Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Splitting the article into 2 smaller ones, or re-ordering content?

If the Prespa Agreement is successfully ratified by the Greek Parliament next week (the vote will occur between 20 and 26 of January month, as stated by the Greek authorities), then how about re-organizing the article or splitting it?

An idea would be: to reorganize it and divide it into 2 large super-sections: one super-section about the history of the Naming Dispute, (and merge to it the Greek and Macedonian positions which currently are on their own, at the bottom half of the article), and one super-section about the deal itself. This is suggested with the future developments in mind, which, as time passes, more information is being added to the article and is marking the the Prespa Agreement section much larger than originally expected. This pushes further down the sections about Greek/Macedonian positions, which I feel they are better (makes more sense) to be placed BEFORE the Prespa Deal, or at least, near the beginning, and certainly before the negotiations section. Readers would like to be updated on the views of the two parties, as part of their reading about the dispute's history, instead of reading about them after the the developments and negotiations (which are influenced by these national positions in the first place). (currently, the national positions are placed after negotiations/Prespa Agreement sections, which make no sense at all).

However, I think we should consider an alternative to the above idea: having the article split into 2 smaller ones: one for the Prespa Agreement (if and once it is finally ratified by both sides), and one about the Naming Dispute. Moving the Prespa Agreement to its own article solves more problems than it causes, such as easier navigation, and smaller article sizes, etc. That would allow us in adding freely more content and information about the developments relating more to the Prespa deal than to the Dispute. And to not mention, giving the Prespa Agreement its own article, would somewhat alleviate the current article from the sheer amount of information added to it due to the post-Prespa developments... What do you think? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly issues with the current article structure. I agree that Prespa agreement should be a stand-alone article, but that won't fix the issues here; we'll still need about as much content on that agreement in this article. The year-by-year timeline is certainly the least important part of the article; I'd be inclined to move almost all of it (between FYROM and Prespa) to a subpage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion. Those block quotes in the Greek and Macedonian sections get condensed into a sentence or two as a summary. That should go to some way toward cutting content.Resnjari (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thats an excellent idea. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Each new Nazi massacre that was discovered in eastern Europe after the war was news. However, with time the patterns emerged and histories of Nazi atrocities reduced 100 massacres into one representative one. As the events of the Greek trademark tantrum known as the "Macedonian naming dispute" fade into history, the daily log of "X said this" and "Y said that", etc. will become properly summarized into a few representative and most important events. That process could start as soon as the Greek parliament ratifies the Prespa Accord and Macedonia becomes North Macedonia (or will it be "Northern"?). That very act of summarizing might be enough (along with getting rid of the pointless quotes) to make the length of this article manageable. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What you said, is true. Over time the X and Y details will have to go or be absorbed by summarizations. About the full name, the full name (well, only if the Agreement is ratified by Greek Parliament this week) will be "Republic of North Macedonia (Republika Severna Makedonia; Република Северна Македонија)" and the short name "North Macedonia (Severna Makedonia; Северна Македонија)". All institutions, bodies, and demonym will be "North Macedonian" (e.g. North Macedonian Presidency, North Macedonian Passports, North Macedonian Foreign Ministry) and, when referring to citizens, then "Citizens of North Macedonia" (however I didn't find clarification for the short term for that, i.e. North Macedonian Citizen) while the Slavic group will simply be called "Macedonians" as before, the Albanian group "Albanians" as before, etc, and the country's official language will still be called simply "Macedonian Language" as before. As for the North/Northern confusion, it is easy to remember if it is North or Northern, by looking at the examples of North Vietnam, North Korea, etc. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Now the Prespa agreement has its own article: Prespa agreement. I copied anything from here to there. But while I feel the information left here on the Naming Dispute article needs to be trimmed down, I am feeling undecided on which parts of the text do deserve a place here and which do not. International reactions? Debates? Political intrigues? Should they be removed or stay?--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

SuperGuy212 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I kinda think that the Political intrigues should go, because if the International reactions and Debates part stays there, people could see what was happening during the debates and what other countries reacted to, and in the other sense, Political intrigues may not be that interesting to people. Just reply to me if you think this is a good idea or not?

Request at RfPP

I am moving said request for an edit here...this needs more eyes and discussion. No opinion on the request per se. Lectonar (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

In the photo displayed alongside the Signature subsection, Alexis Tsipras is on the left and Zoran Zaev is on the right, but the order of their names in the caption is reversed. Also, the location where the photo was taken is identified as being in [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]]. That now redirects to North Macedonia. Once that is updated, should it be piped, as the country had not yet changed its name when the photo was taken? Or perhaps the words in what is now can be inserted in front of North Macedonia. —⁠173.129.59.223 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There's more: I only just now read the text of the Signature subsection. It says the agreement was signed by the two countries' foreign ministers in the presence of their prime ministers, but the caption of the photo implies it was signed by the prime ministers. —⁠184.207.65.109 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)"

Valid points. I've tweaked the image caption and removed some of the rampant over-linking and redundancies in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

BTW, it's unfortunate we've again been bogged down in the unavoidable tedious debating over naming superficialities in the lead sentence, caused by the usual blind and senseless stonewalling by the usual agenda warrior, when the actual crux with this article is actually something else: The article as a whole is shockingly bad. I have to admit I have never in all these years managed to read it as a whole. Whenever I've tried, I've had to stop after a few sentences; it was just too embarrassing. This article is so badly written, reading it literally hurts.

It's absurdly over-long, written in tortured prose, with a jumbled and chaotic structure, and with an embarrassingly obvious editorializing agenda in large parts. This goes back all the way to the time the bulk of it was written in 2008 or thereabouts, but it's become even worse over the years. Even the very first few sentences are illustrative: instead of explaining straight away what the dispute was actually about, the second sentence moves off into a double tangent about what is allegedly "pertinent to its background" (but explaining neither what that background is nor in what way those early 20th century events are pertinent to it).

I don't know where to start to fix this article. This needs radical pruning down and rewriting, preferably rewriting the whole thing from scratch. But given the current climate of agenda editing and ownership, trying to start such a thing would probably lead nowhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree Future, this article is a horrible POV-frankenstein. The second paragraph for example is forum-level quality and only paints on side of the dispute, there is no way it should be that high up in the article. The history section is also way too long and the level of detail should be reserved for more specific articles. There is also big issues with quote cherry-picking, a sure sign of the POV build-up.

I support the radical pruning and rewriting approach as there are still some minor redeeming qualities in this article such as the 3rd and 4th paragraph. Also as you mentioned, starting fresh is heavily burdensome as there are many hurdles involved. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)