I would like to propose that the media links section is reordered so that all articles by the same source are shown in this fashion: Example News ([1] (by AP), [2], [3] (by AFP), inconsistent – see below). This will group all the articles in clusters of source, and eliminate the "published on" tag which takes up space and is not immediately relevant. --Michail (blah) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this idea, you have my *Support. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm also adding and International organizations subsection, as the UN published their official guidelines. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unfortunately I do not have the time today to do this, so someone else will have to take the initiative. That was also my reasoning behind asking for the news agencies. I do not know if we should only include the primary source (AP, Reuters, AFP, Xinhua, etc.) for those reports, or continue listing each reproduction separately. In any case, I believe that news agencies should be at the start of each list, due to the wide reach and influence they have. As for the dates, my reasoning was to see if there is a change in reporting as the days pass. Lastly, about the UN directive, sure, add it up. But be careful that it only defines the state-entities adjective. for all other adjectival uses, it only makes the term "Macedonian" allowable but not compulsory. --Despotak (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The currency designation is now "North Macedonia denar". Does that point to a possible change in the ISO? --Despotak (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Despotak, Philly boy92, FlavrSavr, and Wiz9999: The media repository needs to be reorganized asap, because people have lost completely the plot. They keep posting numerous reproductions of the same article and a user was almost banned yesterday for edit warring, failing to understand the instructions. Vast majority of the sources come from Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Reuters, plus some local press agencies, and almost 70-80% of the listed articles are just reproductions of the initial reports. I spent some time clustering them together, but still I realize it's impossible to check if every source that is being added every day because it has just appeared on google search, is just a reproduction of the ones already posted. My opinion is we should include from now on only the initial secondary sources and request the editors to search for the initial report by AP, AFP, or other agency, when they locate a source on the web. Or we can separate them in two different categories if we are still fine with including reproductions. Let me know what your thoughts are. By the way we have dropped the dates right? --Argean (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I think we should: a) put major news agencies first and just state 'as reproduced by' (only external links, not internal links to every local news outlet) and b) not sure about this, but we might as well omit the publication date. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean and Philly boy92:... Am I mistaken to assume that we're being just lazy to go and delete all the unnecessary publishing dates? :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a ton of deadlines at university and been doing things on campus instead of working from home, so I've not had the time really. If it can wait, I'm relatively free from Thursday onward. --Michail (blah) 23:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we need to do the overall restructuring, but I'm afraid I don't have the time either to do it during the weekdays. --Argean (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did some clean-up last days - deleting the publication dates. Do we really need the Country section? If so, why? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, that makes sense. In my turn I would like to suggest

1. To make a subsection that will include all the articles that don't cluster in any of the categories that we have, i.e. objects, other inanimate entities, and abstract concepts. Examples: North Macedonian stock exchange [4], Macedonian film [5].
2. To include articles from sources in languages other than English, but still neutral, i.e. not Greek, nor Macedonian. I'm sure we can find some good reliable sources in French, German, or Spanish for example. --Argean (talk)

@Argean: I've already added other adjectival usage section, feel free to add them there. I'm against adding non-English media reports because this is after all the English language Wikipedia. However, adding non-English international organizations or state entities might be a good idea. --FlavrSavr(talk) 11:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the "Other proposals" section exists, for a space for more votes to be opened up on related matters, if need be. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: Fair enough, you are correct reminding me that this is English wikipedia. And thanks for adding the new section for adjectives! --Argean (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops the above comment was meant to address to @FlavrSavr:, so thanks for the subsection..! --Argean (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps being a bit off-topic here, but isn't border, state-related, @Argean:? In the same way authorities is state, not people related? --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: My opinion is that it is, since it's definitely controlled by the state. I was expecting people to challenge it though, thus I placed it there. Feel free to move it. --Argean (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: We're getting to the finer points here. I'm glad that we all agree that border is state-related, especially when used in line with the country's border with Greek Macedonia. The same way, I would argue that the flag is state-related. However, Macedonian or North Macedonian city is just an adjectival usage, because as the RfC is structrured we're discussing not only various adjectival usages, but also the territory or the topography - the Macedonian / North Macedonian countryside being the example given. Whether media will prefer the one or the other adjective to denote cities, villages, mountains, countryside is the crux of this section. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: I believe that the border should be treated the same way as a city, or a mountain. I have voted C for adjectival usage, because, as I said when the RfC was being drafted, adjectives essentially boil down to two categories, one state related and one culture related. It's the same way we would use the terms "Bengali" for the culture and wider area and "Bangladeshi" for the country. The border between India and Pakistan is the "Bangladeshi" border, because it relates to the state, and is part of the wider region of the Bengal. Same thing happens for North Macedonia, the border between it and Greece is the "North Macedonian", because it relates to the state, and in either side of it you are in Macedonia. A city refers to the state, not to the culture or wider region, therefore it should also be counted as a state-associated entity. So while a "Macedonian" city could either mean a city in the wider area of Macedonia, or a city inhabited by ethnic Macedonians, a city in North Macedonia should be called a "North Macedonian" city. This is still in analogy with Bangladesh, where a city in it is called "Bangladeshi", while a city inhabited by ethnic Bengalis or in the wider region of the Bengal is called "Bengali". --Antondimak (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr and Antondimak: Oh the finer points... These adjectives will bother us for a long time, I bet on it. It's pretty clear to all of us I guess that borders are indeed "state-related" since they are not natural geographical features, but created by states to define their legal territory. On the other hand mountains, rivers, "the countryside" have always been there and will be independently of states and countries, and fall into this vague definition of territory included in Article 7. So, we can definitely say the "North Macedonian" and the "Greek" side of borders, but we wouldn't really use the phrase the "North Macedonian" and the "Greek" (or the "Greek Macedonian") side of Kaimakchalan. But again that depends on the context, and I think the same applies to the cities, depending on if you are talking about the people who live there, or what state controls it. After all I think we don't really have to use adjectives where we can avoid it. The fastest way to start a war in Middle East would be to put an adjective before Jerusalem. A "city in North Macedonia" is fine enough and serves also the goal of disambiguation. Since we are getting to these finer points, I really want to go to an adjective-related issue that it's still quite ill-defined, and lies somewhere between the state/culture dichotomy. On what criteria we will define which nouns fall under the definition of culture/language/ethnicity, that is uncontested housekeeping as "Macedonian", and are clearly not state related, especially if we decide to use "North Macedonian" for people and all adjectives? I mean is it "Macedonian folk music" for obvious reasons, but "North Macedonian pop music" because it is commercial and not only ethnic Macedonian? Is it a "North Macedonian newspaper" because it is published in North Macedonia, but a "Macedonian book" because it is written in Macedonian language? --Argean (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I envision that too. On the point of cities, with most cities in North Macedonia being multiethnic, I sincerely doubt that a medium that chooses one adjective over the other will use for example "Macedonian" city Ohrid (being predominantly ethnically Macedonian), but "North Macedonian" city Tetovo (being predominantly ethnically Albanian). It just doesn't make sense. As far as the people go, despite the ethnic agrument constantly brought up - regardless of ethnicity the people in North Macedonia wouldn't be especially thrilled to bo called "North Macedonian". For example, I think that NBA star Cedi Osman, being a proud Turkish Macedonian (he recently wore sneakers bearing both countries' flags) - would be incensed to learn that he is "North Macedonian" on Wikipedia. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: River and mountains may exist without the state, but when referring to them with a country-related adjective, you are referring to a property given by the state. Since it's in North Macedonia, it would obviously in my opinion be a "North Macedonian" mountain. About cities, we don't refer to cities as North Macedonian when they don't have an ethnic Macedonian majority and Macedonian when they do. We call them North Macedonia always, unless we specifically want to stress the characted of the city as a historical and cultural Macedonian settlement. I think the Bengali parallel helps here, or either North Korea for that matter. A city in North Korea is "North Korean", but only if you want to stress its ethnic character, or portray it as part of the wider region, then you use "Korean". The exact same practice applies to North Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: Personally the only use for an adjective before a geographic locale within wikipedia that I can think of is the Lists of... (mountains, rivers, cities, etc), where we can use the "of North Macedonia" to make our life easier. The remark that the selection of adjectives depends on the context when referring to geographic locale, including cities, was a general observation that this selection ("Macedonian" vs "North Macedonian") might be different for various sources, depending on what their content and target audience are. So for example a news agency might encompass the term "North Macedonian" when referring to cities much faster compared to media that are interested more in cultural and historic aspects or in individual people stories. There is no textbook on what term they should select, because this is not dictated by the agreement, regardless what most of us would expect to happen. Name changes might take time to catch on, and although I anticipate that for official institutions this should happen rather quickly, I'm not sure what will happen for other uses especially when these secondary sources consider the name a. of the country, b. of the people, c. of the language, and at least for a and c we already know that these names will be different. There are a lot more terms, than the ones referring only-to-state or only-to-culture, in peoples' everyday activities and I can't see the process of drawing the line between Macedonian and North Macedonian, being such an easy and straightforward task. --Argean (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: Being a multicultural state, I think the safe choice is to use the term "North Macedonian". To be fair, a "Macedonian" identity didn't really exist for long before the modern state, so the only really ambiguous instance I can think of is the SFR Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: Most ethnic Macedonians that I know would be triggered by your statement, but I'm not. Actually, it's a fascinating study of how ethnic/national identities develop. It began somewhere in the late 19th century, was having hard times in Ottoman era during competing national narratives of already developed nation-states (Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian) and it finally had some definite form in the 1930s. So, yes it's 'artificial', but not more 'artificial' than other ethnicities, only better documented and contested. I think that if we run a genetic test in the whole of the Macedonia (region) or even in the Balkans, we would find that we're more similar than we could imagine. Moreover, we're culturally very similar, this sort of warm half Mediterranean / half Ottoman mentality. It's a shame that we're divided by these issues. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are looking anyway, can I direct them toward formal style guides please?

As I've said on several name change discussions recently, for me a style guide is a far stronger source than a simple instance of usage. The instance of usage is the choice of a single journalist or editor who may or may not understand the naming issues and who may or may not be following a house style that may or may not exist.

A style guide documents the policy of the organisation and inidcates that the organisation has made a conscious choice as to what name and what adjective to use. Chances are, most publications haven't updated their guides yet, but if they do it'll be useful to reference them. Kahastok talk 12:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you have my Support to do this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UN published their term guides today, which I think is the reliable source carrying the biggest weight. As far as journals and news agencies go: Do you know of any style guide publicly available? Usually those are internal? AFAIK, the only publicly available style guide is that of New Europe, which is (a) biased because of the owner and the editorial team being almost entirely Greek and (b) inconsistent because its journalists still not being sure what will „catch on“. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few British ones I know of online - the Guardian, BBC News and Telegraph, and I'm certain that there are others. Chances are an Amazon search will find more that are available as books. Unfortunately, the ones I've checked - including those three - have not been updated yet. Kahastok talk 14:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Can't wait for them, actually. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia UN Term NOTE: The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia". Other adjectival references, including "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used in all of the above cases.

Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad may be "Macedonian". The adjectival usage for activities may also be "Macedonian". This is without prejudice to the process established by the Final Agreement regarding commercial names, trademarks and brand names and to the compound names of cities that exist at the date of the signature of the Final Agreement. --Macedonicus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Levivich just WP:SNOW closed the housekeeping section. I have undone the close, as I don't think it meets ArbCom's requirements of The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. If we get clarification that a similar close is valid, then feel free to undo my edit. Danski454 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. When ArbComm asked for a month long RfC and a panel there was a long running naming dispute. Everyone in real life has reached a compromise and it is not contentious for Wikipedia to follow it. WP:IAR applies and other principles. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The motion putting in this procedure came in June 2018, after the Prespa Agreement, so after the RL compromise was reached.

And the whole point of including this section was to get a change through that met the Arbcom requirement - because while the intergovernmental dispute is resolved, there are lots of people who didn't agree with the choice. That's why, in this case, process is important.

And there is no need to close this section early. All the provisions are already being used in practice, whether we want them to be or not. That's why WP:MOSMAC has a header asking editors to apply discretion in this case.

As such, if you insist on retaining the snow close after barely 30 hours (let alone 30 days), I suggest that you go to Arbcom and ask them to ratify your decision. Kahastok talk 22:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t insist on retaining the snow close but I would value editors input as to whether or not it’s a good idea to file a request for amendment/clarification that modified or lifts altogether the 30-day/3-closer restriction. I note that the underlying RM had overwhelming consensus and this RfC doesn’t appear to be contentious. I don’t mind writing the filing but only if others think that doing so would be helpful. Leviv ich 23:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A day after this has opened is too quick. The RfC hasn't even had enough time to auto-list in the various RfC categories. --Michail (blah) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need either an unclose or an Arbcom endorsement. At the moment this is closed, due to User:Legacypac's revert. If it remains closed and there is no Arbcom motion allowing the close, we cannot then claim to have the level of consensus we need to make the required changes to WP:MOSMAC.

WP:IAR is all very well, but I feel it distinctly unwise to rely on it to resolve one of the most contentious disputes in Wikipedia history. Kahastok talk 23:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich the housekeeping section should be reopened. Concur with Kahastok above. --Michail (blah) 00:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I also agree with Kahastok. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m ok with whatever the consensus is but it’s not my place to unclose anymore. Leviv ich 04:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I unclosed it. I will not close this discussion nor take any further action in this matter without consensus. I recommend we either place a notice up to not close any section of the RfC or file for a arbcom clarification.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We use Bold for the votes themselves, but I thought Italics is more approriate for explaining our votes? The issue isn't important, but I have seen cases where editors, in past RfCs, used bold on keywords that contradicted their votes, causing confusion when votes were being counted after the RfC ended. Shouldnt we just use italics if we wanted to emphasize any keywords when explaining our votes? I shall clarify that, thus far, no inapropriate uses of bold for explaining the votes were detected, so all good. However I am bringing this to everyone's attention, just in case. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For making this the standard for this RfC. (If it comes up.) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to the procedure we are following, a Panel of Three Uninvolved Contributors is needed to eventually close this thing. How are we going to decide who those people are going to be when we get to that point?

It obviously can't be anyone who voted in the RfC, but what about people who helped draft in the Talk page?

Are we going to elect these three individuals, or should that remain unclear until the closing process has begun? I am quite unsure about that. The Arbitration Committee selected the first admin last time, but they left no clear guidance for us this time on who it should be (except that it didn't have to be all admins). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until the RfC has closed, and it should be people who are completely uninvolved in my opinion. --Michail (blah) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that we should recruit them at WP:AN maybe a week before we finish, so that they're able to close when they're ready. WP:AN not because we require admins (we don't), but because it's a central place where people are likely to notice the request. Kahastok talk 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michail, if that is the case, would you say I might as well participate? I have not actually done so. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panel-forming is typically done the way Kahastok describes, by asking for volunteers at WP:AN; see for a recent example the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Experienced (and flame resistant!) closer needed for contentious RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, recruit closer from WP:AN (at least for the lead overseer). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf., oh! Thank you for that link; That was definitely something worth me checking out! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖

I'm surprised there is no question in this RFC about how to update the usage guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)#Other_articles? Clearly now that the WP:OFFICALNAME has changed, all references to "Republic of Macedonia" should be changed to either "Republic of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia" (except for historical references obviously). However, there should be a discussion on whether "Macedonia" (without the North) should continue to be used as the WP:COMMONNAME for the state, for example "to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous". Macedonia has been the common name for the state throughout the dispute, but could not be used for the article title due to ambiguity with the region. However, in text it has always been used were unambiguous. Now that the offical name has changed, it's not clear whether the common name will likewise change, and if this usage requirement should therefore be changed. I have no view either way, as I think we'll need to wait to see how usage adapts to the change, but think there should be a question addressing this point on the RFC. TDL (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is covered by North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in articles about the present in the housekeeping section. I do not think the common name is in dispute, as almost no news sites consistently use Macedonia anymore. Danski454 (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Demonym? This is not identical to nationality , ethnic group etc. It can be an inhabitant , an expat eg New Yorker or even product Scotch Whisky. So it could be ie North Macedonian Football team, North Macedonian wine I propose the following options:

• Option A: Macedonian
• Option B: North Macedonian
• Option C: Any of the two depending of the case

--Stevepeterson (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by the adjective section. --Michail (blah) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media Guidelines:

PRESPA AGREEMENT – MEDIA GUIDELINES

Considering the recent change of the official name of North Macedonia, we would like to provide you with a guide to writing about our country in accordance with the Prespa Agreement. We kindly ask that you use the following terms:

The official name of the country: “Republic of North Macedonia”; Short name: “North Macedonia”.

Nationality (citizenship): Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Official language: “Macedonian language”. Country codes: MK and MKD. The adjective “Macedonian” is to be used when relating to ethnic and cultural identity of the people, our language, history, culture, heritage, territory and other attributes. Such terms in this context are distinctly different from those used and related to the region of Macedonia in Greece. Correct examples: Macedonian ethnic identity; Macedonian language; Macedonian culture; Macedonian territory; Macedonian people; Macedonian history, Macedonian mountains; Macedonian literature; the Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet; Macedonian food; Macedonian churches etc.

Incorrect: Other adjectival references, including “North Macedonian”, “Northern Macedonian”, “N. Macedonian” and “NorthMacedonian”, should not be used.

The adjectival reference for the State, its official organs and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad, should be: “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. 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.

The adjectival reference for activities may also be “Macedonian”. Correct examples: The Macedonian Economy; the Health sector of the Republic of North Macedonia; Macedonian Art; Macedonian Music; Macedonian Agriculture; Macedonian Architecture; the Food Industry of North Macedonia etc.

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

______________________________________________

Q&A on the Prespa Agreement:

On 14 February 2019, following an agreement with Greece, the name of our country changed. You can read the agreement here. Still, exactly how to describe us can be confusing! What follows is an explanation of what we have agreed in Prespa and how to describe us, our country and our institutions:

North Macedonia Made Simple

Q: What exactly is the correct name of your country now?

A: Officially we are now the Republic of North Macedonia, though just North Macedonia is fine. Be careful though: We are not Northern Macedonia.

Q: So are your citizens North Macedonians now?

A: No! They are of course Macedonian citizens and citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, but otherwise it is absolutely correct to describe ethnic Macedonians simply as Macedonians, without the adjective “North”. And actually don’t use the term North Macedonian at all, but we will get to that.

Q: But surely your languageis North Macedonian now?

A: No. It is just Macedonian, exactly as it was before the agreement with Greece.

Q: I need to know your country codes. Have they changed?

A: No. They remain the same as before: MK and MKD.

Q: I am going to write a story about food in your country. Should I talk about North Macedonian cuisine?

A: No. When describing anything related to our ethnic or cultural identity the adjective Macedonian alone is correct while North or Northern Macedonian would be wrong. Some correct examples include: Macedonian culture, Macedonian history, Macedonian literature, the Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet, Macedonian churches, Macedonian ethnic identity and so on. Bear in mind however, Macedonia and Macedonians, mean something distinctly different in Greece.

Q: So, if I have lunch with your president what should I say?

A: Good point! You would be correct to say that the President of North Macedonia served you a lunch of delicious Macedonian specialties. It would not be correct to say that you had lunch with the North Macedonian president.

Q: This is confusing! Why is he or she the President of North Macedonia but not the North Macedonian president while your food is just Macedonian?

A: As part of the deal with Greece we have agreed not to describe any state body as North Macedonian. Anything connected to the state, the government, the presidency, private entities and actors related to the state or activities financed by the state abroad will use the adjective North but it is not necessary to use it otherwise, for example for food. So, our country is run by the Government of North Macedonia, our head of state is the President of North Macedonia, foreign affairs are run by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia and so on. North Macedonia should also be used for all other official bodies too, for example, local municipalities and Saints Cyril and Methodius University. For example: “Tetovo is a municipality in North Macedonia where it is common to hear people speak in either Macedonian or Albanian. Likewise: “Saints Cyril and Methodius University is the oldest university in North Macedonia. I went there to do an interview about the Macedonian economy.” Again, be careful – not North Macedonian. Yes, it is complicated, but it took us 27 years to get to this agreement!

Q: Does the United Nations know about all this?

A: Of course! We notified them officially and everything described here is officially lodged with them here.

--Macedonicus (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 10 days since the beginning of this RfC and the Media Link Repository has grown steadily. It's still a bit messy, but with international organizations, governmental organizations and reference websites (such as Britannica) weighing in, contributors can have at least some idea about current usage of the respective terms in reliable sources and not base their decision primarily on crystal balling. Contributors, apart from their knowledge of Wikipedia policies, should always look for reliable sources to guide their decisions, since this is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. So my proposal is to add small notes before or after the nationality, adjective for state-associated entites and other adjectival usage, for example For current adjectival usage of respective terms for state-associated entities see the reliable sources list. Do you support or oppose this? --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please, this makes sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen references citing the The World Factbook on North Macedonia which was updated a week ago (February 19) removed from the media section because it was 'obviously not a conscious choice' to refer to the nationality as Macedonian(s) and other sections were not updated. The assumption here is that the government agency did a sloppy work. This might be the case, but how can we know for certain? They might have left it because they refer to N. Macedonia anachronistically or for some other reason. The facts remain that a) it was updated post Feb.12 and b) now the CIA World Factbook refers to the nationality as 'Macedonian(s)'. They might change it in the future into 'North Macedonian' and then we should update accordingly. They might add the 'citizen of North Macedonia' part and then we should update accordingly. They might not update it for a long time. IMHO, 'obviously not a conscious choice' is just an assumption and we cannot dismiss a reliable source just because of that. I might argue that the Kingdom of Netherlands did not make 'a conscious choice' (maybe they didn't receive the memo from the MFA?) when it referred to the people as 'North Macedonian nationals', but not knowing that, I did not remove that source, or other sources. And in fact, they changed the reference in less than 24 hours, it seems. What are your thoughts? --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I have to agree with the others here who objected to citing it. The text as a whole has evidently not been updated at all. It still uses plain "Macedonia" as the country name throughout the text (except in the new headings), including in sentences in the present tense that evidently refer to the present time. It also still describes the naming conflict in pre-Prespa terms, without any reference to the recent changes. The contradictions between the text body and the headings makes it clear that this is a preliminary state of editing; it's quite inconceivable that it will remain like that in the long run. The Factbook has a weekly update routine, so maybe we'll just have to wait for one or two more iterations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, I actually think is a good assumption, however, isn't it just an equally good assumption that, for example, the USAID did an equally sloppy work and just added 'North' to every adjectival use of 'Macedonian'? It certainly happened with the Dutch, the British and the US Embassy in Skopje. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that it really doesn't matter very much one way or another, it is just one source out of multitudes of RSs that we have now. It can be ignored or included and it will not make much difference. Fussing over a single source just nit-picking. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Guess I've entered a nit-picking spiral. I'm not usually like that but I've seen users quoting metadata to discredit a source. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And IMO, I have a feeling that the dust has not settled completely yet (but it will, soon or later), and thus, we have to be abit more patient with sources being erratic, inconsistent, and inaccurate with the use of the terms. After all, countries don't change names everyday. Time and patience is the key. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, I was little taken aback when I've met such enthusiasm to start the RfC and to „decide“ the new terminology, even before the UN received the notification and decided on their own terminology. The name dispute is/was a complex issue, it is sensitive, it had serious political implications especially in North Macedonia (as witnessed by the rise & fall of nationalist and authoritarian Nikola Gruevski) and it took almost three decades to make this step. Interestingly, I'm under the impression that Wikipedians from the region were not in any kind of haste to start the RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that Wikipedians from the region were not in any kind of haste to start the RfC. Oh you noticed too? If you want my opinion, the lack of enthousiasm among Wikipedians of Balkan origin to start the RfC, relates to the same circumstances that contributed to Gruevski's fall and the new political reality in the region. Not sure if this is good or bad, but today Wikipedia is much much more calmer than, lets say, 10 years ago, and I am happy with that. My only concern is IP disruption which may use the conflicting WP:RS to impose their views on terms and wording that have to be used in Wikipedia's articls related to Macedonia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually active in the 2005/6 Macedonian Slavs / ethnic Macedonian naming dispute and I definitely know what you mean. Wikipedia didn't have the infrastructure of policies it has now (that were consensually built by the community in the meanwhile, just like the contents!), so the most evident solution to end an edit war for an administrator back then was to create a 'poll' (the precursor of RfCs). I warned against it and turned out to be right - it was one of the most shameful events in Wikipedia history, with ethnic-based voting hitting record highs. Perhaps luckily - it ended up a „draw“ and then the dispute went to the second phase, which was mediation. The entire dispute went on for about 8 months and the Greek side eventually decided it doesn't want to go to Arbitration. Meanwhile, crafty administrators inspired by the events decided to create the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy that eventually during the following decade was somehow split/evolved into several policies - the most notable being WP:TITLE of course, but the essence of that preterite policy is best captured by WP:MOSIDENTITY, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. All these events led to me to write one of the first presentations on Wikipedia:Systemic bias - presented at one of the first European Wikipedia conferences in Belgrade (2006). I have the same uneasy feeling now - that this RfC was structured badly, ignoring important policies for the sake of expediency and will likely result in more problems than solutions. The greatest paradox of this RfC is that, although everybody seems to agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we're encouraging contributors to do just that: predict and decide on that prediction, without waiting for WP:RS to settle in. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, and uses WP:RS to reflect on content. However problem is: WP:RS appear ot be using both terms for the time being. To avoid potential problems, editors have to form a consensus to keep the articles tidy and agree on some basic rules regarding the use of terms to avoid edit wars and disputes over them. The idea for a RfC wasn't proposed by me, but by almost everyone here, and I agree this has to happen soon or later, instead of letting the issue drag on without a consensus which would be counter-productive. The RfC cannot wait for much longer, I am afraid, as the dust over the term usage may take quite some time to settle down, and we can't predict how long that will take before a RfC is eventually to be called. Plus, from past experience, sticking solely on Wikipedia's rules (for WP:COMMONNAME for example) didn't exactly resolve every issue and this is why WP:CONSENSUS was needed to deal with issues regarding the disambiguity of the terms and other technical issues. It was that consensus that brought an everlasting stability to the project (besides the usual IP disruptors). I don't have a definite answer on when and what is best to be done, but I wouldn't like having this issue left in limbo. But nevertheless, I understand your points. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the RfC Future Perfect at Sunrise mentioned the principle of conservative Wikipedia usage (don't force a change unless there's clear evidence that usage outside Wikipedia has also changed). I think it's a good principle. We may or may not agree that the world was right to have used the term 'Macedonian' pre-Feb 12 to refer to the nationality, state-related entities and so on, but according to WP:NPOV it's actually not Wikipedia's business to decide who's right or wrong but rather to report on it - Wikipedia being descriptive, not presriptive. We are ignoring the fact that up until very recently 'Macedonian' was almost exclusively the WP:COMMONNAME. We drew an arbitrary line on Feb.12 and decided to simply ignore all past usage, although I'd argue that common name = past usage + current usage. But even after February 12, while it is true that WP:RS use both terms and even some other terms, these are not divided equally among the sections, and also sources don't carry the same weight. It may be said that state-related entities are referred by both terms almost equally by media, however most official usage is avoiding the adjectival form altogether. Other adjectival usage: too early to tell, but I see the conservative trend of using "Macedonian" more often (except for the territory maybe, like in the case of Britannica), and then you have the official sources like UN suggesting that "Macedonian" may be used, the position of North Macedonia that "North Macedonian" shouldn't be used, and the position of Greece (or some sources) that "Macedonian" may be used, but also "North Macedonia" may be used, as well. And then you have the nationality issue that I could defend only on WP:MOSIDENTITY basis with zero official use of "North Macedonian(s)", Britannica strongly weighing in on "Macedonian" for all biographical articles and only "North Macedonians" in passing, and media usage of "North Macedonian" restricted to the likes of Gulf Times and Greek Reporter. Sorry, but I don't think that editors were guided by WP:RS at all, as reliable source(s) can be: ignored or included and it will not make much difference. There's a strong impulse to be prescriptive here, as suddenly people finding out they are "confused" by "ambigious" terms such as "Macedonian". --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree that the world was right to have used the term 'Macedonian' pre-Feb 12 to refer to the nationality, state-related entities and so on Huh? I haven't made this statement or expressed such a position. You may have confused me for a far-right nationalist? Contrary, I didn't care which terms the world used prior to 12 February, nor I will post-date as I believe in self-determination of people. I don't know what made you believe this, but I do not have problem with the term "Macedonian". Have you come to this conclusion just from looking at my RfC votes? FYI, in the RfC, whatever options I voted, wasn't for "being against term Macedonian", but only due to personal concerns over the term's ambiguity since, in the past centuries, the term Macedonian used to mean mostly the geographical, or the Greek/ancient Greek elements, not the Slavic, while nowadays it can mean all these 4 elements, which, Wikipedia has adequately addressed/is trying to address through its concise policies and consensus. Please be polite and retract on this statement immediatelly, it is very offensive when someone puts words to my mouth. :( --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, I meant is more like a we, as Wikipedians, so I changed it. My point is that a lot of contributors (not you personally, at all), seem to have taken a prescriptive, rather than descriptive approach on this issue. A constant point that is raised, for example, is that "people confuse nationality with ethnicity". Well, if we here confuse the both terms, how do we expect the average reader not to confuse them? And moreover, this alleged "confusion" doesn't seem to be shared by the vast majority of reliable sources? Sorry again If I have accidentally offended you. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe things can be much more simpler than that, if we describe the ethnicity and ethnic groups by how they self-determine themselves (such as Macedonians, Macedonian people, Macedonian minority, etc) independently and separately from their nationality, or a collective reference such as legal members of the North Macedonian state, such as Macedonian nationals of North Macedonia / North Macedonian citizens or North Macedonian nationality. I mean, the same is the case about the Greek Macedonians. Although they have a regional idendity as Macedonians, they are Greek nationals, of Greece, or Greek citizens. This is just my opinion. Sorry if I am not of much help here, but the RS used both terms, and it is up to editors to decide which terms are more descriptive of the nationality of people. For certain we can't use both terms, we have to chooce one or the other and each term has its pros and cons. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to push this thing further, I'd just like to stress that while it is true that both terms were used by RS, these mentions have unequal weight - WP:UNDUE. It is not same to see a "North Macedonian" reference in Gulf Times and a "Macedonian national" reference in an official UK governmental website. And then you have the majority of sources clearly referring to "Macedonians" regardless of their ethnicity. NBA is referring to Cedi Osman as "Macedonian" (he's an ethnic Turk), and English websites reporting about the Premier League continued to refer to Ezgjan Alioski as "Macedonian" (he's an ethnic Albanian). --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to stir up the issue again, but CIA's World Factbook has been updated once more today to include all the recent developments after the implementation of Prespa agreement and removed all present references to "Republic of Macedonia", but still lists the nationality as "Macedonian(s)". We might want to wait for one more week though, because it still uses the term "Macedonia" many times throughout the text (most are past references though), but we might need to consider the possibility that indeed this has been a conscious choice after all. --Argean (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should. They might continue to use Macedonia anachronistically for a long time after the name change. We are including a single mention of "North Macedonian police certificate" as a reference that the entire Government of Canada made a conscious choice to refer to the state as "North Macedonian", but we are in doubt that a twice updated CIA World Factbook made a conscious choice? This doesn't strike me as reasonable, or fair, at all. If they make another update, we should include those updates as well, but until then I don't see why we shouldn't include it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlavrSavr, I understand what you are saying, that Macedonian is a more common name per WP:COMMONNAME, but still, what you are missing out here is that Wikipedia's editors are called to choose a term while taking in account multiple factors, besides WP:COMMONNAME. After all, WP:COMMONNAME isn't meant to bypass other issues and or to be followed blindly and override all of Wikipedia's other policies. If that was the case here, then the country article today wouldn't been renamed North Macedonia but simply Macedonia (not even Republic of Macedonia), replacing the disabiguation page. And even the current RfC shouldn't have been initiated in the first place and instead, chase for RS and calculate which term is used by the majority of the RS. Now, regarding "Macedonian" it can mean, besides the ethnic idendity of some people, also the adjective for people besides the ethnic group, and or the geographic idendity of other groups in the neighboring countries, and thats why editors will need be careful which shortened form they choose for the nationality. The official term is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", yet the RfC gives us 2 options to choose from, although none of which are official: the one short form has heavy use besides meaning many different things among others and being closer to the country's old name, while the other short form has no heavy use yet is closer to the country's new name. We will need wait what will be the consensus.

So far the biggest challenge of the RfC is its "Nationality" section where a large ammount of editors voted using invalid arguments that "Macedonian" is in line with Prespa Agreement while it is not, which makes their votes questionable. Wikipedia's rules are very clear in that, when a consensus is determined, it is not solely about the number of voters, but also about which option had supporters with the most clear and consistent arguments in their voice of support. My impression is the whole RfC will pass except Nationality section which may require a new RfC of its own, with a more clear wording for the question agreed among the organizers, that would leave no room for potential problems of this kind, such as misinformation/misunderstanding, from happen again. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted at least five Wikipedia policies that apply for "Macedonian(s)": WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:MOSIDENTITY & WP:CRYSTAL. While you dispute WP:OFFICIALNAMES (it is official, in the sense that Macedonian/citizen of NM is IMHO, divisible + article 7.3 + governmental websites, ex. UK Government), the other policies still apply. Exactly zero of the policies apply for "North Macedonian(s)". --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me the only invalid argument that I have seen being used in the "Nationality section" is WP:COMMONSENSE, because it basically cancels the very need for WP:CONSENSUS and defies the WP:ARBMAC decisions. All the other arguments are perfectly in line with the rules that were set before the RfC started. I can't see why we are still talking about the wording, since it is pretty obvious that the main issue is the problematic structure that doesn't allow background information to be available for every section. And I also don't understand why we are still stuck with legal definitions, since it's pretty much obvious, per WP:UKNATIONALS and numerous other examples, that wikipedia does not use legal definitions to describe people, but names that are consistent with WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:MOSIDENTITY. "North Macedonians" is basically an WP:OR term that has next to zero validity to be applied according to any wikipedia rules available. --Argean (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, first of all, I am not here to argue with you about "North Macedonians", and I do not care about what your opinion is on this or the other term, nor I am expecting that you will finally acknowledge that none of the two terms (including "Macedonians") is as valid as you may believe, since you seem quite biased in your statements in favor of "Macedonian". Yes, sorry to say it, but you are not aware how biased you are looking, given how you are directing/focusing your criticism to much to just only the one of the two terms, instead of both terms, and there is no other description for this but biased opinion. It is understandable, but I do not wish to be participant in a such discussion. In my case, although I have my own views, I prefer to be honest and dare to acknowledge that both terms (yes, even the one I voted for) have pros and cons and I absolutely know that none of the 2 available options for descripting the Nationality are as good as you may believe. You should be aware that none of the RfC's options are without serious cons, which is why you are seing that I am not too hyped about the "nationality" part of the RfC.

Second, in my response above to Flavr, I wasn't talking about how good or bad the terms "Macedonian"/"North Macedonian" are, I was referring to the RfC's problem where editors voted citing something that doesn't confirm them (Prespa Agreement). Lets not derail this discussion into another rabble about which term is better or not. This Talk page's purpose is not to argue on terms. This talk page is about the RfC and its information. For discussion on the terms "Macedonian"/"North Macedonian" I'd recommend the section Discussion (Nationality) where more people will be able to access your opinions and comment on them. Not here. This RfC talk page is about the RfC's issues, not about the terminology issues. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People have been patiently explaining to you that indeed yes, the Prespa agreement does confirm the point in question. You are in IDHT territory here. If you still disagree, that's of course your prerogative, but don't keep bringing this complaint up as if it was something that still requires debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People have been patiently explaining to you that indeed yes, the Prespa agreement does confirm the point in question. You are in IDHT territory here. Oh, interesting! You just wrote that Prespa Agreement confirms the term "Macedonian" for nationality. Can you provide me the precise page number or paragraph in the Prespa Agreement which "confirm that point in question"? If you still disagree, that's of course your prerogative, but don't keep bringing this complaint up as if it was something that still requires debate. Incorrect. None was able to explain adequately how does the Prespa Agreement supports the one or the other term. All what the editors did here is to simply repeat their arguments about WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:UKNATIONALS which find myself agreening with, but that does not explain at all how the terms are in line with the Prespa Agreement. Either we have a case of misinformation or misunderstanding.

If you have read the previous discussions on this talk page, other editors too, acknowledged the problems the RfC has, primarily on structure/background information, and proposed ideas which would have helped the editors know better about what they are voting for. And I won't be surprised if there is no clear and solid consensus at the end of the RfC just because the supporters of the one option or the other mistaking it for being in line with the Prespa Agreement and lacked clear and consistent arguments. I am not happy with this. I take it you are unwilling, Future Perfect, to acknowledge these problems and the complaints about the RfC, as long as you are happy with the votes for your preferred term? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the entire problem was the inclusion of "North Macedonian(s)" as a standalone option, and it being Option A, no more, no less. That's why I opposed it. It is literally WP:OR: at the start of the RfC there wasn't a single source using it, apart from Gulf Times and Greek-POV New Europe. It would have made an entirely different RfC if the options were for example "Macedonian OR citizen of NM". It creates this illusion that there is this big worldwide debate over the nomenclature of the people or some kind of "confusion" or "ambiguity" that will be somehow solved by using "North Macedonian". Such debates exist only in Greece and Greek communities and on this particular Wikipedia RfC, and nowhere else (OK, maybe Quora). I also believe it affects the outcome of the survey in the other, adjectival sections. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also just FYI: I would gladly change my vote for the Nationality from "North Macedonian" to "Macedonian", if it is confirmed to be the term used for the nationality in the Prespa Agreement. I do not mind, because I wouldn't want myself picking between an official and an unofficial name. Not because of WP:OFFICIALNAMES but because my position was always consistent when it comes to preferring official descriptions over unofficial ones.

I checked now the Prespa Agreement but again failed to find "Macedonia" as the term for nationality. If FuturePerfect (or anyone else here) is kind enough to provide me a precise page number/paragraph quote on the purpoted "Macedonian" nationality in the Prespa Agreement's document, then I will appreciate it and gladly change my vote from Option A (North Macedonian) to Option B (Macedonian). However, if the RfC's options are purely unofficial (which I concluded are, since I have read the Prespa Agreement myself so many times), then I will stick with my initial vote, which is to pick the better of two unofficial descriptions for the nationality, in this case, "North Macedonian" nationality, since it is about the nationals of North Macedonia, not the nationals of Macedonia. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is now literally the "I didn't hear that" strategy. Anyway, no, I'm not going to re-argue that issue in this thread; it's overblown enough as is. If you really want to hear the explanation again, you can come to my talkpage; I'll give it to you, once, but won't be available for any follow-up discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I honestly feel that is completely pointless to keep arguing if we don't have the same understanding of the situation, and I'm sorry to say but your comments keep suggesting to me that this is probably the case here. You made your point pretty clear, you give to the term nationality an official/legal definition and you want to follow that rule to make your decision, which is perfectly fine for me in terms of methodology and I totally respect your decision to do so. I just want to repeat for the last time that I don't share the same understanding of the situation and I raised my concerns on debating official/legal terms even before we started drafting the RfC. It's very clear to me that for now we cannot apply WP:OFFICIALNAME for the nationality and my understanding of wikipedia is that we also don't need to, because I don't think that we are checking peoples' passports to use "correct" terminology for many nationals, such as the British ones, the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Myanma, the Timorense, the Swati, etc. We use WP:COMMONAMES and whenever there is inconsistency we take into account WP:MOSIDENTITY, while we clearly avoid using terms that may constitute WP:OR or WP:CRYSTALBALLing. This is the methodology that I applied for my voting and I find it absolutely consistent with the rules that we set before the RfC started. I don't know why you want to invalidate the whole process because you don't agree with the criteria that other people use to support their arguments, although they are clearly included in the policies that we agreed that we need to take into account to reach a decision (unlike the WP:COMMONSENSE that others use instead). I'm really saddened by the fact that you find it so easy to call others biased and wrong, because they just don't agree with your opinion, while I keep offering a straightforward explanation of the methodology that I applied, and unlike you I care for other peoples opinions especially when they are trying to contribute to WP:CONSENSUS building. --Argean (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: my dear Argean, when will ever this stop? This talk page isn't for discussion about about Macedonian nationality but about the RfC. Like I made it clear to you before: I am not here to discuss about nationality on a talk page that isn't about nationality, This talk page is about the RfC, (which means, we are ought to discuss here about its problems, its sources, and such things). Even this discussion here is titled "CIA World Factbook" and not "Build consensus about nationality of people of North Macedonia". If it was named the latter, then I would simply stay and watch the discussion from the shadows instead of participating unless I had the mood for. After all, there was a reason why I wasn't a very active participant in the RfC's Discussion (nationality) section - at least not as actively as editors like Peace_in_Balkans were - because I didn't have the required energy to do so, and this hasn't improved now. I used to be very active in RfC discussions in the past, which other editors around here can confirm to you, but some unfortunate recent developments in real life, these weeks, had a heavy toll on me. So please forgive me if I am not too enthousiast to participate actively.

Second, that you have biased opinion does not mean you have a bad or wrong opinion. Most people have biased opinions about politics and other related things, and I am not an exception to this, and thats absolutely natural. If you feel your opinion isn't biased, then let me quote this wise Greek saying: "Before criticizing the other options and point out to their shortcomings, be prepared to criticize yours first and acknowledge your own option's shortcomings". Thing is, I haven't heard you at all speaking about the negatives of the option B which you have so vocally supported in the RfC, while you went to great efforts to convince me and others that the option A which I supported in the RfC, is problematic. Don't get me wrong but I only partially disagree with you, as I consider both options as being problematic, and, unless my memory fails me, I am not the only editor around here who says that, others too made some very valid points against both options. I am not calling you wrong, because you have some very valid points when criticizing the option I supported, but this doesn't mean you aren't biased. Thing is that your criticism didn't lived up to my expectations in being expanded to include your option as well. Which is what I hoped to see but it didn't happen. If this isn't bias, then my apologies, but how would I call it, if not bias?

Really this discussion about nationalities has to be moved to the Discussion (nationality) section instead of being discussed here. It is necessary to put the discussion about sources back to the right track, which is to focuse on the RfC, its issues and the RfC's sources. There is no ongoing consensus building procedure about nationality here on this talk page, but there was a discussion for consensus building on the issue of RfC structure and background info/wording. Perhaps we can continue that discussion if you are interested. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr and SilentResident: Can you two stop using this section to bicker like fishwives? This section was supposed to be about a single reference with a low notability. If you wish to continue this back and forth, rather talk about these issues on the main article RfC, or on each other's talk pages if you prefer a one on one discussion. Yes, this goes for you too Argean and Fut.Perf.. Stop encouraging this talk page becoming a 'discussion away from the discussion' discussion. Stick to the layout/structure issues here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curses Silent! You just beat me to the punch on that one. :> - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well said! :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dearest @SilentResident: you opened that issue here that's why I replied here! I agree that this is not the place to argue about content, that's why in my latest comment I focused only in methodology, but it looks that you are not bothered to go into that (btw I didn't mention "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" not even once in my previous comment!). You instead keep talking about opinions and confusing things, and my instinct says that you do that on purpose. If you are happy to continue the discussion on methodology, please feel free to do that on my talk page. Otherwise, I believe that I have stated my opinions clearly in all questions of the RfC and provided a complete rationale on all of them, if you are interested to read and comment on them. --Argean (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Wiz9999: My apologies, the trap was well set and I admit that I fell quite easily into it! --Argean (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: (btw I didn't mention "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" not even once in my previous comment!). You instead keep talking about opinions and confusing things, and my instinct says that you do that on purpose. Nope I wasn't confusing things on purpose. I wasn't just replying specifically to your last post, but generally, by taking in account your previous posts too. But oh well. Speaking of methodologies, I feel obliged to clarify something about the RfC's votes, and especially the part: I don't know why you want to invalidate the whole process because you don't agree with the criteria that other people use to support their arguments. As you see in the other section on this RfC talk page, I haven't disputed any methodologies or whatever. I was pointing out to how, due to lack of background information, editors who may not have updated thesmelves about the terms, may be unaware that none of the two terms are supported by the Prespa Agreement, yet these people voted assuming that the option B does so. Isn't that a problem? Sorry to tell you that, but it is evident that the RfC failed making it clear to them that both options are unofficial. I would wholeheartedly agree to adding a background information to the RfC if that can help the voters in avoiding these misunderstandings. We all in this talk page know that both options are just an unofficial description, but the voters may not even check on the actual discussions here in the talk page (or in the RfC) to update themselves and avoid misinformation. The editors thankfully are given access to WP:RS but they are not enough when the RfC's question on the matter isn't as clear and concise as it should have been. So the question is: can something be done about expanding the RfC question to include background information (which some editors suggested), or is this a point where "the river does not return"? I would for a start like to figure out if there is any consensus about that background information here on this talk page, and see what can be done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I'm glad to see you realizing that you need to bring the discussion back on track, because I feel offended when being accused of doing exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I'm always very careful to respond exactly to the issues that are being raised, not generally to the previous posts, although I admit that I can get carried away when I'm getting responses that don't make sense at the specific place and time. Now, if you really want to continue the methodology discussion (and here is the wrong place to do it btw), I'm happy to do so, but we need to make sure that we both agree on the principle that the outcome does not predispose to the validity of the applied methodology. I'm not happy to discuss about the actual terms here (although you keep doing it), but I prefer to do that on the actual RfC. And yes, FlavrSavr proposed again to incorporate the background information in the RfC, but you never replied back. Changing simply the wording of the question is half measures. The question is do you now agree adding the whole background information in all sections as was suggested during the drafting process? --Argean (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Argean: but you never replied back. Changing simply the wording of the question is half measures. The question is do you now agree Huh? In case you forgot my reply to you 1 week ago, I am copy-pasting it here for your convenience: "the wording has to encompass the background information, if we want the RfC to be as informative and comprehesive as possible. Have a good day. --- SilentResident 14:05, 23 February 2019" --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I'm concerned that you don't really read my posts carefully, but what can I do? I'm not talking about the wording, I'm talking about the format, and yes you never replied back! --Argean (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh! Sorry, no comment about this back then, and again sorry that I can't comment even now! First, I will need to be updated on the matter and then perhaps I can comment on this. But not before. Can you point a link to the discussion about the format proposal so I would read it? I can't find it on the current talk page. And a question: Shouldn't just having the background info added, suffice for solving the RfC problems reported nowadays? Shouldn't the change of the whole format require restarting the whole RfC or something (if it is what I am thinking it is - I guess the format is about the voting system of the RfC? What else is it if not about text format? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. This was the initial proposal and this was the final survey on the proposal that got rejected back then. I don't think that it should affect the validity of the current RfC, because it just adds a background information paragraph in each section, but honestly I don't really know what we should do. PS to avoid misunderstandings: we can change the wording of this additional paragraph to reflect the current situation (e.g. we now have the official position of the Greek MFA, so we will add it). Do we have time to do that now, since we are already in the middle of the process? I have no idea...--Argean (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I gave it a quick look, that's certainly a proposal that had a drastically different structure if compared to the RfC's current one. When you spoke about formats, I somehow had the impression that would be ideas for footnotes that expand on mouseover and such subtle things, or something similar (such as my edit directly on the RfC which FlavrSavr reverted), or other solutions that would allow for clarifications and background information to be added without altering the RfC's that much, while achieving the goal of eliminating any potential misinformation and misunderstandings that would arise. But no, the proposal in the link you gave me, deviates further from my scope which is to simply cast aside any misunderstandings that the options choosen in the RfC do not follow the official documents and especially the Prespa agreement. While myself I tend to take in account the official positions of governments and international agreements, I do not expect nor want the others to have the false impression they are doing so or that they have to do so, when asked to pick among options Which looks like would be the case if they are to vote right after reading which are the governmental positions on each matter! Nor I would ever try get these editors influenced by governmental positions, which would be the case if the proposed format was adopted and went on by explicitly mentioning any governmental positions on every section of the RfC. All I wanted is editors not be misinformed, not risk influencing them towards the one or the other options. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: it's interesting to see that you see me as bickering, although if you read carefully, it's mostly not me who is arguing with SilentResident, but thanks for taking the effort to take the discussion back to track. I didn't find any reason not to include the second update of the The World Factbook ('of low notability', as opposed to Gulf Times, I guess) in the media section so I'm bringing it back. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the people of Vermont, I do not think their lieutenant governor should be listed on the same level as the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Estonia). Thus, I have removed:

* Lieutenant Governor of Vermont: "Macedonian parliament"

from the media link repository. I have also refactored and reordered it so that United States institutions weren't given WP:UNDUE. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In US reference books N. Macedonia is always compared to Vermont. :) I wonder if that was the reason for the parliamentary visit. Anyway, we're probably better off second-level governmental entities. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That actually made me laugh! ^{Also, I'm glad this all set.} ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans and FlavrSavr: A note for both of you; if you simply put !nosign! anywhere in your edit descriptions then the auto-sign bot won't come and sign newly added lines. You can do this for any edits that you make in the media section. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: It's interesting to see (x2) that you try to teach me basic Wikipedia stuff, although, again, it's not me who's been auto-signed by a bot, or who's bickering. Your level of condescension seem to be paralleled only by your total disregard of reliable sources of any kind and your lack of respect towards an entire nation, or as you said ultimately, the people of North Macedonia will come to accept the "North Macedonian" label, and come to terms with the loss of the individually "Macedonian" one. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: You describe me as 'condescending'. Please rest assured that that is not my intention in the slightest, if you have gotten that impression then I apologise. I can be a bit blunt sometimes, but I never mean to insult.
Yes, sorry also about the earlier ping, I saw after the fact that it was only Peace in balkans who was constantly getting autosigned and not yourself. However, by that point the ping had already gone out so I just left the comment as is was, it wouldn't have made a difference to alter it at that stage. I didn't realise that it was just him who was a new editor here on en.wikipedia. With regards to your quoted text from myself, that was stated as an opinion. An opinion looking long term into the future, I could be completely wrong about it, absolutely! I was merely expressing my overall view on the direction that this will all likely go to one day. I feel I have shown a great deal of respect towards North Macedonia (and the people within) over the years, and I disagree with your assessment that I lack respect towards them. With what you have said about my view on the RSs, my view has remained fairly consistent since the start of these debates. My view has been that the sources are divided overall on what to do with the linguistic problems created post-Prespa. The problems caused by the introduction of the effectively new concept of 'North Macedonia' to the lexicon has left reporters divided on how to actually write their own individual articles. Thus, for the sake of preventing conflict & edit wars, we as EN.Wikipedia just need to make a judgement call one way or another, til one day a clear WP:COMMONNAME is identified and the sources all start following a consistent format. Right now everything is too recent for this to have happened yet, and even some of the sources themselves struggle to keep things consistent, as we find occasionally listed in the media section. I never claimed to not be biased in this debate. I have my opinions, and I express them when I feel I should, even if I am not necessarily correct about them. I reserve my right to my individuality. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: I'm not the one to hold grudges. NPOV is a wonderful postmodern pillar to build an encyclopedia - it actually regards POVs as inherent, and tries to build an infrastructure to represent all views fairly. I have a POV, you have a POV, however, as Wikipedians we should strive to have this infrastructure that gives every view its due weight. I feel the timing and the structure of this RfC fails to deliver that, especially in the case of nationality, with "North Macedonian" bordering on WP:OR. I've been consistently trying to point that this is not a merely linguistical dispute, that it has political implications in the region (that's my POV) - but more importantly, I've been urging to improve the structure of the RfC to NPOV reflect how reliable sources actually report right now. Yes, my first proposal was a bit too cumbersome, and I'm happy that some the pointings reliable sources have been accepted: but too late as everybody's already decided. And, no: en.Wikipedia doesn't need to make a judgement call one way or another - not until the dust has settled in - because: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if most of the reliable sources use the old terminology or are inconsistent Wikipedia should wait until a common terminology crystalizes. Failure to do so will a) likely increase the sources that use the new terminology that wouldn't have been there otherwise (that's POV) and b) actually increase the edit wars. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, from what I see in your argument above, you are essentially saying that we should not make any decisions/ruling on an incredibly divisive issue (nationality) that has historically plagued wikipedia. That we will PREVENT edit wars in this way? I'm sorry, but I just disagree with that view. The whole point of WP:MOSMAC is to set guidelines for terminology (based on sources and reasonable judgement), precisely BECAUSE of the divisiveness of the issue. Is WP:MOSMAC perfect? No, of course not. It is a compromise. As will be the outcome of the RfC's nationality section, the outcome of other sections of the RfC, and the whole RfC from the outset. But I do not believe we will prevent edit wars by not making a ruling on these subjects, whichever the outcome may be. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL matters, but not as much as preventing conflict & arbitration, otherwise we would have no need for guidelines. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: Just remember one thing, no one ever said that any of these matters could not be re-opened at a later point in time. Just that decisions need to be made on how to proceed with this day/week/year's handling of a subject matter. If it is clear that a decision made previously needs to be changed, in light of something new, it can be! After all, this is precisely what we are doing right now with MOSMAC and this RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: Yeah, but... for an RfC to override consensually adopted policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES we would probably need a very high consensus (70%-80%). I hope that the three administrators overlooking the results of the RfC will take that into consideration. If not, I'd probably request a restart of the RfC immediately after March 17. Hopefully, by then we'll have the standpoints of some of the heavyweights in terms of reliable sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph and other style guides that Kahastok mentioned above. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clarification comment about the link here, to make clear that the term "Macedonian" refers to the ethnicity, and @FlavrSavr: deleted my comment with the excuse that this is my opinion. I explained again and again that this is not my opinion, it is clear from the sentence that it refers to ethnicity for everybody who has basic knowledge of the english language. In particular, the sentence says: If you have Macedonian heritage, you may be eligible for citizenship of North Macedonia.. It talks about people who don't have the citizenship of North Macedonia and explains how "Macedonian" heritage may make them eligible to get it. I understand that @FlavrSavr: has her/his own agenda here and deletes everything that she/he doesn't like, but hopefully, this is not true for everybody.

Please let me know:

1) in which cases it's unclear if it refers to ethnicity or nationality, it clearly talks about those people who may be eligible for citizenship, not those who have it already

2) even if it weren't clear that it refers to ethnicity, what is wrong with keeping a clarification that says that they may refer to ethnicity?

3) if we want to include references to the ethnic group, like Macedonian culture this is fine, but why we don't create a separate list of these references? do we intentionally want to mix up all of them to make them look more?

4) as far as I know this survey doesn't discuss the change of the name used for the ethnic group, and it doesn't discuss the adjectival references that will be used for the ethnic group either, so I don't see how references to the ethnic group may be useful, they introduce only confusion and they add more work Peace in balkans (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it’s worth, heritage can be multifaceted and tied to language, religion, geographical region, countries, provinces, other administrative entities, as well as ethnicity. It certainly can be said that the founders of Liberia and their children were of American heritage. Regarding people of Macedonian heritage being eligible for citizenship of North Macedonia (I almost wrote North Macedonian citizenship), I suppose a test of the ethnicity hypothesis would be if ethnic Albanians whose ancestors emigrated from Tetovo applied for citizenship under the provision. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ThorstenNY. This section is about 'other adjectival usage', so it's a bit vague, to start with. I put the reference in the 'people' section first, but someone said it's not about the people, so I just added it in the 'other adjectival usage' as this seemed to be the logical alternative. And actually Peace in balkans I think we should exclude culture-related topics in the 'other adjectival usage': this will be my next proposal. But until then, I think this reference should stay. It's refreshing thing to see you articulating your views in the talk page, although you accuse me of an 'agenda'. I just like to have, as much as possible, reasonable insight into actual usage of the terms, as this will establish WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans: If you wish to discuss the terminology regarding ethnicity, we are effectively covering that in the #Non-contentious housekeeping section. It is part of the third bullet point in the list, with the list as a whole being voted on. It was placed there intentionally, as it was not expected there would be much opposition to continuing to use "Macedonian" for ethnicity, which is what current votes seem to indicate as well (since this is in alignment with Prespa). If you wish to argue against that then the discussion section within it is free for you to use. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, so far, it seems that the vast majority of references to the people remain "Macedonian". As far as the state-related entities go, there seems to be an even split with a lot of sources avoiding adjectival use altogether. It's too early to tell for other adjectival usage but when it comes to culture, the preference seems to be "Macedonian", while other usage - territory, economy seems to be split between "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian".--FlavrSavr (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: The usage for the name of the country is clear, North Macedonia is used by the vast majority. If you see about the people the results are unclear, since most governemental and international organizations avoid to use the terms "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". We have examples of both usages, "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" but they are very few. The World Factbook is inconsistent and cannot be taken seriously until it is updated. I know your opinion "they might continue use Macedonia anachronistically, but this is again an assumption. We need facts not hypotheses. Then there is a clear advantage of the term "Macedonian" from the media worldwide, but this may be because they think that the official nationality "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" can be separated to either "Macedonian" or .... This is an assumption and doesn't matter, it will take years until we see how it converges... this is the truth. Regarding State-associated entities, it is clear that the name is either "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian". Media reports that use the term "Macedonian" are not many, you think they are many because not many people added references about "North Macedonian" in wikipedia. For example, you can see if I added any reference the last week, this doesn't mean they don't exist. And about other adjectival usage, this is really 50-50 so far, and it makes sense. I would certainly expect the term "Macedonian" for whatever is related to the culture/ethnicity, the interesting part is the adjectival reference used for the whatever is related to the whole country not to a specific group of people. Please keep in mind that the name of the country changed three weeks ago, you cannot expect from everybody to be aware of this change. I don't see how Macedonian can still be used to refer to something from North Macedonia in country level, it doesn't make sense to me, but this will take years... Peace in balkans (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThorstenNY, FlavrSavr, and Wiz9999: Thank you all for your time. The two examples reported by the Australian governmental website do not refer to Nationality (citizenship) and this is clear. Especially one of the sentences itself talks about how to get the citizenship. I can accept that it is unclear if it refers to ethnicity or something else, but it is certainly clear that it doesn't refer to Nationality. This is enough for our discussion. The survey is about Nationality, and if we discuss changing or not the name "Macedonian" for whatever refers to the ethnic group and culture of the ethnic group, then yes, we can include these two examples, but we should make it clear using a different section. To avoid any misunderstanding, I don't say that we should not call "Macedonian" the ethnic group or their culture, I never got involved in a discussion about the ethnicity. I focus only on nationality and whatever changes from the Prespa agreement. The ethnicity is not explicitly mentioned in the Prespa agreement. @FlavrSavr: There are more references to the ethnic group that use the adjectival reference "Macedonian". If we don't discuss culture-related names, then it makes sense to exclude them. Maybe it's not bad if we have the full picture available and keep culture-based references, but it's very bad when we present the data in a misleading way like now. As far as I know, we don't have anything to hide here. We are trying to be objective and present the whole truth. That's the point I want to make. Peace in balkans (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans: To reiterate: it's not clear whether the 'Macedonian heritage' refers to nationality or ethnicity. That's why I moved it from the 'nationality' sources to 'other adjectival usage'. The 'other adjectival' section itself is unclear so there's nothing wrong in including it there. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: Indeed, generally, it is unclear if the term "Macedonian heritage" refers to ethnicity or nationality. Sorry if you got me wrong. I am saying that the usage of the term "Macedonian" about "heritage" in this specific way that is used by the governmental website of Australia is clearly NOT about nationality (citizenship). There is nothing to discuss about that, because the sentence itself talks about how people can get the citizenship, which means that they don't have it. Since you now understood what is the problem, I am sure you will take care and handle properly both references. Peace in balkans (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Feb 21st 2019 the annual popularity contest happened in Skopje, R. Macedonia [Ladybug of Popularity]. This is the largest popularity contest in the country, a major cultural event, a local version of the Oscars. The name of the country was mentioned by most participants and they all used "Macedonia" as the name of the country. The new name was used only once in a joke: "When we now want to say: it will be windy in the northern part of the country, will we say: it will be windy in north North Macedonia?" Many bitter and satirical comments were made regarding the name change. Many satirical arrows were directed toward the signatories of the Agreement. GStojanov (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The President of Republic of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov refused to sign 11 laws because they use the new name. GStojanov (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential election in Macedonia is scheduled for April 21st. The name change will be an issue, if not the issue in the election. The current contenders are: Gordana Siljanovska Davkova (to re-evaluate the legality of the name change), Stevo Pendarovski (accepts the new name as a necessary evil) and Blerim Reka (moto:Macedonia will either be a state of laws, or an empty state: a word pun in Macedonian: ќе биде или правна, или празна). GStojanov (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people I talked to in North Macedonia just before the change were not impressed. However like ROK/South Korea they will adjust. In South Korea people just say Korea not South Korea or ROK. North and South Carolina and the two Dakotas seem to manage. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from North Macedonia and reliving the traumatic past few years with the country almost sliding towards authocracy/civil war and culminating in a reluctant referendum... I still don't think that the sentiment in North Macedonia should play a big role in deciding what the English-language Wikipedia should use. I also don't think that North/South Korea parallel is adequate. I don't recall any of the Koreas denying the other its Korean nationality/ethnicity. I also don't think there will be a South Macedonian nationality, South Macedonian Army or a South Macedonian Prime Minister anytime soon. What matters more are the reliable sources and how they refer to the people, the state and other entities. So far, side advocating for change to "North Macedonian" (even forbidding the use of "Macedonian" for non-state entities) has done a poor job in proving that indeed this new terminology has become WP:COMMONNAME. It surely isn't WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Handball Federation website has not been updated after the ratification of the Prespa agreement and the official name change to North Macedonia. You can see here that the country is still called FYR Macedonia. I cannot find any link of European Handball Federation that uses the name North Macedonia. This looks to me a clear sign that European Handball Federation is not officially informed about the new name. Moreover, one of the links of European Handball Federation that reports "Macedonian national team" uses the term FYR Macedonia for the country.

@FlavrSavr: Do you think we should include links from a european organization that still calls the country FYR Macedonia? Peace in balkans (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans: I don't quite follow your line of reasoning. Do you think that someone officially informs sports organizations about the name change, and then they follow suit? I don't think so. I've included just news articles from EHF that were published after 12 February, as an example of adjectival use, I'm not adding it as an official standpoint of EHF. Also, that's not a good way to dismiss sources. I can also say, well, you know, it's obvious that the US Embassy just added "North" before every "Macedonian", and they weren't informed about the Prespa Agreement. Actually, that's exactly what happened with the Dutch, they added "North Macedonian", someone probably from the embassy informed them it was wrong and they aligned it to conform Prespa. So, no, I don't think we should dismiss reliable sources because of assumptions that they we're not informed. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: Thanks for your time. Sure, I agree, but in this case, should we also report sources that use FYROM for the country? It doesn't make sense to me to report FYROM. Since this doesn't make sense, the article that talks about FYROM and Macedonian national team may be not a good source. That's my concern. I think yes they are somehow informed but in this specific case it's more complicated because the "Macedonian Handball Federation" must be renamed and this has not been done so far, so probably European Handball Federation is waiting until everything is renamed, and then the website will be updated properly, but I agree this is just an assumption. Btw this specific article (see here) doesn't have a publication date either, why do we include it in the list of adjectival references? Peace in balkans (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a publication date, it says... 'yesterday'. :) I'm assuming that it will become a date tomorrow. It also feature an ongoing VELUX EHF Champions League that will resume on 20 March. So it is very safe to assume it's something published after 12 February. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Template talk:North_Macedonia-stub#Requested_move_4_March_2019, there is a discussion of a proposal to rename 54 stub templates from "RMacedonia-topic-stub" to "NorthMacedonia-topic-stub". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In recent days there has been an influx of Macedonian editors with basically no involvement on the English Wikipedia (or an average of a few edits a year, all on a handful of Macedonian nationalism-related pages), all voting (unsurprinsingly) to keep using the terms Macedonian for everything (without any discussion) and forcing the Macedonian POV through these votes. I'd like to protest this, and it is a direct result of an active call that was placed on the Macedonian Wikipedia's notice board to get Macedonian editors on the English Wikipedia in order to the vote "for the name of our country". This really puts a stain on the validity and neutrality of the RfC. How will those votes be dealt with to ensure the RfC remains neutral? --Michail (blah) 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to where this 'active call' was placed in the Macedonian Wikipedia? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was placed on the notice board when the RfC was being finalised (the link now redirects to the current RfC), and even though some people have removed their messages since I brought it up as a neutrality and POV-pushing concern previously, the call for Macedonian editors is still there. Macedonian editors should be able to do whatever they want on the Macedonian Wikipedia, and indeed they have kept the country on "Macedonia", but not on the English Wikipedia. We opened this RfC in good faith, and this flies on the face of it. It's one thing to ask people on the English Wikipedia to come vote if they are interested, but this is really pushing it. --Michail (blah) 14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these users have been (appropriately) labeled with the single use accounts tag. While some, such as User:Виолетова, have had slightly more edits on other macedonian related articles here than just on edits to this RfC, meaning that they narrowly do not qualify for the tag. I would hope that when the RfC gets closed in 5 days these single use account tags are taken into account by the closer when tallying up the final votes. If there is a situation where the vote is very narrowly one way or the other because of these single use accounts, particularly for the "Nationality" and "Adjective" aspects, which seem to be the closest of all the sections, then these votes would be considered with this huge asterisk attached. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having in mind how sensitive this issue is, I think Macedonian editors have demonstrated restraint. One does not have to be an anthropologist to realize that imposing a name is an injurious act. Smaller nations are especially vulnerable and sensitive. GStojanov (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GStojanov Shall we then also post an open call for Greek editors on the Greek Wikipedia, in a country with a population 5 times larger than North Macedonia? Then let's see how quick the vote is filled with Greeks voting "North" on everything. The purpose of this RfC is not to impose a Macedonian POV on the English Wikipedia, it is intended for people who contribute to it the English Wikipedia regularly. Given that your account was created specifically so you could post on this RfC, I would suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Arguing in favour of flooding the vote with Macedonians (or Greeks or anything else) who are not regular contributors to the English Wikipedia should be ground for disqualification from the RfC or some other equivalent countermeasure. --Michail (blah) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did the people who put up this RFC expect. This should have been handled quietly by interested editors (which was what was happening just fine preRFC) instead of a massive complex vote that encourages canvessed participation. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to stress that I think this is not a way to solve disputes and I discourage it. I somewhat agree with Legacypac... in the context that this RfC was conceived in somewhat of a haste in an impulse to "decide" or "make a judgement call". I think that most editors cast their "votes" (actually it should be a survey, not an ultimate decision) before any reliable sources appeared on the topic and in total disregard important Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL. I sure hope that the panel of three uninvolved administrators will acknowledge this. At best, at this moment we're looking at no consensus, low consensus or local consensus at best on most issues. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of ending this RfC I would like to stress that the good people of ARBCOM decided that the RfC should last at least one month. So March 17 is the minimum, but we have put that the RfC ends exactly then. Why is that? I actually think it's better to close those sections that have strong consensus and postpone/ restart the RfC / draft a better RfC for those with local/weak/no consensus. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(actually it should be a survey, not an ultimate decision) Actually that is exactly what it is. It's a WP:RfC, the votes should just be considered a survey, not a definitive result. What ultimately matters to the RfC is the discussed points, and the closer should consider the merit of such arguments in addition to the weighting of the overall viewpoint in the form of votes. We all discuss the votes, because they are easy to tally, but the truth is they are simply one aspect to RfCs. However, I will point out that as per WP:RfC it would generally be expected to close an RfC after 30 days. Of course this could continue longer, but I do not think anyone here wants to see this drag on endlessly. Most competent users interested in this dispute have already expressed their view. There is no reason why another RfC could not be raised afterwards if need be. Say, if the closing conclusion left some area open for doubt or interpretation. Such a secondary RfC should not really be a complete duplication of the current one though, as that would generally be seen just as a reason to waste everyone's time. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that FlavrSavr has a valid point there. My opinion is that per WP:ARBMAC2 we should exhaust all possibilities to reach the highest possible level of consensus. It's pretty clear to me that there has not been a satisfactory effort to do so, especially in some of the sections, where the majority of the involved editors have clearly ignored the instructions set by June 2018 Amendment that obviously rules the current RfC. Additionally the fact that many of the involved editors have recognized the fact that there are major flaws in the wording AND the structure of the various sections of this RfC, but no efforts to make necessary corrections have been eventually undertaken, may eventually lead to the possibility of directly challenging the results of the RfC if the closure happens hastily and prematurely. No one obviously wants the issue to drag on forever, but it seems to me that closing some questions now might actually create more problems instead of solving the current ones. Is it possible to request a neutral and well informed opinion on whether some of the questions should remain open, or even have them postponed/rephrased and included in a new RfC? --Argean (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If some sort of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS emerges in this RfC by simple tallying of votes on some sections, I don't think it should be binding, unless somehow the entire Wikipedia community is convinced that WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:CRYSTAL and other relevant policies do not apply for Macedonia articles. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply tallying the votes is obviously not enough and actually is contrary to the logic of the June 2018 Amendment, which allows this RfC to happen in the first place. I can see that many editors have used arguments citing completely irrelevant policies (i.e. WP:Commonsense) and based on the amendment itself the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. Failing to do so, means that we either carelessly ignore previous ARBCOM rulings, or we completely eliminate the need to have WP:MOSMAC. I trust that every involved editor, no matter their opinion, still acknowledges that Prespa does NOT eliminate all sides of the name dispute, especially considering the fact that the agreement is quite unpopular in both countries. To give an example, does anyone expect that the majority of Greeks will suddenly accept the use of the word "Macedonia(n)" in any form by their neighbours, when 60% of the individuals in a recent survey claimed that they will still call the country "Skopia"? --Argean (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'd like to to think that most of the editors are aware that the Prespa agreement was a huge step forward in resolving a 27-year old dispute that had serious political implications for both countries - especially for North Macedonia. This earned Tsipras and Zaev a Nobel Peace prize nomination. While it is true that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, it seems to me that treating this issue in a haste, without respect and the seriousness it deserves, ignoring the agreement as some piece of legalese and reliable sources as mere decorum, we're making Wikipedia a place to wrong great rights. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Prespa is a huge step forward in the overall dispute outside of wikipedia, and I agree that Prespa also does not mean that the elimination of WP:MOSMAC in its entirety is viable (I have indeed seen editors argue for this previously). WP:MOSMAC has an impactful purpose here on EN.Wikipdeia in that it addresses nomenclature grey areas not dealt with directly by legal agreements such as Prespa. However, I do not think that this RfC was done in such great haste as to invalidate it, or without considering the seriousness of the subject matter and subsequent conclusions reached. Yes, we moved quickly on this action, but this was done intentionally, as a large number of disputes could have potentially arisen across en.wikipedia while these peripheral terms/uses were no longer appropriately addressed by the policy, but thankfully these fears did not manifest into anything great. Does the RfC have flaws? Yes it does. Are the flaws so significant as to render the whole discussion invalid. No they are not. This has not been a wrong great rights debate (even if some small minority of editors have taken that stance). It has been a healthy and genuine debate over the new nomenclature issues created post-prespa. It would be wise not to throw the proverbial 'baby out with the bathwater' with this RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the discussion has been very productive and has managed to showcase a wide range of arguments, although some of them are completely irrelevant or outside the scope of this RfC, or wikipedia in general. I absolutely agree that Prespa is a huge step forward and should be treated as such, and for me the most important achievement is the mutual recognition and respect of the different identities of the two people. At the same time we should not disregard the fact that the roots of the dispute are much older and deeper than the 27-year old dispute on the country's name, and Prespa is unfortunately not able to solve these issues. Although I don't dispute by any means the validity of the discussion, I have 2 major concerns: the first is about the process itself, because I'm not sure if all involved editors are aware of the provisions that rule this RfC and which are explicitly dictated by previous ARBCOM decisions, and none of these is simply counting the votes - we are talking about influx of editors, while we should be discussing about consensus building. The second is about specific sections that have been recognized as flawed and I'm wondering if this could cause post-RfC controversies. What I'm suggesting is to simply gauge if we have taken all efforts to fulfill the goals of this RfC and if we -or any neutral uninvolved editor, such as the ones that will constitute the closing panel- think that we haven't been successful enough, I don't see anything wrong in keeping some sections open or trying to improve them and postpone the closure date. --Argean (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the RfC seems to be reaching its end with various consensus levels, I was wondering, wouldn't it be useful to keep the media link repository section open for editing somewhere (not sure where tbh)? Without the 'name of the country' which serves no purpose... This section is, to my knowledge, the only collaborative research attempt to gauge how common each of the respective terms is used in reliable sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is useless anyway. It's just a collection of links done by editors who just want to proove their POV. It's not a research at all. It's also highly biased and unreliable. Just checked one random link [10] from Media reports that use the term "Macedonian", for Polygraph.info therm "society" and guess what - nor "society" nor "Macedonian" are mentioned in that article. A week ago I checked few links and half of them were with false claims or it was unclear if they speak about Macedonians as ethinc group or as citizens of North Macedonia. We don't even know if the authors of the articles used the terms deliberately, or just because by inertia or ignorance. I doubt that they will have a significant influence on the decision. I do not see what kind of work they would do after the decision as they are just biased collection of links. --StanProg (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section is open for anyone to edit, and people are encouraged to revisit links because they're updated - so please correct if necessary. I'll remove that particular link - however it did say "Macedonian society" and it was updated in the meanwhile. The same happens with "North Macedonian" references that are changed into "Macedonian" or "North Macedonia's". Could you specify which links were "with false claims or it was unclear if they speak about Macedonians as ethinc group or as citizens of North Macedonia". Bear in mind, however, that the question about nationality itself would implicate that all of the people of North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian", and we are expecting the average Wikipedia reader to know that for example "Goran Pandev is a North Macedonian footballer" impicates nationality, not ethnicity. I've left out those links that are clearly ethnic based, however, I've left out those that are "unclear" as this is the way most of the reliable sources will refer to the people. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't even know if the authors of the articles used the terms deliberately, or just because by inertia or ignorance" - this is also inherent to determining WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps they haven't heard the name is changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia. Perhaps they have heard that the state name changed to North Macedonia, but the nationality did not change to North Macedonian. We don't know, and it is not our job to determine if they are wrong or ignorant - it's only to report, with due weight how they actually use the terms. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia doesn't exclude POVs, it considers them as an inherent part of human nature and it rather makes an infrastructure where conflicting POVs can be fairly represented, and this is precisely the point of the section. The entire renaming thing is fresh and new so we need every possible reliable source there is - you forgot to mention that there are UN, World Factbook and other references with significant weight. Perhaps soon we'll have updated manuals of style by BBC, Telegraph, etc. It is better than making a decision based on NO reliable sources whatsoever. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless for me to collect links, just to prove my POV. Try searching for "North Macedonian" in google and you'll find thousands of links: (first page): "North Macedonian territory", "North Macedonian basketball", "North Macedonian news", "North Macedonian President", "North Macedonian strategy", "North Macedonian trade", "North Macedonian joint intergovernmental commission"). How adding thousands of such links will help solving the issue? It will not. It will be just POV pushing. That's why I did not contributed to this section. It makes no sense. --StanProg (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "Macedonian" in google and you'll find millions of links. It is up to the side pushing for change to "North Macedonian" to prove that "North Macedonian" has become indeed more WP:COMMONNAME than "Macedonian" when describing people, state entities, and other entities. See the policy here: Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles. It should be fairly easy to find "North Macedonian" is becoming omnipresent and dominant in reliable sources. Somehow, it isn't. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the idea of keeping the media link repository open, even after the RfC has been closed, regardless when this happens and what the outcome will be, but I'm not sure either where the right place is (maybe a link at the end of the updated MOSMAC?). I've been re-reading the WP:ARBMAC2 and it's pretty clear to me that WP:RS are very important to guarantee the NPOV, and determine the recognizable names. Even the current RfC, which is carried according to the June 2018 Amendment should by definition disregard any opinion... which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. Any arguments to ignore WP:RS on arbitrary criteria, seem to me completely superficial and potentially a deliberate effort to manipulate the whole process. On the contrary I think that the repository should be better organized, as it has been suggested many times before, in order to prioritize sources that have increased weight, which apart from international organizations and reference books and websites, include also the major news agencies. Significant manuals of style (like the ones by BBC, The Guardian, etc) should also be included, when they become available, while minor sources, that are currently represented in large numbers, should be eventually removed, when the contribution of more important sources becomes more significant. We should not forget that discussions such as the current one on updating MOSMAC should eventually respect withstanding wikipedia guidelines and policies, not create new ones. --Argean (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see advantages of keeping up the RS list as a part of a larger project involving WP:MOSMAC, but I see this as being out of scope with this RfC, after its closure. Perhaps a separate subpage could be allocated for it post-closure. Say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Sources, which could have a better, more defined, structure for the listed sources than the limitations and restrictions necessitated by this RfC. This structure could be address more individual aspects to the nomenclature than some of the broad generalizations made by the RfC (e.g. nationality referring to citizenship & nationality, state owned enterprises relating to both direct government institutions & government affiliated organisations, and the different types of adjective subject). - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argean I'm well aware of the limitations of the current repository. It seems that at some point I've become the only contributor to it - and it has been difficult to keep it updated and to improve the structure at the same time. I've one-sidedly reduced the number of news agency reproductions to 10 items (seeing that is crazy to include thousands of local media), I believe that in time we will be able to accurately tell which news agencies prefer which term. These trends are already visible: Xinhua prefers "North Macedonian", AFP prefers "Macedonian", AP (after the MFA guidelines) avoids adjectival use altogether. I think it's just a matter of time when there's no need to include reproductions at all - we will make a separate News Agencies section. Minor sources will persist for some time but yeah, eventually we'll get rid of them altogether. Wiz9999 I support your proposal and I think the structure of the media section will naturally become more granular over time. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, it's very hard for just one person to follow all media sources. That's why I think it will be easier for more people to contribute, if we change slightly the format, maybe eliminate already the "Country name" section and the names of the media that publish reproductions of major news agencies reports - I think you've already suggested both. Obviously we need to re-organize the repository and I'll try to find some time to help with that, regardless of the closure of the RfC. I also support Wiz9999's proposal to create a sub-page and link it with the whole WP:MOSMAC project space - it's clearly a joint effort, not a personal one, and it's evidently substantial for determining the use of terms as required by ARBCOM decisions. --Argean (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea is to also separate big green (and maybe) yellow perennial sources in a subsection from the largely minor or local sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this in principle but I already have given up on updating it due to time constraints, and there needs to be some sort of mechanism to ensure that it's both 'sides' that are being updated and not just one side because one editor or another simply does not have the time to do so. I don't see how this can be done though, how will we police this? --Michail (blah) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to continue it in your userspace, but I don't think that this should continue past the RfC in project space as others have suggested.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Wikipedia published a guide for the use of the new official name. The gist of it is: The official name will be used only where absolutely necessary. The adjective remains Macedonian for all purposes. The names of the state institutions that changed will be cited in the info boxes, but in the text they will be referred to as prior to the change. This reflects the actual acceptance and use in the society. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing all here of this instruction, but policies made in another language (even that of the subject matter) will not have authority over policies made on EN.Wikipedia. What is logical use in one language is not necessarily logical use in another. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is a symbolic act of a death to the old name and identity, and re-birth with a new name and identity (think water baptism by immersion). If the subject accepts it, it can be the most joyful and liberating event. If not, it can be akin to a symbolic death, where the subject is deprived of its name and identity, and he/she is unwilling to make the transition (re-birth) to a new identity. It can be the most aggressive act of denial of identity akin to a symbolic murder.

Here at Wikipedia we need to keep NPV. We need to reflect in a most conservative way that the official name of the country changed, but we can't establish (impose) new common names or adjectives. They simply don't exist yet. Macedonian society is still in shock and in denial, unable to process all of this. GStojanov (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of a neutral point of view seems to be that what Macedonians feel should be respected, and what Greeks feel should not. This is a very problematic approach and I hope the administrators will take your views, and other such views, into account when this is closed. I did not see many Macedonians protesting that Wikipedia was arbitrarily imposing names when it decided to refer to the country as "Macedonia" instead of "fYROM". A little bit hypocritical, don't you think? Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a signatory to the Prespa Agreement and can do whatever it wants. --Michail (blah) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but calling someone hypocrite and indirectly attacking them for defending their right to self-identification is equally problematic and definitely not neutral. It's very different to campaign for the correct use of terms, from deciding what these terms should be. The Greeks have been justifiably complaining for the misuse of historic ideas and concepts by the other side and finally we have an agreement where both sides acknowledge and respect the different identities of the two people. But the truth is that beyond this, the majority of Greeks will never accept the use of the word "Macedonia(n)" in any form by the other side. That lead to the interim agreement and the "FYR Macedonia", which was always supposed to be a temporary solution. Still almost all Greeks used and the majority will still use the name "Skopia" when referring to the country and "Skopianoi" when referring to the people. These terms were rejected by the international community and are still considered offensive in North Macedonia. The term "North Macedonians" has not been able to enter common use, at least yet, and Wikipedia is here to record the international common practice and not predict the future. And if all this feels to people from North Macedonia as imposing terms they have every right to feel so, as much the Greeks felt offended when the government of "Skopia" tried to misapropriate the history of Ancient Macedonia. Did anyone request from the Greeks to stop using the term "Macedonians" themselves, or start using the "South Macedonians" to avoid ambiguity? --Argean (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argean Is this a reply to me? No one is arguing what Macedonians can call themselves, but Wikipedia is not here to impose what Macedonians call themselves on the basis of self-identification. Wikipedia works by the consensus of its editors, not by the feelings of group X or group Y. Wikipedia rightly did not consider that Greeks find the term "Macedonian" to be offensive as grounds not to use it, so I fail to see why Wikipedia should use the fact that Macedonians find the term "North Macedonian" to be offensive as grounds not to use this term. The hypocrisy lies in defending one group's right to self-identify, and impose the use of the terms that group uses for self-identification on an exclusive basis, and deny another group the same right. "Macedonians find the term offensive!" is not a valid argument in my view. --Michail (blah) 18:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Philly boy92, I missed the reply tag in my previous comment and yes this was a reply to you. I don't like to repeat myself, but I think I didn't make my point clear. The Greeks have been complaining (rightfully or not) about the correct use of terms and I don't think that Wikipedia has disrespected that. What prevailed in the previous decisions was a consensus to give more weight to reliable sources in order to define what are the most recognizable names, but I don't think that there has been any misapropriate use of these terms by Wikipedia in regards to their historical/cultural meaning. In the present case I believe that we should stick to the same principles, but the difference now is that we are not deciding on the use of terms, but on the actual terms. And of course this will not be determined by the feelings of the two peoples, but by assessing what is the use of terms by the reliable sources. If there is no clear picture based on RS, Wikipedia sets priority to self-identification, per MOS:IDENTITY, so regardless if we like it or not, this might eventually play some role in the final decision. Sorry, but I don't see how having a word on how people want to be called is somehow hypocritical. And finally I don't think that anyone has denied to the Greeks, including Macedonians (Greeks) the right to decide how they want to call themselves, but rightfully has rejected the terms that they use to call others if these terms are not adopted by reliable sources and/or are considered offensive by the people being called by these terms. --Argean (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hypocritical to use an appeal to emotion on the basis of self-determination as opposed to actual wikipedia policy. Editors can hold whatever view they want, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Using MOS:IDENTITY if WP:RS are inconclusive is a different case to imposing “Macedonian” purely on the grounds that this is what Macedonians want, which is the core of GStajanov’s comments. By and large comments like that on the RfC do not justify such views with Wikipedia policy, but with repeated appeals to emotion. Michail (blah) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy92: Well, I can't speak for GStojanov but I didn't recognize any appeal to emotion on the comment above and your response seemed to me as unnecessary overreacting. I just read a call to keep a neutral and conservative stance on the issue, which understandably is emotionally a complicated issue for Macedonians (and Greeks of course). I also don't see any efforts to impose terms based on the feelings of people and still fail to recognise where the hypocrisy is... (maybe I'm too emotionless myself and fail to notice any emotional connotations...) --Argean (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His comment immediately above this one calls for the adoption of the policy of the Macedonian Wikipedia on here, so if for you this is an appeal for neutrality then obviously we have different views on what it means to be neutral :) reading between the lines and understanding context are sometimes important too. Michail (blah) 01:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also beyond me that you don’t think expressions such as “symbolic murder” are a clear appeal to emotion. Michail (blah) 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that was a reference to a non neutral source and I completely disregarded it and I don't think that anyone will take it into account seriously. But still this was not an emotional comment, and you decided to respond to the one that had possible emotional connotations - according to you, I still don't see them :) - and not to the one that references a non neutral source. It's good to read between the lines, but it's even better to respond directly to the problematic bits, and not by implying their interpretation, because this creates an unnecessary string of hidden messages that almost no one can follow. --Argean (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, "symbolic murder" was used as a form of poetic analogy - is not really a plead to emotion, is it? --Argean (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you just described is literally the basis of an appeal to emotion type argument. —Michail (blah) 02:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we like different types of poetry then :) Seriously now, it's much better for a public discussion to keep things straightforward and some responses imho actually don't even have place in talk pages. --Argean (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common names are conservative in nature. They don't change on a dime. It is a process and it is too early for us to know the outcome. I think we should keep a NPV, and refrain from establishing new common names this early in the process. I propose we wait for one more month, and then we add to our criteria the number of searches on Google and Wikipedia to help us determine if a name became common or not. GStojanov (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell THAT to all the people that voted to change the name of Swaziland to Eswatini a couple of months ago... You will not win that fight, believe me, I tried. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is not very accurate Wiz9999. Eswatini was a case of WP:OFFICIALNAME that underwent WP:NAMECHANGE. Similarly Republic of Macedonia already moved to North Macedonia by a simple RM. This is much different, it's about the name of the people and we don't have an article about Macedonians (nationals) to decide a plain renaming or not. We are deciding on changing the nomenclature that affects articles of people's biographies, so de facto there are many more policies that need to be considered. And if the WP:OFFICIALNAME (Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) is not applicable, WP:COMMONNAME cannot be (possibly) determined and there is not consensus, what can we do? Waiting is indeed a valid option. --Argean (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suggested creating an article for People of North Macedonia instead of simply linking 'Macedonians' to 'Ethnic Macedonians', but no one few people seemed to like the idea. Linking 'Macedonians' (regardless of if they are ethnic Macedonians, Albanians, or whatever else) to an article solely about Ethnic Macedonians is like linking the word 'British' to the article about the English people. A lot of people have made that case in the RfC. I only changed my vote because no one few people seemed to to back this idea, and the descriptive name 'North Macedonian(s)' is more appropriate than simply labelling Albanians of North Macedonia as Ethnic Macedonians imho. --Michail (blah) 12:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy92: I want to remind you that I did support your proposal! Maybe I was the only one, I don't remember. It's a valid argument, since there are quite a few similarities to the WP:UKNATIONALS case, in my opinion. --Argean (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's true. Corrected! --Michail (blah) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to see though that you have withdrawn your proposal, because it was the best alternative to overcome the binary dilemma that we are facing right now. We need more ways out of this deadlock, not people succumbing to taking sides in this highly polarised dispute. --Argean (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy92:I actually think it's a good idea, and very Wikipedian too. However, at the time of the proposal (early February) there wasn't much of controversy or reliable sources that dealt specifically with the subject of nationality, apart from New Europe - that would actually be a basis for an article of its own + link it everywhere on Wikipedia. It appeared to be, back then, that if such an article exist it would be largely WP:OR. 0In the meanwhile, I've read that someone in Ekathimerini proposed "North Macedonian" as part of the new Greek policy on Macedonian identity in North Macedonia. There's still not a lot RS info about the issue, however the media section that were discussing below will allow us to make generalized statements such as "most news agencies refer to the people as X". POV statements of government officials would also be useful such as "the government of NM considers that its citizen should be referred to as Macedonians, not North Macedonians", "the government of Greece considers Macedonians/citizens of NM to be an indivisible ensemble". Perhaps this should start as a section of Macedonia naming dispute 'Post-Prespa developements' and develop in an article of its own as more RS cover the issue. BTW, on the issue of Albanians being labeled 'Macedonians' is somewhat of an injustice - I think 'North Macedonians' is something that they will be even less comfortable. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr and Philly boy92: I decided to bring back the proposal of creating an article on People of North Macedonia myself and link it to my vote in the Nationality section. I don't care about the popularity of the proposal, I just want all alternatives on the table. --Argean (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: About the position of the Greek MFA on the issue of nationality: I'm not aware of any sources claiming that the official Greek policy is considering to use the term "North Macedonian" when referring to people, so if you have any links please provide them. I'm aware of two instances that the Greek MFA has published their (official or unofficial) position. The first was the newsletter/circular that was distributed to public Greek organizations/services on the correct use of terms (the original newsletter cannot been found on the MFA's website but a partial copy can be found here and it is assigned as unclassified). The second was rather an unofficial newsletter (a non-paper) that seems to have been circulated among many media that published similar reports on the same day (Kathimerini, Avgi, Skai, in.gr, Proto Thema, Athens Voice, and others) citing unnamed sources of the Greek MFA. According to these reports the sources of the Greek MFA were providing some explanations/clarifications on the note verbale that the Government of North Macedonia sent to the UN. Among these clarifications they reported that the nationality term should be indivisible, "Nationality(Citizenship)" does not refer to ethnicity, and non public/state-financed entities may use the adjectival references "Macedonian", "North Macedonian", or "of North Macedonia". There is no reference to suggest the use of the term "North Macedonian" to describe the nationality. And still, there is no official announcement or newsletter to provide media guidelines on the use of terms, like the MFA of North Macedonia did. --Argean (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an established practice in Macedonia that the citizenship of all ethnic Macedonians is Macedonian. Non-ethnic Macedonian (Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Vlachs, ... ) usually identify as citizens of Republic of Macedonia. Hence the "or" formulation in the Prespa Agreement: "Macedonian/Citizen of Republic of North Macedonia", meaning ethnic Macedonians identify their citizenship as Macedonian, non ethic Macedonians are Citizens of Republic of Macedonia. GStojanov (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to respond to the conversation during the weekend. The reason why I wrote this subsection about the anthropological significance of renaming is to explain that the new WP:COMMONNAME is not yet established, it is simply too early for that. It will take at least few months, if not few years, before we know if the new common name will be accepted in the English speaking world. The subject being renamed does play a role in this process. This role may or may not be a decisive one. If the subject (a person or a society) is at peace with the new name and identity, they facilitate the process, they even fight the inertia of the general society toward the change. If they are not (as is the case with Macedonians) they will resist the change in any possible way they can. (It is a bit strange for me to say "they". I am an ethic Macedonian and this issue is a very personal one for me. But for the purpose of this discussion I am setting this aside.) Renaming anthropologically is a deeply significant identity issue. The old identity dies and a new one is forged. If the subject being renamed is unable to step into the new identity, it will be perceived by the subject as a symbolic murder. She is stuck at the dying part. The subject remain submerged under the water (think water baptism by immersion) and she doesn't want to re-emerge and accept the new identity. This unavoidably will cause a severe identity crisis. Renaming, if uninvited and unwanted, is a tragic loss, a loss of self. There can hardly be anything more severe than that. The only hope for the subject is to successfully grieve. It has to go through the seven stages of grief: Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing and if all goes somehow well the final one: Acceptance. We Macedonians, as a nation and an ethnic group, are still in the Shock and Denial stage. GStojanov (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Macedonia vs. North Macedonia|right

I did a brief analysis using wikipedia's Redirect Analysis Tool [11]. I compared week by week, starting from Feb 12 until today. I compared how many redirects come to "North Macedonia" from "Republic of Macedonia" (RM) and how many from "Republic of North Macedonia" (RNM). The first week the ratio was 93.7% for the RM, the second week it fell down to only 77.5%, but the third week it reversed trend and it went up to 85% for RM, the fourth week it went further up to 85.6% for RM and this last week went even further up to 90.2% for Republic of Macedonia. So Republic of Macedonia is still the more commonly searched for compared to the new official name of the country by a ration of nine to one. The trend reversed in the third week of the adoption of the new official name, and the new official name is losing popularity. GStojanov (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really should not be including any of this in this talk page. If you wish to advocate for your one sided view, please do so in the main discussion and not here where decisions affecting the overall function of RfC are to be discussed.
Also, could I get a gag order placed on this user? For his polluting of this page with his constant POV pushing antics, thanks. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I am out of place. I apologize. I will refrain from further comments here. GStojanov (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, for the purpose of establishing how common each of the respective terms is used in reliable sources, we should move the media link repository section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Sources. Excluding the 'country name' subsection, this page will be a collaborative joint research effort and will address the limitations of the current media section and evolve to have a better, more defined, structure for the listed sources. The end goal of this page is to aid and to ensure the verifiability of the community-based decision making. The page will close or freeze once it is absolutely clear which terminology has become WP:COMMONNAME. Please state whether you support or oppose this project. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per nom --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. as previously explained --Argean (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As I stated previously. Although I am slightly concerned that some aspects/terms may never establish a WP:COMMONNAME over one another (or at least not for the next few decades), but hopefully I am wrong. Either way I do support the idea of this in principal, the benefits of proceeding seem obvious to me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I said above, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure that both 'sides' are being updated. I have given up on trying to update this (it becomes chaotic when there are many sources and it simply takes too much time). People need to be constantly on top of it, which is almost impossible to do. A week's delay in being involved makes it practically impossible to continue contributing as you have no idea which sources have already been included and which have not – how do you avoid duplicates in that instance, and who will police this in future months when others might get involved, who were not previously involved, and add duplicates? How will we make sure that both sides of the argument remain up-to-date, and avoid having one side updated because of someone interested in updating it, but the other has less involvement? It just seems like a logistical nightmare to be honest. --Michail (blah) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy92: The entire Wikipedia is build on the idea that if more people participate there will be more quantity and quality... and neutrality. The best mechanism is the actual involvement of as many possible people with differing POVs. I expect that in time it will evolve into something less cumbersome, as most news agencies and references will have developed their own terminology and there won't be need to include countless reproductions. Local websites will exist too, but they won't have the same weight as now. BTW, while I have been accused of POV-pushing for one-side, I've been also actually updating both sides. I have a busy schedule during the week, but most of the time it's like max up to 10 news items per day. Of course, I encourage everyone to participate - but I don't have the skills to find time or motivation for them. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing all the edits to this section as they have been occurring (since the Peace in balkans signature issue above), and I can vouch for FlavrSavr here. He has been actively updating references for all sides of the debate, I have come to trust his aspiration for neutrality here as being 100% genuine. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wiz9999! Means a lot. While some might perceive me here as some kind of Macedonian nationalist, it's only because of my dedication as both Macedonian and Wikipedian. In RL, I'm exactly the opposite, I've been quite vocal against the nationalist regime and I've openly supported the Prespa agreement - this hasn't exactly made me the most popular person in my country, and even in my native Wikipedia which I helped create 14 years ago. My primary motivation here is to ensure that, if there is change in terminology, Wikipedia follows it's own policies and guidelines. I place big faith in Wikipedia although I must admit I'm kind of disappointed by this particular RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that FlavrSavr has not been updating both sides, I was referring to a hypothetical situation where other more one-sided editors might get involved and there is no one to supervise the procedure :) --Michail (blah) 19:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a hypothetical situation where other more one-sided editors might get involved and there is no one to supervise the procedure. Well, actually this has happened already and FlavrSavr has managed to control the situation very well. I've been checking occasionally the sources as well, although I don't have enough time to contribute myself, and I can confirm that the repository is very well representative of the current situation of media references and I don't expect that we will lose control in the near future, if this hasn't happened so far. As I said before, if we change a few things in the structure it will be easier for more editors to help by both contributing and monitoring other contributions. Although I'm also disappointed by many things during the process of this RfC, I'm pretty confident that most of the heavily involved editors have shown firm commitment to neutrality and other Wikipedia principles and I expect that will keep doing so. --Argean (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is this within our purview to decide? Won't we need a more than local consensus to get it done? Does anyone find we need this is project space specifically? FlavrSavr, could this not be just as well served in User:FlavrSavr/NCMAC sources? I must be missing something here, and if so I would vote WP:IAR Support. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL:, putting in my user space would actually discourage other people to contribute to it - and that will defeat its purpose. This shouldn't be my personal project, it should be a collaborative project. However, we will inform the panel of three admins or even ARBCOM that this project is taking place and how it will benefit Wikipedia - if they decide that it is useless, I will move it in my user space. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since the RfC is currently under closure and while we are still waiting for the panel of 3 uninvolved editors to be formed and assess the consensus, I think we should stop updating the media repository, and ask from the panel to decide on its future. I think that there is no major opposition to proposing the creation of a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Sources sub-page that in my opinion should be reformed and continue updating after the decision is made. I have to say that it's rather annoying to see continuous updates AFTER the RfC has closed. The media repository is supposed to give an impression of the WP:RS at the time that we have agreed that a decision should be made - sources may continue changing in the meantime. If users keep editing the repository, why shouldn't we continue editing the survey and the discussion as well? --Argean (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: as an administrator with a very long experience in Macedonia related issues, do you think this proposal is a good idea? If so, is there anything stopping us to create the page in the Wikipedia username? Like waiting for the panel to decide, ARBCOM decision, some policy or guideline... or should we just be bold and resume the project? --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this would be a WikiProject: Groups of like-minded editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so. Since we already have a consensus that this project is welcome and needed, as we are not obligated to formally propose it to the WikiProject committee, and we need to start ASAP, if there are no objections I will start the page tmrw and add it to the WikiProject category. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Proceed ahead. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean, Wiz9999, Philly boy92, and MJL: I hope you've noticed that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (Macedonia)/Sources is up. I've been doing mostly cleanup work, by updating links, deleting obsolete links etc. Indeed it requires a lot of maintenance, but I've also suggested some improvements that could unburden some load of the sections. Please feel free to contribute. We should also find interested contributors to the page... --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC) @Antondimak, Despotak, and PlaceClichy: if you want to contribute please do... --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this RfC is headed to closure, I'd just like to add some of my thoughts. I believe that the RfC was started too early, before few or any reliable sources weighed in on a lot of issues concerned (especially the nationality, and the state and other adjectival usage) and basically requested contributors to decide on WP:CRYSTAL grounds. Ostensibly, this was done to prevent edit warring (WP:AGF), but I leave the option that this was actually done to force a change in the absence of a clear evidence that usage outside Wikipedia has also changed. A lot of people have already made up their minds without giving much thought on usage in reliable sources, neutrality issues or any existing policies and guidelines.

The most invoked "policy" was WP:COMMONSENSE. Well, the Macedonia naming issue was never about common sense, at all. It may appear that North/South Korea or similar disputes are a good guidance, but that's only WP:CIRCULAR. We have a "North" country that has an exploding sun on its flag - is this common sense?

It is common sense that some of the reliable sources will use "North Macedonian(s)" to refer to nationality, however, this change has not yet happened in the vast majority of reliable sources. It is also common sense that they will not use "North Macedonian(s)" in the absence of a "South Macedonian" nationality and the presence of a quite predictable public outrage in North Macedonia.

It is common sense that some of the reliable sources will use "North Macedonian" to refer to state-related entities, however, this change has not yet happened in the majority of reliable sources, that seem to prefer neutral, non-adjectival use at this moment. It is also common sense that they will also, at some point see "North Macedonian" as too repetitive, in the absence of, for example, a "South Macedonian Prime Minister".

It is common sense that some of the reliable sources will use "North Macedonian" as an adjective, however, this change has not yet happened in the majority of reliable sources. It is counterintuitive, however, that the majority of contributors would like to banish "Macedonian" from Wikipedia, after the adjectival use of "Macedonian" got an official recognition in the United Nations and the European Union.

Anyway, the good people of ARBCOM, perhaps guided by the previous, often nightmarish edit warring on Macedonia related articles established that the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

It is my firm belief that, in the absence of WP:COMMONNAME changing the Naming conventions (Macedonia) and making it a binding RfC in these three sections would constitute a breaking of the consensually adopted policies WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSIDENTITY, thus rendering a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. With the delicate nature of the carefully crafted Prespa agreement and its unforseen consequences (good or bad), unrolling in the real world - this would directly involve Wikipedia as a part of the dispute and mark a stark departure on its mission to create a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. In the case of nationality, as "North Macedonian(s)" is almost WP:OR - Wikipedia will actually create a new dispute. As Wikipedia is increasingly seen as a reliable source, I think that any decision based on local consensus, right now, will actually make "North Macedonian" more common and acceptable than it actually it is. It will also probably create a wave of edit wars. I urge the panel of three uninvolved contributors to take these thoughts into consideration and approach the matter as responsibly as possible. --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have seriously misunderstood WP:COMMONSENSE and the way it was employed by the majority side in this argument. WP:COMMONSENSE does not mean that we expect the world to follow common sense (it often does not), nor that we can use common sense to WP:CRYSTAL, nor even that we expect reliable sources to follow common sense. It merely means that Wikipedia should follow common sense. 'North Macedonian football players playing for the North Macedonian national football team in the North Macedonian capital of Skopje, North Macedonia' is common sense. 'Macedonian football players, playing for the North Macedonian national football team in the Macedonian capital of Skopje, North Macedonia' is not common sense.

Under WP:ASTONISH 'the average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read'. Further, under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, we are instructed to use 'a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize', 'that unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects' and that 'is consistent with the pattern of similar articles'. The term 'North Macedonian' as an adjectival and nationality reference therefore satisfies all these criteria, while 'Macedonian' satisfies none of them. Everyone immediately understands that a 'North Macedonian' is someone from North Macedonia and there's nothing else it could possibly mean. Neither can be said of 'Macedonian'. Of course, under WP:COMMONNAME, one could argue in favour of overriding these principles if the term 'Macedonian' was used by a consensus of sources in these purposes. However, this has not been proven (right now, sources are divided between 'North Macedonian' and 'Macedonian') and couldn't be proven in such a short period of time anyway.

In the meantime, Wikipedia is still using the term 'Macedonian' in all these contexts, even though it has changed the name of the country to 'North Macedonia', unfairly biasing sources towards adopting this terminology and risking the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Doing nothing, or making such terminology permanent, will likely create a nightmarish mess of inconsistent terminology, which will certainly lead to more, not fewer, edit wars. Your argument that adopting 'North Macedonian' is dangerous and will risk real-world consequences is therefore fallacious since either choice constitutes Wikipedia picking a side and both will have the same real-world consequences in opposite directions. The argument from our side is that Wikipedia should adopt the most neutral, common sense terminology, at least for now. Of course, if a consensus of reliable sources emerges in the future, the convention can always be changed.

To conclude, this RfC was created to take a tricky decision involving weighing a number of Wikipedia policies against each other and judging certain facts-on-the-ground that are still fluid. A majority view (though not absolute consensus) has emerged among participants, though the final decision will, of course, belong to the panel of uninvolved contributors, who have every right to decide in the opposite direction if they want. However, your attempt to strawman and discredit the arguments of the other side, while mounting ungrounded appeals to emotion, in the RfC Talk Page of all places is, in my view, very unfair and somewhat underhanded and I felt that I had to provide a response.

Kkyriakop (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second that WP:COMMONNAME is still not established. If we impose it, we will influence it. I am a computer scientist by training and I offer to develop a methodology (technology) of scanning the wikipedia, google and other reputable English speaking resources, that will enable us to data mine and determine the adoption of the terms "Macedonia" vs. "North Macedonia" in absolute numbers, as well as trending (which one trends up/down). This will give us some objective numerical criteria to make an informed decision. GStojanov (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a subsection in this talk page #Numbers are telling us a story. I used the Wikipedia Redirect Analysis tool. The old official name "Republic of Macedonia" is used ten times more than the new one "Republic of North Macedonia", a full order of magnitude of a difference!!! And the use of the new official name is trending down.

I propose we keep the established common name Macedonia, with a note that the new official name is "Republic of North Macedonia". Then we use the two much like we would do with any other country. That would eliminate the need to decide on new adjectives. All adjectives for all purposes can remain "Macedonian" as it is now. We can revisit this in a year to see if the trending reversed and reevaluate. GStojanov (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very precise WP:NAMECHANGES policy that I've already quoted many times and explains what common sense means in the context of Wikipedia and renaming: Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. We applied this policy for the state name moving Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia, however, the other terminology is a completely different matter. The sources do not routinely use "North Macedonian", in fact some of those that have used it reverted back to "Macedonian" or a more neutral formulation. The UK, Dutch and Estonian MFA are among these. It is not impossible that "North Macedonian" will become the common terminology to describe people, state entities and other entities. The change in Wikipedia should follow after, not before that change. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Kkyriakop If you read my arguments I am precisely refraining from emotions and point to policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines are a result of community consensus built from collective experience and are meant to ensure NPOV, verifiablity and discourage edit wars. It is ignoring policies that creates edit wars, not the vice versa. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that even the name of the country still does not have an established WP:COMMONNAME. Just look at the sources of the main page. Most reputable sources are inconsistent. And all these examples are from the period when the change of the official name was announced and that was "the news". What if the effect of the novelty wears off, inertia (and other considerations) prevail and the current common name "Macedonia" remains the common name? I propose we wait at least for one more month until we get a clearer picture and absolute numbers of use and trending to help us in deciding. GStojanov (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that argues either "Macedoanian" or "North Macedonian" does not meet WP:COMMONNAME really needs to read that guideline again. BOTH terms do meet the requirements for it, however, they are also still MOS:ALTNAMEs of each other (WP:OTHERNAMES). Thus, the common-name question is not not really relevant, but the real question is; which of the two common-names are we to use as general policy by en.wikipedia in specific circumstances? Furthermore I do not see the point in dragging this out for any longer than 1 month, as numerous editors here have advocated. This RfC has stated from the beginning (right at the top of the page mind you), that the closing date is 17 March, a date which has now passed by the way. I know that many contributors wish to extend this debate to ensure that its conclusions are established properly, but I do question how long we are expected to keep this open, when the potential for real/serious dispute that still exits out there on the rest of en.wikipedia's pages. I will state again that the questions/structure of the RfC were not perfectly phrased/structured from the outset, yes this is true, but the debate that has occurred subsequently has been healthy, robust, pointed, and is now deserving of a proper review and an actual closure. Thus, we can get to the actual business of performing the update to WP:MOSMAC in light of the renaming of "North Macedonia", and the outcomes of the debates and votes vocalised during the active period of this RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkyriakop: I just want to add to everything that is well said by FlavrSavr above a small notice on the procedure, and kindly remind that this RfC is taking place according to ARBCOM's amendment to their previous decision on ARBMAC2, which allows an RfC in order to update WP:MOSMAC with a binding decision. In order for that to happen we need to make sure that the RfC is consistent with the rules set by ARBCOM and the policies that should be considered to establish consensus are explicitly listed, and it's clear that WP:Commonsense is not one of them. If we want to change the rules and allow additional policies to be considered for establishing consensus we need to request ARBCOM's opinion, otherwise we are risking to invalidate the RfC or change its result to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with no binding effect. My opinion is that this is actually a case of WP:NOCOMMON and should be handled carefully and with respect to previous decisions, while the introduction of WP:IAR rules would actually eliminate the need to have WP:MOSMAC, because if it's common sense why do we need a naming conventions policy in the first place? --Argean (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the obsession with WP:CRYSTAL is becoming a bit annoying, mainly because it fails to understand, as Kkyriakop pointed out very clearly, the view of the majority. We have heard numerous arguments throughout this RfC, some with more merit that others. The view that most editors seemed to take on this issue is that there does indeed need to be common sense in what Wikipedia should and should not be allowed to do vis-a-vis adjectives, and in particular to allow the natural adjective of 'North Macedonian'. The assertion that the term 'North Macedonian' –especially as an adjective for the state– is original research by members of Wikipedia is not entirely honest (since said editor has been adding sources using the term in the media section), and can be demonstrably proven wrong. The term is used, it just so happens that it is the view of the majority in this particular instance that it is the most appropriate term for a number of reasons, including WP:COMMONSENSE and clarity/disambiguation concerns.

In addition, numerous members have echoed my own view that the current precedent of using the article ethnic Macedonians as the destination article for any mention of 'Macedonian' is problematic in itself, as it brands the 25% of the population who are not ethnically Macedonian as ethnic Macedonians. The main argument of many on the minority side of this issue has been the right to self-determinate, and it seems to me personally quite significant oversight by the side seemingly obsessed with self-determination. I said on numerous occasions that, should an article called People of North Macedonia be created where such mentions of 'Macedonian' may redirect, I am happy to change my vote to that; but until that time, my view is that the term North Macedonian is by far a more accurate descriptor, and one which is the natural form of the name North Macedonia where previously the natural form of Macedonia was Macedonian. This the view that seems to be shared by the majority.

I also have to echo Kkyriakop's views re appeals to emotion throughout the RfC. The introduction of arguments centred around emotion (of the "Macedonians have a right to self-determinate, therefore Wikipedia should call them what they call themselves") has no real place in the RfC. I have clearly stated previously where I think all those editors are coming from and – spoiler alert – it's due to a request for Macedonians to contribute to this, posted on the Macedonian Wikipedia. Macedonian editors who are regular contributors to the English Wikipedia have made much much more substantiated arguments.

I would also like to rebuff at this point, with all due respect because I value the work you did to maintain this RfC in good shape, FlavrSavr's point that the decision of the majority would directly involve Wikipedia as a part of the dispute. This is a fallacious argument and an appeal to emotion. Whichever position Wikipedia may choose to take on this issue, it is taking a side. Was the outcome of the previous RfC neutral? Was Wikipedia deciding to use the term 'Republic of Macedonia' direct involvement in the dispute? Did Wikipedia not help perpetuate the issue by the very fact that it decided to adopt the name Macedonia for everything? If Wikipedia's official position is to remain neutral and not endanger its position, in any way, in any dispute, should it not have instead opted for the use of 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' instead? Is the argument that you are making right now really an honest opinion that you would hold if you were part of the RfC back when it was decided to take a side and call the country Macedonia? This does not apply to this user in particular, and it is not a judgement. I do, however, believe that this particular argument is more an argument of convenience rather than an argument that the same editors would have used in the previous RfC to lobby for the adoption of 'fYROM' instead of 'Macedonia' in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. To argue that Wikipedia's position did hot 'hurt' the official position of the Greek government would be a flat lie, but naturally that was not a factor when Wikipedia made its decision in the previous RfC. It did what it felt was WP:COMMONSENSE. I maintain the view that the same set of rules should be applied to this RfC, and the fact that it is position of the Republic of North Macedonia that might be 'hurt' by the decision of the majority should not play a role in the decision. Wikipedia is not the United Nations.

Lastly, I do not think there is any reason to keep this RfC open for another month. If there is a need for further RfCs in the future we can have another go at it (learning from the mistakes of this one), but all within a logical framework of course. We can't keep voting and voting on the same thing, this isn't Theresa May's Brexit deal. For now this should go to the uninvolved administrators for closure, and we should collectively accept what they decide. --Michail (blah) 20:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm constantly being dragged into this thing about me appealing-to-emotion thing, I'd like to point out that I've already said that I don't think that the sentiment in North Macedonia should play a big role in deciding what the English-language Wikipedia should use. I took no part in the previous RfC in 2009, and thus I don't feel any responsibility for any potential harms it has done to the Greek foreign policy. On the contrary, it's appealing to ennui over fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:CRYSTAL that's appealing to emotion. As if I'm this boring dude who has nothing else to do but obsess over Wikipedia bureaucracy... And again, you are the ones who are missing the point: the majority of Wikipedia contributors enacted the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:NAMECHANGES policy and other policies which we constantly invoke. The group gathered here, on this particular RfC, is just a limited group of editors that cannot override these policies, thus we have only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that for this to be considered consensus we have to engage at least 70,244 of Wikipedia's 140,486 active users...? This was a process open to anyone that was interested in contributing to it. I would also point out that the vast majority of Wikipedia policies were voted on by numbers of people that you can count with your hands and maybe a toe or two. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in particular received 9 votes in total. --Michail (blah) 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is very aligned to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and is precisely meant to discourage limited groups, however large, to decide to override previous consensually adopted policies by the community. If you think it's dumb or whatever, feel free to start a process to change it and see how the community responds, and you might as well challenge WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSIDENTITY and other policies and guidelines. If you think that these 50-60 editors represent Wikipedia, it shouldn't be hard to change a policy or a guideline. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I was not involved in the 2009 RfC, I was involved in a previous 2005 poll (the precursor of RfCs) about the naming of Macedonian Slavs/ethnic Macedonians. Wikipedia had barely begun to develop a policy and guidelines infrastructure - and the poll ended up being a draw. It mostly involved ethnic based voting with Greeks voting for 'Macedonian Slavs' and Macedonians and neutrals voting for 'Macedonians'. This dispute dragged on for about 8 months and was solved by a precursor 'Naming conflict' policy of what are now known as the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSIDENTITY policies, I believe (I didn't exactly follow the evolution of policies). My point is that consensus is good, but sometimes voting is a bad idea if it moves away Wikipedia from its most valued pillars of neutrality and verifiability. It is my firm belief that this has happened with this RfC and that's my 'emotional' appeal to whomever is going to preside on the consensus. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry FlavrSavr, but I have to back up Philly boy92 on this one. After a certain point we have to have to say that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS falls away and accept that the prevailing view IS en.wikipedia's actual WP:CONSENSUS. Otherwise WP:LOCALCONSENSUS could be argued indefinitely in absolutely ANY situation across en.wikipedia. I would argue that we almost have the opposite problem here, in that so many contributors have commented/voted on the RfC that we have used up our repository of available editors which are interested in the subject matter, and are now only seeing users coming from the greek and macedonian language wikipedias coming here to try and influence the vote. Since they each have 'skin in the game' on this RfC. Additionally, the argument that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is as robust a policy as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSIDENTITY is a bit of a stretch. I also was not around back in 2005, or at the start of the WP:MOSMAC debate, but I do believe that we now have much better principals in place when it comes to making changes to these guidelines. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wiz9999 but on the contrary I very much agree with FlavrSavr and I actually think you misunderstood the point. It's not about the number of involved editors, it's about the arguments that are represented and how much these arguments are in line with established Wikipedia policies. I know that many of us, just like Philly boy92 above, might be annoyed when constantly being reminded of policies and rules, that sometimes seem limiting and non-constructive, and I don't disagree completely with that view. But there is a reason that these policies and rules are here, and this has very much to do with how the Wikipedia community has learned from past problems and disputes, and has developed mechanisms to facilitate the process of decision making, without having to experience the same painful confrontations. These rules represent a form of collective memory of the community, which of course is an ongoing and dynamic process, but we are making our lifes harder if we ignore its' fundamental principles. In my opinion weighing the argument of WP:Commonsense above the policies that have been employed by ARBCOM to resolute previous disputes (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DISAMBIGUATION, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RS, WP:MOSIDENTITY) is a self-destructive attitude, and will not help solving the current dispute, but carries the risk of creating new problems. In that sense this RfC will be definitely self-limiting to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not by its' numbers, but by its' failure to incorporate the previous experience of the Wikipedia community as represented in withstanding policies. --Argean (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is as robust as WP:CONSENSUS, I'm only citing it because the consensus that seems to be emerging here is contrary to a wider consensus that are the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:MOSIDENTITY and other policies that are robust as you suggest... As per ARBMAC2 it is not my responsibility to determine the level of consensus, it is up to the three wise (wo)men panel. I'm merely stating my opinion that it is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - maybe I didn't get it before - are we discussing if WP:CONLEVEL/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy is robust or not? I'm sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but if we are actually questioning the policy, I need to point out that the this policy was set by an WP:ARBCOM decision. Oh, are the 9 votes that Philly boy92 mentioned before actually the arbitrators that were involved and unanimously voted for this policy? --Argean (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guessed so. It's pretty robust. I didn't really bring the robust issue on that particular policy but I got sidetracked by that argument similarly to the 'emotional appeal' remarks. What is the most important issue is that this supposedly majority view in this RfC wouldn't be in line with any official Wikipedia policy, in fact, they would contradict many of them. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: You make a better point arguing about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS being the case here due to the lack of diversity in the opinions of editors who participated in the RfC than FlavrSavr did about the number of editors having been only 50 to 60 as being the reason why we should consider WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply. With regards to your assertion that we should not ignore the rules, I 100% agree with you. I do not advocate for us to ignore our rules, and I think this is very much a case where WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:MOSIDENTITY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, etc. should govern the outcome of the debate. I have absolutely NEVER argued that WP:COMMONSENSE should be used for any part of this debate, as the only thing that I consider to be WP:COMMONSENSE about any of this is that we need to update WP:MOSMAC in light of the new term "North Macedonia" entering the vernacular. I cannot speak for any others that have argued for WP:COMMONSENSE, as we all have our biases, and what makes sense to me will not necessarily make sense to anyone else. The biggest factor here is really WP:COMMONNAME not WP:COMMONSENSE, as there is nothing obviously sensible about any of the options within the RfC, and the matters of common adjective/citizenship/historical usage/etc. are clearly in dispute. I consider ANYONE who argues for the case of WP:COMMONSENSE to have a weak argument.
What this debate really boils down to is what editors see as being the WP:COMMONNAME on one end of the spectrum, and what others see as WP:COMMONNAME on the other end of the spectrum (Macedonian vs. North Macedoniain specifically). I would argue they both DEFINITELY qualify as falling under the definition of WP:COMMONNAME, as we have numerous sources stating the usage of both in various different circumstances. However, and far more importantly, these two terms would ALSO both qualify as MOS:ALTNAMEs as well. But the real core of the issue is not this, and anyone that argues against WP:COMMONNAME applying in either scenario I will argue against. What the real core of the issue is is that the usage of each term should be agreed upon, so as to enable dispute resolution in future in light of en.wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS. However, we are still faced with the dilemma about which usage is to be the set policy in various circumstances, in order to maintain en.wikipedia's WP:NPOV. And this question is what the entire RfC is really about. For that purpose, I welcome the reminder of en.wikipedia's established policies to its editors, including myself. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it was not the best argument, but majorities were brought up as a decisive factor. Argean formulated it better than me. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: My apologies, I never meant to suggest that you are proposing to follow WP:COMMONSENSE instead of other relevant established policies, that have been agreed upon before the RfC started and are consisent with previous ARBCOM decisions. It was a comment on your support to Philly boy92's position, which clearly advocated the use of WP:COMMONSENSE as a measure of determining consensus and forming some kind of majority (which is something that is his own arbitrary conclusion, I can't see any clear majority forming). I'm happy to see that most of us agree that WP:COMMONNAME is still the most relevant policy (besides WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:OFFICIALNAME), but this has some limitations as well because this policy is clearly meant to provide instructions for Article titles, not for the entire nomenclature that includes adjectives and attributes of people, as required by WP:MOSBIO. Still and since there are no similar previous examples of renaming adjectival/demonymic references in wikipedia (e.g. we still use Swazi for people from Eswatini and East Timorese for people from Timor-Leste), the only way to validate this RfC is to follow the principles of previous ARBCOM rulings, as reflected in WP:ARBMAC2 decisions. These include Consensus vs the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is forming here, NPOV that requires WP:RS to be examined, recognizability that is also based on WP:RS, and disambiguation. It's not random that ARBCOM is explicitly mentioning exactly these policies in their decision that allows this RfC to take place, and by the way and also not randomly recognizability, neutrality and precision/disambiguation are also core elements of WP:COMMONNAME policy. I've seen editors arguing for common sense, simplicity and expectedness and even suggesting that this is related to the naturalness required by WP:COMMONNAME, but this is the biggest fallacy I've seen throughout the discussion, because it completely ignores the history of the dispute and the simple fact that ARBCOM never came to the conclusion that these arguments can be used to assist dispute resolution and consensus building associated with WP:MOSMAC. It's very clear to me that if the involved editors do not explicitly express that they accept previous decisions and established rules and policies, taking their arguments into account for determining consensus is simply risking to invalidate the whole process.
I have decided to follow a very precise methodology in all my arguments to respect all these previous decisions and follow the required rules and policies and this is reflected in my votes. And you can see that I'm arguing for "Macedonian" for the people, "North Macedonian" for state-related entities and both for all other uses. Someone might call this pattern as a schizophrenic behavior, but actually I'm trying to be as consistent as possible to my methodology. And as I have previously said there is no one-size-fits-all solution currently, because we are in a transitional phase after the state's name change and possibly we need to wait for some time to make firm conclusions. But in any case wikipedia should always stay descriptive, not prescriptive. --Argean (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: When I said I supported Philly boy92 it was in regard to the specific comment that said: Are you implying that for this to be considered consensus we have to engage at least 70,244 of Wikipedia's 140,486 active users...? This was a process open to anyone that was interested in contributing to it. I would also point out that the vast majority of Wikipedia policies were voted on by numbers of people that you can count with your hands and maybe a toe or two. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in particular received 9 votes in total. There is nothing in that comment that relates to the use WP:COMMONSENSE.
I will point out to you that the difference between "North Macedonia/Macedonian" verses "Eswatini/Swazi" is that the "Swazi" adjective & people was never described as "Swazilandish" or some other term derived from the term "Swaziland". This is unlike "Macedonian" which is directly derived from "Macedonia". Yes, I am aware that the inverse is true, "Swaziland" does come from "Swazi" but the linguistic distinction, although slight, is relevant and significant. Thus the "Swazi" adjective was never really in question when the "Eswatini" article was renamed, but it does become relevant when the state "Macedonia" becomes "North Macedonia". How does the "Macedonian" adjective get handled? With regards to "Timor-Leste/East Timorese", I consider this to just be a translation issue and not really relevant to the discussion at hand, besides the well established en.wikipedia policy is to use the common name for Timor-Leste, which is actually East Timor, as its article page is appropriately titled. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: Sorry, I mixed the 2 arguments, on numbers determining consensus and WP:COMMONSENSE, but the way Michail's comment was formulated, pretty much intermingled both. Well, I'm not saying that "Macedonian" is similar to "Swazi" and "East Timorese" (but again the way that adjectival and demonymic references are formed in English is a complicated isssue), I'm saying that we changed the name of the articles of the countries, but we never changed the adjectival/demonymic references. No matter if it's an issue of translation or differences in endonyms/exonyms, what I'm suggesting is that there are previous examples of adjectival and endonymic references that are used in wikipedia that are different from the name of the Page title that refers to the country, and this, in my understanding, is consistent with the policies of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:PRECISION and WP:VERIFIABILITY based on WP:RS.

P.S. Forget "Timor-Leste", since we never changed even the Page title, so my bad for missing this! :)

P.S.2 You can actually add Myanmar/Burmese to the examples, but I didn't include it because the name change of the state happened pre wikipedia --Argean (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the point that I was making in my comment was that the situation is different for both "Eswatini/Swazi" and "Timor-Leste/East Timorese" than it is for "North Macedonia". This is because the term "Swazi" is effectively not related to "Swaziland" unlike "Macedonia"/"North Macedonia" - "Macedonian"/"North Macedonian". Thus, to simply argue that 'we didn't debate this adjective stuff for previous country moves' is not really valid with regards to the "Eswatini" move. Also, "East Timorese" hasn't actually undergone any changes, since the example name term you listed for the state is only an official title translation that is currently ruled to not be in use across en.wikipedia, thus it also is not a valid point.
You have subsequently brought up "Myanmar"/"Burmese" as an example. This is a far more relevant point, as the adjective of "Burma" is the derived term "Burmese". Additionally, "Myanmar" has the derived "Myanma" term/adjective. Also, the Burma article page was successfully renamed to Myanmar in 2015. I will point out that after the official renaming of the state, the adjective and related terms were officially changed as well to "Myanma". (See here) (Note: this does exclude ethnicity, language, and citizenship, as the citizenship term remains as "Burmese", the dominant ethnic group is "Burman", who speak the "Bamar" language. This is akin to the current situation of the "Macedonian" ethnic group still being the widely accepted term, speaking the "Macedonian" language, post the "Myanmar"/"North Macedonia" renames.) If we were to take that country's article's page renaming as a precedent, as you have suggested, it would heavily favor us renaming the adjective/State-associated/etc. terms of "North Macedonia" to "North Macedonian". Thus, if anything, the "Myanmar" precedent just favors one side of the debate, although it does also suggest that the nationality/citizenship term should remain "Macedonian". - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: Many thanks for your detailed reply, and especially for bringing up the Burma→Myanmar rename discussion, which I was not aware of. It helps to understand better some Wikipedia policies. A few comments: I brought up the Eswatini case because the new name basically means "the land of Swazi" in the country's language (source) therefore Swaziland in English, while the name of the people is Swati in their language - so we changed the name of the country to WP:OFFICIALNAME, but not the name of the people from their exonym to the endonym clearly related to country's new name. We could discuss about toponyms, ethnonyms, endonyms and exonyms for hours, but this is not the right time and place. The Myanmar article renaming case is an interesting one. First of all it is striking that we waited 26 years(!) after the official rename (it happened in 1989) to change the name of the article, while we did it just in a few days in the Republic of Macedonia→North Macedonia case. The discussion also confirms the point that WP:COMMONNAME is by far the most relevant policy, while it's clear that the choice to keep "Burmese" as the name of the people (instead of "Myanmarese" or "Myanmese") took into account WP:MOSIDENTITY, since These adjectives are not recommended as most natives of Myanmar preferred to be called either the old way of "Burmese", "Myanmar", or "Myanma" representing the many diverse races in the country. My conclusion is that the closure of this RfC must happen very carefully, otherwise we are on the verge of setting dangerous precedents in Wikipedia. But I guess the good people of ARBCOM were well aware of all these when they set the rules for this RfC to take place. --Argean (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn’t the RfC been closed, why haven’t the votes been counted, why haven’t the next steps been taken? I deliberately haven’t been around for a couple of days (weeks, really; I’d made my argument and didn’t want to unduly influence other voices), but I’m a little bit surprised now that apparently there is some support for not closing the RfC. This sounds like goalpost-moving to me. We’ve had a process, with a deadline, so let’s abide by it, no? (BTW, I have not counted the votes, so I have no idea on how many question I may have won or lost.) —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not going to be a vote counting. We need a panel of three closers, and they'll have a lot more work to do than just count stuff. But I agree it's time to ask for such a panel to be formed. Not much new input has been coming in. But there's no harm in leaving it open for a few more days until the panel has been established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this neither is nor should be a situation where a one-vote majority unequivocally wins the day, but we’re not even going to count the votes at all? What good are simple Support or Oppose votes then? I would think vote tallies should at least be taken into account, no? Anyway, thanks for clarifying that we need to go through/form/initiate the process of forming a three-person panel. I do think that there has been a piece of recently submitted input that could be significant in resolving the apparent conflict between WP:ASTONISH and (predominantly used) WP:COMMONNAME. (To me, this is at the core of the conflict: the “North Macedonian camp” favors WP:ASTONISH, while the “Macedonian camp” favors (the most frequently used) WP:COMMONNAME. All other arguments strike me as essentially derivative and secondary. But I do think that both have merit and are not easily reconcilable.) And here is where the recent proposal (that hasn’t made it into the RfC in time) comes in: redirecting the disputed adjectives to a page where the different viewpoints are explained. I’m not sure yet about the exact format, but something along the lines of redirecting both North Macedonian and Macedonian to something like People and entities from North Macedonia. That way, editors could simply use either adjective and we would also catch almost all legacy cases for both people and entities. (And obviously, such a page would need a note that it is about people and things from the modern country, and other uses of Macedonian could be found at linked page about the ancient tribe, the older region, etc. etc.) Thoughts? —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the procedure we should follow we need a panel of three uninvolved contributors that will assess the consensus. I don't think we are allowed to proceed to a vote counting, because the panel is the one that will decide on the consensus, and the ARBCOM decision instructs that the panel should disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. In that sense I'm afraid that the argument of WP:ASTONISH is very weak, because it's not consistent with the ARBCOM rules, since it doesn't refer to any of the above policies. I wouldn't argue though that is the only policy deployed by the pro-"North Macedonian" camp and I believe that we should leave that decision to the panel. On the issue of redirecting the adjectives, both Philly boy92 and myself have proposed to create an article on People of North Macedonia, but I believe that the question on what will be the exact redirects depends on the decisions of the RfC and I guess that this requires further discussion. --Argean (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to enter an another debate but I'd like to add that apart of the WP:COMMONNAME, the "Macedonian camp" also invoked a very direct and precise policy which is WP:NAMECHANGES. This policy means that article titles should be changed if reliable sources routinely use the new terminology. We gave the necessary extra weight and included only reliable sources post-renaming. This doesn't mean that reliable sources pre-renaming have zero weight. However, so far, to me, it seems that there's no evidence of routine and consistent usage of "North Macedonian" in reliable sources: they've been split on the 'state-entities' and 'other adjectival usage' and in the minority for the 'nationality' issue. This only accentuates the need to keep the media section open. I'd also like to clarify that I'm not against closing this RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting the UN[12] and EU[13] style guides I think we can come up with a simple Wikipedia rule for the state entities and adjectival use: For state entities use "of North Macedonia", do not use "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian". For all other adjectival uses you may use "Macedonian". This is simple, practical and in line with UN and EU style guides. Now I am not against closing this RfC. GStojanov (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GStojanov: We can definitely use UN and EU style guides as references, included in WP:RS (although I believe that other reliable sources such as WP:NEWSORG are even more important) , but I want to kindly remind that previous RfC decision was not to follow UN's (provisional) convention to use FYR Macedonia as name (or designation if you prefer) of the country. The relevant Wikipedia policies that were considered in the past should be considered now as well (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DISAMBIGUATION, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV, etc) , no matter what are the UN guidelines. That's the reason we have been holding this RfC for the last month and the closing panel is requested to weigh all arguments according to their compliance to these policies, not to UN guidelines. By the way, I'm not against the closure of the RfC either, but rather trying to point out to the flaws of this RfC, that I believe should be acknowledged by involved editors, before the panel of uninvolved editors tries to assess consensus. --Argean (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the next step now is to request for three univolved editors to form the panel. According to previous discussions it seems that we can recruit them at WP:AN? Does anyone have more experience on that issue? --Argean (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just discovered that this has already been requested by Wiz9999 (thanks for doing that!), and we already have one of the three volunteers, so now we need to expect for another two! --Argean (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I decided to be WP:BOLD and request a closure on the WP:AN notice board. I thank QEDK for beginning the review and closure process, and to the two other editors that will be joining him/her as well. I wish this panel of closers a good council, and a sound logical mindfulness in finding resolutions to the questions addressed by the RfC. Thank you and good luck! 🙂 - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to DannyS712 for joining in the closer team as well. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not quite convinced DannyS712 has the necessary level of experience for this task. He's only been around for 6 months and I can't find any record of him dealing with policy issues of this depth before. I've noted my concerns on the requests for closure page [14]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: If you look at my contribs to WP:ANRFC, you'll see that I've done a number of RfC closes already --DannyS712 (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to BD2412 and Neutrality for joining our team of closers. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BD2412 and Neutrality! --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both BD2412 and Neutrality are admins, and noone has expressed any objections against QEDK participating in the panel, although not an admin, are we happy with having 2 admins and 1 experienced non-admin in the panel, or we want to follow the suggestions that all members of the closing panel should be admins? Personally, I agree that the most important issue is not the admin status, but previous experience in dealing with complex wikipedia policy issues and the the level of trust that the editors enjoy within the community, and I don't have any objections against the current panel that has been formed. I would like to thank as well all editors that have volunteered to take part in closing this RfC, and I wish the panel a good and considerate decision-making process! --Argean (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK + BD2412 + Neutrality sounds like a fine panel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references without any evidence about the date of publication:

• UN Women: "Macedonian"
• Peace Research Institute Oslo: Macedonian
• European Training Foundation: "Macedonian National Qualification Framework"

@FlavrSavr:: I kindly ask you to remove these three references unless you can provide evidence about the date of publication

Moreover, there is a reference about European Union that reports just "Macedonian" but the truth is different. There is a footnote and the footnote says "may be Macedonian". As far as I know, in english language, "may" is used to give permission, but it doesn't mean that it has to be like this. @Philly boy92:: If I am not wrong, you live(d) in the UK, so you probably know better what may means in this case.

Let me try to help: The article European Training Foundation: "Macedonian National Qualification Framework" is from Feb 20th (post name change). The article itself uses the new name. GStojanov (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• European Union: "Macedonian"

@FlavrSavr:: Could you please update the reference with "may be Macedonian" which is what is precisely reported by the EU in the footnote?

Peace in balkans (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union Style guide in the footnote to "Macedonian" permits the usage of the adjective "Macedonian" and forbids the use of the adjective "North Macedonian". Here is the full text of the footnote: ^[1] Let me be more precise: The EU Style Guide forbids both adjectives ("Macedonian" and "North Macedonian") for the state entities. They need to be "of North Macedonia", like for example "Government of North Macedonia". For all other adjectival uses it permits the usage of the adjective "Macedonian" only. This looks like a simple enough guideline for us to adopt, don't you think? GStojanov (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans:, it seems that GStojanov explained the EU link - this is a clear reference to UN data terminology. ETF features the new name so its evidently been updated. UN Women features International Women's Day, which I hope you know is March 8th 2019. These women were featured in a mass campaign involving multimedia billboards in New York. PRIO, I found in the news back then, it had a publication date, on Google. If you don't trust me please free to remove that link. Best. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes UN style guide is the same[15] with the EU style guide"Macedonian". They are identical. I just checked them.

So this gives us an opportunity to define a simple Wikipedia rule that is also practical: For state entities use "of North Macedonia", do not use "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian". For all other adjectival uses you may use "Macedonian". GStojanov (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr and GStojanov:: I think there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't say that the EU says something wrong, EU says the same thing with the UN. I just said that the truth is different than what is presented here in wikipedia. Both EU and UN say that for other ... the adjectival reference "may be Macedonian", but the word "may be" is not a synonym of "has to be". Both EU and UN say that "Macedonian" is an option, but they don't exclude "North Macedonian" in this case, and as you have seen the Ministry of foreign affairs of Greece has already clarified that below.

• Sources of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece) as reported by Kathimerini: (translated from Greek) Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State may be called "Macedonian". However, in these cases, other adjectival references can also be used, e.g., "North Macedonian society, agriculture of North Macedonia"

@FlavrSavr:: the clarification that you add does not help, because this part of the survey is clearly for NO State-associated entities. I propose to replace "Macedonian" with "may be Macedonian" for the references of both websites of EU and UN below, because this is what is really written on the website of EU and UN.

• United Nations: "Macedonian" for activities and/or entities not associated with the State or financed by it in not bound by the agreement

• European Union: "Macedonian" for activities and/or entities not associated with the State or financed by it in not bound by the agreement

Peace in balkans (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see your point now! I will clarify, although I think post-closure RfC edits are not welcome. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since people kept editing the text of the RfC, even with the box in place which announced the pending closure, I've fully protected the page for two weeks. If you have further information relevant to the RfC that you would like the closers to consider, add it here on the talk page. If any of the RfC closers want the page unprotected please let me know. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a convenience link to the Arbcom motion, which provided some specific instructions that closers of this RfC should keep in mind:

"… [T]he consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline."

The full motion can be found here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at AN that you might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Closing_panel_needed_for_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking this and for volunteering to arbitrate. Can I ask what the procedure is for selecting the panel of 3? It looks like 2 administrators (User:Neutrality and User:BD2412) and two experienced editors (you and User:DannyS712), the latter of which there have been some objections to, have volunteered so far. Is it first come first served? Is there a vote? Or will you sort it out amongst yourselves? Kkyriakop (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkyriakop: Given the discussions about whether it should be admins or not, as well as my relative inexperience, I will simply withdraw from consideration if needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess most of you probably know but the reliable sources research is still open. There's been some interesting developments post-RfC, like Britannica reverting all the 'North Macedonian(s)' references in the main article to 'Macedonian' or a neutral formulation, the United States Department of Defense (or their photo agency) preferring 'North Macedonian' , the Associated Press seemingly departing from the neutral 'North Macedonia's' to 'North Macedonian', and then again to 'Macedonian', this Deutsche Welle musing about the 'right word to use for the nationality', etc. The point is, the world hasn't yet decided on the terminology, so it's important to keep the reliable sources research updated, especially since old links get updated or die out... --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find even a single place in the article where Britannica contrinutors reverted back to "Macedonian". --StanProg (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to Wikipedia, Britannica has an article history, so you can see the changes described, for example In Daily life and social customs section changed "North Macedonians" to "Macedonians." and In the Drainage section, changed "North Macedonian territory" to "North Macedonia." --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and checked the history. I saw the description, but I also checked the diff and saw that no such changes were actually made. Can you make a screenshot of the diff, maybe we see different things? --StanProg (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. Even if this is changed and not indicated in the diff, this text is mostly related to the so called Ethnic Macedonians (I can hardly believe that the Albanians eat selsko meso - "pork chops and mushrooms in brown gravy", due to the Islam), not to the citizens of North Macedonia as a whole. When we come to conclusions we should think a little if the term is related to the ethnical group or to the people that live and are citizens of North Macedonia. --StanProg (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the second page. It was North Macedonians also enjoy other foods that are common throughout the Balkans, including taratur (yogurt with shredded cucumber) and baklava. Now it's just Macedonians. And no, it's not ethnic, they refer to the people as Macedonians (By 2010 more than half of Macedonians had Internet access). What is important, however, is that Britannica is using Macedonian as an adjective in the main article. The remaining references to "North Macedonian(s)", even from the territory reference were excluded from the article. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, BD2412, should we deliberate by email or on-wiki? Neutrality^talk 23:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer on-wiki deliberations (preferably on a new sub-page). So long as it is made clear that the discussion is not open for participation by non-panel members, this should go smoothly. bd2412 T 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me. QEDK, are you OK with that plan? Neutrality^talk 00:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's preferable if we do it on a userspace subpage instead (like User:QEDK/Naming conventions (Macedonia) RfC), it can be off-wiki in conjunction as well. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 04:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Userspace is fine with me. I think very little would need to be done off-wiki. bd2412 T 04:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any estimations for when the final results/outcome will be announced? While the duration of the RfC itself was known, (with opening and closing dates having been agreed and set), I've failed to find any info about the RfC's closure procedures and how long they are supposed to last, and if there is any deadline agreed and set before the results are announced. Sorry if this question has already been asked anywhere else, I haven't found it. Been myself looking across Wikipedia but failed to find any info about this, so I thought it is better to ask here just incase, since this is the Talk page of the RfC. Any ideas? :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this question can be found at Wikipedia:There is no deadline :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, the result should be posted shortly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: No need to apologize, my question above was merely meant for informative purposes, not to cast pressure on you or the other volunteers. Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the closing panel for their closing statements. This was a difficult job, and you did what you could to make some sense out of it.

Now there's the question how to move ahead. First, somebody will need to condense the RfC statements into an actual guideline text that will supplant the current WP:NCMAC. Any thoughts about how to proceed about that?

There are also some obvious issues about remaining questions that the RfC leaves open. It's all very well to say that there was "no consensus" about the adjective issue. I think we can all agree that was a fair assessment of the RfC. But how are we going to handle the issue in practice now? The recommendation by the closers, to "follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue", is making a presupposition that is probably not warranted: that reliable sources for each specific topic domain will show a clear preferential usage that we could follow. But from the data collected so far, it appears there is a pretty even split between "North" and plain "Macedonian", and that split goes right across all topic domains. So, if I'm going to work on an article about, say, Balkan fauna, and I need to refer to this country, will I first have to conduct an investigation of how many sources in the specific topic areas of biology and geography use which term? Only to find out that, just like everywhere else, they are evenly split? Or are we supposed to follow whatever individual source we happen to have used for referencing an individual factbite in the article? What if I use multiple sources for multiple points of fact in the article, and they all follow different naming conventions, does that mean I have to switch between them mid-article? What if I find a source that uses "my" favourite naming convention, but tomorrow somebody else finds a different source supporting the same factual point but using a different one? Will that editor then be entitled to change the wording to "their" favourite naming pattern? What if the sources happen to not use an adjectival reference at all, does that mean I'm not allowed to do it either? What if the sources are all pre-2019?

In short, this is simply not practically viable. I can think of various good and fair compromises that could accommodate the basic fact that both adjectival forms will be allowed in principle, but we need something a bit more concrete than what we have now.

There's also the issue of the curious mismatch between the "state-related adjective" and "other adjective" outcomes. According to the closers, we will be using only "North Macedonian" for state-related entities, but both forms remain possible for the "others". I suspect this outcome is due more to the vagaries of voting and to the skewed wording of the RfC questions than on actual policy arguments. For some reason, the "state entities" section didn't even contain an option allowing both "North" and plain "Macedonian", while the "other adjectives" option did. But there's no policy-based or data-based reason to make such a distinction. The only reason the state entities formed their own section was the Prespa stipulation that we should avoid adjectives for them altogether; a stipulation that the RfC (rightly) rejected. But that issue is quite orthogonal to the issue of which adjective, if any, to allow. I can see no reason, either in the arguments offered by the participants, or in the usage data in the reliable sources we collected, to make such a distinction here. Plus, of course, it will lead to no end of argument and potential edit wars about what actually counts as a "state-related entity" and what doesn't. In the original closing drafts at User:QEDK/Naming conventions (Macedonia) RfC there was still the intimation that there might be room for compromise between the positions, with appropriately structured guidance indicating that "of North Macedonia" is preferred, and with "North Macedonian" being used where there is any potential for ambiguity, but "Macedonian" being permissible where the context has already been made clear. That has unfortunately been lost from the final closure (while, curiously, in the "nationality" section, a statement about a converse class of exceptions was retained).

I'm not sure how to condense all this into a unified guideline that's actually presentable and viable in practice. What do others think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was also puzzled by the conflicting statements in the nationality and the state-related entities section and why that particular compromise statement was left out while a class of exceptions was introduced in the 'nationality' section, that, IMHO, is not supported by any policy. I'm considering a closure review, however, AFAIK - the statements are not 100% final until they all sign in? --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The job of the closer is to simply reflect consensus as they see it. While we could have picked a (subjectively) optimal outcome, editors could claim that our supposition was a supervote, and rightly so. Attempts to force a particular consensus is significantly worse than having no consensus at all. As an analogy, even widely-accepted policies like WP:RS are meant as guidelines, because there could be no suitable number of usecases that can be summarized and made into a stringent procedure, and are thus, accompanied with the understanding that we should treat them with a decent amount of common sense and recognize that there will be exceptions. The very basis of having policies is that we are able to take them with a grain of salt, there cannot be an exhaustive handbook of what to do, and especially here, where there's no consensus and everyone agrees that something must be done, but cannot come to the conclusion of what exactly that is. And, that's my opinion.

Pinging co-closers @Bd2412 and Neutrality: for their views. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QEDK: a lot of this is contextual and source-based. To give more guidance than we have already given would risk going beyond the consensus here, and would risk undercutting the core principle of following reliable sources (which is ultimately also what WP:COMMON is based upon). I accept entirely that in some cases, the reliable sources for each specific topic domain will not "always show a clear preferential usage." But I don't think the solution to that is to put our thumbs on the scale.

In terms of amending WP:NCMAC, one idea is to just mark the page as historical using ((historical)), with a pointer to the new RfC. Neutrality^talk 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I intend not to comment on post-close analyses of the close. There are issues that, when resolved by determining the consensus of the community fractured across different lines for different subjects, will be of little satisfaction to anyone. bd2412 T 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind everyone that the reliable resources research continues on this WikiProject. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to thank all three panelists BD2412, QEDK and Neutrality for the very good tackling of one of the historically most contested subjects on Wikipedia, a hot RfC that they dealt with an admirable knowledge of Wikipedia policies and a sense of compromise. I think we couldn't have realistically hoped for a better panel. However, I have some misgivings about the closing statements on some of the sections and I'm considering a partial closure review request on WP:AN. A lot of these stem from the structure and the timing of the RfC, the relative lack of consistency in the behavior of reliable sources and a significant body of votes just vaguely interested in policy and reliable sources.

A significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion. The closing panel was gauging consensus, following the discussion itself, but I'm not sure if they have been following the developments in reliable sources post-RfC, some of which have shown interesting behavior. During the RfC, Britannica, for example, briefly introduced a very limited "North Macedonian" terminology in the main article, only to return to Macedonian(s) or some neutral wording (you can check the article history). I believe that this type of behavior of a tertiary reliable source of significant weight signals that we should be very cautious in deciding the terminology here. In addition, I've also noticed that some of the major media (The Telegraph, BBC among others) reported about the "historic selfie" of the Greek and "North Macedonian" PMs - only to revert to Macedonian PM or North Macedonia's PM. The dust has definitely not settled in.

I specifically challenge the following sections and closing statements:

Nationality of people. I welcome the recognition that "Macedonian(s)" is indeed supported by policies and non-SPA voters alike. However, the statement the closing panel does find a consensus that "North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion; for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicity is problematic. Not only I'm not seeing that this supposed consensus (local?) is developing in the survey but I fail to see how introducing a term ("North Macedonian(s)) that is not accurate (WP:CONCISE), not neutral (WP:NPOV), not official (WP:OFFICIALNAMES), terribly uncommon (WP:COMMONNAME), not self-identifying (WP:MOSIDENTITY) and in addition, controversial makes any encyclopedic sense. The Prespa agreement didn't create a new demographic reality in North Macedonia, rather it ended a problem that all Macedonian citizens or citizens of RoM, regardless of ethnicity, had with Greece. In international organizations they were known as citizens of FYROM and now they are known officially as Macedonians/citizens of North Macedonia - and this is not disputed even by Greece. Sorry, but, at this moment, it is not appropriate or correct to refer to them as "North Macedonians", on Wikipedia, for any reason. The rationale you gave 'use North Macedonian to disambugiate nationality from ethnicity', seems a bit of an original research - to my knowledge, there's not a single reliable source that employs 'North Macedonian' in this capacity. The entire thing looks like an excuse to soft-introduce 'North Macedonian' in the mainstream because of popular demand. Potential ambiguities or confusions could be easily solved the way they were solved before - by adding "ethnic" when Macedonian is used in an ethnic sense, in fact in the way it is done for almost every European country out there.

State-associated and other public entities. I don't contest the consensus, but I do contest the rationale noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common.... I don't think that anybody ever seriously denied that "North Macedonia"- related terminology is more common or that the Prespa agreement didn't happen - this is reflected in the proposals themselves, all of which have "of North Macedonia". All the state-related entities will bear "of North Macedonia", "national" or similar official names now. It's the adjectival use that's the crux of the dispute here, and no, I don't think that there is conclusive evidence that "North Macedonian" is indeed more common than "Macedonian". WP:NAMECHANGES stipulates that we should give extra weight to sources after the name change - however, this doesn't mean that more than two decades of "Macedonian" now equals to zero weight. But even after the name change, both names are equally common. Reliable sources do not use "North Macedonian" routinely (in a consistent manner), they use "(of) North Macedonia" routinely. I think that it is crucial here to stress that "of North Macedonia" is preferred to "North Macedonian", as it was done in the draft closing deliberation by BD2412.

Adjective. No contention here, however the closing statement uses an old version of the question, so I think it is important to somehow note that culture and / or ethnic adjectival use was excluded as non-contentious by consensus.

It seems to me that it would be very hard for me to convince you to make these changes since it took so much time to make the closure, however, please let me know if you're sticking to your closing statements as is so that I might eventually proceed to WP:AN. No hard feelings. --FlavrSavr (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, but it is not appropriate or correct to refer to them as "North Macedonians" for any reason." Sorry, that is just ridiculous. A person from the country of North Foobaria is most naturally referred to as a North Foobarian in English usage. I don't know why the North Macedonians or the Greeks or anyone else would have a problem with that, and I frankly don't care. It is beyond the power of those countries or their agreement to regulate such usage in English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to impose a name on someone, anyone, including you. GStojanov (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language communities settle on terms for people and entities outside the community all the time — and quite frequently terms settled on are less or not at all favored by the described community. There are many, many examples: North Korea, Burma etc. etc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “imposing”, let alone “bullying.” —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true in principle. But let's not forget that in the present case, the English speech community, according to the sources we've seen, actually hasn't settled on a name for the nationality that differs from the self-chosen one, but is in fact continuing to use that in the large majority of cases, and that, accordingly, this RfC has also (rightly) come to the conclusion that we should do the same. So there's not really an issue to get all worked up about, in this particular matter.

On the whole, I don't think it's worth trying to re-argue all the points here yet again (from either side). For the moment, we should just determine in what manner we can actually use the results in practice, what needs further clarification, and how we'll deal with the "no consensus" items. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the English speaking world actually did settle on the name of the nationality, and all other adjectival uses, and that name is "Macedonian"[16] Most people consider it a common courtesy not to use unwelcome names and adjectives when referring to others.GStojanov (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to start the debate here all over again, there's been two months of vigorous RfC debating, reliable sources research etc. I've additionally clarified what I've meant. I don't wish to regulate anything, (nor do I have the power to) let alone usage in English. The job of Wikipedia is to describe, not to prescribe usage. Currently, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to the people as "Macedonian(s)" and that is even two months after the name change of the country. We don't know what the future brings - WP:CRYSTAL. I'd also like to refer to WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If "North Macedonian(s)" was as natural as you would claim, in this period most, or a lot of sources would refer to them as "North Macedonian(s)". The fact is - they don't. Anyway, the whole section was mostly addressed to the panelists - I'm still considering a closure review on WP:AN, however I might change my opinion if the panelists reconsider their statements and/or the discussion(s) on how to translate the closing statements in actual policy prove to be more productive. --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to thank all three panelists BD2412, QEDK and Neutrality for the good tackling of one of the historically most contested subjects on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I think you were not given a fair chance of success. This RfC was set up with a wrong assumption that we can use the adjective "North Macedonian".

UN specifically defines what adjectives are appropriate and in what situations[17]. The adjective "North Macedonian" is marked as do not use for any and all purposes. The adjective "Macedonian" is the only adjective that is available to us, and for non-state entities only. The same definition is followed by the European Union: [18]

In addition to that the adjective "North Macedonian" is not neutral (WP:NPOV), not official (WP:OFFICIALNAMES), not widely accepted (WP:COMMONNAME), not self-identifying (WP:MOSIDENTITY). Furthermore it fails the search engine test. Its usage is simply nowhere to be found, and trending down.[19] GStojanov (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank BD2412, QEDK and Neutrality, for participating in the closing panel and for doing such a good job in assessing the consensus in such a faulty and contentious RfC. It was really a demanding task and I acknowledge that they did their best to stay neutral and respect all opinions, and at the same time to keep in accordance to ARBCOM's ruling over holding an RfC to update WP:MOSMAC.

Yes, there are issues and some of the closing remarks are indeed puzzling, as both Future Perfect at Sunrise and FlavrSavr have very well outlined above, but there is no use in trying to post-closure debate the actual outcome of the RfC as summarized in the closing statement. The problem seems to be more fundamental and is actually the RfC itself to blame and not the closing statement, which simply reflects the result of a badly structured and inadequately-thought-out RfC, on top of which many of the involved editors decided to ignore the instructions on citing policies and guidelines when contributing to the discussion.

It's pretty clear to me that this RfC has simply failed to reach any major policy-making decisions and it's obvious that it cannot be translated to a new guideline to replace WP:MOSMAC. Out of the 7 questions only 3 (and a half) managed to get enough policy-guided consensus and one of them was actually the "Non-contentious housekeeping", while others like the description of the country in the disambiguation page or the redirects, didn't even require a centralized RfC that would incorporate them to a guideline. The only policy-making decisions that the RfC has managed to achieve were actually on 1. Historical names, and 2. State-associated and other public entities, and the circumstances that lead to the second one are already being questioned.

In all other cases where the panel rightfully notices that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, this obviously means that there is no decision made to be translated to a new guideline, and the questions should by definition default to the status quo, until a new consensus emerges. Even some hints of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as noticed by the closing panel, cannot be included in a guideline, because this would override withstanding ARBCOM decisions.

I'm really sorry to say but, in my opinion, this RfC has unfortunately failed miserably to reach the standards set by ARBCOM and therefore is unable to update WP:MOSMAC and by default invalid for the intended purpose. We need to think very carefully how we should proceed. --Argean (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to have to disagree with such a dedicated and fair-minded contributor on the subject, but I think the RfC did what it was supposed to. In that sense at least, it seems to me that the process worked quite well. The RfC seems to have managed to separate the aspects which are completely or virtually uncontroversial from those where usage (and English-language sources’ understanding of common or prescribed usage) is still very much in flux. If some of the most highly respected sources in the English-speaking world such as the BBC and the Encyclopedia Britannica go back and forth, there simply is no clearly right or wrong term (yet.) This needs more time to settle. In the meantime, I don‘t see why we couldn’t distill the RfC into a set of guidelines that basically say something along the lines of Refer to the post-2019 country as (the Ro)NM. Refer to the pre-2019 country as the RofM. Don’t omit “North” when describing post-2019 state entities. Don’t use “North” for ethnicity and culture. Things are more complicated for other cases; consider context, possible ambiguity and situation-specific RS most closely related to yours. —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I do have the tendency to being misunderstood, but I'm not saying that the discussion didn't go well or was not useful at all, on the contrary it was very productive and unexpectedly very civilized, at least from the majority of the involved editors. I'm saying that the RfC has failed to produce a new guideline and unfortunately that was its purpose, therefore it is unfortunately invalid as a policy-making procedure. You condensed all the conclusions very well in just 3 lines - I'm sorry to say this cannot be a guideline, since it doesn't address all the issues, especially the more contentious one, which is the use of adjectives. Many editors have noticed the bad structure, the problematic wording, and the lack of policy-based arguments during the process, and that simply reflects to the outcome. The issue might be even more simple - maybe it's too early to set a new guideline and this has been also noticed many times during the discussion. In any case the outcome is the same: good and potentially useful discussion but inadequate policy-making decisions. I can't see that being translated to an actual guideline, sorry. --Argean (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a more specific issue, I do see wisdom in the seemingly diverging views on state-related vs. other adjectival use. The Prespa compromise (in spirit even more so than in the text) is all about using NM for the state, avoiding M for certain aspects (culture etc.) and allowing M for almost everything else. Doesn’t the RfC reflect that quite well? —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the RfC has been useful in the sense that ThorstenNY described - the glass is half-full. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we all love taking part in long, complicated discussions, that's pretty much obvious. But when it comes to decisions being translated to an actual guideline, things have to be much more straightforward. The questions that managed to get substantial policy-guided consensus can be added as an amendment to WP:MOSMAC, but do you believe that we can add statements that gathered WP:NOCONSENSUS or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to an actual guideline? I'm sorry but I do have the habit of being the skeptical and the heretic one. :) --Argean (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not really worried about the formal flaws the RfC might have had (and I think there is a WP guideline that says something along the lines of “look at the big picture.”) Why can’t our guideline say something like Use NM for these and M for those [non-controversial cases]. *** For nationality [and other possibly controversial cases], no consensus has emerged. Until it does, do not revert NM or M. For new content, keep in mind issue-specific RS, clarity, avoidance of ambiguity and local preference [We could possibly add a note of the apparent strong RofNM preference for M when referring to people].? Or ultra-short: Use A for this, B for that; and don’t revert A or B in other cases? —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we can cite UN[20] and EU[21] instructions and say: For state entities use "of North Macedonia", do not use "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian". For all other adjectival uses you may use "Macedonian". GStojanov (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UN and EU ALSO have no jurisdiction over the English language. And most especially no control over Wikipedia policy. The reality is that North Macedonia has agreed to use that name officially and Greece has agreed not to officially complain about it. That is the sum total of what their decision can control. Usage by anyone, in any language, outside the officialdom of those two countries is beyond the power of their agreement. --Khajidha (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UN and EU have jurisdiction over Macedonian and Greece. They coaxed them to negotiate for three decades. They negotiated bitterly: nouns, adjectives, interpunction signs, even blank spaces between words. Now that the two have arrived at a painful compromise, if we don't follow it as close as we can, we will be rubbing salt on a fresh wound.GStojanov (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any "compromise" that ignores the realities of English grammar and attempts to force us to use nearly illiterate gibberish deserves to be ignored. --Khajidha (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Re: Guys, we all love taking part in long, complicated discussions, that's pretty much obvious. Yeah, apparently so. I mean, I contributed to this without even having any connection to any of the major players involved.
In Re: I'm sorry but I do have the habit of being the skeptical and the heretic one. Regardless, as my primary purpose is to always agree with whatever Argean says on this talk page as their clueless devotee, I will state that I fully agree with them here.
 Suggestion: In all seriousness, I would suggest a follow-up RFC that is influenced/drawn from this closure. It would simply be a proposal to amend WP:MOSMAC in compliance with the arbcom ruling. The proposal would be based on a draft by local consensus here. Would people agree with that step forward? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Well, by being heretic I'm primarily trying to stir-up the discussion so we can actually make some progress, but thanks anyway for approving my contributions to the subject. :)
So going back to the practical issues, I'll try to summarize my thoughts in the order they pop into my mind:

do we have a guideline? Certainly not. I've already explained that the RfC has failed in the sense it hasn't produced a new guideline. There was some useful discussion and we have some conclusions, but that's it.

do we need a guideline after all? So WP:MOSMAC has to stay for the moment (maybe with a couple of amendments), but imho we probably need a more substantial update, and the lack of consensus in the most contentious questions of this RfC (nationality, adjectives) just confirms that.

so do we have a draft to proceed? We could certainly draft a summary of conclusions of the RfC, based on the closing statement, that will reflect the current consensus of the community on the use of terms for North Macedonia-related entities. I cannot see though as a basis for a new guideline, but rather as an WP:ESSAY.

will a follow-up RfC solve the problem? I highly doubt it that a new RfC on the same issues, presenting the exact same statements that were used in this RfC, will produce any different results so soon after closing the first one. If we decide though that we need a new RfC soon, we need to change completely our approach, incorporate the conclusions of the RfC, eliminate any options that fail to gain policy-guided consensus, be more specific and more detailed, and include only proposals that are based on relevant policies and guidelines.
We've seen how the recipe for failure looks like, so we need to change it. --Argean (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How and what of the RfC closure statements will become actual Wikipedia policy is the actual discussion here. Argean, do you believe that we can add statements that gathered WP:NOCONSENSUS or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to an actual guideline - I'm also skeptical. Also, on the state-related adjectival issue, can we all agree that „of North Macedonia“ is preferred to „North Macedonian“ that was part of the panel deliberation by bd2412 appropriately structured guidance indicating that "of North Macedonia" is preferred, and with "North Macedonian" being used where there is any potential for ambiguity, but "Macedonian" being permissible where the context has already been made clear? I understand this preference to mean that we will use "of North Macedonia" for state-related entities in article titles, categories, templates etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the decision, such constructions as "the Greek Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Northern Macedonia" or other such (like what User:Stevepeterson was arguing for a while back) will not be tolerated. --Khajidha (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: I'm 100% certain that we cannot add those statements in a new guideline. It will be absurd to add rules that have failed to gain policy-based consensus and have some degree of vagueness in their exact wording and therefore will create more confusion. On the state-related adjectives issue, I have made a very specific proposal with my !vote during the RfC "of North Macedonia" seems to be the only appropriate choice for page titles, given that it is the only WP:OFFICIALNAME, ... (but) I don't see however what should prevent us to use the natural adjectival equivalent, within articles, when we would do exactly the same for any other case. It's not the closing panel's fault that they didn't include a similar conclusion in their closing statement - it's our fault that we didn't make the question specific enough. Now we have a conclusion that acknowledges that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement and newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common. This is absolutely accurate, but does not distinguish the use of the 2 forms (and if I remember correctly that was the purpose of the question...), and gives no guidelines about when one or the other form could or should be preferentially used. --Argean (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: RfC didn't fail completely in the creation of a new guidline. Thanks to the RfC, a consensus has been reached already for the following cases: 1. Disambiguation, 2. Historical names, 3. State-associated and other public entities, 4. Non-contentious housekeeping and 5. Northern Macedonia Redirect, which IMO is a tangible progress nevertheless. If there has to be any new RfCs in the future, it shouldn't be again about these 5 aforementioned cases, but only for the other cases where there was no consensus in the current RfC. @Khajidha:. according to the consensus, both "North Macedonian" and "of North Macedonia" are valid when describing state associations (i.e. Prime Ministry). In this example here, it will simply be "the Greek Prime Minister and the North Macedonian Prime Minister". Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing editors did a great job. We could not expect more, having in mind that this is not a simple case – it's a recent change and there's no firmly established naming, which affects the consensus, but we need "some" rules at least for the most basic cases, and we got them. In future, maybe in an year we can come back and reasses the stuation. --StanProg (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with "of Macedonia" or "North Macedonia's". I have a problem with the idea, repeated by various people above, that we cannot use "North Macedonian" in any situation bdcause of the Prespa agreement.--Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously not the case because the RfC (involving many editors) actually reached a consensus on the state-related entities, where both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" are WP:COMMONNAME and "North Macedonia" related terminology is prevalent. The consensus is that "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia" will be used. This, however, doesn't mean we need to force "North Macedonian" everywhere just to spite the Prespa agreement. This isn't NPOV, accurate or verifiable. --FlavrSavr (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: I agree. "North Macedonian" can simply be used only when needed and depending the context. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr and SilentResident: Exactly, the consensus doesn't distinguish when one or the other form should be used. If we need such a rule (i.e. on Page titles, Categories, etc) we need to propose it and decide on it. --Argean (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we're back at the issue of how to translate the RfC results into a new guideline. Who does that? ARBCOM? I think it is very sensible to use "of North Macedonia" in article titles, categories and templates. It is the most verifiable, most neutral and the least contended (sub)option. Do we actually need a new RfC to specify this? :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I argue the consensus on the use of the adjective for State-associated and other public entities. The voting was split, we didn't really reach a consensus. The questions were biased in the way that both A and C are opposing B. So it is 31 pro B and 24 against B. That is not a consensus. Furthermore the reliable sources up to March 20th are nearly split but biased toward option C using "Macedonian" instead of "North Macedonian". The trending also favors "Macedonian" over "North Macedonian". The reliable sources now are even more biased toward option C "Macedonian" over "North Macedonian". Last, but not least, the search engines tell a drastic story: the use of "Macedonian" (option C) is at least two orders of magnitude higher than the use of "North Macedonian" (option B). We can't ignore data and conclude that we reached a consensus about this issue. We need a repeat RfC for it. GStojanov (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GStojanov: The consensus is still consensus, even if you don't agree with it or don't see it as such. The RfC was problematic in its wording, as I pointed out earlier, regarding nationality, but nevertheless the editors reached a consensus, at least on the other cases besides nationality, and the volunteers verified the consensus. Our role as editors here is not to question the will of the majority, is to respect the consensus regardless of personal opinions, and see how can we move ahead with what we have in the best possible way. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GStojanov: As it's been said many times before, the consensus is not about counting heads, but about arguments based on wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no rule to prevent the use of a natural adjectival equivalent of the name of an entity, which is an WP:OFFICIALNAME and can be confirmed by WP:RS. I've been saying many times (and becoming often annoying) that wikipedia is not some formal service that has to abide to legal documents and definitions. We have reached a policy-based consensus on that question, and the consensus is that both "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian" can be used for all officially renamed entities. --Argean (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I voted for the other option I agree with Argean. We must remember, however, that "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian" are not official so it would make sense to prefer "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia" - related terminology in article titles about state entities. The statement about "of North Macedonia" being preferrable, "North Macedonian" used to disambiguate and "Macedonian" permissible would have saved us from a lot of trouble. While I realize that this could have kind of meant for the panelists to overstep their "jurisdiction" that didn't stop them to do introduce a class of exceptions in the "nationality" closing statement. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is so hard about this? Forget that this is North Macedonia. Pretend that it is North Korea or South Africa or East Foobaria. Just write about the country, using "North Macedonia's", "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian" as would seem most natural for each instance. If you have to bend over backwards to get a particular form into the sentence, it probably shouldn't be used there. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hard, however for article titles, categories, etc. we need a guideline preference toward "of North Macedonia" (official) because that's the most official, neutral, verifiable term. That would set a standard - this is a naming convention discussion after all. In prose, of course we'll just write about the country, using "North Macedonia's", "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian" as would seem most natural for each instance. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: How about this: "For state entities that changed the name, use the new name. Don't use adjectives to describe them. Use pronouns to refer to them." What is unnatural with these two statements: "The government of North Macedonia has 23 ministers. It also has a speaker. The government also has three cooks." or this one: "Presidents of Greece and North Macedonia greeted each other with a warm embrace." (I am talking syntax here, not semantics). Why would we want to use adjectives where the English language clearly calls for nouns and pronouns?

If we permit the use of the adjective "North Macedonian" for any use, some editors will use it for any and all uses. Bulgarian editors already re-branded ethic Macedonians as Northmacedonians. If we poke that hole in the Prespa Agreement, what is now a difficult and painful compromise will turn into an unbearable yoke. Something will have to give. GStojanov (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a realistic, nor a consensually adopted approach. You can't really ban Wikipedia users to use adjectives in a guideline, especially if those are commonly used in reliable sources. In practice, however, I think that in a lot, if not all instances editors can agree on a more neutral, non-adjective usage. This needn't be prescribed by a guideline (I hope). --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not bet on good will of all editors. We do need a good guideline that will prevent using adjectival references where a plain and natural noun or pronoun would work just fine. GStojanov (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just simple English grammar. As for your example of Bulgarians using "northmacedonian" as an ethnicity, this is just as ridiculous as using "northkorean" as an ethnicity and should be treated the same: as vandalism. Change it to the correct form and block the user if it continues. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a simple English grammar. But we better put it in the guideline to avoid future wars. As for the Bulgarian Wikipedia I tried and failed miserably. They banned me once. I also failed to convince them that Macedonian language exists (they call it "a literary norm" which they understand as a subset of the Bulgarian language). I had a somewhat better success on the Greek Wikipedia, but Macedonian language there is still Slavomakedoniki glossa el:Σλαβομακεδονική γλώσσα, and Macedonians are still Slavomacedonians el:Σλαβομακεδόνες. And those are our two biggest and most powerful neighbors. It is a tough neighborhood. GStojanov (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you meant on the Bulgarian Wikipedia? That is completely irrelevant here. (However, if Bulgarian linguists generally define Macedonian as a literary norm of Bulgarian, then they SHOULD present it that way on the Bulgarian wiki. While also mentioning that other sources consider it a language in its own right.) It's not "bullying", it's being different languages. --Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is happening in other language versions of Wikipedia, is none of English Wikipedia's concern. We can't point out to problems that other Wikis face, just to make our point here more valid than it can be. The English Wiki has its own rules and consensus, and these cannot be overriden by those of the Bulgarian or Greek Wikipedias. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is unrealistic, but I'm going to dump a text here which I, personally, could imagine to become the core of a new guideline. I'm drafting a text that tries to remain faithful to the spirit of the RfC results, and thus embodies a kind of compromise between the positions, while putting the results in the context of the policies and criteria that form their basis, pointing out issues where the RfC may have ended up contradictory or inconsistent, and also adding some tentative more concrete and viable guidance in some of the contentious areas. I'd go for something like the following:

The country that was known as "Republic of Macedonia" between 1992 and 2019 was renamed to "North Macedonia" in 2019, following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece that ended the long-standing Macedonia naming dispute. The term "Macedonia" was shared between the independent country, a neighboring historic region in Greece, and a wider geographic region that comprises both, together with smaller parts in Bulgaria and other neighboring coutnries. In light of the renaming, Wikipedia has adopted a new set of naming conventions, replacing those that were in place since 2009. The new conventions were the subject of an RfC held between February and March 2019.

1. The country will generally be called by its new name, North Macedonia, or the longer official form Republic of North Macedonia where appropriate.
2. In historical contexts referring to events before 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name, i.e. "(Republic of) Macedonia". Where necessary, explanative notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references (e.g. Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or: Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)).
3. The Macedonian language and the Macedonians as an ethnic group continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources.
4. The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia also continues to be called "Macedonian". This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"). In particular, we will use "Macedonian" as the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles (XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). In contexts where ambiguity might be an issue, more explicit forms may be used (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia).
5. The use of adjectival forms to refer to the country ("Macedonian" or "North Macedonian") has been a matter of some contention and has so far been treated inconsistently in reliable sources, and the RfC has not led to a clear consensus for which of these to prefer. According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts, while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia". However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these rules.
   1. Accordingly, for most contexts, both "North Macedonian" and plain "Macedonian" can be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue, especially on first introducing the topic, while the shorter form may be used where the topic of the country is already established in context, for example in subsequent references in articles that are about topics related to North Macedonia throughout.
   2. When referring to official state institutions of North Macedonia, the Prespa agreement stipulates that both adjectival forms should be avoided in favor of the possessive form ("of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia's"). Whenever we refer to such state institutions by their official names, we will of course respect the newly established forms of these names that follow this convention (e.g. Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia). However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: a small typo fix. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with your proposal except the section 5.2: somehow it gives the impression that the consensus reached on the RfC regarding state associations of the country can more or less be ignored and that the plain "Macedonian" may be used too. How can this be a basis for guideline if it nulls its purpose, which is to be clear on what the editors can use or not? The editors agree that Wikipedia is independent of any official documents, and that the official documents discouraging the use of the adjectival term "North Macedonian" have no effect on Wikipedia and cannot replace the project's rules and guidelines. Furthermore, the majority of the participants in the RfC chose the terms "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian" when referring to the country's institutions and associations due to concerns about ambiguity. This needs to be mentioned in the guideline more clearly as to avoid the impression that the opposite can be possible too. Edit: also the term "fuller form" in the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian" is debatable, because "North Macedonian" isn't exactly the fuller form, but I can understand why the term "fuller" is used to describe it, as I too myself am unable to find a better description for it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the draft is mentioning that part of the RfC, is it not? However, it couldn't possibly present it as more than what it is, the majority opinion of the RfC participants, because that part of the RfC is the one that is most clearly inconsistent and not based in policy. The closers told us in the "adjective" section that we should go by reliable sources – but there is nothing in the reliable sources that supports that exception for the state entities. The sole reason why the state entities might have had a special rule was to accommodate the Prespa prescription (of avoiding adjectives). But the RfC also clearly resulted in that particular exception being rejected. Now we have an exception for state entities again, but it's a different one, and as such, neither based on the official prescriptions nor on the usage of reliable sources. Instead, it's based purely on the subjective preferences of a majority of RfC commenters. Yes, we can agree to abide by that preference, and I personally have no strong objections to doing so, but we can't really present it as if it was a logical outcome based on policy, when it quite clearly isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the initiative! I'll need to it give more thought, but for starters, I think that we should amend 5.1. or add another subpoint. When reference is made to the people and their culture - "Macedonian" is to be used. This is in line with the housekeeping section that got an unanimous consensus and again amended in the 'other adjectival usage' section mid-RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can add this along with the Ethnicity and Language, it suffices. Like this: The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there too, but I think that the adjectival usage section (5) needs to be updated to specify culture-topics adjectival usage which is to remain "Macedonian" ("Macedonian cuisine, paintings, film") etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's not necessary. Section (5) clearly refers to the country, while the language, the ethnic group and the culture are not exclusively bound to the country of North Macedonia. --Argean (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point here, however, some aspects of culture are national and more tied to the country, rather than ethnic. For example, "Macedonian television programs", "Macedonian films". Culture can not be reduced to folklore. I really think we should stress that in the adjectival section to avoid future conflicts. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but is such a special case covered by the RfC (or by your reliable-sources research)? I was under the impression the "adjectives" section was meant to cover everything not explicitly covered in the others? Introducing yet more domain-specific extra rules would be in need of some rather watertight arguments, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We explicitely excluded culture mid-RfC, so I've stopped researching culture. I can safely say that "Macedonian film" is vastly more common than "North Macedonian film". In fact, if we did include those references in the research/repository, the entire section would have shown a preference towards "Macedonian" because it would have included "Macedonian food", "Macedonian film", "Macedonian books" etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With a quick look I can say that this looks like a good job indeed. Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks for making a considerable effort to transcend the dichotomies we have created with the binary options that we forced the participating editors to align with, and lead the closing panel to conclude that there is no substantial consensus (specifically in the Nationality and Adjectives sections). I wouldn't disagree with any of the statements and I believe that they are all in line with the rough consensus that emerged during this RfC. My only observation is that we may need to specify what ambiguity may stipulate the use of more explicit terms when referring to the nationality, since the only ambiguity that has been identified during the RfC and has been included in the closing statement is the potential ambiguity of the "Macedonian" nationality vs. the "Macedonian" ethnicity. --Argean (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Argean. Editors seem to have varying ideas of what "ambiguity" means. The closing statement mentioned a potential case of ambiguity where "North Macedonian" may be used but this supposed ambiguity can be easily solved by using „ethnic“ where "Macedonian" is used in an ethnic sense. By and large, "North Macedonian" is not used by WP:RS for the people for any purposes, contradicts several Wikipedia policies and should be avoided. I'm afraid that sticking religiously to that particular nationality vs. ethnicity sentence in the closure that is basically WP:OR on a no-consensus conclusion would necessitate a closure review request. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This might work with some minor adjustments. I must say you did manage to capture the spirit of the conversation and the RfC. Thank you for the initiative to prepare it. Now proposals for corrections: 1. The second sentence "The term Macedonia... " is not needed. This did not change. 2 If you want to keep it, it should read: The term Macedonia is shared (present, not past tense). I won't repeat what FlavrSavr and Argean suggested. I generally agree with their suggestion, but we'll need to read it after they are incorporated in the text. GStojanov (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I think this is an amazing guideline, better than the official RfC. I support it without any complaints :). Seems to be in line with the Prespa agreement and rules of the English language + the usage of the adjectives in the reliable sources. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, over a night sleep, I still think this a very good draft policy. It can be improved, however. These are my suggestions:

3. The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. (as per Silent Resident's proposal above)

4. Potential ambiguity (nationality vs. ethnicity) should be specified as per Argean's and my comments

5. The adjectival section needs more work, also on ambiguities, namely:

5.1. In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue, especially on first introducing the topic, while the shorter form may be used where the topic of the country is already established in context, for example in subsequent references in articles that are about topics related to North Macedonia throughout. Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. Explanation: To be honest, I don't see why the longer form should be preferred in most ambigious cases (ex. "Macedonian national football team" cannot be potentially confused with any other team), however for the sake of compromise, I think it's a good guidance. However, article names, categories and templates need to stay as neutral as possible because of WP:NAMECHANGES (reliable sources do not use "North Macedonian" routinely or consistently). If we give appropriate weight to major media and the UN and the EU - where, in line with the Prespa Agreement "Macedonian" is allowed, and if we exclude the relatively minor SeeNews - it seems there still is a small preference to "Macedonian" rather than "North Macedonian". This means that, for example, Macedonian wine should redirect to "Wine of North Macedonia", but not to "North Macedonian wine". If there is an article about European wines, for example, we will use "North Macedonian wine", however, if one reads an article about Macedonian cuisine - "Macedonian wine" will be used. The same logic applies to categories and templates. We should follow this logic and continue to monitor the behavior of reliable sources.

5.2. State entities is better than state institutions. Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. Explanation: The same caveat should apply. Macedonian police should redirect to "Police of North Macedonia" or "Police in North Macedonia", but not to "North Macedonian police".

5.3. (this is new). Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with consensus on (2). It doesn't make sense to refer to the police in the 2001 insurgency as "North Macedonian police forces".

5.4. (this is new) Adjectival references to national culture should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with the consensus on (3) and the question itself which "excludes any adjectival usage relating to aspects of culture and/or ethnicity."

Comment: The guideline should also take some note about official names of entities that are not subject to the Prespa agreement. For example, the Macedonian Ecological Society, being an NGO, will probably not change its name to "Ecological Society of North Macedonia". The same (I think) applies to the Macedonian Stock Exchange, which is a private entity. I'm not sure about sports associations (I think they should but be renamed I'm not sure when) - but changes need to happen after (not before) the official name change(s) and follow the new, official name. This will often not be "of North Macedonia", but also "National" etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this works for all. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we reword the first paragraph like this:

On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute. After an RfC held between February and March 2019, Wikipedia adopts this new set of naming conventions, replacing those in place since 2009:

I think this is more factual, concise and NPV.GStojanov (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: your additions (5.3 and 5.4) are abit problematic, I am afraid, and cannot be added as is to Future Perfect's proposed guideline without improvements and clarifications. First of all, your proposed section 5.3 lacks any explanative notes such as "(now North Macedonian Police)" which still exists today, but with a different new name, and the readers should know we are referring to it only in a historical context (e.g. The rioters clashed with forces of the Macedonian Police (now North Macedonian Police)). Because it is still a state-associated force, it cannot be excempted from being treated the same way as the state itself is, in historical contexts, when it comes to state-associated adjectives.

Second, your 5.4 proposal is abit ambiguous and may allow bad-faith editors and disruptors to use it to refer to state-associated cultural institutions (i.e. state-associated TV channels and programs and universities, which are part of national culture), to be referred by an adjective which does not reflect the new reality (i.e "of Macedonia" and "Macedonian" instead "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian"). To avoid potential issues on this front, this needs to be reflected accordingly in the guideline. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both of your proposals, they seem to be perfectly logical. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'd disagree with the example of "(now North Macedonian police)", which strikes me as absurdly pedantic and unnecessary. I am assuming that we would use such expressions mostly in contexts where the country (before and after the name change) is already a well-eatablished discourse topic, so repeating the renaming disclaimer for every sub-topic that happens to be mentioned in the same context would be useless. Moreover, such additions would also often be semantically wrong. Let's say that in 1995, the president of Foobaristan met with his Macedonian colleague Kiro Gligorov. Expanding this to "Macedonian (now North Macedonian) president" would be simply wrong, because Kiro Gligorov is not now the president of North Macedonia, and never was. Let's face it, the addition of these "now..." tags is not an "obligation" we have to fulfill to respect some rule or else get "exemption" from; it's simply a service to the reader and we don't do these things in such an obsessive way, just as we wouldn't for other historic entities that got renamed at some point. In those cases where such additions are truly useful, we can leave it to editors' common sense to add them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GStojanov: Actually Future Perfect's first paragraph is more informative and better than your proposed one. I can't see how such a lite paragraph can be more informative for the readers. It is not and if we want the guideline to inform the readers adequately, we should stick with Future Perf's version. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph states: "it was renamed". Who renamed it? Who has authority to rename a country. We should stick to the facts. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got a point there, I guess. "...changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation..." works for me. You're right, we shouldn't present Prespa as if it, in and of itself, effected the name change – or indeed as if it in itself constituted the authority we wanted to follow. We do this renaming on Wikipedia because (a) common usage has changed, and that is because (b) the country decided on this change; Prespa itself is just background information to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a) is true. Common usage did not change, at least not yet. It is simply too early for that. But b) is true, and the fact that I don't like that fact does not make it less of a fact. GStojanov (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we are indeed making some progress here and I'm happy to see that there is a common understanding of the conclusions of the RfC.
@FlavrSavr: I have to agree with your proposals on 3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2, but I have some issues with 5.3 and 5.4.

• For 4 specifically I want to remind the proposal to make a page on People of North Macedonia or at least on Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, to address the multi-ethnic character of the country and clarify various issues on terminology. The issue of ambiguity has been brought up many by many editors and it cannot be covered completely by the article on Macedonians (ethnic group). Apart from that, I propose that the text should be changed to In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, citizens of North Macedonia who are of Albanian/Turkish/Bosniak ethnicity, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia). The idea of adding some explanatory text when required comes from WP:UKNATIONALS, but we can skip if it looks unnecessary.
• On the other hand I rather agree with SilentResident that the additions on 5.3 and 5.4 need some further work. Actually I think that 5.3 should go under 2 with other historical contexts. Since the name of the country for historic references remains "Macedonia", the adjective is "Macedonian" too. And Fut.Perf. is right, the excessive use of "now..." is over-elaborated. After an initial reference to Macedonia (now North Macedonia) is being made in the text it doesn't need to be repeated. If the first reference in the text is an adjective it could be something along the lines of the then Macedonian Parliament.
• Finally, I honestly think that 5.4 is covered by language/ethnic group/culture. I think that the Government of North Macedonia knows already very well in what cases they need to change "Macedonian" to "National" (SilentResident explained it already), so using WP:RS will provide sufficient guidance. I remember reading somewhere that i.e. the names of Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Macedonian Radio Television will change to "National", but the Macedonian National Theatre will not change name because it represents part of ethnic Macedonian culture. That doesn't mean that we need to force the use of "North Macedonian" where not indicated, but that's already covered in state entities (or state and public entities, if we want to be accurate). That sounds like a fair approach to me. --Argean (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: That sounds good. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point Argean, I do not oppose the creation of said article, although, I must admit, so far, outside the region and outside this RfC there isn't much controversy going on, and there aren't a lot of reliable sources that discuss the nationality issue directly. Those that do, are pretty blunt, like for example this sentence from Deutsche Welle: "Macedonians — and yes, that is the right word to use for their nationality". However, I think that this article shouldn't be a part of the naming convention: per Manual of style "Macedonian" would link to the "North Macedonia" country page. I support the addition of ethnic qualifiers when necessary, but introductory statements should be in this format X is a Macedonian Albanian, or a Macedonian of ethnic Albanian origin. This should be enough to avoid any ambiguity.

On your second point, I only added it as a separate 5.3 point because the format discusses names first and then adjectives. I wouldn't mind if an additional sentence is added to (2) Historical adjectival references that use "Macedonian" should follow the same logic. But I think it should be added, because I've seen instances where people just add "North" ignoring the historical context.

On your third point, perhaps I should have been more clear in 5.4.. I'm referring to cultural products and activities, and not to state institutions. Much of 20th century culture is not so much ethnic, but national in character, involving a lot of people & organizations. For example, it doesn't make sense to speak of "ethnic Macedonian films" or "ethnic Macedonian brutalist architecture" regardless of the institutions that regulate, fund or distribute these cultural products or activities. These are "Macedonian" as reported by a majority of reliable sources and voted by an unanimous consensus (twice). However, as in the case of 5.3. we can just add The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: On the first point, I'm suggesting the creation of such an article not as part of the guideline, but as an additional measure to deal with the ambiguity question, that has been raised by so many editors. We have agreed that we will continue to use the term "Macedonian(s)" to describe the nationality, but currently there is no article on Macedonian nationals, or on People from North Macedonia or Ethnic groups in North Macedonia that are not ethnic Macedonians. At least an article for ethnic groups or minorities is necessary and it's rather strange not to have one currently, since we have similar articles for most European countries. Anyway, I'll leave it for now, because it's not part of the current discussion. As for the introductory statements, MOS:OPENPARABIO requires just one term for nationality (or location) and doesn't require to mention MOS:ETHNICITY, except if it is considered notable for that specific person. I don't expect to see issues of ambiguity in opening paragraphs and I think we have already clarified that the correct format should be Macedonian. If ethnicity is notable, which shouldn't be the rule, then indeed a Macedonian of Albanian ethnicity should be welcome as a format. I'm talking about cases where ambiguity might be an issue - i.e. when an article about e.g. Cedi Osman refers to his nationality/citizenship anywhere else apart from his MOS:OPENPARABIO. In these cases it's suggested to use explicit forms when ambiguity might become an issue, and imho adjectival forms maybe also be avoided when possible or not necessary. I don't know if there is a different opinion on that?

On the second point, I just don't see what is the need to add the historical use of adjectives together with the modern use, since there is already a section about historical references. People may want to add "North" everywhere, but let's keep all the historical uses together to make the guideline more coherent and simpler to follow. Historical references shouldn't be allowed the use of "North" in any possible form - this would be just a stupid revisionism.

On the third point, I might just be missing your point. I mean, I don't see culture, in general, as ethnic or national. Culture is strongly associated with people, and if people are called Macedonian(s) (ethnically or nationally, it doesn't matter), then their culture is also Macedonian, and of course this is not limited to folklore, but includes also modern literature, music, cinema, etc. I fail to see in what cases a reference to national culture might be made that is somehow distinct and create questions on ambiguity. I support the change and the addition of culture under section 3, exactly as you formulated it. --Argean (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit of a problem recently with a user trying to redirect links to the demonyms (such as Greeks or Germans) to articles about the demographics articles (such as Demographics of Greece and Demographics of Germany). There is some disagreement about how much a demonym should be considered to be limited to the original ethnic group vs all citizens of the country. This will need sorting out and the distinction for this country is even more tricky. For my own part, I would say that articles on the demonym should be of the format "Foobarians are historically an ethnic group that blah-blah-blah. Since the establishment of the Socialist Democratic Federated Republic of Foobaria, the term may be extended to all residents of that state." --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on minority groups that you are looking for is Demographics of North Macedonia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the incident very well Khajidha. There was even an RfC because that user decided to change all redirects unilaterally causing disruption. Well eventually the user was banned because he/she was evading a topic ban on Macedonia-related articles... - actually this whole issue started from the North Macedonia talk page and escalated because the user wanted to prove a WP:POINT.

Anyway, the issue is indeed complicated and many articles on ethnic groups have problems, because the boundaries between ethnic groups and nations are quite blurred in many cases, especially when referring to modern European nations. For example French and Swiss people are civic nations where the background ethnicity is not important, while Russians have two different names in their language to distinguish ethnicity to citizenship. The issue is even more complicated for Macedonians because they are a nation that was created more recently (mostly during the first part of 20th century), compared to other European nations that went through their modern ethnogenesis mostly during 18th-19th century. Now the issue here is that the state that represents that nation has changed name which is not i.e. a change from an exonym to an endonym, (such as Swaziland to Eswatini), and as a result that new name of the state doesn't represent a continuation of the historic development of the nation (and rightfully we are not changing the name of the people with this RfC). To make things even more complicated (and I think this is the point where the potential ambiguity stems from) the constitution of the state recognizes that it represents the Macedonian people and part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Romany people, the Bosniak people and others, the latter being all the officially recognized minorities. So why not make an article about all these minorities that are clustered under the national concept of Macedonians, instead of having just a short paragraph in Demographics of North Macedonia, without even having a redirect from Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, similar to Ethnic groups in Montenegro?.

To conclude, this is a long and complicated discussion, but I guess this is not the right place and time to hold it, so apologies for the long and rather irrelevant post. --Argean (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't even want to mention demonyms, which is a recently invented linguistic construct with next to zero semiological background - as opposed to ethnonyms that are actually significant part of the complex process of ethnogenesis, but anyway. --Argean (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well Argean, we seem to agree on all points. I'm not sure if we need the 'historical use of adjectives' addition: while you and me might agree that it is indeed stupid revisionism to add "North Macedonian" for historical events, other, less-good faith editors might not. One cannot be too careful with (North) Macedonia related articles. :) However, I'll let Future Perfect at Sunrise be the judge of that. Hope he implements the suggestions soon so that we finally have a policy. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: I'm glad to see for once more that we are able to be in agreement as part of a constructive process and not just as a simple step-back compromise.
I'm wondering what the next step of the process has to be? Future Perfect at Sunrise any ideas? --Argean (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the structure of the current Naming Convention page. Under the "Main Article Titles" I propose this:

1. North Macedonia will be the article about the country, and commonly used name in articles about present and past back to Feb 12th 2019.

2. Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note "now North Macedonia".

3. Macedonia will be a disambiguation page. The order remains as is and the country will be listed as "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"

We need a new section: "Nation and nationality"

1. Macedonian is the name of the nation and ethnic group, and all adjectives relating to it.

2. Nationality (citizenship) according to Prespa agreement is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". We will use "Macedonian" as the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles (XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). In contexts where ambiguity might be an issue, more explicit forms may be used (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia).

In "Greece related articles" we only need to replace "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia" and maybe slightly edit it.

"International organizations" can remain as is.

"Other Articles" also can remain as is with only replacing "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia".

We need few more sections. But let's go step by step. GStojanov (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather work to improve Future Perfect at Sunrise's draft. Introducing a new structure at this moment just seems to complicate things. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not introducing a new structure. I am following the structure of the current Naming Convention page.GStojanov (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is new to this discussion. Future Perfect has proposed a format. We are discussing how best to phrase things in it, what to add to it and what to remove from it. Your proposal is in an entirely different format. We need to focus on the proposal before us unless and until it can be shown to be inadequate. THEN we can look at other formats. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Enthusiastic support for Future Perfect at Sunrise’s proposal (in grey box above), with possible minor changes to add culture and language. I am positive that this presents the fairest, most practical and most helpful distillation of this whole mess. I particularly like the approach taken to the most contentious issue, citizenship. I was in the North Macedonian camp, by the way, but can live with the proposed policy — exactly as it is worded — very well. The examples given (XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia) just make sense, something that was rarely if ever achieved previously. So let’s not beat a dead horse, but implement this quickly and without more nitpicking. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to make one side note: I do emphatically oppose GStojanov’s phrasing such as Macedonian is the name of the nation […] etc. etc. No, no, no, no, no. It is not up to a guideline on terminology to make categorical claims about what something is. All we can and should say is is “use ___ to describe X”, not “X is ___.” Adopting GStojanov’s proposed changes would appear to seriously move the goalposts. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal in general. Point 3 ("The Macedonian language and the Macedonians as an ethnic group continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources.") needs editing for tone ('continue to be called like that" is not encyclopedic phrasing). I suggest "The language and ethnic group are to be referred to as Macedonian and Macedonians respectively, in line with both the Prespa agreement and the majority of reliable sources."--Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as well for Future Perfect at Sunrise’s proposal. Yes, Khajidha your feedback for the wording indeed sounds more appropriate too. However I noticed Future Perf's wording contains the key word "still" while yours does not. Is there anything I am missing about its meaning? Would this cause any issues of implications? I hope not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect's use of "still" relates current usage to previous usage, my use of "are to be referred to" is more focused on the present and future. --Khajidha (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (conditional) of what is obviously a well thought compromise between the relative strength of the positions in the RfC and relevant Wikipedia policies. The only two 'conditions' for my support is (1) the addition of culture and its adjective derivatives as worded in the above discussion with Argean - as widely uncontested (it's in the housekeeping section + it were specifically excluded mid RfC) and (2) further specifying that for article titles, categories, templates etc. we will prefer the non-adjectival use. Of course, Argean's further specifying of the nationality cases would be a welcome addition. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose The only thing that changed is the official name. The common name or adjective did not change as evidenced by reliable sources and search engine trending.GStojanov (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @BD2412, QEDK, and Neutrality: Pinging RFC closing panel for feedback. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I think a good progress has been made here. As a closer, we generally resist making comments other than clarifications, as it might be construed as extension of our closes (and thus, noted consensus). But, making policy is hard, and I think the guideline that Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has distilled the RfC into is a good start. The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming), for example:

• Republic of Macedonia will be the article about the country. (superseded by new consensus)
• Macedonia will be a disambiguation page. (supported by consensus)
• Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will otherwise not be used. (grandfathered in)

Coming back to this guideline itself, it does not need Prespa agreement as any kind of reasoning (it can probably be referenced in a hatnote) considering Prespa is an official agreement with no bearing on to policy itself, the guideline should focus on only the consensus. The guideline is formed simply because the consensus exists for it to exist. So, a statement like According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts, while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia". However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these rules can be added to a footnote, as it is not the consensus of the RfC itself but an useful addendum. Aternatively, this can also be a part of an explanatory supplement to the guideline in place. Accordingly, for most contexts, both "North Macedonian" and plain "Macedonian" can be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country needs to be summarized as a product of no consensus emerging in the RfC, and why the default MOS (such as MOS:ALTNAME) applies. What I've quoted are small parts of the guideline but they apply to it as whole and again, I think this is a definitive good head start into arriving at an implementable policy in the area. Kudos to everyone working on it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the RfC itself begins with the sentence Due to the Prespa agreement, the Republic of Macedonia has been renamed to the Republic of North Macedonia, so I don't think that Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposed wording deviates in any way from the logic of the RfC or the consensus following from it: it just states a major historical fact and summarizes WP's community consensus around it. I think it's most useful in the way that it is right now, and I don't think it should be reduced to a footnote. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The necessitating cause of the RfC is not its consensus. I do not think FPAS' wording deviates from the spirit of the RfC either but simply that it is not required, the consensus does not exist at the behest of the agreement, the current wording just makes it sound like it is. To summarize, although Prespa agreement precipitated the change, that is not the reasoning of the consensus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of footnotes: It is important to not give the readers the false impression in the slightest that the Prespa Agreement dictates Wikipedia's guidelines or affected Consensus (the Consensus was determined by the valid arguments in line with Wikipedia's policies anyways, not on Prespa Agreement) but provide the necessary explanations where needed. To keep the new guideline as concise and compact as possible, I wouldn't mind if this information is reduced into footnotes acting as explanatory supplements. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sentence itself should be reworded to reduce any possible false impression about Wikipedia being somehow obligated to the Prespa agreement? Why footnotes? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr, SilentResident, and QEDK: I took your conversation from here and ran with it. Your thoughts would be appreciated below. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]