘Greece’ article during the present discussion.) For a good fresh analysis of what’s in the making in the Republic of Macedonia with respect to the name issue, see here. Apcbg (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the individual he is referring to requesting that ArbCom change the policy to remove ambiguity was me. However, i also believe that nowhere did I make the precise statement I am said to have made. I believe such misrepresentations, possibly(?) willful, of the comments of others by others to achieve their own ends is at best counterproductive, almost certainly off topic and thus in violation of talk page guidelines, and possibly intended as a form of personal attack. I very strongly suggest that all parties begin to adhere to the talk page guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean a literal quote (I don't remember who exactly wrote it — more than one participant as far as I recall, nor the exact wording) but as you feel misquoted I'm replacing the phrase ‘to avoid future ambiguity’ by your exact words, quoted: “so that the ambiguity disappears”. Apcbg (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Flock of Seagulls. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is now a certainty that this issue will go to ArbCom. I have two propositions and I'm interested in getting input from our little community here:

• 1) The request has to be filed by an independent party. We want the request itself to be worded in the least biased way possible. My tentative proposal would be Horologium.
• 2) The request has to be filed when every party included will be available. Most of the people living in a country that celebrates the Orthodox Easter (including ethnic Macedonians and Greeks) will be on holiday on the 20th since it is Easter Monday. My tentative proposal is on Wednesday the 22nd at the earliest.--Avg (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with both of these. (Taivo (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I also agree with both, although I think User:SheffieldSteel would be a decent alternative if Horologium decides not to do the filing. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the possibility of having the request filed by an independent party, with all due apologies, are the following excerpts from the present debate pertaining to such ‘independence’?

(Quote)

It is impossible not to note that the people who are objecting to the use of

Republic of Macedonia in Greece, and therefore there is no way to confuse the country with the region. (This pointedly excludes the use of Macedonia

, which is a more contentious issue.) Greek editors continually point to the UN (which notes that it is a provisional designation), NATO (which is simply because of the Greek government's insistence) and other international organizations (which generally follow the lead of the UN), but fail to note that over 60% of the members of the UN use the name Republic of Macedonia, not FYROM or Skopje (or any of the bizarre portmanteaus in use in Greece) in their own governmental documents.

Support The name of a country is determined by the government of that country, not by a neighbouring country. On Wikipedia, we should apply naming conventions uniformly rather than allow those names to be changed locally by whatever subgroup of editors takes an interest in doing so, whether or not that group is associated with any particular racial, ethnic, religous, or political division. Imagine if a group of editors at Talk:National Front were to decide that that article should use the term "Pakis" instead of "UK immigrants from the Indian subcontinent".

(End of quote). Apcbg (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First, your comment would make a lot more sense than it does, which isn't much right now, if you indicated who it was you were quoting, which you have not. Second, a party can weigh in for a short period of time with an opinion and some examples, and also cite other relevant information, and still be independent of the larger discussion. So, basically, right now, you have not made a statement which is coherent enough to directly respond to, but the comment you quoted, which cited policy and its application, is not enough in and of itself to say that the person is not independent of the discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two nominees — two quotes; but at least I can see now what your 'independent' stands for. Apcbg (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And by your failure to say anything constructive or clarify your own statements, but simply impugn others, I think you made an even better case that you yourself may be far from fit from judging the matter yourself. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The matter here is the intended filing of an ARBCOM request; I'm offering neither judgement nor statements at this stage, as I've had no experience in such procedures so far; what I did was asking a question instead. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what Apcbg tries to communicate here is that based on the above two quotes neither Sheffield Steel nor Horologium can be considered neutral enough to present the case to the Arbcom. To which I agree. Dr.K. logos 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote mine was a question because I didn't know if neutrality was a requirement in the first place, and it appears that there might be no common view on that either. Apcbg (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is that, of all the individuals involved, I think SheffieldSteel is probably the best person to file it. He has a long history with the Mediation Board, and is probably one of the few editors in wikipedia I myself would most be willing to judge to treat all parties involved as clearly and nonprejudicially as possible. SheffieldSteel's involvement to date has been, so far as I remember, to point out applicable policies, and once, in the thread that was deleted, to express displeasure at seeing such a thread, which was clearly off-topic as per talk page guidelines, to get as much attention as it did. The fact that any editor expresses an opinion regarding a relevant policy does not mean he is disqualified to present the basic introduction before the ArbCom. And, like I said, SheffieldSteel as a Mediation Board member and an easily appointed administrator is probably at least among the calmest, least prejudiced people I've seen on this page, or, for that matter, anywhere in wikipedia. I am virtually certain he will not use the opening statements for prejudicial purposes. Partially, because he knows that he could face consequences if he did, partially because he so far as I know isn't the kind who would do that anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt your appraisal of Sheffield Steel's qualifications to bring the case to arbitration. I also agree that among the two admins proposed he seems to be the best choice. However the fact remains that by voting he became involved and as such he is neither neutral nor uninvolved. What is the problem with approaching an admin for whom Macedonia is just a name on a map and nothing else? Dr.K. logos 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the notion of an admin "for whom Macedonia is just a name on a map". This is a delicate case and requires someone with a fundamental knowledge of the issues, not someone who is ignorant of them. Horologium has shown a great amount of restraint. Yes, he has stated his POV, but the issue is not whether he has a POV, but can he fairly present the two sides to ARBCOM. And, as ChrisO has pointed out, the initial presentation is really just a formality. The most interested parties will be allowed to present their cases to ARBCOM--they do not have to rely on the initial presentation for all their facts. They will examine this discussion on their own and come to their own opinions without prejudice to whoever presents it for arbitration. No, Dr. K., Horologium is quite well qualified to do this. I don't really recall Sheffield Steel's contribution, but I'm sure that he would also do a good job of fairly presenting the case. But the worst person to present the case would be someone who doesn't have a clue as to what is going on and what the issues are. Do we want to rehash this discussion for another week before we brought our "neutral party" up to speed on what we need him/her to present? No, we need someone who already knows what is going on and who will present it fairly despite any POV they might already have formed. Horologium would do just such a competent and fair job. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

To answer Tasoskessaris, as an admin myself, I know that I personally am extremely unlikely to involve myself in making a filing for ArbCom for anything I am unfamiliar with, particularly if it is something that I am not interested in (read, "don't care about"), because I know there is a very real chance that, probably by mistake, I will misrepresent something from one side or another and potentially create problems in doing so. Sheffield is at this point at least moderately acquainted with the subject, and what few comments he's made, generally without follow-up responses, pretty much make any involvement he might have so minimal that he would still be able to be unbiased. Having said all that, I also note that I only ever proposed him as an alternative if Horologium didn't want to do the filing himself. I have no reason to think Horologium would in any way be a bad choice, and apologize to anyone who interpreted my remarks as indicating as much. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, is there any rule or established practice stipulating that filings be prepared by a single user? Would it not be possible to have this particular submission prepared jointly by two participants instead — Horologium (or Sheffield Steel; I know a little bit more about Future Perfect's work and believe he could do that well too), and say Tasoskessaris? Apcbg (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. However, I do wonder whether it would be required. The only purpose for filing any such a statement is to have the ArbCom decide whether there is sufficient cause for a case to be opened. Personally, given that so many people on this talk page have already agreed that there is a need for one, I doubt the ArbCom will be at all likely to turn it down. Once a case is "opened", then everybody involved is free to make whatever statements they want, and those statements, more than the initial request for arbitration, are what the arbitrators pay the bulk of their attention to. It has often happened that someone who wasn't even named in the original filing winds up becoming involved in the case. Basically, for lack of a better comparison, the request for arbitration is basically a request for the cops to start looking into a case. Once that happens, whatever information comes up regarding anybody involved from any source is examined. There have been several cases when the individual most severely reprimanded is the one who filed the case in the first place. The only thing the request for arbitration really has to do is present to the Arbitrators a reasonable argument that they need to get involved. That's it. Somehow, I don't think that's likely to be a problem here. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that sounds reasonable enough ... a mere technicality, almost a 'clerking duty' as someone here put it (apparently this is not supposed to mean that any such technicality could equally well be handled by Jack forbes or Tasoskessaris for instance :-)). If anyone could make the filing then there is no need to discuss this further, those who so wish may well proceed with the task. Were however this filing to sort of appear as having been made on behalf of all of us who support the request, then, being accustomed to a certain measure of tolerance, I would rather feel like being represented by someone who is not so liberal in labeling people ("yes, I called them nationalistic idiots"). Apcbg (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, once an arbitration request is filed, then anybody else involved can add comments as they see fit to the page, if they think those comments are relevant in helping the arbitrators decide whether to take an appeal or not. That happens rather a lot, in fact. And, as all parties involved in a case are supposed to be notified as soon as it is opened, any partiese who feels they do have statements to make are free to do so. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, great, so there should be no objections to Jack forbes or Tasoskessaris filing the request, then as you say anybody else involved can add comments as they see fit to the page, if they think those comments are relevant in helping the arbitrators decide whether to take an appeal or not; and, as all parties involved in a case are supposed to be notified as soon as it is opened, any parties who feel they do have statements to make are free to do so. Apcbg (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the timing (Wednesday 22nd) to allow everyone concerned to participate, but I disagree that the request should be filed by a neutral party. Bear in mind that the request is only used to get things off the ground. This is a case that needs to be prosecuted, in the fullest sense of the term, including dealing with the bogus accusations of racism alluded to above and the bigger picture of the endemic POV-pushing and vandalism that is happening across Wikipedia relating to this issue. The problems we've had with this article are just the tip of a much bigger iceberg that I've been tracking for some time; I suspect that a non-involved editor like Horologium will probably not be aware of the full scale and scope of the problem. I'm perfectly happy to file a request myself, though I certainly won't be shy about identifying the root cause(s) of these problems. An arbitration request is not the place to hold back on reasons why the ArbCom should take on the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Horologium watches very closely what happens here, and he is already aware of various aspects of the case. In any case, if you think that his filing is incomplete or lacking any important information, you can bring your proofs, and make your case. I do not think that ArbCom "will hold back" from anything. There are numerous cases, where ArbCom widened the scope of its competence during the discussion of a case, because of what the involved parties brought in from of it. Personally, I concur with Taivo, Avg, and John Carter, and I strongly disagree on your, or FutPer (or even me!) filing the case. I definitely don't want the person who opens to case to be a biased and involved user, who has repeatedly labelled the Greeks (or at least the vast majority of them) as nationalists.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I remember, ArbCom's is not a criminal court: its role is to resolve differences (and of course impose sanctions if necessary and if wrong-doing are pointed out and proved); not to deal with "prosecutions".--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, but in practice, once in a while, it tends to function as a body which like a court rules on the behavior of some individuals. I've been peripherally involved in a few where the "differences" people had were as much with policy as anything else. In cases like those, the difference between ArbCom and a court can be less than clear. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are nationalists, or at least behaving like them. It's futile to ignore this. There is very clear evidence here that a significant number of people have been behaving in a way that does not meet the expected standards of conduct and policy compliance. I envisage this case addressing two things: the basic policy standards relating to the content dispute, and the behaviour of the editors who are violating those standards. ArbCom can act as a clarifying agent for the former and as a "court" for the latter. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I agree with the last part of your last thread ("ArbCom can act as a clarifying agent for the former and as a "court" for the latter"). Why doesn't the filing of the case by an editor less involved than you can't serve these purposes? Can't he or she expose the behavioral issue as well? And are you more competent, while being involved in these case for centuries, and having received complaints on behavioral issues more than once? Come on!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is "futile to ignore" ChrisO that, if you are the one who files the case (excuse me "the one who prosecutes the nationalists"), then I am sure that you will take care to "enlighten" all the aspects of the case so that all the "nationalists" are properly treated. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that recently Fut.Perf. invited Taso to take him to ArbCom, and thus to introduce the case himself before our "dispute resolution body". It seems that he has no problem even "a Greek POV nationalist" to be the one who files the case. Therefore, I think that we have another candidate here. And if I am to choose between Chris and Taso, then I'll definitely choose Taso! At least, it is going to be fun!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So is it going to take all week to argue over who is going to present this to ARBCOM? Geez. ARBCOM is going to make up their own minds no matter who brings this before them. (Taivo (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of filing a request for arbitration. The arbitration committee will not make a ruling on content; their purpose is to arbitrate matters of policy and of user conduct. As such, when seeking a party to file a request, you should consider only whether or not they have become involved with other editors in the dispute. Simply voicing an opinion in a request for comment ought not to disqualify anyone from writing up and filing the request. Remember, this is not about content. Personally I would endorse Horologium as eminently capable of creating a neutral summary of events. I'm more than happy not to get the job myself, essentially for reasons of laziness. I just don't want anyone to think that those who've responded to the RfC are necessarily disqualified from what are, or ought to be, clerking duties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I go to school for a few hours, and my name gets dragged through the mud. A few points need to be made:
  • 1. I only plan to file for arbitration if nobody else does. If someone else files, I may make a brief statement; I haven't decided yet. If you don't want me to be the filing party, file it yourselves.
  • 2. While I have expressed an opinion (independent of the straw poll), I have not edited this or any related article, and I don't plan to in the future. While I am aware of the controversy (and have an opinion), I don't have anywhere near the emotional investment of many of the other editors on this page.
  • 3. A properly filed arbitration doesn't consist of
    soapboxing
    , simply a presentation of the problem that exists, and identifying the steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted. I can easily do that without discussing motivations or intentions. Some of the involved parties are unable to say the same thing.
  • 4. In any arbitration with a scope of this magnitude, the actions of all involved editors are reviewed, regardless of which party files the request. In my case, the only edit history is locking the article twice, and my comments on the talk page. Just about everyone else who has commented on this page since my first protection (whether in support or opposition to my statements) has a far more extensive history.
  • 5. I have not even decided if I am going to present evidence, although if I am the one who files the case, I will pretty much be expected to provide something.
  • 6. I have no problem with Sheffield Steel (or some other uninvolved editor) filing the case, for all of the reasons provided above. I will be following the case, but my involvement is likely to be far less than that of the editor who specifically attacked me. Horologium (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Fortunately, this dispute is entirely over policy. No one disputes the fact that there are two possible names for Macedonia besides "Macedonia". It's all policy (and behavior), so ARBCOM should have a good time. I will renew my support of Horologium for presenting this fairly to the ARBCOM. (Taivo (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

It would be a fine thing if this dispute was only about policy. To be honest, the only reason I had my small part in the debate was the accusations of nationalism being thrown around. Is nationalism such a dirty word nowadays? For anyone interested I am a Civic Nationalist. Has anyone been accused of being anti-nationalist on wikipedia? In my experience nationalists are no different from anyone else, they can agree with the anti-nationalist if references back them up. I hope ARBCOM look at the refs put forward by both parties and nothing else. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

National POV is the very issue in this debate, see my post here:

man with one red shoe

20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure there are no Bulgarians there also, they think FYROM politics on identity are a joke just as the Greeks do. The Serbs and Albanians also will not back FYROM on there historical adventure of Greek documented history. Best editors for FYROM nationalists will be English and American Users who are not plugged into what is going on in the region and don't read even the wiki pages on the dispute. Reaper7 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, everyone with a strong POV should auto-exclude themselves from such a discussion about policy/guideline issues, but few people have that common sense to do it, on the contrary they flock to this discussion and they feel like they should be the first to be listen to and call other people ignorant if they don't agree with them.

man with one red shoe

21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The members of ArbCom make a point of recusing themselves from any cases in which they either have an opinion which would color their judgment or a history of working on articles which relate to the subject in question. I don't think that will be a problem there. As for those who choose to offer evidence, well, anyone can offer whatever evidence they want. And anyone who disagrees with that evidence can offer evidence that their disagreement is valid. And so on. And on. And on. And, ultimately, the Arbs determine what does and doesn't matter to them anyway in their decisions, so I think that we probably won't have much of a bias problem there. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I was not referring to ArbCom which I have no doubt is trying to be impartial, I was just explaining that this is a POV issue, namely a national POV issue (not just a random content issue) and we can't sidestep that away, it would be nice if we could have a decision that could serve as example for other such cases.

man with one red shoe

22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first thing Arbcorm should look at are the references put forward and not the nationalities of those putting them forward. If, after examining them they find the references and arguments for the use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on this article to be so weak as to be obviously a nationalist POV then fair enough. Doesn't it make sense to look at the arguments and cites before looking at the nationalities of those involved? Jack forbes (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would normally agree with examining the evidence and ignoring the editors, but I understand ArbCom shy from making content decisions which pretty much render this approach useless. Also, there's a larger issue here, a national page watched by mostly the nationals (I would assume that's the situation for most of the national pages, at least of nations that have Internet access) and if they get to impose their POV on the page, if this situation is upheld then Wikipedia is in for a shaky future, every page will become/or will remain a walled POV garden and people who are more numerous on the Internet will simply impose their POV. Now, I like to assume that most of the editors of Wikipedia are well-meaning and excuse themselves if there's a POV issue, but unfortunately this kind of permissive policy will simply attract interested POV-pushing parties who will simple watch "their" articles and use straw-polls to show that there's consensus to keep a POV form, or to show that there's no consensus to change a form. basically coming back to my point that straw-polls that are biased are useless (poll Palestinians about Israel right to exist for example) so we need another way to determine content, and if ArbCom doesn't want to decide content they might need at least to provide a way to decide.

man with one red shoe

23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt it is in the best interests of anyone for the ArbCom to see that there are repeated attempts at seeking to avoid directly dealing with policies as they have been cited and continuation of attempts to misdirect or other derail the conversation regarding how the ROM should be named in this article. In fact, based on having dealt with the arbitrators before, there is a very real chance that people who indulge in such behavior are among those who will receive some sort of criticism from the arbitrators, particularly given that the talk-page guidelines are posted at the top of this page. Therefore, I believe we would all be better served if we could contain our rhetoric and limit our comments on this page to the subjects at hand. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, should also edit the bit where you divulge you have not even read the most important related article Macedonia naming dispute despite being completely opinionated on greek nationalism and the UN throughout the page. Simply - it looks bad. The whole page needs a clean. Reaper7 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, John is ignorant and you know that because you happen to be psychic. Nice. Didn't I already bitch about the assumption of ignorance? As John so wisely said, "Enough already" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm safe to assume this includes references to "bullying" in the real world, yes? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given all this endless bickering and debate and the labyrinth of semantic arguments we have been through, I for one, have had enough. Therefore I go on record supporting Taivo's proposal for a mention of "former" in the intro and leaving Rep. Mace. on the map. Taivo also proposed, correct me if I am wrong, that further mention of RoM in the article can be avoided. So here we are:

Support^* Taivo's proposal. * Support will be withdrawn if flag/nationality-based analysis is undertaken at the end of this activity Dr.K. logos 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Reasons clearly stressed out already.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comments. Appeasement is never an answer, and flies in the face of Wiki's NPOV policies. The sensitivities of a certain group do not outweigh policy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Using WWII terminology applied to Hitler is no way to frame an argument. Also calling Taivo's proposal appeasement is a hardline stance. But thank you for your contribution regardless. Rest assured I will not analyse your vote at the end of this discussion based on flags or any other grounds. Dr.K. logos 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeasement refers to way more than Hitler, so don't even try that argument. Dicdef: "1. an appeasing or being appeased". Flags, what are you on about? As for how you analyse the vote, I don't give a fig. "Thanks for your input, just the same. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flags as in Husond's flags attached to the names of users to show their nationality. As far as appeasement I still think it is a loaded word but I respect your opinion. As far as analysing the vote comment that I made, it was sarcasm. I was referring to nationality based analysis of the poll results undertaken by Husond et al. Maybe I should have flagged my original comment as sarcasm. Dr.K. logos 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry -- I get it now. I don't display any flags as I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the earth/world/whatever. (Yes, I do pay taxes, so I don't do it for that reason  ;) Anyway, I do wish that people could get over nationalism, or allegience to the country of their ancestry. We all have to live on this planet, and it would be nice if we could all get along. (OK, now I sound like a Miss America contestant or Rodney King, LOL). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks :) Dr.K. logos 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose there's no need for any "former" in the lead, we should use the name that's used in the article itself:
  man with one red shoe
  18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appeasement is not the answer, and flies in the face of NPOV principle. If the abuse of WP policies and administrative power is to prevail for some time, so be it. Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop using the "appeasement" word? Thanks. Comment withdrawn as unwarranted. Sorry Dr.K. logos 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Appeasement" is a very nice word when used in the proper situation, let's not ban words now...

man with one red shoe

19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree "when used in the proper situation". But do you think when trying to reach a compromise this word helps? I am not trying to ban words. Just trying to frame a dialogue conducive to compromise. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it really seems that there won't be much room for a constructive contribution here for some time to come, so I'd rather withdraw from this topic for now. Good luck to everybody. Apcbg (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Apcbg. Hopefully one way or the other we'll get to the bottom of this. Hopefully sooner than later. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - a direct link to the proposal in question would be really useful here, guys. :) John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the proposal:

::Just so it is clear, the article as it now stands I think is an acceptable version. There are two locations in the article where the name "Macedonia" is relevant (other than the references to the Greek provinces).

• The lead paragraph. I have never objected to the wording "the former Yugoslav
  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  because that is a non-existent article. The blue of the wikilink emphasizes the constitutional self-identifier of Macedonia while the black of "former Yugoslav" satisfies the needs of the Greek POV. I stated this point several days ago (it seems that long ago although it might have been yesterday morning).
• The map. The map should stay as it currently is: "Rep. Mace." as that is the self-identifier. "Macedonia" would be ambiguous on the map, so the self-identifier is appropriate. As "FYROM" has not been identified as an acronym elsewhere in the article (and should not be), its use on the map would be doubly inappropriate--a) as an unknown acronym, and b) as an externally-imposed non-self-identification.

The article stayed stable with that configuration for several days through the hottest portion of this discussion. We will argue ad nauseum over this issue with neither the FYROM POV nor the non-FYROM POV ever budging. In the end, the situation will be resolved in Athens [...] (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Dr.K. logos 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- ah, so he didn't call fo the linking to include FY (I hadn't thought it did). I'll think on it a bit, although the concept still bothers me intellectually. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Unwillingly oppose. Sorry Τάσο. You know how much I respect you, but I personally accept no half-meters. My opinion is that there should be fYROM throughout the article. We don't agree on that? Then, ok, the only solution is ARBCOM. Full stop!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all Yannis. I completely understand and respect your opinion. I simply have had enough of this back and forth and it seemed to me to be a reasonable proposal so I thought I would give it a try. But in no way this means that I would, in any way, be bothered if anyone, let alone my friends, disagreed with my proposal. That would be undemocratic and anyway respect and friendship transcend such academic questions. In addition I know that the arbcom can cover much more ground on other contentious issues like ethnic issues etc. So it may well be inevitable and it could even be the better way. Take care for now and and it was a pleasure seeing you, as always. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

• Comment - as the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself. And, for what it's worth, I used to work in patents and copyrights for the North American pet food division of a major international firm. Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement. There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement." No you wouldn't. If you would, your should fire your lawyer.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise." If the use of RoM throughout the article is the way you perceive compromise, then this is no compromise.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "As the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself". 1) The "above editor" has a username you could use. 2) This is not what I said.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Then you have no interest, seemingly, in compromising your position with wikipedia's policy, which explicitly says the name of the article should be used wherever possible in other articles to prevent confusion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way you interpret policy. Is it your interpretation authoritative? You're welcomed.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of Medusa? Or maybe Scylla and Charybdis is apt. BTW, Yanni, as you will find out if Arbcomm decides to accept and then issue a ruling, John happens to be spot-on with policy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm tired of drama and this seems like a way to end it. However I really want this to go to ArbCom and I certainly want ArbCom to take care of the abomination that happened a while ago and its main perpetrator, because this will give a clear message on what Wikipedia stands for. If Taivo/Dr.K.'s proposal is accepted I will not oppose but my real wish is ArbCom. --Avg (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Avg for your comments. I echo your feelings completely. That's why I proposed it. Even if it comes to nothing at least I wouldn't say I didn't try to end this sooner rather than later. I also understand fully your reasons for wanting to go to arbcom. I'll be there if it comes to that. There are some issues I am really interested in that I would like to present. Hopefully this proposal can end the edit warring at least until arbcom decides. Who knows. Anyway take care for now and it was a pleasure talking to you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

• Support I think it is a very logical proposal. --
  talk
  ) 06:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no objective need to have "f.Y." in the lead, where the focus of discussion is the simple geographical facts of what countries are neighboring on each other. For the same reason that we don't need to talk about the "former Yugoslav Slovenia" when talking about the geographical situation of Austria. Pushing in this bit would have no other function than symbolically bowing down before the Greek POV concerns, and the whole reason we are having this discussion is that we shouldn't do so. We are already mentioning "f.Y." in the passage further down where the political dispute are mentioned. That's where it belongs, as pertinent historical background info explaining the timing of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe that FYROM should be used throughout the entire article. Kyriakos (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Suppoprt. Taivo's knowledge on this subject may not even be near complete but it is interesting to say the least. Reaper7 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why are people assuming a lack of knowledge? And, even if it were true, what would be the relevance? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fut. Perf. puts it well. The proposal is well-meaning but it doesn't resolve the underlying problem here, i.e. the incessant POV-pushing by certain editors. We're not likely to fix that problem without someone - ArbCom presumably - banning the worst offenders. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fut.Perf. Mentions of Macedonia in our articles should be treated no differently from mentions of any other country. - Ev (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've enabled autoarchiving since this talk page seems to be constantly growing. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How nice for Greece to find protection. When the borders open again remember to mention that Corfu offers unique opera performances. Trompeta (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

and then protection of the article no editing allowed. Since the matter went to arbitration such change is delinquent behaviour. (The map is also Rep. Maced.) --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Ioannes. The whole matter is delinquent. The name in the article was "FYROM" or "former Yugoslavic republic of Makedonia" and then some...editors... came and changed the name according to their own political beliefs and the pro-Fyromian beliefs. The Greeks did not start this issue in wikipedia they just protested and still protest with the change that some others started. --79.166.48.76 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the RfAr, and do provide diffs. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as macedonian spoken in greece. There is a slavic idiom called Dopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassaro (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct Tassaro but you are wasting your words in here... --79.166.48.76 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So Greece has the only linguistic border in all of Europe? Odd. (Reality is that as of 1986, 180K people in Greece spoke the language. Don't much care what it's called in Greece -- after all, the name ελληνικά is not much used outside of Greece. Not that this has much relation to the article per se, but it does to any RfC's and RfAr's this disaster of a discussion page spawns, ktl. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide verifiable sources supporting your statement regarding those 180k people? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ethnologue -- look it up. No European country is purely homogenous in terms of language (or anything else) and border regions are always polyglottic. That's just reality. BTW: Greek is spoken in RoM. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the actually page in Ethnologue showing the 180k speakers of Macedonian (called "Slavic" inside Greece). (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

According to 'A Concise History of Greece' by Richard Clogg says there is a small number of people that speak Slavic idioms in the North of Greece, though their numbers are undetermined but small. Kyriakos (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnologue didn't carry a linguistic census in Greece last time i checked so no matter how respected the source is for linguists it's just a guess (and a wild one). The language exists and yes it is spoken by some people especially in Florina prefecture but it isn't spoken so broadly, not even close. At least that's what i can say as a native of Thessaloniki and Greek Macedonia. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is one of the official Greek government responses concerning this Pseudo-makedonian minority in Greece:

Athens: No Macedonian Minority in Greece: In a reply letter sent on Friday to FYR Macedonian Premier Nikola Gruevski, Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis claimed there is no Macedonian minority in Greece. “There is no 'Macedonian' minority in Greece. There never has been. In this respect, any allegations regarding the existence of such a minority are totally unfounded, politically motivated and disrespectful of the historic realities of the region,” wrote Karamanlis. On Monday Gruevski wrote to Athens asking for the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Greece and the return of property to Macedonian refugees who were forced to flee northern Greece during the 1946-1949 Greek Civil War. “As for any properties issue, any individual can take legal recourse before the Courts, including the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,” said Karamanlis. Karamanlis rebuffed Gruevski’s letter as an attempt to deviate from the objectives of the ongoing UN sponsored “name” talks between the two countries by raising a number of “non-existent and unsubstantiated issues”, he said. Relations between the two countries hit a new low in April when Athens blocked Skopje’s NATO accession saying the country should change its name first. Greece argues that Macedonia’s name might imply territorial claims towards its own northern province with the same name. There are no hard historical records about their numbers. Some historians say that as many as 100,000 ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece fled the country during the war between the right-wing monarchist government and the Democratic Army of Greece, a branch of the Communist party. Athens does not recognise those who fled as Macedonians and refuses to issue citizenship to them or to their descendants. Referring to a small political party called Rainbow in Greece claiming to represent the Macedonian minority in Greece, Athens says that “a fistful” of people in Greece supporting Skopje’s story cannot be called a minority.--79.166.2.237 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal experience and political grandstanding are not

reliable sources. Academic references, like Ethnologue, are reliable sources. Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source. (Taivo (talk

) 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree with Taivo in principle, though with the proviso that the Ethnologue listings for Greece, particularly that for Macedonian in Greece, does contain some real howlers [10]. Howlers that are so obvious we really shouldn't go by a "we'll repeat whatever the source says, even if we know it's wrong" automatism. Ethnologue puts the number of Macedonian speakers at "180,180 in Greece (1986 census)" - but as we can easily demonstrate from other reliable sources, there never was a census in 1986, and no census for the last half century has ever counted minority language speakers. But of course the existence of the Macedonian language in Greece is beyond doubt, it can easily be sourced to other, more specialised research literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "howler" is at the link to Macedonian that you provided. There's also a difference between what we, as academics, would consider a reliable source (based on personal knowledge, experience, research, professional intuition, etc.) and what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. So while I would agree with your skepticism on a professional level (every time I correct an error in Ethnologue two more seem to crop up), on the Wikipedia level it is a different matter and Ethnologue is, by definition, a Wikipedia reliable source unless superceded by another reliable source. (Taivo (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

The howler is, as I said, that it is citing a census that never existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, concerning the link you have as record that in Greece there are 180,180 <<macedonian>> speakers. Your source appears to be a census of 1986, can you elaborate please to give me some more information’s (method, statistical analyses, figures e.t.c) as about the compilation of the specific statistic number? In my opinion this number is not reflect the real situation. And I give you two sources to look at. The first one is the report that prepared by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, "Macedonian Minorities: The Slav Macedonians of Northern Greece and the Treatment of Minorities in the Republic of Macedonia", (Oxford 1994), p.7 and the one of the U.S.Department of State, "Greece Human Rights Practices, 1993" (January 31st 1994) estimate the number of Slav-speakers in Greece at about 40,000-50,000 people. --79.166.2.237 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Helsinki reference isn't clear about whether or not it is a linguistic survey--ethnicity alone is not a marker of linguistic usage. The other looks better since it seems to actually estimate speakers and not just ethnic identification. If you have an exact reference to it then use it to edit the number in the article (and include the reference) since it looks like a more recent survey. I'm not wedded to Ethnologue or its number, but it just required a reliable source with a new number to supplant the only other reliable source available. (Taivo (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Ethnologue version 14 (valid from 2000 to 2005) contains different information from Ethnologue version 15 (from 2005 onwards). Any person qualified to write on Greece would know that there was no census in Greece in 1986 (they happen every 10 years so the nearest ones were 1981 and 1991) and that the last time "mother tongue" and "most frequently used language" were asked in a Greek census was 1951. The number for the "mother tongue" question (the other number for frequently used language was even smaller) did make it into Ethnologue v.14 but Ethnologue v.15 for reasons that can only be guessed (pretty easily I may add) chose to come up with a fake census and a figure in the 200k region. Anyone that has enough brains to pass a thesis examination for a Ph.D. (as Taivo has) is capable of looking at the differences between Ethnologue v.14 and Ethnologue v.15 and noticing suspicious changes based on sources dated before 2005. A clear example is in Arvanitika: v14 claims (correctly - I wish I knew how many speakers there were left) a range between 50,000 (Newmark) to 140,000 possible speakers (1977 Trudgill and Tzavaras). v15 comes up with 150,000 (2000) without a clear attribution (what happened in 2000) or an explanation of how a language in clear decline increased in numbers. Moreover v15 creates a new category of 10k speakers of Tosk Albanian for the region of Epirus; this is now separate from Arvanitika despite the fact that the page on Arvanitika still includes the reference to a Northwestern Arvanitika dialect from v14 that could only have referred to the region of Epirus. There is a clear inference (from the text as well) that the inclusion of this new category is related to the political issue of the Cham expulsion (and the claims about "Orthodox Chams"). Finally the very concept of what these numbers mean is in doubt. The north of the village of Andros is mentioned for Arvanitika: bilingualism in our families ended with our grandparent's generation. Extremely few among our parent's generation could converse in Arvanitika - the rest retained a few words or curses and our generation still has those (if at all). To portray the area as Arvanitika speaking is so misleading that it can only be done on purpose.

There are published books (in Greece - by leftist Greek journalists and amateur historians) that refer to figures around 200k (or even more for that matter) for Slavomacedonian speakers in Greece (again based on some dubious definition); large agenda-driven figures can also be found for Vlachs and Arvanites - since FPS, Taivo and Jim62sch and the rest of the gang are such experts on Greece I leave it as an exercise to them to locate these sources and at least put a fig leaf on. Until then use of non-existent census figure in Ethnologue makes a mockery of the academic standards they so passionately purport to be trying to uphold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce107 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you choose to insult me when I made it clear that all that was needed to change the Ethnologue reference was another reliable reference with a better number? And the number of speakers of Macedonian in Greece is not so interesting to me that I'm going to spend time looking at the 14th edition of Ethnologue when the 15th is available. Like I said before your insults, the US Department of State reference seems quite adequate to replace the Ethnologue number since it appears to have been a linguistic survey. Put your spectacles on and see that I was not touting Ethnologue as the end-all and be-all of survey material. Unless you just enjoy insulting people, learn to read plain English. (Taivo (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh I do enjoy insulting people whose behaviour makes them fully deserving of insults. It was you that made the issue of Ethnologue being a RS a big affair (as scripta manent - even in WP - all a reader has is to go up a few comments and see arrogant statements such as "Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source." when there was no census in 1986 to begin with!) The gall of some people is astounding: they've all become "specialists" when they can hardly follow the literature on Greece - because if they did you would be (a) dismissing Ethnologue's 1986 crap outright and (b) quoting the V-PRC survey which is from this decade and despite an obvious flaw of assuming no pluri-lingual descent/ability is the most recent and extensive statistical country-wide survey of use/understanding of non-Greek languages and significant Greek dialects in Greece to-date. If you were a specialist you would know that the US SD's "estimate" is not the result of a survey (do you seriously believe that any type of similar survey by a foreign power into such a matter would have gone unnoticed and not being reported in the Greek media causing a diplomatic episode?) but the estimate based on visits to some parts of Macedonia (in Greece) of a certain diplomat (later to become infamous through a very public resignation) called Brady Keisling that single-handedly raised the profile of the issue in the SD's HR reports. If you were a specialist - instead of trying to guess numbers - you would be giving the number of villages in which the language was spoken by at least some inhabitants according to the 1996 Euromosaic study (which your pal FPS has apparently read - but still has been unable to digest enough to add Arvanites in Thrace in his "map"). Then again you could do worse - your other pal Jim62sch seriously believes that you could have a non-government sponsored census (mind you not survey) in Greece (actually I wonder in how many developed countries can anyone other than the government "convince" people to stay home and open their doors for census takers to visit). Or that the results of such a private 1986 census would not become public until 2005! Maybe the evil Greek nationalists had a hand in that as well. God spare us from the all-powerful WP "specialists". Ce107 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so I am perfectly clear about your failure to read my comment above. Your beef with me is that I asked for a better reference than Ethnologue, and then when another editor provided one, I agreed that the one he provided was a better reference? So now you are here to "enlighten" me that your references are superior even when they seem to say exactly the same thing? I'm not trying to guess anything, I'm just relying on what Wikipedia defines as

reliable sources. You've obviously got a bee up your bottom for some other reason because none of my comments about sourcing were on the level of the attack that you are initiating. (Taivo (talk

) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh I did read your comment. But I also read what you wrote before that and it is obvious you're trying to cover up your arrogant attitude despite your obvious ignorance of basic facts: "Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source." and then "I'm not sure what the "howler" is at the link to Macedonian that you provided." and then "If you have an exact reference to it then use it to edit the number in the article (and include the reference) since it looks like a more recent survey. I'm not wedded to Ethnologue or its number, but it just required a reliable source with a new number to supplant the only other reliable source available." Even after FPS (for Pete's sake not some pesky Greek nationalist with a POV agenda) explains more than once that there was no census in 1986 and that Ethnologue's number is bogus you insist on talking about "more recent" and "only other reliable". So if Britanica (a far more serious outfit than Ethnologue) claimed that Greece had a population of 20 million according to the 1986 census you'd call that reliable even though it is an obvious error (both the magnitude of the number as well as the year of the census)? Learn to admit your prejudice causes you to make mistakes or stop bitching about the "level of the attack" any knowledgeable observer would "initiate". Better still stick to things you actually are knowledgeable about. As for my references if you actually read them you'd see that Eurominority counts villages with full or partial use of the language and V-PRC gives percentages (being sample-based). Neither agree with Ethnologue and V-PRC comes above the SD estimate. Ce107 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly feel humbled by the rantings of a satii'an ta'ai. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

As my grandfather would say hana mun re gomar Ce107 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a) assuming that census means only governmentally-sponsored, and b) that even if it is, the census results are published immediately.

Nonetheless, if anyone here is benighted enough to believe that a nation's borders are absolute, and people on the borders do not know languages other than the most common language of the state, I feel sorry for them: the use of language just doesn't work that way. Let me know if you find a mono-glottic country -- even the island nation of Japan, which is somewhat isolated, has some

speakers of a non-Japanese language. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera!

19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

IMF has published new GDP figures two days ago. Please edit that. LINK - [[11]] ---Gggh (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The number of the Slavophones in Greek Macedonia is no more than 50.000,according to impartial sources: "According to the report on Greece in the United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1990 (1991:1172), there are between 20,000 and 50,000 Macedonian-speaking people in all of Greek Macedonia. In a recent report to the European Commission entitled "Minority Languages in Northern Greece," Van Boeschoten (1993) estimates that in the district of Florina and the neighboring region of Aridhea alone there are approximately 18,000 Macedonian-speaking inhabitants out of a total population of 60,000 people".[12] "The Macedonian conflict,ethnic nationalism in a transnational world",page 78 --ΦΔ (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Asuuming that that number is correct, it is still greater than zero. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article from Loring M. Danforth also states : For obvious reasons it is difficult to estimate the number of Makedonian-speaking people who remain in North Greece today. For equally obvious reason it is even more difficult to estimate how many people have a Makedonian, as opposed to a Greek, national identity. Tell me Jim62sch (along with your friend Taivo) are you 100% sure that www.ethnologue.com is a reliable source ?? --79.166.2.237 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your issue is. Ethnologue is a

uncivil to make it one. (Taivo (talk

) 12:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Regarding overflights, the two countries have signed an Operative Cooperation Agreement [13] [14] increasing the number of overflights in the direction of Greece, in accordance with EU recommendations on a Single European Sky [15] [16]

Eurocontrol [17]Politis (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Existing text: In the aftermath of WW I, Greece fought against Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, a war which resulted in a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne.

Suggested amendment: In the aftermath of WW I, A Greek army, encouraged by the victorious Allies, invaded the Turkish mainland and remained until they were defeated by Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal. One result of this invasion and defeat was a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne.

The existing text creates some ambiguity about where this war was fought, and who were the aggressors, and it might be incorrectly understood that Turkish nationalists had invaded Greek territory.

Strawberryfeelds (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article must be unprotected. So ok, there is no number for Slavophones, for Balkan bears, for crazy drivers, but there are gaps in this article that can be filled and all editors who are discussing can carry on here. But that is probably too simple. Trompeta (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is an issue over the name of Macedonia in this article, it must remain protected. Over the last month, within minutes of it being unprotected, it has suffered heavy edit warring. If you have something that needs changing, and you have a consensus or good references for the change, contact an admin and they will make the change. Until ArbCom decides on the naming issue, however, it is best that this article remain fully protected. My suggestion is to present your proposed change here, let a couple of others comment or agree, and then present a solid case to an admin for the change and they will make it. (Taivo (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

It's just two word, former Yugoslav, so the whole country is blocked. The issue will last as long at the two countries are negotiating, you see what I mean, the negotiations makes is a legitimate issue, except for Wikipedia. Trompeta (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be unprotected.

man with one red shoe

19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The number of crazy drivers is known. Most of the population. Dr.K. logos 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The last time this article's protection expired, it last exactly 30 minutes (maybe a whole hour) before it had to be protected again. Tasos is right--most of the population consists of crazy drivers. (Taivo (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

I've asked the Arbcom to accompany unprotection with a temporary injunction against changing the contentious bits. Of course it's a bit of an open question to what extent the angry young men on this page would be prepared to actually heed such an injunction, but it would be worth a try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure that there's an admin handy to revert the firebrands and reprotect the page quickly to the point it stands now. (Taivo (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

As i see we are pretty much a month already in protection maybe the article shall be protected for ever so as to make some people happy. But then we should also rename the whole project from wikipedia the "free editing encyclopedia" to spazarhidia. --—Ioannes Tzimiskes ^Talk 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The article came out of protection on May 16, but almost immediately nationalists were changing "Republic of Macedonia" to FYROM. There were a couple of other edits made, but the edit warring over the name of Macedonia had begun again. The only way to keep the article from descending again into chaos was to protect it again. Once arbitration is finished, if there is a clear policy over the name of Macedonia to use in this article, it can come out of full protection into semi-protection (where anonymous IPs are not allowed to edit, but registered users are). (Taivo (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

While the issue is in arbitration, the name of Macedonia should not be changed here. Please respect the arbitration process and do not change "Republic of Macedonia" to something else. (Taivo (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Please help find sources for the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is not too late, this is a small input/query: Under uniform naming policy, a noteworthy situation is with

The above rationale may help sort out the article "Macedonia", but it leaves the article "Greece" having a territory of its own called "Macedonia" adjacent to "Macedonia" undecided: Should the neighboring country be named "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ("FYROM")?. If "Macedonia" is not the official name of the country by any side, then it cannot describe that country. Then, there remains to determine what the official name of that country is: "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Then the problem reduces to: What is "official"? Is it the UN, the EU, the USA, the number of recognizing the name countries, the country itself, or what? Does a wikipedia policy exist in this regard?

I hope a solution will be found to effect both a genuine uniform policy and a factual/unbiased article, also to avoid/stop editing wars. Wikipedia is the most wonderful concept of our era and must be protected itself. Esem0 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yawn...

man with one red shoe

13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In cases where disambiguation is necessary, then Wikipedia generally defaults to the official self-identification, which, in this case, is "Republic of Macedonia", which is what we find here at

WP:NCON. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" fails all tests of what to call Macedonia based on current Wikipedia policies. But, EsemO, you seem to be a newcomer here so I'll let you know that this issue has been discussed and discussed and discussed for years. There is nothing new to be said on the matter, so I suggest that you focus on finding something more constructive and less controversial to contribute to Wikipedia. Nothing is going to happen with regards to using Macedonia's name here until the arbitration and naming dispute processes have run their course. There is a big, wide Wikipedia world here, so find your niche and dive in. But if this is the only issue that interests you, there's no place to dive--just an empty concrete hole in the ground. (Taivo (talk

) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Attention: Taivo contravenes at least two of The five pillars of Wikipedia (#2 and #4) as he should not have patronized me with his concluding sentences above. As a newcomer, I attempted to put the case in a "nutshell" from a rational and fresh point of view. He has attempted to sideline me in a patronizing way (to say the least). This raises question marks. It is not a constructive approach to wikipedia project. Esem0 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I am glad to see that you are not a

WP:SPA focused on Macedonia. Wikipedia needs more specialists to add their expertise and while I cannot judge the quality of your edits to scanning electron microscope articles, I'm sure they are worthy. (Taivo (talk

) 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Until the ArbCom decides, just delete the disputed map and keep the article protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in the previous proposal, I should have added that the text describing the bordering countries should include both disputed names "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia", until the issue is resolved (and other textual references, since I have not read the entire article yet!). Esem0 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the ArbCom is at work. Until the issue is resolved, nothing's going to change here. There is nothing disputed about "Republic of Macedonia", that is the official long-form name of the country. According to Wikipedia policy, self-identifications take precedence over anything imposed externally. Wikipedia policy stresses 1) most common English usage (which is Macedonia) and 2) self-identification (which is Republic of Macedonia). "The former Yugoslav" doesn't even have a place at the table. But nothing is going to change here until the ArbCom is finished and there is a firm Wikipedia Macedonia naming policy. (Taivo (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Before even reading all these comments I realised what the dispute is about in the very first sentence. The Republic of Macedonia should be referred to as FYROM - former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This name existis for a reason (the other does not), and if Wikipedia is to acquire a certain status as an information source, it should be as accurate as possible. Once the country receieves recognition of its name claims (which I doubt that it ever will), then it can be changed. Until then, it should be changed back ASAP. Otherwise, all Wiki information is open to individual creativity, and not what is actually factual. (81.4.166.190 (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Mythology was important to the Greeks because their entire religion was based on Greek Mythology. They built shrines and temples, even altars, for world-known Zues, Hera, Poseidon, and many more.

Dear anonymous user, you are probably right about having a new Greek mythology section with a link to the main article: Greek mythology that you are probably looking for, amongst others. At least a sentence including the word "mythology", linked to the article should be included. Thank you for pointing that out.

Right now the page is locked and to include the edit you will have to first find out how to use the "

"anyone can edit" is more complicated in application than that phrase suggests. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Try to come back later. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

07:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to assist you by doing that for you when I have more time in my hands. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that the use of this motto by the revolutionaries of the Greek insurrection i for some reason being disputed? not well sourced? I really don't know... Anyways.. I will upload some photographs of historical flags from the time of the insurrection with the said motto written on them. I have to mention that finding information on this issue on the net is very easy and thus I really cannot understand the fuzz. There are many more, should somebody need more evidence that this motto WAS used by the insurgents. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. GK1973 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Historic use on flags of the Greek revolution isn't the issue; that's uncontroversial. It was a motto of the Filiki Etairia, obviously. The issue is whether it's an official motto of today's Hellenic Republic. To be that, it would need to be:

• explicitly defined as such in Greek legislature, in the same way the national flag, anthem, seal or coat of arms are defined (similar to how "Live Free or Die" is defined in New Hampshire legislation here), and/or
• fixed heraldic part of a current official Greek state symbol, such as a national coat of arms or seal (similar to how "Plus Ultra" is part of the
  Coat of Arms of Spain
  ), and/or
• routinely featured on coins/banknotes or similar items (similar to how "In God We Trust" is regularly featured on dollar bills, or "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" on French coins.)

Last time we discussed this, nothing of this type was found. It's an historic motto connected with the Greek nation, but it's not an official state motto. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Official" is a little bit difficult to be defined here. "Freedom or Death" comprises a motto used in Greek official and unofficial bibliography, mainly when addressing matters of the 1821 Insurrection, the 1854 Insurrection in Thessaly and generally in all Greek wars for "liberty". It was even used in 1943 by Greek partizans. In Greece, this motto is extensively used and adorns flags and banners in the official celebration of the 25th of March in schools, streets, parades etc. As an official symbol we find it in the emblem of the 4th Infantry Division [23]. This is the "official" 1996 poster of the Hellenic Army General Staff [24] regarding the celebration of the 25th March insurrection. This is of 1992 [25], of 1985 [26], of 1982 [27] etc.. Again these consist "official" posters issued by the Greek army, where this motto is repeatedly used. So, if "official" in this case means a repeated official use of the said motto by the Greek government, I think this is clearly shown in the Greek military. I hope you will not contest that the motto being an official motto of the Greek army is not also an official motto of the Greek state. In the future I will produce more "official" uses of this motto, but again I think we should not be so overwhelmingly wary. GK1973 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a national state motto, in the technical sense implied by its position in the infobox, is something used like the "In God We Trust" of the US. This is nothing of the sort. This is a slogan connected to an event in Greek history, but not a symbol of the modern state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion on this topic? I really do not know what it was exactly about. I know that this motto is one of the official mottos of the Greek state, used in multiple occasions but then so is "No" (OXI), "Amynesthai peri patris" (Defending the homeland) and many more. Is this a case about choosing one over all the others or just about establishing its "official" status? GK1973 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion is now in Archive 5. The question was whether this motto should be included in the infobox along with the flag, anthem and coat of arms. Your statement that those other mottos are all basically on the same level essentially confirms that this one is not a uniquely representative state motto to go in that place. There's only one flag, only one coat of arms, only one hymn; if there are several mottos, then none of them is on a par with those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK! So, "Freedom or Death" is indeed one of the official mottos of the Greek state, officially used in its military as the motto of the 4th Infantry Division and in a great number of formal occasions, it was the "official" unofficial motto of the Greek Insurrection of 1821 (before there was an official government) and was used in freedom struggles of more recent years by Greek militants, is present on a number of highly cherished Greek military relics but officially, nowadays, it is not more acknowledged than a number of other mottos. So, the question now should only be whether only one, unquestionably acknowledged as the sole official Greek motto should be used in the infobox or any official motto of a relatively higher collective acknowledgment from modern Greeks or none. Is your position the one followed throughout Wikipedia as a rule? GK1973 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I can tell you is that on the

List of state mottos page, almost all entries have footnotes, and almost all of them point to either an official piece of legislation defining the motto, or to the fact that it's contained in the flag or COA. As for your examples: a motto of an infantry division is a motto of that infantry division, not of the state as a whole. And the motto used in celebrations of 25 March is a motto of that historical event, not of the state. So, no, as long as the state doesn't explicitly define it as its official motto, it isn't its official motto. Fut.Perf. ☼

16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is an official motto. An official motto of any military unit cannot but be an official motto of the state the unit belongs to. I do not propose that this motto should be included in the infobox, but it nevertheless is ONE official Greek motto. When you say "its official motto" you imply that there should be only one such motto and on these grounds this one is not THE ONE official motto. It is true, that in the Greek Constitution there is no reference to any motto nor is it written on the official flag. So, if these two conditions are prerequisites for a motto to be included in the infobox, then I agree with you. GK1973 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, at a glimpse I can see a lot of instances which do not abide by those rules in this list... I will look into it more... And believe you me, I really do not care whether this particular motto will or will not be included in the Greek infobox. I just believe that Greeks have been targeted more than they deserve in the last month, so I want to check some things more. GK1973 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting, I saw this on the ARBCOM page and went and look on the official pages of the Hellenic Republic website..and symbols. There is no mention of a motto. Seems that would be the best source for "official". There are other mottos in the United States that are invoked often to this day, but in no way are considered official. "Give me liberty or give me death" or "Don't Tread on Me", for example..or even "Remember the Alamo" ;). Most every American knows these, too..but they are not THE motto of the U.S, though venerable they are and well recognised as part of the USA's heritage. Could the same situation apply here? And due respect given the cultural heritage of the motto with the understanding that it is not the official motto all noted somewhere else where it is clear it isn't the official motto. Gingervlad (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is not ONE official motto of Greece (as far as I know). In this I agree 100%. I just want to make sure that this is the one prerequisite demanded for such a motto to be included in the infobox. If it is so, then (apparently) no motto should be added there. GK1973 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no obligation for legislation, regarding national mottos. A national motto doesn't have to be present in banknotes and coins either. FP should prove that his materialistic definition for national mottos, is unambiguous and indisputable, in order to justify his edit; or else he should revert it himself. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So, SQRT, where is your reliable source that says that this motto is the official motto of Greece? Future Perfect does not need to prove the negative. You need to prove the positive. (Taivo (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Read again. It seems that the national motto is good for the EU, regarding the greek nation. (ctrl+f "Ελευθερία ή θάνατος").SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't be more official! I really can't understand, what else do they want? Here is the English version http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/text/greece.htm;jsessionid=CC4F5928B3A76DA0C9DCD612F1961C2C.node2?country=GR&language=EN that says "Motto: Liberty or Death" --xvvx (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, gentlemen, that's not a

reliable source. That's a website. (Taivo (talk

) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

You got to be kidding me! The European Parliament portal is not a reliable source??? Just to add... the

UN, NATO etc are not reliable sources, since they are websites? Yes all of them are websites, but what makes a website a reliable source is the organization behind. If you open a website and post your opinion there, that's not official or reliable... if the European Union creates a website, that's official and reliable. What more do you want? xvvx (talk

) 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't read

WP:RS. Future Perfect has been very clear on what would constitute reliable sources in this instance. (Taivo (talk

) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

I read it! Where the

WP:RS states that similar to European Union entities are not reliable sources? We can use as a reliable source an article from a major newspaper, but not from European Parliament? I really can't understand the "logic" here... if there is any logic! --xvvx (talk

) 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims need exceptionally good sourcing. Calling something a national motto if that motto is totally absent from where you'd expect it to occur, namely in official use by the state itself, is such an exceptional claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, provide us with your definition of a "national motto". You might expect something that the people of another nation don't. That might be your POV. In addition, your timing leads to many questions. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

This controversy has reached nonsentical dimensions! Here are the facts:

• The motto is not defined as official in the Greek legislation (although various authors, the Eur.Parl. etc. regard it as such!). This may be intentional or a result of an oversight of our state. Both cases are possible. It may also be the result of the following rationale.
• Most Greeks regard this motto as an inherent symbol of our nation (don't forget that accorging to a version it is related to the Greek flag, which is official!). There may thus prevail the rationale that "we don't have to declare as official something which is clearly ours; a part of our culture". I don't say that I necessarily agree with that.

In any case, I think that there is an easy solution:

Don't put it in the infobox, but replace one of the photos in the history section with one of the many flags of the Greek revolution with the motto, and explain the importance and the historicity of the latter in the caption. In wikipedia only one such flag is saved: the one of Diakos, but it is not the only [28] [29], and it is not the most famous.

In this way, you'll both be ok with "formalities", and, at the same time, a motto, which clearly should be presented in the article, will find a place it deserves. The sourcing of course should be the appropriate (I don't have access here to printed sources, but I believe that GK1973 and others are capable of properly referencing the caption), and in copyright issues, Fut.Perf.'s presence constitutes a guarantee. At the end of the day, let's make for once Horo's day! Up to now, the only thing we unfortunately achieve is to continuously embitter him, and he/she is the last person to deserve that!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, image with suitable caption in the history section works for me. (Although personally I find each of the existing images in that section more valuable than I'd find this one, but that's just my personal taste.) As for uploading, if you have authentic faithful representations of the 19th-century flags somewhere, they'd go under {{

PD-old}} so we are in the green uploading them. Fut.Perf. ☼

15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks fought and gained their independence under the moto 'Freedom or Death'. It is widely displayed during national days, especially 25 March. Anyone has any pictures? In this respect we could see it as being, unofficially the official motto, and only perhaps as officially the official moto - for instance it is not in the constitution. Politis (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For flags see my uploads above. Some are direct photographs from Greek revolutionary flags displayed in museums. As such, I think they are not copyrighted. I also don;t know what the situation is in Greece with images from government sources. Are they also considered public domain? GK1973 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on all evidence/arguments furnished above, the original issue (on the motto) may be solved as follows: Since the EU parliament officially accepts the motto for Greece being "Liberty or Death", one can only conclude that this is the result of an official submission by the Greek government (Greece). Therefore, the same motto may be included in the relevant article (why not in the infobox?), with EU as the source, until a better source may be found. (Otherwise, if an author/editor of an article is not allowed to use logical process as a personal contribution to an article, then wikipedia may, as well, program a robot to synthesize articles by mechanically collating information available according to pre-programed rules, which definitely is not the essence and goal of wikipedia). Esem0 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Right or wrong, over the last year or so "logical processes" have been excluded as a means of writing articles here. When I first edited, this was not the case, but that is the current evolution of Wikipedia--no original research, no synthesis, everything verifiable in published (preferably secondary and not primary) sources. That's just the way it is right now. I'm the authority on a family of languages, but I can't put my own work in Wikipedia on those languages--I've got to cite sources. (Taivo (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Since we have a source I think we should use it unless there's a clear argument that the source is either unreliable or the info is false (I haven't seen either and of course Greece would correct such info if incorrect so I think we can safely assume is correct) -- I would still like to see a Greek official source on that, like a Parliament proclamation or using it on money or other state signs... but, otherwise I'm perfectly fine with having into the infobox if Greece is content with having that info on EU Parliament site.

man with one red shoe

02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the EU source establishes that the motto is the official motto of Greece (or an official motto of Greece). It's plausible that the EU source gives the motto because of "an official submission by the Greek government", but this is still

WP:OR

and shouldn't be used to justify article content (and there might be another possible explanation). If it were an official motto of the Greek state, established through legislation or its use on state symbols such as a flag, coinage, a state seal, etc., I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't have found a source that says so by now. As far as I can tell, Greek government websites don't use the motto, and that suggests that the motto is unofficial. I think Yannismarrou's suggestion above is a good one.

Seal of the United States and therefore gets used on passports, etc.--but it was never declared a motto by law. So one possibility is putting "Eleftheria i thanatos" in as a traditional or unofficial motto. --Akhilleus (talk

) 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Our own article Eleftheria i thanatos calls it the national motto of Greece. It even has citations about it. It also mentions (with citation) that the nine stripes of the Greek flag stand for the nine syllables of the expression. Either we AfD the article or put the motto in the box. Dr.K. logos 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference is "The International Flag Book in Color", doesn't seem to be the type of reliable source that we look for that shows where the Greek parliament of government declare the motto "official", also note that the article says that "is the motto of Greece" not "it's the official motto of Greece" (but I'm probably splitting hair here). Also... Wikipedia is not a reliable source, is irrelevant what is said in other articles.

man with one red shoe

04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully, because I never claimed that we should use another article of Wikipedia as reference. I just said that the article has citations. If the citations are not good then of course we can't export the info to other articles. As far as being the official motto, the infobox in the USA article mentions the motto and in brackets it qualifies it as official. This means, in my opinion, that a motto, in order to be included in the infobox does not necessarily have to be official, otherwise the qualification: "(official)" is not needed. Dr.K. logos 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we put it into the infobox without any designation as official or traditional, since there is some uncertainty as to its exact status, but since the infobox does not require any particular qualification, I think we are free to do so. And, of course, freedom is a good thing. Dr.K. logos 05:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the national motto. National mottos don't have the need for recognition by presidential decrees or other type of legislation. Nations exist even without official recognition. Nations are not subject to legislation, but to the will of the people. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think is fine to put it in the infobox regardless of official/nonofficial status, it seems to be referenced enough and reasonable accepted as such by Greeks and apparently by state since it appears on EU site.

man with one red shoe

13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I remain strictly opposed to putting it anywhere near the flag, CoA and anthem, where it suggests it has a status comparable to theirs, when clearly it hasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this too... man, how many times I'm going to change my mind about this...

man with one red shoe

13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you put your red shoe on the wrong foot today? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope.

man with one red shoe

20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FP, you remain opposed. That's your POV. This is the national motto and you didn't prove that national mottos have to be "officially recognized" by presidential decrees, laws or any other type of legislation. What you suggest that a national motto "suggests", is irrelevant. If Wikipedia agrees that national mottos have to have "official recognition", then and only then your actions are justified. Since this is not the case, please restore it. I'm asking you to do so. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FP and I also propose that we go through the relative list and check the official status of all mottos given there. Should there not be official mentioning of these mottos in their Constitutions, I vote to remove them all. And of course coins, seals and coats of arms of older times should not be considered an official statement of these countries that these mottos are THE official mottos. Only official legislation should matter, since else, we just come to the conclusion that they are nothing but ONE of their official mottos. GK1973 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom has 'Dieu et Mon Droit' as its motto, but then it is not in the constitution because the UK has no constitution. Do we remove it? Food for thought: the French Liberté, égalité, fraternité has its own article in English wiki, perhaps the same can be done for Eleftheria i Thanatos? Politis (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should remove it... oh.. Eleutheria i thanatos dos have its own article in Wiki. GK1973 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK the, Fut.Perf can go and remove it just to be consistent. I am sure they will love him for it and offer no counter-arguments. Politis (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I want to "remove" that article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the article, just the motto.Politis (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From where?? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean from the United Kingdom article. It is totally unsourced there, the citation only reads: "This is the royal motto" and then goes own about only the Scotland part. So go own, be bold and remove the motto from the United Kingdom wikibox with all this wikilawyering rational you laid out. Tell it to the British editors there. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

'Dieu et Mon Droit' appears on the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. It is quite visible at the bottom, I don't think that is "unsourced".Gingervlad (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

About "Eleftheria_i_thanatos". Here are some sources I gathered for everyone's consideration: *User:Shadowmorph/Eleftheria_i_thanatos. I particularly like the Vatican citation (The Pope himself, don't think he would lie about it) in the presence of official Greece, addressing the ambassador. An exceptional source. Not a second one needed by me.

• ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO THE NEW AMBASSADOR OF GREECE TO THE HOLY SEE:Your country’s motto, "My power is the love of my people. Freedom or death", bears perennial witness to the commitment of the Hellenic Republic to the defence of the universal principles on which genuine freedom is based.

Please check the other sources, too.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the UK motto is part of the royal coat of arms, just look at the picture. And either the Vatican is confused or we are, because the pope is actually speaking about a different motto, if you read a bit more carefully. "My power is the love of my people"? LOL, "Ισχύς μου η Αγάπη του Λαού" was the motto of the freaking

Glucksburg dynasty. The pope can't have researched that very deeply, now, can he, if he thought that was still the motto in 1992. (If he'd said that in 2009, I'd suspect he researched it on Wikipedia...) Fut.Perf. ☼

13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Twice dude, Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the British Monarch. Ισχύς μου η Αγάπη του Λαού was also on the Coast of Arms of the Kingdom of Greece but these are not national mottos. Politis (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, Shadowmorph, but did you actually say that if the pope says it, it must be true? Please don't tell me that Wikipedia must now list papal declarations as reliable sources above all others. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Please, can somebody find out what are the wikipedia rules for filling in

I'm afraid there's not much in the way of fixed "rules" for such matters. The community makes up the rules as it goes along. Somebody invents an infobox template with certain fields in it because they think it's a good idea, and then people just use it in whatever way makes sense to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if there are no fixed rules and as the British example indicates a motto can be used without having to be officially declared as such, the only thing preventing us from doing what everybody else does is what? Dr.K. logos 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source which says that it is the "official motto" of Greece; or a label "unofficial" combined with a footnote including the evidence. (A regimental motto, even one with national historic significance, is not a national motto; Don't Give Up the Ship is the motto of the Niagara, not the United States.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no such footnotes in the British USA article, and it even features an unofficial (traditional) moto. Te Greek motto is definitely national. But I could settle for a qualifying label in this case. Dr.K. logos 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please look at footnote 1 to United Kingdom. The factuality of that claim is undisputed; if it were disputed, it would be easy to establish (from Boutell's Heraldry, for example). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I rephrased above. But the British footnote is actually not a real citation. And to use Boutell's Heraldry to establish it, as you suggest, is

WP:OR. Dr.K. logos

19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not

WP:OR to look at a photo or drawing and to describe what is in it. (Taivo (talk

) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

• Nor is it necessary. Doctor, please retract that claim of OR; read Boutell's words on the Royal Motto; the current edition says much the same thing, but is less readily available. This is citation, what FP asks of those who would include Eleutheria here.
• Similarly, it is not difficult to find evidence that E Pluribus Unum stood, and still stands, on the Great Seal of the United States.
• Where is the corresponding source for the assertion you would make here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(-edit conflicts-):Everybody here that says that the national motto at the UK is verified hasn't looked at the citations. There aren't any. Just because the motto appears in the coat of arms, that is not enough someone would say (I don't believe that, I don't think we need official recognition for widely used mottos). The royal coat of arms also includes the text "HONI SOIT [QUI] MAL [Y] PENSE" ("Shamed be he who thinks ill of it"), but that phrase does not appear as the national motto. Is there a citation at the UK article that says "The United kingdom officialy recognizes « DIEU · ET [·] MON · DROIT » as its national motto"? No. Because that kind of citation is what is asked for Greece in a strict and authoritative Wikilawyering way by the "World" Wikijudges here. I mean how many exceptions to Wikipedia common practice are we going to artificially present just to oppose "The Greeks"?

@Taivo: Why do you continuously insult me? I didn't say that Wikipedia should accept the Pope as an ultimate truth. I said he wouldn't lie about that. That is of course irrelevant since the Vatican addressing the ambassador of Greece is a reliable outside source. I was asked to give some sources. There are others in my userspace page. All of them are neutral outsiders and say "Freedom or Death is the national motto of Greece". The reason I gave the example of the Vatican citation first is becauset it is an official occasion where official Greece was addressed. Furthermore the text says explicitly that it is the "motto of Greece". What was advocated here is that even if I've given a 2009 source from the Vatican (or any other country) then it would be rejected because "The Pope probably has read it in Wikipedia"??? I mean what else am I going to hear here? Yes the source might be wrong. Still it is a legitimate source and it is about an official occasion. It is very difficult to find a source "in the internet" that says that Greece officially uses the motto but I can assure you that every 25th of March it is used throught the country in schools and in the official celebrations and the parades. I mean has anyone here provided any source to the other case? I mean shouldn't Fut.Perf. who removed the motto that has its own

Where is that source??? Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That was no insult, Shadowmorph, but when you make a comment along the lines of "since the pope doesn't lie and he said X, then X must be true and that is the highest sort of source", then one must question your understanding of

reliable source. You don't have to pull a source off the internet. There are actually books that can be referenced. Indeed, Wikipedia prefers reliable printed sources over anything pulled off the internet. Go to the library and find a reference. (Taivo (talk

) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately Greece hasn't got such a wonderful digitized gallery of sources in as the US or the UK. There is more text on the back of the US Great Seal. "Ordo..." . Is that the US national motto too? I couldn't find any sentence in those citations by PMAnderson that calls those mottos as "the national motto". Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I didn't see these sentences calling it national or anything else either. Dr.K. logos 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I tried to check Boutell's book but the search function did not bring anything up. Obviously I don't know exactly how Boutell covers the British motto but I trust you Sep. that indeed he does. What I meant by

WP:OR is that if Boutell does not come out explicitly to call the motto "official" and if he just calls it "royal" then it is not up to us to determine by inference that it is official. That's all. So please calm down. This is a talk page and my suggestion of OR was not meant to apply personally to anyone, especially since I cannot examine the reference. Anyway the point is moot. I don't have the book so I cannot intelligently comment on its findings. As far as Taivo's comment I have to say it is pragmatic, but still we are not reporters here. Therefore someone else, ideally, must call the motto "official" or "constitutional", picture or no picture. Dr.K. logos

20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• (left) United Kingdom claims, precisely, that Dieu et mon droit is the royal motto.
• So does Boutell; the words of the page linked to are (no search function needed):

  The Royal Mottoes of England are— Christo duce used by Richard I.;Dieu et mon droit the ancient Royal war-cry, first assumed as a regular Motto by Henry VI.; Veritas temporis filia, Mary; Rosa sine spina, Semper eadem (in addition to the established Royal motto), Elizabeth ; Beati pacifici, James I. Since this time, Dieu et mon droit has been the permanent Motto of the Sovereigns of England.

This discussion has been most informative as to the roots of the Macedonian imbroglio. Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I still can't get to the quote you provided from the link. I can only see the standard Google biblio description but no content info comes up. But I believe you. But from your quote: Dieu et mon droit has been the permanent Motto of the Sovereigns of England. Sorry but the citation still does not say it is the "official" motto as opposed to an unofficial or traditional one. So, unfortunately we are back at square one. As far as your Macedonia inbroglio comments, did you think that they apply somehow to me? I think I can just say the exact same thing about the "other side" of this debate as well. So, good try, but no cigar, unfortunately. Even though, talking about Macedonia, I suspect that the current discussion may well be Future's ploy to keep us occupied with unrelated and rather silly discussions about mottoes and infoboxes, things he actually hates, to keep us from following the Macedonia 2 case closely. Proof: Future is on record as stating that he hates infoboxes and wants them to burn. So how come all of a sudden he has become the champion of uncompromising standards on the very things he hates? But, still, don't quote me on that. Dr.K. logos 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I hate infoboxes, and this discussion demonstrates yet again why. If the issue came up in normal running text, we'd have no problem at all: we'd just describe the motto as what it is and be done with it. But the reductionist format of the tabular fact sheet doesn't give us that freedom; it forces a specific arrangement on us with its unspoken implications and no space for hedging or explanation, and forces us to make a binary decision: either the motto is something comparable in status to the flag and anthem, or it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a great pic. Thanks. But I don't need a reminder. This picture is eternally (infernally) etched in my memory. I happen to agree with you as to the preferred final destination of the infoboxes. Also I think that you read too much in this, unnecessarily. I don't think that "unspoken implications" are a deal breaker here since if you worry about them we could just put the word "traditional" in brackets and that would solve the problem. Dr.K. logos 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Future Perfect; but I will settle for evidence that Eleutheria... is used by the Greek state to represent itself. All four of the comparable mottoes are, and New Hampshire adopted "Live Free or Die" by legislative action and uses the motto on its license plates. If you have a comparable source, serve it forth. If you don't, admit it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sep., Greece is a different culture. They don't have personalised plates and the concept of mottoes is not so widespread as in other countries. So they are not as inclined to plaster mottoes all over the place like our other friends. In the same spirit apparently the state has neglected to enact motto enabling legislation. Mottoes are simply not given the same priority in Greece as they are in other countries. But still there are good sources available, like the Europarliament website. Now, if only Future abandoned his semi-evil plan....Dr.K. logos 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Greece doesn't use it as an official motto in the sense that other countries do theirs. That's fine; there's no reason that so old a state need have all the bric-a-brac that the countries formed since 1945 have adopted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of motto in the article

It seems to me that no more information is needed to arrive at this conclusion: Since the only "rule" for inclusion of mottos in the infobox of countries is some sort of uniformity ('The community makes up the rules as it goes along" per FP, not only FP's own rule), since no binding WP rule exists that a motto may be included only by way of the country's constitution (or other explicit legislation), since by "official" or not, by tradition, or by custom, or by association/implication, or by government practice or by defacto situation are all ways/practices in determining a country's motto, then it has been shown that "Liberty or Death" (and/or its Greek translation) is the motto for Greece. Along with several good sources provided, I think the EU Parliament source is a most appropriate for obvious reasons (EU is an active real union of countries and it can't have it wrong for a lengthy period of time). I understand that the WP rule on providing reliable sources aims at upholding/protecting the veracity of information in an article. This rule should not be applied mechanically without regard to its ultimate purpose. One may not arbitrarily dismiss, or select, or manipulate the type of sources only to promote a POV. Let's use common sense: Let's include the said motto in the infobox, because it abides by the WP rules and, in the unlikely event that this is false information, we can be sure that the Greek government will find ways to have it rectified. This is not a trivial matter for a country/nation. The ultimate goal of wikipedia, namely, veracity is thus safeguarded. Therefore, I propose that this discussion has now matured enough and it may come to an end by allowing the said motto in the infobox. Editors may indicate their agreement, at last, by signing below with an Amen, or otherwise, if they opt. Esem0 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Dr.K. logos 04:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Conditional (if it has "(unofficial)" disclaimer) I don't agree, the goal is verifiable accuracy and the problem here is exactly this how accurate is to present that as a national motto next to the symbols of the state giving the impression that this is a motto adopted by the state when I don't see any proof that it is.
  man with one red shoe
  05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I find it peculiar that even though all Greek editors insist that it has the force, by custom and sentiment, of a national motto, it is not accepted. Unlike other countries, Greece does not have an obsession with state symbols and their regulation, and is rather more nonchalant about them (the shade of blue in the national flag for instance has never been regulated). True, the motto may not be officially employed by the state as such, but if someone asked an average person on the street "what is your national motto", that's what he'd choose. After all, that is the supposed orignin of the nine stripes in the Greek flag. For veracity's sake, let's add an "(unofficial)" after it and be done. Constantine ✍ 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, should original research be accepted because of the nationality of the editors? I do agree with adding (unofficial) after it if it ends up being added, that's probably an acceptable solution.

man with one red shoe

05:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The nationality is quite pertinent to the present issue: in a question related to Greece and how Greeks view a certain thing, all Greeks present here agree. Granted, Greek WP-editors are not a statistically representative group of the Greek population at large, but it should be an indicator as to which way the wind blows in Greece (it was used this way in the whole Macedonia issue, after all). But somehow, it must be "proven" that what they agree on is true. I repeat that the motto is seen that way "by force of custom and sentiment", not of law. Greece is not an exception here: he same holds true for

God Save the Queen, and, for along time, the The Star-Spangled Banner. Anyway, with the addition of the "unofficial", I think we satisfy all sides. Constantine ✍

06:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Star-Spangled Banner" and "God Save the Queen" are legitimate official anthems because they are used as that, by the states in question. "Eleftheria i thanatos" is not used by the Greek state. The infobox entry is about the state and its symbols, not about what people in the street think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

These examples also show, speaking of anthems, that while the Greek National Anthem IS listed on the official government website, the motto is not.Gingervlad (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's because different states have different rules and the recognition of national mottos by any type of legislation, is not a necessity but a choice. While flags and state symbols are different beasts and may be WIPO protected, a nation reduces its national motto if it feels that it should be subject to legislation ("Woohoo, we legislated on Freedom! Now it's official! We REALLY believe it!"). And how about atheists in the USA? Are they part of the nation? Should they trust God, because... you know, after all it's "official"? Let's be honest. Amidst the Macedonia 2 case proceedings, it was not the most constructive edit to do. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per Constantine and any Greek who finished grade school. Furthermore because the
  Wp:Burden of evidence should lie at the ones advocating to remove it even thought there are many sources to include it. And also because many outside vexillology expert sources and other outsiders (I gathered some in this page) have established the connection to the current flag and also say that "Freedom or Death is the national motto of Greece" and appears in multiple historical Greek flags. Also the motto is widely used today in national celebrations. No problem by me with adding a comment about the "unofficial" qualifier in a footnote. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}
  08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

in the Hymn to Libery:. The Greek state might not use Great Seals like the US but it has the Hymn to Liberty as a state symbol (the national anthem derives from there), the Greek nation traditionally holds that poem in very high regard. Read the sixth stanza: "Seeking Freedom or Death" in the English translation by Rudyard Kipling. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I am only quoting this because people have asked if "Freedom or Death" is appearing in popular and official symbols of the Greek nation, in addition to flags like this & this - Shadowmorph ^{^"^})

• Oppose. Being Greek has nothing to do with knowing a motto. All Americans know "Remember the Alamo," "Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead," "I Have Not Yet Begun to Fight," "I Regret that I Have But One Life to Give for My Country," etc., and learn them in grade school (as Shadowmorph says), but none of these is the official motto of the United States. Wikipedia is not about being a native speaker and sharing your knowledge of Greek, it's not about being an American and sharing your knowledge about American history, it's not about anything at all that you "just know, like everyone else". It's about reliable, verifiable information. So far, I have no doubt that this motto is known by most, if not all Greeks, and that they use it personally. But so far there hasn't been any reliable, verifiable information to prove that this is the official motto of Greece. (Taivo (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Or even "

man with one red shoe

12:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the European Union (see below) qualify as "reliable, verifiable information"? Don't the vexillology sources do? Please check all the other sources I provided too. Wikipedia also isn't about anyone's particular preference about the kind of source he would like most.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The EU's Webmaster is a model of a tertiary source; a real secondary source would be drawn from primary documents of its usage, and interpret them so as to explain where it is used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do people continue to fail to get the point? If that is an official motto of Greece one would expect to find primary and secondary sources (Greek legislation, state symbols, etc) not third hand references, from this point of view, no it's not a good source.

man with one red shoe

16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, other mottos are waiting for you to remove them on the same grounds. Besides you did support to include it with "(unofficial)" next to it, didn't you? Why don't you change your vote to that conditional support? That's what is done with one of the two mottos of

US. It is included although it is "traditional" and never had any legistlation passing it (see my comment below).Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'm tired of the OTHERCRAPEXIST on Wikipedia kind of argument, be my guest and correct other pages if they are wrong. Changed my position to "conditional", I'm fine with it if it mentions that's not official motto.

man with one red shoe

17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I could start with United States infobox. I have the feeling my edit won't stay for one month (make that 42 seconds) simply because that page is not protected. However I wouldn't like to take the credit from Taivo who said that "but none of these is the official motto of the United States" therefore "E Pluribus Unum" should not appear in the US infobox because it is not THE official motto of the United States (it just appears here and there). I could better try first Iraq infobox which is unsourced and also not edit protected :D (disclaimer: I'm joking, not going to WP:POINT-bomb anything). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral Support. The European Parliament link provided below by Septentrionalis seems clear evidence [30]. Those who oppose will surely change their vote now...? I say neutral even though many of the arguments from the 'oppose' camp offer dumb reasons that have a whiff of anti-Greekness rather than persuasive arugments. If the 'oppose' section win, I will call on them to delete other mottos from the infobox. Politis (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The

"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but I think someone said the Vatican doesn't, even when officially addressing the Greek embassy ( well, ok there might be some truth in that about the Pope :D ) Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Suport Agree with politis. EU website trumps Fut perfect in my opinion. Reaper7 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I will start compiling a list of country mottos to be deleted in the case those arguments win. I would except the ones posing them to remove the mottos themselves. If anyone asks why, they can direct the editors to this (parody of a) discussion for the Wikilawyering details. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

...starting from France - ...all the way to Uruguay (also 'Liberty or Death'), Venezuela, Vietnam and Wales :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read

WP:POINT first. That is precisely the sort of point-making in revenge it is written to discourage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey I haven't done it!!! I know how POINTy that would be. It's a joke! Actually Taivo and man should do it for constistency with their voting. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, it's very simple. If you were blinded about the proper use of your country's national motto and this discussion was informative, you should improve Wikipedia by applying the principles you've learned here to all remaining articles. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The European Parliament web site is a reliable source http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/text/greece.htm;jsessionid=CC4F5928B3A76DA0C9DCD612F1961C2C.node2?country=GR&language=EN , also here Eleftheria i thanatos we have two more sources. If it's o.k to use the traditional unofficial motto of the United States, then it's more than o.k to use this one too. --xvvx (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • E pluribus unum is not unofficial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never codified by law, 'E pluribus unum' was considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956"

The United States article says it is only traditional (the official is "in God we trust"). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is used, officially, by the Federal Government, as the sources (and any passing dollar bill) show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter according to the people opposing here. It is not the official motto, another one is. It shouldn't be in the infobox they, shall I go and vandalizeremove it according to policy?. Besides, why can't we include the Greek motto with (unofficial) or (traditional) next to it like the US article does? Is anyone here saying (without sourcing) that Eleftheria i Thanatos is not even traditional? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Of course I would never do that. Oh, the AGF! Please nobody pre-emptively accuse me of WP:POINT again because of a joke, ok? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to have sources for what we include, not for what we omit. If it were indeed the case that every Greek schoolchild is taught this is the national motto, it would not be hard to find a written source that says exactly that; such a source would also provide one of the chief services our articles can do: give him somewhere to go for more information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "Freedom or Death is the national motto of Greece" actually is

"attributed to a reliable, published source" (e.g. the EU or a dozen of sources with that exact quote), but someone calls for Greek official sources although the words "official motto" are not used and even more we can still add "(unofficial)" if we want to. Oh, and what is the policy on removing sourced information? (there were sources in the motto's article) Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG says that claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions... ... especially in history,politics... should be supported by exceptional sources. Well I think Greeks are the relevant community here so an exceptional source that says "Freedom or death is really not the national motto of Greece" is needed to keep Future Perfects deletion of the motto from the article. (Disclaimer:I am responding to the question about who should have provided a source to remove it on the first place, since the fact that 'Freedom or Death is the national motto of Greece' is unquestionably the prevailing view). Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

I could direct you to the book "Γεωγραφία Β' Γυμνασίου" or "«Κείμενα Νεοελληνικής Λογοτεχνίας», Α΄ Γυμνασίου", page 159: "ελευθεριά ή θάνατος" taught in schools (officially of course), but that wouldn't be directly verifiable to you, would it mr. Anderson?. Here is a quote from a reliable third party commentary of the Greek educational system:"Today's youth is loyal to the national slogan "Freedom or Death" (disclaimer:I am only quoting the above because I was asked to, I don't think those sources are necessary or appropriate)[31]Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Get rid of the nitwit infobox and persuade our fellow editors that the Greeks have no need to keep up with the Jones. We don't need to have a motto just because we have a slot for one; the conviction that one must list a motto for every state, whether it has one or not, has produced several of these "sources" (and oppose until evidence of use by the Greek state to represent itself, as E pluribus unum is in fact used by the United States, or otherwise). Even a source that it is widely used now (unlike
  Don't tread on me) might be usable; a secondary source - not a tertiary one - would be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I support rules that apply equally and I oppose provocation. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose.. True to the new spirit we seem to advocate, I cannot but agree that we should not only NOT include this motto in the infobox of Greece, but that we should all together form a workshop to correct any such unsourced or misplaced insertions throughout Wikipedia... I would also propose that the same be done regarding hatlinks, names of countries and other nationalistic ramblings that poison our NPOVness... GK1973 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The above seems more like a comment Ok but still: Come on, cast your real vote not the ironic one :D Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A comment? Everybody includes comments in their votes, so did I... Sorry Shadowmorph, but I am really baffled as to how I should treat certain issues anymore. If sometimes I sound ironic, this happens because I feel overshadowed by those who have mastered NPOV editing. I'm just trying to learn.. So, I think I will stick to my vote for the time being. GK1973 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok :) then let me direct you to these reliable outside sources that have NO POV in any way.

• A vexillology book, The international flag book in color
• Firefly World Factbook
• Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice.

We can use these NPOV sources. Some will call them second-hand because they are not Greek but if I gave you Greek sources then they would be called nationalists and unreliable POV. This is a

"Catch 22" situation.Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

05:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we have? The Vatican speech is obviously unreliable; it cited two mottos, it got one of them obviously wrong, so we can't rely on the other either. The European Parliament site is an unofficial popular factsheet with no documentation of its sources and inclusion criteria, and it has a few other questionable entries too (it includes a motto for Latvia for which I can also find no independent verification, it misses the royal motto of the British monarchy while including those of the Netherlands and the Skandinavian monarchies; and it also misses the Spanish one, which has watertight official status.) Of the books above, the International Flag Book in Color only perpetuates the old story that the stripes of the flag are "said to represent" the nine syllables, without any further verification and without further explaining the status of the motto itself. The Firefly World Factbook has the same story about the flag, but doesn't even call the motto a motto, but only a "battle-cry". The Nation Branding book, finally, cites the claim about the national motto – from Wikipedia! – None of these is useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"said to represent" the stripes in the flag (true, that is contested). But the book doesn't question the national status of the motto, where it would have read "said to be the national motto of Greece" but it reads "the national motto of Greece". If you don't think the EU site to be reliable then I don't know what an outside reliable source is to you. The vexillology (flag experts) site Flags Of The World explain the status of the motto "...the current national motto of Greece", This motto is now the national motto of Greece and they have citations to indicate that they verified it. If indeed Firefly World Factbook "Nation Branding" book cites Wikipedia then sorry, I didn't see it. Can you give a quotation that it cites Wikipedia on that please? Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Here is one additional source: "the nation's motto Eleutheria 'e thanatos (Freedom or death)" from Global graphics: symbols, Anistatia R. Miller, Jared M. Brown, Cheryl Dangel Cullen. quotation from page 119: "the nation's motto Eleutheria 'e thanatos (Freedom or death)". I am still waiting for your sources to the contrary for your

"claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions... ... especially in history,politics..." Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another additional source is Worldatlas.com (which is used as a reference all around Wikipedia), for Greece it says: National Motto: (Eleftheria i thanatos) "Freedom or Death"

And I'm still waiting for a counter argument for including the motto with "(traditional)" next to it, like the US page does for one of its mottos. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Flags of the World" website is quite obviously another non-reliable source. Shadowmorph, you have shown through your aggressive tagging on other articles that you are perfectly aware of what counts as reliable sources and what doesn't. The fact that you aggressively challenge sources as non-reliable whenever it suits you, and equally aggressively push non-reliable sources whenever it suits you elsewhere, shows you are on a disruptive tendentious battleground editing spree. I am considering putting in another last-minute proposal about you at the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the

Flags of the World article on Wikipedia please. I hold it to be reliable. We disagree on that. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FutPerf ignores official

EU

and we know this to be an official source. User FuturePerfect is an administrator and has aggressively challenged that source. I put it to you that it is not the first time you challenge sources as non-reliable whenever it suits you – and heaven knows why over this motto business? (Actually, I can suspect why_. Your arguments for rejecting that source are POV. Stop threatening editors with Arbcom; in my view if you do not straighten your act, someone will have to report you to Arbcom.

For the record, I was neutral on the issue of the motto. But when we were presented with the European Parliament source, I had to support (though I really don’t care, but I had committed myself with a neutral vote). So FuturePerfect, get useful and stop obstructing! Politis (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)