MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Talk:Greece/Archive 7. |
MacedonKing (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{Archivebox|auto=yes}} |
{{Archivebox|auto=yes}} |
||
== |
== No such thing as Republic Of Macedonia == |
||
Greece does not border with the Republic of Macedonia, it borders with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) this needs to be corrected. Refering them as Republic of Macedonia is illegal and an insult to the Greeks. By calling FYROM citizens as "Macedonians or even Republic of Macedonia" is essentially robbing Greece a major part of their cultural identity and also historically incorrect. |
|||
== Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia == |
|||
There needs to be a correction. Republic of Macedonia is listed as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not just Republic of Macedonia. Since there is already a state called Macedonia which is in Greece this need to be clarified. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.91.5.101|121.91.5.101]] ([[User talk:121.91.5.101|talk]]) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
There needs to be a correction. Republic of Macedonia is listed as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not just Republic of Macedonia. Since there is already a state called Macedonia which is in Greece this need to be clarified. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.91.5.101|121.91.5.101]] ([[User talk:121.91.5.101|talk]]) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 05:48, 20 June 2009
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
No such thing as Republic Of Macedonia
Greece does not border with the Republic of Macedonia, it borders with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) this needs to be corrected. Refering them as Republic of Macedonia is illegal and an insult to the Greeks. By calling FYROM citizens as "Macedonians or even Republic of Macedonia" is essentially robbing Greece a major part of their cultural identity and also historically incorrect.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
There needs to be a correction. Republic of Macedonia is listed as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not just Republic of Macedonia. Since there is already a state called Macedonia which is in Greece this need to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.5.101 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece
The Map and The Map Only, Please
2 months
Already in protection. Is it forbidden to edit in the article?..... --—Ioannes Tzimiskes Talk 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Horologium has locked the article until a consensus can be reached on the use of "Republic of Macedonia" in the article. Once that consensus is reached, he will unprotect it. In the meantime, if something needs editing, propose it here and if it is uncontroversial an administrator will edit the article. (Taivo (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
- In other words: it is forbidden to edit the article; you need a permit, even if the edit has nothing to do with the Republic of Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^"^ 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if there might be a middle way. There are only two sections of the article which mention the Republic of Macedonia - the lead and the Foreign Relations section. It might be possible to deliver both sections temporarily as locked subst'd templates, with the rest of the article being open for editing. It would mean that those two sections would not be editable but the rest of the article would be OK. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's the idea brought up by BalkanFever the other day. I actually like it, although of course it's not a technically waterproof method (there's nothing that could technically stop an edit-warrior to replace the transclusion template with their preferred version of the original text), but at least it would symbolically put the bar a bit higher. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Well, all of this is just because there's still no clear evidence that the decision of the straw poll in March about the M.-naming in this article will be respected by a majority of the opposing editors. I'm sure Horologium (or any other admin) would be happy to unprotect, if we can assure them we have a clear consensus here that some status quo on this particular article will be respected by all established editors, at least until the conclusion of the expected larger dispute resolution process that will hopefully lead to a "package solution" for all articles. Either the present status quo, or some other. My own suggestion would be: get a significant number of editors who used to oppose the current status quo to confirm that they will respect it until something more general is decided, including being willing to revert back to it in the event of the (probably unavoidable) hit-and-run attacks from single-purpose-accounts, then we can call it consensus and say it's settled (for now). The alternative would be for someone to take an initiative and try to garner consensus for some other status quo, if they can, but I don't see that as very realistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article should certainly remain semi-protected indefinitely - sadly, given the existence of a national psychosis on this issue, it can't be left unprotected. That should at least cut down on the hit-and-run attacks from newly registered accounts and IPs, and I'm sure that some of the less intelligent SPAs on this topic can be dealt with appropriately if they start edit-warring over the name. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I find your "national psychosis" comment insulting. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's extreme, but given some of the hysterics into which certain editors opposing the use of the name "Macedonia" have gone (present company not included, just to be clear), it's hardly without reason. As for protection, I certainly agree that it needs to remain protected until a solution is hammered out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I find your "national psychosis" comment insulting. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article should certainly remain semi-protected indefinitely - sadly, given the existence of a national psychosis on this issue, it can't be left unprotected. That should at least cut down on the hit-and-run attacks from newly registered accounts and IPs, and I'm sure that some of the less intelligent SPAs on this topic can be dealt with appropriately if they start edit-warring over the name. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if there might be a middle way. There are only two sections of the article which mention the Republic of Macedonia - the lead and the Foreign Relations section. It might be possible to deliver both sections temporarily as locked subst'd templates, with the rest of the article being open for editing. It would mean that those two sections would not be editable but the rest of the article would be OK. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- In other words: it is forbidden to edit the article; you need a permit, even if the edit has nothing to do with the Republic of Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^"^ 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the text in the map in any proposal for "sectional" protection. While not as sure a method of protection as total protection, it would at least keep the most rabid edit warriors at bay (Shadowmorph, you're not one of those). But if a consensus on the current text could be hammered out.... But that's probably just a pipe dream. (Taivo (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
- We can do without the medical terms. I can provide justification for those editors, but then you would call me sentimental. I could point you to read WP:NO-PREEMPT that I found; would anyone describe the two,three or more months to be "Brief periods of full protection"? I think we are keeping the protection just because of a fear (justified or not) of future vandalism. Curiously the text of the article at Macedonia does not need protection. But for the five or six words in Greece, he wave to lock the article. But then again its not like anything I say will make a difference.Shadowmorph ^"^ 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, why beat about the bush? Direct question to you personally, as well as to Ioannes Tzimiskes, GK1973 and any others who have declared interest in getting it unprotected: If this article gets unprotected, will you personally leave the Macedonia name bits in it alone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Me personally, would leave them alon. Have you any reason to think otherwise? Have I edited that name anywhere else?
- Also speaking for myself the "open nature of Wikipedia" is my biggest concern, I don't know if i share it with anyone here.Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I trust almost all editors who know about the arbitration case would behave likewise until the dispute is resolved and respect the process that will be followedShadowmorph ^"^ 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Perhaps if we can get such a confirmation from one or two others, that would convince the powers that be. I mean, we will still get drive-by re-fyromizations, but that will always be the case no matter how firmly established the consensus to the contrary might eventually be, so I don't think that should be considered a reason for continued protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can get back to the issue after consensus is established (that would have to include some references to the case of Greece). Of course that doesn't mean that I think the current situation is the best, I have some ideas of my own, but I will discuss them on the correct time and place. Everybody else should understand that any edit war about the name inside Greece is futile. No one can "win" it.Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite sure about what you mean by "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". I mean, isn't it the point about "establishing consensus" that after we have established it, there should be no more issue to be getting back to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The naming resolution will include Greece as well as anywhere else that Macedonia is discussed. There won't be any exceptions, so I'm also confused by what you mean with "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". Once it's done, it will be "done". (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
- hey hey hey :) Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that the current references should stay, nobody should change them now and we can change them to whatever ones the consensus that will be established will prescribe when it is established. That's what I meant that we will get back to the issue. Obviously we don't have any establishment now since that was the whole original source of the dispute. After consensus is established we can get back and do whatever edits to the references that will apply. Shadowmorph ^"^ 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The naming resolution will include Greece as well as anywhere else that Macedonia is discussed. There won't be any exceptions, so I'm also confused by what you mean with "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". Once it's done, it will be "done". (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
- Not quite sure about what you mean by "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". I mean, isn't it the point about "establishing consensus" that after we have established it, there should be no more issue to be getting back to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can get back to the issue after consensus is established (that would have to include some references to the case of Greece). Of course that doesn't mean that I think the current situation is the best, I have some ideas of my own, but I will discuss them on the correct time and place. Everybody else should understand that any edit war about the name inside Greece is futile. No one can "win" it.Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Perhaps if we can get such a confirmation from one or two others, that would convince the powers that be. I mean, we will still get drive-by re-fyromizations, but that will always be the case no matter how firmly established the consensus to the contrary might eventually be, so I don't think that should be considered a reason for continued protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, why beat about the bush? Direct question to you personally, as well as to Ioannes Tzimiskes, GK1973 and any others who have declared interest in getting it unprotected: If this article gets unprotected, will you personally leave the Macedonia name bits in it alone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention to change it and really can't understand the logic about locking an article 2 months already (and with no final date in sight) because of two words! Moreover shadowmorph had a point by saying that the Republic's article is unprotected while also pending on the arbcom decision and i don't see any case of serious vandalism. The whole thing about the name dispute and how it was handled (for the core issue maybe surprisingly enough for you my objections are less) by members of the community towards greek editors is in my opinion unfair. Wikipedia has certain procedures and i feel they were multiply abused. --—Ioannes Tzimiskes Talk 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Centralised discussion
Following the conclusion of the Arbcom case, a new centralised discussion for Macedonia-related naming issues is now being opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I move that the credibility of the above page is in serious doubt, considering the relevant history of the user who started it, and the bias of certain observations on it, as well as that user's inappropriate - to say the least - language towards a good number of users who have contgributed to this topic. Let it RIP. Politis (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)