Wikipedia:Peer review/Republic of Macedonia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Republic of Macedonia[edit]

I believe we should just respect the U.N. decisions and just use the name that the state is recognised by U.N., regardless what Greeks or Macedonians think about the argument and regardless what reasons made the U.N. make this decision. Its a matter of respecing and international organisation such as the Unighted Nations. Regards, Steve


The name utilized for this article is not the formal, internationally accepted name for the country described in the article. Just as the article for "Hellas" points to the page for "Greece" and the one for "Britain" points to the page for "United Kingdom" the article titled "Republic of Macedonia" must redirect to the page for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" which is the name that is accepted by all nations and therefore NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to further the propaganda and agendas of individual states but rather to present the facts. Philaleth 05:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep name as is. WP naming convention is to use the simplest and most-common language to refer to place names. For example, we use Los Angeles, California - not El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles, California, which is the city's little-used "official" name. And as for United Kingdom and Greece, you are mistaken. Their "official" names are United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Hellenic Republic, respectively. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 08:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Philaleth's point includes anything about "official" names. Both "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are official names, the former being the Republic's constitutional name, and the latter the name the Rebuplic is recognized by most foreign states, including Greece. As I see it, Philaleth argues that the Republic is recognized as FYROM by most, which is basically true. I'm not going to discuss Wikipedia's naming policies. As far as I'm concearned, I'm satisfied with the article as is, provided that disclaimer saying "The title of this article is not meant to imply an official position on this naming dispute" stays, whatever the title is. That's a compromise, and that's the best we can do. Etz Haim 13:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If I may add to Etz's sober commentary: I believe that what is appropriate for Greece, Britain and Holland, is also appropriate for ROM/FYROM. There is no rational reason for which Wikipedia should concede to be used for the furthering of the propaganda of that (terrorist/extremist friendly and drugrunning and money laundering friendly) state. We must vehemently protect Wikipedia from such aggressors if it is to become relevant as a source of information to the world and worthy of this concerted effort. The one internationally legal name of this state is FYROM and so the article should be titled. A footnote can then show that its inhabitants want to use a different name for themselves. I believe that to do otherwise would not only be not NPOV and offensive to the people of Greece, but it would also run contrary to international laws and conventions. This article's title must be changed forthwith. I don't know how to do this so someone please advise. Philaleth 22:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that allegations regarding illegal activities taking place in the FYROM are completely out of focus here, as they have nothing to do in an argument about the Republic's name. I strongly object to demonizing the FYROM, as this contradicts my experiences of meeting many of its people, who are friendly and decent, and are neither propagandists nor affiliated with drug lords, terrorists etc. Besides, I wouldn't want anyone to overlook the progress this country has made over the last years on its relationships with its neighbours, ie. its demilitarization framework that included its Greek border. Etz Haim 23:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I felt that it is indicative of the country's policies and practices, and therefore relevant in putting in the appropriate light that country's covert efforts to promote through propaganda a different name than that by which it has been internationally recognized. I have not had the pleasure of meeting any of the nationals of FYROM, but I am certain that they are in the majority nice, peace loving people. The facts listed in the Library of Congress and CIA websites regarding friendliness toward terrorism, drug running and money laundering in FYROM are not a reflection on the whole of the population or an attempt to demonize them. Unfortunately their government's policies and practices in fact place the population in the compromising position of having to tolerate activities which run contrary to international laws and insofar as those activities include covert efforts for the de-facto changing of their country's name to something other than the internationally legal one, I felt it was relevant. I offer my sincere apologies to any FYROM nationals who may have been offended by the revelation of that truth. Philaleth 23:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't preach. Present facts relevant to the issue. Perhaps Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the name that should appear in the article title, but talk of government corruption is irrelevant and the "truth" of such corruption is irrelevant. I may get time myself to check what current name is recommended by thorough checking ISO standards and relevant lists of countries in postal information websites for other English-speaking countries and seeing what usage actually seems to be so forth. That is what needs to be done. This is a naming dispute, and Wikipedia policies of using the most common name and using the name by which an organization wishes to be known may conflict here. Whether the organization itself is seen as a good thing or bad thing shouldn't matter. What is common usage? I note that Encyclopædia Britannica 's article is currently under simple Macedonia. [1]. Encarta has Macedonia (country) [2]. I note that Canada Post lists in full "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as the country name that should be used for addressing though mostly it gives short names [3]. On the other hand at [4] the simple form "Macedonia" appears. More research along these lines is needed to see what actual usage is, not just what it perhaps should be. Jallan 18:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There will never actually be a neutral solution to this. The page should be titled Macedonia (the page on Italy, for example, is not written "Italian Republic"). As with any other shared names, a disambiguation notice can serve. I think the first line should read "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Republika Makedonija) is...". The longwinded name is the one commonly used.

I'm not Greek nor any type of Yugoslav, though, and just can't work up much ire about this ridiculous subject. I just imagine the English demanding that the Americans call their state "the American State of New Hampshire", or that Candians call London, Ontario "the Canadian City of London in Ontario". None of this has any place in an encyclopaedia that favours neither side.

Just my 2c and worth exactly that.Dr Zen 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but we aren't talking about a city or a state, we're talking about an entire nation. There's an Athens, Georgia, and Crete, Illinois, but Greece could care less since they're far enough to not be territorial or historical claims. Also I believe the English themselves named New Hampshire and London, Canada, so that's their own fault. Again, Italy can be named Italy instead of the Italian Republic because there, to the best of my knowledge, is no international controversy surrounding the names Italy or "Italian". Nevertheless, I don't see why the titles for countries don't use their official names. If someone searches for Greece, and the Hellenic Republic comes up, they'll probably end up learning something new since very few people actually know what Greece officially calls itself. Also, the vast majority of people call the USA America, but titling the Wiki US page "America" would undoubtedly offend Mexicans, Canadians, Central Americans, and South Americans. HawkeyE 07:21, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC )