Talk:Identity card of North Macedonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macedonian identity card. 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) 10:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia ID | State posessions cannot use the adjective "Macedonian"[edit]

The adjective "Macedonian" cannot be used in government or bodies financed partially by the government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Instead, these bodies have to be referred to as "of North Macedonia". This was mutually established and became officially legal in North Macedonia after the ratification of the Prespa Treaty. The government has already started the renaming of all institutions bearing the adjective "Macedonian" for that reason.

Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and in order to respect the sensitivity of both nations, the article should be referred to as it is legally accepted and established: "Identity card of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia identity card".

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-macedonia-rename-state-funded-bodies-anthem-61507425

https://www.amna.gr/en/article/340916/North-Macedonia-begins-renaming-state-institutions--agencies

https://balkaneu.com/government-in-north-macedonia-decides-to-change-the-names-of-136-institutions-in-the-country/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias I. Raptis (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Said agreement is not binding on Wikipedia in particular or the English language in general. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: After being open for 21 days, there is clearly no consensus to move to the suggested title. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Macedonian identity card → North Macedonian identity card – This is, I believe, an indisputably state-related entity. --Antondimak (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. While a passport could arguably be said to be state-related, this is a bit more complicated, because it's pertaining to the person's national identity, which according to WP:NCMAC and the majority of reliable sources is "Macedonian", not "North Macedonian". --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously I made the request so I support it. Regarding the view that this could also be seen as a descriptor of nationality, I disagree, as we are talking about a state-issued document, not using a phrase such as "a Macedonian actor". However, even if this is the case, according to WP:NCMAC "North Macedonian" can be used for the nationality in cases where confusion with the ethnicity should be avoided. I would argue that, even if we counted this as a nationality identifier, we should still use "North Macedonian", as it refers specifically to a document enshrining an relation with the state, which would also be owned by Albanian, Vlach, Turks, etc. living in North Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless we have evidence that it's called a North Macedonian identity card Red Slash 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean by that. --Antondimak (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Slash: We use WP:NCMAC to decide how to proceed, which in turn can be modified according to reliable sources. But if what you mean is that you want a reliable source that uses the name "North Macedonian identity card", here's the government of the Netherlands.
@Red Slash: - The Dutch link has been updated. It now says "Macedonian nationality: a valid passport or ID card of North Macedonia". --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the Dutch Government didn't have anything better to do over the weekend than dealing with the North Macedonian nationalism. Poor Dutch Government... :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can please the SPA-user above spend some time reading some of the guidelines of wikipedia instead of writing long meaningless non-NPOV essays that are more appropriate for a political forum and not for Wikipedia? Bold text in requested moves is used only to signify a !vote or as explained in the guideline "a course of action". How much more do we need to tolerate to finally accept that this user is apparently not here to build an encyclopedia? --Argean (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
happy now? :-) btw thanks for giving me some work, you look a very nice person Peace in balkans (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will never understand this obsession that the X of North Macedonia is not North Macedonian X. North Macedonians want to control the english language. Nikokiris (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And who exactly, are "we"? The Prespa agreement is a bilateral agreement in which both Greece and North Macedonia agreed that the adjectival usage is "of North Macedonia" with the allowance of "Macedonian". This is now a UN adopted terminology. Also, the term is "Macedonians" not "North Macedonians". --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the Prespa Agreement is bilateral, it is not binding for other countries. :-) If the Prespa Agreement wanted to prohibit the usage of the term North Macedonian, it would be explicitly written. If the nationality were Macedonian, it would be written. There is a reason that it's not there. There is also a reason that North Macedonian is not there. The reason is to convince the people to vote in the referendum and solve the problem after 27 years. The term is North Macedonians for the people of North Macedonia. You as an individual person you have the right to tell me that you find it offensive, and I have to respect it. But if there is North Macedonia, there are also North Macedonians. Maybe you are not one of them, but you know very well that there are many who self-identify as North Macedonians. Not everybody cares about names. The term North Macedonians is not new, it exists already but not in the level it is now. People of Macedonia region who live in the north are always North Macedonians, and those in the south are South Macedonians. Trying to convince us what the right term is probably means you have to zoom out for a moment. Expecting from the Prespa Agreement to tell you how you will call the people, the food, the culture, and the stones is silly. Is there any document/agreement that determines the name of people, food, culture, and stones found in Germany, Bolivia, or Uganda? NO! What makes you believe that we need such a document for North Macedonia? Please don't get me wrong, I don't say we should ignore the Prespa Agreement. I say that the Prespa Agreement doesn't tell us any of all these things that you think so. The Prespa Agreement determines the name of the country and the citizenship which is a noun, an official term that you put in e.g., travel documents. How you call the people of the country is not determined by the citizenship. If they wanted to do that, they would say citizenship=Macedonian or citizenship=North Macedonian, but they preferred to leave it open and make the agreement more attractive on both countries. In the end, how people will call the people of North Macedonia is a problem of people, I can call them North Macedonians like Tsipras here. DO you think that Tsipras violates the Prespa Agreement by calling them North Macedonians? It's obvious that neither Macedonian nor North Macedonian is a violation because the agreement doesn't stipulate the name of the people. Article 7 says what people believe in both countries and paragraph (5) of Article 7 clarifies that people of both countries can still call people in North Macedonia in any way they want. Peace in balkans (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Prespa Agreement is a bilateral agreement which bans the official use of the word "Macedonian" by authorities in North Macedonia, except as a compound in the form of "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" when it comes to citizenship. It's also a non-nationalist agreement which understands that the state doesn't have any authority over the language of private citizens and their culture, so it doesn't apply to any of us non-government officials, in any country. The North Macedonian government is also allowed to use the actual name of entities to refer to them, so it can use plain "Macedonian" and "Macedonia" to refer to anything that was named as such by a private citizen of a group of them. Therefore if the people keep calling themselves Macedonians, in a cultural sense, the state has no right to deny that. Now because the North Macedonian government didn't want to use "North Macedonian" for political reasons, that was banned as well, and it opted for "of North Macedonia" or just not using the country name ("Media Information Agency"). Wikipedia isn't bound by that agreement, but instead follows common English usage. Therefore we can use anything that English speakers use, despite of the agreement. What seemed to be the usage by reliable sources, and what we decided last year, was that in case of country-associated entities we use "North Macedonian" alone, if we use an adjective at all, when referring to ethnicity and language we use "Macedonian" only, and in other cases which can't be neatly sorted into these two categories we decide on a case-by-case basis. --Antondimak (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's an exceptionally good analysis of the problem Nikokiris (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Prespa agreement explicitly says that the nationality is Macedonian / citizen of North Macedonia. You can check the BBC style guide where you will also find that the nationality is "Macedonian" (download the document). So, no, it's not "an exceptionally good analysis of the problem". It's exceptionally uninformed and nationalistic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EU says according to the Prespa Agreement, the reference ‘Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia’ is to be used in its entirety. The citizenship is neither Macedonian nor North Macedonian. How citizens are called is a different story. The Prespa agreement doesn't stipulate how the citizens are called, it leaves it open. Article 7 says that people can be called in any way they like, but this doesn't mean that they can control the english language and enforce other people to use specific words. This is a fact, not nationalism, you don't miss the chance to offend me. Do we need BBC to tell us? Should I send you links of international organizations that use North Macedonian? Will it change your opinion? If not, why do you send links? Peace in balkans (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlavrSavr: Actually it's so exceptionally and intentionally uninformed that discovers the concept of South Macedonians to justify the use of North Macedonians! It's unbelievable that some people would do anything to push their propaganda, including distorting the history and the identity of a part of their own country! Anyway that user finally admits (see hatted text below) that they don't really care about WP:RS but more about what their political leader says, I am in the political party of SYRIZA, and our leader Tsipras says North Macedonians [...] If our leader who is the architect of the Prespa Agreement can do it, and nobody blames him or call him nationalist, then everybody can do it. Who cares about the BBC then? I think no further comments to this discussion are required. --Argean (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying South(ern) Macedonian is not an offensive word is very different than distortion of history and identity, but you mix up ethnic and political levels as discussed below. I introduce myself as Balkan, or Human, you can call me eastern southern or ..... It's up to you guys. I am happy when you are happy. No I don't care about BBC, I care about EU and all international/governmental organizations. Your definition or reliable sources is very biased as you can see from a long list of North Macedonian references that are not included in the page maintained by FlavrSavr. I suggest you to add all North Macedonian references first, and then to criticize others. I know you will not add them, but the right moment I will be here to add them myself as I did in the RfC in 2019. This is why you hate me, because I showed the truth to the ArbCom. Without me, the list of North Macedonian references would be manipulated. You can pretend that North Macedonian references are very few, but I will give you the answer again. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about this page, if you remember, it was me who insisted that it should stay open for all editors, and you come after a year and blame me for 'manipulating'? You're incredibly rude! I've been updating it almost on a daily basis, doing a Google News search, and updated both the "North Macedonian" and the "Macedonian" and "other" sections! You can easily see that from the edit history! The international news/references section hasn't been updated for some time, neither for "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" references. I haven't even added the BBC style guide yet! Feel free to edit, but bring about some constructive energy around, for a change. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant off-topic discussion on terms
People of Macedonia region who live in the north are always North Macedonians, and those in the south are South Macedonians Did you just call me and all other Greek Macedonians South Macedonians?! Are you talking seriously? Have you decided to start offending your compatriots now as well? Don't you ever call me a South Macedonian again my fellow Ρωμιέ... --Argean (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of geography there are South Macedonians but this term is not used in practice. Macedonian Greek or Greek Macedonian is used. But this doesn't mean that South Macedonians is wrong. Right or wrong depends on what you want to express. Do you say Northern Epirus and Northern Epirotes, but you don't say South Epirus and Southern Epirotes. Do you do it because you want to offend Northern Epirotes? Or do you think that suddenly the people from Northern Epirus started calling themselves Northern Epirotes. Everything takes time, it is a matter of language in the end. We cannot control english. The problem I see here is you start with the assumption that everybody who says North Macedonian wants to offend. You also believe that saying South Macedonians means I want to offend Greeks. You miss the point here and I spend a lot of time to explain you because this is the only way to understand each other and have Peace in Balkans. North Macedonia existed, it's not a creature of the Prespa Agreement. But it was only a geographical region. Now it is a political entity, a state. There is no better way to refer to its people than calling them North Macedonians. Saying that North Macedonians is offensive is like saying Greek Macedonian is offensive. The reason North Macedonian is considered offensive is because people want exclusive ownership on Macedonia. Unfortunately, North Macedonia is only the northern part of Macedonia. We have to play a fair game, either we call all people Macedonians, without saying Greek Macedonian or North Macedonian, and then nobody understands what we mean, or we say Greek Macedonians and North Macedonians. In Greece you say Macedonian and you mean the Greeks, in North Macedonia, you say Macedonian and you understand its people. But when you are not related to any of these countries and you talk about the people of Greece or North Macedonia, you will not say Macedonians, and it's not fair to say Macedonians for the North Macedonians, but Greek Macedonians. It's like you give exclusive ownership to North Macedonia. Wikipedia doesn't have the right to do that, and in practice we don't see it either. Trying to convince us that North Macedonians are called Macedonians makes no sense, we need a name that identifies them. The idea is the same on both terms, since all people of Macedonia are Macedonians in terms of geography we need a way to identify them, and in both cases we do it an obvious way by using the names of the country. Macedonians + North = North Macedonians, and Macedonians + Greek = Greek Macedonians. Common sense, simple english. Here we talk about passports and identity cards, and even if people can feel offended for some strange reason that I don't understand, I see no excuse for calling a document North Macedonian. Let's focus on the topic now. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Language is a bitch. North Macedonia existed no it didn't, northern Macedonia did. Does East Germany still exist? Eastern Germany or east Germany probably does, but you have to understand the differences between geographic and political terms. I can't follow your train of thought (if there exists one) - how many Macedonians are there for you (North, South, Greek)?! Are there many Luxembourgers too? What about Moldovans? You tend to write large paragraphs mixing up political, ethnic and cultural terms but in the end I have no idea what you are talking about. --Argean (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually you understood that everything depends on if you talk about political, ethnic, cultural or something else. Sorry if your problem is North Macedonian, but you accept Northern Macedonia, then okay. About ID and passports we should focus on the political level which is North Macedonia, and therefore North Macedonian ID, passport. If we talk about an ethnic passport or ID then it should be Macedonian for the Macedonians of North Macedonia, albanian for the Albanians of North Macedonia, and you can imagine the rest. But in a political level we have North Macedonian. Peace in balkans (talk)
Eventually you understood that everything depends on if you talk about political, ethnic, cultural or something else. No, I didn't - I said that you tend mixing up political, ethnic and cultural terms but in the end I have no idea what you are talking about, apparently because you don't have either. you accept Northern Macedonia, then okay Huh?! Thank you for discovering the rules of capitalisation in the English language. I am afraid you are still struggling with the differences between North, north and Northern though... --Argean (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I still do, you know when people talk there are no capital letters, they all sound the same to me. I only hear north-something Macedonian. It may have been north macedonian, north Macedonian, North Macedonian, Northern macedonian, northern Macedonian, northfgfgsjfs macedonian? you know... it was one of them but for sure not macedonian :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I still do, you know when people talk there are no capital letters Great, you are finally admitting that you don't want to be in wikipedia but in a political forum. You'll be great there, people like to write/talk a lot and they don't require WP:RS for their claims. --Argean (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the political party of SYRIZA, and our leader Tsipras says North Macedonians (see here). If our leader who is the architect of the Prespa Agreement can do it, and nobody blames him or call him nationalist, then everybody can do it. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? He didn't say North Macedonians, he wrote Βορειομακεδόνες. That's a different language you know!!! I am in the political party of SYRIZA, and our leader Tsipras Ok, it all makes sense now. --Argean (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
huh... sorry I thought you knew my love for Tsipras, this explains a lot, indeed. We have reached an agreement here, and you know not all people are willing to make a big jump and from "Northmacedonian or North-Macedonian or North Macedonian" in their language to use plain Macedonian in english. It's time to celebrate our big agreement. :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey... I think we need to stop here, because I haven't dealt with such a delusional train of thoughts for many years now and I feel really sorry for people that have to read this discussion. My sincere apologies to everyone. Peace in balkans (talk · contribs) feel free to continue discussion on my page or ideally outside wikipedia... --Argean (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Wikipedia as we all should know is neither an English grammar manual nor a history dissertation --Argean (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you believe that someone in the XYZ place who doesn't care about the naming dispute would call the identity card of North Macedonia differently than North Macedonian identity card? To put it in a different way, what makes you believe that someone in the XYZ place who doesn't care about the naming dispute would call the identity card of North Macedonia, Macedonian identity card? Or do you think that people would avoid adjectives and say identity card (North Macedonia)? You make the assumption that everybody has read the Prespa Agreement and has also interpret it in the same way with you. I will not comment on how they interpret it but I am quite confident that less than 0.001% has read the agreement. Nikokiris (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wikipedia doesn't take into account people's assumptions, interpretations or expectations, but as an encyclopedia reports facts. If something is called x by the majority of WP:RS you cannot name it y because you assume/expect/believe that most people do so. Again this mainly refers to article titles for obvious reasons, and there is a bunch of guidelines in Wikipedia that were not randomly created, but have been the result of years of hard work of dedicated people trying to deal with people's assumptions, expectations and (mis)beliefs. And then there is also WP:CONSENSUS, because Wikipedia is also a collaborative project and if all opinions and sources do not agree there then it's not all just black and white. There are solutions that can satisfy the high standards of an encyclopedia without creating unnecessary conflicts. --Argean (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The country has a new name starting from Febr 2019. Do you have evidence that reliable sources (of let's say year 2020) use Macedonian identity card or identity card (North Macedonia)? The obvious name is North Macedonian identity card, unless we have evidence for the opposite, but please don't ask me why? Ask the english language. Nikokiris (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match from WP:NAMECHANGES. I'm not the one to decide what the obvious name is. Are you? --Argean (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Since I like examples I will allow you the chance to explain to me what is the obvious name for a passport from Myanmar or another one from Eswatini.--Argean (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Greek friend again, this question has been answered on the talk page of the passport. I will give you a brief summary. There are some country names that do not have an obvious adjective, like San Marino, New Zealand, and maybe those you included. But this is not a reason to kick an existing proper adjective when it already exists like in the case of North Macedonian. My Macedonian Greek friend, I have a question for you here. Tsipras said North Macedonians referring to the people of North Macedonia. Do you think that he violates the Prespa Agreement? Why the North Macedonian government didn't react and Tsipras apologized? Because the Prespa Agreement doesn't determine the name of people and actually it would be wrong if it tried to determine it. You can read my full comment above, where I responded to our friend from North Macedonia. Peace in balkans (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote myself Wikipedia as we all should know is neither an English grammar manual nor a history dissertation. I will add dictionary and news agency to the above and stop there because it's so tiring to read irrelevant comments that fail to engage in understanding what Wikipedia is and what is not.
PS. Oh yes, and by the way please add one more page to your reading schedule. List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. --Argean (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me work. But what's the point to read what has been written in Wikipedia by the same people who complain here about the feelings of a passport or an identity card? I care more about what people use in practice and not what wikipedia says. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support North Macedonian in line with WP:MOSMAC, I can work with identity card of North Macedonia, which is also in line with WP:MOSMAC but I don't see a reason to control the english language and handle North Macedonia in a different way than other countries and I see that everyday by living in the UK. Peace in balkans (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not enough sources indicating the frequent use of North Macedonian as opposed to Macedonian. So all in all, definitely not in line with WP:MOSMAC. — Tom(T2ME) 19:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well there aren't enough sources indicating the frequent use of Macedonian as opposed to "North Macedonian". It just isn't something that is often written about. That's why we have [WP:MOSMAC]]. We don't have to argue on sources for every case. --Antondimak (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when we are talking about WP:NAMECHANGES If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. Indeed, the reason why we have WP:MOSMAC is to avoid unnecessary disputes due to the lack of a large number of WP:RS articles about the subjects on question. That doesn't mean that WP:MOSMAC should be used to make a WP:POINT when this is not supported by relevant sources - that's against the principle of consensus-building. Neutral formulations are always better in that case to allow time for sources to settle and new consensus to emerge. --Argean (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I assume the neutral form in this case would be "Identity card (North Macedonia)"? --Antondimak (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I already suggested above, but that's my personal opinion - it's always subject to discussion looking for consensus building. --Argean (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: None of the solutions are directly indicated or counterindicated by WP:MOSMAC. The string "North Macedonian identity card" -wiki for the suggested title has zero (occationally one) hits outside Wikipedia. No need to change. --T*U (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same as "Macedonian identity card". This is the only non-wiki link I found that uses it on the first page of Google. --Antondimak (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate, the string "Macedonian identity card" -wiki returns about 1,470 results. --Argean (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argean you taught me recently rules about wikipedia, and thank you for that. This is my turn to teach you. If you want to search in google, you should follow the steps below:
1) write the string within quotes, e.g., "north macedonian identity card"
2) on the top of the page, go to Tools
3) click on "Any Time" and change it to "Custom range"
4) enter dates using the calendar, from 12.02.2019 (new name of North Macedonia) to 25.05.2020
Result: there are ZERO results of reliable sources (regardless what reliable means here) for both "North Macedonian identity card" and "Macedonian identity card"
Conclusion: North Macedonia is not that important such that the whole world writes article about passports, identity cards, stones, benches, glasses, food of North Macedonia.
Second Conclusion, we will not wait until reliable sources write articles about the mountains of North Macedonia in order to call them North Macedonian mountains. Common sense is a well-known term all over the world. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, if it's not important then do us a favour and relieve us from your mission to teach wikipedia common sense. Start your mission with teaching the world how to do it properly first. --Argean (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replicated the procedure and I found that after the name change there are two sources using "Macedonian identity card", a LinkedIn page 3 days after the name change, which probably wasn't updated for that reason, and a page that still uses "Macedonia" for the country. Thing is, again, that there are no reliable sources for either option, so using sources as an argument for one or the other option isn't productive, unless a third alternative can be found that has significant usage among reliable (not necessarily under the same criteria normally used) sources. We go by WP:MOSMAC. --Antondimak (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, there are no sources using "North Macedonian identity card". I already mentioned what my opinion is - I would support a neutral formulation based on lack of WP:RS. I agree that we should go by WP:MOSMAC and the conclusion of the RfC was that there is no concesus to use adjectives except if this is supported by sources - just quoting the closing panel which finds that the consensus, based on policy, is to follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue. The usage of the reliable sources will often be dependent on context and common sense. The consensus for the use of the adjective "North Macedonian" per RfC refers to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement such as the officially renamed institutions here where according to WP:MOSMAC in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms. For everything else we still need to rely on WP:RS to support WP:NAMECHANGES. WP:MOSMAC should be used as a tool for consensus not misused conveniently as an instrument to prove a point, and Wikipedia should be descriptive and not prescriptive. --Argean (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that a state-issued document would clearly be classified among the entities for which "North Macedonian" is used according to WP:MOSMAC. It seems crazy that this is disputed, but maybe that's just me. If it causes so much controversy I'd be willing to support your proposal if it proves to be more widely accepted. Anything that doesn't ignore last year's consensus like the current title. --Antondimak (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again my personal opinion is that "North Macedonian" would be the right adjective if one had to be used in a sentence like "an individual with a North Macedonian ID card" but this doesn't mean that we are forced to add an adjective to the article title except if this is supported by WP:RS. It's a very difficult proccess drawing the line between the use of "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" and rules like commonality, verifiability, and neutrality always apply. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't stretch WP:MOSMAC for reasons of grammatical convenience - in this particular case, would anyone searching in wikipedia for Macedonian identity card or North Macedonian identity card look for anything else than Identity Card (North Macedonia) or North Macedonia Identity Card? Isn't the same like Bosnia and Herzegovina identity card?--Argean (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point but it may not be necessary to avoid adjectival usage just because we can. We could do it if we can't agree on what the adjective should be (as seems to be happening), but ideally we should go for the most natural option of using an adjective, and in that case we use the WP:MOSMAC one. If the indecisiveness continues it would indeed by a good option to go for "North Macedonian" inside the article but avoid it in the title. --Antondimak (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm the one having the most reservations on using the adjective North Macedonian in this particular article. But again if you ask me specifically, I would go for a similar option to Bosnia and Herzegovina identity card, which avoids the adjective in the title but uses it when required later on in the text. For this specific article I would keep the adjective only in the introductory sentence, the infobox and in the sentence The XXX-ian ID card can be used for. I would also likely include in the opening sentence something like (also known as Macedonian identity card prior to 2019) - there are pictures of the pre-2019 ID card on the page anyway and it would be strange to call it North Macedonian identity card anachronistically. Now, as a general comment, you might remember that I was very concerned about the use of adjectives even before the RfC on updating WP:MOSMAC took place last year - I still am, not rather because adjectives are a problem themselves but mostly because many people use adjectives in order to assign specific attributes. That's what I consider prescriptive, so I prefer to rely on how WP:RS treat an issue to decide especially on article titles. --Argean (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we're overdoing it when it comes to "historical usage". Adding disclaimers everywhere and using double names is confusing and clogs the articles. I don't believe it follows the spirit of WP:MOSMAC, which said that "Macedonia" could be used for historical purposes, while sometimes also using "now North Macedonia" when necessary. I don't think the aim was that anything relating to the country would use double names throughout the article just because it is somehow related to something that happened in the past, which is what usually happens now. People also tend to forget that it was the pre-2019 name that was the controversial one, not the post-2019 one, and are, purposefully or not, trying to rewrite history. Anyway that's another topic, but felt it was important to mention it. When it comes to the article, we should probably remove the disclaimer you propose when photos of the new identity cards become available. --Antondimak (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History was written at the time it was made. Changing names retrospectively is rewriting history and removing objects is obscuring history. Both names were and still are controversial for some people - we are not here to judge that. Indeed let's please stay on topic. --Argean (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Argean, but no concensus to use adjectives except if this is supported by sources strikes me as a rather tortured, selective reading of the guideline. You could just as well say there is "no consensus to use *anything else* than adjectives" except if it's supported by sources. The phrase "in line with the reliable sources" certainly wasn't intended to mean a condition of "only if and when adjectives are found in some specific source for one exact word combination". It's a general observation that reliable sources are using adjectives, cited as a justification for us to do the same. The issue is not whether sources have used this or that form for this specific combination with the exact word "identity card", but to what extent they generally use such expressions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Fut.Perf. if this reads as a selective reference to the guideline - that wasn't my intention. My understanding of the guideline and the conclusion I'm supporting on the above comment is not that we should demand the use of an exact word combination in WP:RS to justify it, but the use of specific adjectives with respect to the specific topic at issue. If an issue is not addressed by WP:RS then I wouldn't point my finger to one or another direction, but prefer to await until the issue is settled and consensus can be easily achieved. It's not our job to determine how a topic should be dealt with regards to the use of terms, but how this topic is actually being treated. Again can you or anyone else draw a line between Macedonian or North Macedonian as being the correct term in each and every topic? --Argean (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Lack of reliable sources was the reason for all those who opposed. Future Perfect at Sunrise explained to Argean's comment that this is a selective reading of the guideline. After this explanation, I would rather guess that all those who opposed before, they now support the move request and we can reach consensus, if there are no other reasons to oppose. Nikokiris (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is really a weird argument and a very strange interpretation of Fut.Perf.'s comment. The fact that no sources at all use the suggested title is not necessarily a compelling argument for the current title, but it certainly cannot be used as an argument for changing it. The current title is not in conflict with WP:MOSMAC, and in my opinion it is not problematic in any other way, so there is no reason to change it. --T*U (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus about North Macedonian passport. Having North Macedonian passport but Macedonian Identity card is a weird situation and looks more as an effort to control the name of the country. Both documents are issued to the same people. Keeping Macedonian for the identity card although there is consensus for North Macedonian passport sounds like reliable sources say North Macedonian passport but they don't say North Macedonian identity card, which is nonsense. Nikokiris (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Identity_card_of_North_Macedonia&oldid=1202468520"