Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:North Macedonia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vergina~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 2 September 2005 (== Official name ==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4

Name of the country

Current text:

The Republic of Macedonia, known by most international organizations and foreign states as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYR Macedonia)1, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula...

How about this:

FYROM is the name the Macedonian state itself uses internationally (JTD said)

So, I propose that the article remain at Republic of Macedonia and beginning as follows:

The Republic of Macedonia (known internationally as The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) is a country in...

--Uncle Ed 14:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I do not accept the above proposal. Republic of Macedonia is not NPOV and should not be the title of the article or the heading name. A more appropriate first sentence could be:

The The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) (known whithin its borders and constitution as Republic of Macedonia) is a country in...




After this, it sould be refered as "FYROM" or "The Republic".

FYROM is not a disputed name, while ROM is, and it is also the name only one side prefers.

Some people suggested that FYROM is not NPOV but gave no evidence to support that. It is a fact though that ROM is not NPOV since it is disputed by the UN and Greece. 193.195.0.102 17:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me: ROM or FYROM -- let's just try not to move it back and forth more than once every other day... --Uncle Ed 18:28, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are two issues, the name of the article and the opening of the article. I would suggest

  • as the name: Macedonia (FYROM)
  • opening text - The independent state of Macedonia, known internationally as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and internally as the Republic of Macedonia1 . . .


It is stupid for some country to be FORMER REPUBLIC ... Name of the country IS Republic Of Macedonia, right, and it is just Greek Influence in EU and UN that lead to the FYROM. Think about it ... why then don`t Croats live in FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF CROATIA etc. etc. Also, it is untrue that this name was founded by Tito, it was also used by Serbs for quite a long time, and for sure, after the Balkan wars (1912-4) when it became part of kingodom of Serbia, but under name of Macedonia. [user:Rastavox]

Footnote

1 short summary of the fact that there is a dispute and why both names exist. FearÉIREANN 20:19, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess I'd prefer something more like either of the following:

  • The Republic of Macedonia, known internationally as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)...
  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, known internally as the Republic of Macedonia...

Despite being mostly a Greek partisan on this issue by heritage, I'd be willing to acquiesce to the former version. I don't like Jtdirl's proposed version quite as much, because of its equating this country with the term Macedonia, which is the most controversial component of the name. Calling it the Republic of Macedonia is less controversial than calling it Macedonia is. --Delirium 20:54, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

The reason why I proposed the form above was that it uses a totally neutral initial reference, independent state of Macedonia and avoids giving weight to either name. I deliberately use the state because all sides can agree that an independent state exists. Alternatives like 'country', etc are too controversial. Using Macedonia is unavoidable but to avoid running into difficulties it is necessary to have a 'neutral qualifier' and 'indepedent state' is factually correct but with none of the POV connotations of something like Republic of Macedonia, which because it is not accepted widely is too controversial a qualifier to be used. Using either ROM or FYROM as the primary name seems to be a problem. This way we avoid using both as the qualifier, instead using them as part of the explanation that different people use different names. So the language is carefully neutral and endorses neither term, merely explains they exist.

Saying either The ROM, known internationally as the FYROM . . . or The FYROM, known internally as the ROM . . . implies that one or other is the real name and the other the subsidary one. As this page has shown in exhausting detail, partisans on each side of the debate are all too willing to read an agenda for one side and against theirs, if their preferred option isn't used and the one they oppose is, or given the lead in the sentence. The language I have proposed is clinically neutral, with no implicit or explicit endorsement of either side. Using the word state in the rest of the article would avoid any problems, as one of the main ones is the belief by one side that using Macedonia would judgmentally imply the Macedonia in the article is the Macedonia. In constitutions a clear distinction exists between the words state and nation, with the former implying the governmental institutions and the governed unit, and the latter implying the cultural and historic entity. Macedonia (the entity we are talking about here) is often taken as meaning the 'Macedonian nation' and so controversial. State has none of those connotations.

That distinction between state and nation was used, for example, in the Irish constitution. The controversial Article 2 in its original form talked about about the 'National Territory' (ie Nation) in a manner as controversial as the question of 'what is Macedonia?' is here. De Valera, the author of the constitution, got around this by using 'state' to imply that part of the 'national territory' he actually governed. So while Article 2 prior to its recent change was all emotional waffle about the Irish nation including Northern Ireland, Article 3, which focused on 'the state', was pragmatically focused simply on the practical self-governing entity that had been called the Irish Free State which he renamed Éire and now is called the Republic of Ireland. Using state here (lowercased) allows us to leave the emotions of the 'Macedonian issue' to one side and focus on the practical reality of a self governing independent entity, the 'state of Macedonia', which is internationally recognised.

The Republic is not as neutral. Using it capitalised implies we are using a name, which as we have seen here is controversial. Using it lowercased makes no sense as a 'republic' is just a system of government. It would be as linguistically absurd as using constitutional monarchy constantly as an implied name. (eg, 'The constitutional monarchy has fifteen regions and 47 cities.' etc.) State however, lowercased, can be used correctly in such contexts, without implying any implicit endorsement of any side, any name or any agenda. (eg, 'The state has fifteen regions and 47 cities. The state's budget deficit is running at 3.7%. The state's parliament meets in three sessions every year.' etc FearÉIREANN 21:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess my main problem is that state of Macedonia takes the FYROM POV that its state is legitimately called Macedonia and its inhabitants Macedonians, as well as implying that it's the state of Macedonia, rather than a state in Macedonia. Republic of Macedonia qualifies it a bit more. --Delirium 23:01, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. The only problem I see with ROM is the fact that it is disputed. Otherwise I'd have no problem with it. Indeed I'd see it as the ideal name. But as it is disputed (regrettably IMHO) I can't see how we can use it without appearing to take sides in the dispute, which we cannot do without breaching NPOV rules. And if (again I say regrettably) ROM or The Republic carries too much POV baggage, and is grammatically unusable if lowercased, we face a problem. Personally I think FYROM is quite a neutral term, because it does not speak of Macedonia but that Macedonia that had been in the Yugoslav state previously. It doesn't claim to be the Macedonia but a Macedonia. ROM can be implied as suggesting there is only one Macedonia, the Republic. (The Republic of Ireland for many years faced the same problem, which is why until the 1990s Britain often used the Irish Republic, they interpreting that format as leaving open the possibility that there was another Irish something or other also.)

'State' is problematical. I just think it is less problematical than the other alternatives. It allows a grammatically correct way to avoid talking about the FYROM in a way that suggests it is the only Macedonia. I think using Macedonia without a qualifier implies one Macedonia and so is POV. 'Republic' implies the official state title and that too runs into POV problems. So we are running out of alternatives. I have looked through textbooks to see if I could find a perfect word but could not find one. State was the best I could find. I think if properly contextualised at the start of the article, to make it clear it does not imply the state but a state, it becomes if not the best option (I don't think there is one), then the least worst one. If capitalised as State then it would be implying that there is only one Macedonia and it is it. But lowercased and initially contextualised, I think it can work, particularly if we put all concepts of Macedonia into the same format, ie Macedonia (FYROM), Macedonia (Greece) Macedonia (region), etc. Using an identical disambigulation structure and clearly defined language would follow NPOV rules by not appearing to give one claimant to the name Macedonia special status.

Please don't think I am trying to be stubborn on the ROM nomenclature. It is simply that I cannot see how to marry a disputed title with NPOV. If I could see a way I would support it. We could always try Macedonian republic but the problem there is that it sounds like a title. Using state of Macedonia is a statement (no pun intended) that there is a place calling itself Macedonia that is a self-governing state, not a declaration of a name. Indeed the more I think about it the more I admire those negotiators that came up with the FYROM name, because it achieves the seemingly impossible; recognition that there is a Republic of Macedonia, while not suggesting that it is the only Macedonia. I can't held wondering if we are trying to achieve something which has already been achieved with the FYROM name - a non-judgmental name that has enough in it to keep both sides if not happy then at least accepting. FearÉIREANN 23:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. Let's try again to sort it out.

Ed's questions

  • Are there 2 different, non-contiguous regions both called "Macedonia"?
    • YES: Aegean Macedonia, as well as the sum of FYROM + Greek Macedonia + a bit of M in some 3rd country
    • NO: It's all one region, split politically into 2 or 3 regions.
I asked my Greek friend last night, and he said that Macedonia is "a region" split into 3 political units, one part Greek, one part Bulgarian, and one part FYROM. --Uncle Ed

All sides agree that whatever Macedonia is, it's contiguous. "Aegean Macedonia" is synonymous with "Greek Macedonia", but not a term used by Greeks. Whether it is one region or split depends on who you ask. Greek viewpoint: only one region, Macedonia (Greece), the cultural heir to Macedon, whose inhabitants are of necessity Greek-speaking (since Macedonia was a Greek empire) mostly within Greece (not counting a few remnants in Albania, Turkey, and FYROM). Others disagree with this characterization. --Delirium 23:01, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

So how far should we consider Greece's viewpoint? After all, they still claim that all Albanians of Orthodox faith are Greeks and that southern Albania should be part of Greece. Dori 23:14, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Greeks dont say that all Albanians who are Christians are Greeks. The fact is about 1/7 albanians in Albania are Greek orthodoxs but this doesnt mean they are Greeks! As Serbs and Russians are not Greeks eitheir! --212.251.28.65 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As they are quite entitled to do, but let's not get into that here!Adam

I still haven't seen an answer to the point I made earlier: that although it may be correct to say that "FYROM is the name the Macedonian state itself uses internationally", that is only true because they were coerced by Greece into that arrangement, and if the threat of coercion was dropped they would immediately stop using FYROM. That is why FYROM is POV, because it amounts to an endorsement of Greece's view that the ROM has no right to call itself Macedonia. It is true that the use of ROM conversely endorses the ROM's view that it does have that right, but since we have to choose between two POV terms, when there is no mutually acceptable alternative available, we should choose the option which conforms to the country's legal name. The fact is that there is no such country as FYROM, and the use of the term is inescapably POV. Adam 23:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is simply not so. The Macedonian state itself accredits its ministers to international bodies as the FYROM.

Under duress
Complete nonsense, Adam.

And if you think the world does what Greece wants you have a rather diluded impression of Greek power.

All EU members have a veto
OK. So I guess you have a shaky knowledge of the EU too. EU members have a veto in limited areas of the EU. Telling countries what their relationship is with a non-EU country is not one of them. And they don't have a veto in the UN, Council of Europe, UNESCO or all the other bodies that have the FYROM accredited under that name.

The international community has a problem with the ROM name,

Untrue
Try reading the files, Adam

given the context of the country's constitution, just as it had a problem with the Irish constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and other claims. The world community, supported by the Macedonian state,

Only under duress
again, a gross distortion. Obviously international law is not one of your strongpoints Adam either.

supported the use of the FYROM as a neutral term pending the solution of the broader issues over the question of what is Macedonia and who has the greater right to the name. If it is good enough for the Macedonian state, why is it not good enough for you, or do you claim the right to ignore the world community, all international bodies and the Macedonian state itself?

of course we have a perfect right to ignore all these if we think they are wrong

FearÉIREANN 23:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Are you seriously disputing that ROM agreed to be called FYROM only under duress?
  • Are you seriously suggesting that the rest of the international community would have given a toss what an obscure Balkan state called itself had it not been for Greek objections?
  • Are you seriously saying that an independent encyclopaedia is bound to follow the usage of the UN, the EU or anyone else? Adam

I suppose I'm a bit confused by this discussion thus far. It seems that FYROM as the article location has less support than ROM as the article location. However, we're also discussing some variant on Macedonia or Macedonia (country) as the article location and intro text. I'm not sure why we're discussing the latter: unless I'm mistaken, it's more controversial to Greeks than ROM is, so we don't gain anything on that front by moving from ROM to Macedonia or state of Macedonia, and may in fact lose ground. So, given that I don't think we're going to be moving it to FYROM (pending a change in opinions here), I think ROM is an okay place for it to stay. --Delirium 00:54, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Delirium. I think it would be non-NPOV of Wikipedia to use the FYROM name in the context of the Macedonia article naming. Using FYROM as the name in articles such as a list of NATO countries is correct, of course, since the country is referred to using the FYROM term in those countries. However, naming this article FYROM or "Macedonia (FYROM)" or similar would be a endorsement of the Greek POV that Macedonia should not be allowed to refer to itself as ROM. That is why I proposed "Macedonia (country)". It's the only country calling itself Macedonia, so I don't see why this was objectionable, but it was apparently objectionable since it somehow implied that the region of Macedonia was a country. Using this twisted logic, the "United States of America" means that the United States is laying claim to all of North and South America as well.

I think if you're looking to be offended, you can succeed pretty much 100% of the time. "Macedonia (ROM)" is just plain dumb, so I think "Republic of Macedonia" may be necessarily the median name that is least objectionable on the whole. It was also the most approved name according to the vote that we held. Given the lack of a more approved and more accepted name, I am opposed to any attempt to move the article. Daniel Quinlan 01:02, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

If DQ is correct that ROM "was also the most approved name according to the vote that we held" (I haven't been keeping count), then we should declare the polls closed, the issue resolved, and talk about something else. Adam 03:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, here's the vote I referenced. It has been archived twice now (not surprising considering the volume of this discussion), including a comment I made just yesterday. sigh

Where the article should be

Note that you can sign more than one option!

Total of approval votes for each article title:

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia = 5
  • Republic of Macedonia = 7 (plus Adam would be 8)
  • Macedonia (country) = 1
  • Republic of Macedonia with first sentence disclaimer = 8 or 9
  • FYR Macedonia= 1

By a factor of about 2-to-1, Republic of Macedonia is the most accepted option for the title. The disclaimer is already present and adds an additional approval vote. Is it really going to be productive to continue discussing this? Opinions seem quite deadlocked. Daniel Quinlan 03:58, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

What a sensible grown-up solution. Thank you Adam. Wetman 05:46, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

In that case the issue should be regarded as closed: Vox populi vox dei.

I would suggest the opening paragraph should read:

The Republic of Macedonia is an independent state in the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe. The United Nations and foreign states recognise it under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (commonly abbreviated to FYROM). The use of the term Republic of Macedonia in this article does not imply that Wikipedia takes any position on issues in dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and any other country.

Adam 04:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the introduction is more or less okay, but I did add a footnote with a rephrased version of your disclaimer. I don't think the United Nations should be specifically mentioned in the introduction, and some foreign states do recognize it under the ROM name (Turkey, at the very least) and certainly a number don't mind the ROM name given the usage of ROM in the name of embassies and so forth. It might be good to say "abbreviated", though. Daniel Quinlan 05:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I like my version better, with the change to "most foreign states," but not enough to start a new argument about it. Adam

IMO including the disclaimer in the text is disruptive. The footnote works better. The fact that it is recognized by the UN/most other countries by that name is more extensively stated later in the article. Why single out the UN? I restored JTD's version of the first paragraph, since it is better in include the FYROM in the first sentence, to lessen to precedence we give to ROM.

Which states besides Turkey dont use the FYROM designation? This should be noted in the article. --Jiang 06:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Turkey and the North Cyprus regime. 193.195.0.102 10:03, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. --Vladko 12:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC) FYROM was not forced to accept this name. It was indeed under durress, but so was Greece since it was Greece who was being indirectly thretened with identity theft

What a terrible threat! Did they steal Greece's credit card?
How about they commited crimes in the name of Macedonia? Oh I guess that would not mean much to you, anyway right? And because it means nothing to you, it should mean nothing to everyone, right? Care to push your POV a bit more cause really, it hasn't been completely clear yet. [/sarcasm] 193.195.0.101 09:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

and territorial claims by the Yugoslavian state

Untrue. Neither Yugoslavia nor ROM ever made territorial claims on Greece. Some political groups in ROM did, but that is not the same thing. Some political groups in Greece claim that Cyprus, North Epirus (southern Albania) and most of Turkey should be part of Greece. Adam
The current Wikipedia article, if it is accurate, claims otherwise. Supposedly part of the agreement with Greece was removing a clause from the ROM constitution referring to uniting the three parts of Macedonia. That sounds like an official territorial claim by the ROM to me, and the current Wikipedia article even describes it as such ("its constitution was changed so as not to reflect any territorial claims"). --Delirium 01:23, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
Yes. They even have territorial claims in their schoolbooks (approved by the state). There are so many pieces that point to their territorial claims, it is not even funny. The articl only refers to the most obvious. 193.195.0.101 09:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Worth checking out. Greece might have considered the name alone to be a claim. It may just be that they added a disclaimer. It might also have not been a claim, but a provision to allow other parts of the region to join (which would still be worrisome to neighboring countries, but is not quite the same thing). I don't take for granted any information in Wikipedia. Too many people are busy pushing their POV. Daniel Quinlan 01:35, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

. It is a fact though, that the name FYROM was a compromise for BOTH states. FYROM was NOT suggested by the Greek side and it has NOT been accepted by nationalists in either state, as some here try to present. I don't understand how 8 people here seem to totally ignore that FYROM is NPOV while ROM isn't. Sheesh! 193.195.0.102 09:56, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the article looks much better regardless it being under the wrong heading IMO. 193.195.0.102 10:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The statement in the 1991 constitution was indeed a foolish provocation, but it was not a territorial claim. It was, as I explained above somwhere, the doing of the IMRO party in Macedonia, which is no longer in office, and it was deleted as part of the 1995 agreement. Anyway it has nothing to do with the naming issue. Adam 02:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Behold! Here comes Adam to tell us all, what has what to do with what! What was foolish and what was not, what was right and what was wrong! So, Adam, wasn't FYROM under "durress" when they deleted their territorial claims from their contitution? The name "Macedonia" itself is a territorial claim. It is also ridiculus in so many levels. They call it "Macedonia" while call the proper historic region of Macedonia, "Aegean" or "Greek Macedonia" and a small part in bulgaria "Pirin Macedonia". Sure. No territorial claims in naming things, right? [/sarcasm] How about the use of the ancient greek emblem? Sure, individually these things don't look so bad, but when you have the capacity to put them all together you can see that there are clear territorial claims, even today. Hell, just go and have a look at their school books (aproved by the state). 193.195.0.101 09:58, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The "SOSIALISTIC YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" is SLAV STATE !IS NOT IDENTICAL TO "REPUBLIC OF MACEDON/IA" .THIS IS FORGERY !!!!Vergina 07:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article is "Republic of Macedonia" ! Current text: The Republic of Macedonia1, known by most international organizations and foreign states as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYR Macedonia),....Vergina 11:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yugoslavia vs. now

Reading Vergina's comments gives me an idea: shouldn't we make a distinction between the region, republic or province which was "part" of Yugoslavia? I'm still not clear on how or why some parts of "Macedonia" ever became part of Yugoslavia. I'm even less clear the connection to FYROM, Bulgaria or Greece any more... --Uncle Ed 16:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Simple. Macedonia mostly went to Greece since it was mostly populated by Macedonians (Greeks). Some parts to the north had Bulgarians and other slavs along with the Greek populations. Some of these parts got annexed by Serbia and Bulgaria. Notably Moastiri(Vitola) which had about 250,000 Greeks but now has none was annexed by Serbia. Later on. the Bulgarians in Monastiri were all renamed to "Macedonians", to distance them from Bulgaria and also allow for territorial claims towards Macedonia.

Map from 1912/14 [[1]]

Note where Macedonia is marked to be and note the names.

Also you may want to have a look at this [[2]]. The page is not of Greek origin but I would like to see how someone can dispute the numbers quoted there.

In any case, as I said before, I am not here to solve the issue and I am not here to demand of anyone to stop using the term "Macedonia" when refering to FYROM. My main interest is in seeing that an agreement is honoured by everyone.

They don't even mention any Albanians in the area. Worthless "statistics". Dori 17:19, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Albanians go under Muslims I think. But yes, the rest of the statistics are pretty much worthless.

Yes, Albanians go under "Turks and Others" I believe. The main controversy is between "former Yugoslavs", Greeks, and Bulgarians, so it's understandable that Albanians would be lumped under "Others", since that issue is mostly tangential to the 3-way conflict. --Delirium 19:08, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Music

Could somebody willing and knowledgeable in this area (besides Vergina) issue an opinion on where the information I placed at Music of Macedonia should be? Tuf-Kat 08:42, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I would say go with Music of the Republic of Macedonia, awkward but it should be less contentious than Music of Macedonia and not as awkward as Music of FYROM. Dori | Talk 15:20, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
What a nice article Music of Macedonia would be, demonstrating the cultural exchanges in music between the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and the Macedonian Slavs. I know a some things about this subject, but right now I'm less than willing to write it. Etz Haim 01:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How is listing other republics and provinces of ex-yugoslavia off-topic here? macedonia was a republic of yugoslavia, major parts of macedonian history are connected that to history of yugoslavia, the article mentions other republics and provinces... it's just handy to have them all together. Zocky 17:40, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's taking the navigation aid one step too far. The ex-provinces are not part of any single political unit, so listing them as such is confusing, unnecessary, and clunky. I'm removing them again. Daniel Quinlan 17:45, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
I Still think yo are wrong. The ex-republics were a part of a single country, which was much talked about in recent years, and anybody reading up on one republic might want to read up on another. It's NPOV, useful and non-intrusive. It's just like see also links and as such, completely uncontroversial. Other opinions welcome. (Not to mention that just deleting somebody's contribution might be considered bad form). Zocky 17:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How is it bad form? No contribution is immune from being deleted, modified, or moved by another user. It's called collaborative editing. We could add lots of links to every article, but the number of navigation links in country and province articles is out-of-hand in many articles. The listing of Council of Europe is also POV and unnecessary, but deleting those is another matter... Anyway, I deleted your contribution also for style and presentation reasons in addition to the reasons listed above. Daniel Quinlan 18:06, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
The facts that Macedonia used to be part of Yugoslavia and that it's a member of the organization called Council of Europe, are just that, facts. They are in no way POV. Zocky
Listing the Council of Europe and promoting it above other European organizations is POV. It's not needed for navigation purposes since there is an article with countries of Europe and not all European countries are in the Council of Europe. Daniel Quinlan 18:31, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
And the fact that there are numerous links in most country and province articles means that many people thought they should be there. It's not your personal playground. I'm reverting to my version and expect you to have strong arguments on the talk page (or, preferably drop it, since it is trivial), rather then revert it for the third time. Zocky 18:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm removing your links because Yugoslavia is is not a political unit in existence today. I think it is also POV to list it here, but I think that is less significant than my aesthetic concerns. I have made no editing related to the Council of Europe links (yet). While you can argue that your addition is trivial and I'm being silly for removing them, I can equally easily argue that your addition is trivial and you're being silly for obsessing about including it. Just because an addition required some work does not mean it improves an article. Daniel Quinlan 18:31, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

It's a link-bar I found in Slovenia, enhanced and put in all articles on ex-yugoslav republics and provinces. My thoughts as to why follow. Please comment.

  1. It's completely NPOV - it's just pointers to other elements of the set {x:x is ex-yugoslav republic V x is ex-yugoslav province}.
  2. It is still relevant - the fact that something is no longer true does not falsify the fact that it used to be true. Ex-Yugoslavia is still much talked about and understanding of it and its other republics is important for understanding Macedonia.
  3. As far as readers not familiar with the region are concerned, it is very useful.
  4. It's not even a part of the article - it's clearly separated and looks just like a navigational aid, which it is. Adding more link-bars like this can only be useful, as long as they are suitably chosen and sensably ordered.

Also, the thing did not cause any concerns in Slovenia, and so far nobody has objected to it in other articles. Anyway, it should be in all of them or in none. -- Zocky 19:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary

  1. It's POV. It strongly suggests a greater relationship with the former political unit than current politics, surrounding countries, etc. That is far from the case.
  2. It's ugly, clunky, bad layout, etc.
  3. It's big (and made bigger still by adding non-English words to it, but removing the non-English would only make it about 5% less objectionable to me).
  4. It's historical information better located in the article. Thanks Camembert for that edit. I think this answers most of your concerns.
  5. Links clutter the article and need to be chosen very judiciously.
  6. The navigation zoo in Slovenia is horrible. Citing it as an example of aesthetics is really scary. Fewer people are watching Slovenia and I haven't noticed it yet. Clearly, some more global approach needs to be taken with respect to how much navigation should be in country articles, as was done with the table of information about each country.

Daniel Quinlan 20:01, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

You are right about non-English names. I didn't like them in the first place. And maybe the text could be changed to "Former republics and provinces of Yugoslavia" .
OTOH, I did not cite Slovenia as an example of aesthetics. But, the whole thing being on the bottoom of the article, separated by a line and obviously looking like a footer, it does NOT look that bad and is the right place to put organized links to other articles that a reader might want to read after reading about Macedonia. Nothing POV in it. Zocky 20:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems to me that a "see also" link to a separate topic that is simply a list of the former Republics of Yugoslavia would be entirely appropriate, but a navigation device within the page(s) is, effectively, even if unintentionally, a political statement, linking these now-independent countries as if they were all still part of a unit. The same logic would have us link all of the countries that were formerly in the Ottoman (or Austro-Hungarian) Empire. -- Jmabel 21:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Valid remark, but I still disagree. "See also" with a list is much larger and more intrusive.
Why Yugoslavia and not Ottoman empire? The break-up of Yugoslavia is recent, in historical and geo-political terms. Current events in Macedonia et Al., don't have much to do with Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary, but have a lot to do with Yugoslavia.
What I don't get is how is saying Former republics of Yugoslavia linking anything as it were still a part of a unit? It clearly says former
All that said, I think that some kind of policy concerning ring links (as I now whimsically choose to call them, because they're a bit like web rings) in country/province articles would be a Good Thing. [[Zocky 00:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)]] 00:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Countries that recognise FYROM as Macedonia

I've found that some countries apparently reject the FYROM name, recognising it as the Republic of Macedonia instead - notably Turkey (see examples at NATO). Does anyone know of any other countries which follow this policy? -- ChrisO 16:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reportedly Northern Cyprus and the People's Republic of China (the state press uses "Republic of Macedonia"). --Jiang
Well, "Northern Cyprus" itself is internationally recognized as "the northern portion of the Republic of Cyprus, currently under Turkish occupation", not as a state. =] --Delirium 07:44, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
The other four countries created after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia do for sure, it plainly doesn't make sense for them to refer to the republic as FYROM when they're all FYRs. --Shallot 13:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, didn't notice how old this comment was. The article already includes an up to date list. --Shallot
Lithuanian name for this state is Makedonijos Respublika (Republic of Macedonia); short name is just Makedonija. It is never called "Buvusi Jugoslavijos Respublika Makedonija" or anything like that. DeirYassin 17:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Odd sentence

The article says:

"The state's name remains a source of local and international controversy and shows that the political force is always dominating the international law."

What does that mean? I'd rewrite it to make it less clunky, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Quadell 16:45, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I read it as saying "The state's name remains a source of local and international controversy, which demonstrates that political concerns always outweigh legal rights." Definitely a POV statement (I would guess from a pro-Macedonia party) so I would suggest getting rid of everything after the word "controversy". -- ChrisO 17:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

squared

All the squared stats have been changed to just the non-superscripted number, e.g. km2. I'm not sure why. I'm reverting. Quadell 15:57, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Might be a too-smart webbrowser which destroys the ². Using ² is usually saver, yet more ugly to have HTML source in the text. andy 16:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


Move page

Change this page back to Macedonia (country) as in Encarta [3] and Britannica [4] [5]. Having the article at Republic of Macedonia is POV. This is already well defined in the Macedonia page:

--Cantus 05:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYROM is Ottoman Kosovo! Not Macedonia! See Uskub (Skopje) the capital city of Ottoman Kosovo! --Vergina 06:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Republic of Macedonia would beg to disagree. --Cantus 07:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned before, "Macedonia (country)" would be similarly POV. There's no good solution so I support staying put. --Jiang 07:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. The present name of the article (which is the country's constitutional name) is probably the least POV solution we can adopt. -- ChrisO 09:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree too, the things should stay as they were. I'd also revert the disambiguation thing, the region deserves the first place. --Shallot 13:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Luckily a lot of people disagree with you, so your opinion is by no means a consensus. --Cantus 14:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What kind of a smug response is that? Are you in a mood for flamewar or something? Not impressed... --Shallot 14:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How can Macedonia (countery) be POV since it is the only current country that has that name? 80.255.214.183 14:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, again, that FYROM was not a concoction of the Greek state, in fact most Greeks didn't want the use of Macedonia in their name at all. FYROM is a compromise, both parties agreed to it reluctantly, because both didn't really get there way. Now the compromise has been violated and everyone seems to think FYROM is a Greek POV. The true Greek POV would be naming the nation "Skopje" or something similar. FYROM is NPOV, the fact that FYROM has now decided to change their mind out of the blue, and breach an accord between two nations and international law is of little importance. --HawkeyE 17:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

overemphasis on the naming dispute

Jiang, while there is reason to leave the naming dispute in a separate section, and a bit less reason to expound the chronology of it right here at the top of the main country page, I don't see why we should litter the top section with all that stuff too. This is a fully functional state, just like any other one (at least the ones in the vicinity), it just happens to have two different names in official use. It should be treated as such. --Shallot 00:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue and the controversy must be made clear in the beginning. Yes, details may be moved elsewhere, but hiding the controversy in the history section does not make the information readily available. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "litter the top section with all that stuff too" while you also think there's reason in having a separate section. --Jiang 00:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's this edit. This belongs to the section on the naming dispute, not to the very top of the page. The top of the page already clearly states that there are two names and that it's because of the dispute. The "Naming dispute" section is the first in the table of contents so if anyone manages to miss it, they would appear to have reading habits different from the remainder of the world's population... --Shallot 01:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at wikipedia:lead section. The content appropriately belongs in the lead section. The naming controversy is over the Republic of Macedonia and Greek objections and subsequent effects on its international recognition and participation. What percentage of the entire region the Republic controls is introductory material and the mention of Vardarska banovia is not tied with the Greek objections. Being formerly part one of the six constituent republics is also not tied in with the dispute. If this text is to be kept under the naming dispute, what do you suggest we have in the lead section? --Jiang 01:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how the current ordering breaks the guidelines laid out in the lead section document, and it's also perfectly in line with the vote about the names listed at the top (discussed in this page), and with the WP Countries template. The exact regional delineation and the old names are also pertinent to the naming dispute section (and also to the geography and history sections), they're not crucial for the lead section. I did not disagree that the fact that it was part of Yugoslavia should be included in the lead section -- I left it there. It's good to mention Yugoslavia soon after mentioning the term FYR, and it's good in general (ex-.yu was crucial in establishing its borders and status as a nation, and it also happened relatively recently). --Shallot 16:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lead sections for articles like these should be a couple paragraphs long. What do you suggest we place in the second paragraph? If the text also applies for the geo and history sections, then perhaps the naming dispute section is not the best place to put it? As it is not limited in relevancy to the naming dispute (and is imo not the most relevant there) it belongs on top. How is it not introductory material? --Jiang 22:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just see where this line of reasoning has gotten us... now the second paragraph is wonderfully bloated with excessive historical information, and the intro is useless because nobody will bother reading to the end of a thousand-word paragraph. Blech. --Joy [shallot]

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the details of the dispute in the history article. First, it's not made clear on this page that more details are given there and Second, it's not just about history but about foreign relations. The list of countries states that the dispute is discussed here. There's nothing wrong with keeping all the information here, but we could also start a new article specifically on the naming dispute. How much more is there to mention? --Jiang 01:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, what happened originally (the flamebait in the constitution and the flag etc; the subsequent sanctions and negotiations) is a notable thing, but it is indeed history. I really doubt .mk or .gr will ever revert to that kind of behaviour again. A new article that would integrate the whole chronology of the dispute could be good, just make sure to eliminate any leftover duplication if you do it. --Shallot 16:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jiang here - it would make more sense to cover the naming dispute under Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, as the issue is really one of Macedonian-Greek relations. It's certainly not an historical matter as the dispute is still ongoing. -- ChrisO 17:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I concentrated a bit too much on the issue of main page vs. subpage. Moving stuff from the history subpage to foreign relations subpage is fine by me. I'll go do that. --Shallot 19:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there should eventually be a completely separate article on this, as the issue of Macedonian identity isn't really a sub-issue of any one country. The history of how ancient Macedon morphed into a modern geographic entity, and the politics and history involved, is an interesting story. Sure, the foreign relations of FYROM are part of it, but only one part of it, so it doesn't really belong on that page. --Delirium 16:55, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, I know why you moved the naming dispute to the politics section, but will it do any good? See also Jiang's argument above. --Joy [shallot] 12:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will do any good, given the strength of feeling in some quarters, but I think it does need to be done. I agree that there has been an overemphasis in the article on the naming dispute. It's hardly the most important thing about the RoM. In fact, I'd suggest that the passage of time has downgraded the importance of the dispute considerably - it certainly hasn't stopped the Greek government from pragmatic cooperation with the RoM. Other issues, such as the Slav-Albanian relationship within the RoM, are arguably of far more pressing importance; giving such prominence to the naming dispute suggests an importance that it simply doesn't have these days. I may trim it further, as the present naming dispute section feels a bit too detailed for an overview article. -- ChrisO 21:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then you may want to review Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Etz Haim 23:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about that article, I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO 23:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vergina's dispute notice, or something

Disputed Article:Republic of Macedonia

The article is disputed,although on the part of the Wikipedia not to see want!

Vergina 06:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I for one don't understand this sentence. Please try to use meaningful English. --Joy [shallot]

Notes: "¹ The title of this article is not meant to imply an official position on this naming dispute."

The constitutions name "Republic of Macedonia" is disputed.Not the temporary name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
Vergina 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The temporary name is disputed by the Republic of Macedonia itself, they don't want it. D'oh! --Joy [shallot]


== MACEDONIA? What's in a Name - A Rose by Any Other Name, Is It Still A Rose? ==


Is a rose by any other name still a rose? What if we started calling the "rose" an "onion"? If you had both next to each other, could you point to each and call each an onion? Would one be a real onion and the other a fake onion? Would both smell the same, look the same, have the same texture, color, and all other qualities? If you asked someone for an onion what would he give you? Would your sweetheart appreciate the dozen onions that you sent her for Valentine's Day?

Now, what happens if one area of our world started calling itself with the same name as a neighboring area? What if this area also took the identity and history of its neighbors? What if this first area becomes a country? Can it now decide to call itself with the same name as its neighbor and the rest of the world recognizes it so? The Massachusetts Bay Colony consisted of the area of the northern New England states and also encompassed part of what today is the Canadian province of Quebec. Throughout the years, many Quebec inhabitants have migrated from Quebec to the New England states. If Quebec broke away from Canada and became an independent country, would it be suitable to change its name to "New England"? Would it bother anyone if this "New England" hoisted a new flag with New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain in the middle of it, printed new currency picturing Bunker Hill on it, redrew their maps such that their territory is shown going all the way down to Boston and beyond, and revised their history books to indicate the colonial New England history as their own. Maybe we can call this new country "New New England" and we can rename the Northeastern part of the United States "Old New England". Will that make it clear to everybody? We read the above hypothetical situation and think that it is so ridiculous that it could never happen. But, that is exactly what is happening today right before our eyes between The FYROM, former Yugoslavia's southern republic, and Macedonia, one of Greece's northern provinces. Before 1944 the area that later comprised of the former Yugoslavia's southern republic was not called Macedonia but was called Vardarska Banovina (Province -of the river- Vardar). It was in 1944 that (Joseph Broz) Marshal Tito, the Communist dictator ruling Yugoslavia at that time, created Yugoslavia's southern republic and called it "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". However, "Macedonia" was already the name of one of Greece's northern provinces. In ancient times, the land that Macedonia covered included this northern province of Greece, a small part of Bulgaria, a small part of Albania, and a small part of the region that Tito named the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. It is pertinent to note that Tito?s Socialist Republic of Macedonia consisted of not only a small part of ancient Macedonia but also a far larger part from Slavic Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that creating this Republic in the southern region in Yugoslavia and including "Macedonia" in its name was deliberate with the main intention of laying claim to the region of ancient Macedonia of the northern province of Greece. Particularly, what Tito and his Communist allies wanted was the city of Thessaloniki with its lucrative warm water port.

After 1944 a deliberate and systematic campaign was initiated for Yugoslavia's southern republic to take over the history of ancient Macedonia. ?Scholars? from the ?People?s Republic of Macedonia? were commissioned to re-write their history books to include the ancient Macedonian History according to the wishes of the League of Communists of communist Yugoslavia, accompanied by perverted maps showing their "Macedonia" going all the way down to the northern half of Mount Olympus. Also, ?linguists? led by Blagoj Konev, a.k.a. Bla?e Koneski, were appointed to create the alphabet for and refine the "newly discovered" Macedonian language, which, of course, was made to sound as if it were the ?natural development? of the ancient Macedonian language. Through their control of mass media and education, the government of ?People?s Republic of Macedonia? then introduced this language and claimed that it is the language that was spoken by the ancient Macedonians. However, this language is grammatically nearly identical to Bulgarian and, due to continuous government interventions, its vocabulary tends to include more Serbo-Croatian words that have replaced the Bulgarian words. They clearly overlooked the unquestionable fact that the inhabitants of ancient Macedonia were Greeks and spoke the Greek language. Numerous excavations in all of the ancient Macedonia area have consistently unearthed relics clearly with Greek writings, and depictions of rulers clearly designated with Greek names. --Themata 00:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As long as officially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not Republic of Macedonia, why should we call it Macedonia? We are not for example a turkish or a chinese encyclopaedia that address to turks and chineses. www.wikipedia.org is global web-site.--212.251.28.65 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It actually has two official names - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for most international affairs and Republic of Macedonia as its constitutional name, which around 40 countries also recognise internationally. Wikipedia discusses the wider region of Macedonia at the namesake article and uses Republic of Macedonia after the country's own practice, just as we use Republic of China for Taiwan. -- ChrisO 23:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV:

The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM. I will not turn a blind eye to this for the sake of politeness. To all those who are trying with demagoguery and propaganda to infect Wikipedia with controversial names for this country such as "ROM" or the incendiary "Macedonia" so as to serve some alternative agendas: cease and desist. As you will find in Wikipedia, the names that countries use for themselves, if they are not the internationally formal names (such as Hellas for Greece, Holland for The Netherlands and Britain for The United Kingdom) all are articles which redirect or refer the reader to the proper article with the proper title. There is no reason for the entry for this small state to be treated in any way differently merely to appease their desire to promote their propaganda and I shall not allow it. Philaleth

ok Holland has erroneously become a byword for the Netherlands, but Hellas is not an alternative word for Greece, it is Greek for Greece!, and Britain is the UK excluding Northern Ireland, 80.255.214.183 14:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please read through all the archives before posting. If you'd even read just the post immediately above yours, you'd see that sentences 1 and 4 are incorrect. Everything else you've posted is based on sentences 1 and 4 so I don't see an argument --Jiang 05:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you assuming that I did not read the archives? I did. And I feel that it is imperative that someone put the brakes on this revisionist madness. If no one does, then Wikipedia will become the purview of bullies (see Joy's threat to me for my tone! Never mind the facts, as long as we all nicely agree to the lies? Is that what you consider NPOV?) and it will lose its ability to contain true information from a NPOV. Now to address specifically your posting:
  1. Check every international legal reference source you care to check (including those that you recommend on your user page: LOC and CIA) and you will find only one internationally accepted name for FYROM, and that is: FYROM. The fact that some anonymous poster has posted a glib claim to the contrary does not constitute rational basis for your claim that my sentences 1 and 4 are incorrect. Instead it points to the possibility that you have some other agenda or that you just don't have the facts on the subject.
  2. If you wish to refute my argument then address my argument: If it is proper for Hellas, Holland and Britain to be a referring articles why is it not for Republic of Macedonia? It is not only inconsistent, it is also not NPOV and in addition offensive to the people of Greece. If you believe that this should be the purpose of this Wiki effort then just say so and be honest about it. If not, then I propose that this offense be remedied immediately . Philaleth 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What he said. Also, FWIW, this arrogant tone will only help you get ignored and/or banned. --Joy [shallot] 11:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If we are to truly take seriously the relevance of Wikipedia, we must accept the truth, even if it is presented in a manner that does not please us. I respond to factual arguments, not to threats. Philaleth 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whatever. "You will not change what I wrote!" is plain old wack in our context and only contributes hostility. --Joy [shallot]
It's simply not true to say that "The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM" - at least 40 countries recognise it as the "Republic of Macedonia". This fact is mentioned in the article and in my earlier comments on this talk page. As I said earlier, we are simply following existing precedent in using the country's own name for itself - the same happens for the Republic of China (Taiwan).
It is in fact true that "The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM". There is no nation that does not recognize that name. By contrast, whereas you and some anonymous writer claim (without offering any substantiation) that "40 countries recognize the name ROM", the rest of the world does not. Ergo: FYROM is NPOV (by the definition of NPOV) and ROM isn't. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's a pretty one-sided look at things. All UN member countries know what is meant by FYROM due to a general consensus, but many of them explicitly *do not* use this and instead use just ROM. Trying to imply that this has no significance, and that therefore FYROM is the end-all solution to the naming dispute, is pure sophistry. --Joy [shallot] 10:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, the naming issue has been extensively discussed already and a free vote of Wikipedians has already decided on using "Republic of Macedonia". If you want to organise a fresh vote, then of course you have a right to do so, but unless you think of a better argument that that it's "offensive to the people of Greece" I doubt whether you'll get much support. It's not up to you whether you want to "allow" the name to stand or not - that's up to the Wikipedia community, not you on your own -- ChrisO 23:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please do not confuse consensus with the truth. Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the truth, I am here to contest the consensus that was reached in my absense. And as for whether or not it is up to me to "allow" it: insofar as Wikipedia is a democratic medium, the opinion of all participants can and must be heard, and new information must be incorporated. Therefore, if the previous decision was reached in the absense of certain facts or under the influence of revisionist propaganda then, for the sake of the veracity and therefore relevance of Wikipedia, it must now be changed. I have presented a number of factual and rational arguments in support of that
That's what you think. We, obviously, disagree. --Joy [shallot]
and yet it seems the only one that you selectively remember is "offensive to the people of Greece." Whereas I would remind you that something offensive to the people of a whole country is not by any stretch of the imagination NPOV I would urge you to also read the rest of my arguments. I am not yet familiar with the process for causing revisions, reviews, votes and the like but I will familiarize myself and preserve the truth that flies in the face of the subversive propaganda that possibly has been embedded in Wikipedia by FYROM radicals. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(added) I think Philaleth's comments on Wikipedia:Peer review shed a lot of light where s/he is coming from - just more nationalist ranting of the kind that we've seen all too often on this issue, unfortunately:
If I may add to Etz's sober commentary: I believe that what is appropriate for Greece, Britain and Holland, is also appropriate for ROM/FYROM. There is no rational reason for which Wikipedia should concede to be used for the furthering of the propaganda of that (terrorist/extremist friendly and drugrunning and money laundering friendly) state. We must vehemently protect Wikipedia from such aggressors
Spoken like a true propagandist. Because the country has various issues, we should completely ignore their opinion (and the opinion of other countries friendly to them) on how they should be called. That just doesn't fly. --Joy [shallot]
if it is to become relevant as a source of information to the world and worthy of this concerted effort. The one internationally legal name of this state is FYROM and so the article should be titled. A footnote can then show that its inhabitants want to use a different name for themselves. I believe that to do otherwise would not only be not NPOV and offensive to the people of Greece, but it would also run contrary to international laws and conventions. This article's title must be changed forthwith. I don't know how to do this so someone please advise. Philaleth 22:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will kindly request that you refrain from maligning my writings with slander. There is not one iota in that paragraph that is not true and relevant to the issue. I see no reason why a state that is akin (in our government's eyes) to Afghanistan under the Taliban, should be allowed to disperse its propaganda on Wikipedia. If you have any facts by which to present a bona-fide argument please do so. (By the way you will have to address those to the CIA and the Library of Congress and all of their sources and contributors, as I merely linked to their sites.) I am not interested in interpersonal "character assasination" and would ask you to refrain from it. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

American Recognition

Finally, someone is setting this stupid, childish dispute right. If the frickin' people in Macedonia want to call their country Macedonia then the Greeks have to live with it. Philaleth, I have no idea what on earth you want to argue about such a ridiculous formality, but you need to stop.

The "Macedonians" can call themeselves anyway they want. The Greeks will do what they have to do to defend their history and their heritage.

    • Philaleth 05:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) whoever you are you little punk a$$ freak, if you had a brain larger than a pea you'd see the problem: what would Bush do if part of canada suddenly called themselves Michigan and started demanding that they be reunited with their fellow "Michiganians"? I'll tell you what: he'd bomb the place back to the Ice Age and turn it into a parking lot! Your stupidity is equaled only by that idiot Bush's... His time will come (in International Court, Hague or otherwise) and all you pea-brains will have to crawl back under the rocks you came from...

USA recognises Macedonia with its original name

From this month(November 2004) United States of America officialy recognised Macedonia with its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia".

Notice to User:Vergina

The historical name (with over 2500 years of history, great part of it being indeed Greek) is Macedonia itself, not "Republic of Macedonia". Nevertheless, you keep adding the same stupid stuff:

"The name "Republic of Macedonia" included 2500 years Greek history of Macedonia.See FYROMs history-propaganda"

which, as I've told you, doesn't make any sense. It's a shame you've chosen this way to embarass yourself, and Greece too. Etz Haim 19:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes the name "Republic of Macedonia" included Greek History and Greek Symbols:http://www.makedonija.info/info.html

Vergina 19:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Scope of dispute: "Whether articles on States should be named based upon international recognition, or based upon the state's internal recognition." I suggest we do not submit sources disputing the history/geographical area/etc, but instead effectively sub-contract that part of the debate out to the politicians of the world.

I have moved the article to be named "FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" as it is internationally recognised. example. This is the most NPOV name for the article, as it is the name recognised by the majority of countries - you even admit to this in the opening sentence of the article, so why you should decide to name the article based upon a minority view is beyond me.

I am aware that was a previous discussion on this, but this was effectively 7 people voting based upon opinion not fact. They might as well have been voting on whether 2+2=7. Wikipedia is not supposed to be democratic. --Rebroad 21:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is democratic - the entire encyclopedia works on the basis of consensus and agreement. The matter of this article's name was discussed at length and agreed by a majority. The minority might not have liked the outcome but they did agree to abide by it. To put it mildly, it's presumptuous for you to claim that your view should override that of everyone else. If you really want to get the article's name changed, persuade people that your point of view is the right one - don't try to impose it. -- ChrisO 21:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFAIWA, I was quoting Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines and meta:Don't_vote_on_everything. Also, may I ask you not to accuse me of vandalism, as you have just done on my talk page, along with threatening to block me, both of which are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Thanks, --Rebroad 12:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your changes, like for an example your use of improper capitalization of article title, were a clear and deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Naive cynic 13:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The capitalizaion of the word "Of" was an honest mistake. Which policy?? --Rebroad 14:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Consensus. --Jiang

Also, History_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia, also states it was internationally named FYROM in 1993. ChrisO, what is your objection? Why are we debating this, 11 years later? --Rebroad 15:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, we stated that it was not just an issue of what names international organizations (not everyone) use. Your average tourist just calls it "Macedonia". Should we move it there? --Jiang 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected to prevent it from being moved again without community consensus. --Jiang 06:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been a year since the last poll, let's have a new one. --Joy [shallot] 11:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm game, but could we do it after Christmas? -- ChrisO 13:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to cover the naming dispute?

In anticipation of questions/objections, I'll explain here why I've made a number of major changes to the way the naming dispute is covered on this article:

1) Position within the article. Taxonomically, the naming dispute section was misplaced - it's clearly a subset of the country's politics (i.e. regarding foreign relations), not an issue separate from and above all every other matter regarding that country. It also gives entirely the wrong impression about the relative importance of the issue. I know some people on both sides feel strongly about it, but objectively it can't possibly be argued that the naming dispute is more important than every other aspect of the state's history, politics, geography, economics etc.

2) Level of detail. This is a summary article; the naming dispute is covered in detail in a separate page. As such, it's surely not appropriate to go into too much detail about any issue (naming or otherwise) on a country page. Doing that also unnecessarily duplicates the detailed coverage elsewhere. The old version of the naming dispute section was too long - in fact, longer than any other section other than the history one - and it went into excessive detail, such as quoting UN resolutions verbatim. I've summarised it in two paragraphs and pointed the reader towards the detailed article.

3) Conformance with templates. Having a long naming dispute section at the very top of the article is clearly not in conformance with the WikiProject Countries template. This change brings the article into line with the standard template. -- ChrisO 17:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is ridiculously exaggarated, but I think it shouldn't be completely omitted from the intro, since that will only last until the next person with an axe to grind comes along. I think it would be best if it was mentioned in a single sentence in the intro (preferably close to the names themselves) and linked to another place (possibly the politics page). Hopefully, interested people will click that link and edit, complain, debate and argue there, leaving this article to concentrate on more important things. Zocky 19:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. I've added a sentence which should hopefully fit the bill. -- ChrisO 01:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now it looks like it's about official names in general. The link should be more eye-catching, something that those so inclined will rush to click. I'm not sure how to do it - maybe go as far as "the name is disputed by Greece. See wherever we put it". Zocky 02:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The first thing people ask when visiting this article should be why is the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" used in the first place, as opposed to plain old "Macedonia". Putting the naming dispute first was not necessarily a statement of its importance (is politics more important than economy?), but out of necessity to clear any confusion for the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with the dispute and see this unusual moniker being used without explanation.
WikiProject Countries template is designed as a guideline only and should not be strictly followed when there are good reasons not to. At Republic of China for example, there is a section on foreign relations since the issue has significance.
I don't think the lead section is currently clear enough. The current section on "foreign relations" is focused solely on the naming dispute so it is improperly titled. I think we should move the content in that section (now that it has been condensed) back to the section labelled "naming dispute" to clarify the most confusing aspect of this country. Otherwise, the precedent is to have foreign relations sit as its own section and not as a subsection for politics. The articles on Canada and India, for example, start with a section on naming. --Jiang 10:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They're not quite the same. Canada and India refer to the etymology of the name, not the political aspects of using it. The naming issue of "Macedonia" is a political one, not an etymological one. As such, I suggest that it belongs in the relevant section - under Politics.
As for the clarification of any confusion, I think this is adequately addressed by the first paragraph, which makes it clear that the RoM isn't the same thing as geographical Macedonia or Greek Macedonia. That point is made again under Geography. -- ChrisO 08:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The logical connection is not made in the lead section and should not be assumed to be made by the lay reader.
anyway, the precedent is to have foreign relations sit as a separate section (the template has foreign relations linked under "miscellanous topics" when there is no section). since this deals with both politics and foreign relations, i dont see why this can't have its own section. our politics sections for countries almost always focus on government, not international relations.--Jiang 18:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I thought that in a way it could work in the political section but now it’s clear that 'buried' under that section, it simply does not serve its purpose. On another note, it was vandalised without any attention for quite some time and considering the ongoing UN mandated discussions (i.e. the recent suggestions-discussions that reached the news), the section (and its 'position') did not relate the pivotal necessary information to the lay users. -- Ninio 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The county of Luxembourg seems to attract no problems being listed as Luxembourg depsite being part of a larger historical area part of which remains as a province of Belgiam and is still called Luxembourg. Pandering to objections on Macedonia calling itself what it is is itself POV. Call it Macedonia and have a disambiguation page or direction to the area in Greece. Dainamo 14:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Republic contains roughly NOT 38% of the area and nearly NOT 44% of the population

These percent 38%;44% do not agree! Skopje as an Uskub was Kosovo zone! Not Macedonia.

Vergina 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where are the Serbs and Bulgars of Vardarska Banovina ?
Vergina 11:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYROM is Official name of the country

Vergina 19:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and? That refers to "Република Македонија". --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Official Country Name" is what the country calls itself, not what others call it. Compare the infobox on People's Republic of China. -- ChrisO 08:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notes and warnings

Wikipedia should NOT put any warnings in articles. We simply use the name the country likes to call itself. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The country calls itself Republika Makedonija, not Republic of Macedonia.--Theathenae 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. And since this is the English Wikipedia, should use the English translation. Republika Makedonija is translated in English as Republic of Macedonia. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why do we call Moldova Moldova in English and not Moldavia, which is the correct English translation?.--Theathenae 20:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly.--Theathenae 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Moldavia" is not a translation; it's a possibly Latin-influenced version of an original Romanian name (in much the same way that Moscow is an anglicisation of Москва. Also, Moldavia the historic Romanian province isn't the same thing as Moldova the country. See Moldavia#Name. -- ChrisO 2 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)
Exactly. And neither is Macedonia the historic region the same thing as "Macedonia" the country, which is why a similar distinction needs to be made. Moldavia is the traditional English name of the wider region. Moldova has only recently become the English name of the country that forms part of Moldavia. Initially, the country was referred to as the Republic of Moldavia when it declared its independence, and prior to that was called the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in English. But this has changed, and it can change in the case of "Macedonia" as well, without the country having to make any change to its official constitutional name, Republika Makedonija. Using Makedonija for the country and reserving Macedonia for the wider region would be the exact equivalent of the Moldova/Moldavia distinction.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)

Name issue

Since the name "Republic of Macedonia" is only the constitutional name of the country and not its official, globaly recognized name, I suggest it is not used in this international encyclopedia. It would be wiser to use the country's temporary name (FYROM - Former Yogoslavic Repubic Of Mecedonia) until an agreement is reached between FYROM and Greece. My personal opinion is that the name "Republic of Macedonia" is not correct since the population of the country are not Greek as the ancient Macedonians were. What's more, the people of FYROM use a totally different language to the ancient Macedonians who (being Greek tribes) used the Greek language. Therefore the term Macedonia is just geographical. However a name like "Slavic Macedonia" or "North Macedonia" or "Slavomacedonia" would be more apropriate. I am Greek but not fanatic and I recognise that FYROM is on a part of the area of Macedonia but it is far from having all the area of Macedonia nor are the people descendants of the ancient glorius kingdom of Macedonia. Petros The Greek 2 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I'm quite afraid that it's really not up to Greece to decide the name of other nations. In the end, Greece will have to eventually recognize Macedonia by the name it wishes. Honestly, FYROM? Slavomacedonia? Oh that one will go over well. If only Greece could be less childish--do you realize that governments representing a third of the earth's population recognize it as the Republic of Macedonia? Not that anyone doesn't call it Macedonia anyway, except maybe, of course, the Greeks.--naryathegreat | (talk) July 8, 2005 03:58 (UTC)
Humans succeed nothing when they accept things as they are. All people that we consider heroes had the courage to chang stabile a situation. Anyway, the matter is not what some governments have decided to recognise (probably because of financial interests) but what is objectively, historically and geographically correct. That's why I presented several arguments against the name Macedonia. Of course, I do not suggest FYROM as a permanent name but as a temporary solution. In conclusion, the Greeks oppose to the name as it is their ancestors name, the other nations have nothing against it (in few words: they don't care!). Petros The Greek 13:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

I've proposed a new policy to resolve issues such as this on a more objective basis. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict - comments are welcome. -- ChrisO 2 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Criterion Option 1 -- Republic of Macedonia Option 2 -- FYROM
1. Most commonly used name in English 1 0
2. Current official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no.

I believe "Republic of Macedonia" wins.--naryathegreat | (talk) July 8, 2005 04:02 (UTC)

You're wrong. "Republic of Macedonia" is not more commonly used than FYROM in English as the country's official name. And you appear to be conflating the "current official name of entity" with the "current self-identifying name of entity". Most states do not recognise the country under its self-styled constitutional name.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the "official name of entity" criterion set out at Wikipedia:Naming conflict, it specifically refers to what the entity calls itself in a formal legal context, i.e. its constitutional name. This doesn't overlap with the third criterion - not every entity has a formal legal identity but if it's a human entity (a people, state, organisation etc) it will certainly have a self-identifying name. Basically the first criterion is "what do people most commonly call it in English" and the latter two are "what does it call itself". The key question to ask is how is it actually described, not how should it be described.
You are right, though, that RoM is less widely used than FYROM. So the table would look like this:
Criterion Option 1 -- Republic of Macedonia Option 2 -- FYROM
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1
2. Current official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no.
In other words, Republic of Macedonia still comes out ahead, thus confirming that this article is objectively correctly named. -- ChrisO 8 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
If you define "current official name of entity" as the name the entity uses for itself, then of course it does not "overlap" with the third criterion: it is the third criterion. If you're going to use the same criterion twice, why not add criteria such as "current official name used by international organisations" and "current official name used by most states", which are distinct after all? Your proposal should make a distinction between those entities that do have a formal legal identity and those that do not. Otherwise the second criterion is redundant, and if you remove it, the correct "score" is 1-1. A draw.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

It is rediculus to say that criteria that you wrote are npov (or even objective). it is obvius that you wrote them just for a porpose. --Lucinos 12:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

> PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE GREEK TRIBE OF MACEDON

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

One of these days the Greeks are going to wake up and realize that they can't tell other nations what to call themselves. Until then we must listen to boring tirades like this. Nobody calls it the FYROM, just as nobody calls it the RoM, they call it Macedonia. However, since it calls itself the RoM, that's what the article is named.--68.95.228.67 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

One of these days you the slavs in Vardaska will realize they live in fantastic world.


NPOV needs work?

Looks like this page still has a ways to go! see: this message on inter's talk page. Kim Bruning 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia [email protected]

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

62.162.194.238 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Religions of FYROM

  • It is false 66% "Macedonian Orthodox"!
  • See:

Macedonian Orthodox 32.4%, other Christian 0.2%, Muslim 16.9%, other and unspecified 50.5% (2002 census) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mk.html

Vergina 05:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote

After the revert wars and the locking of the article Macedonian denar due to its disclaimer, a vote was put up at Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote. Please vote whether articles that include the name of the Republic of Macedonia should include the disclaimer or not. bogdan | Talk 19:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

boilerplate text -> template

Cf. Template:Macedonian naming dispute (links, talk). --Joy [shallot] 20:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the "Republic of Macedonia"

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

Extremism in the "Republic of Macedonia"

Extremism in the "Republic of Macedonia" is not individual phenomenon. No! With security not!If a State of stranger of symbols as flag steal (see Macedonian symbol Vergina Sun) and strange identity imitates,one cannot speak of individual cases extremism. In this case most citizens of the state are extremists and the State of is extremistic or nationalistic.

The name Republic of Macedonia is a falsification for the Slavic peoples!It is a imitation of Hellenism and included 2500 years Greek history of Macedonia.This is the reason why the name "Republic of Macedonia" is an international dispute.

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://ret001qm.eresmas.net/images/Macedonia%25202E%252005-r.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ret001qm.eresmas.net/eu-ingle.htm&h=300&w=294&sz=21&tbnid=jZ0lDbN9KbYJ:&tbnh=111&tbnw=108&hl=de&start=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmacedonia%26start%3D140%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Vergina 11:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very concerned that the section you created called "Extremism . . ." is POV. Your additional insertions of Slav before Macedonian in several instances, especially where it reflects badly on the people you are naming such, shows that you are not employing a NPOV here. Please suggest how this information is appropriate and NPOV, else I believe it should be reverted. – Friejose 15:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It is my impression that it is the articles themselves that need to comply with NPOV, not the talk pages. Unless I'm mistaken, talk pages are meant for civilized discussion of various POV's, in case differences of opinion arise, and the eventual formulation of NPOV consensus.
I would be grateful to know why you think that calling a Slav a Slav is POV. Wikipedia has a huge, well-written and very detailed article on the Slavic peoples, which is as it should be because Slavs number several hundred million folks and inhabit vast areas of Europe and Asia. Oh, and just in case you didn't know, the word "Slava" means "glory" in most, if not all, Slavic languages. It is also commonly used in lieu of the English expression "Long Live ..." when applauding e.g. a country or an institution. Chronographos 21:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback, although it is somewhat disingenuous to seize upon the word Slav, which I nowhere mention in my post, as the center of my POV concern. This tack, as you have termed it elsewhere when done to your statements, is a straw argument. My true concern is that (1) the excessive use of exclaimation points, (2) the statement that "most citizens of the state are extremists," (3) the choice of the handle Vergina in this context, and (4) the fact-less disparagement of an entire state demonstrates a lack of a neutral viewpoint. If you care to address the gravamen of my actual concerns, I would be most obliged. Your facility with words and arguments is impressive, but it misrepresents what I actually said and it mispresents the statements of Vergina above. – Friejose 21:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
For a non-native speaker of English, it seems that my reading comprehension is in pretty good shape: You state "... the word Slav, which I nowhere mention in my post ..." and "Your additional insertions of Slav ...". This does look like mentioning to me. The remainder of your concerns had better be addressed to Vergina. It would be highly inappropriate of me to respond on behalf of a person I don't even know. Chronographos 22:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I did say Slav. Sincerest apologies to the Slav nations that you so gallantly defend. As you know, the insertion of Slav following Macedonian necessarily implies that the residents/citizens of the erstwhile Republic of Macedonia lack a historical connection to the term Macedonia and their state is merely an "imitation of Hellenism" as Vergina phrases it. Perhaps I'm jumping to inappropriate conclusions, but your comments here and elsewhere have suggested to me that you agree with such an assessment disparaging the legitimacy of the Republic of Macedonia. Thus, I query you directly Chronographos, am I mistaken in that conclusion? Furthermore, I thought you took on the mantle of Vergina's defense by responding in this very thread. Thus, I direct a second question your way Chronographos, do you believe my four-pronged characterization of Vergina's NPOV problems above is accurate? Since your superlative English skills are abundantly clear in your use of American idioms and in your catch of my embarassing mistake above, I do not doubt you understand the questions, now I await your reply. – Friejose 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Since you are inquiring about my own take of the issue, a fact I again find most flattering, here it is: Macedonia is a geographical area which is divided between Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria. The particulars (wars, treaties etc) are easy to look up. In this area reside about 2.5 million Greeks, 2 million citizens of FYROM, of whom one third are ethnic Albanians, and about 200,000 Bulgarians. The name of FYROM is temporary, and UN-sponsored negotiations are being conducted to resolve the issue. Negotiations are presided over by UN envoy Matthew Nimitz. I await the conclusion of these negotiations. In the meantime I find it unfair that the Slav majority of FYROM should monopolize the term Macedonian without any qualifier. For one, they are not the majority within the geographical area we are discussing. Therefore it seems fair to me that some sort of qualifying statement differentiate them from Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Bulgarians. I think that the "Slav" qualifier is a good one as it accurately describes their linguistic and historical background. After all, they are Slavs living in Macedonia. Should the permanent name of FYROM be, say, Paionia or Vardarska, they could then be called Paionians, Paionian Slavs, Macedonian Paionians, Paionian Macedonians, Vardar Macedonians, or the Boston Red Sox for all I care.
As for Vergina's points, his poor English makes it hard for me to understand exactly what he wants to say. Regardless, you failed to respond to my own point: namely that it is WP articles that need to observe NPOV, not talk pages. Chronographos 23:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I am so disappointed you did not answer me ... Chronographos 19:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
And even more dissapointed by your complete lack of argumentation. This is partly offset by your following my edits around and adding tiny little helpful and insightful edits of your own. I am glad to assist in making your life more fulfilling through Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me in this respect. Wikipedia is a great learning tool. I'll be more than happy to be showing you around. I will focus on the Second Viennese School articles next, in case it interests you. Chronographos 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridicule

This might upset the Macedonian nationalists but the whole claim is ridiculous: when during the 19th century, Pan-Slavism was growing among the Slavic communities of Europe, those occupying present-day Macedonia decided to adopt the name 'Macedonian' for their subnation as it were, so as not to be caught in the cross-fire between Bulgaria and Serbia even though both the latter nations are infact Slavic. Perhaps Bulgars are not originally Slavic but once they were embedded within Slavic communities, they soon assimilated Slavic language, culture and identity and the evidence of their Turkic backgrounds were soon wiped out: first you have two nations, Slavs and Bulgars occupying the same territory, then as Bulgars start speaking the Slav language, marrying Slavs and only teaching their children the Slav language, within a few generations there is nothing left of the old people and nobody now can go to one of the towns and say 'She is Slavic and he is a Bulgar' for they become one and the same. So what then IS Bulgarian? and Serbian? and now Macedonian for that matter? Simple, they are nothing but power bases: names used by influential people in high places to lure as many people around them as possible into believing 'This is who you are, be one of us and you will be rewarded.' When between 1885-86 the Bulgarians defeated the Serbs in the battle for Slivnitsa, the southern-most people still to be under Ottoman rule were (at the same time as developing their culture/language etc) divided as to whether they were Bulgarians or Serbs with both 'bases' trying to encourage these people to accept them and not the other. Finally in the 1890's the southern-most Slavs decided that they would take the historical name for their region 'Macedonia' and use it to standardize and develop and nation with all of its properties which is both seperate to Bulgaria and Serbia, and thus was created the I.M.R.O (their headquarters were in a part of Slav-occuppied Macedonia in present day Bulgaria). Now, after World War I, Macedonia was carved up three ways between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes; Greece; and Bulgaria. This subsequently meant that Blagoevgrad (to take an example) lies in both Macedonia AND Bulgaria. Macedonia is the provincial region and Bulgaria is the name of the government which rules over the regions people; whether or not those people classed themselves as Bulgarians by nationality would have their own choice. But just as it is possible for Blagoevgrad to be a part of Bulgaria AND Macedonia simply for being situated on land which was at different times occupied by both sets of people whilst THESE ones are Slavic, so too can this be the case in todays FYROM. Ancient Bulgars were present there too when they converted identity to Slavic - Turkey can rename herself Anatolia; Iraq may be called Babylon, my point is that it wouldn't make the people Babylonian if in fact they are Arabs! The claims by the principle population of FYROM that they are descended from Alexander the Great and not from the occupying Slavs from AD 555 onwards is preposterous. Ancient Macedonians were a tribe about which nobody knew prior to their crusade when they annexed the Hellenic tribes who fought against each other frequently. Converting to Greek indentity themselves they conquered much of the middle-east but never the less, by the time the Slavs arrived to their present settlement, ONLY a Greek nation could have been living in Ancient Macedonia IF AT ALL these towns were even inhabited. Today, FYROM is a rather heteregenous territory. Asides the principle population you have Albanians, Turks, Gypsies, Romanians, Caucasians (speakers of Adyghe) and pockets of others. Yet it is only the Slavic-speaking people who call themselves 'Macedonian'. The U.N recognizes everybody to have been living in the FYROM since 1993 as being Macedonian with the distinction appearing after the adjective 'Macedonian', for example, Gheg speaking residents of villages near Tetovo are called 'Albanci/Shiptari' by those who speak the Slav language in Prilep but to the U.N are known as 'Macedonian Albanians'. Descendants from the Ottoman Empire who still speak a form of Turkish (such as the Gaugaz nation) are referred to as Macedonian-Turks. So how does this leave the main population of Macedonia? Macedonian-Macedonians? That doesn't make sense since the term Macedonian is already applied...the question is why are they not Turks or Albanians? In fact, they are recognised internationally as Macedonian Slavs, or Slav-Macedonians. They may dispute this and argue with it but let's put this whole issue under closer inspection. Albanians, said to have desecded from the Illyrians have also been present in the region for thousands of years, certainly whilst any original Macedonians would have been roaming the region. There are Albanians who live in the present day Fyrom, as well as Albanians who live in Greek Macedonia. There are Slavic communities who live in parts of Albania (including sections outside of the part of Macedonia within Albania) and there are of course still many tens of thousands of Slavic people living in Greece (though most were relocated after WWII in order to play down their claim to the territory). But why is it that when you speak to someone in Bitola or Skopje, they will tell you that 'The reason that Giorgos and Dimitris from Lerin (that is Florina) speak my language is because they are Macedonians like I am who were forced into dissimilation by the post-war Greek government.' It is true that our fictional characters were dissimilated but from being 'Macedonian'? No sir, from Slavic. Why is the term 'Macedonian' not applied to Albanian or Greek speakers within Macedonia? EVEN the GREEK part of Macedonia! Alexanders descendants becomed Slavisized with the arrival of the Serbs etc. What, all of them?? Did none of them maintain their original Greek language? Then who are these Greek people living in Thessaloniki? It might be said that they are originally from farther south, Athens and the islands, pushed north to dilute the Slavic-speaking population. But what about the Albanians? Not the ones in Albania or the Fyrom but the Alvarites who live in Greek Macedonia? If it were the 'real Macedonians' destiny to convert identity, did that only mean Slavic? Could it not have meant Albanian too since they were also living there? and once again, if not - then who are these Albanian speaking people in Kastoria etc? Does it really wash? Greek speakers are Greek, Albanian speakers are Albanian but the Slav-speaking people of the same town are descendants of ancient Macedonians who history recorded to have switched nationality anyway? It is every nationalist's dream to see his forged nation succeed and take over as much land and people as possible. Bulgaria is the same, she would take the whole of Macedonia if she could and make her 'Bulgaria', adding the same propoganda. Traditional Serbian views see Macedonia as a part of Serbia but they would have done this with Bulgaria too - had they succeeded the first step in capturing the border areas in their 1885 war. Croatia is no different, their government too like to apply the term 'Croat' to people not only outside of Croatia's borders but people who themselves call themselves something else. Yet the remarkable thing is, moving politics to one side: borders may change daily but where you have Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro etc, right through to Slovenia and beyond (because on the opposite end of this region, the problem is mirrored with Slavic communities who might be said to belong to Slovenia indigenous to regions outside Slovenia (ie.Austria and Italy), you don't actually find a cultural border anywhere. A country called Yugoslavia was formed and it fell apart. Bulgaria was never included. But do as I did in the 1980's and start travelling somewhere outside the region, say Kirklisse in Turkey - this town has a traditional Slavic population, claimed by Sofia to be 'Bulgarians' but their claims are unmatched by any of the other Slavic nations since European Turkey is just too far away for Bosnia's government to say 'OOOOYYYYYY - their OUURRSS .... can you hear us??? you're Bosnians!!! remember?? your great-great-great-grandparents started travelling to Ankara hundreds of years ago.......... what's that? ..oh you're Orthodox are you? sorry...' Belgrade: Orthodox? Well they're ours then, what are you doing claiming them you Sarajevo Muslims? Zagreb: Wo! Hold the bullshit, we have documents in Zadar saying that they were forced into Orthodoxy by an invading Russian militia when the region was still under Venice and so they are Croats! ...you get the picture! My point is that IF you travel from Kirklisse (known to the Slavic speakers as Lozengrad), and travel to Bulgaria, then Macedonia, then Serbia, then Montenegro, then Herzegovina, then back into Serbia, then into Macedonia via a different route, then Albania where Slavs live, then Greece where Slavs live, then back up north and into Bosnia, then Vojvodina (Serbia), then Slavonia (Croatia) then into Slovenia, then back down the Dalmatian coast - town by town, village by village, you have a continuum of dialect (eventually language), a continuum of people (Slavs), a continuum of culture (Slovenia and Bulgaria are different but there are many similarities and the differences have intervening stages where-by in some places, two or more customs may be practised), and a continuum of ideology - like Italy and its 60 million people, or Germany's 80 million... so why can't Macedonians just be proud to be Slavic when infact THAT is everything about them, their entire existence is based on it. By using the name Macedonia, they only make things difficult for themselves. User:AlfredG 25/aug/05

This is an excellent summation of what goes on, or rather, how things evolved. What irks me, as a scientist, the most about the whole affair is the now infamous genetic research "findings", based on the HLA studies by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. I will bypass the obvious embarrassments such as the participation of scientists from FYROM in that paper, and the sharp reprimand such papers received fron no less than Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in no less an august science journal than Nature magazine. By far the most outrageous element of this odious story is the ideological backbone of the arguments derived from it, namely that genes prove or disprove something about a population's "true ethnicity"! If this is not pure, true Nazism, I don't know what is. And while FYROMian scientists could conceivably be excused for not being quite aware of mainstream Western anti-racist values, the Spanish geneticist lacks any excuse whatsoever. Having received some genetics training myself, I can only feel contempt for such people. There is nothing inherently wrong with such studies per se, obviously. They can, and do, shed light into patterns of transhumance through prehistorical and historical times alike. But using such studies to somehow justify modern-day politics is beneath contempt. One would hope that such thinking went the way of the Nuremberg Trials convicts 60 years ago. Apparently, and unfortunately, it has not. Chronographos 07:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The sheer ridiculousness of the situation is further illustrated by the following: as you know, Bulgarians maintain that the Macedonian Slav language is practically the same as the Bulgarian language, whereas FYROM insists this is not the case. As a result, whenever officials from these two countries meet or hold a mutual press conference, FYROM officials insist on using Bulgarian-Slavomacedonian translators, whereas Bulgarian officials take all their questions in Slavomacedonian sans translation, and answer them in Bulgarian. Makes one wonder if the FYROM officials undergo "apathy training" to keep their facial expressions and body language from showing that they understand what is being said before the "translator" finishes. Chronographos 14:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just Curious from an Outsider's Point of View

Hi, I heard about this contreversy, and if a neutral party is needed, please let me know. I don't really have any ties to either side, and it'd be nice to solve this dispute.Even if it's happening in the "real world", we here on Wikipedia should be a shining example of objectivity and cooperation regardless of our nationality. Karmafist 01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic Immigration into Byzantine Empire

Began around late 8th Century BC, how on Earth can any Slav claim that Alexander was a Slav when they didn't even EXIST in that geographical area at the time? PROUD TO BE GREEK!

  • Actually it began a little earlier, the first migrations came during the 6th century but never the less, the arguement of the Slav Macedonians is not that Alexander was Slavic - rather that the Slavs dissimilated the Macedonian people but somehow these Macedonians kept their name (ie. they claim to be the descendants of Alexander with a culture influenced by neighbouring Serbia and Bulgaria) meanwhile they say that the Greek-speaking population of the region of Macedonia in Greece is nothing more than a diaspora pushed northwards from the islands where Greeks are said to be indigenous by the government in order to dilute the 'real' Macedonians. This is their arguement, not mine. I sympathise more with you on this one Proud Greek. User:AlfredG

By some non-Greeks

@Given the long name, the state is often referred to as Macedonia by some non-Greeks.

I can imagine why this phrasing was chosen, but I don't think anyone would use the full name instead of just Macedonia in normal conversation (especially not when referred to more than once). I realize that probably nothing will happen with this, I still feel I should say something about it. For one thing it's obvious the moment you read it that the writer meant to write "most", giving the sentence a ludicrous appearance. Secondly, everyone knows from their own experience that most peope just say "Macedonia". Web searches seem to back up this intuitive idea (in Google's index "Macedonia" is 44 times more common than the full name). Yours sincerely, Shinobu 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the official name of the country needs to be stated regardless of the frequency in its usage. The U.K. is seldom refered to as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nevertheless, is its proper name and as thus is mentioned, and not without good reason. Colossus 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that the UK's official name is longer and different than the name in common use, that "official" name is self-chosen by the British, not foisted upon them by the international community. I don't believe that the UN or NATO or any international entity can delineate an "official" name of a state. Perhaps there is an "internationally-recognized" name of a state, but to the extent that a name is "official," I believe it is the name chosen by the independent country itself and not decided on by other external to the state.
Sorry, forgot to sign the above, Friejose 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the name SFRY better more meaningful?
SFRY="Socialistic Federativ Republic of Yugoslavia"
Vergina 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at with your comment. But I am concerned that you have a too-strong POV after reading your additional comments below. As someone with no ties to either side of the naming dispute, I simply wanted to point out that the argument that one name of a country was "official" and should therefore receive more prominent listing was fallacious. All three current names for the former Yugoslav entity, "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", and "FYROM" should receive mention in the article, with an emphasis on what the citizens of that state call themselves. Especially since there is already a lengthy section on the naming dispute in the article. – Friejose 15:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

@Colossus: I never said it shouldn't. It's just this sentence that lifts my eyebrows, so to speak.

And to the extent that the name is not contrued as a threat by its neighbours, that country has the right to choose any name it likes. But for better or worse, the international community has enforced a commonly accepted name, at least in the international level, and since the international community is the only authoritative organization, we can, and ought to regard it as official. Wether it serves best the interests of the citizens of that country or nor is not for dispute heree, since Wikipedia isnt for original research. Like you said , the constitutional name (RoM) is already mentioned, but since its not widely embraced outside the country, we need to mention the name by which it is (FYROM). Official simply means authorized by the international community, and doesnt undermine the constitutional name. Colossus 09:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

@everyone else: My comment is not about the naming dispute, which is already addressed in the article.

Shinobu 02:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Since the long discussion below has nothing to do with this, I split this section in two.

Admittedly some (most) of the answers above haven't either, but I needed to cut somewhere, because splitting this section is the only way a sensible answer is going to appear. People who want to have a long discussion about what is and is not official, please be so kind to post remarks in the section below and not here. Shinobu 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Naryathegreat has corrected the sentence, something I should perhaps have done in the first place, instead of placing notes on the talk page. After all, aren't we supposed to "be bold"? Shinobu 02:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What's official and not

  • Colossus, happy to oblige and post here, but we've been around and around on this. ChrisO said it best above in this very talk page:

"Official Country Name" is what the country calls itself, not what others call it. Compare the infobox on People's Republic of China. -- ChrisO 08:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thus, I know that you know the reasoning here, yet you neverthess persist in reverting and playing the ingenue. The "official" issue and the name dispute is discussed at length in the text of the article, not in the introductory sentence. Where it belongs. Thanks, Friejose 14:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The international community is above the nation-state, just like international law suprecedes national law. The country may call itself as it wishes but until the constitutional name of the country is approved and recognized by the UN, it's usage is in breach of international law, and therefore POV. FYROM is a member of the United Nations and has agreed to enforce all of its edicts. The UN, and by extention all of its members, have prohibited the name RoM, so its usage is in breach of international law as well as FYROMian law. That the UN lacks enforcement powers of its and failed to prevent it from turning into a "de facto" name does not legitimize its use nor is it an endorcement of NPOV. Agreeably, RoM has become common enough so I can accept some leniency in Wikipedia, but claiming that it has equal status, at least legally, with its proper though not as popular name, FYROM, that is an endorsement of POV.
The United Nations is above FYROM, therefore UN desicions are above the decisions of FYROM. If the name "Republic of Macedonia" is to be used in Wikipedia, it should at least be made clear from the beggining that it is not the agreed upon name of the country. "Official" implies the UN and can make the legal status between the two names easily and quickly apprehensible. "Also known as" on the other hand implies equal status between the two, falsely raising RoM to the level of FYROM. "Recognized" does not imply decision-making and "official" merely pertains to a proper authority.
Perhaps there is an "internationally-recognized" name of a state, but to the extent that a name is "official," I believe it is the name chosen by the independent country itself and not decided on by other external to the state.
Would that if there didnt exists that first article of the UN charter binding all of its members to adhere to any of its decisions. Simply put, UN authority supercedes national authority, in the same way national authority supercedes individual persons. Or like an American as yourself surely must be aware of, Federal law is above State law and in case of conflict between the two, the Federal government has the right to amend that specific state law. Colossus 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, the purported norms of international law you cite above are by no means universally accepted. Cite me one case that says that the Macedonians calling themselves Macedonian violates international law. What is more, I've never voted for anyone to hold any post as part of the "international community" and neither have you, because they are unelected and unaccountable. The judges on the ICJ (among other international courts) are unelected and unaccountable, and they are appointed by people who are unelected and unaccountable. Hence, international law does not govern national law in the same way as federal governing state law; there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority. As a person of Greek descent, you can appreciate that I'm sure. Further, the UN is made up of numerous nation states that do not have the consent of the governed, so their UN resolutions mean much as realpolitik perhaps, but little as precedental authority. But before this devolves into an unnecessary squabble over international law, let me point out that I've linked to quotes that are internal to Wikipedia to support be edit removing the word "official". You are attempting to enforce your view of a situation (i.e. POV) by reference to authority that is external to Wikipedia. The UN has no purview here, there is no "official" in Wikipedia (otherwise why have it be open to edits from all?). The denizens of the Republic of Macedonia call their nation such, so should this article. – Friejose 15:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (As a side note to Colossus, thank you for replying here instead of reverting.)

Can you Friejose see any reference here that the Template:Macedonian_naming_dispute is in a vote to be deleted? I can't, but I can see that its origin can be traced back to January. And a lot of people involved in its shape have no idea that it is regarded as pov. MATIA 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the purported norms of international law you cite above are by no means universally accepted. Cite me one case that says that the Macedonians calling themselves Macedonian violates international law.

You are mistaken. As far as any UN member is concerned, UN law is universal, and therefore supreme. Article 2[6] of the UN charter makes it perfectly clear that UN members are obliged to enforce any UN decision. That the UN lacks the power to enforce its decisions directly itself is only because it has good faith in its members. The United Nations has decreed that the use of the name Republic of Macedonia is prohibited. UN member FYROM has ignored this decree. The state of FYROM is in breach of international law. Simple.

What is more, I've never voted for anyone to hold any post as part of the "international community" and neither have you, because they are unelected and unaccountable.

No. Unelected does not equal unaccountable. You have elected certain representatives to deal with public matters and they in turn have appointed people to certain offices using the power you have bestowed upon them in accordance to the law. The Prime Minister of FYROM which has been elected by the people of FYROM represents them in the international community and is accountable to them every four years.

The judges on the ICJ (among other international courts) are unelected and unaccountable, and they are appointed by people who are unelected and unaccountable. Hence, international law does not govern national law in the same way as federal governing state law; there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority.

The judges of the ICJ are apointed by UN the Heads of States of UN members which are elected directly by the citizenry and are accountable to them rather than the citizenry itself. The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States are not elected either. They are appointed by elected representatives and are accountable to them instead. In fact, Supreme court decisions supercede State Court decisions in the same way UN decisions supercede national decisions. So, international law does govern national law in much the same way Federal law governs State law.

there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority. As a person of Greek descent, you can appreciate that I'm sure. Further, the UN is made up of numerous nation states that do not have the consent of the governed, so their UN resolutions mean much as realpolitik perhaps, but little as precedental authority.

The UN does have the consent of the governed. The UN consists of the elected representatives of the governened speaking for them abroad, so its resolutions are legally sanctioned. As I said above, the prime minister of FYROM represents his people in the UN, and is obliged by the Constitution of FYROM as well as the UN charter to obey its resolutions. The problem is that seem to define democracy according to the Athenian definition. Ancient Athens was a direct democracy in which the citizenry was directly involved in decision making. Modern democracies are representative, in that elected representatives rather than the citizens themselves govern.

I've linked to quotes that are internal to Wikipedia to support be edit removing the word "official". You are attempting to enforce your view of a situation (i.e. POV) by reference to authority that is external to Wikipedia. The UN has no purview here, there is no "official" in Wikipedia (otherwise why have it be open to edits from all?). The denizens of the Republic of Macedonia call their nation such, so should this article.

Do you mind posting these quotes or links again? The word official simply points out to the UN and helps the reader understand that Republic of Macedonia, though more popular, is also not the legal name of the country. It helps to differentiate between the de jure and de facto name. The phrasing also known as is much more dubious and confuses rather than clarifies. FYROM isnt just a second name for the country. It's the proper legal designation. Colossus 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Friejose states that since a number of states are not true democracies, any international institutions in which these states participate, such as the ICJ, lack legitimacy. In other words, according to Friejose's "reasoning" the Nuremberg Trials were null and void, since the Stalin-ruled Soviet Union appointed a judge in that court. For a person who claims to be a lawyer, that's a pretty darn incredible thing to say. Chronographos 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I missed you guys over the weekend. Dr. Chrono, I see you didn't misplace your ax during my time away from this squabble, great to know it's still being ground. Another thing, Doc, your straw arguments continue to amaze me with their audacity; you must've missed when I said "[b]ut before this devolves into an unnecessary squabble over international law," let's focus on Wikipedia. It's just unhelpful for your slanted argument regarding this article, so you ignored it. Par for the course. Do you treat your patients like you treat facts and people who argue them: with unmitigated disdain? Colossus, my links to China, New Guinea, and Samoa were elsewhere, not here, sorry for any confusion — they are all naming disputes that don't use the word "official". Also, check Persian Gulf and Gdansk for others. I take it none of you are still using Danzig guilders, right? Friejose 20:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The minute I discuss my patients here, you will be free to comment on how I treat them. You made a serious faux pas, for an alleged legal expert, and your subsequent rudeness only makes it stand out the starker. No one is impressed by "lawyerese", unless it's the butt of a joke (and there are plenty of these going around). Chronographos 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Faux pas, eh? That's the same language as double entendré, right? Oh, and questioning the legitimacy of extranational organizations based on Locke's theories of governance is hardly a blunder (if I may use the English term). Bringing the Nuremberg trials into this chat is . . . wait for it . . . yet another straw argument made by you. You're nothing if not consistent Doc. Also, I recall that in some of your earlier diatribes you have had reference to your medical training when disparaging others, so spare me your plus saint que vous routine. (Did I say that right, Dr. C?) – Friejose 21:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Friejose I thought you discouraged personal attacks. MATIA 21:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Only when it suits him. The rest of the time he resorts to John Locke (!). Chronographos 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
What a load of BS! The only reason that it is known in the UN as FYROM is due to pressure from the Greeks, in many many many official papers, it is known simply as the Republic of Macedonia. The usage of this term is not ilegal. Indeed, within its own borders, it is known as the Republic of Macedonia.--Grcampbell 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice and easy. MATIA 17:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a poor argument, Campbell. If "the only reason that it is known in the UN as FYROM is due to pressure from the Greeks", then the only reason it is called the "Republic of Macedonia" is due to Yugoslav Communist pressure in the 1940s, part of a wider expansionist plan against Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. American disdain for international law notwithstanding, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the only internationally legitimate name until such time as the naming dispute between the two countries is resolved.--Theathenae 10:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality notice

Can anyone here name anything which is in specific dispute due to neutrality? The name of the article is not a reason to include this notice. If there are disputes, it is time to resolve them. Wikipedia is not the place for a debate over names. For cold hard facts, opinion, comparisons, and obscure semantic arguments are unimportant. It's time for some contributors to let this go. Does anyone have a specific complaint to report?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The debate is about clarifying that FYROM and not Republic of Macedonia is the country's legally recognized name, no matter the popularity of either. Colossus 13:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You cannot use the neutrality template for the name of the article. This implies that to a reader that the article itself is biased. If it is, please list concerns. If not, this notice will be removed. It is time to get over this tired debate. Wikipedia is not the place for it. As for this silly title dispute, debates about which name is more popular or what happened in 1250 or what not are not relevant. The only relevant details are those which concern the name dispute are those concerning the present situation.--naryathegreat | (talk) 14:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think you're confused over some stuff. The argument above between me and Friejose isnt related to the argument going on in Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote. Colossus 15:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not wish to be drawn into such a debate. I am merely asking for anyone with a specific neutrality complaint to come forward. Otherwise, I am going to remove the dispute notice.--naryathegreat | (talk) 16:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, arguing that FYROM is an officially recognized state is about neutrality. Claiming that Republic of Macedonia is of equal status is POV. Colossus 18:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Is "Via Egnatia" yet another "secret human rights organization" ...

... now under a different guise? Chronographos 22:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?

Official name

The official name of this state is the "Republic of Macedonia" by what it calls itself. Most big countries like the United States, Russia, China, and dozens of other countries use the official name. This information should not be censored and Wikipedia should not say only the name the Greeks want is the only official one. (signed by User:Via Egnatia)

"Republic of Macedonia" is a local name!The status of the state is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".The status name(See UNO) is the official name.USA recognized the state Bilateral as "Republic of Macedonia". Vergina 05:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to ban the name "Republic of Macedonia". So the use of RoM even within FYROM itself is illegal. Read the debate above. Colossus 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The country's official name, as defined by its constitution, is the Republic of Macedonia. The constitution is the highest law in that country, so to say that name is "illegal" within the country is just nonsense. Most other countries recognize officially it has the right to call itself what it wishes. The term "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not an official name at all but a provisional designation under which it was admitted to the United Nations, and only because Greece claimed it alone had the right to the word "Macedonia" since that is also a region of Greece. (This is something like the United States objecting to the admission of the Republic of Georgia under that name because the U.S. has a state named Georgia.) So, to say "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia " is the country's official name and the name in its constitution is not official is just wrong. Jonathunder 23:19, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of UN law vs. country constitution in this case, but there are other cases where things are quite clear: for example European Union law is explicitly stated and accepted to be above EU member country constitutions, and this has been reaffirmed by the Curia Chronographos 08:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. UN law is FYROM law too, and if the UN says the name is illegal, that means it is illegal everywhere including inside FYROM itself. FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to enforce UN resolutions. That FYROM ignores UN resolutions and goes on ahead to include the name RoM in its constitution only means that FYROM'ss cconstitution as well is in breach of UN law. A constitution, despite being the highest authoritative document in a nation, can be and still is below UN resolutions, which are deemed absolute by its members, and that means by FYROM too. You need to distinguish between de facto and de jure. The name RoM is not legal anywhere, even if its the most popular. Colossus 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

FYROM, when "Republic of Macedonia", neglects self the international right (UNO right) which agreed itself. Vergina 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The name Republic of Macedionia is the official name used for internal affairs and appears on the coinage, all official documents and on its passports. The country is not officialy recognised as FYROM. It is recognised by the United Nations as FYROM. I wouldn't pay much attention to what the UN has to say. The UN maintains that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, not Jerusalem and that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a province of the People's Republic of China, not an seperate state. That doesn't stop the articles Israel and Republic of China saying what the elected governments of those countries have established. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to use the name which is used by the government and add a footnote saying that the UN admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM. REX 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you 'd like to read the section about the meaning of the word official. MATIA 14:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy. To say one name is "official" and the other name is not is not reporting both points of view equally. "Republic of Macedonia" certainly is what that country says is its official name. You may think that is wrong but Wikipedia must be nuetral. CDThieme 17:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And how will WP be neutral if WP takes that side? I think that the term official as described above is neutral. MATIA 18:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should report all relevant positions but take none. It should say what the country calls itself and what others call it. It should not say one designation is THE official name.
The name Republic of Macedionia is the official name used for internal affairs and appears on the coinage, all official documents and on its passports.
And hence the de facto name of the country. Popularization though does not equal with legitimization. FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to prohibit the use of RoM, even in its own country. That it does not only means that it is breaking international law. Hence, its illegal.
The country is not officialy recognised as FYROM. It is recognised by the United Nations as FYROM.
Only that the UN is the highest authority in the world, and its members, including FYROM, are obliged to enforce its resolutions. UN resolutions apply internationally as well as nationally, and that includes inside FYROM's own borders.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is to use the name which is used by the government and add a footnote saying that the UN admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM.
The de facto name is already displayed. The point here is to make known that that name is not legal, and by extention not official. The word "official" pertains to a proper authority, and the worlds highest authority is the UN. The UN hasnt just admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM. It decreed the name RoM illegal altogether and prohibited its use. That's why the use of the name RoM even within FYROM is illegal.
Wikipedia should report all relevant positions but take none. It should say what the country calls itself and what others call it. It should not say one designation is THE official name.
Again, official pertains to a proper authority, that is, the United Nations. And since all nations are bounded by the UN, by extention, it pertains to the international community itself. Look up "official" in a dictionary.
Please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy. To say one name is "official" and the other name is not is not reporting both points of view equally. "Republic of Macedonia" certainly is what that country says is its official name. You may think that is wrong but Wikipedia must be nuetral.
No, its only that you dont know what official means. That the country styles itself Republic of Macedonia makes no difference to legal matters. If something is illegal, it remains illegal no matter how much the law is overlooked. FYROM was obliged by the UN to prohibit the use of RoM. FYROM didnt. FYROM broke international law. International law is FYROM law. FYROM is in breach of its own laws. Therefore, one name is legal, and the other is not. Colossus 20:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove that it is illegal for this country to use the name RoM? Also, I have just read the article official, what am I looking for? I fail to see your point. I invite you to prepare a proposal of what changes you would like to make to the article. For all I know they could be totally legitimate. REX 09:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

FYROM is a UN member. The UN has prohibited the use of "RoM". Inso facto, FYROM is prohibited from using "RoM". There's not much else to say.
Read section "What's official and not" above in this talk page. Most of your objections and queries have already been discussed there. I advised you look up official because it seemed you believed it discredited one name if you attached it to another, which of course is not the case. Official merely suggests legal credibility, which RoM lacks. Colossus 13:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and of course "FYROM" are not names at all. They are ways of referring to the country obliquely.

The democratically elected government of this country has established the use of the name RoM under its constitution. This is all the legal credibility it could need and according to the article official: As an adjective, official often but not always means pertaining to the government, either as state employee or having state recognition. The name FYROM was used as a temporary solution to the nameing dispute to enable this country to be admitted to the UN. If the name indeed was illegal, then it wouldn't be used by the Macedonian government nor by the other countries which have recognised it (ie (USA), Mighty Greece would have taken the case to the International Court of Justice and the name would have been decreed illegal under international law. That has not yet happened. REX 15:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The constitutional name is mentioned first and then the official name is mentioned as well. Such disputes between nations are not subject to International Court of Justice but to the UNO and negotiations for this name are still in progress. MATIA 16:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Radio Skopje in its Greek propaganda transmission program gives itself each day as radio "Μακεδονία" out,calls the State of FYROM "Μακεδονία", the citizens as "Μακεδόνες" and the own Bulgarian language as "Μακεδονική γλώσσα".
Here is clearly evident,that the slav people of FYROM the Greek trunk of the Macedonians imitate.
Vergina 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_7&oldid=22407299"