Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 26

Why does the Prespa agreement avoid the adjective "North Macedonian"?

This may be mostly a matter of personal curiosity, but it might also be informative for all the ongoing discussions about demonyms, adjectival forms etc. we've had here: Has anybody seen a reliably sourced explanation anywhere about exactly why the Prespa Agreement seems so eager to avoid the adjectival form "North Macedonian"? In the two passages in the treaty where that adjective would be expected, about the "adjectival reference" to the state and about the nationality, the treaty goes to great lengths prescribing different, and rather cumbersome, forms. For the nationality, it prescribes the strange double form "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"; for the "adjectival reference", it prescribes the possessive construction "of North Macedonia" (even going so far as to bend the terms of English grammar, calling something "adjectival" that grammatically quite plainly isn't). In both places, it seems as if the authors were trying hard to avoid what in English would be the obvious, natural adjectival derivative of a state called "North Macedonia": "North Macedonian". Does anybody know why? Personally, I cannot think of any reason why either side would see any political problem with the implications of that adjective (once the noun "North Macedonia" is accepted). Is it just that either the Macedonian or the Greek language don't have a ready adjectival equivalent of a compound adjective like "North Macedonian"? (In Greek you could certainly form "βορειομακεδονικός" or "βορειομακεδόνας", couldn't you?)

Please don't misunderstand this thread as an invitation to discuss whether we in Wikipedia should feel free to use the natural adjective; obviously we should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• In both languages the adjectival version is natural, the treaty deliberately tries to aviod it. That is most probably because there needs to be a clear distinction between government organs and nationality, because only for the latter is plain "Macedonian" allowed. Antondimak (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is a straightforward answer to this question, but it seems that it was part of the negotiation. Zoran Zaev has been stating We are not becoming North-Macedonians because it is clearly designated that we are Macedonians, who speak the Macedonian language. Some Greek media, various analysts and even the Head of the Greek opposition have accused Alexis Tsipra for bad negotiation skills on failing to impose the use of the term "North Macedonian" in the agreement. They all do acknowledge though that the agreement does not enter the term "North Macedonians" into wide public use, as Tsipras also does himself. My personal opinion is that there are 2 reasons for avoiding the explicit use of the term: the need of the citizens of North Macedonia to retain their self-identification and the fear that a possible concept of a divided nation of "North" and "South" Macedonians will emerge and will not eliminate various irredentist claims (such as this one). --Argean (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

PS. In Greek I'm tempted to use the term "Βορειομακεδόνες", because there is no easy alternative and I don't know if it will cause major controversies (although some with more nationalist positions even reject this term [1]). I've been using the term "Σλαβομακεδόνες" when trying to be neutral in my native language. But in English I feel very awkward to use the term "North Macedonians" and prepared to hear the question: "Are you a South Macedonian then?". --Argean (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The adjective North Macedonian implies that the nation is called North Macedonian, and that is strongly avoided with the agreement, the nation remained Macedonian and the nationality is Macedonian / citizens of North Macedonia while the adjective for the government institutions will be 'of North Macedonia' which is logical as to avoid mix ups. I also think Wikipedia should abide these rules and use 'of North Macedonia' wherever possible.Macedonicus (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how North Macedonian implies that the nation is called North Macedonian. North Macedonian is the adjective to North Macedonia like South Dakotan is the adjective to South Dakota. Though Hungary's foreign ministry seems a bit confused. --Michail (blah) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Hungarian MFA just made a typo. By the way since we are opening the discussion on demonyms I would like to add a source that presents a more scientific approach on the definition of demonyms including nationality-based demonyms and other types of demonyms that include state-based demonyms, such the example of South Dakotans. I'm not sure how we can combine the use of a nationality-based demonym "Macedonians" and a geographic/state-based demonym "North Macedonians" to refer to the same people, without implying that the geographic demonym is part of a greater "Macedonian" nation. The renaming issue has always been a complicated matter and hindered by various nationalistic and irredentist claims [2]. The view that Greek Macedonia should be renamed to "South Macedonia" to follow the rename of the country to its north, has already been suggested ([3], [4]), and I can see more people wondering in the future if they are in "North" or "South" Macedonia, just like these Americans here (my apologies, the source is in Greek). So I can't see why we want to throw one more complicated issue into question, that the agreement obviously has been trying hard to avoid, and start making people wondering about "North" and "South" Macedonians... --Argean (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean The source you quoted says there are four types of demonyms, including country-based demonyms such as Californians. I'm not saying that North Macedonians should replace Macedonians (ethnic group); I'm saying that in certain circumstances North Macedonian is the natural adjectival form or demonym to be used and in those circumstances Macedonian is not as appropriate. MRT 1 is a North Macedonian TV station but it is not a Macedonian TV station since it is, you know, inanimate and doesn't have a national consciousness. Similarly Zaev is the North Macedonian Prime Minister (you can see it used here and here), but he is also a Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of Macedonia. Zaev can be both; it is a case of what is more relevant? Gruevski's article for example links "Macedonian" to "Republic of Macedonia". This is clearly country-based, so North Macedonian is the correct adjectival form. --Michail (blah) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Philly boy92 I really don't like to argue because we do agree on the use of adjectival forms, but we clearly have a different understanding of the word demonym. Obviously for me it applies only to people (and all the sources that I was able to find and read), but for you it can apply to objects, to institutions, to official organs, to ideas and probably anything else. I will stop having any more objections to follow your definition of "demonym", if you can provide me some good and reliable sources that your definition is the most common and appropriate one. --Argean (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean I am simply trying to establish that the demonym is not used willy nilly as the de facto adjectival reference regardless if whether a demonym or adjectival form of the state is relevant. --Michail (blah) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we please move discussions about the demonym and/or adjectival form into the place it belongs, at WT:MOSMAC? This section was raised due to Fut.Perf. asking a question about why the Prespa avoided "North Macedonian", which others and myself have attempted to answer below. Yes, the difference between demonym/adjectival form needs discussing, but that should take place at WT:MOSMAC.

What about Northern Ireland? Are they Northern Irish? or we just call them Irish? Bes-ARTTalk 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Are they Northern Irish? yes. --Michail (blah) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh that's a great example if you want to make things complicated. I think that 29,4% of the people there will probably agree. I'm not sure how the 48,4% that identify as British and the 29,4% that identify as Irish will feel about that. By the way is there any reason that we don't have a demonym in the infobox of Northern Ireland? --Argean (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

When it is in reference to Northern Ireland as a political entity it is always Northern Irish. Northern Irish as a national identity is complicated and does not apply to everyone. --Michail (blah) 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So is Northern Irish a demonym or an adjectival reference? If it is a demonym (which I don't object since it has been used colloquially, but definitely not officially), is it a nationality-based or a state-based one? Anyway, these are just rhetoric questions. But you made the case obvious, it is a complicated issue, and it will remain such. And I expect the same for the use of "North Macedonian(s)". --Argean (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Michail Then how can a citizen of Carndonagh be called? Is he also a Northern Irish? Or is he a Northern Irish of Ireland while on the other side of the border are Northern Irish of Northern Ireland? On the other hand, the success of this agreement is precisely the non-inclusion of such terms. We all know that a Macedonian (at least the absolute majority) would never accept to be called North Macedonian. Albanians, Serbs, Turks and others are also not considered North Macedonians. Then why should we impose such demonym when they do not accept it, the agreement does not include it and as @Argean said, it has other meaning. Bes-ARTTalk 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bes-ART I don't understand where you are going with this. Northern Irish as an adjective only applies to people or institutions related to Northern Ireland as a state (not to the north of Ireland), and sometimes it applies to some people as a regional identity, although not all people of Northern Ireland are Northern Irish. Nor are they all Irish as you said earlier. What are you trying to say with Northern Ireland? You questioned if we just call them Irish?, which is a very quick way to get into trouble in Belfast. --Michail (blah) 00:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "Northern Ireland" and "northern Ireland". --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Albanian parties in Macedonia won the concession from Zaev that Macedonian would also refer to citizenship (as not everyone belongs to the Macedonian ethnicity in the country) apart from its uses for ethnicity. There was nothing about a "north" being used in reference to the people. This is complicated i admit, but the way its outlined in the Prespa agreement is the way forward. Leaving it as Macedonian (as is now in wiki) is the way to proceed.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• The Irish question can easily be solved by calling them Neo-Goidelic people rather than Northern or Southern Irish. I do not understand how the Irish, let alone the English, a Germanic people, came to think they had the right to call themselves British, thus expropriating the cultural heritage of the Bretons. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with what was just said here by Aymatth2, but I will simply point out that ethnological and linguistic changes that occurred over 1000 years ago can be pretty safely stated to now have been set in stone at this point. The concept that the "English" have 'no right' to call themselves "British" would be considered a fringe view at best. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bretons will doubtless make their position clear when the "British" apply for readmission to the EU. Vive la Bretagne! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Answer to @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and everyone here regarding Prespa Agreement avoiding the adjective "North Macedonian": I happen to know why the adjective North Macedonian for the state was avoided in the Prespa Agreement but I am not sure if I can make everyone understand it - those who do not follow the Balkan political affairs which are notorious for their very complicated nature and mindset/logics, may actually have harder time understanding my explanation. This avoidance was done intentionally, for domestic reasons. The Zaev government was worried that the explicit mention of the adjective North Macedonian in the Prespa Agreement, would give the chance to the opponents (primarily the leading opposition party VMRO-DPMNE which staunchly opposes the Prespa Agreement) to undermine from the start the Zaev's campaign that "We give up on the name Macedonia but everyone recognizes us as Macedonians, even Greece". Due to strong presence of nationalism, political manipulation and prevailing populism in the Balkans, "compromise equalizes betrayal" in the mindset of the Balkan people when it comes to sensitive issues such as identity and heritage, and thus, there were legit fears that the opponents of the Prespa Agreement would spread misinformation about the "North Macedonian" (which refers to the state) being meant to be used for the citizens/ethnic group as well. Zaev was afraid the term North Macedonian would be misunderstood and thus, overshadow the gains of the Prespa Agreement for the Macedonian side, and jeopardise or undermine severely any chances of the Agreement being accepted/tolerated by the public. I apologize for my poor english skills but I tried to explain it as clearly as I remembered.

EDIT: The effort to avoid the adjective "North Macedonian" altogether, may have prevented VMRO-DPMNE in Macedonia from overshadowing the deal's gains for the Macedonian side by accusing Zaev of giving up Macedonian identity to Greeks, but unfortunately, it gave New Democracy in Greece the opportunity to accuse the Tsipras government that he "gave up on erga omnes" which means "North Macedonian" as an adjective for the state. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@✿ SilentResident ✿, Please can you rollback the change made by Kudzu1 since there is no consensus about that. Thanks :) Bes-ARTTalk 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@✿ SilentResident ✿ Oh yes, Bes-ART is right. This was an unexplained and unilateral move and I haven't seen anyone supporting it. --Argean (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary Answer: I have had an interest in this for years and, basically, Greeks overall HATE the northerners using the term "Macedonian" as an ethnicity describing term (for many reasons, but the most important are irredentist), but the greek negotiators and government were willing to swallow this term to come to some kind of an agreement with the northerners. To the northerners they could not give up on the idea of calling themselves "Macedonian", since so much of their identity has been built up around this singular label. So for this, and internal political reasons, they stuck to their guns on this one single point, but compromised on the actual name of the country by adding the "North" qualifier to it, and compromising on the claim they made to link themselves directly to the historic Ancient Macedon state. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said ✿ SilentResident ✿. I've been trying to find a source in English that would contain that information, but you summarized everything very well. At least what has been reported in the Greek media, because I'm sure that there is much more depth around the decision to avoid the explicit use of the term in the agreement. But basically everything is associated with an effort to reduce the potential nationalistic complications in the sensitive Balkan region. And additionally don't forget that Alexis Tsipras has been constantly arguing that with the agreement has managed to eliminate any potential misappropriate use of the term "Macedonian" and any potential irredentist claims - so obviously there have been mutual steps for a compromise that would keep the sensitive balance in the area as intact as possible. And apparently the use of the term "North Macedonian(s)" was a complicated part of this compromise, that was handled (or rather circumvented) with the introduction of complex definitions such as the term used for the nationality and the strange choice of "adjectival reference" to the state, etc. --Argean (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

At least the media do use the term without problem, so we can too, if we reach a consensus and MOSMAC is updated. Edit: Also reverted the edits on the article. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The question posed looks to me as invitation to state the obvious: the term "North Macedonian" is avoided because the "North Macedonian" side would not accept it, and because otherwise the constitutional changes would not have been voted with a 2/3 super majority in the "North Macedonian" Parliament.Yannismarou (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Answer to @Future Perfect at Sunrise:: I think that Argean's and Macedonicus's are to the point. It's basically an identity issue. Ethnic Macedonians, but also other ethnicities that comprise the Macedonian nationality fear that normalizing 'North Macedonian' will eventually spread to to include the people, the language, the culture and other sensitive issues that they have explicitely agreed to remain plain 'Macedonian. I do hope that in the following days the both government(s) reiterate and clarify their positions on the adjectival use. Also, there's no indication so far that North Macedonian is anywhere near to replace 'Macedonian government' in common usage. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not go by what ethnic Macedonians most commonly use, but by what is most common in English. If we start using what the ethnic Macedonians use to refer to themselves as the new standard of WP:COMMONNAME, then it raises questions as to why Wikipedia gets to respect the right of ethnic Macedonians to self-identify as Macedonian and not that of the Macedonians (Greek), who outnumber ethnic Macedonians by a million. North Macedonian is entering the vocabulary as an adjectival reference, and if it becomes dominant then that is what Wikipedia should use, much like it reasoned that it would use Macedonia as the name of the country because it is most common. Also, a google search is not really reliable enough for this issue. How do you filter which of these articles have been published since Friday and not before? If you set the search so that it's limited to last week, the number of results for "the macedonian government" are limited to 6 pages, the same number as "the north macedonian government". It's too early for this. --Michail (blah) 12:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just answering @Future Perfect at Sunrise: question. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa agreement avoid the adjective "North Macedonian just from political reasons, on that way the North Macedonian Government thought that the agreement will pass easier to the ethnic Macedonians. In the agreement there is a just the term of North Macedonia, but there is no any difference for example between the Government of North Macedonia or the North Macedonian Government, practicly is the same and because the media use both terms. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonian ( demonim )

In demonim i believe you should add North Maceonian as well to be more accurate (sinse it was signed by the North Macedonian government) end also to avoid misunderstandings. Mich. Mar. 987 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we still discuss about it. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done Being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Also it is demonym Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia

please change ((other uses|Macedonia)) to ((other uses|Macedonia (disambiguation)((!))Macedonia))

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia and in Albanian, and Republic of North Macedonia no?

Why North Macedonia is written and in Albanian and Republic of North Macedonia no?, should be both or neither. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

The Republic Of North Macedonia 209.249.51.125 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "North Macedonia" is unambiguous and not subject to the political trademarking whims of Greece, who has approved the name. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Not done. The community's consensus in the recent Move Request was overwhelmingly in favor of North Macedonia which is more WP:COMMON than the longer official name and in line with Wikipedia's common practice to favor shorter, more common names over lengthier ones. However this may change, as it is currently being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia).-- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article

[5] according to this "The procedure to complete constitutional changes is lengthy and requires several rounds of voting, with Friday’s being just the first stage. The procedure should be completed by January at the latest." it may not be complete until Jan 2020 70.59.70.125 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

‘January’ in that article refers to January 2019. Libhye (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms

Since Albanian is the co official language maybe we could add "Maqedonas" in the demonyms kinda like how it is on the Switzerland Page? I know it's a bit different but I think it should still say it in Albanian aswell Dark pikachuu (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2019

I'm making the request here because several pages are involved. The redirects listed here need to be updated to go to North Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. However, some edits are pending due to pages having Admin-level protection. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've started unprotecting a few but haven't got through all of them yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Please change "currency = Macedonian denar" to "currency = North Macedonian denar" because according to the Prespa Agreement (Part 1, Article 1, Paragraph 3.f)) "The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name of the Second Party (Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia)". The national currency of the Republic of North Macedonia should be in line with the state's official name. StevenHal (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Please, go to Talk:Macedonian denar and make a wp:move request. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Should the footnote of Albanian Language be: "The Albanian language is co-official at a state level (excluding defense and monetary policy)? Because I read this article which states: "The measure boosts the use of the language at the national level, including in administrative, health, judicial, police, and other official matters." 69.14.238.177 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC open

The RfC on the naming conventions for Macedonia has opened. Please give your opinions about the proposals. Danski454 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Please change the redirect target from "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia". --Fippe (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Commonly known as Macedonia

@Europarliament: it is hardly subjective to state that this country is commonly known as "Macedonia". In fact, "Macedonia" most commonly refers to this country. The Prespa agreement doesn't change that. --Local hero ^talk 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think "remains" is a bit forceful. It's been two weeks. Just remove it altogether: From then until February 2019 its official name was the Republic of Macedonia, more commonly known as Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 20:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I share Local hero's concern that our text shouldn't imply that the name "Macedonia" is completely a thing of the past, which it clearly won't be for quite some time to come. But the sentence in question could be made much more efficient anyway: change ... from which it declared independence in September 1991. From then until February 2019, it was officially the Republic of Macedonia ... to: ... from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia". That sentence will naturally lead on to the next paragraph, about UN admission, the "fYR" thing, and finally Prespa etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's forceful and not in the spirit of the Prespa agreement, but both suggestions - either removing it altogether or making the sentence more efficient - seem appropriate. --Europarliament

Just to make one thing clear: the "spirit" of the Prespa agreement is completely, utterly irrelevant for us. We are not political agents of the governments in question. We report what names are common out there, and we ourselves follow the predominant naming practices in high-quality English-language sources; what political "spirit" these naming practices represent is of absolutely no concern to us, and shouldn't and mustn't be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Remains" or something to that effect, instead of "is sometimes still known as" or something similar, implies that the new name has not caught on and that Macedonia is still the common name; something which is demonstrably not true. --Michail (blah) 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, international organizations, states, and their respective diplomatic missions have been swift to use the new name in their communication. E.g. https://mk.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-skopje-north-macedonia-february-15-2019/ --Europarliament

You might be reading too much into it. It's rather explicit: "remains commonly known as Macedonia". This is simply true and doesn't imply that "North Macedonia" isn't coming into use as well. --Local hero ^talk 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No I'm not, because it's simply not true, as demonstrated above. --Europarliament

What mustn't be forgotten is that firsthand reference to the country IS NOT RESTRICTED only to its own Slavic majority. As far as we Bulgarians and the other ex-Yugoslavs (chiefly Serbs for being over the northern border) are concerned, we're calling it Macedonia, end of story. The idea that one may drive from his home in Blagoevgrad to Delčevo only to report to his Bulgarian friends that he went to "Severna" would just be sardonic and make him stand out as odd. RNM will be confined to official documents and communications (written and verbal), but in shorthand, it is Macedonia both inside and outside the country among the nations relevant to Macedonians' wider society. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And most Greeks will continue calling it Fyrom, but here were are not editing the Bulgarian or Greek wikipedia pages, we are editing the English page. --Europarliament

Well, by that logic I doubt that native English-speakers over the night will start calling the country 'North Macedonia'. Still in the US, Canada, UK and etc. the common name of the country is Macedonia and it will take time for that to change (if it changes...). — Tom^(T2ME) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Europarliament. Greeks call it MANY things but mostly eschew "Macedonia". They call it Skopia, or sometimes "north" by itself. In English it will be referred to as North Macedonia in official contexts, and probably by no name otherwise as this obscure country is one that the average English speaker need never even acknowledge. Most informal mention of it in English will come from its own natives and its surrounding natives: hence Macedonia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But the new name is not mentioned only in official contexts and actually, it looks to have already caught on --Europarliament

It caught on Wikipedia (for the official name of the article). That doesn't mean that English-speakers offline in this world are banning the term 'Macedonia' and use 'North Macedonia' only... So yeah, the common name still definitely remains Macedonia (at least for now) — Tom^(T2ME) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not true. Apart from the international media, I can personally testify that here in Brussels, English speakers, French speakers, German speakers, Spanish speakers, etc. - journalists, academics, civil servants, parliamentarians, military personnel, i.e. people working in and around the EU and NATO - have started using both offline and online the new name. --Europarliament

Dear sir. I don't know how to put this without offending you or without breaching CIVIL so please forgive this remark which follows as it is not directed at you. "Here in Brussels" means shit; its importance is being magnified once again. It may come as a shock to you but many of us (both in Bulgaria and Macedonia) continue to be Pan-Slavic which means Anti-European and subsequently pro-Russian, and go about our lives not giving a monkeys about anything north or west of Slovenia (as Bulgarians we are touched by the tragic loss of Šaban Šaulić yesterday). Not every post-Warsaw Pact citizen wanted to ditch ties with Russia, and not every post-Warsaw Pact citizen wants/wanted membership of NATO/EU. As realists, we know that if not for congealment into NATO and its economic bedfellow the EU, then there would have been no point to the breakup of Yugoslavia and its subsequent wars; no point to the end of Czechoslovakia; no point to the end of the USSR, and no point to the revolutions of Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Poland, or the end of the Germanic Democratic Republic either. "North Macedonia" is merely the latest phase of one country's spaghettification from the gravitational pull of globalism as the regime is dispensing with its past when it was not controlled by the West. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist, but we all know that the old Eastern Bloc per its widest extent was no more about "communism v non-communism" than feudal pyramids were about equality to all subjects. Yes of course it will be North Macedonia in the UN General Assembly, in the Olympics and football tournaments, even in the Eurovision, but officialdom is where it ends. The very fact that you cite your acolytes in Brussels among the alphabet soup of EU first languages is a form of circular reasoning. But for us to whom Macedonia has relevance, when we write in English, it is Macedonia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Edin balgarin Bangalamania please remain civil and do not swear. Of the 52 reliable sources surveyed since 12/2/19 as part of the active active Request for Comment, 45 (86.5%) called the country North Macedonia, and 7 (13.5%) called it Macedonia. 1 in 10 does not constitute “commonly known as Macedonia”. --Michail (blah) 12:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Philly boy. With regards CIVIL. I acknowledge your comment and I was aware that I was crossing a red line, and tried to do so as cautiously as possible. With regards your survey, you have built a straw man here because what you're showing us is MEDIA. Whereas "common" means the ordinary people. I addressed these points in each post. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Essentially what Europarliament and Philly boy92 are saying is that on Feb 12, some refresh signal was sent to every person's brain that removed "Macedonia" from their vocabulary and replaced it with "North Macedonia". Europarliament, you personal testifications are irrelevant but thanks anyway. Search for "Macedonia" anywhere, and you're most likely to get results about the country - not about anything else. I can't believe my edit could be considered inaccurate, much less controversial. --Local hero ^talk 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well that’s a bit irrelevant because WP gauges “common usage” by reliable sources, and it is quite unfortunate indeed that since the name change, these reliable sources are overwhelmingly using North Macedonia. Are we to use any mention of Macedonia published since 1991 to prove that ‘Macedonia’ is common? It was agrees that 12 Feb should be the date from which to start to gauge which usage is common, and it’s not looking too favourably for “Macedonia”. “Still sometimes referred to” is fine. “Commonly known as” not so much. --Michail (blah) 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(This is my final post for this session as I need to get moving) I think I made my point very clearly in the last post on "what is common" vs "what sources use". Just so you know, whilst the topic of "reliable sources" is wholly relative (if you don't believe it, follow the threads on Talk:White Helmets which I quit a long time ago) at the best of times, the spectrum radically increases for this type of enquiry. When selecting common names, I've seen that editors generally open the floodgates and produce Google results - the problem often being that one editor's settings are conveniently configured differently from his opponent and subsequently, his count will be "higher". But putting that aside, if I were to accept your survey on good faith (without checking it), remember that 10% is relatively significant. The point here is that "commonly" doesn't mean "most commonly", whilst "still referred to" means rare (i.e. fringe, buried somewhere but still existing). Then add to it the unequivocal colloquialisms and Macedonia far more commonly refers to the country north of Greece than Oz does Australia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Confusing term "Macedonia" in the article

"In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece signed the Prespa agreement, which stipulates that the country must change its name to Republic of North Macedonia erga omnes."
"The Prespa agreement, signed by Macedonia and Greece on 17 June, saw the country change its name to the Republic of North Macedonia eight months later."

Where "Macedonia" should be replaced by "the Republic of Macedonia" which is the former official name (although not officially recognized by every country and every organization). I do not see the benefit to keep it this way. I understand that in the old article this term functioned for simplicity but now in the new title it only adds confusion. In fact one of the main causes of the dispute between the two countries which ultimately led to the Prespa agreement, was exactly this confusion this naming creates towards third parties. If it is kept like this someone can very reasonably argue that in the same article where "Greek Macedonia" can be similarly replaced by the simpler and also official form "Macedonia".Clicklander (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There never was any confusion, and there is no confusion now. For ten years, we've had a guideline that very clearly says that we prefer the plain name "Macedonia" wherever that is practically unambiguous, and that we use the longer "Republic of Macedonia" where necessary. This has worked fine for our readers for ten years, because in practice in 95% of all cases "Macedonia" simply isn't ambiguous. No reader has ever been confused about it, and there's no reason to assume they would get confused now. The sentence in question is in a context where in the few preceding sentences the same country has been previously referred to under that name (with various additions) a whopping 12 times. No other possible referent of "Macedonia" is mentioned anywhere in that passage. What other "Macedonia" could possibly be meant at that point? The suggestion that any reader might be "confused" about it at that point is plainly absurd.

Let's also be very clear about one thing: Arbcom has been quite explicit that WP:NCMAC is still in force. Wherever changes are not immediately dictated by the recent renamings, we still abide by the existing guideline. And this part of the guideline is not going to change. The current emergent consensus in the naming RfC is clearly that statements in historical contexts will continue to use either "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", and that of course implies they will continue to do so according to the same common-sense principle of good writing: the shorter form where possible, the longer form where necessary. People edit-warring against this consensus can still be topic-banned under Arbcom sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

First demonym: North Macedonian/s, second demonym: Macedonian/s

The thing with the demonym should be resolved on the way how is resolved the demonym about North Korea, there are two demonyms there, the first demonym is North Korean/s, and the second Korean/s, the first is used where we talk about someone who is connected with North Korea, regardless of his/her ethnicity, and the second where we talk about the ethnic Korean/s from North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

In the passport of the North Koreans in the graph for nationality writes: KOREAN, so, just Korean, not North Korean, but the first demonym is not Korean/s, but North Korean/s. And in the passport of the North Macedonians will write just MACEDONIAN (with the add of citizen of Republic of North Macedonia), but that doesn't mean that the first demonym will be Macedonian/s, the first demonym will be North Macedonian/s, just like the first demonym for North Korea is North Korean/s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_passport Sashko1999 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We simply don’t know (yet.) The definition of demonym is fuzzy to begin with. Does it describe residency? Nationality? Citizenship? Tribal affiliation (as the Greek origin suggests), i.e., ethnicity? Many languages don’t even have an equivalent for the English concept (vague as it is.) So what the people of North Macedonia will do has little bearing on how English speakers will describe people from North Macedonia. My guess is that most English speakers will eventually call them North Macedonians, but time will tell. I would argue that we probably shouldn’t have an entry for demonym in the first place; it seems overly prescriptive and therefore against general WP principles. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I oppose the generalized use of the demonym "North Macedonian" as the first choice in the English language and I will try to explain this as clearly as possible. Naming people is very different from naming countries or regions. The common practice is to use a geographic attribute before the name of an ethnic group, to define a person that belongs to a greater divided nation or group. Examples include "North" and "South" Koreans, "North" and "South" Vietnamese, "West" and "East" Germans, "North" and "South" Ossetians, "West" and "East" Bengalis and so on. On the other hand if the demonym doesn't contain the name of an ethnic group, e.g. South Sudanese, South Africans, East Timorese, doesn't imply that these people represent a part of a divided nation. The problem with "North Macedonians" used indiscreetly to describe the people from "North Macedonia" is the co-existence of the term "Macedonians" as a designation of a specific ethnic group. It's very hard to use both "Macedonians" (as an ethnic affiliation) and "North Macedonians" (as a national demonym), without implying that there are also "South Macedonians", which is absolutely misleading. That's why I believe that the use of the term "North Macedonian" has been completely avoided in the Prespa agreement. My proposal is that the use the two terms ("Macedonians" and "North Macedonians") should be based depending on context. So anything that refers to the state, its institutions or the international representation of the country should be described as "North Macedonian", but anything that refers to an individual just as "Macedonian". That means that it's the "Macedonian citizen", but the "North Macedonian Prime Minister" (a Prime Minister is not just a person, is an official organ of the state), the "Macedonian football player", but the "North Macedonia(n) National football team", the "Macedonian singer", but the "North Macedonia(n) entry in the Eurovision Song Contest", etc. I hope that I made my point clear. Argean (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that that's unnecessarily confusing and kind of a convoluted way to approach this. But that's just my opinion, and we'll have to see what the common usage ends up being. For now, I think we list both demonyms in the infobox and I don't particularly care which order they go in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly how I see it. --Local hero ^talk 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the Prespa Agreement, as well as the Republic's new constitutional ammends, the nationality (in terms of citizenship and not ethnicity as strictly stated), changes to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Therefore, keeping the (multicultural) country's demonym (which is derived from the country's name, and is based on nationality and not the ethnicity of the majority group) as simply "Macedonian" is now innacurate and in violation of the Agreement (which also calls for one name for all purposes) and the country's constitution. That being said, to avoid the (necessary but impractical) usage of the term mentioned, as a whole, it's fair to say that the best and most accurate option as far as the demonym is concerned would be "North Macedonian" (keeping in mind that according to the Agreement, all subjects related to the state adopt the new name as well). As far as ethnicity is concerned, it should stay the same (Macedonian, Albanian, etc.) as the Agreement and Constitutional changes don't touch on that particular subject. In conclusion, the nationality and demonym "North Macedonian" is accurate, whilst "Macedonian" is not anymore, and Macedonian (ethnic group) should remain as it is.StevenHal (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said above. North Macedonian makes sense. In south sudan we use "south sudanese"--APG1984 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In the case of South Sudan we use "South Sudanese" in contrast to "Sudanese" that refers to the Republic of Sudan - so basically to different people. And "Sudanese people" are not even a single ethnic group, they are the inhabitants of a geographic region and a former state that has been divided. You cannot use the terms "Macedonians" (as an ethnic designation) and "North Macedonians" (as a reference to the state where they live in) to describe the same people, because if you do the next question could easily be if these "Macedonians" are the "North" ones, then who are the "South Macedonians" and who divided them? Or do we have to explain every time that a person is ethnically "Macedonian" but otherwise is a "North Macedonian" and no thing such as "South Macedonian" exists? Or maybe will the Greek Macedonians eventually become the South Macedonians? Argean (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the demonym should be North Macedonian. None is going to wonder who are the "South Macedonians", as the term Macedonia is geographical (like South Africa). Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that demonym should be North Macedonian. Demonym is not the same as nationality (which should be Macedonian). It may refer to products, group etc. If the adjective relates to the country of North Macedonia, demonym should be North Macedonian. If it relates to the georgraphical region it should be Macedonian. Eg North Macedonian Basketball player as opposed to Macedonian Basketball Player that can be anything from a player of the North Macedonia national team to Bulgarian/Greek/Macedonian originating from the Macedonian region. Demonym in the Macedonia region page should be (if any) Macedonian, in this North Macedonia article it should be North Macedonian. This is in accordnance to the Prespes agreement to which any diviation would lead to extensive unnecessary edit wars --Stevepeterson (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Republic of North Macedonia Vs North Macedonia

I believe that the same logic which pushed us to accept "Republic of Macedonia" instead of Macedonia (to avoid confusion) should push us to put "republic of North Macedonian to avoid confusion with the north of the Greek Region. --193.239.221.248 (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no region in Greece called North Macedonia officially. We have Central, Eastern and Western Macedonia Regions as per administrative laws but no area is called North Macedonia officially Weatherextremes (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No, "North Macedonia" provides context in itself and differentiates it from Macedonia (Greece). Republic of Macedonia was chosen because "Republic of" is the context, and Macedonia (country) could be confusing to people looking for Macedonia (ancient kingdom). North Macedonia is unambiguous enough to become the article title, no need for "Republic of". The general consensus above seems to be for a move to North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 11:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa agreement ([6] p.3) outlines that the official name is Republic of North Macedonia while North Macedonia is the short form.Resnjari (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe article title should be decided based on Common Name though, not necessarily the official name. For instance, the official name of my home country is Kingdom of Norway, but common name and Wikipedia name is the short form Norway. Iselilja (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. However, Norway's common name is distinct on its own. Macedonia's common name isn't. There are three Macedonias. This is where the whole problem started and resulted in Wikipedia using the country's official name over the common one for its article. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There are also two Luxembourgs (Luxembourg (Belgium), two Sudans (South Sudan), two Azerbaijans (Azerbaijan (Iran), and so on. It's not just about being distinctive as a name, it's the historical and political connotations that can make things obscure and that was the case with "Republic of Macedonia" (modern) and "Macedonia" (ancient). "North Macedonia" is unique, not only as a name, but also in its general context. Let's not make things more complicated than they already are. Argean (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be Republic of North Macedonia. Same logic was followed in the past when we called it Republic of Macedonia Vs Macedonia--APG1984 (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that this wasn't the logic that was followed then. You can see what the actual logic behind that decision was if you just read the discussions back then. The actual logic was that the title would clearly have been "Macedonia", if it hadn't been for the fact that that was deemed too ambiguous, so the next more specific candidate was chosen instead. Since "North Macedonia" isn't ambiguous in any comparable way, no such logic applies here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus the Prespa agreement stipulates on p.3 that North Macedonia is the shorthand form for the official name. A comment on my part to other editors, most wiki articles on country names have the shorthand forms as opposed to the official forms of Republic of... so and so place. Macedonia was in the past a complicated case, hence all this wrangling.Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but having to use this overly lengthy name: "Republic of North Macedonia" every time here in Wikipedia, is so tedious and unnecessary inconvenience, (that's 4 whole words - as if it wasnt the 3-word "Republic of Macedonia" name already inconvenient enough). Just "North Macedonia" is more than enough for anything, both for article name and for all other purposes where countries use their short names instead of official ones.--✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa Agreement under the UN defines that the terns, "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYR of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" will no longer be allowed as names to describe the country. Also, even though the common name was Macedonia, the article was Republic of Macedonia, so I don't understand how we're gonna change it to simply "Macedonia" now which didn't follow the common name rule in the past, nor now follows the official name which is North Macedonia. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We SHOULD have moved it to simply Macedonia long, long, LONG ago. The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the political situation in the area, the use of the full name was the best option. That doesn't necessarily mean the new page name will or won't include "Republic of". ONR (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Normally of course we would per policy use the common name, which we might predict will become "North Macedonia", but I would assume that the common name will be for a short time at least the same as the official name. Paul August ☎ 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"North Macedonia" is the official short term of "Republic of North Macedonia". We can use "Northern Macedonia" to include neighboring region such as Serbian or Kosovan area of Macedonia. Wikidata has an item for this meaning. d:Q12910266. --Sharouser (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, We should move this article to North Macedonia. Northern Macedonia can be a seperate article. I opened a RfD in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 3#Northern Macedonia. --Sharouser (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Just as an aside, re d:Q12910266, that doesn't fit the meaning you have in mind. That Wikidata entry was based on mk and bg Wikipedia articles that describe "northern Macedonia" as a *sub*region of the Republic of Macedonia, i.e. the northern part just of the republic, not the northern part of the whole Macedonia (region). But neither the one nor the other is a salient separate unit, either geographically or politically, so there really is no reason to have articles for either of them. What would they contain, beyond the tautological dictionary definition that "northern Macedonia is the northern part of Macedonia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. --Sharouser (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it causes confusion. The Prespa agreement already outlines what the common name should be, which is North Macedonia. Like it was already stated, there are plenty of countries that share the name with a region and it was never necessary to use the full formal name. There is no other region called North Macedonia, in fact, we don't use either Republic of South Africa for South Africa, despite it could lead to the same geographical confusion you erase. We shouldn't forget that an important reason to use Republic of Macedonia instead of just Macedonia or the full name (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia) was that it was a contentious name and it was a compromise for Wikipedia to remain neutral as well as diminish edit wars. The agreement, in principal, should remove the political motivation and, so there's not much point in keeping the (new) full name there. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

We SHOULD have moved it to simply Macedonia long, long, LONG ago. The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

REALLY? READ SOME HISTORY. YOU'RE SLAVS! Narethium (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tell Greece to shut up? Really? Narethium (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A) I'm not Macedonian. (Or any other Slavic nationality. Or Greek, for that matter.) B) I have read history, it isn't relevant here. C) Yes, really. All the whining makes Greece look pathetic. --Khajidha (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha your comment just above,The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up, sounds a bit biased against Greece. It has elements of partiality, some lesson giving, lacks measure and most importantly has this "I speak for the world" flavor that I am allergic to. But since it gives me this allergic reaction, I have to answer refraining of course from insulting entire countries in the name of the World as you do. You see, I'm worried that your way of regarding Greece as a country that should grow up and shut up might be a cause of frustration for you on a daily basis. Indeed the amount of things referring to Greece in our everyday life are so numerous that you can't avoid them and you can't avoid seeing the Greeks bragging about them. Worse, there are so many people that would not like Greece to shut up at all; they even like Greece regardless calling it "special" and quite many as well even feel indebted to Greece for what it offered to the World! Not everybody of course, but it would be fair to say "many" (too many maybe?). An then Greeks come up having these recurring claims regarding things of the past like history and identity (like Macedonia for example) that disrupt your globalized world. Who cares about these things (you call these "whining")? But back to the point: still! Even in ruins, poor and annoying, Greece gets credit, is revered by many, doesn't get bashed to the proportion of its failures and as if these were not enough, it is even recognized by so many people as the successor of these great Ancient civilizations that are Ancient Greece and Macedonia! Annoying right? I agree, it must be terrible. Especially if you don't think they "deserve it". Unfortunately for you though, there is not much to do. I used to have a girlfriend like this. She thought the same about Armenians and Jewish people. "Why all the fuss about them? they should just shut up" Always the same though: not much to do about it. Of course there is another possibility: stop wanting Greece to shut up, but then again that is so difficult cause "comon greeks are so annoying, they use their history as an asset etc., its unfair and why isn't everyone seeing it?". ah... tough life. --APG1984 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with Greece claiming all the great things they have done throughout history. I have a problem with Greece claiming the right to tell another country what it can or cannot call itself. If the Macedonians had decided to call their country "Greece", then and only then would Greece have any standing to object. As it is, Greece's position comes off as whining and has caused a lack of progress in regional integration. So, yes, Greece should just sit down, shut up, and "suck it up, buttercup". --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Such rhetorical skill, much elloquence. If you are so invested in the right to self-determination, you might want to consider the fact that Macedonians (Greeks) outnumer ethnic Macedonians by a million, so dismissing one group’s right to self-determinate in favour of another group having the same right is a little bit intellectually insincere and shows a lack of understanding in the issue. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Michail (blah) 13:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As the Greek Macedonia is not an independent country, their self-identification is not being infringed upon (at the level of independent countries, they are "Greeks", not "Macedonians") and is irrelevant to the question. --Khajidha (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's please discontinue this discussion; it's not really helpful to exchange the same old talking points from ten years ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this conversation should end.
Quite honestly I am surprised by the attitude of Khajidha here... I can understand the ill-informed arguments from the IPs and red-tagged users in this section, who I would expect to not have as much of a grasp of the controversy. But I have had many discussions involving Khajidha. Sometimes we have agreed, sometimes we have disagreed, but there was always a level of respect shown towards the subject matter being debated. His utter dismissive attitude to the Greek claim and point of view here (using insulting language towards them, calling them "whiny" and to "suck it up, buttercup"), I find disappointing, and I would not have expected it from this user. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know you Khajidha and I can understand from the above that you might otherwise be a good editor but here the problem is that you are just off topic buddy and it's you that comes off as whining. We are moving on here bro!

Just look:

- the world need to tell greece to shut up

- If the Macedonians had decided to call their country "Greece", then and only then would Greece have any standing to object

- Greece's position comes off as whining and has caused a lack of progress in regional integration

I mean, do you see how much you lack nuance and how arrogant and unsubstantiated your words seem?

How is any of this relevant when Greece and North Macedonia just reached an agreement that is seen by all as a great progress? How is it relevant when North Macedonia signed that Ancient Macedonia has indeed a distinct culture than theirs? Doesn't this prove Greece had a point? Why do you disregard that Greece did give away the name Macedonia they had said they would never give for 27 years? Then about your insults (against Greece as a whole of course): it not your insults I dislike; they might be a sign of some immaturity or lack of self control but at least you are passionate. I don't like your lesson-giving attitude.--APG1984 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Both should be accepted. Whenever possible Noth Macedonia should be prefered. NBut when there is geographical connotation then we should prefer the "Republic of" to avoid confusion as the word North can give such geographical connotation instead of statutory. Eg when describing a town located in South Republic of North Macedonia, we shouldn't say that it is located in South North Macedonia. --Stevepeterson (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"erga omnes" in lead paragraph

About this [7] reinsertion by User:Europarliament: I'm not convinced we need the specification of "erga omnes" when describing the renaming agreement in the lead paragraph. First, it's a piece of technical jargon that will be unfamiliar to most readers. Second, it's unnecessary pedantry. Sure, I'm well aware it was a hot political issue in the negotiations during some periods, but from the perspective of our readers, there's no reason to stress it at that point. There is no mention of any logical alternative (i.e. any arrangements of using different names in different contexts) anywhere near it in the text, and so our readers won't have any reason to suspect that such alternatives might even have been on the table. At this point in the text, the addition is more confusing than illuminating ~ except maybe to those of us who already know a lot about the issue; please try to step out of your own shoes and take the perspective of an unsuspecting reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. Is there a way in which we can agree on the opening paragraph of the article in general? It keeps changing back and forth very frequently, and it would just be best to agree on the wording of it based on consensus as opposed to people rewriting it every 2 hours. --Michail (blah) 14:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason that I added it is to illustrate that, as opposed to the existence of more than one name prior to the agreement as highlighted in the previous sentence - Republic of Macedonia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - the agreement has now established one single name for all uses.--Europarliament (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But Macedonia never used different names erga ("towards") different parties. Macedonia itself only ever used its own constitutional name, even when addressing the UN. It was only third parties that referred to it in those two different ways. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And why would we use this phrase instead of saying "for all purposes"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion - not technical and clear--Europarliament (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: use English instead of Latin when the meaning is the same. If it's really necessary to give the legal jargon, put it in a footnote or at least further down in the body, not the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But my objection still applies to the English phrase too: Macedonia never used different names for different "purposes" before, and other states normally don't do that either, so why would a reader even begin to expect it might do so now, and why would we have to explicitly state that it doesn't? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the Latin legalese. If someone thinks it's really important, put it in a footnote. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

and is still sometimes called Macedonia.

from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", and is still sometimes called Macedonia. There are several issues with this sentence: 1) It starts by narrating events of 1991 ie presenting the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and then it jumps into highlighting the continuity of a shortened form of the name without having previously introduced the shortening. 2) It does so in such as way as to create confusion that this shortened version of the previous name is also applicable to the country's new name Republic of North Macedonia "and is still sometimes called". Macedonia is a shortened version of the Republic of Macedonia. The shortened version of the Republic of North Macedonia is North Macedonia not Macedonia. 3) still sometimes: too vague, certainly citations are needed here. If it refers to shortening Republic of North Macedonia into Macedonia, this is against Prespa Agreement and is not (sometimes) happening 4) in which language is this shortening occurs?

Hence I recommend that we use commonly shortened to 'from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", commonly shortened to Macedonia in English.

if people really want to highlight that it is still done , then 'from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", commonly shortened until today to Macedonia in English.

--Stevepeterson (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The comment that it's still sometimes called Macedonia is about as relevant as saying that the US is sometimes called "The States". People shorten longer names. It's about as predictable as the sun rising in the east and about as noteworthy. --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Taivo here. The whole conundrum of having to specify the degree of "still-commonness" of the short term at that point in the text ("commonly", "sometimes", "used to be", "incorrectly called" or whatever) was just an accident of editing; there's really no particular reason why we would want or need to address that specific point there – not to mention that we will hardly find reliable sources supporting any one of those statements. Also, I'm more and more thinking there's really no need to even mention plain "Macedonia" side by side with "Republic of" at all. Everybody knows that every country called "Republic of X" will also be called plain "X" (seriously, is there any counter-example worldwide?). We should really take that for granted. And if you feel our readers can't be trusted to infer that on their own, my own preference would still be not to say that the short form also exists/existed, but to show it, by simply using it in the next sentence: "The country declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 under the name Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia joined the UN in 1993, but..." and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it more comparable to the United States of America being known as the United States, rather than Taivo's "The States" example. I could see it being in the opening line, sort of how Greece mentions "Hellas" there. I think your suggestion of simply using "Macedonia" in the following UN sentence could be good too. --Local hero ^talk 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There is NO Republic of Macedonia anymore

There is NO Republic of Macedonia anymore. The name of article is about non existing country. 73.158.103.169 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What a hysterical reaction. Please have a little patience. BTW: Macedonia is still a common name for the country.--Wester (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand how that’s a hysterical reaction. I’ve been watching this whole conversation for awhile now. The name has clearly changed from the Perspectice of both Greece and Macadonia so there are several links showing this and I just saw one recently showing them changing the name at the border. So why are we still having a conversation about this it takes 2 minutes to change the name whoever has the power to do it already. Regardless of its still a common name it is not the official name anymore so let’s change it already this is getting ridicules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Lol what a silly argument. It will remain a common name for years if not even decades as people, definitely this and former generations will just keep calling it Macedonia anyways.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No you have a silly argument based on nothing. The website changed its legal name border crossings have changed the name. Greece recognizes it as the new legal name. The nation itself is now called Northern Macidonida why is this so hard for you to understand? Change it. Regardless if “It’s a common name” Agajn that’s not the point. Dick and cock are common names for Penis but the official wiki page labels it Penis because that’s the scientific term that’s recognized. So in this case Northern Macadonia is now the legal recognized name so this is a closed argument. Make the change anyone ignoring to do that is apparently okay with ignoring the current real world reality.

If you are going to advocate for the new name at least get it right "North" not "Northern" 70.59.70.125 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a different person and I agree with you you know. I said it was a silly argument just because I agree with you that the official name should be used instantly and with my reply saying it's going to stay a common name for decades I meant that it's no argument for the page to stay called "republic of Macedonia" just on the basis of it still being a common name -> since it will remain a common name for decades, so does that mean we never have to change the pages name? See that's what I meant.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words I said that the argument of Wester was silly:2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you know Ivory Coast, Cape Verde and North Korea are officially known as Côte d'Ivoire, Cabo Verde and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Also the Czech Republic has tried to introduce a new short name Czechia, which nobody uses so the article is still Czech Republic. Wikipedia has a policy of using common names, not necessary official names. Also, the position of Greece is quite irrelevant since Macedonia is a sovereign nation that has the right to name itself (while other sovereign nations have the right of not recognising that country or name). The agreement with Greece is made in bona fida (because Greece has veto right on accession on multiple international organisations), but it's still Macedonia's decision. It's about to see whitch name will stick, either Macedonia or North Macedonia. --Wester (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Every name change has a different context. I believe that Wikipedia addresses each country name change as an individual case: unlike the Czech Republic/Czechia and Eswatini/Swaziland, which (if I recall correctly) had no major naming disputes in the first place, the change from the Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia was based on a binding agreement to try and resolve an long-lasting naming dispute. --Marianian^(talk) 02:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying if a country really prefers a name we should ignore that preference, but if a country only chose a name because the alternative was to be cut off from the world because someone else didn't like it, we should follow that forced choice? That's just weird. You're right that each case is treated on it's own merit. Personally I believe official name should be greater weight, but it basically has no weight. Common name and any related issues like the need for disambiguation in article titles, is the only thing that has weight, and each case needs to be considered on it's own merits relating to such wikipedia policy considerations, not the circumstances surrounding the name. Because the Macedonia name situation has been a hellhole outside wikipedia for years, it's likely many will adopt the name at least in preference to alternatives like FYROM or RoM so this is likely to influence common name. And in the case of this article title, North Macedonia does seem a better disambiguator then RoM. But ultimately only time will tell what becomes the common name in other areas, and it is the common name that matters not the official name nor the circumstances surrounding that official name. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah well in the case of North Korea, yes the DPRK is the official name but it's the full name like you would say Kingdom of Belgium, United States of America though the shorter names like North Korea and the United States are also used for official purposes and are not just limited to common use, same for Czechia it's just the short name for the Czech republic. Now the difference with North Macedonia is that it's normal everyone will keep calling it Macedonia because it just changed but people of the next generations will be taught it to be North Macedonia to make the distinction with Greek Macedonia. You do have a point on the matter of Ivory Coast and Cape Verde in which I believe the titles have been chosen for the sake of language though it wouldn't be wrong to name their pages after the shorter form of their official name. I believe North Macedonia, because of politics, will fall out of mainsteam use as in newspapers, televised news etc. while it will still be used amongst people in a regular conversation while Ivory Coast and Cape Verde are still in use for tourism, news etc. Although you are correct for those two cases that it's their sole official name even used by the UN.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:80E5:4A61:3995:1148 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Prespa Agreement

I have seen editors arguing that Wikipedia doesnt need to agree with the Prespa Agreement. I think this is wrong from any aspect, Prespa agreement represents a democratic resolution of a 27 years conflict. If wikipedia is against the resolution then it can promote conflict eg spreading nomenclature that acts against a resolution. In wikipedia we need just a single hot head can lead to start never ending edit-wars and wasting of everyones time. I visit this topic from time to time eg every 4-5 years and feel sorry to see the same people constantly arguing for words here. Macedonians and Greeks love their countries and there is nothing wrong with that, they can divert their effort into more productive activities eg producing articles for their country in wikipedia. This Prespa agreement is a golden opportunity for all of us here to rest, become friends and move forward constructing a better future for wikipedia and our countries. Lets avoid grey areas that can keep the conflict. I propose that we study well the Prespa agreement and use it as a reference for all articles hence leaving out grey areas that will lead to enormous wastage of resources. just my two cents , a macedonian denar and a drachma -- Stevepeterson (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely, totally, and wholeheartedly agree with you. Reasonable, moderate people in both countries and the entire international community have welcomed and embraced the Prespa agreement, with no ifs or buts. I don't understand why here, for the sake of 'consensus', we are sometimes obliged to appease hotheads from both countries who opposed the agreement and still prefer conflict over peace. I'm sorry, but they have lost - game over. So, as mentioned above, let's please use the content of the Prespa agreement as our main reference.--Europarliament (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the U.N. The article should reflect reliable third-party sources. The Prespa Agreement is a primary source. Jonathunder (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that Wikipedia is not the UN. It just seems that prior to the Prespa agreement we had edit-wars between hotheads from the two countries, and now after the Prespa agreement, this 'consensus' approach offers plenty of space for edit wars between those who accept the peace agreement and the hotheads who still want conflict. The Prespa agreement is indeed a primary source, but "primary" in this case does not mean "bad" and should be considered as "the best possible source" in my humble opinion.--Europarliament (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I really had no idea that Wikipedia was party to the Prespa agreement; I thought is was between two states... Of course Wikipedia does not (and can not) agree or disagree with this or any other international or other agreement. Wikipedia reflects usage, full stop. --T*U (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Prior the Prespa agreement, we didn't really have edit wars. We had good stability for a decade based on consensus. Consensus is a central principle of Wikipedia and you really ought to read up on it. This discussion topic, despite Stevepeterson's touching words, can be disregarded as we have an open RfC to handle the latest developments in this name dispute saga. --Local hero ^talk 19:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought the name dispute saga was over. Oh yeah I forgot, that's irrelevant...let's keep it going on Wikipedia...--Europarliament (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is mostly over. What we're dealing with right now is just the aftermath, mostly dealing with the terminological conundrums of a bureaucratic normative text that may well be a shining example of peace-making politically, but is still a nightmare of grammatical contortions linguistically, making adherence to it essentially impossible for anybody who wants to write decent English. We're also dealing with a number of over-eager and/or incompetent editors whose main impetus appears to be to hack away at as many instances of unadorned "Macedonia(n)" in our articles as they can get away with, like vultures, hiding them under layers of "North" and "Republic" and "of" and other additions, even in those contexts where pretty much everybody in the RfC agrees they shouldn't be. Virtually every article I've looked at in the past few days that these editors had theirs hands on was in need of partial reversion. This includes edits by at least two of the participants in this very thread here. There are also evidently some editors engaging in that same activity not out of mere incompetence and over-eagerness, but out of political spite, but that may be a different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, the notion that adherence to the Prespa agreement is ‘essentially impossible for anybody who wants to write decent English’ is not in any way true. Libhye (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that may be largely true if one follows your interpretation of the agreement, which makes wide allowance for the plain adjective "Macedonian" in a majority of contexts (all except the official names of state-associated institutions etc.) That at least narrows down the grammatical inflexibility to just those official titles. But the agreement is craftily ambiguous on that point, and as we've already seen, not everybody seems to read it that way. And to my mind, telling the world that we aren't allowed to say "the Greek and [$Whatever]ian prime ministers" is still a crime against English grammar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fur.Perf, exactly my point. We will be dealing with such behaviours for ever unless we base our consensus on an indisputable consensus between the two countries and this is the Prespa Agreement. Whether these "over-eager and/or incompetent" editors are also in this discussion is irrelevant -- Stevepeterson (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Fur.Perf. Its placed some editors in a conundrum and made everything a free for all these past few weeks with other editors. One does not know if they should revert an edit by invoking the current MOSMAC or then have to deal with a counter revert where an editor might say well MOSMAC is being revised in a RfC and so forth (even though the RfC is not done and dusted) or that editors have already gone ahead with changes everywhere else. Whatever the outcome of the RfC there will be a mess to clean up on certain things. Hopefully the new RfC will give stability thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., to answer your linguistic concern the PM of North Macedonia (representing the Macedonian nation as a democratically elected president) declared that he correct addressing should be "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers". I don't find any linguistic problem in this and sooner or later, being the will of both Greek and Macedonians, it will be the adjective everyone will be using and be considered correct. I already see websites changing the Macedonian/North Macedonian since the note was sent by MFA yesterday. I am afraid you and some editors here (from both sides of the Greek-Macedonian border) have chosen war over peace and the right of self determination of the Macedonian people. After 27 years we have a solution and the opportunity between two nations to collaborate and move forward (and all of us here to do more constructive editing). - Stevepeterson (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if Mr Zaev really said that (link please?), Mr Zaev may have many rights and responsibilities, but the right to slaughter English grammar for the rest of us is not among them. It's not up to you either. If you seriously think "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" is correct and grammatical English, then you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You may disagree with me and I might be dyslexic but you have no right to disgrace me with insults such as "not competent speaker of English with tin ears". "the Greek (ethnic group) and North Macedonia's (of state) prime ministers" is perfectly correct, here North Macedonia's is not describing the PM's ethnic group unlike the case of the word Greek. If PM is an ethnic Macedonian then its correct and inline with Prespa to say "the Greek and Macedonian Prime Ministers", but here we are discussing adjectives that relate to the state of North Macedonia. What North Macedonia's PM tells is that the person is the PM of the state regardless of his ethnic group. Mr Zaev is the Prime Minister and responsible for any NOTES released by the North Macedonia's Ministries, I didnt mean that he took the time to edit the HTML code of all government websites himself. I mentioned the PM because it was in your example, but since his government released the note, then it indeed declares how he wants to be addressed. Stevepeterson (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

From Mr Zaev's Government to all of us the incompetent speakers of English having tin ears: [8]

"Correct examples for State, its official organs and other public entities: Government of the Republic of North Macedonia; President of North Macedonia; Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia; North Macedonia’s Defence Minister; North Macedonia’s Municipality of Ohrid; the University of St.” Cyril and Methodius” of North Macedonia

Incorrect: Other adjectival references, including “North Macedonian”, “Macedonian”, “Northern Macedonian”, “N. Macedonian” and “NorthMacedonian”, should not be used in all of the above cases. "

-- Stevepeterson (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So he didn't actually say "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers", as you claimed he did. You just made that up, is that right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I wont continue this ill-mannered conversation that includes insults and name-calling -- Stevepeterson (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It obviously is necessary to use teaspoons: Of course "North Macedonia's this-and-that" is correct in English, as is "the Greek this-and that". The problem is the combination, since "and" has to connects words and/or expressions of the same kind. "North Macedonia's" is genitive of a noun, "Greek" is an adjective. The fact that you have to put "the" in front of "Greek", while it is impossible to put it before "North Macedonia's", also tells us that they are incommensurable. English is not my native language, but even I can see and hear that "the Greek and North Macedonia's this-and-that" is grammatically impossible. --T*U (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You can say "Greece's and North Macedonia's" or you can say "Greek and North Macedonian", either is correct English (though the first is rather unusual). BUT you cannot say "Greek and North Macedonia's". That is just incorrect English, no matter what the Greek and North Macedonian governments might say. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Come on guys, referring to the state has always included 's and of especially for countries with two word names. We've always used: "Prime Minister of Greece and the United Kingdom" or "Greece's and United Kingdom's Prime Ministers" and even Greek and the United Kingdom's counterpart is correct English (although indeed confusing ) but creating a word such as United Kingdomian or simply Kingdomian for linguistic reasons is insane. Check Theresa May referred to as the "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", none complained about bad English there. Macedonian Prime Minister is correct if Macedonian refers to either citizenship and/or ethnic group (or its history, culture, etc) but this is another topic, the Adjective to People. Here we discuss adjectives to North Macedonia (State) and in this perspective saying Macedonian Prime Minister or Macedonia's Prime Minister, assuming that Macedonian is an adjective of North Macedonia is indeed bad English and at least misleading because term Macedonia (without North, East, South, Central etc) now refers to Macedonia or Macedonia. -- Stevepeterson (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This is a parallel construction, both are modifying the term "prime minister" and both need to be of the same form. Either adjectival (Greek and North Macedonian) or possessive (Greece's and North Macedonia's). Or even prepositional (the prime ministers of Greece and of North Macedonia). You are mixing the two, and that is not good English. Also, "North Macedonia" is not parallel to "United Kingdom" as the word "Kingdom" is a generic and "Macedonia" is not. This is a parallel to "North Korea". Just as we can and do say "North Korea" we can and should say "North Macedonian". And, no, "Greek and United Kingdom's" is NOT correct English. It would be "Greek and British".--Khajidha (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha But Macedonian can also be used for the Prime Minister of North Macedonia referring to his nationality and/or ethnic group. So Greek and Macedonian Prime Minister are perfectly fine and in line with Prespa. This doesn't make Macedonian (citizen/ethnic group) an adjective to North Macedonia (state). So correct adjectives of North Macedonia are North Macedonia's or of North Macedonia, this is correct logically and inline with Prespa and the Note of North Macedonia's MFA. Imagine the following example: "North Macedonia's convicted criminal" if you were to use Macedonian as an adjective to the state (Macedonian convicted criminal) you would give the criminal Macedonian nationality and or ethnicity. remember we are looking for Adjectives to the State of North Macedonia, not to ethnicity and citizenship which are clearly fixed as Macedonian by Prespa - Stevepeterson (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Show me where I said to use "Macedonian"? I said "North Macedonian". And I have no idea why you are prattling on and an about ethnicity. This is about the proper usage of the adjectival, possessive and prepositional forms showing that something or someone is related to the state of North Macedon. Those forms are "North Macedonian", "North Macedonia's" and "of North Macedonia". --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonian perhaps would be correct however UN and the Prespes are against it. I am not in the position to say why, I suspect because they dont want North Macedonian to become universal and replace the term Macedonian which has been agreed for citizenship and ethnicity. I dont see any problem with the recommended "North Macedonia's" as an adjective, it solves the problems and is politically correct. since South and North Korea are brought sometimes to the conversation as examples, the difference there is that nationalities at each side are South Korean and North Korean (not simply Korean at any side) while nationality of North Macedonia is Macedonian. hence Prespes has declared North Macedonia's adjective as North Macedonia's (or of North Macedonia). Stevepeterson (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The UN and Prespa have no control over English grammar. "I dont see any problem with the recommended "North Macedonia's" as an adjective" I have an EXTREME problem with that because it's not an adjective. I have no problem with the form "North Macedonia's" per se, I have a problem with it being used ungrammatically in a parallel construction with an adjective. It could be "Greece's and North Macedonia's" or "Greek and North Macedonian", but "Greek and North Macedonia's" is simply incorrect English. --Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t agree. United Kingdo is also an adjective like British. Remember, British is a broader, looser term. There are British citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens etc. UK is widely used as an adjective. Like United States too. As for Korea, well there are two sovereign Koreas. There is only one sovereign Macedonia. There is only 1 Macedonian nationality, as regards nationality that flows from a state. That’s not so with the Koreas. There are two separate Korean nationalities that flow from two separate Korean states. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@talk) RE: I don’t agree. United Kingdo is also an adjective like British. No, United Kingdom's (state) adjective is not British (nationality). United Kingdom's adjective is United Kingdom's (or of United Kingdom) in a similar manner that North Macedonia's MFA requested that North Macedonia's adjective should be North Macedonia's or of North Macedonia. When referring to the state you cant use British because the official name is the United Kingdom. United Kingdom's immigrants are not (necessarily) British Immigrants. Also if you say that Macedonia is not a generic name, think of how many diverse uses the word Macedonian can have (citizen, member of ethnic group, resident of geographical region of Macedonia). again I dont see any better way than following Prespa to the word. We think that we are smarter or understand the issues better than (democratically elected) people from both countries together with the UN working on the issue for 27 years? -- Stevepeterson (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"United Kingdom's immigrants"? And "adjective"? You really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The conversation is getting really Balkan style here. All I have been trying to say is that we better follow Prespa Agreement to the word and have been told to "shut up", "learn some English", "expose my incompetence ", "i have tin ears". Is this we can do? - Stevepeterson (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you Steve that that tone of interaction is unacceptable. Fut.Perf., you know better than that.

Steve, you haven’t actually engaged with my comment or are incorrect. Example, you said ‘United Kingdom’s immigrants are not British immigrants’. You are incorrect here. Plainly so. Many, many thousands of immigrants, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s but even a smaller number today were British before they arrived in the United Kingdom. They were British born subjects from colonies. British is what they were. It depends on how far one goes back but Jamaicans in 1950s, Guyanese in the 1960s, Hong Kongers in the 1980s, a tiny trickle of Bermuda people today (to the extent they elect not to take up UK nationality and have simply retained their own local British nationality). You haven’t engaged with my point at all. There is nothing unusual about “Macedonian” having more than one meaning. This is common. Irish has more than one meaning. Some Northern Icelander people are United Kingdom born and British to the core, but also feel Irish. Luxembourg the same with its neighbouring region in Belgium. Congo the same with there being more than one Congo - Congo being an exceptional case where the name is a real issue. Macedonian Prime Minister is crystal clear. It’s in line with the Prespa Agreement which expressly provides that citizens of the only sovereign Macedonian state are Macedonian. Pretending they’ve now to be called “North Macedonian” flies in the face of the Prespa Agreement and what their passports say. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi I agree with your point, I never meant to say that United Kingdom's immigrants are never British Immigrants. What I was saying is that the meaning of the one (adjective to the state) is different to the other (adjective to the Citizenship). The main disagreement here is the adjective to the state, its organisations etc. I will give another example that perhaps hits less sensitive topics: Someone wants to say that: "the official languages in the Republic of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian." Some editors here insist (claiming linguistic reasons) that it should have the form "Macedonian official languages: Macedonian and Albanian." and others who say "North Macedonian official languages: M and A." The Prespa agreement, UN, North Macedonia's MFA say that the correct wording is either: "North Macedonia's official languages: Macedonian and Albanian". or "Official languages of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian" and they highlight that both Macedonian and North Macedonian adjectives are incorrect. They put effort sending notes to media and organisations in order to have this adjective correct. Why wikipedia is still arguing about things that have already been agreed? --Stevepeterson (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying that "North Macedonia's official languages: Macedonian and Albanian". or "Official languages of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian" are incorrect. Those are both proper English (and neither is adjectival). The problem (again) is with the parallel usage of an adjective (Greek) and a possessive (North Macedonia's) in the same sentence. That is incorrect English, and is beyond the ability of the Prespa Agreement to control. We are ONLY objecting to your phrasing "Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers". That is ALL. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stevepeterson Why wikipedia is still arguing about things that have already been agreed? Simply because the Prespa agreement has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia (or over the English language). We shall use the English language, preferably correctly. That does not give room for constructions like "the Greek and North Macedonia's this" or "the North Macedonia's that", whatever the Prespa agreement "allows". --T*U (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Well, except for one quibble. "The North Macedonia's" is always wrong, but "North Macedonia's" is sometimes right. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Indeed (but not always necessarily the best choice even when it is right). --T*U (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I said "sometimes".--Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that the parallel usage of an adjective (Greek) and a possessive adjective (North Macedonia's) is incorrect English, there is no grammar rule that prohibits it. They are both adjectives (possessive or not) to Prime Minister and one should be able to combine different adjectives. I agree that it is neither common and nor elegant, but that's aesthetics not grammar. But again Greek and Macedonian Prime Ministers are also correct because they refer to citizenship (Greek and Macedonian) and my point is that it is a fallacy to say that the adjective to the State of North Macedonia would dictate "the Greek and [$Whatever]ian prime ministers" so let it be Macedonian because it sounds better - Stevepeterson (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Stevepeterson: It is OK to change your last posting as long as no-one has answered, but please do not change older postings. If you do, you have to mark the changes, see WP:REDACT --T*U (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you yes, I understand. I did mostly linguistic improvements but i kept the meaning intact at all cases. - Stevepeterson (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not what a possessive adjective is. "North Macedonia's" is a possessive noun, not an adjective at all. And whether you agree or not, the parallel usage of "Greek" and "North Macedonia's" is incorrect English, and it doesn't belong on English-language Wikipedia.

Personally, I think North Macedonia's official instructions to journalists are worth about as much as journalists are willing to pay attention to them. And where they suggest torturing the English language beyond recognition, I suspect journalists will ignore them. Put more bluntly, I think North Macedonian authorities are fighting a losing battle here. I'm already seeing references in media to "North Macedonian" this and that. Quite frankly, it's the natural English-language construction, and it is unambiguous and clear. We're not bound here by North Macedonia's official style guide or by the Prespes agreement. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, favoring secondary sources where applicable, and we'll have to follow the lead of English-language media in referring to a country and its people on English-language Wikipedia. If it ends up that "Macedonian" remains the preferred adjective and English-language media is willing to twist itself into a pretzel to avoid using the term "North Macedonian", then so be it. But for now, with both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in mainstream use, I think we should teach the controversy, if you will.

All that being said, I have to stress that "North Macedonia's" is not a demonym, it's the possessive construction of the proper noun "North Macedonia". And you can use that construction to skirt around having to write "North Macedonian" in some cases, but not all of them, and certainly not in your "Greek and North Macedonia's XYZXYZ" example. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

English is not my first language either but I teach it as a foreign language as a second job. The choices are:

• The Greek and North Macedonian PMs
• Greece's and North Macedonia's PMs
• The PMs of Greece and North Macedonia - or simply
• The Greek and Macedonian PMs ... --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening two paragraphs

Over the past couple of weeks the opening two paragraphs of this article have been rewritten numerous times. To avoid constant back and forth, I propose that we discuss the wording of the two opening paragraphs and deal with the points of contention through consensus. The points which editors seem to be contesting are:

1. The inclusion of the Macedonian as well as Albanian long-form names (Република Северна Македонија/Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut) in the lead. Some users have argued that not all that information is required, and I tend to agree that it would be better to include the long names in the etymology section, since they are very long and drawn-out.
2. The use of bold text for 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Macedonia' in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I personally do not think they should be in bold, but different editors have removed the bold face, put it on, and removed it again. If we use the rule of synonyms to bold 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Macedonia', we should also bold 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' as a synonym.
3. The commonality of the term 'Macedonia'. Some users would like the last sentence to read "and the country is commonly known as Macedonia"; I proposed "and is still sometimes referred to as Macedonia", which is what is used now.
4. The use of the term erga omnes regarding the agreement. I agree that this is just technical jargon and should be replaced with "for all uses" or, even better, dropped entirely.

If anyone thinks there is something else being contested in the lead, please raise it in this discussion. Let's come to a consensus, whichever way the consensus goes, and let's use that for the lead instead of rewriting it constantly. I have used this revision to write this. --Michail (blah) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd vote to remove the second paragraph entirely. I think a brief mention and a link to the naming dispute in the first or third paragraph is more than enough. Vpab15 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I second Vpab15's motion. With the caveat that the bare fact of its UN membership be moved to the last paragraph of the lead, just as with any other country. --Khajidha (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the 1st and 2nd paragraphs should be merged, they way Fut.Perf. did it yesterday. The information is too recent and too important to remove.--Europarliament (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Vpab15 and Khajidha. The second paragraph should be removed from the lead and added to the name section maybe? Also, I agree that the long name of the country (Republic of North Macedonia) in both Macedonian and Albanian should be added to the name section as well and removed from the lead. Erga omnes, drop entirely imo. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The name change is indeed recent, but not really that important in the grand scheme of things. It does not deserve more than a very brief mention in the first or third paragraphs in my opinion. For a comparison, the intro to Bosnia article contains one single sentence about the Bosnian War in the third paragraph: "Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the republic proclaimed independence in 1992, which was followed by the Bosnian War, lasting until late 1995." I hope everyone will agree that a war is more notable than a country name change. Vpab15 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Still, the name change happened just last week. Merging the first two paragraphs would work well in my opinion.--Europarliament (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Like Europarliament, I strongly disagree with the removal of the second paragraph. I also strongly disagree with Vpab15's assertion that the name change is ‘not really that important in the grand scheme of things’. If it weren't for the name dispute, the country would have been a member of NATO for ten years already, and it would most likely be a member of the EU as well.

I agree with Orser67 that the first two paragraphs shouldn't be merged. As for the rest of the lede, it should stay as it is. Libhye (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

For point 2, I agree, bold not necessary. For point 4, 'for all uses' is ok--Europarliament (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's consensus in the section above that "erga omnes" should be dropped from the in lead paragraph. Perhaps it could go in the body, or better yet, a footnote. Wikipedia style is to bold alternate names. However, "the former Yugoslav Republic of" is a descriptive phrase, not a name. Jonathunder (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I favor pretty much all of Michail's suggestions. I'll add that the second paragraph should remain, at least for now, because there will probably be people coming here who are unaware of the name change. I wouldn't merge the first two paragraphs because that would be an excessive amount of information in the lead paragraph. Instead, I would favor eventually merging the second and fifth paragraphs. Orser67 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

On the 2nd point, I believe the former name "Republic of Macedonia" should be bolded. Still kinda-used former names of countries (especially when in the lead paragraph) are bolded on a majority of other countries' pages. "Swaziland" and "Kindgom of Swaziland" are bolded on Eswatini's page, even "Ceylon" is bolded on Sri Lanka's page, etc. Since a large portion of the world still knows the country by that name, it should probably be bolded for clarity. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Category

I have noticed that several categories are still under "Macedonian" name. Like for example, Category:Macedonian Eurovision Song Contest entrants. Isn't it time to change all Category names to reflect the North Macedonia change.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead but exercise caution, as in sift and weight which need it and which don't. MACEDONIAN remains the demonym for the ethnic group and for all of their properties including language. The "North" qualifier is for state organs and matters concerning the sovereign body. --Edin balgarin (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't change those as long as the central naming RfC hasn't concluded. It's still an open issue in the RfC to what extent and in what contexts we will continue to use plain "Macedonian" as an adjective. As long as that hasn't been decided, there's no harm leaving those adjectival category titles where they are now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sea (or, at least, lake) of blue

" the country's name is changed to Republic of North Macedonia, erga omnes." Can someone come up with a rephrasing that would separate those two links? How it is now makes it seem as if the official name is "Republic of North Macedonia, erga omnes" until you actually click (or, at least, hover over) the links. I considered changing "erga omnes" to an unlinked "for all purposes", but some editors have expressed a preference for having the Latin term in the article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On some other page (can't remember where) we had a clear consensus that we shouldn't use the Latin jargon term here. There's really no reason to stress the point of "for all purposes" in the first place – why on earth would any reader expect the name might be anything other than for all purposes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it was actually on this page. A second instance of the phrase was removed from the lead section, but further down in the text it stayed. It should be removed there too, for the same reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but it seems that SOME editors wanted it. Figured I should at least point out the problem first. --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I just say that erga omnes is very common and widely understood. Perhaps not to the same extent as de facto and de jure but certainly more than the myriad of Latin expressions to grace legal documents (e.g. one of my personal favourites, Volenti non fit injuria - you can use ths one anywhere if you're clever ;) ). --Edin balgarin (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe amongst your circle of acquaintances it is "very common and widely understood", but this article is the first I had ever seen it.--Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Outdated language and terminology in the Naming Dispute section

Since I am not sure wether this issue has already been disussed and not intending to make any non-consensual edits or to engage in any useless edit-wars, I decided to open this new discussion:

Reading the article and reaching the "Naming Dispute" sub-section, I suddenly felt as if I started reading another article, uninformed about all the recent events. The first paragraph of the section refers to the present with a language of the past ("Greece opposes ... ", "The Republic of Macedonia is accused of ... "), erroneously using "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "North Macedonia", and ignorting the new reality of the Prespa Agreement. E.g. "the Republic of Macedonia" (sic) is not any more accused "of appropriating symbols and figures" of Greece, and Greece does not seem to object anymore "to the use of the term Macedonian for the neighbouring country's largest ethnic group".

The sub-section is then outdated about the current status of the foreign diplomatic recognitions of North Maceconia: It still refers to the international recognitions of the country as "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia", while ignoring the new status with a series of countries recognizing the country in question as "North Macedonia".

These are just some examples. The problem is obvious throughout the section in question, which "lives" in the past, and "briefly returns to the present" only in the last two (short) paragraphs, suddenly remembering the Prespa Agreement. But the Prespa Agreement cannot be ignored, unless you have a different structure: A historic narration in the beginning, and then analysis of the new reality. But this is not what currently happens. We do not have a historic narration in the beginning. It is as if the text "steps" upon two different realities, choosign a different one each time!

For all this reason, I believe that the section should be re-written and updated, in order to reflect reality. And, of course, the term "Republic of Macedonia" should be replaced by "North Macedonia", unless it is clearly used in a historical context.Yannismarou (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo

I don't have edit power but someone who does cntrl-F "bMacedonia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmuelic (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting, done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting the removal and replacement of the Ohrid insurginent flag from the Ilinden uprising section

The image and corresponding caption posted in the Ilinden section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia#/media/File:Ohrid_Banner1.jpg) has undoubtedly been carefully selected from a large collection of Ilinden flags to push Bulgarian perspectives on this wikipedia page, thus highlighting a lack of NPOV amongst certain editors on this page. There are different choices for the Ohrid insurgent flags which have no references to Bulgaria which could have been used such as:

• 
• 

The Bulgarian tricolour is also missing in the following which is located in Sofia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taga_za_Yug#/media/File:Taga_za_Jug.jpg

There are flags outside of those used by the Ohrid insurgents that could have been used instead such as:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

And the flag of the Krusevo Republic itself which I personally think should be used

• 
  Flag of Kruševo Republic

I suggest using more neutral flags such as the ones listed above and reserving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia#/media/File:Ohrid_Banner1.jpg for pages more related to the Ilinden uprising. Selectively choosing such a flag as the one used in this article out of all the alternatives clearly indicates Bulgarian narratives being pushed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how these flags are more neutral than the one currently used in the article. This is just removing one POV to present another. How I see it, specifically using a flag without Bulgarian symbols pushes another kind of perspective. If you could provide a study on the frequency of use of each flag during the uprising (which I doubt exists), or any other reason for why these flags are more representative, then the one used in the article should be changed. However with the information we have now there is no reason to believe that the Bulgarian-oriented flag isn't representative.--Antondimak (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

All flags have inscriptions only in Bulgarian language. The first one for example also has a pendant, depicting the Bulgarian flag, The second flag is the reverse side of that presented now in the article, for which replacement the new editor is insisting, because it had the Bulgarian flag on it. The third is the reverse side of the first one above, that has pendant, depicting the Bulgarian flag, The fourth banner was of the Kulmanovo detachment, led by a vojvode from Bulgaria proper and subvojvode, who was sentenced to death in Communist Yugoslavia as Bulgarian element. The fifth banner as nearly all here, has Bulgarian lion on it. The seventh flag is of the 7th Kumanovo Macedonian-Adrianople detachment in Bulgarian army volunteer corps during the Balkan wars, etc. Nearly all of them are kept in Bulgarian museum of military history in Sofia. Jingiby (talk)

@Jingiby, there is no conclusive evidence that the flags depict a "Bulgarian lion", these could be linked to the "Macedonian lion" such as the one depicted in the 'Coat of Arms of Macedonia from Stemmatographia by Hristofor Zhefarovich' (1741):

• 
  Coat of Arms of Macedonia from Stemmatographia by Hristofor Zhefarovich (1741)

and the ones in Fojnica Armorial and Korjenić-Neorić Armorial and countless more.

Such a lion is also depicted in the Razlovci Uprising banner which has zero references to Bulgaria and Bulgarians:

• 
  Insurgent Banner used in the Razlovci Uprising

In addition, the language scripts depicted on the flags/banners are of no significant matter, since these Cyrillic characters are used for dialectal variation prior to standardization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If we are to keep the original image/banner, we should atleast have in the caption the entire statement on the banner, that is, "Freedom or Death: Macedonia, 2nd region, area 6" and not going on to further refer that "there were Bulgarian flags everywhere in during Ilinden" in the caption, which can be transferred to the main text. Otherwise in its current state, the image is obvious POV by cherry picking, especially since there are so many other more neutral banners that can be used instead. Also @Jingiby, the contents of the banners is what matters, the relevance of who made them is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't ever heard of a "Macedonian lion" before WWII, it seems to be a modern invention. Also the Razlovci Uprising was clearly Bulgarian in character, I don't think that is disputed. --Antondimak (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Those flags and images are the zeitgeist of the campaign. Bulgarian or not, they should not be removed. --Edin balgarin (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Antondimak see Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia for the Macedonian lion pre-WWII. @balgarin all the material presented is historical and put up for discussion. My motivation behind uploading the images is to show a majority of flags did not have direct references to Bulgaria, therefore using the tricolor flag in the main article is POV via cherry-picking. We should not support the removal of primary historical evidence in this wiki. Anti political shills

Disagree. Removal of the image and the caption will lead to false assumption. Furthermore, it's been cleared in the text that at the time the Macedonist ideas were not present. In fact, the image is referenced as it is in the main article, Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Regards, gogo3o 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of those banners that I presented still have elements of 'Macedonist' ideas and they existed around the time of the tricolour one you uploaded. An example is a reference to a 'Macedonian' people (6th flag), this is contrary to your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This flag image was added by Gogo303 on 23 February 2019. As @Antondimak: states above, "this is just removing one POV to present another." Therefore, we should revert back to the version a couple months ago where no flag image was included and not have to worry about which POV to select. --Local hero ^talk 20:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, I doubt Gogo303 opinion matters in this context as he was the one presenting his POV by uploading the image in the first place. I agree, this should be reverted to its original state. Cherry-picking such images especially on a popular wiki page only does harm to the encyclopedias neutrality. Anti political shills

This type of Macedonist vandalism goes beyond Wikipedia and includes damages of random objects of Bulgarian heritage object such as church inscriptions.

• 

Damaged inscription on the Holy Sunday church (Sveta Nedela) in Bitola. It reads: This holy church was erected with the contribution of the Bulgarians in Bitola on October 13, 1863. The part of the inscription that reads "Bulgarians" has been erased. There are many other deliberately destroyed Bulgarian monuments in the Republic of Macedonia.

• 

The Bitola inscription of 1016/1017. The medieval stone contains instances of the word Bulgarian. In 2006 the French consulate in Bitola sponsored and prepared a tourist catalogue and printed on its front cover the inscription. News about it had spread prior to the official presentation and was a cause for confusion among the officials of the municipality. The printing of the new catalogue was stopped because of its "Bulgarian" cover.

If we support that in Wikipedia, how we can prevent vandalism in real life?gogo3o 10:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Final warning, Gogo303: You need to seriously distinguish your real-world political conflicts from your Wikipedia disagreements. Nobody here on this talkpage has been damaging cultural objects, nobody has been destroying anything, nobody here is a vandal. People are disagreeing with you over whether a certain image should be in the article. If you can't meet other people's good-faith opinions about what is or isn't relevant to this article with respect, you need to re-think why you are on Wikipedia at all. Calling other people vandals groundlessly is a blockable offense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how every other person here agree on the image removal (in fact, only the person that started the discussion and Local hero). Besides, this is not about my personality. I have never been warned or been in a serious dispute on nearly 2000 edits over several years. You are now seriously discouraging me to contribute further to Wikipedia by your actions. Have a good day, gogo3o 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I see there was bickering all the way to ArbCom over this picture, but it is clear that the main problem with the section is a lack of information. You have a more useful article at Macedonian nationalism that gives a quote about how "We have many times heard from the Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians, but they are rather Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians." It should be clear from that and what you have already that there were some folks who were feeling more Bulgarian than others, hence the variety of flags. So obviously this article should (briefly) describe and identify both groups and illustrate each with characteristic flag(s). This is some colorful history - recognize its diversity. Wnt (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Especially on these flags of the IMRO again. As organization's initial name shows ("Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees"), it had a Bulgarian national character: the revolutionary leaders were quite often teachers from the Bulgarian schools in Macedonia. This was the case of founders of the organization. Their organization was popularly seen in the local context as "the Bulgarian committee(s). The organization modeled itself after the earlier Bulgarian revolutionary traditions and adopted their symbols and especially the Bulgarian lion and the motto Svoboda ili smart. Both are on the flags. Per the memoirs of one of the founders of the IMRO - Hristo Tatarchev, at the beginning of 1894, they attempted to work out the Statute of the new organization. The founders had near at hand an exemplar of the Statute of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee, and used it as a model. On the cover of the first statute of the Organization, is depicted a woman holding a flag with her right hand, on which is written "Svoboda ili smart". She is leaning on a pedestal on which a standing Bulgarian lion with a crown is depicted. At its early stages, the membership in the Organization was restricted explicitly in its statute: only for Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The name change hasn't happened yet

The referendum isn't until July. "North Macedonia" is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roupen-Aldel (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Where did you get that idea from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Quoi? Official state websites are using the name; seems totes to me. Seems like an attempt to spread noticias incorrectas. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)