Talk:North Macedonia: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 157: Line 157:

:::How editors that do not have “a pre-established pro-Macedonian/pro-Greek/pro-Bulgarian POV” are identified? And do you include yourself to them? [[User:Aetolorhode|Aetolorhode]] ([[User talk:Aetolorhode|talk]]) 18:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:::How editors that do not have “a pre-established pro-Macedonian/pro-Greek/pro-Bulgarian POV” are identified? And do you include yourself to them? [[User:Aetolorhode|Aetolorhode]] ([[User talk:Aetolorhode|talk]]) 18:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:::I want to add that in Macedonia disambiguation wikipedia page, already exists the following text: “North Macedonia, a country in southeastern Europe, known until 2019 as the Republic of Macedonia” which is similar to the proposed Barnards.tar.gz’s formulation. However this is quite different from the current RfC topic: ” also known by its former official name Macedonia “. My personal view still is that it should not be in the lead sentence but later in the first paragraph or paragraphs due to complexity and confusion of the triple repetition of the word Macedonia in one single sentence. [[User:Aetolorhode|Aetolorhode]] ([[User talk:Aetolorhode|talk]]) 18:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:::I want to add that in Macedonia disambiguation wikipedia page, already exists the following text: “North Macedonia, a country in southeastern Europe, known until 2019 as the Republic of Macedonia” which is similar to the proposed Barnards.tar.gz’s formulation. However this is quite different from the current RfC topic: ” also known by its former official name Macedonia “. My personal view still is that it should not be in the lead sentence but later in the first paragraph or paragraphs due to complexity and confusion of the triple repetition of the word Macedonia in one single sentence. [[User:Aetolorhode|Aetolorhode]] ([[User talk:Aetolorhode|talk]]) 18:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:”’Support”’. Ngrams suggest “Macedonia” is still commonly used. “State of” [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=state+of+macedonia%2Cstate+of+north+macedonia&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3], “country of” [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=country+of+macedonia%2Ccountry+of+north+macedonia&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3], “government of” [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=government+of+macedonia%2C+government+of+north+macedonia&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3], “people of ” [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=people+of+macedonia%2Cpeople+of+north+macedonia&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3]. I think it’s obvious that the average reader may still understand the country as being named “Macedonia” and this text helps clarify that.

:Google News trends show the same thing [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=north%20macedonia,macedonia&hl=en], “Macedonia” is very commonly used as a search term. The same is true if you append country [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=north%20macedonia%20country,macedonia%20country&hl=en], “government” [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=north%20macedonia%20government,macedonia%20government&hl=en], “president” [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=north%20macedonia%20president,macedonia%20president&hl=en].

:Something along the lines of the proposal is obviously concordant with [[WP:PLACENAME]] in the lead section; see e.g. [[Myanmar]]. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 22:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2025 ==

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2025 ==

Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
December 2, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “In the news“ column on February 13, 2019, and March 27, 2020.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “On this day…“ column on September 8, 2005, September 8, 2006, September 8, 2007, September 8, 2008, September 8, 2009, September 8, 2010, September 8, 2011, and September 8, 2012.

I hope my request will reach a successful result.
It is already known that there was a dispute between Republic of Greece and Republic of North Macedonia over several points including among others the name of the country, its identity, language, histroy, NATO membership. The dispute resolution came by signing the Treaty of Prespa (Prespa agreement).
I have recently read the Wikipedia page for North Macedonia and I have noticed that there is a violation of the signed Treaty regarding the connection between the modern state (Republic of North Macedonia) with the Macedonian Empire.
The whole part refering to Ancient Greek Macedonia (the word derives from the Greek word Μακεδονία, as it is also reported on that same Wikipedia page) should be removed. In the Treaty of Prespa, it is clearly stated and accepted by both parties that any historical connection to Ancient greek empire Macedonia is not accepted. On that Wikipedia page, any reader can infer that the modern state (Republic of North Macedonia) is a continuation of the ancient greek empire simply because its location is on lands that were in ancient time parts of that empire.

So I request all the parts of that Wikipedia page regarding ancient Macedonia in any possible way to be removed as they violate the singed Treaty of Prespa. I hope the dispute will be resolved in avoidance of any further escalation. Egantzias (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn’t a signatory to the Treaty of Prespa; it’s an encyclopedia. StanProg (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia which is very picky in what to include in it’s articles and what not, in the very top of your article you rush to mention that the country is also known as Macedonia while explaining that Wikipedia is not obligated to follow any treaties yet you avoid to include that Macedonians are also known as North Macedonians the same way North Macedonia is also known as Macedonia, because that whould violate the very treaty which you aren’t obligated to follow as you implied according to older responses, there’s clearly some bias here and it hasn’t gone unnoticed Marenguista di Napoli d’Attica (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We go by MOS:MAC in case you have not realized by now, not the treaty. The treaty also never changed the name of the ethnic group, nor are they known as “North Macedonians” now. Please avoid logging out when replying to others. I also noticed now that the former official name just got restored. Well, there is no consensus for that, so I will be reverting that change. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’ve got one thing wrong, i did not say they’re also called North Macedonians by the treaty but rather i meant informally the same way also the name Macedonia sometimes applies to the country. Marenguista di Napoli d’Attica (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That term applies for all citizens of North Macedonia, not exclusively ethnic Macedonians. It is clearly not a significant alternative name, even informally, especially for the ethnic group. But anyway, this article is about North Macedonia, so any discussion about its people should be reserved for the talk pages of their articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main comment is not only about the name but the connection to Ancient Greece and the Macedonian Empire. There is no such connection historically with the country that is nowadays called North Macedonia. Even the treaty that the country ‘North Macedonia’ signed declares quite apparently that there is no historical connection to the ancient empire of Macedonians. So whatever else we are discussing is based on nonsense. The people who created the identity of Macedonians (in Ancient Greece) have no connection with those people nowadays that they call themselves Macedonians and this is something that even the so called nowadays ‘Macedonians’ have agreed to by signing that treaty. So it quite oxymoron, on one hand to accept that you are not connected by no way with the historical people who had the identity of Macedonians, yet you want to claim that identity and use it. It is like the modern americans would like to be named indians because they inhabite in an area of the planet that native indians used to live. So this is my last comment as I believe this discussion is so low level that kind of insults my mental sanity. 2A02:6B67:D3B0:4700:C312:CB67:1755:C2FB (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even if it applies for all people of North Macedonia including the Macedonians, it still should be mentioned as an alternative informal ethnonym since it’s occasionally used by many, but anyways. Marenguista di Napoli d’Attica (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply ‘Wikipedia isn’t a signatory to the Treaty of Prespa; it’s an encyclopedia.’ answers to comments other than mine which makes it totally irrelevant to my positions. Yet to respond to your non-response, I will say that you promote Wikipedia as an encyclopedia so I assume you want to have an accurate and true content of knowledge included in this Encyclopedia. If you write things that do not reflect the reality or in other words are based on your imagination/lack of knowledge, then you are harming Wikipedia and the very reason of what you promote.
I do not want to believe that you care about misinforming others or propagate for any personal purpose or satisfaction.
So you can keep it as it is and just pretend that this is the reality and have others believe that as well so in the very end noone is going to use Wikipedia any more. I tried to communicate the problematic of your writing but I do not see any understanding here. Therefore, I will have to contact the Wikipedia team for just removing your content. 2A02:6B67:D3B0:4700:C312:CB67:1755:C2FB (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a controversial topic, I bring it here to the talk page: I suggest including the bare name Macedonia besides North Macedonia in the introduction as “also known as and formerly just Macedonia” or something in the direction, because the country is very often referred to as just Macedonia and obviously the former official name was Macedonia. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. —Local hero talk 03:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned in the section “Names and etymology” where it is claimed it is called Macedonia by most of its citizens and most local media outlets. However, to put a claim that the country is very often referred (by whom?) to as just Macedonia into the intro, you need open a discussion, to reach a consensus and to provide at least 2-3 WP:RS, supporting your claim. Jingiby (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, none of the sources verify that “the country is unofficially referred to as “Macedonia” by most of its citizens and most local media outlets”. There is only verification in one source that the former official name has continued to be used by some politicians, such as the current president and prime minister. The former official name used to be in the first sentence, but it was removed back in 2023 and that consensus has not been challenged for two years, so obviously a new consensus will be needed for restoration. I am not convinced that we should restore the former official name in the first sentence and definitely way more than 2-3 sources will be needed to demonstrate that the former official name is at least almost as relevant as the current official name. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some RS regarding the usage of just “Macedonia” by Macedonian officials: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]; and some outside usage from politicians Orban [6], Vucic [7], Irena Joveva [8]. Not sure what our threshold would be here. —Local hero talk 03:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are provocations by politicians from an eurosceptic party in North Macedonia, but its position is well known.Jingiby (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you want but that’s the country’s President, Prime Minister, among others. Thanks for reiterating your POV when no asked for it. —Local hero talk 17:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous prime minister and president from leftist party SDSM used North Macedonia exclusively, those from the current nationalist party VMRO-DPMNE use Macedonia mainly. The question is, when the next ones come, depending on their political views, will we have to change the introductory text again? A serious study should be cited, in which the term Macedonia is used exclusively for the name of the country. Otherwise, it is normal, in a country with a changed name, for the population to use the old name of the country for a while, especially when a nationalist party is in power that expresses serious reservations about the new name.
On the other hand, there is a growing use of the demonym “North Macedonian”, even in North Macedonia, which can be easily proven by Google Trends. StanProg (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it came down to election time, even the SDSM politicians would avoid the “n word” because it’s unpopular and not in use among the general population, which is the basis for this discussion. —Local hero talk 01:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This information is already in the article. The basis for this discussion is if it should be moved from the “Names and etymology” section to the lead section and put in bold, just like the official name “Republic of North Macedonia”. This appears to be a matter of local political significance rather than broad international relevance, so it may not warrant emphasis in the lead section. StanProg (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is beyond just local political significance, we have multiple examples on how to handle something like this including Myanmar (Burma), Eswatini (Swaziland), United States (America), etc. Sri Lanka even still includes Ceylon in the lead. —Local hero talk 20:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a starter. Well, one can see how many hits “Macedonia” (in reference to the country) has compared to “North Macedonia” to assess relevance, but hits after the name change obviously. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not even sure that’s needed, but we can discuss and analyze that if we’d like. My view is that we’re talking about a country in which virtually no one within it refers to it as “North Macedonia” and on that basis alone “Macedonia” should be in the lead bolded. There is also evidence that non-Macedonians use just “Macedonia” in parlance, as shown in a few political examples above. But examples can be found in various places, such as Joe Rogan ([9], [10]) probably the most popular podcaster in the world. —Local hero talk 20:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this change since the term is used quite commonly in the media and the internal political scene Kromid (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1:, this discussion has been idle for weeks with no one interested in arguing against inclusion. Not sure the point in adding complexity. —Local hero talk 17:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors support restoring the name, while three object (including me), so that is even. You have only demonstrated that the former name has a national significance, not a global significance. Inserting one example from a podcaster is not good enough. A discussion becoming idle does not mean that there is consensus. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not make clear that you opposed it. In that case, it’s highly concerning that you’ve let replies to your comments go unanswered, yet you’re the first to revert when the action is done.
Thank you for confirming that I have demonstrated that “Macedonia” remains in national significance, but please be careful in summarizing what I’ve provided: in addition to two examples from the world’s top podcaster (a random example intentionally), I presented examples from three non-Macedonian politicians (Orban, Vucic, Joveva). I also provided examples of similar formulations from other country WP articles.
Once all of the concerns of the dissenters have been addressed and have been sitting for well over a month, it’s still not good enough to perform the action? That just makes it easy for you to maintain your opposition on some technicality that I do not even believed is valid per the policy. —Local hero talk 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those examples are still of a regional political or at least a geopolitical context, which does not mean the former name is due for the lead. Those politicians are allies of the country, so it is natural that they would support its positions as well. Articles are judged on a case-to-case basis, so it does not matter how the other countries’ articles are formulated. If the former names appear on those articles, maybe it is because they have international significance, but it is not for me to say. It is better to ask people who worked on those articles. I did not expect that you would assume that there is consensus, since those examples clearly did not convince us, at least me. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make your reservations known next time, instead of the lazy revert long after receiving a reply. And when you say “us”, you know that means yourself, Jingiby and StanProg – longstanding Bulgarian POV editors. Of course they would not accept any argument of mine no matter how good, we’ve been doing this for a couple decades.
Thanks for confirming that some foreign politicians do use “Macedonia” on its own, not sure the relevance of everything else you’ve stated about that.
Providing former-name examples is just demonstrating that this is not some wildly unprecedented text to add. —Local hero talk 23:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly fine to leave the elaborations about the use of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia to call North Macedonia in the §Names and etymology, which immediately follows introduction. However, it is a problem suggest in the first sentence that it is also another acceptable name for the country, which it is not. It is a historic name. The adoption of the name of North Macedonia / Republic of North Macedonia was a gigantic step towards peace, and the standing of the country of the international stage. Macedonia in short is an ambiguous term with many meanings, it is also offensive to some. Formulations in lede such as also called Macedonia are not only misleading, they are also adopting the POV of some nationalists who deny the name change, or even the name dispute, ever happened. The §Names and etymology section allows to elaborate with all appropriate context and nuance on the history of the use of the different names of the country. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia in short is not an ambiguous term when used in this specific context (especially with ‘Republic of’ prefix). In regards to being offensive to certain groups, it’s quite clear Wikipedia is Encyclopedic rather than appeasing peoples nationalist ‘feelings’. Consistency is Encyclopedic and the proposed change is consistent with Myanmar/Burma, Eswatini/Swaziland, ‘United States’/America, ‘Sri Lanka’/Ceylon articles. Kromid (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is based on some emotion rather than reality. Whether you think its immoral or against “peace”, the fact is that virtually no one within N. Macedonia refers to it with “north”, ever. Regarding “feelings”, for years we have “FYROM” bolded in the lead of this page, regardless of the great offense Macedonians took to that epithet. —Local hero talk 23:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage the contribution of more editors (especially non Balkan editors) especially since the conversation is fizzling out. I think Local hero is bringing up some solid points. I think arguments revolving around Google trends are flawed since changes in hits for “Macedonian” and “North Macedonian” are naturally correlated. Also I’d like to mention the List of countries’ positions in the Macedonia naming dispute and that a substantial portion of the world including the likes of USA, Russia, China, India recognized the country as ‘Macedonia’ bilaterally – therefore the use of the term was of significance globally. This sounds like something indeed akin to the Myanmar/Burma, Eswatini/Swaziland, ‘United States’/America, ‘Sri Lanka’/Ceylon situation as the country was called ‘Macedonia’ constitutionally and recognized as such by most of the world for 25 years or so. Consistency of such is Encyclopedic. Kromid (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a provisional reference was also used internationally, but it would not be a good idea to insert that into the first sentence either. There is also something that distinguishes North Macedonia from those countries and that is the high-profile naming dispute that took decades to resolve, so consistency is not really a good argument here. Also those recognitions are pre-2019 stuff and what matters here is current usage. If you want more editors to get involved, you can start a RfC and settle the matter for good. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything related to the name should be discussed in the related section in the body text, not the lede. Khirurg (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StephenMacky1 and Khirurg. Additionally, the official name before the Prespa agreement was Republic of Macedonia (“Republika Makedonija”) in Macedonian, to be exact, not just Macedonia. It is now known internationally (“erga omnes” according to the treaty) as North Macedonia (Republic of North Macedonia) since 2019 (over 5 years). According to the constitution of North Macedonia, that is also the name domestically. If we are talking about the endonym used by the people of the country more commonly, that is Makedonija in the Macedonian language, not Macedonia. Adding just that the previous official name was Macedonia, is wrong because it was Republic of Macedonia. Furthermore i think that it adds confusion if you put it in the same first sentence with North Macedonia. Such a note should be moved to the main text if necessary, not in the introduction. Aetolorhode (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “the high-profile naming dispute that took decades to resolve” was a bilateral issue with Greece not a multilateral issue and should not be treated as such. The provisional name FYR Macedonia was used only in international organizations such as UN, NATO and EU for multilateral purposes and by the minority of countries for bilateral purposes. The key thing is Republic of Macedonia was the constitutional name and was respected bilaterally by the majority of countries. I’m just establishing the reference of ‘Macedonia’ was prominent enough historically in addition to it being prominent now as @Local hero is trying to establish here. I do think an RfC is necessary as this discussion mostly includes Bulgarian and Greek users that naturally have a bias toward the change. Kromid (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it was not a bilateral issue, but it certainly had international attention and mediation. It affected North Macedonia’s recognition and membership to organizations as well. The provisional reference has been also used in academic sources, along with the former constitutional name. I think pretty much everyone gave their arguments constructively, regardless of their nationality. Think about the wording for the RfC, if you intend to initiate it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that point of view – and it’s something we can potentially resolve with a footnote. @Viceskeeni2 or @Local hero did one of you want to prepare the RfC since this is clearly going no where in terms of consensus? Kromid (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ll do so, hopefully within a day or two. —Local hero talk 04:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposal. The name Macedonia was until a few years ago the official one. It is still commonly used in daily speech in North Macedonia and neighbouring countries. Sri Lanka and Myanmar are similar examples whose articles present former official names in the lede. Since a consensus can’t be reached in this thread, an RfC could be helpful to attract input by experienced, non-Balkan editors and see in what direction consensus goes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a main difference with these country names. That is they the one name does not include the other. “North Macedonia” includes “Macedonia” as word. It seems confusing to me, like saying South Africa and Africa as a name for the country together in a same sentence. Aetolorhode (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the cases are Sri Lanka – Ceylon and Myanmar – Burma. They are both distinct names. In the case of North Macedonia – Macedonia, there is repetition, since the word Macedonia is already included in the name North Macedonia. Aetolorhode (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the USA name case, it is not similar. If we follow the USA-America “model”, then you just have North Macedonia for the Republic of North Macedonia, which is obviously already the case. USA does not include a geographic designation such as north, south, etc. Aetolorhode (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about intro text

[edit]

Should the lead sentence of the article include text stating that the country is also still known by its former official name?
Please see diff for an option; another option would be ” also known domestically by its former official name Macedonia“. —Local hero talk 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance to any non-Balkan editors willing to provide input here. The above discussion mostly contains expected opinions from editors with past participation in Macedonia-name-dispute editing (two exceptions I would note would be the original proposer Viceskeeni2 and Ktrimi991, both in support of the proposal).
I believe a summary of the in-favor would be that such text would appropriately acknowledge the reality that the citizens and diaspora of North Macedonia (including its ethnic minorities) virtually never refer to it with “North” and major non-governmental entities like the Football Federation of Macedonia disfavor its use as well. There is evidence of limited foreign reference to the country without “North” by select foreign politicians, as well as in some informal sources. The against side argues that the page should remain as-is, with no explicit acknowledgement of this situation being needed in the lead. —Local hero talk 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I must note that I am from Balkans. I think such a clarification would be nice later in the text or as a footnote. However, in the lead, in one sentence with the current official name I think that it would be confusing since the word Macedonia is included in the current official name, North Macedonia. Furthermore in terms of precision, the country is most commonly called domestically by its people as Makedonija in Macedonian, or in other official and regional languages, english macedonia is not one of them. Finally the previous official constitutional name was the republic of macedonia, republika makedonija, to be precise. I have repeated my arguments also above. I am sorry if it was not useful to repeat them here. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore in terms of precision, the country is most commonly called domestically by its people as Makedonija in Macedonian, or in other official and regional languages, english macedonia is not one of them. Nah, they commonly use “Macedonia” when referring to North Macedonia in English (e.g. Albanian media in English such as the Albanian affiliate of CNN and one of the largest news websites). Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in daily use among ethnic Macedonians, in their native language, it is called Makedonija, not in english, and in albanian Maqedonia. In international media, including the neighboring balkan countries, it is north macedonia, in english news, since 2019 (over 6 years). Aetolorhode (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically repeating your arguments after I provided evidence to the contrary. I have provided 2 links, and can provide more, where major Balkan media outlets in English use the term “Macedonia” this year. In Western media, Fox Sports uses the term “Macedonia” to refer to the country [11] and so does CBS [12]. There are many such cases. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my points because you comment on them. What else am i supposed to do? Most media either balkan or not, use north macedonia since 2019. A simple search on internet can show this. Am i wrong? I repeated that my major concern besides the technical issues of makedonija and republic of macedonia instead of just macedonia is the confusion that the inclusion of north macedonia, republic of north macedonia and macedonia in a single sentence would cause. However, this confusion would be artificial since it does not actually exist neither in balkans not in the rest of the world after the Prespa agreement. Aetolorhode (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another major concern is that this confusion from the ‘triple’ name of North Macedonia, officially Republic of North Macedonia, also known by its previous official name Macedonia, may lead the reader to choose the simplest name in order to avoid complexity. However the simplest choice is not the common name internationally since 2019. Aetolorhode (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support “Macedonia” was until recently the official name. Millions of people in North Macedonia and neighbouring countries continue to use that name to refer to the country in daily speech. It is still a common name for the country, so having it in the lede would be helpful for many readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 2 questions on your arguments. 6 years ago is considered recently? Why having macedonia in the lead sentence side by side with north macedonia and republic of north macedonia would be more helpful for the readers than having it later in the text? Aetolorhode (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, still a commonly used name for the country.–Ortizesp (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by SodiumBot). I think it’s more than plausible that readers will arrive at this page looking for information on a country they have seen referred to as “Macedonia”. 6 years isn’t that long ago. So, some explanation would be useful, and it’s not ideal that the explanation is currently in the third paragraph rather than the first. We could say something like North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia, formerly officially the Republic of Macedonia, is a landlocked country…. This makes it clear that there has been a name change, but sticks to the full official names instead of risking any suggestion of ownership of the solo-term “Macedonia”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the “triple” name in one single sentence would be confusing. This clarification you suggest could be a following sentence. However, this option you suggest refers to the previous official name, republic of macedonia. I think the RfC suggests a phrase like “also known by its previous official name Macedonia” implying that it is still used, especially by the people of North Macedonia in daily use. It is quite different, and the previous official name was Republic of Macedonia, while the common name still used in daily speech among its people is just Macedonia, Makedonija to be precise. It is true that 6 years is not that long ago, but i would not say it a recent event neither. The clarification for the previous official name (republic of macedonia) could be moved from the third paragraph to the first paragraph, after the lead sentence to avoid confusion. Aetolorhode (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposition in the lead sentence. It is not correct to state that the former name of the country was Macedonia, it was Republic of Macedonia, and I don’t think that Republic of Macedonia is used currently as an appropriate alternate name for the country, either internally or externally. That is a contradiction in arguments given in favour of inclusion of either term in the lead sentence. I think it is perfectly appropriate to mention residual informal use of Macedonia by the domestic press and Orban, in the §Names and etymology section. However it would be undue weight to affirm in the lead sentence that the country is also called Macedonia today, because it would be a gross shortcut, bringing confusion between informal vs. official terms in wikivoice. I’m not from the Balkans BTW, although that is a strange argument in wiki discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is perhaps intentionally confusing. “Macedonia” was indeed in official use with and without “Republic of”, just like any other “Republic of” country in existence. —Local hero talk 03:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Personally I think the diff Local hero presented works best. This change is more encyclopedic and consistent with other articles on countries as I’ve mentioned above. The term ‘Macedonia’ is still used quite regularly both internationally and especially domestically. It’s common use internationally is because most people actually don’t know there is a region in Greece officially called ‘Macedonia’ and thus no reason for the qualifier to disambiguate which is a contrast to North/South Korea for an example. Kromid (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is not true that most people don’t know the Greek region, especially after the name dispute. There are also Greek administrative regions like Central Macedonia. But i think also that many people associate Macedonia with the ancient kingdom rather than the Republic of North Macedonia. Aetolorhode (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s simply wrong see the page hits across the three pages: North Macedonia, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Macedonia (Greece)
    https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-01&end=2025-10&pages=North_Macedonia%7CMacedonia_(ancient_kingdom)%7CMacedonia_(Greece)
    You can see ‘North Macedonia’ has the most page hits by far and the Greek region has the least. Therefore it’s safe to say most people associate Macedonia with ‘North Macedonia’ (the modern state) despite what some vocal groups say. Kromid (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what arguments of mine are proved wrong by the hits you showed? Aetolorhode (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you presented only proves that noth macedonia in wikipedia gets more hits than macedonia (ancient kingdom) or macedonia (greece). I never said the opposite. Read my comment if you want, i say that many people associate macedonia with the ancient kingdom, what the hits of north macedonia and the others has to do with it? Additionally i said that it is not true that most people do not know the greek region. Why the number of hits proves if they know it? Aetolorhode (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff cited uses the following wording: “also known by its former official name Macedonia“. This can’t be right, the former official name was Republic of Macedonia. Of course Macedonia was used for short, informally, especially domestically. It is a former informal name at best. Place Clichy (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m open to either way – lets see what the neutral editors suggest. Kromid (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly on the grounds of WP:UNDUE. The naming issue is discussed in the third paragraph of the lede and the name section, and that is due weight. Moreover, it’s been six years since the end of the naming dispute and “Macedonia” is falling into disuse and “North Macedonia” is becoming increasingly universal. Khirurg (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The decades-long naming dispute regarding the name of the country has been officially settled with the Prespa agreement in 2018, establishing the country’s constitutional name erga omnes as “North Macedonia”. The use of a shortened name formerly is already adequetely covered in the lead itself as well as the name section. More recently, instances of defying the Prespa agreement occur mostly by some local right-wing politicians and parties merely for domestic appeal [1]. Nevertheless, these discussions, in real life, as well as in Wikipedia, only unnecessarily revive previously settled issues regarding the already highly ambiguous name Macedonia. Piccco (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Officially, arguably, but just this week the newly elected City of Skopje councilors took their oath of office excluding the term “North”. Whether it’s right to “defy” the Prespa agreement is not the topic of discussion, rather whether the lead adequately reflects reality without acknowledging the domestically-widespread and more-limited-beyond use of north-less “Macedonia” to refer to this country. Furthermore, ambiguity is not a concern in a sentence in which the official country name is established. —Local hero talk 03:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is unproductive and tiresome to have long-settled debates in Wikipedia being revived again and again just because nationalist politics. The closure volunteer should close this RfC per WP:SNOWBALL. Also my two cents about the RfC question which violates Wikipedia’s Request for Comment guidelines, by claiming that the former official name of the country was the plain term “Macedonia”. Of course, it was not. The official (aka Constitutional) name for the country was Republic of Macedonia, per the 1991 Constitution. The archive of the constitution can be accessed here: [13] The RfC’s initiator ought to provide strong and indisputable WP:RS proving that the constitutional name wasn’t Republic of Macedonia, but plain Macedonia to support their RfC’s question. From what I saw thus far, the !support voters failed to provide such strong RS. Wikipedia relies on WP:VERIFIABILITY, not what some nationalist local politicians may do in their oaths, or whatever. RfCs aren’t meant to be used in an way that overwrites well-established facts and documented events by seeking editorial consensus to override the unanimous academic consensus. Wikipedia, after all, doesn’t reflect on editorial opinions or what populist far-right politicians may say, but on facts and sources. Good day.
Edit: unrelated to the RfC which is asking about adding the official name “Republic of Macedonia” on lead, I found a sentence about the unofficial, shorter version of the name, “Macedonia” being added on the article, not on lede, but in the Names section: “Despite the renaming, the country is unofficially referred to as “Macedonia” by most of its citizens and most local media outlets.” However, even that sentence isn’t sourced and fails the necessary verification for inclusion there, let alone on lead per WP:LEAD guidelines and WP:DUE. — ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. this is not a revived debate “again and again”. It’s a narrow topic about language in the lead, not an RM.
  2. each editor to chime in that does not have a pre-established pro-Macedonian/pro-Greek/pro-Bulgarian POV appears to be in support, so your SNOWBALL comment is concerning and attempting to stifle debate.
  3. if Macedonia not being the full former official name is such a concern for you, @Barnards.tar.gz: has provided a good formulation.
  4. to be clear, the entire political spectrum in North Macedonia avoids “North”, so please don’t mislead others that this is a “far-right” boogeyman.
I’m concerned this RFC will be obfuscated by users with pre-established opinions rather than true outside input. —Local hero talk 16:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How editors that do not have “a pre-established pro-Macedonian/pro-Greek/pro-Bulgarian POV” are identified? And do you include yourself to them? Aetolorhode (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that in Macedonia disambiguation wikipedia page, already exists the following text: “North Macedonia, a country in southeastern Europe, known until 2019 as the Republic of Macedonia” which is similar to the proposed Barnards.tar.gz’s formulation. However this is quite different from the current RfC topic: ” also known by its former official name Macedonia “. My personal view still is that it should not be in the lead sentence but later in the first paragraph or paragraphs due to complexity and confusion of the triple repetition of the word Macedonia in one single sentence. Aetolorhode (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ngrams suggest “Macedonia” is still commonly used. “State of” [14], “country of” [15], “government of” [16], “people of ” [17]. I think it’s obvious that the average reader may still understand the country as being named “Macedonia” and this text helps clarify that.
Google News trends show the same thing [18], “Macedonia” is very commonly used as a search term. The same is true if you append country [19], “government” [20], “president” [21].
Something along the lines of the proposal is obviously concordant with WP:PLACENAME in the lead section; see e.g. Myanmar. Katzrockso (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change “Macedonians” to “North-Macedonians”. ~2025-31293-52 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 22:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change

In August 2004, the country was reorganised into 84 municipalities (opštini; sing. opština);

to

In August 2004, the country was reorganised into 84 municipalities (opštini; sing. opština), and reduced to 80 in 2013; ~2025-32302-42 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version