The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page is for discussion of how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about international organisations that typically refer to that country officially by its provisional UN appellation, "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

This covers political organisations such the the United Nations, NATO or the European Union, of which the country is a member or a membership candidate.

It also applies to non-political organisations such as international sports or cultural events (Olympic Games, Eurovision Song Contest etc.).

All letters on proposals were derived from proposals made during the first phase of the discussion.

Please endorse only one proposal, and leave a (preferably) short comment if you wish. Direct any discussion of other users' endorsements to the talk page.

• What designation should be used for the country constitutionally known as the Republic of Macedonia on articles about entities that do not refer to the country by its constitutional name?

The country should be referred to in these contexts just as it is referred to everywhere else, as based on our findings of what is globally the most common English usage. Diverging naming practices used by the organisations themselves should be reported (for instance in parentheses after the first reference to the country, or in a footnote), but should not affect our own usage.

This is the status quo in some articles, though not universally applied.

Rationale:

• Wikipedia's terminology is optimised for a general audience over specialists whereas the terminology used by international organisations is optimised for specific political audiences, not for ease of use or familiarity.
• This is the practice of most reliable sources, especially news media. In most cases, each of them follows its own naming preferences independently of topic domain.
• Wikipedia's articles are written in Wikipedia's own "voice", governed by Wikipedia's content policies, not the "voice" or content policies of outside parties. The use of a particular term by such a party does not in any way compel Wikipedia to use the same term.
• This proposal avoids the problem inherent in alternative B: proliferation of intractable "what is most common usage?" debates that would have to be held and decided for every single international organisation separately.

• —Nightstallion 10:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hans Adler 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• man with one red shoe 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposals B and C follow politics. Proposal A follows NPOV, but allows the politics to be described within the context of the article, rather than the title. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious choice. B would be justifiable in theory, but would lead to unnecessary inconsistencies between domains and also to further intractable debates. (Note that whether the conditions of B are actually met for any one particular domain has yet to be proven.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (Taivo (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Again, the only viable option. Any other option would lead to inconsistencies, disputes and the creation of "POV areas" where external political concerns would dictate how we approach naming issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Working on European articles, I feel that we should decide what terms to use, based on widespread usage, not the EU or other international bodies. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the WP:WikiProject Olympics consensus preference for Olympic-related articles. Although the IOC themselves sometimes use politically-motivated names for certain National Olympic Committees (e.g. "Islamic Republic of Iran", "Lao People's Democratic Republic", "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"), we have been using the common names ("Iran", "Laos", "Libya") for Wikipedia Olympic articles without objection. Similarly, the IOC continues to use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and we have respected the old MOSMAC by using "FYR Macedonia" for article names and results tables (as the full string is unwieldy), but that is not our first choice. "Macedonia" is widely used by sports media (e.g. BBC, ESPN, Yahoo) and should be used here too. The only article in which the "Former" name is mandatory is Olympic Committee of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is the official name of the organization. Articles such as Macedonia at the 2008 Summer Olympics ought to have a sentence in the lead that mentions the "FYR" naming used by the IOC, but that should not propogate to the article name itself, nor to results pages that include athletes from this nation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the only appropriate choice. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the only acceptable choice. B is a demand for a separate bubble of reality in "country-specific" articles; C has been tried in practice in the MOSMAC fiasco, and is excessively liable to abuse. (The "provisional designation" which an organization gives the Republic is an encyclopedic fact, and some readers care deeply about it; therefore it should be mentioned and updated; but there is no reason for a list of members to say more than Macedonia, unless the region, the area of Greece, or the ancient kingdom are likely members - a possible, but uncommon state of affairs.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Olympic Committee of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not the name of the national olympic committee but just the Macedonian Olympic Committee. We should not mention the appelation the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the lede, but if absolutely neccessary make a small reference. Also there is no need to write FYROM in Eurovision Song Contest articles. -- Imbris (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When we're actually quoting a source we use the name a source sued but otherwise we use our own naming conventions. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For NPOV and consistency. C is unacceptable as it introduces inconsistency within Wikipedia. B is somewhat more justifiable, but still seems too open to gaming. This one just keeps it simple. As a side note, there's nothing particularly bad about the fact that this solution means Wikipedia's own terms will disagree with those used by the sources it uses. Wikipedia's naming conventions govern only its own voice; it bears no responsibility for what others say except to represent them accurately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The simplest and best solution. Andrew Dalby 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Simplicity is the key here. Once a solution is agreed on, it should be used consistently in all articles. Jafeluv (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Simplest. Best serves the encyclopedia user. Jd2718 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Simplest. Serves the interests of the general reader. --Folantin (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Amenable to B, but this seems the best approach. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per 3rd rationale only, to not create a precedent for all kind of nightmares. Self-censorship should only be applied if there really is no other practicable solution, in cases such as basic civility, BLP and copyright infringement. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Every other option would only create unnecessary confusion, of course the same name should be used throughout Wikipedia.JdeJ (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The most logical option. However, I suggest to change the rationale a little bit: (...) Diverging naming practices used by the organisations themselves should be reported (for instance in parentheses after the first reference to the country, or in a footnote) (...). For example: "In 199x , Republic of Macedonia joined Organization for Y (under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)." Anyway, I endorse this proposal. Dc76\^talk 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Only viable option. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The country should be referred to in these contexts just as it is referred to everywhere else, as based on our findings of what is globally the most common English usage, except where it can be shown that a clear majority of reliable sources uses a divergent convention specific to one topic domain. Pertinent reliable sources include academic publications dealing with the organisation in question and its relations to the country, as well as news reporting covering this relation.
2. In the interest of simplicity, the use of such formal names should be restricted to formal contexts such as tables or lists, whereas in article prose, especially on subsequent mentionings of the country, plain "Macedonia" should be preferred. Page titles should also use the simplest form possible.
3. Just as under Proposal A, the official naming practice adopted by the organisation in question should be explained in a suitable form, for instance in parentheses on first mentioning the country in an article, or in a footnote.

Example: if it is shown that a majority of international sports-reporting news media consistently use "FYR Macedonia" when referring to the country's participation in the Olympic Games, then we should use "FYR Macedonia" in tables and lists of participants or competition results in Olympics articles.

Rationale

• The central principle that represents the spirit of all our naming policies is that we should use those names that are most readily recognised by native English speakers. It is unlikely that readers are accustomed to topic-specific naming practices diverging from the general usage in other contexts, unless there is a very strong and consistent tendency for such topic-specific usage in those types of sources that readers are most likely to come across on an everyday basis, i.e. news media and general-purpose reference works.
• In articles about international organisations, the problem of disambiguation from other Macedonias is usually absent, because it is easily understood that only independent countries normally participate in such events.
• As for the page titles, the general rule is that "Page names should be as simple as possible without being too general or ambiguous" (WP:NAME). Since ambiguity is usually not a problematic issue in these contexts, nothing prevents the use of plain "Macedonia" or "Macedonian".

• For some events, such as the Eurovision Song Contest, I feel that we should use FYR Macedonia because that is the name that the contest uses. It would be confusing to have a page "Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest" when it enters using the name FYR Macedonia and is only referred to as such. In this case I feel that we are not being neutral by altering what actually took place just to be consistent and we are possibly creating confusion. I like the current intro of F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest which I would think would be akward if the page had a different name. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should follow the conventions used by each organisation. For example, in articles about the European Union, the fully spelled-out "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should be used on every occasion where the country is mentioned.

Rationale

• The reader is likely to have encountered only the conventional term in texts of the organisations themselves. Quoting official texts in citations would be facilitated by consistency of Wikipedia's references and the organisations' conventional ones.
• By only copying the conventions of the organisations inside articles strictly related to them, Wikipedia arguably maintains its Neutral Point of View by avoiding making a selection between alternate names of countries.
• This convention allows us to reflect sources authored by the organisations more directly in our text, and avoids conflicts of usage between passages spoken in our own voice and passages quoted directly from those sources.

Rationale against

• Readers are more likely to derive whatever prior familiarity they have with these topics from independent 3rd-party sources such as news media coverage, rather than from official publications authored by the organisations in question, so third-party general-purpose sources are more pertinent for determining what is common usage.
• If following the conventions of the parties concerned is to be a criterion, then the preferences of the country itself are at least as pertinent as the preferences of the organisation involved. Sources about the country's participation in international organisations authored by the country itself invariably use the constitutional name. Automatically following the preference of the organisation is thus by no means a "neutral" choice.

• The country's name is the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, FYROM. This is the name accepted by the United Nations. Until the naming dispute between Greece and FYROM is settled, the official name of the country is FYROM. Since WP is supposed to be neutral and uses the international names of countries, then it is more than obvious that the name FYROM should be used. Think of it this way: if one country wants to change its name, that is not an issue of WP to resolve. WP depicts reality and, at least for the time being, the country's name is FYROM. Pel thal (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal prevents us from misquoting the Republic itself, as witnessed in the evidence section by its de facto self-identification as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official UN documents. Moreover, International Organizations like the UN, the EU and NATO make statements concerning their members that we sometimes have to quote in their articles. The only way to accurately quote an organization when mentioning such facts is to use its conventions. The Manual of Style's section on internal consistency explicitly states that: "[...] style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole". If we were to use two different ways of referring to the Republic in our article, then we would be violating internal consistency. The only way of doing this accurately and without misquoting the International Organization is to use its conventions and refer to the Republic as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (or whatever variant the organization uses) throughout the article. This solution also conforms to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by assuming an impartial tone; it describes (as opposed to prescribing) how the International Organization in this article refers to the other country. By saying that: Macedonia was admitted to the UN [...] as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [...] pending settlement of the the dispute over its name, we become prescriptive and take a side in the dispute by adopting the Republic's POV. By saying that: The UN admitted by means of its provisional reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", using it as a form of official appellation, pending settlement of the the dispute over its name, we assume no POV; we are being descriptive, accurate and internally consistent. Similarly, saying that: Macedonia is a formal, acknowledged candidate for EU membership, is inaccurate and prescriptive. On the other, saying that: The EU has formally acknowledged candidacy of the country it refers to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, we are being descriptive and accurately quote the EU. --Radjenef (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• C is my first choice. Second choice B. In my opinion, the recent disturbances in Macedonia-related Wiki articles were totally unnecessary, as unlike cited reference cases like Ireland, Luxembourg or America, there is a recognized international dispute here, and an accepted binding obligation to resolve it. While the latter is yet to happen, it is already clear at this stage of the process that neither ‘Republic of Macedonia’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ would be among the eventual choices. Apcbg (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes this choise. More understandable for each case.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First choice by the three reasons I have originally included in the rationale of this proposal. In my opinion this would be the most neutral choice by having Wikipedia not making a choice. If on the other hand we get Wikipedia to use a specific different name in contexts where the organisations chose a provisional term (so as to remain neutral in the dispute), that could be interpreted as Wikipedia disgracing the various organisations' choices in favor of the one name it appears to be endorsing better. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.