Talk:2008 Macedonian parliamentary election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

North Macedonia Top‑importance

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Election article moves[edit]

The discussion in this section was moved from User talk:Kékrōps after the #Requested move process was initiated.

I saw you moved all the election articles to "Republic of Macedonia xxx election" citing WP:MOSMAC. I have two problems with this. Firstly, Macedonian is the common demonym for the country (see List of adjectival forms of place names) and is unlikely to be confused with any other country. Secondly, WP:MOSMAC is not a policy or guideline, merely a proposal and I don't believe that citing it when moving the pages is very constructive. Please refrain from doing so again until the policy/guideline is accepted by the community, or, if you still wish to make the moves, please do it via WP:RM. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Number57, just for the record. —Nightstallion 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I find your arguments rather inadequate. "American" is the common demonym for the United States in English, but that doesn't stop us having a series of United States presidential election articles. We also have a Guernsey general election, 2008, a Jersey general election, 2008, a Paris municipal election, 2008 and a Vojvodina parliamentary election, 2008, i.e. there is no rule that dictates the use of adjectival forms in election article titles. Secondly, on what do you base your assertion that "Macedonian" is "unlikely to be confused with any other country"? A cursory glance at the list of entries on the relevant disambiguation page should suffice to establish that the opposite is in fact true. Why couldn't Macedonian parliamentary election, for example, refer to a parliamentary election held in the bigger Macedonia? The only way to avoid this is to use the country's established (and unambiguous) name on Wikipedia, rather than the controversial and very ambiguous demonym. Besides, according to the definition in the lead of the relevant article, demonyms refer to the "members of a people or the inhabitants of a place", not elections. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a rule, but sometimes it isn't implemented either because there has been community consensus over the use of the name (there were several decisions on using United States as the adjectival form (which is legitimate - one can talk about the US government, but the "France government" just isn't right)), or because (in the case of Jersey and Guernsey), their demonyms are barely known (I believe for Guernsey it's something like Dgernais, but I have no idea for Jersey) and almost never used (I've never heard them in the UK media for instance). As for the Paris one, I have moved it to "Parisian" per the standard format. I'm not sure about the Vojvodina demonym (there isn't one in the Oxford English dictionary), but I'll look into that. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus after a month. JPG-GR (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to move the page to the correct (IMO) Republic of Macedonia parliamentary election, 2008, or to 2008 Parliamentary election in the Republic of Macedonia, but noticed that it's been done in the past and reverted (on a non-argument).

The issue here is that there may very well be a separate article on (the other) Macedonia parliamentary elections, or even people greatly confused that in Greece there can be/were a separate election only for one of its regions (like e.g. yesterday that the two major US parties voted in two-three US states). Another reason is that "Republic of Macedonia" is the name of the article on the country (i.e. NOT Macedonia period, which is -of course- a dab page). A third reason is that this name cannot possibly be insulting or whatever to an inhabitant of that country, being its constitutional name (unlike of course the existing alternative which is completely disregarding even the flimsiest Greek concerns on things like this, this, this etc etc). A fourth reason is that the opposing pro-Greek-POV would suggest a move towards ...FYROMian parliamentary election, 2008, which is not what nationalist-yours-truly proposes here.

In the interest of avoiding move quarrels, I'm posting this message here for now, awaiting positive feedback. Thanks. Niko Silver 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is absolutely horrible. If you want to have it at an RoM title, that would be "Republic of Macedonia parliamentary election, 2008" (we've got naming conventions for election articles for a reason, you know), but even then, I suppose the move would be controversial and thus a WP:RM would be necessary. I've reverted your move for now pending consensus. —Nightstallion 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I agree with the better title you suggest in the RoM case. I'm moving to that one, on the basis that I see it as a non-controversial move. Anybody with an agenda (for either biased version) is welcome to apply for an WP:RM, backed of course with some sort of reasoning. For now, there is no counter proposal, or counter rationale, so I don't see any lack of consensus. Niko Silver 21:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed in the history of the proposed title that there's been a null-edit to disallow move-over-redirect. I'm moving this to WP:RM now. Niko Silver 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the ambiguity here? Were there parliamentary elections for any other entity called Macedonia in 2008. Cf. Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries which, unlike Republican Party (United States), is not disambiguated as Results of the 2008 Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries since the specific subject at hand is not ambiguous. Even if the Republic of Macedonia as a whole needs disambiguation, it does not follow that all sub-articles do as well, especially when it requires replacing an adjective with a noun. — AjaxSmack 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity lies in the fact that Macedonia ≠ Macedonia < Macedonia. In your inapplicable example there aren't any "presidential primaries" (in that exact awkward terminology) taking place for other republican parties elsewhere. On the contrary, common "elections" (≠special "primaries") do take place in Macedonia, and if not in 2008, the situation can very well be conflicting in another year since elections are a very frequent event. Changing an adjective with a noun should not be a crime (unlike monopolizing a whole geographic region, for example). Niko Silver 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no single adminstrative entity of Macedonia in Greece, and as regional elections in Greece are held at the same time as far as I'm aware and therefore will be found at Greek regional elections, YEAR, I see no reason to disambiguate in this case. —Nightstallion 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any reason to disambiguate by using RoM. There is no confusion here. Narson (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Nightstallion about the elections. A similar case would be the Luxembourgian communal election, 2005. The communes of Luxembourg have elections but Luxembourg (Belgium) also has communes (usually called municipalities in English) and, according to this, they also have elections. Nevertheless, there is no ambiguity since these would be covered under Belgian municipal elections, 2006. I assume good faith, but my guess is that nationalist rivalry might be in play here. — AjaxSmack 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Greek nationalist would ever accept "Republic of Macedonia" as a decent solution, if that's what you mean. Niko Silver 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - if the naming dispute has its own article, we should disambiguate. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as explained above. —Nightstallion 07:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, bogus "disambiguation" arguments are again being used for POV reasons that have much less to do with disambiguation than with "flagging" a term some people don't like with as many irrelevant modifiers as possible. Disambiguation is not an issue; there is no other entity in the world called "Macedonia" that even has a parliament. To Sceptre: That the name is disputed is one thing, but that doesn't affect our naming practices according to WP:NCON; whether it presents a disambiguation problem is an entirely different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From Wikipedia:NCON#Proper_nouns (selective quotations):
  - If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory).
  - 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)
- Where exactly do you derive that "that doesn't affect our naming practices according to WP:NCON"?? Niko Silver 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just to make it clear, per my above comment, there is no reason to disambiguate. Narson (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Disambiguation is not the only criterion (see above the reply in Fut.Perf.'s comment). And "there is no reason not to rename" either. Niko Silver 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although there is indeed no possibility to confuse these elections with any other "Macedonian" elections, I am per the move for the following reasons: 1) The term "Macedonian" referring not just to FYROM and the "ethnic Macedonians", but to the Macedonians in general (including the Greek Macedonians) shouldn't be monopolised. Its use in the article's title creates such a sense of monopoly and spreads IMO a wrong impression. 2) Having in mind argument 1, I do not see why it is a problem to use the country's name in the title, as it happens with other similar articles, e.g. about UK's general elections. Therefore, dis. may indeed not be an issue but the naming dispute (correctly pointed by Sceptre) and the propriatery attitude towards "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" are indeed an issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "monopolisation" is a simple fact of the English language. You may like it or not, but the English-speaking world has overwhelmingly adopted the usage where "Macedonia(n)", in the absence of specification to the contrary, refers to the republic. Wikipedia's principle is to follow common English usage. By using "Republic of..." as often as we do, we are already significantly lagging back behind the linguistic realities; we probably shouldn't. We certainly shouldn't use that specifier compulsively. True disambiguation needs are an issue where they are genuine and judged with common sense; I thank you for your realistic judgment in conceding that this is not an issue here. But concern over "monopolisation" and the "wrong impression" it spreads is a POV argument that we simply cannot and must not take into account. This is exactly what WP:NCON states: "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is 'right' or 'wrong'". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is valid (if it is correct or not is another issue that can and will be judged) and will be taken into account, because it is not based on a POV rationale, but on the need for strictly encyclopedic reasons not to give to the project's readers a wrong impression, that anything "Macedonian" is "RoM Macedonian"! "Wrong impressions" are an encyclopedic issue!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nikos is fundamentally right, of course. While some may believe there is no legitimate reason to rename the article, there is no legitimate reason not to rename it either. I think it boils down to a choice between a genuinely neutral article title and the inherent bias of those who oppose it simply for having been proposed by "the Greeks". The latter have their own bias, of course, but I don't see how the proposal is objectionable in terms of Wikipedia convention or policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In my book, there's an undisputed Macedonia that includes both "contestants". Surprisingly the Greeks actually propose "Republic of" as a qualifier so as to disambiguate from their own Macedonia. And you're about to turn them down?? WP:NCON clearly mentions different approaches for "disputed" names, clearly includes "official" and "self-identifying" names such as the one proposed, and -of course- that exact name is the name of the article on the country itself, having been decided after humongous edit war, debate and quarrel. Some seem to want to start this all over again for no reason. I want to assume good faith, but the issue for some here seems to boil down to "Hey, how are we gonna bug Greeks the most?" Now granted, for most countries it would be silly to have the full name ("Republic of Bulgaria...", "Kingdom of Spain..."), but Macedonia is, as ever, the exception to the rule. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not about the country name. The country name is of course disambiguated properly, with "Republic of...", where it occurs, i.e. in the first sentence of the text. This is about the derived adjective. There is no way of disambiguating the adjective. The disagreement is whether we must therefore avoid the adjective at all costs. The cost is to have a title that is significantly longer, more cumbersome and less elegant. We shouldn't. We shouldn't put fetters on our linguistic and stylistic flexibility out of an exaggerated concern of being politically correct. Titles need to be short and crisp. Even if they contain potentially ambiguous word, there is no reason to insist on maximum disambiguation in them as long as the meaning of the title as a whole is clear. "Macedonia" is ambiguous. "Macedonian parliamentary elections" is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: But it is. The "other" Macedonia also elects members of parliament, and an outsider is under no obligation to know that it necessarily does so at the same time as the rest of Greece, or that it doesn't have its own regional parliament, for that matter. And why aren't brevity, elegance, and "linguistic and stylistic flexibility" a concern at United States presidential election, 2008 and United Kingdom general election, 2005? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would only be a "Macedonian parliamentary election" if Macedonia had its own parliament, which it hasn't. Is a reader under an obligation to know this? No, of course not. Just as they are under no obligation to know that Luxembourg (Belgium) has no separate parliament either. But the point is, we have no reason to expect that a significant number of readers would assume the opposite. The idea that some obscure sub-national regional entity hypothetically might have its own parliamentary elections, while theoretically a possibility, is so marginal that there's no reason we should take it into account for purposes of naming articles. This is normal procedure: Article titles of the format "X'ian Y", where X is theoretically ambiguous but one clearly predominant referent exists in connection with Y, do not normally get further disambiguated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - P.S.: In fact, we routinely tolerate even a lot more ambiguity in article titles. London County Council, London borough, London (electoral district), London Assembly, London Police Service and London City Council all lack disambiguation in the title. (Guess what each refers to before you follow the links.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What's that old adage of yours? But we can do better... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No need, current title is good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And we have 5 editors here who say it isn't. It's very debatable, as is the degree to which Macedonia is, or should be, as "obscure" as Belgian Luxembourg. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        @Fut.Perf. (ECx3) : There are examples for both versions (such as US and UK elections), so let's simply call it even in that regard.
        
        I think the core of our dispute lies in one sentence of yours: "We shouldn't put fetters on our linguistic and stylistic flexibility out of an exaggerated concern of being politically correct." My reply is simple: The hell we shouldn't!! "Linguistic and stylistic flexibility" is the silliest reason of all. To think that the real problems out there in the world are less important than your your perceived linguistic ease borders absurdity. And for what reason should an article title be "stylistically flexible" (lol) rather than "correct", consistent, un-ambiguous, non-offensive, non-divisive, non-irredentist... et al? "Linguistic oversensitivity" is the highest form of "political correctness" in my book! It is the most bogus argument of all. Niko Silver 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that this is the core of our dispute. I want to be able to talk about Macedonian matters like a reasonable author to reasonable readers, getting facts across in the most relaxed and natural way possible, following what normal English speakers do. You want to take our coverage of Macedonian matters hostage with your partisan ideological oversensitivities. I can understand that it's difficult for you to overcome this urge, but Wikipedia is all about not giving in to those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your opposition to anything remotely reflecting the Greek position is hardly less partisan or ideological. Please don't pretend otherwise; it's patronizing, to say the least. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Kekrops, I don't remotely think that way for Fut.Perf.. I think that he is just a partisan of linguistics. He is obsessed with the idea of "relaxed stylistic flexibility" to the point of not understanding (or under-evaluating) that his view is, in fact, promoting a very very bad POV. There's an opposite view to his; that of "FYROM parliamentary election, 2008"... They're both equally partisan. Niko Silver 11:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        His involvement in every conceivable political issue relating to Greece's international relations means that linguistics is nowhere near his only concern on Wikipedia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thank you for trying to understand my position, bu it's not being partisan of "linguistics", in this instance (though in some others). It's being partisan of good writing. A.k.a. of being an encyclopedia author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody deprives you of "good writing" within article text and stuff; it's just the official name of the article for Chrissake, and there's damn good excuse for it. Encyclopedia authors do care about not being a dick when they don't have to. Think about it. Niko Silver 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Un-ambiguous, un-controversial, consistent, non-offensive, and self-identifying title. WP:NCON clearly foresees the case (see above reply to Fut.Perf.). Niko Silver 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Forgot to mention it above. — AjaxSmack 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Yannismarou and Biruitorul. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Yannismarou, Biruitorul and NikoSilver. There is not much left to say; it's simple, non-offensive, unambiguous and WP:NCON clearly applies here. --157.228.x.x (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agreeing with Yannismarou. Pel thal (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious how the two examples used as arguments in support of the move have "United" in front of them, which is exactly what the Greeks don't want for this. Balkan Fever 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, see, when necessary, we are more innovative than you expect! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per everyone that has actual arguments. Macedonian is the adjective, and there are no "Macedonian parliamentary election" articles that refer to Greece. Balkan Fever 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the page move, in accordance to the argument of User:Yannismarou. ktr (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support move of "Macedonian parliamentary election, 2008," to "Republic of Macedonia parliamentary election, 2008," as an unambiguous and inoffensive choice. Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by Nightstallion, there are no "Macedonian parliamentary election" articles for Greece, and so there is no ambiguity. Also, offensiveness is no reason to move the page, as shown by Fut. Perf. Balkan Fever 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That there are no "Macedonian parliamentary elections" in Greece may be true, but the claimed unambiguity of such a title presupposes the reader's awareness of that — which may be requiring more of him than is fair. Nihil novi (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Supports from user:NikoSilver (nom), user:Kékrōps (who moved them once), user:Yannismarou, user:כתר, user:157.228.x.x and user:Pel thal who all happen to be Greek. AjaxSmack seems to have been right. Balkan Fever 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "support" votes are on the part of Greeks. In any case, this is a class–ad hominem argument. Nihil novi (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all, but such a concern was already raised by others. I'm just saying. Balkan Fever 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that in order to claim impartiality in this you should have added yourself too in your list of partisan opinions? Niko Silver 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming impartiality (but trust me, I know my demonym). What's happening here is exactly what I and, importantly, others expected. Balkan Fever 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others who are favorable of your opinions I suppose?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. All these people voted and presented actual arguments before me, and some of them I've never even met. Balkan Fever 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Grow up" ?!!! Please, try to temper a bit your obvious furstration!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against - there are no 22 000 countries with the name Macedonia. If we change Macedonian to Republic of Macedonia, then every article about elections of other countries should be changed from the adjective to the nema of the country, for instance Spanish elections to Elections in the Kingdom of Spain. It is very ...... uncommon --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may not be 22 000, but I count at least four important ones in Macedonia, and they all claim to be "the real" one. For me, "the real" Macedonia is the whole geographic region that encompasses all of them. The region hasn't held elections as of yet. On the contrary, there's only one Spain, and the article is exactly there in "Spain", unlike Republic of Macedonia which has the modifier. The same goes for the adjective: Macedonian vs Spaniard or Spanish. That's what happens when you choose an ambiguous name, and when you insist in not using a modifier to disambiguate from the others. Niko Silver 10:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP does use a modifier for the Macedonian Slavs across all articles: "Ethnic". Unfortunately, in this case, we cannot use "ethnic", because the population of the country consists of various important minorities (notably 25.4% Albanians). So, in this case, and since not only ethnic Macedonians participate in the vote, there is one more misleading assumption that the casual reader may draw by reading the incorrect present title: We are using the WP:OR legalistic term "Macedonian" to describe all the citizens of the self-styling homonymous country, regardless if they identify as such (or vehemently oppose to do so, as in the case of Albanians). Niko Silver 10:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making this a drama. Something in/from the Republic of Macedonia is Macedonian by default, and parliamentary elections cannot self-identify. The ethnic minorities may be of relevance to the article, but they are certainly not in this discussion. Balkan Fever 11:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling people not to do what you are doing. Also, stop piping Republic of Macedonia to "Macedonian" to make yourself clear only to those who use mouseover. Finally, your aphorism that something I mention is relevant to the article but ...not relevant to the discussion is not productive, unless you can explain why. Niko Silver 12:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said we shouldn't use "Macedonian" because there is an Albanian minority. That means we should move the Slovak parliamentary election articles because Hungarians participate. Basically elections in every country with minorities should be moved, which leaves only Greece ;). Balkan Fever 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25.4% is a great number, and still, the misconception may reasonably apply. I also said that "Macedonian" is more ambiguous than "Spanish" because there is no Spain (region) encompassing 3 different ethnicities self-identifying as "Macedonian" and calling their language/dialect "Macedonian". Finally, there isn't any other Slovakia or any Slovakian region either. Niko Silver 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, liked or not the adjecticve remains the same- Macedonian. This is rediculous...--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL. I do not like your authoritative tone either. Niko Silver 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Macedonian is the common English demonym for the country, regardless of the extremely petty dispute perpetuated by Greece, and the fact that there is no Greek-Macedonian parliament means that there is clearly no need to disambiguate. The fact that several of the editors supporting this move are Greek (including one who has serious POV issues when it comes to Macedonia and Northern Cyprus) just serves to highlight the fact that the nationalist fever has reached this topic (and should be ignored)... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is the 2008 election, aren't the results in yet?[edit]

"The outcome of the elections in the Albanian bloc of parties are not yet known due to irregularities in the election process, as voting in many parts of the Republic with dominant Albanian populations is expected to be repeated. According to the preliminary results, the Democratic Union for Integration has a slight lead over the Democratic Party of Albanians among the Albanian electorate. However, both parties claim a large margin of victory. As such, both parties are asking for a repetition of the elections, since both claim multiple polls show them to be the winners among the Albanian portion of the electorate." So... do we know what happened now it's 2009?

It also bothers me that the lead to the article is full of the results of various opinion polls in the run-up to the election, talking about them as if they had only just happened at the time of writing ("recent polls") but nowhere in the lead does it say who actually won the election which is surely the thing that matters? I'm sure the opinion poll information can be put into a more appropriate context and bundled into the main body of the article somewhere? 78.32.103.197 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macedonian parliamentary election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]