Misplaced Pages

Talk:Greece: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:42, 28 March 2009 editΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk | contribs)9,765 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:57, 5 January 2025 edit undoQzd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,060 editsm Reverted edits by 49.181.65.156 (talk) to last version by Remsense: nonconstructive editsTags: Rollback SWViewer [1.6] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{British English Oxford spelling}}
{{WPGR|importance=top|class=B|nested=yes
{{FailedGA|18:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)|topic=Places|page=1}}
<!-- B-Class parameters -->
{{On this day|date1=2005-03-25|oldid1=16334952|date2=2006-03-25|oldid2=43921516|date3=2007-03-25|oldid3=117779155|date4=2008-03-25|oldid4=200747314|date5=2009-03-25|oldid5=279617618|date6=2010-03-25|oldid6=351980099|date7=2011-03-25|oldid7=420579561|date8=2012-03-25|oldid8=483892041|date9=2013-03-25|oldid9=546685970|date10=2015-03-25|oldid10=653119985|date11=2016-03-25|oldid11=711840971|date12=2017-03-25|oldid12=772089390}}
|B-Class-1 = yes
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
|B-Class-2 = yes
{{WikiProject Greece |importance=Top |topic=history |byzantine-task-force=yes }}
|B-Class-3 = yes
{{WikiProject Countries}}
|B-Class-4 = yes
|B-Class-5 = yes
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WPCountries|class=B|top|nested=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 17
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Greece/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|b|long}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}


{{Backwards copy|title=Historical Mechanisms: An Experimental Approach to Applying Scientific Theories to the Study of History|author=Andreas D. Boldt|url=https://books.google.gr/books?id=NxddDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT162&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Greece%3A%20Greatness&f=false|org=]|year=2017|comments=See ] for details.}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{section sizes}}
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|]
|-
|]
|-
|]
|-
|]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


== Religion ==


The part in the infobox talking about religion is largely outdated with more recen studies depicting a different attitude towards religion.


https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/562979893/dimoskopisi-dianeosis-statheri-axia-i-thriskeia-kai-nea-agonia-gia-to-klima/
== GDP per capita in infobox needs to be updated==


This study says that 18.9% of the population doesnt believe in religion.
The GDP per capita figure needs to be updated to reflect 2008 estimates and match this: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. The figure must be $ 30,661. ] (]) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


While in this study "The U.S. government estimates the total population at 10.5 million (midyear 2022). According to research polls, 81 to 90 percent of the population identifies as Greek Orthodox, 4 to 15 percent as atheist, and 2 percent as Muslim."
Can someone update those info? ] (]) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/greece/ ] (]) 14:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
==Anthem==


== Establishment ==
Regarding the anthem in the Info Box, shouldn't it read "Ýmnos eis tīn Ele'''f'''therían", as opposed to "Ýmnos eis tīn Ele'''u'''therían"? The modern Greek transliteration of the letter ] is an "f" sound when preceeding an ] (which is pronounced like an "e"). ] (]) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Why doesn't Greece on Misplaced Pages have establishment dates before 1830? In other countries you have establishment dates much earlier than the modern establishment of the state, such as Turkey, Egypt, Bulgaria, etc.
== Δοκιμαστικός Τίτλος ==
There are many examples of the establishment of a Greek state in the past such as the Union of Corinth, the Union of Deilos, the Macedonian empire, and the later Byzantine empire.
There is even a Misplaced Pages page that refers to it under the title "Greek Empire"


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Greek_Empire ] (]) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Αυτό ειναι το περιεχόμενο της συγκεκριμένης ενότητας. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: That's been repeatedly debated before, most recently at ] and earlier at ]. The short answer is: there was never any state in history before 1830 that was called Greece, had any kind of historical continuity with the present-day state, or was even just roughly coextensive geographically with it. ] ] 09:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
== FYROM ==
::I agree that obviously these ancient states or entities couldn't really be added here as early stages of the modern Hellenic Republic, since, despite the fact they had a perception of "Greece", they did not exactly form one unified Greek state that developed into modern Greece. Same thing for ], where the establisment section doesn't include Rome. On the other hand, I used to think that this section was based primarily on continuity; while countries like ], the ], ] etc. have a direct and unborken continuity with their previous empires, that's not the case with some other countries. One example is ], where the section starts from the 4th millenium BC; can we actually claim that the modern Arab Republic of Egypt is a continuation of the ancient Egyptian kingdoms, at least in any meaningful way? I guess what counts here as "continuity" is the very name "Egypt" (?). But again, ancient Egypt ceased to exist as a state when it fell to the Romans in 31 BC (which is not mentioned there), well before the territory got conquered by the Arabs. Generally, these infoboxes can be very tricky. ] (]) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Albania, for example, fell into the hands of the Ottomans. Nevertheless, the kingdom of Arbanon is mentioned. The same is happening with Bulgaria. I think the same should be happening with Greece since there were many cases of Greek empires and alliances in the Greek peninsula such as the Corinthian league and the Macedonian empire. :) ] (]) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: The Albania article is a pretty bad example to follow, to my mind (Please don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because some other article does something a certain way, we should do it the same way in another – there are doubtless a lot of articles where things have gone wrong.) For Bulgaria (as for Egypt, Poland and a couple others), I've gone on record on an earlier occasion saying that I can at least marginally see a case for including them, given that they were clearly historical states that shared at least the name and the approximate territory, if not temporal continuity, with the present ones. Albania doesn't have that: there were historical states in what is now Albania, and inhabited/ruled by Albanians, but there was never a historical state of "Albania". Greece doesn't have it either. Just because there were certain states that were run by Greeks, or situated in what is now Greece, doesn't make these states "Greece". (Incidentally, the ] page you linked to is an utter mess and shouldn't exist.) ] ] 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I see your point regarding the other Balkan countries. I would like to kindly mention, however, that I still don't think it would be appropriate for anciet states or entities (like alliances etc.) to be used in the establishment section of the infobox of the modern Hellenic republic for the reasons that were given above. ] (]) 11:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Corinthian League was also called the Hellenic league. It was founded by Philip of Macedonia and was the predecessor of the Macedonian empire. Macedoniam empire also is considered as an example of Greek unification. Also the Byzantine empire was occasionally referred to by others as the Greeks.
:::::Georgia (the country) has a reference to the ancient kingdoms of Iberia and Colchis even though it was not a unified state.
:::::<nowiki>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/League_of_Corinth</nowiki> ] (]) 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are right for pointing this out; that is yet another example of bad usage of the establishment section in a country infobox. ] (]) 13:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would also like to point out that the various polities that you mentioned above are actually not ignored in the article, but are instead mentioned in the history section, which is the right place for all of them to be properly discussed. Among the other reasons given above, the sheer complexity of the various types of ancient Greek polities and other entities is impossible to be accurately represented in the overly simplistic infobox. ] (]) 14:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::] (]) 15:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Greece#c-Ypoferomai-20240909151100-Piccco-20240909142300 ] (]) 15:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry something happened with wikipedia and I can't send a message.
:::::::I would also to say.
:::::::The Corinthian league was also called the Greek league and was a federation, not just an alliance. It had a way of organization just like the Mongolian Xiongnu confederation.
:::::::If you look at the wikipedia page for Mongolia it mentions this state as an earlier form of establishment of Mongolia.
:::::::Also, the Macedonian empire is an example of the unification of the Greeks as it is actually stated on the page of history. ] (]) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't exactly disagree, but this is a bit too simplistic and not fitting for this infobox. I understand that you are an inexperienced user, so this might make sense to you, especially after seeing all these terribly wrong infoboxes in other countries. I'm not sure, but I believe Mongolia might be another example of bad infobox; it can't really be used for comparison. ] (]) 10:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Are you an experienced user? Then what has Misplaced Pages really come to? The official name of Greece is not "Greece" it is the Hellenic Republic or Hellas. For the sake of combating misinformation it can be mentioned that all previous polities of Greece including the Corinthian league ,Athens, Sparta, the Macedonian Empire callled themselves Hellenes. ] (]) 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== Cities ==
I'm sorry to open an old can of worms, but why does this article refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM"? The fact that Greece recognizes this country by the latter doesn't mean that we have to go against ] and Misplaced Pages tradition for this particular article. The few exceptions when we do refer to that country as "FYROM" on Misplaced Pages are not present here. This is not an article e.g. about an institution where the Republic of Macedonia is a member under the name of FYROM. The sentence '' has borders with (...) ] (FYROM) to the north'' is thus inadequate. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


The list of Greek cities shows Piraeus, which, however, as mentioned in the relevant article, belongs to the urban area of Athens. So I think that either Piraeus should be removed from the list of cities in the article, or that the other cities - municipalities that belong to Athens should be added. ] (]) 13:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
See ] which may be relevant. ] (]) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


== Changes in the text ==
:Erm, not really. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Yesterday i made a change there that it was saying that Greece is considered the birthplace of western civilization. I wrote that Greece is the birthplace of western civilization. Also at the western civilization you have a wrong link that doesnt lead to the page of western civilization but leads to the western culture instead so i put the correct link. You changed again these things that i wrote. Why you dont let other members to edit the pages?Everyone can edit in wikipedia. And the changes that i made are both correct. Put again the changes that i made. Also in the paragraph in the economy page that you write the numbers of the gdp and gdp per capita are still the old ones while at the box in the first page are the new ones. You have to change them in the paragraph. ] (]) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Whatever name is displayed it should not be a redirect.] (]) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
: Misplaced Pages content is determined by ] and ], which you don't seem to understand. If others disagree with changes you've made, you need to make a case for your changes on the article talk pages and get a consensus; see ]. <b>] ]</b> 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::I told you that the western civilization has a wrong link on it! It leads to a wrong page you can just see it when you click it! Its not difficult! Also if you go to the economy page in the first paragraph you havent changed the numbers of gdp with the new ones like you did on the box in the introduction page! Why you just cant check them to see it?? You answer me without even check them! ] (]) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Redirects aren't a problem here. But I agree that the use of "former Yugoslav" in this and similar articles should be phased out. There never was either a well-based consensus or a rational justification for it. It was all a matter of the insistence of some Greek editors of having Greece-related articles stand apart from all the rest, as an "island in its own reality", using a naming practice more sympathetic to the Greek POV concerns. A practice that is fundamentally at odds with the demands of NPOV. We don't follow X's naming preference about Y, just because we are in an article about X. ] ] 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:::So to be clear you think ] or ] don't explain things properly or you think the link should simply link ] over the parent article that explains what the term means? You are aware that there is no section discussing Greece in the history article.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Totally agree, we don't even follow X's naming preference about X itself... why should we follow the POV about Y? ] 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::That's my point. It is no news that Greek editors who are naturally involved with this article would dread to see the Republic of Macedonia being referred to by any name but "FYROM". But this article is simply not within the range of exceptions when we do use "FYROM". Greek users can stick to FYROM on the Greek Misplaced Pages where they are obviously the majority, but not here. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::MOSMAC mentions for articles referring to Greek internal affairs "If in doubt, leave as is". Well, leave as is. End of story.--] (]) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::: MOSMAC is dead. It failed to reach consensus over precisely this point. Yes, there was a time when it made sense to leave this one area just open and not touch it. But that doesn't mean we are forever doomed to keep it that way. We finally got some outside opinion from people other than the usual suspects. Not surprisingly, that opinion is in favour of policy. So, I think the time to simply enforce policy and stop the political bargains has come. People who choose to edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside. ] ] 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: Fut. you're vandalising the page against consensus. You will be reported if you continue.--] (]) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: LOL. Have fun. My edits aren't "vandalism", and a determined small national faction of POV-pushers against policy isn't "consensus". Misplaced Pages policy on standard naming practices is actually quite clear, and actually enforceable. ] ] 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: I will have fun all right, especially with the diifs where YOU support what you now deny. Let's see, will you find an oversight fast enough?--] (]) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: As promised, here is a brilliant example of Future Perfect's "consistency": He updated the MOSMAC '''himself''' stating "''However, no exact guidelines for all cases have been agreed upon; when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is.''" .--] (]) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: Yes, that was one and a half years ago. At a time when we still thought MOSMAC could actually become a real guideline, and an understanding of "don't change the status quo" could be a reasonable temporary compromise on the way there. But, as I just said, that never meant policy should be kept suspended in favour of the POV egotism of national factions forever. ] ] 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Future Perfect Sunrise please stop. UN (that is United Nations) accepts this country under the name FYROM. And you come here, with your funny theories and try to vandalise the page as you have done with other pages. Relax and let it go. Until UN accepts a different name, you got to live with the fact that this country is called FYROM, whether you like it or not.] (]) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::: The decisive criterion for Misplaced Pages's naming policy is not what the UN or some other political body calls it, but (1) what the majority of the English language community calls it, and (2) what the country calls itself. Those two, in that order. That's the rule of this place; if you don't like it, go edit some other website. ] ] 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Future Perfect is doing nothing disruptive or inadequate but to provide his opinion. Without some serious and practical arguments for the usage of FYROM on this article, we should change it to Republic of Macedonia as elsewhere on Misplaced Pages (except articles where this country refers to itself as FYROM as within the subject). By the way, the United Nations have no power of decision whatsoever on Misplaced Pages's content, we're independent to make our own decisions as long as these conform to the laws of the US state where our servers are hosted. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::"if you don't like it, go edit some other website"... what an admin-like behavior! F.P., you are still an admin, right? No wonder why so many editors have chosen to quit or reduce their edit rates: manners like this, and formerly hidden (now open) agendas of the kind. Btw, Husond, you are right: all that matters is the '''USA''' law of Florida! Again, no wonder why things in Misplaced Pages tend to be in such an unprecedented mess... ] (]) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Husond you have to understand that Future Perfect and consistency live in two different universes. I have proposed many times that the country should be referred to as Republic of Macedonia ''everywhere'' in Misplaced Pages. Ask Future if he agrees or not. Because we have spent countless posts with me on the side of "RoM" and him on the side of "Macedonia" plain. I agree right now that RoM replaces FYROM in Greece article as soon as "Macedonia" is removed altogether as a reference to this country from all articles. Because whoever supports exceptions has no right to talk about consistency.--] (]) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Honestly, I can't remember you making such a proposal. But whatever: thanks for agreeing that RoM is adequate for this article. Since you have agreed to that, there can be no conditions making it dependent on what we do or don't do in other articles. This is not your bazaar. No political ''páre-dhóse''. Either ''R.o.M'' is okay here, or it is not. You just confirmed it is. In that casea, for you to insist on something else in order to press for changes in other articles would be a disruptive ] violation. ] ] 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Thanks but it is not a trade off. It is a simple issue. Since you clearly do not respect this is a special case then there should be no special case altogether. As simple as that. Your prime argument is Misplaced Pages policy. I want it enforced everywhere. Do you?--] (]) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: Yes, of course. The policy is: Use whatever the majority of native English speakers would most readily recognise, and what is compatible with the state's self-designation. That would actually be ''Macedonia'', in most contexts. Add disambiguation needs (''real'' disambiguation, not the POV-flagging demanded by some of your friends), and we end up with ''Republic of'', in many cases. The remaining choice between R.o.M. and simple M. is not a matter of special exceptions, it's simply a matter of good writing and proper attention to context, just like the choice between ''Ireland'' and ''Republic of Ireland'', or ''China'' and ''PRC''. ] ] 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: Boy are you really a spin doctor. Well it's simple, we either are consistent or not. No matter how you spin it there is this simple underlying fact. I'm really bored debating ad nauseam obvious things. --] (]) 22:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(indent) Hmm, can we agree not to focus on particular editors and just debate the application of ] on this particular article? I think that there is no need to over-dramatize the issue. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
: Just a minor correction: it's not about "application of MOSMAC". MOSMAC failed to reach consensus exactly because of this article, and is currently no longer tagged even as a proposed guideline. What we need to do here is work out how to apply ] and ]; those policies are quite sufficient. ] ] 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, first I agree with Husond that the whole discussion should be done at MOSMAC until there is consensus there, otherwise no article should be touched. You can't appeal to guideline enforcement when there's no agreed guideline, and the interpretations of WP:NC and WP:UE don't hold so much water. And I agree with Avg that there has to be some sort of give and take for all the relevant situations because this whole thing is ''one'' issue, and not ''several'' ones that need to be repeated in each individual article ad nauseum -this is highly counterproductive. Moreover, the whole discussion can very well be diverted to the respective WP guidelines (''not'' "policies" as erroneously mentioned above). One view for UE, for example, could be that (especially) the names used in the English language WP, since it is in the planet's ] at the moment, cannot be monopolized by the English speaking nations and the English speaking usages, but they have to reflect a global viewpoint, irrespective of restriction to the English language sources. Or that we can't be bothered to check frequencies of appellations every time we deal with a controversial name, and we'll go by a globally accepted list, such as that of the UN (why should it be "self-identification"? who says that this is NPOV?). Another view for NC, could be that in articles such as "Greece" which are directed to inform readers about "Greece", it is irrational not to inform the reader of how anybody in "Greece" refers to their neighbor, at the risk of being punched in the face by an inhabitant of "Greece" because you used the name WP showed you. And another view for NC could be that it is simply unsourced to refer to the country by any other name, because the primary sources that refer to Greece's borders will always mention "FYROM", the spellout, or its translation. Same do all labels from within Greece that lead to the country's border. And of course there are numerous arguments from the other side, and that is why it is imperative that nothing is touched until there is an agreement. Finally I do not think that it is productive to accuse the other side about "POV egotism of national factions", and if the other side picks up the glove and starts accusing about "linguistic obsession" or "ill-perceived liberalism" etc etc, then there will be no end in this. ]] 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Sorry, but all this is just so much waffle. Not worth responding to. "Use English" actually ''is'' policy, and no amount of ranting can change that. ] ] 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:::What's ''not'' English about ''the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia''?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: Yawn. It's not ''predominant in normal, careful English prose'' and not ''what native English speakers will most readily recognise''. Which is what "useenglish" stands for, as a shortcut. As you perfectly well know, of course. ] ] 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::And "Republic of Macedonia" is? Says who?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Actually, "Macedonia" is. "Republic of" is just our chosen disambiguator, which happens to be also the formal long name of the country. Says who? Predominant use in reputable English-language print and news publications. As you know perfectly well, of course. ] ] 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::That's what I was hinting at. If you were ''really'' so concerned about using the most predominant term, you would have advocated the use of plain "Macedonia". As you know perfectly well, "Republic of Macedonia" is ''not'' the most common ''long'' form of the country's name in English. And, seeing as "Macedonia" is ambiguous, the most common long name should be used instead. The country's preferred long name is irrelevant; common ''English'' usage takes precedence.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: Then you'd have to advocate going for "f.Y." all over Misplaced Pages. (Which, as you perfectly well know, has not a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.) Remember, what we are discussing here is not how to generally name the country. What we are discussing is exclusively whether and why this particular article should get a treatment different from the rest. Which, of course, it shouldn't. ] ] 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::That is in fact what I have always advocated, but if we are talking ''specifically'' about this article, the fact that the "other" Macedonia is mentioned throughout is enough to answer your question.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue is very simple to me, there's a commonly English name used by most of the reputable English-language print and news publications as Future said, and '''that's not FYROM''', or any variant of it. Per Wiki policies we need to use the common English name. The only reason for pushing FYROM in this article is to make a (cheap) nationalistic point (sometimes masked as "correct UN name" which has absolutely no importance in Misplaced Pages), there's no other reason for pushing this name -- this blatant POV pushing should stop. Now. ] 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:It isn't "Republic of Macedonia", either.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Then the solution is to go without disambiguators altogether. The need for those has always been overstated in this debate anyway, for transparent reasons. ] ] 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That isn't a solution so much as evidence of the inconsistency of your line of argumentation. Make up your mind as to what it is you're advocating.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: "Republic of Macedonia" on routine first mention, and plain "Macedonia" where context makes it unambiguous. And no exceptions for Greece-related POV islands. "f.Y." provides no extra benefit, in any context. It adds no disambiguation value over and above what "R.o." does. ] ] 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::That sounds rather confused to me. You're either in favour of the predominant English usage, or you're not.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Okay then, if you insist: "Macedonia" on routine first mention, and whatever disambiguator is short, simple, easy to understand and compatible with self-designation wherever contextually necessary. Which will still be "R.o.", in most cases. And I still insist, above all, no POV islands. ] ] 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You really are funny sometimes. At least you admit that your stance has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics. <small>(Oh, and you perfectly well know it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding).</small>&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: P.S.: Looking around in google news and books sources a bit, it occurs to me that common English usage gives little guidance as to what disambiguator to choose, ''qua'' disambiguator. Writers don't disambiguate the country. If they have to contrast the country against the region, they disambiguate the region, and only that. The country carries the simple name by default. Those writers who use either "R.o." or "f.Y." seem for the most part to do so for other reasons, not for those of disambiguation. So, if we decide we want to do a bit more disambiguation than the average (which is okay with me), we are left to make our own choices. ] ] 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::But which disambiguator is the more common in English? In my experience, it's by far ''the former Yugoslav Republic of'' or some variation thereof. The biggest promulgator of "Republic of" in the English language is Misplaced Pages itself. Why perpetuate the discrepancy?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: "f.Y." is ''not'' used by writers out there for purposes of disambiguation. Those who use it have other reasons for doing so. In any case, talking about disambiguation is moot here: In the case you've been edit-warring about, the context ("borders on...") a priori excludes any confusion with Greek provinces anyway. ] ] 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Firstly, I note that you've been edit-warring a fair bit yourself. Secondly, who says that ''the former Yugoslav Republic of'' is not used for disambiguation? Thirdly, there is a long-standing consensus that it should be used in articles in which the Greek region is mentioned.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: There isn't a "consensus", there has been a stalemate: policy on the one side, against determined obstinacy of a POV faction on the other. And now the time has come to break that stalemate. There is no objective reason to have "f.Y.", the only motive to have it is because you guys ''like'' it that way. ] ] 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Self-righteous rhetoric aside, ''policy'' says that the most common English term should be used, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case we use the next most common. And I ]: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". It ''also'' says that "editors are '''strongly discouraged''' from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain". In other words, the only reason you oppose ''the former Yugoslav Republic of'' is because ''you'' don't like it, and that isn't a valid excuse.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::: But there ''is'' a good reason to change it: to bring this article in line with all other articles in this project. The very fact that a national faction of editors is treating this article as their ideological home turf, where they can demand preferential treatment for their POV concerns, is enough reason to insist on a change. ] ] 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Perhaps I should insist on moving "]" to ], then? Because that's what policy says we should do. That we haven't done so already is entirely due of the whims of those who oppose it for no reason other than that it is preferred by the Greeks.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Have fun. ] ] 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Done. Let's see if policy really counts for shit around here.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if ] hasn't been made effective yet, then ] applies. It effectively determines that we use the same term throughout Misplaced Pages, and the determinant is always the article on the term itself. In this case, the current location of the article ] determines that we must refer to this country as "Republic of Macedonia" throughout Misplaced Pages. Rather simple. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close''' Controversial proposal, not listed on ]. This has been discussed a million times. Keeping this open is just a unnecessary drama magnet and pool for personal attacks. --] (]) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
**This is not something that can be closed, are you copy-pasting my comment on the phony move proposal at ] to try to make a ]? Try better. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Not phony at all, as a matter of fact. I'd been biting my tongue for far too long. The more you resort to personal attacks, the less seriously you're taken.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::It's quite the other way around, but there's no point in trying to convince when one's in delusion and denial. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::There you go again. Please, just stop.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*'''Speedy Gonzales''' Oh, wait this is about something else. Yes, what Husond said makes perfect sense to me. ] 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Husond's argumentation on how exactly he supports that "this is not something that can be closed" (unlike the other). Please start by explaining why the discussion in ] ''is'' "a matter of common interest" where "mediation should help interested parties achieve an agreement" and this talk here ''isn't''. I'm particularly curious, Man with one red shoe, perhaps you could help Husond explain since you rushed to agree? ]] 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:The other was a move proposal, that can be closed. This is a discussion, that requires no closing whatsoever. "Matter of common interest"? What are you talking about? <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is for a controversial change. "Matter of common interest" (among the disputing parties) is a direct quote from ] that you linked. Did you mean to say ] then? Anyway, I think a lot of users will agree with me in despising argumentation which is based solely on mere technicalities. ]] 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:I don't even understand how you want to close a discussion in the talk page, that makes no sense, I don't think I need to explain anything till you explain your intentions and on which policy are based on, since this is a form of censorship that I've haven't heard before... it would be interesting to detail it more... ] 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::We're witnessing once more blatant double standards. Kekrops starts a discussion about renaming the RoM article and it gets immediately closed and archived. The same discussion here is kept open. I agree with all your arguments, care to file an AN/I against ChrisO for censorship?--] (]) 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Both discussions are for controversial changes, so censorship (your word) should not apply to either of them. See comment above. ]] 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:::This is a discussion aimed at making changes to the article. No admin intervention is required as there is nothing to be closed. A controversial move proposal, on the other hand, such as the other proposed for the RoM article, does require an admin to close it. No comparison whatsoever and no double standards whatsoever. And definitely no censorship, that proposal was pointy and utter nonsense, it had to be closed straightforwardly. Now Niko, I don't recall referring to ], just ]. Although it could've happened that I may have typed ] by mistake, dunno I didn't check. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I disagree with everything. ''Both'' discussions aimed at making changes to the respective articles. "Closing" (by an admin or not -actually) is customary in either move proposals or whatever-other-proposals. Censorship of the discussion is evident, but I can understand the cowardliness in lack of policy based argumentation. You mention that the proposal was pointy again and again but you have not explained why; a discussion is ''never'' pointy when based squarely on policy, irrespectively of what sparked it. Your "utter nonsense" characterization I will not comment. Yes, you did type M, but that's beyond any point. And yes, I understand why you are bored to locate the trash talkpage where the closed proposal has been moved: it's so well hidden. ]] 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

::::BTW, it's really strange that the man with the one red shoe understood your argument and rushed to support ity even though you had linked to WP:M rather than WP:RM. Telepathy? ]] 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::You may disagree but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Discussions aimed at making changes to the articles require no admin intervention, there is nothing to be closed and everything is decided on consensus. Controversial move proposals are something completely different and do require admin closure. It's the second or third time I say the same thing and I shall not repeat myself (if you still believe that these are not the procedures then you should go find some more information on them instead of just nagging). There is no censorship whatsoever, and from what I can see there is just a group of disgruntled Greek editors that are simply impossible to please because they demand what cannot be agreed consensually. The only Misplaced Pages where the article on the RoM stays at FYROM is the Greek one, simply because that's the only Misplaced Pages where Greeks are the majority. Here, you seem to try to impose a majority that you do not have, either by victimization, finding loopholes in policies or lack of policies, lengthening any discussions on the matter, and complicating them to the limits of sanity and patience. Not gonna work. Furthermore, a discussion is always pointy when it's disruptive and just to try to prove a point. The move proposal at ] was merely a way to counter a normal discussion occurring here, that Greek users found to be a menace. Overreacting and distracting maneuvers are also not going to work. Finally, the move proposal is not hidden, it's very well archived with easily accessible links to it. I didn't check if I had written ] instead of ] not because the discussion was hidden, it was simply because the discussion was so long and nauseating and I would have to scavenge even to find my own comments. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::]ing by means of repetition does not make you right. What you had originally posted was ]ediation and ''not'' ]. But even so, if you reeeeealy wanted to help, you'd obviously list it to WP:RM, now wouldn't you? If you are soooo convinced that this is just because of "a group of disgruntled Greek editors", then why didn't you let this exposed? All the other bad faith assumptions in your post I'll choose to disregard. ]] 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Niko, I think that you should not bother too much with personal discussion, that's irrelevant to the article. I can agree with somebody without agreeing with everything, stop twisting words. Basically you want to push a POV, you don't like that other people point to the obvious thing that this article is an island of POV and decide to censor them by trying to stop the discussion because is... controversial? I've never heard of such reason for censorship before... people are inventive... what's next "shut up because you don't say what I say"? ] 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::You misunderstood the first time, but I cannot understand why you repeat (and expand) the same thing even though it has been explained to you. I said that both discussions should ''not'' be censored. Husond said that the other discussion should be, and I disagree. I hope this is the part where you disagree with him also. ]] 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I actually don't care about the other discussion, nor I'm willing to discuss it in this page, it should be discussed in the page of that article, as for censorship I was not talking specifically about you I was mostly talking about the guy who posted '''Speedy close''', I addressed you only to the length you support that request, if you don't, very well, it's not about you. ] 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::I'm glad we cleared out that part. Now I am addressing the same thing to you for not opposing, and not "caring" on the speedy close in the other talk. If you do care/oppose, then very well, it's not about you either. ]] 10:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was said above by those who support the change that FYROM shall by used only in articles about organizations in which the country is accepted as that. Well in the bilateral relations of this country with Greece (whose article we are arguing about) Greece recognized ROM as FYROM. That's the official position and is a position to which FYROM has agreed upon. --] (]) 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Fair enough. But this article is not about the bilateral relations between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it's just about ]. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::] used to say that fYRoM should be used in articles in which "the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization". There is no reason why the same rationale shouldn't be applied here. The country's appearance in a list of Greece's neighbours meets the criterion of being mentioned "specifically and exclusively" in relation to Greece.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 04:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Stop quoting wiki pages as if they were law and you were a lawyer. That "rule" can't and won't be applied here, because it simply makes no sense and is not compatible with our actual policies. Never did. Give actual reasons, not quotes ripped out of context. ] ] 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:I fail to see why the convention applying to articles on international organizations cannot be used here as well. In the context of the EU, the country is fYRoM. In the context of Greece, the country is fYRoM as well. In the context of the fYRoM itself, the country is "RoM", obviously. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as fYRoM, it is fYRoM. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as "RoM", it is "RoM". Like it or not, that is the state of the real world. And we are here to write articles ''about'' the real world.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 07:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::: <small>Refactored this bit here, where logically it belongs. Please let's keep the content discussion in one place and the process/meta-discussion in another.</small>
:: That is simply not true. Nobody out in the real world makes such a terminological distinction by topic area. The R.o.M. certainly refers to itself as R.o.M. independent of domain, even in its dealings with the EU and UN, and third party observers also each follow their individual naming preferences, no matter if they mention the country in relation to Greece or in relation to the US. (The example Politis quoted below would have been an interesting counterexample, if it did what he claims it does. But I doubt it does; judging from the public parts on its website, it just has random unsystematic variation between the different terms, probably according to the individual whims of different authors within that material, but not systematically according to topic area.) ] ] 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

=== So, how do we move on?===
The posititions of the pro-FYROM crowd are evidently in a hopeless state at this point. Avg acknowledged he was in favour of using "Republic of Macedonia" in all articles, but was only edit-warring against it in this article in order to press for other changes elsewhere. Kekrops' article renaming proposal predictably fell flat; since the article continues to be called ], there is one reason less for using anything else in other articles. NikoSilver has resorted to inarticulate ranting about how using "Republic of Macedonia" puts "millions of lives at risk" and how we must use "FYROM" because otherwise Greeks will punch you in the face in real life.

Against this predictable argumentative smokescreen, there is a very clear consensus of all other editors, except the Greeks.

Misplaced Pages can't tolerate a situation where an editorial decision is kept hostage by the ideological egotism of a single national faction. The fact that this position is upheld ''exclusively'' by editors of a single nationality proves that these people aren't here to make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia; they are here to make it an encyclopedia more favourable to their national viewpoint. (Many people have evidently come to accept that as a normal thing to do for a wikipedia editor. It isn't, and shouldn't be.)

So, what's the way out? Discussion evidently won't lead anywhere. These people will ''never'', ''ever'', let go of their obsessions. We all know that. A poll won't lead anywhere, because their faction is large enough to numerically shoot down any vote, unless a closing admin has the guts to simply discount national block votes (as they should). That leaves us with continued edit-warring until one half of us is banned.

I, for one, will remove the "f.Y." again, since there have been no new arguments, the article move proposal has failed, and I consider this a decision based on solid consensus, with only the raw obstinacy of edit-warring standing against it. ] ] 06:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:I agree, and if the changes prompt a revert war I suggest a straw poll to legitimate those actions once and for all. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:: A straw poll only makes sense if we get prior assurance that national faction block votes get discounted; otherwise we know the result in advance. Voting makes no sense in national conflicts like this. ] ] 08:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:And I fail to see why a very policy-abiding position with numerous arguments in support of this (such as the one that was done in ] by me -see archive #2) has to be reduced down to the funny part of it in order to discredit this argumentation. I also fail to see why we can't have a centralized discussion there and ''then'' apply the changes in the respective articles. Everything else is terribly counterproductive. ]] 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Because your arguments simply ''are'' not serious. Sorry, that's the way it is. You won't find a sensible person seriously arguing on that basis. As for centralised discussion, that would only make sense if there were some perspective of a actually having a sensible discussion with a realistic chance of an outcome. There isn't. We know that. ] ] 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Strange, I always thought it was your replies to my arguments which were not serious... Your idea off a sensible discussion starts from the notion that the discussion has to end in your desired outcome. ]] 10:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::For the record, the link for my argumentation of that time is here: ]. ]] 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: Oh right. That was the bit where you were arguing that mentioning "R.o.M." in a Greece-related context was a violation of ] because otherwise we would be "misquoting Greece". Right. – – – (long pause). – So, will you accept having a straw poll with Macedonian and Greek editors excluded? Because I honestly see no other way out. ] ] 10:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Among other five reasons yes. And for the reason you are citing, we have already chosen not to misquote the UN, EU, and NATO on the same grounds. And no, I do not agree with any straw poll, either with or without the presence of implicated parties (and when you address a Greek and you say "Macedonians" he understands ], so please disambiguate when speaking to me because otherwise you don't make sense). I can only agree to sound argumentation, but you choose to always discredit and dismiss that in the most insulting and degrading way. If only I had reversed what you have told me regarding the merit of ''your'' argumentation, I'd be simply looking through arbmac bars now... Well, so be it, you say my argumentation is bullocks, I say your replies are bullocks. (I can almost hear the "rant" argument coming up again...) ]] 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Excluding the two national camps isn't a solution either. We have seen too many examples of anti-Greek and/or generic anti-Balkan bias from holier-than-thou outsiders to know better. I would exclude all Europeans, North Americans, Australians and the nationals of any country that has ever established diplomatic relations with Skopje under any name whatsoever. That's if you ''really'' want to eliminate inherent political bias from the process. Let's get the Uruguayans to decide, as their flag looks a lot like a compromise between the Greek and old Vergina flags.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:And what was the reason you caused this havoc out of the blue Fut.? Perhaps you didn't know you'd offend almost every Greek Misplaced Pages editor? Was it so difficult to leave this article in peace? Your obsession has started to seriously harm the project.--] (]) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::So Misplaced Pages should care about Greek obsession and cater to different points of view? Do Greek people own this page? Should it present their point of view? I thought Misplaced Pages is supposed to follow ] policy not to cater to specific POV in each page. ] 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not worth restarting same discussion that'll go around in circles. A straw poll would be a very straightforward way to legitimate changes to the application of FYROM to this article, as editors simply need to voice their positions cut and clear. And obviously the straw poll would have to be advertised in appropriate places, such as the talk page of ], to attract a wider scope of participants interested in providing their position, and maybe even the Village Pump. That should provide representation of the whole Misplaced Pages community in the poll, thus the Greek block would no longer be a problem. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:And what would the straw poll question be again? How should the country be referred in the Greece article? Why not have a straw poll about keeping consistency? That would be fun.--] (]) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::I don't think that consistency would work in your favor, remember that we use "Macedonia" in all the rest of Misplaced Pages. ] 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::As I said that would be fun. Let's have fun then.--] (]) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll has started below. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

== Edit warring warning ==

There is too much reverting on this article. Sooner or later someone is going to protect it (not me, I hate doing that). I've just shot one of you to encourage the others; don't be the next ] (]) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:I am also watching this article. Though I am more likely to block people for edit warring than I am to protect the page. ] 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::And you have noted I suppose who is the user who edit wars in two fronts right now: "FYROM or RoM" and "motto".--] (]) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Motto", again ==

Happy 25 March everyone, but the "motto" seems still unsourced. Of the five footnotes that were readded , I can read only one (number 2). It describes the expression as a "slogan" and vaguely claims something in the flag "symbolises" something about the slogan. First, "symbolises", for whom? Where is that understanding documented? Did the creator of the flag describe their intentions that way? Is this commonly described and taught this way? A passing allegation of that source is not a suitable reference. And even if it was true, that still wouldn't make the expression a "state motto". A state motto is something that is officially enshrined in legislation. Can anybody please show me:
# Does the Greek constitution define the motto as part of the country's state symbols, along with the flag, anthem and so on?
# Do official state symbols such as emblems contain the expression?
# Is it widely used on state-issued items such as coins or banknotes?

As for the other four "sources", they are just google book search pages with no readable full text. So, what do they say? And, none of them is of the kind that would easily qualify as a reliable source on such an issue.

If it's a state motto, it must be sourceable to official state publications. Not just as being a popular slogan connected with the Greek revolution, but as being specifically an ''official'' motto of the modern Greek Republic.

] ] 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Χμμμμ....,
Well, by definition, the motto ''Ελευθερια ή Θανατος'' is not an officially declared motto as you can see here , but it's widely used as such (even in some drachma banknotes, I suppose) from state institutions.
I don't see any reason why to remove it, but if you insist, then ok, go on.
] (]) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


It was the motto of the Greek revolution which led to the creation of Greek state and this is sth well sourced already. There is really no point in this discussion but i guess it's part of the vendetta that is trolling wikipedia around for quite a time. --] (]) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

: I know it was a motto used during the revolution. But that's not the same thing as a state motto. A state motto is something that is used at least on an official seal of the state or something similar. And spare yourself the personal attacks please. ] ] 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


: As I wrote above it is not officially declared, but rather semi-officially, for example the flag's horizontal lines are supposed to come from it and in general terms it is considered as such in Greece. Anyway, vendetta or not, if you think it's so important, it's fine by me to remove it, since I can not find any goverment source to declare it as state symbol, but only sources in history or other books.] (]) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: So is this a ] or a genuine interest on Greek state symbols? :) ] (]) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::Using it on the money qualifies it as a state motto? I'm thinking "In God We Trust", that's pretty similar. ] 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Actually, read ] as well as ], that will give you a fairly good idea what it means for something to be a state motto. (In fact, I guess the fact that the US have these is more or less the sole reason people put that field in the infobox, as if all other countries should be expected to have one too. It seems essentially a concept quite alien to most other states.) ] ] 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't appear to be an issue ].&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
: Those are the same sources I talked about above, aren't they? What do they actually say? I don't have access to the texts in those Google search pages. Of course, an article about the expression and its historical significance may well be legitimate; it just doesn't make it a state motto. ] ] 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


I think Spain's motto, ], figures quite the same characteristics to the one used by Greece, but I don't see any debate there. ] (]) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:The Spanish one is contained in the official national coat of arms, and as such also contained in the official national flag. That's the crucial difference. ] ] 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::Difference indeed, but do you see any official declaration by the Spanish constitution or any other public law that defines exactly '''this motto''' as belonging to the state's national symbols , as for example in US ? Because I do not. ] (]) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::: According to the wikipedia articles, it certainly has legislation defining its coat of arms. I suppose they'll have a visual representation of the CoA somewhere, which will obviously contain the motto. ] ] 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::: I am sorry to repeat my self, but I honestly find this discussion about the motto aimless... Anyway, following your argument if I provide a graphical representation of the motto being edited by a govermental institute, it will be fine by you?] (]) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: Only if it's being used as part of the official national flag, seal or coat of arms. That seems to be the operational definition of a "motto", actually. ] ] 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::Interesting that this discussion about the motto started again just after I reminded in a WP:AN case a discussion about FYROM's motto I had initiated some months ago. My rationale about why the mentioning of the motto is justified here but not in the FYROM article is exposed there.--] (]) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Yeah, of course it was your posting that reminded me of this issue. But I honestly can't see any serious argument in favour of having it, either in what was said then or now. Have you got better sources than the ones we were discussing right now? ] ] 16:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The fact that Greece tells anything to you or not?--] (]) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: Ah, that's ''some'' source, at last. I'd just question your description of that page as an "official declaration" by Greece; it seems to be a rather informal popularised fact sheet compiled by somebody (not clear who) for the parliament's public relations website. ] ] 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::And at the end of the day, the motto is a part of the Greek culture for centuries now. This is no way the case for FYROM. So, stop running to the Greece article, whenever somebody dares to say anything about the alleged FYROM's motto you do not like. Maybe with all the Greek wood-engravings of the motto instead.--] (]) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: My edit had nothing whatsoever with the Macedonian case. ] ] 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::I take your word, as I usually do.--] (]) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::That and the significance of the day, no doubt.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::A state motto isn't just an an arbitrary set of words - it's part of a ] such as a ], a seal, or, more rarely, a flag. If it's official it will be defined somewhere in law. Kapnisma and Fut. Perf. mention the Spanish motto "Plus Ultra". This is in fact defined in law as part of the Spanish coat of arms. Insignia such as this are defined not via a visual depiction but through a heraldric description, which is provided in the Spanish law: "Acompañado de dos columnas, de plata, con base y capitel, de oro, sobre ondas de azur o azul y plata, superada de corona imperial, la diestra y de una corona real, la siniestra, ambas de oro, rodeando las columnas, una cinta de gules rojo, cargada de letras de oro, en la diestra "Plus" y en la siniestra "Ultra"." If the Greek motto has any official status it will be similarly defined in some sort of official legally-binding text, most likely a law or decree. -- ] (]) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Europarl.europa.eu is coontrolled by the employees of the Parliament, so the Parliament itself, so it is difficult to just say "we do not know who wrote that". It's the EU.--] (]) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

: It could just as well have been written by the parliament's public relation intern who was tasked to cobble together some interesting facts about each state, and copied it all from Misplaced Pages. Is there anything on that page that tells us that's not what happened? – I would still like to see that "motto" in actual use. Where does the present-day Greek state use it in any official capacity? In all these months, nobody has ever pointed to an instance. I just checked a few government websites, at random. They sure have flags, they sure have coats of arms, emblems, everything. The "motto" is nowhere to be seen. Google for the phrase on site:primeminister.gr or site:parliament.gr: not a single hit. If that's a state motto, they are doing their best at hiding it from the world. ] ] 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::Again, using it on money would probably qualify. I understand that you mean by saying that "In God We Trust" was not official till it was declared so, but using a saying like that on money or stamps (which are kind of official instruments), would probably qualify. ] 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Those crackpot Greek nationalist editors are know trying to establish a motto as their own without any sources!!!!!!!
Thank God and what a coincidence that exactly the same anti-chauvist, good faith editors of the above discussion are involved!
I am eagerly anticipating Husond's opinion on this matter...] (]) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Personally I'm a Greek and I've grown up with this motto. I find it really strange that what is considered here 3d grade general knowledge has to be verified. I had once found a page of the Greek Army which explains that the stripes of the Greek flag are nine because the syllables of the national motto (in Greek) are also nine. But this is the most I found. For my Greek friends here: I really don't consider the motto as so important, I mean there are numerous countries in the world with same or similar ones, it's not like we invented it or something. Furthermore it is indeed related to the 1821 revolution, as much as ] is related to the 1940 victory over the Italians. Should we add Ohi in its place? Finally, I consider that Greece, world's 20th-or-so wealthier nation, an EU and NATO member, and an undisputed financial leader in the Balkan peninsula, doesn't need such "bloody" (in the literal sense) mottos anymore. Maybe that's why it doesn't appear so much lately? Don't know, but I really think we shouldn't bother too much. Probably it is for good. BTW we can mention it in the history section, as a compromise, and we need not restrict its application to the war of independence exclusively! ]] 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Why not just call it an unofficial, semi-official or popular motto and be done with it?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:: It's certainly a popular national motto, nobody doubts that, but it doesn't seem to be a motto of the ''state'' in any meaningful sense, and certainly not in the sense of the state mottos listed in these infoboxes, which is basically defined by their use in heraldry. I still propose removing it from the infobox, absent even a single source where the Greek state claims this motto for itself. (I don't consider the European parliament page an adequate source in this context. A "state motto" should be sourceable to the state itself, or it isn't one.) ] ] 06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::Fine by me, as I already have written.] (]) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::Greece is a nation-state. Consequently, this article is necessarily about the nation ''and'' the state, not merely the latter.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 07:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Context. In the infobox, where it would be listed in direct neighborhood with the flag, seal, anthem, and official name of the modern republic, it would certainly imply an official status for the Greek state. That's what that field in the box is for, if it's to make any sense at all. ] ] 09:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Why don't we just place it within the history section's text as I proposed above? If it's so important to some, we can even include pictures of early flags depicting it, or we can put it in big quotes, or whatever to attract attention (although I'm not so eager to advertise it so much). I agree with Fut.Perf. that it should only be in the inforbox if we find some sort of official source of heraldry nature. ]] 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

==Some international norms for RoM and FYROM==
:It is not unusual to adapt terminology according to context. For instance: The world-wide and respected, 'Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment' has this arrangement regarding the usage of the terms, 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Fyrom', they resemble very much the guidelines agreed a while ago in Misplaced Pages by editors.
:Its volume, "Balkans 2003, Jane’s Information Group, London" contains country analysis of all Balkan states.
:In the chapter GREECE - we have a standard section called Foreign Relations, and there we find a sub-section titled, "Relations with FYROM". Because the chapter deals with Greece, RoM is always referred to as FYROM.
:In the Chapter, BULGARIA... we have the "Relatioins with Macedonia" because Sofia recognised the name RoM, but the same Chapter uses FYROM when bringing Greece and ROM together.
:In the Chapter ALBANIA we have, "Relation with FYROM".
:In the Chapter Republic of Macedonia, of course we have RoM all they way exept when it concerns relations with Greece; there the name becomes FYROM.
:I think the same applies to Economist Intelligence.
:From what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here.] (]) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

== Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article ] ==

''Need for a straw poll''
*This matter has been demonstrated to be extremely contentious. Discussions, as easily observed above, quickly escalate to uncivil remarks, personal attacks, and accusations of racism, censorship, and bias. It is also an easily verifiable fact that Greek users take this matter very personally and vehemently object to any proposals meant to discuss this issue. Discussions are always disrupted endlessly; thus a straw poll, where each user shall provide their position in a simple and straightforward way, should be the only mechanism left to verify if the community, as a whole, would agree with the proposed changes.


===''Background for the proposal''===
*Greece recognizes ] as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). That country recognizes itself as the ]. International recognition of the name of this country varies, with some countries and organizations recognizing it as "FYROM", and others as "Republic of Macedonia". On Misplaced Pages, the article on that country is under the title "]", as are all other Wikipedias (except the Greek one). Throughout Misplaced Pages, articles refer to that country as the "Republic of Macedonia", except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as ]. Elsewhere we have "Republic of Macedonia". The article ] though, still uses "FYROM" in circumstances where we normally do not use it, such as in the first paragraph when the country is listed with the ones bordering Greece. Since this is not an exception, we should apply ], and change all FYROM mentions to "Republic of Macedonia".

===''Opposition rationale''===
''Note, most of the following text comes directly from where this discussion *ought* to be, a Macedonia naming guideline that came very close to become active but was eventually scrapped (]). It has been moved here as a rationale for opposing the proposal.''

Hello, I am ], a major contributor in many Macedonia-related articles, the best of which being the featured ]. I am too familiar with the ] from both sides (another article I practically wrote), and an active Wikipedian with more than 10,000 contributions in various -mainly controversial- issues, which happen to interest me a lot (out of sheer masochism?) Anyway, I'm obviously qualified in terms of accumulated knowledge on the issue, but I have a serious defect, so this is an official warning to all sides: I am Greek!

I will start with a very important note: '''The actual dispute here is over the ''breadth of breaching the consistence in the use of the article name in other articles''. Not of whether this consistence should be breached at all, because this has already been agreed upon for articles related to ], ], ] and all international organizations.'''

Simply put, this dispute tries to solve a long-standing dispute that can't be solved in the real world... The MOSMAC guideline had incorporated parts of the wisdom used in other similar ones, and the standard practice in WP until now. It was mostly agreed upon, apart from the sensitive part of how the ]/] would be called in some Greek-related articles.

Specifically, for years now, the practice is to use the long appellation for the country (as officially used by Greece and half of the world countries and all international organizations) in all Greek-related articles. The recent dispute originated from the view of some editors that those Greek-related articles should not be an exception any more.

My view is that it is the wrong thing to do. Not only for practical reasons (hordes of Greeks randomly changing the articles they naturally write), not only for sentimental reasons (we're not here to condole), but for sound reasons based on WP policy and ], which I am about to set forth below:

====1. Article name====
The article is now in ]. The article name issue is irrelevant to the MoS guideline in question, however, it is important to note that the article name is indeed maybe the closest call among two appellations ("Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This is mainly due to the interpretation of the ] guideline. For details, expand the following section:

{{hidden begin}}
=====] and interpretations=====

{{MultiCol}}
======] text:======
----
The three key principles are:

* The most common use of a name takes precedence;
* If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name;
* If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)
----
{{ColBreak}}
======Interpretations======
*'''Most common:''' There is a clear dispute over which is the "most common name". Google-tests etc fail to provide a clear result due to the multitude of uses of the term "Macedonia" for various irrelevant places, notably that of ]. Furthermore the longer term incorporates the shorter one with the mere addition of "Former Yugoslav". Finally, there are various slight modifications of the long name (such as "FYR Macedonia", "FYR of Macedonia", "FY Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYRO Macedonia" etc etc). An attempted test for establishing which is the most common name was run when the article name was discussed years ago, and it turned out unsuccessful in providing an undisputed result. For details see the archived ].
*'''Official:''' There are disputes over what constitutes "official", or even what constitutes a "name".
**It is argued that both names are "official". One is used by the constitution of the country, about half the world countries, and the country itself. The other is used by the United Nations and all other international organizations, by the other half of the world countries, and -again- by the country itself. You will have to be the judge of which is "official" and why the other is not.
**It is argued that the UN term is not a "name" to begin with, but only a "temporary reference". The distinction between the two terms has been made in an interpretation of the UN agreements, yet the country itself is quoted using the terms "name" and "we are called" to describe it. So does the UN in various other documents.
*'''Self-id:''' Clearly, the short term is used as a self-identifying name. The dispute is over if the the long term is used as a self-id too. It is argued that the country is ''forced'' to use the long name by the UN agreements (and by extension by Greece), and that this should constitute a least "preferred" self-identification. Nevertheless, the country ''does'' use it for all international organizations. Notably for the ], ], ], ], ], ] etc and for bilateral relations with half the world countries which don't recognize its constitutional name.
{{EndMultiCol}}

In my view it is also indisputable that in Greece-related subjects worldwide the "most common name" (per ]'s first criterion) is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
{{hidden end}}

====2.]====
'''Again, to remind that it has already been agreed that the long name is used in all international organizations!''' The main rationale behind the choice of using the long name in the already agreed part of the policy (International Organizations etc) was that we cannot '''misquote''' those entities, and that anything else would not be ]. For example, as far as ] is concerned, there is only a "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in ], and we can't misquote the European Union, nor the country itself under this process, since anything else would not be verifiable by ].

In my view this rationale encompasses Greece. We cannot misquote Greece for the name of its side of the border, especially when the other country itself is addressed for all purposes to Greece as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". We can neither misquote Greece's administrative subdivisions when they say "we border the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia",<sup></sup> nor an ethnic Greek when he says "I was born in what is now FYROM". This practice is largely followed by other online media (such as the Britannica),<sup></sup> while others have chosen to use the long name uniformly (such as Encarta and the BBC).<sup></sup>

====3.Clarity====
In the context of Greece-related articles, the use of the short name may largely be confused with the Greek Macedonia. See the following example:

:''] lies in the historic ] of ] and borders the ] to the north.''

In my view the uninformed reader is immediately puzzled as to what the hell is a Macedonian republic doing outside of a Macedonian region. If I were that reader, I'd either demand an explanation, or a link to an explanation. The chosen disambiguating term among the two Macedonias ("Republic of") is not sufficient to illustrate the distinction. On the other hand, the long term speaks for itself: "Former ]": It states that this republic was previously part of Yugoslavia.

In my view, within Greek articles, it is unfair and unorthodox to ] disambiguating terms or texts for the Greek region ('''which is indisputably plainly called "Macedonia"'''), so as not to use a perfectly legitimate, close-call, and -most importantly- ''sourced'' term to describe the (otherwise irrelevant) country. It violates the very principle of ] (self-identification) for the ], which is plainly called that.

====4.Practice in WP====
In various instances where there is a conflict in terminology, Misplaced Pages has chosen to provide similar solutions for using different article names depending on the article's context. For example:

*]: See the section ].

*]: See that (the now Polish) Gdansk is called Danzig "for biographies of German persons"

*The situation now: An informal consensus right now uses always the long name in all Greece-related articles.

====5.Why are Greeks so irked====
This section is irrelevant to the policies of WP and the dispute in question. It is here merely for satisfying the curiosity of those wondering, in a brief manner. Expand it only if interested:

=====Greek position=====
{{hidden begin}}
This is the view of most "moderate" Greeks. The vast majority of the Greek population is annoyed not because of the name itself, but of how this name has been ''used''. A name alone cannot harm anyone, however, the name "Macedonia" is constantly used by official sources and schoolbooks of the country as a means to advance historic and territorial claims:

''Historic:'' Most Makedonskis (in the real world and in WP) believe to their bone that they descend from ] and his ]/]. This is the result of governmental propaganda of years (cited in ]). The problem of the Greeks is not necessarily to ''take their place'' in this genealogy tree (to which they arguably fit since the ancient Macedonians and their language/dialect were absorbed by the rest of the ancient Greeks). It is simply that the Slavs that came 1000 years later just don't have anything to do with them, yet they use that name to appropriate that part of history. I, as a Greek, don't see it as "stealing something which is mine". I see it as "monopolizing something which is everybody's, and definitely not only theirs".

''Territorial:'' The persistence in the use of a name without the proposed qualifiers (such as Slav- or North) has been extended to territorial claims. It is the belief of most Makedonskis that ] (among ]) is an "occupied region" of their country, merely because it carries the same name. This, again, is the result of governmental propaganda and is still endorsed by official printed material. For details, see the sourced article "]".

It is worth to note that no Makedonski user of WP has ever criticized the above two fallacies, as it would be considered a "national crime"!<sup></sup> On the other hand, there are many Greeks (in WP and in the real world) who have disputed the initial Greek position of "no Macedonia at all in the title". Hence, the Greek position has changed to demand just some sort of disambiguation. A disambiguation which would, of course, be totally unnecessary if the neighboring country didn't let those preposterous claims slip through official sources and if it didn't in fact endorse them.

Apart from those "material" claims, there is also the immaterial claim of the right to un-disambiguated self-identification. Most ] cannot understand why they suddenly have to use a qualifier for their regional name not to be confused with the ethnic group, while the ethnic group itself doesn't have to do the same in turn. The qualifier, in this case, may sound as signifying that the ] are a subset of the ], while in essence both groups are subsets of the ] (which is the only group which should be left without qualifiers, since it is the supergroup of both and others). In this sense, simple logic tends to erroneously equate the ethnic Macedonians to the Macedonian regioners, which further helps in the advancement of the above historic and territorial claims (quite successfully obviously -for the mindset of their own population at least). Just try to read this paragraph here by removing the qualifiers I used ("Greek", "ethnic", and "regioner"). See also ] and '']''.

Given the above, the worldwide opinion has gradually started shifting towards favoring the (previously called "nationalist") Greek position. Check for a few examples below:

* France, Spain, and other important NATO allies supported Greece's veto towards the admission of the republic in the ]. Sarkozy in particular said that they are "100% behind the Greek position".
* Australia (an English speaking nation) still officially calls the country with the long form name.
* The media are starting to heavily criticize these obsessive unhistoric and irredentist actions. ()
* The US senate, passed a resolution for "''the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)'' ''should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.''" Here's the senate's link: , and just to note that this resolution has been signed by more than 72 senators, including (then) Senator Obama.

{{hidden end}}
----
For those reasons above, I believe that the most correct solution is to use the long name in all Greece-related articles. It is a matter of ], of clarity, of ], and of common practice in WP and elsewhere (such as most other online encyclopedias). ]] 08:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

====Notes====
:<small> See for example the official site of the , Greece.</small>
:<small> See in Britannica 's borders vs e.g. those of .</small>
:<small> , </small>
:<small> I'd like to thank the Misplaced Pages community that effectively helps every time such agendas drop by within the scope of all relevant articles.</small>

----

'''''Straw poll question'''''
*'''<big>Do you support a proposal to have the article ] refer to the "]" under that very name, and not under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"?</big>'''


''This is a straw poll, not a regular discussion. Please present your position in a simple way, without further comments. If you wish to discuss this straw poll, please use the sub-section "'''Discussion'''" below. This straw poll is open for 7 days starting at 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC).''


==='''Support'''===

*'''Support''' (as proposer). <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (] (]) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
*'''Support''' no need for POV island is this article, the "Republic of Macedonia" is clearly something else than "Macedonia" the only reason to use "FYROM" or variants would be to promote a Greek POV which is unacceptable. ] 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''', obviously the only version compatible with NPOV, and the version that has had steadfast consensus among all outside neutral observers for ages. ] ] 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' FYROM is POV, despite what our colleagues might claim about international bodies and diplomatic recognition. ] (]) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this is just applying NPOV as in other articles. Also, what Aramgar said. ] (]) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The relevant policy, ], mandates that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." This rules out "Macedonia", which is widespread but ambiguous, and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is far less frequently used than the short form (see vs ). By a process of elimination, we are left with "Republic of Macedonia" as the name that best fits the requirements of ]. -- ] (]) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Call it what it is, a republic within the region of Macedonia. ] (]) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because all of the cool kids are doing it and I want to fit in. But also because I don't see why this article shouldn't be consistent with the others. ] (]) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. In my opinion, this is the most natural name to use, and my own spot-check of the interwiki links showed other wikis (except for the Greek) favoring the equivalent of 'Macedonia' or 'Republic of Macedonia' rather than FYROM, as the title of their article on Macedonia. ] (]) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Every country has the right to its constitutional name, this includes the Republic of Macedonia. There is no reason to impose censorship in this article just to appeal to Greek users. Greece does not have a veto over the article Greece on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Tolerance for the "content must be written from a neutral point of view and following common English usage, unless related to Greece" status quo has lasted more than enough. The grievances of our Greek colleagues do not trump our ]. - ] (]) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

==='''Oppose'''===

*'''Strongly oppose''', because: 1) a name all the international organizations and bodies use, as well as the participating country itself, can't be POV, 2) it is in perfect accord with MOSMAC, which may not be an official policy, but it is still an essay with a long history and an intrinsic coherence and consistency; by the way, I've repeatedly seen important essays to be evoked in our project (something like "]"), 3) it is the name RoM itself has accepted to be used in its bilateral relations with Greece, and a name it proposes as an acceptable bilateral arrangement in any future arrangement, 4) when no internationally acceptable arrangement has been reached in the naming dispute, using RoM in this particular article, the article of ], namely the country which leads the opposition to the RoM name, would constitute the most blatant promotion of RoM's POV.--] (]) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', because of dubious arguments offered in support of this proposal. ] (])
*'''Strongly oppose'''. I am surprised that some here want to restart these edit wars. ] (]) 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per rationale above. ]] 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ] (]) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' The self-identification right and the homogeneity in wikipedia articles might sound "nice", but things aren't that simple. Especially when we have such a serious matter, between two countries and a UN resolution, we must use a term that is accepted by the two parties. By using the term RoM, we automatically be with one side, which is not neutral! --] (]) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' The reasons have been stated clearly above. (Comment will follow soon enough in the Discussion section further down) ] (]) 11:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Yannismarou's rationale.] (]) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''', because the logic of this straw poll is based on a deliberately misapprehension of the Greek position on this matter. ''FYROM'', is NOT the name that Greece proposes for this state, it is a name imposed to both countries by UN until a solution is reached. If those who proposed this poll feel that by using this acronym we are enforcing a Greek POV, is not fair for those who believe differently to assume that by the term ''Republic of Macedonia'' a Slavomacedonian POV is thrusted? ] (]) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' per yannismarou and kapnisma. 'nuff said. --] (]) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Agree with Yannismarrou --] (]) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' Look what has happened, an appalling manipulative backgrounder by Husond has persuaded people that fYRoM is Greek POV. If you accept that, then obviously you will vote "Support". However. People, '''this-is-not-the-case'''. It is an official name and more widely used than RoM. Moreover, so many support votes advocate consistency throughout Misplaced Pages. I'm wondering, aren't I justified then to go and change all "Macedonia" references to RoM on the basis of this reasoning? Why am I so sure that I will be accused as a ] POV warrior? Now think, if both names are equally official, why this vote is not a ]?--] (]) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''strongly oppose''' as per yannismarrou ] (]) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Agree with ]'s points. ] (]) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

===Discussion===
"... except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union" — patently untrue; the UN nomenclature name "Former Yugoslav etc." is used (and increasingly so, too) at various international fora where there is no voting whatsoever let alone Greek veto. Sorry, poor try. ] (]) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:<s>Can we have sources for that? You already said in the closed move request that usage of FYROM at international fora has increased since the 2008 Bucharest Summit and you didn't give any sources or examples either.</s>

:Actually, forget about sources, just explain why the heck this is relevant here. --] (]) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::The proposer of this straw poll provided a certain 'Background for the proposal' that, presumably, was relevant to the proposal. Then so would be the factual validity of statements made in that 'Background', I reckon. ] (]) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Correct reply by Avg and this should cover it, as also it was correct by Enric to strike his question. But, of course, we all need to have a ''sense of fairness'' in our subconscious for our decision to choose supporting the one or the other. So, for the curious ones, some indications are in the end of the last (hidden) section of my position above (under "]). ]] 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased representation of facts by Husond, with a lot of plain '''false''' statements inside, - an example of how ''not'' to give background information. Thankfully, our own articles ] and ] explain the issue in a somewhat less biased manner. A Manual of Style for Macedonia related matters has been created in ] and Greece-related articles are specifically catered for. There is no reason to treat this page outside the scope of the MoS and have a separate poll, unless someone wants deliberately to bypass the MoS.--] (]) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:Actually it just says that for Greece-related articles there's no consensus. However keeping then in line with Greek POV is not an acceptable solution. Sorry this article is not here to soothe Greeks sensibilities. ] 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::It's really getting tiring repeating again and again that fYRoM is not the Greek POV. This is the primary reason I consider you have a certain bias. No reasonable person can consider the official UN/EU name as "Greek POV". We clearly have two official names here. There is a choice depending on context, which one should be used. The far worse case that happens in Misplaced Pages is that the official name (RoM or fYRoM) is substituted by an unofficial and ambiguous name (Macedonia) by the same people who advocate policy and consistency. --] (]) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::But FYROM is absolutely Greek POV because the '''''only''''' reason it even exists is because of the Greek position in these international organizations. Rather than annoy the Greeks, the international organizations caved in to Greek demands. Republic of Macedonia is the chosen name by the people of that country. The Greeks are 100% responsible for FYROM because of their POV. (] (]) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
::::This is not the case. Greece never actively supported FYROM (which is admittedly ugly) before its imposition by the UN. It was imposed to Greece as much as it was imposed to the Republic. Greece's POV has been at the time that the word Macedonia should not be included in any appelation of this state (although for reasons of compromise it has later shifted to accepting the word Macedonia along with a geographical qualifier). FYROM is and has ever been the only bilaterally accepted name, anything else is a deviation from international agreements.--] (]) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::People here seem to not understand the simple fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't actually care about, of follow, UN or EU names and they bring that about ad nauseum. ] 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::And anybody who exercises common sense would recognize that FYROM name is '''only''' because of Greek POV (right or wrong, you can be for or against, but that's the clear situation) ] 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry but here in Misplaced Pages we do not prescribe, we describe. FYROM currently is an official name and the ONLY name that both states have agreed to. You might have your objections, but this is the reality. I'm not saying that RoM is not an official name, but FYROM is as much official and the only one sanctioned by international organisations. So it has every validity to be here.--] (]) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I don't prescribe anything, I just use the name prescribed by Misplaced Pages's naming conventions: ], again the "official name" has minimum importance, why do you keep bringing it about? Misplaced Pages '''doesn't care about official names'''. If you don't like the policy try to change it but don't bring arguments that don't have weight because you become tiresome. ] 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Have you even bothered to read what you quote? ''Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; '''Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia'''; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others.''--] (]) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::So? ] 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::So this whole discussion is counter-productive, both names are equally controversial, each one for its own reasons, and the very fact that someone requests a rename simply shows they simply want their own POV to prevail. Misplaced Pages policy suggests to leave this issue at rest.--] (]) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't read that as a interdiction to discuss the issue, I also don't think should be used as a club to preserve specific POV in this page. You say the discussion is counter-productive, however you are part of it, what you actually want is that your POV to triumph by using the excuse that the "discussion is counter-productive". Actually I think it's pretty productive, I've seen already a number of people who support "Republic of Macedonia" form and on the other side I heard only arguments that don't have weight "official name", "discussion is counter-productive", are these the only arguments you have? ] 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I have already listed a series of arguments and I have a lot more, however, since I know your style, if I continue you will accuse me of flooding the talk page and diverting from the real subject, which is that the bad Greeks have hijacked the page etc etc. --] (]) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not FYROM is "Greek POV" is irrelevant because it occurs outside of wikipedia, it's not like there are a certain few with an agenda, it is an internationally recognized term. I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but why are we using either term? Shouldn't the link say just show Macedonia? We don't refer to other countries in articles as the Hellenic Republic or Republic of Bulgaria, etc., other than stating their official names in the lead. If you are referring to the area in Greece say the Macedonian region of Greece or something, but what is proposed seems to never actually be used anywhere. I can't think of where you would ever say FYROM or Republic of Macedonia in the article. ] (]) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:People should ''stop'' citing MOSMAC here because on this issue MOSMAC clearly and unequivocally states that "there is no consensus". That means that there is '''''no''''' policy because no one could agree on one. So stop citing MOSMAC because that is like saying "We have never agreed on this". That's exactly what is being said here--no agreement has ever been reached. (] (]) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
::Presumably the point of this discussion is to see if a majority view ''can'' be reached? -- ] (]) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Exactly. ] 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, "Republic of Macedonia" has only a few more hits than "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so the example isn't quite strong. I would argue that the are both equal in use depending on where you are. . ] (]) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
: and thanks for the fresh and constructive input.--] (]) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite interesting what some users are claiming, that the article of ] is a "POV island" in Misplaced Pages. If I remember correctly, though it has been a long time (id est: prior to Bush's recognition of FYROM as "Macedonia"), there had been a concensus reached that this country would be refeared in Misplaced Pages as the "Republic of Macedonia". Perhaps, someone should start by clearing and fixing any sentence in ] that uses te term ''Macedonia'', without refering to the region. Then, we should proceed in the other articles as well. If the current usage of the reference to this country in the article of ] is nothing but ''unacceptable'' Greek POV (as a user said above), then change in this is unacceptable FYROMian POV, or, at least, a clear offer of support to the American foreign policy. The pretext that "Macedonia" is the most ''widespread'', ''common'' and ''natural'' term to use (as also claimed above by users), does not sound appaling, since the same attitude is not followed in a great rage of article were an opinion or thesis that favours Greece/Greeks is continually and blatantly blocked by well-known users, in favour of minority opinions (and as we all know, examples are many). Not to mention that the same attitude is not followed in a great number of articles for other countries/nations/so on elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Apropos, maybe the ] uses the term "Macedonia" to refear to FYROM, thus in the minds of some making it widespread, but, if it was that widespread, Germany would have formally recognised it as such. And if some believe that pure diplomacy and politics are the reason for Germany not doing this, they should be start by wondering is pure diplomacy and politics are the reasons that the USA did... ] (]) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:Hectorian, you need to read more carefully, I think. No one above is saying to use ''Macedonia''. Everyone above is saying to use ''Republic of Macedonia''. We are all quite aware of the problem with using ''Macedonia'' to refer to the country called ''Republic of Macedonia''. So your argument is moot since no one is taking the position you claim. (] (]) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

::That isn't quite the case. See for example controversial edit to a protected template by one of the involved administrators, which effectively imposed the use of plain "Macedonia" in countless articles. This was done without any explanation on the ].&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

::(ec) Hectorian, I just went through ] and made references to ''Republic of Macedonia'' consistent, so your argument about that is now also moot. Misplaced Pages is not bound by UN resolutions or Greek politics. It is bound by the consensus of its editors and internal consistency. Right now, there is a consensus among non-Greek editors that ''Republic of Macedonia'' is the best reference for this political entity. It is only a handful of Greek editors who are blocking this usage with no more reasoning than "the UN says no". (] (]) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

:::Ahem. You're picking at straws, Hectorian. That's a simple flag template and the shorter name makes the flag graphic fit better into the templates. Improving the technical performance of Misplaced Pages is a noble effort. That's not much of an argument and if it's your only piece of "evidence" then your argument is awfully weak. I'm sure you'll find other places where some article on the distribution of Cretaceous granites in the Balkans "incorrectly" refers to Macedonia rather than the Republic of Macedonia as well. That's just life in Misplaced Pages--there are an infinite number of places where we can nit and pick ourselves to death over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But overall, in the big picture, the Greeks are blocking the usage of the normal "Republic of Macedonia" without any more reasoning than the fact that they don't like it. (Actually, "normal" would be to refer to this country as ''Macedonia'', but using ''Republic of Macedonia'' is already a compromise to clarify that we are not including the Greek provinces.) (] (]) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

::::No, my argument is not moot! Imagine what: ''admission of three Balkan countries (Croatia, Albania and Macedonia)'', ''Torlakian and Shop dialects spoken mostly in southern Serbia and western Bulgaria (and by speakers in the north and east of Macedonia)'', ''Macedonia is amongst one of the countries with the most beautiful preserved Byzantine fresco paintings'', etc etc. (but did not correct all of it), but why didn't you go through that article before? Didn't you know what was going on there? Or maybe you have no idea of what is going on in other articles as well? I have every right to believe that, had I not drawn attention to that, no changes would have been made. And those that were made, I believe are made "temporarily"... soon, they will be altered to simply "Macedonia" again.
::::Excuses of the kind "looks better", "improving the technical performance of Misplaced Pages", etc, are not convincing enough. We are not supposed to alledgedly chose ''what looks better'' over ''what is more correct''. In the recent months many changes have been made in a great variety of articles, where the "Republic of Macedonia" was changed to simply "Macedonia", with many of these changes made by admins involved here as well, eternally accusing the Greek editors of POV-pushing on the issue. Shall I proceed in all the articles changing "Macedonia" into "RoM"? Will any of the parties who voted "support" in the sraw poll above, help me in it? Of course not! Al least some of them, will try to block me on the grounds of a wiki policy they will suddenly remember is valid... Apart from yourself, no one bothered to replace "Macedonia" with "RoM", despite their claims of neutrality, concensus and encyclopedic behavour. With your act, you explosed many other users' (admins, of course included) double standards and <s>hidden<s> open agendas. Thank you. ] (]) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What a scandalously deliberate misinterpretation of a basic English sentence. The policy is clear: use the most common term that isn't ambiguous. That means the ''next'' most common term after "Macedonia", regardless of its relative popularity. And that isn't "Republic of Macedonia".&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:I don't understand how you fail to see that Republic of Macedonia is a needed disambiguation in this case -- yes, following the naming convenitions we should use "Macedonia" because of possible confusion we need to disambiguate and use "Republic of Macedonia". Also, I thought the discussions will be limited in "discusion" section, I can go on and reply to any point for "oppose" but I respect people and don't do this, why are you special in this respect? ] 13:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::That's not what the policy says. It prescribes the use of the most common ''un''ambiguous term, not the arbitrary disambiguation of the most common ambiguous one.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::And you mean to say that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is more common than "Republic of Macedonia"? That's not clear to me, at most they are close in usage with "RoM" leading (it's also not clear to me that the articles that mention "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are not actually using "RoM" form most of the times and only mention the "FYROM" once saying something like "Greeks like this form" -- only a mention of that would put the paper in the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" category, which is of course not accurate) But nevertheless, "RoM" seems to be more common even if not by much, so how can you support a form that's '''less''' common? Talking about consistency.... ] 21:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Check the google scores for instance: vs hits. And BTW, it's a little crazy to think that the long form (which is obligatorily used in all UN/EU/NATO/OSCE/FIFA/FIBA etc documents and in all other international organizations and wherever else Greece is a participant) isn't used more than the RoM form... ]] 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::In the second link you remove all the results that contain "former Yugoslav", that's absurd, I would imagine that in many articles about Macedonia is mentioned that's a Former Yogoslav republic, or at least they mention the name controversy, so you actually remove from search any article that talks about the controversy, while for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" you actually include all the articles that contain "Republic of Macedonia". As for your guess, is just that, a guess. ] 01:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Care to provide any evidence to support your claim that "RoM" is more common than fYRoM? We know that "Macedonia" is, but "RoM"?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

====Appalling====
A "background" section that ought to be the support position is shameful. The text obviously tries to portray Greeks as a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction. How deceitful, manipulative and devious. Those should be Husond's ''own'' opinions, and he has every right in the world to have them, '''but to portray them as "background" information for the uninvolved users is appalling'''. Shame. ]] 08:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:And yet almost all of the editors to oppose this proposal - and conversely to support Kekrops' move proposal over on ] - are a small number of exclusively Greek editors. What are we to make of this? Why is this, in effect, a few Greek people versus everyone else? -- ] (]) 09:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::You admit it is a successful manipulation then. And you continue it, to make sure that it stays that way, instead of just waiting to see what happens. Bravo. ]] 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::What I find particularly appalling is how the 'support' side tries to invalidate the views of the 'oppose' side by claiming it is just "a few Greek people" (above), or a "handful of Greek users" (below). A user's nationality has no bearing on the validity of their views or vote. A vote is a vote is a vote, whether the editor is Greek, Albanian, or Martian. To try to undermine one side of the debate on the basis of ethnicity borders on racism, and is frankly quite disgusting. It also reveals the intellectual paucity of the 'support' side's arguments, and that some people in that camp are driven more by animosity towards the Greek side (no need to mention names) than reason. --] (]) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "invalidate" votes. A Greek vote is - of course - of equal weight to one from an editor of any other nationality. But there are some things here which it's impossible to explain away in terms of simple policy differences. Let's consider the facts:

* Support votes have come from a wide range of nationalities - American, British, German, Swedish and others. Not a single Greek editor has voted in favour of this proposal.
* Oppose votes have come almost exclusively from Greek editors. Almost every editor who has voted against this proposal self-identifies as Greek. Every Greek editor who has participated in this discussion has voted the same way.

So how do we explain this?

* Greek editors have a different understanding of Misplaced Pages policies to everyone else?
* Only Greek editors understand Misplaced Pages's policies, but nobody else does?
* Greek editors are voting as a block for reasons other than Misplaced Pages's policies?

It's pretty obvious what the answer is... -- ] (]) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:Of course, Greeks are smarter (they don't get fooled by wrong arguments) and less biased than other people. :) And of course it doesn't have to do with pushing a POV at all... ] 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:::'''Comment:'''So what? What is your point? Where are you trying to go with this? For the ''second'' time, the ethnic background of the partcipants to this poll should be no more relevant than what their favorite food is. I find your insistent focus on the ethnic background of those who happen to vote 'oppose' disturbing to say the least. --] (]) 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

::::The point is that's a specific POV pushed here, not an interpretation of a policy (it would be strage that people who are from a specific country to interpret a policy in a different way than all the people from other countries). But I agree, we don't need to examine the background of the people involved which can be offensive and doens't prove anything. Beside I'm sure there are non-Greek who oppose and Greeks who support, so let's drop it here. ] 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:To sum up: I'm claiming that nobody is trying to invalidate Greek votes but I'm writing an essay just below to invalidate Greek votes. --] (]) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

::ChrisO your argument would be valid ''after'' the poll, when all the votes were in. Now it's not valid, because those thinking to oppose are reading your post and are reluctant to be accused of helping a "faction", so they are extorted/intimidated/scared away. Way to go ChrisO. Keep sending them away, and then claim that this carnival of a poll was fair! How brave and gallant of you! ]] 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikilink to Republic of Macedonia ==

Just so no one gets their panties in a wad, all I did with that minor edit was to change the name of the link (not the text on the map) so that it links directly to ] (as it does in the first paragraph of text) and not to FYROM which then redirects to Republic of Macedonia. (] (]) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

== A reminder ==

{{cquote|{{nutshell|Disruptive editors may be ] or ] indefinitely.}}
;Refusal to 'get the point'
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the ] of the community has rejected it, ], and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.
|4=from ]
}}
<small>Preceding unsigned comment added by ] at 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC). </small>

:What is the purpose of this reminder, and to whom is it directed? --] (]) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

==A reply to the "reminder"==

I like your idea of objectivity. First you do not object to the labeling all Greek users in the very '''"background" of the poll''' as an "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" faction! And then you slap a "reminder" for everybody to see and be guided (or, better, ''extorted'' under the threat of a ban!) into agreeing with your interpretation of policy! Where is your dignity? Where is your chivalry? Where is your sense of fair play? You wanted a poll to justify your claim? Well, what you have managed to do is to irreparably '''stain''' the one that has been initiated. I object to the fairness of how this poll was carried out, because it is evident that there are numerous attempts to manipulate the voters. Shame. ]] 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:I think this repeats what you said before, why post again? Second, what don't you like about "fiercely opposing"? I think it's a pretty honest description, if you see most of the editors who oppose the change found it useful to say "''strongly'' oppose". As for politicizing, is always unnecessary... while it's debatable if this issue is politicized or not... I doubt it's "shameful" to portrait it this way, what's sameful is your reaction and your accusations, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand and keep an even tone you started to shriek (repetedly even) ] 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

::If I am shrieking, I'm only shrieking to shrieks. If all these were obvious, if "strongly" was equivalent to "fiercely", if "politicizing" was evident, then it would be obvious for the ones who came here. No reason to put a billboard on top of it. But your problem is that it is ''not'' so, so you try your best to ''paint it'' this way. The ] is ''not'' a "shriek", it is a ''well documented, well sourced, and 100% WP policy based rationale''. That's why you cannot refute it with dignity, but only with slur and extortion. ]] 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:::I wasn't the one who cried "shame". As I see you could have said "I don't like how the oposition was described, while we strongly oppose I don't think "fiercely" is an appropriate term and the accusation of politizing is not necessary" -- that's concise, to the object, and non-shrieking. Personally I don't make a big difference between "strongly opposing" and "fiercely opposing" especially that the behavior on this page is closer to the later... but if you feel offended or wrongly described you can ask in different manner than to cry "shame!" in the talk page. As for politicizing... I'll let readers decide for themselves. I personally didn't mention politics nor have I accuse people of anything related, although I fail to see any other reason for existance, use, and promotion of the FYROM term itself. ] 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

::::No it wasn't you. You are the one who replies. The other one (who is the one who it ''was'') didn't cry "shame". He cried "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" ''in the poll's background section'' (!!!). The other other one (who is the second one who it also ''was'') didn't cry "shame" either. What he did was he posted a threating boilerplate that we should get the point otherwise he would use the guns we gave him against us. The other other other one (who is the third one who it also ''was''), is the one who keeps repeating what an organized faction we are so that he makes sure it never goes unnoticed by anybody who visits the page! We notice the effect of their actions in the rationales of the last support votes (which is totally *not* based on policy, but 100% based on these ethnic attacks!)... How gallant, how fair, how brave! Keep it on! ]] 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::3 of the last 4, to be precise. --] (]) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

==Comments to opposition rationale==
I've read your Opposition rationale and most of your points are not really sound. Your point about using FYROM in quotes where it is found is sound and should be maintained since we don't want to be falsifying quotes (but the reverse is also absolutely true--"Macedonia" in a quote should not be changed to FYROM). Your point about using the terms found in official lists is also sound since those are really just a different form of quote. But your argument about "ambiguity" in a statement such as "in the region of Macedonia bordering the Republic of Macedonia" is not sound. Such a phraseology is not unusual at all since we regularly distinguish between Congo, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo without resorting to such constructions as "the Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire" (or "Belgian Congo" or "Congo-Leopoldville", etc.). And Misplaced Pages is not, as we keep reiterating, bound by the constraints of either the UN or the European Union or NATO or anyone else. We can refer to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. even though these ''de facto'' independent states have no international status. "The region of Macedonia bordering on the Republic of Macedonia" is perfectly unambiguous since there is only one known entity called "Republic of Macedonia" and if the context of the article is Greece, then the region of Macedonia is perfectly unambiguous in context. You've constructed a paper tiger that is not destroyed at all by the reference to FYROM since there is no Greek Republic of Macedonia with which to get the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia confused with. (] (]) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

:Taivo, thank you for your productive input. Thank you for acknowledging that within the rationale there ''are'' sound arguments. You may, of course, weigh the arguments you agree with vs those you disagree with, and in the end decide differently, as you already did. But this is a matter of interpretation, of taste, of personal preference for one criterion's importance over that of the other. On the other hand, you must admit, that what I'm facing here is fear to even speak my opinion and my mind! I'm treated as a "nationalist" who "shrieks" and posts "rants". I'm threatened with bans! And it's not just me, it's all Greeks! Thank you for pointing out that we do not deserve this! To the essence of your argumentation I will respond briefly in a following post. ]] 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

::For ''ambiguity'', I must say that I face it constantly in my everyday life (not just my wiki-life), as I travel a lot (maybe twice a week) throughout the Balkans due to my work. My reply is that we must not judge with the eyes of a person who has been educated on the subject. Hell, if all were educated on the subject, there wouldn't even be a reason for the real-life dispute! If simple people could understand that ] are NOT the superset encompassing ] (aka "Macedonians" also, and without any qualifier) and ] (aka Macedonians regionally, but Bulgarians ethnically and consciously), but all of them above are ] then there wouldn't be any problem to begin with! If simple people could understand that a superset can have a name ''with'' qualifiers, and its subsets to be ''without'' qualifiers, then we'd all be happy! But in real life, people have been used to think the opposite. Now "republic of", is indeed a qualifier, but you must believe me, it's a qualifier that mixes up things even further. First because it goes unnoticed, as if you haven't read it. Second because even if you read it, instead of solving questions, it ''creates'' questions. Like what on earth is a region called ] doing outside the republic called ]? My solution adds two (black) words *outside* of the (blue) link, which could by all means exist in normal text! The country was *indeed* part of Yugoslavia, which immediately clears out that the republic and the Greek region are mutually exclusive! Would it be a problem to use the same clarification in other contexts? Like "The former Portuguese colony of Brazil has a different official language from most of its neighbors who speak Spanish." Now what's wrong with that? That it happens to hit some sensitive nationalist nerves? Hell I thought it was ''me'' accused of that! ]] 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:::The problem with disambiguating qualifiers is that there is no limit to them once you have opened the door. We must assume a minimum level of intellectual curiosity and intelligence for users of Misplaced Pages or else the whole affair topples like a house of cards. There are two Chinas, two Congos, "two" Macedonias. Your use of Brazil is not reasonable since there is only one Brazil. You should confine yourself to entities where there is a possibility of confusion. How does Misplaced Pages distinguish the two Chinas? One is the ] (PRC) and the other is the ] (ROC). How does Misplaced Pages distinguish the two Congos? One is the ] (DRCongo) and the other is the ] (ROCongo). We assume that our readers use the appropriate one. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to disambiguate the two Macedonias by ] and ]. It is perfectly parallel. We don't call DRCongo "the former Zaire" and we don't call ROC "Taiwan" and PRC "Mainland". We mention both designations within their articles, of course, and within direct quotes, but we don't use these terms on maps or in lists of neighboring countries. You are asking that we treat the Republic of Macedonia specially. The PRC is just as adamant about what ROC is called as Greece is about the Republic of Macedonia, perhaps even more so since PRC claims ROC as a province and Greece has no such territorial claims about the Republic of Macedonia. Misplaced Pages therefore has two very strong and relevant precedents for ''not'' using FYROM and setting its policy instead on Republic of Macedonia throughout. You cannot be insisting that we treat the Republic of Macedonia differently than we treat these other four independent countries. (] (]) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

::::Please read ]. ]] 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

== Naming per country ==

After reading most of the comments and positions that have been presented here, I came up with a proposal. Maybe this is not the right place to be presented, but it can always be moved to the talk page of a more relevant article, ] for example.
It was obvious for me to notice that for some users, the position of Greece, Greeks, International Organisations and many states in the world, is considered biased and POVish... So, why not using "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" according to ? In e.g. Greece- or Australia-related articles, "FYROM" shall be used, whereas in American- or British-related ones, "RoM" shall be.
This proposal may fix things, cause it really makes me sick watching attempts to install the name "Republic of Macedonia" all over Misplaced Pages, only in order to serve the FYROMian POV and certain departments of foreign affairs... Do '''not''' try to force a "solution" through the window... ] (]) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:You ignore the position that already exists in Misplaced Pages. Compare this with the "naming controversy" concerning Province of Taiwan/People's Republic of China (Mainland view) and Republic of China under Communist control/free Republic of China (Island view). No, we give each entity its own name that it chose itself: Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Thus it is perfectly parallel to let the Republic of Macedonia have the name which its people chose for itself. Misplaced Pages does not rely on international authority to give entities names. Thus, the Republic of the Congo-Kinshasa became Zaire and then the Democratic Republic of the Congo because its people wanted to. The unrecognized, but ''de facto'' independent Abkhazia is recognized as such here even though none of the international organizations that are named in support of FYROM even note its existence. Most international organizations call the Republic of China "Taiwan". No. That's no compromise, Hectorian. Misplaced Pages already has well-established precedents for using Republic of Macedonia. (] (]) 17:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
::Please read ]. ]] 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::One word. ]. Why it is not Myanmar again if "we give each entity its own name that it chose itself"? Sorry, but Misplaced Pages is far less straightforward as you might think.--] (]) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::If I am not wrong, the people of FYROM also agreed (though their elected government) to the usage of the term FYROM, in all international matters (and certainly they did not have Misplaced Pages in mind, yet Misplaced Pages is not a domestic matter in any case). In addition, the Greeks do not use the name "Greece" for their country, but if you know, ]. Furthermore, the inhabitants of the Greek Macedonia use the term Macedonians for themselves, but the respective article that was created, was deleted by the admins who voted "support" here... Thus, I doubt that Misplaced Pages already has well-established precedents... It seems that it has precedents when it fits the POV of certain editors and policies. ] (]) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::(ec)Re: Burma. Misplaced Pages does not react instantaneously. My question would be how many people who are fluent enough in English to edit Misplaced Pages really spend time cruising the Burmese realm? Not nearly so many as cruise the Greek and Macedonian articles. I read the chart on Taiwan/Republic of China and it is actually not far from what should be the case with the Republic of Macedonia. Notice carefully that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is an initial disambiguating reference and then the remainder of the references should be to "Republic of China" without "(Taiwan)". But I do note that that naming guideline is not "official" since consensus has not been reached, must as here. The only real question for the Greece article is the map. The first use of Republic of Macedonia in text has the disambiguating "FY", but the map should not include it. The map should be a straightforward representation of the names of the countries that surround Greece. It needs no disambiguation because it is a map and the disambiguation is in looking at the map. (] (]) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
::::Do you mean we should use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the beginning of the article and Republic of Macedonia thereafter (eg. in the map)? ]] 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::The only reason that Macedonians have used FYROM (reluctantly) is because of Greek pressure and coercion on the international bodies--it was certainly not their choice. And by using the names chosen by the people, you know that I meant the English translation of those names and not the literal transliterated words in the native language. (] (]) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
::::Why do you find that the Greek pressure invalidates the actual use that takes place? (and I didn't understand the transliteration bit) ]] 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Greek pressure invalidates the use of FYROM because that means that the people cannot use the name for their country that they, themselves, prefer. They prefer Republic of Macedonia, but since Greece has threatened every international organization with withdrawal if Macedonians are allowed to use the name they prefer, then they have forced a name that the Macedonian people themselves don't want in order to participate in international organizations. Are you seriously trying to say that FYROM is the ''preferred'' name by Macedonians? Get real. It's a compromise name because the Greeks would not allow them into international organizations with Republic of Macedonia. And the transliteration bit was because another editor asked why Hellas was not the name used for Greece. We don't use a transliteration (as in Hellas), but a translation (as in Greece). (] (]) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
::::::Perhaps, FYROM is the prefered name for the people of ], not for the "Macedonians". But since you have '''fixed''' your mind in exclusively naming "Macedonians" the people of that republic in the Balkans, I personally see little room for further discussion on the matter... ''Get real'' of what you support, and don't pretent to be someone that tries to reach concensus. Let the masks aside to see the real faces! You have seen the real faces of the Greeks, that you, so much accuse of nationalism... Remove the ] from your own faces for once! ] (]) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The people of the Republic of Macedonia self-identify ''primarily'' as Macedonians. The people of the Greek region of Macedonia self-identify primarily as Greeks, I would imagine, and Macedonian secondly. If you ask a Macedonian Greek what nationality or ethnicity he is, I don't think many would say "Macedonian". People from across the border, on the other hand, would, simply because that's their national rather than regional identity. So when (non-Greek) editors on Misplaced Pages speak of Macedonians, they generally mean people of the Macedonian nationality and ethnicity, not Greeks with a sub-national, non-ethnic regional identity. But I suspect you already know this... -- ] (]) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:57, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greece article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articlesGreece was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 12 dates. March 25, 2005, March 25, 2006, March 25, 2007, March 25, 2008, March 25, 2009, March 25, 2010, March 25, 2011, March 25, 2012, March 25, 2013, March 25, 2015, March 25, 2016, and March 25, 2017
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGreece: Byzantine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Additional comments
See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2018 September 6 for details.
Section sizes
Section size for Greece (58 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 15,227 15,227
Name 1,726 1,726
History 42 74,871
Prehistory and Aegean civilisations 5,569 5,569
Ancient Greece 10,344 10,344
Roman province (146 BC – 4th century AD) 6,918 6,918
Medieval period (4th–15th century) 10,681 10,681
Venetian possessions and Ottoman rule (15th century – 1821) 4,895 4,895
Modern nation-state 61 36,422
Greek War of Independence (1821–1832) 5,147 5,147
Kingdom of Greece 10,100 10,100
Expansion, disaster, and reconstruction 7,564 7,564
Dictatorship, World War II, and reconstruction 6,469 6,469
Third Hellenic Republic 7,081 7,081
Geography 9,707 20,116
Islands 1,533 1,533
Climate 3,722 3,722
Biodiversity 5,154 5,154
Politics 4,922 28,523
Political parties 5,596 5,596
Foreign relations 8,084 8,084
Military 3,055 3,055
Law and justice 883 883
Administrative divisions 5,983 5,983
Economy 13,097 57,894
Debt crisis (2010–2018) 16,353 16,353
Agriculture 2,216 2,216
Energy 2,651 2,651
Maritime 4,581 4,581
Tourism 5,742 5,742
Transport 4,946 4,946
Telecommunications 2,961 2,961
Science and technology 5,347 5,347
Demographics 3,293 37,412
Cities 1,746 1,746
Religion 11,577 11,577
Languages 6,193 6,193
Migration 5,746 5,746
Education 4,742 4,742
Healthcare system 4,115 4,115
Culture 2,874 45,096
Visual arts 3,702 3,702
Architecture 4,063 4,063
Theatre 3,026 3,026
Literature 3,833 3,833
Philosophy 3,182 3,182
Music and dances 7,645 7,645
Cuisine 2,864 2,864
Cinema 5,816 5,816
Sports 5,653 5,653
Public holidays and festivals 2,438 2,438
See also 155 155
Notes 50 50
References 17 10,480
Citations 36 36
Bibliography 9,868 9,868
Further reading 559 559
External links 1,129 1,129
Total 292,679 292,679

Religion

The part in the infobox talking about religion is largely outdated with more recen studies depicting a different attitude towards religion.

https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/562979893/dimoskopisi-dianeosis-statheri-axia-i-thriskeia-kai-nea-agonia-gia-to-klima/

This study says that 18.9% of the population doesnt believe in religion.

While in this study "The U.S. government estimates the total population at 10.5 million (midyear 2022). According to research polls, 81 to 90 percent of the population identifies as Greek Orthodox, 4 to 15 percent as atheist, and 2 percent as Muslim."

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/greece/ Takis S1 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Establishment

Why doesn't Greece on Misplaced Pages have establishment dates before 1830? In other countries you have establishment dates much earlier than the modern establishment of the state, such as Turkey, Egypt, Bulgaria, etc. There are many examples of the establishment of a Greek state in the past such as the Union of Corinth, the Union of Deilos, the Macedonian empire, and the later Byzantine empire. There is even a Misplaced Pages page that refers to it under the title "Greek Empire"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Greek_Empire Ypoferomai (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That's been repeatedly debated before, most recently at Talk:Greece/Archive_17#Why arent ancient/medieval Greek Kingdoms like the Macedonian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Myceneans, Minoans, Cycladics, Greek City States and so on included in the „Establishment“ part of the info box? and earlier at Talk:Greece/Archive_16#Inclusion of the League of Corinth in the infobox. The short answer is: there was never any state in history before 1830 that was called Greece, had any kind of historical continuity with the present-day state, or was even just roughly coextensive geographically with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that obviously these ancient states or entities couldn't really be added here as early stages of the modern Hellenic Republic, since, despite the fact they had a perception of "Greece", they did not exactly form one unified Greek state that developed into modern Greece. Same thing for Italy, where the establisment section doesn't include Rome. On the other hand, I used to think that this section was based primarily on continuity; while countries like France, the UK, Turkey etc. have a direct and unborken continuity with their previous empires, that's not the case with some other countries. One example is Egypt, where the section starts from the 4th millenium BC; can we actually claim that the modern Arab Republic of Egypt is a continuation of the ancient Egyptian kingdoms, at least in any meaningful way? I guess what counts here as "continuity" is the very name "Egypt" (?). But again, ancient Egypt ceased to exist as a state when it fell to the Romans in 31 BC (which is not mentioned there), well before the territory got conquered by the Arabs. Generally, these infoboxes can be very tricky. Piccco (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Albania, for example, fell into the hands of the Ottomans. Nevertheless, the kingdom of Arbanon is mentioned. The same is happening with Bulgaria. I think the same should be happening with Greece since there were many cases of Greek empires and alliances in the Greek peninsula such as the Corinthian league and the Macedonian empire. :) Ypoferomai (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The Albania article is a pretty bad example to follow, to my mind (Please don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because some other article does something a certain way, we should do it the same way in another – there are doubtless a lot of articles where things have gone wrong.) For Bulgaria (as for Egypt, Poland and a couple others), I've gone on record on an earlier occasion saying that I can at least marginally see a case for including them, given that they were clearly historical states that shared at least the name and the approximate territory, if not temporal continuity, with the present ones. Albania doesn't have that: there were historical states in what is now Albania, and inhabited/ruled by Albanians, but there was never a historical state of "Albania". Greece doesn't have it either. Just because there were certain states that were run by Greeks, or situated in what is now Greece, doesn't make these states "Greece". (Incidentally, the Greek Empire page you linked to is an utter mess and shouldn't exist.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I see your point regarding the other Balkan countries. I would like to kindly mention, however, that I still don't think it would be appropriate for anciet states or entities (like alliances etc.) to be used in the establishment section of the infobox of the modern Hellenic republic for the reasons that were given above. Piccco (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The Corinthian League was also called the Hellenic league. It was founded by Philip of Macedonia and was the predecessor of the Macedonian empire. Macedoniam empire also is considered as an example of Greek unification. Also the Byzantine empire was occasionally referred to by others as the Greeks.
Georgia (the country) has a reference to the ancient kingdoms of Iberia and Colchis even though it was not a unified state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/League_of_Corinth Ypoferomai (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
You are right for pointing this out; that is yet another example of bad usage of the establishment section in a country infobox. Piccco (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the various polities that you mentioned above are actually not ignored in the article, but are instead mentioned in the history section, which is the right place for all of them to be properly discussed. Among the other reasons given above, the sheer complexity of the various types of ancient Greek polities and other entities is impossible to be accurately represented in the overly simplistic infobox. Piccco (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Ypoferomai (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Greece#c-Ypoferomai-20240909151100-Piccco-20240909142300 Ypoferomai (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry something happened with wikipedia and I can't send a message.
I would also to say.
The Corinthian league was also called the Greek league and was a federation, not just an alliance. It had a way of organization just like the Mongolian Xiongnu confederation.
If you look at the wikipedia page for Mongolia it mentions this state as an earlier form of establishment of Mongolia.
Also, the Macedonian empire is an example of the unification of the Greeks as it is actually stated on the page of history. Ypoferomai (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't exactly disagree, but this is a bit too simplistic and not fitting for this infobox. I understand that you are an inexperienced user, so this might make sense to you, especially after seeing all these terribly wrong infoboxes in other countries. I'm not sure, but I believe Mongolia might be another example of bad infobox; it can't really be used for comparison. Piccco (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Are you an experienced user? Then what has Misplaced Pages really come to? The official name of Greece is not "Greece" it is the Hellenic Republic or Hellas. For the sake of combating misinformation it can be mentioned that all previous polities of Greece including the Corinthian league ,Athens, Sparta, the Macedonian Empire callled themselves Hellenes. 2A02:678:481:2100:5C8:4881:44EE:6BF (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Cities

The list of Greek cities shows Piraeus, which, however, as mentioned in the relevant article, belongs to the urban area of Athens. So I think that either Piraeus should be removed from the list of cities in the article, or that the other cities - municipalities that belong to Athens should be added. Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Changes in the text

Yesterday i made a change there that it was saying that Greece is considered the birthplace of western civilization. I wrote that Greece is the birthplace of western civilization. Also at the western civilization you have a wrong link that doesnt lead to the page of western civilization but leads to the western culture instead so i put the correct link. You changed again these things that i wrote. Why you dont let other members to edit the pages?Everyone can edit in wikipedia. And the changes that i made are both correct. Put again the changes that i made. Also in the paragraph in the economy page that you write the numbers of the gdp and gdp per capita are still the old ones while at the box in the first page are the new ones. You have to change them in the paragraph. Alikakii (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages content is determined by reliable sources and consensus, which you don't seem to understand. If others disagree with changes you've made, you need to make a case for your changes on the article talk pages and get a consensus; see WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I told you that the western civilization has a wrong link on it! It leads to a wrong page you can just see it when you click it! Its not difficult! Also if you go to the economy page in the first paragraph you havent changed the numbers of gdp with the new ones like you did on the box in the introduction page! Why you just cant check them to see it?? You answer me without even check them! Alikakii (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
So to be clear you think Western civilization or Western culture don't explain things properly or you think the link should simply link History of Western civilization over the parent article that explains what the term means? You are aware that there is no section discussing Greece in the history article.Moxy🍁 00:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Greece: Difference between revisions Add topic