Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 14

Clarification needed upon motto
I see that the motto is exactly the same as the Greek one. Apart from that, there are no references. Are we sure that this is the real motto and was not invented by anyone? It's simply a very strange coincidence. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not strange, but yes, it is the same. Many countries have a motto based on "freedom or death". I think some American guy said it first...  Balkan Fever  23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You make sense on that. But the citation is still missing, I'm afraid. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The incorrect use of "FYROM"
After attempting to edit a few Wikipedia articles regarding the Republic of Macedonia and specifically the mention of the reference used in international organizations (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) I came to the realization that I am unable to edit either that specific part of the article or the article itself. The problem in question is regarding the reference. I repeatedly see the word “FYROM” used as an abbreviation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the manual for Macedonia related articles YOUR rules specify the correct use of the reference which is, again, “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM. Using FYROM to abbreviate the inconveniently long reference is not a correct way of doing so and it is offensive. In many instances you also seem to put FYROM in parentheses after displaying the full reference. I cannot see the point in doing so since you do not use the same principle in articles regarding Greece (the Hellenic Republic (HR)) or Germany (Federal Republic of Germany(FRG)). The UN resolution states that the Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the UN and not FYROM or F.Y.R.O.M. (note the use of the lower case letters for “the” and “former”). This information is linked from Wikipedia to the following: Another important thing to mention is that whenever the Republic of Macedonia is mentioned in NATO, the full reference is used and a footnote is present referring to the countries that recognize the country by its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia. In footnote #3 in the article about the Republic of Macedonia you claim the reference used in international organizations such as the EU, NATO and the WTO is FYROM. This is not correct as the resolution clearly states that the full reference is to be used. If your intentions, as an information portal, are to be politically correct I ask you not to be subjective in your intentions and please correct the unintentional mistake on your part. Our objection is that when you are using the reference, you use it as intended without modifying or abbreviating it, meaning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me if used everywhere, that is so long as it is used as well to replace 'Republic of Macedonia'. Otherwise, a double bias is fine as it is. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's not a double bias. It's incorrect.


 * FACT: The country's name is Republic of Macedonia (as 130 other countries that recognized it)
 * FACT: The country was addmited in the UN by the reference :the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
 * So, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])" is actually a incorrect.Noompsy (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point that Noompsy is trying to make is that the abbreviation "FYROM" is incorrect because that is not the proper reference to be used. Using "FYROM" when using the reference assigned to the country in question by the UN resolution is incorrect. The reason why it is biased is because it satisfies the Greek intention that the name "Macedonia" is not mentioned or non-existent in the name of the country when pronouncing "the reference" ("FYROM") as a word by itself rather than use it as intended - "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Using the word "FYROM" constitutes a word by itself, which is fairly easy to pronounce and might mislead users who want to get objective information regarding the name of the country that this word is in fact the politically correct way of referring to the country, when it is in fact NOT. Another important thing to mention is that this is the article about the country, a country which is recognized by more than 130 nations by its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia". A simple mention that there is a naming dispute going on with a reference to the wiki article that deals with that dispute would suffice and both points of view can be expressed in that section. The current reality is that the country's official name is "Republic of Macedonia", but because of Greek opposition, that is being disputed and a reference is in place for use in international organizations such as the UN. The proper reference is not "FYROM" nor "Fyrom" nor "FYR Macedonia" but rather "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, if you replace all references with that, everyone will be happy. But if you happen to keep any single 'Republic of Macedonia' around, a flamefest will probably start over again, and we do not want that. And about the opposition of Greece, I think most of us know that this is no child's play, but that there are indeed historical and territorial issues behind all this, which have led to this situation. Still, I do not agree with you that FYROM is incorrect by any ways, it is the abreviation of the legal name given temporarily by the United Nations, but again, if you want to replace all and any of the references, everyone will be more than happy about that, and with all I mean from Fyrom, FYROM, fYROM, Rom, Republic of Macedonia, and so on. As you might well understand, using a self-claimed name that denotes historical and territorial claims, will cause unnecessary anger and wrath, which as I said before, is to be avoided. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm always surprised by the anonymous 87.xxx IPs who talk about the "legal" name. (And less surprised by their constant blackmailing "if you do as I say, everything will be fine") It happens so often that I almost tend to think that they believe what they are writing. So for their information, FYROM is not the legal name. The United Nations do not provide legal names for any country, nor do they even claim to do so. The only name that is "legal" in any sense is the one that the country's constitution uses, and that is Republic of Macedonia. Needless to say, that is not binding for any of us, as neither Macedonian nor Greek laws have any authority over Wikipedia. As I've said often before, compare with Luxembourg for an identical situation, only that anonymous Belgian IPs aren't edit warring over it all the time. JdeJ (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to replace most of the instances of "FYROM" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". If anyone has a valid reason that in a particular instance it should be "FYROM", then change it. The non-nationalists will understand what the previous sentence means ;-).  Balkan Fever  11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On looking at it again, it seems Noompsy is not referring to this article, but other articles.  Balkan Fever  11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask you, BalkanFever, to go ahead with your proposed change of changing "FYROM" to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and even delete the added "FYROM" in parentheses in the following line:
 * "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])"
 * I have to stress again that "FYROM" is not the reference that the country was admitted under but rather "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and I stress the lower-case "f". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO". I would like this to be changed to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" until you provide a document from within the EU, NATO and WTO where the acronym "FYROM" is actually used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree on this one. Many institutions and countries call it FYROM like that and pronounce it like that. Even calling the inhabitants FYROMians, and I am not refering particualary to Greece, because they use the term Skopjan. However, in countries like Spain or France it is pretty common to hear FYROM and FYROMian rather than Macedonia or Macedonian, as those refer to the Greek territory. Concluding, if we have to follow NPOV, we have to take care of all of it.

In reply to JdeJ, as I stated before, in the Balcans we have territorial issues with the Slavic people, in Belgium not. Your argument is of no point in here. Comparissons make no sense in this case. And yes, I do believe what I write, what I cannot believe is that you do the same about your writtings. There are many inconsistencies and you are always trying to defend your arguments with things that have already been discarded clearly with historic and territorial arguments. And finally, yes, if we replace it everywhere, you DO understand that everyone will calm down. If you don't, refrain from commenting on it. I think it's pretty common sense. Do you not wish peace and calm in here? 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wish for peace and calm here. And I strongly recent thugs who argue that if we just do as they want, it will be peaceful and calm. In other words, the user above agrees that it is he who causes the unrest here. JdeJ (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many institutions MAY call the country "FYROM" BUT that does not mean it is correct. My point was that in the UN, NATO and WTO you will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER see the ACRONYM be used. If I'm wrong, please present me with an article from any or all of those institutions where the country was referred to by "FYROM" and not "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Therefore I ask you to make the change I had asked for. Instead of saying "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO" please change it to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" because THAT is the reality of the situation.
 * On another note, saying FYROM as a word that refers to the country AND referring to the citizens of that country as FYROMians IS offensive and not only is it incorrect, but it is done so by the countries that you mentioned in order to sympathize with the Greek POV WHICH is biased.
 * Lastly, JUST because you want peace and calm here does not mean that you should be biased yourself and take an approach more suitable to one side. THAT is called extortion. If that is what is going on, please specify so in the article. Bojancho (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think that this discussion is getting out of it's context. I don't care how Germans, Greeks, French, etc. refer to the country and it's inhabitants. That is a dispute that will be solved, but not by us. As I have mentioned a couple of times, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])" is wrong. If there is somebody that can't see that, then that is their problem and not mine (or Wikipedias).(link:) So, if you want this article to be correct I suggest you change it.


 * One more thing. How and when should we use "Republic of Macedonia", "Macedonias", etc. is clearly stated in the Wikipedia RULES. (link:). If somebody has a problem with that, then, again, it's their problem!
 * BalkanFever I'm referring to all articles that use "FYROM" including this one. (on some of them, the changes were made but this one seems to fall behind) Noompsy (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated,[2] or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia. In such cases, the first use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should always be followed by (FYROM) if the abbreviated term is to be used later in the article."
 * There is no other use of FYROM in the article therefore the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should not be followed by "FYROM" and I would ask you to remove it.
 * And I would like again to stress that the 3rd footnote is incorrect. The "FYROM" acronym is NOT officially used by international organizations. When officially referring to the country those international organizations use the full reference which is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I would also like to see this changed. Thank you. Bojancho (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes. From those references that are now gone - EU uses "fYROM", NATO uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and WTO uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in all instances.  Balkan Fever  02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people have a problem with the "fYRoM" acronym, but they don't say anything about the "Republic of Macedonia"... do you want to be objective? When an article says "fYRoM", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", when it's "Republic of Macedonia", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", then nobody is going to have a problem! ;-) --xvvx (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you.  Balkan Fever  12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to him and to everyone. At least, to everyone with NPOV and little common sense. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait BF. You know how I feel about the acronym myself, but here you're wrong. First off, the acronym is used extensively in all int'l orgs and we all know it, so it must be there. Second, the particular intro sentence is the result of a huge previous debate (see /Archive10), by dozens of wikipedians. It could only be changed by the same procedure, and only if the change was correct (which it isn't). Also, the timing of this change is a little suspicious. Please do not revert the acronym again, unless you establish a consensus of dozens of users. Thank you. NikoSilver 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. If the acronym is to be anywhere, it should be here in the main country article. Saying it "isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes" isn't a valid argument either, especially when it has been systematically removed by other users in the past. Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means when reading a ref. And it does actually occur at least once further down in the article, in Wikipedia's own voice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I add my consent to the others, the name should be RoM and that's how it is to be called as per WP:MOSMAC but it's a fact that many organisation use the acronym and it needs to be mentioned. JdeJ (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, please don't try to represent things that are not true. ΚέκρωΨ thank you for your statement "Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means" which I tried to point out but nobody seems to agree. "FYROM" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. So yeah, please make that clear. On the other hand, the rules are clear. "FYROM" is to be used ONLY if there is "FYROM" present in the article. In this article it IS NOT. I don't care what millions of people think. (some time ago millions thought that the earth was flat also...)Those are the rules and they have to stick to them (and so do you). And also please bring back the update that was made. If you have a problem that the majority of UN members recognise the country by Republic of Macedonia then go and talk to them and not modify this article. That is a fact and it has to be clear to the reader that 51+% of the countries in this world recognise that piece of land as Republic of Macedonia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take your POV elsewhere. The acronym is present in the article (take a closer look) and its use by major international organizations has been verifiably demonstrated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kékrōps, might I point out that the Greeks on this page have been clearly expressing their POVs for a very long time now. Noompsy, it as I have told the Greeks before, we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is). I would ask both side to stop making such a big deal of it. I heard one person suggesting war as a possibility, it's just a name, please calm down. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Samuell, I understand as an observer you cannot comprehend why the name is so important to both sides. I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I'll tell you that for Macedonians, it is much more than a name, it is an identity, it is the thing that defines us and that is why it is so important to us.
 * I realize that many will start a debate because of what I said, but all I did was express what Macedonians all over feel in regards to this "name" as you call it Samuell. So, it may be just a name to you, but to many its so much more, and for that reason, we can't just calm down.
 * With regards to what you said, I don't quite comprehend exactly what you meant by "we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is)". Do you mean to say that you follow what the majority of countries refer to the country as? Because if that is the case, as Noompsy has pointed out, 2 thirds of UN members refer to the country by its name (Republic of Macedonia) and not the reference. Bojancho (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the Macedonians. NikoSilver 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Well you can’t say that I didn’t try. Since my contributions to Wikipedia are not welcome, I will certainly refrain from contributing. At least I learned one thing. It’s ok to write incorrect things and not follow rules on Wikipedia as long as there are few influential people that want it that way. (by the way, this is my POV). I mean, I’ve heard some ridiculous opposing arguments but this, I just can’t explain.


 * 1.	 This is the first time in my life that I’ve seen an article where the actual article explains what its footnotes mean. But it’s ok. I guess the concept of a footnote is a little harder to grasp than I thought.


 * 2.	 “The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO” Although you provide links to these organizations where EU uses “fYROM”, NATO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and WTO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)” you somehow manage bring all these three names together into one, “FYROM”. Hahaha, genius. And the argument why that is: quoting NikoSilver “we all know it”. So what he is trying to tell me (and everybody else) here is that he(we all) knows(know) that NATO uses FYROM although on NATOs official webpage it says “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Talking about POVs). Like I said, genius.


 * 3.	Dear ΚέκρωΨ, until you provide me with some official document (and I don’t mean a document from Greece) where it says that “FYROM” can be used to refer to the country (means) Republic of Macedonia, FYROM will not mean anything. So until then, “FYROM doesn’t mean anything” is not my POV but it’s a fact.


 * 4.	For the proposed change of “although a large number of countries recognize it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia.”: I think I was quite clear why this should be changed. If ΚέκρωΨ thinks that this is my POV then somebody needs to look up either “majority” or “POV” in the dictionary. Last time I checked 118 out of 192 constitutes as a majority.
 * In order to have a “preferred” name (or an object) you have to have at least two or more. (I don’t think that anybody can object to this). Thus by saying that Republic of Macedonia prefers a name it basically means that it has two or more. Unfortunately this is not correct. That same country has one name “Republic of Macedonia” and has a reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The reference doesn’t constitute as a name. (example: You can refer to me as Sir but that doesn’t make it my name). But according to some people on Wikipedia this is my POV. Wow. Or maybe it is a really bad time to change it? Well then NikoSilver, when is a good time to change it? Please tell me, so that you can change it then!


 * In the end, I would like to mention that I’m sorry if I offended somebody. That was not my intention. I just wanted to point out the kind of responses and arguments I received when I wanted to contribute something and explain why my opinion of Wikipedia has changed. Noompsy (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These arguments are correct, which is why I made the edit. Proper sourcing is needed, or we change the wording.  Balkan Fever  01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, they're nothing of the sort. The EU uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM)", NATO uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" (check the source again - even the bloody URL is http://www.nato.int/fyrom/ for fuck's sake), and the WTO uses "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". Why not argue that the long form should be changed in the article to conform to WTO usage? In fact, the EU also uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM)" on the same page, which just goes to show how fluid and trivial such differences are. If your only argument is that the EU uses "fYROM" and not "FYROM", then with all due respect that's a rather pathetic argument. WP:MOSMAC requires us to introduce the acronym, as "FYROM" (our sincerest apologies to the EU), and that's that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Check what the fucking note says. The "FYROM" acronym is only used by those organisations in conjunction with the long form. It isn't used by itself, as is suggested. None of the sources refer to the country as "FYROM". That's it.  Balkan Fever  05:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about checking what the fucking article says? Where the fuck is "FYROM" used by itself?! Fuck me dead. What you want to do is completely remove the acronym from the end of the long form, when we have sourced that they can and are used in conjunction. And that simply ain't happening, so just forget it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right fucking here: "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO” Bojancho (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't it? Has anyone claimed that it is used exclusively, as you claim the long form is or should be? Check the EU source again. The acronym (as "FYROM", which kind of demolishes the argument that the EU uses only "fYROM") occurs four times in the links on the left-hand side and at the top of the page, and another three times as "fYROM" in the main text, while the long form occurs only once as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and once as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". One could therefore argue that the EU uses "FYROM" (or a trivial variation thereof) the majority of the time. I can't believe we're having this arcane argument, to be perfectly honest. The acronym is used, we have sources that verify that it is used, and on top of that we are required to use it per the relevant Manual of Style. Just let it go. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. I saw the "links down the left-hand side of the page" that you were referring to. Let me see how I can put this to you so that you can comprehend what I am trying to say to you.
 * 1)Are you trying to tell me that a LINK and a URL is what you consider OFFICIAL? If so, then I can only comment on your state of mind and attention to redundant and trivial details and I have nothing good to say.
 * 2)To say that the FYROM acronym is used by those organization and to imply that no use of the full reference is needed when addressed by ALL THREE of those organization is simply incorrect and subjectively generalized. Bojancho (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source even covers that possibility: "The core aim of CONCORDIA was, at the explicit request of the fYROM government, to contribute further to a stable secure environment and to allow the implementation of the August 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement." So yes, the acronym is used even on its own, but no one is saying this article has to do the same. The Greek editors are not trying to censor the long form. You, on the other hand, are trying to censor all references to the acronym, to suit your POV agenda. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

user:BalkanFever/intro. Anybody is welcome to work on it. And please, don't give me any sarcastic bullshit that you refer to as a reply.  Balkan Fever  06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary. The acronym is simply a convenient shorthand used by many countries and international organizations as an alternative to the tedious long form, but some editors are choosing to read too much into it for obvious political reasons. It is really no different from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization being shortened to "NATO", or the European Union to "EU". We don't need a source to "prove" that the country is recognized specifically as "FYROM"; we know for a fact that it already is, because an acronym can only stand for the long form that it abbreviates. In other words, "NATO" can only mean "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", "EU" can only mean "European Union", and "FYROM" can only mean "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The argument that it is "offensive" is as pathetic as the "we're not Slavs" line. Whatever, nobody cares. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't care, why don't you drop it? All your replies to legitimate questions and concerns here are unconstrunctive. Nobody needs you accusing them of POV and dismissing everything as useless.  Balkan Fever  06:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant that nobody cares if you are offended by the acronym, just like you keep telling Greeks that nobody cares if they are offended by "RoM". As for the "legitimate questions and concerns", that's just it. They're not. They are motivated by a desire to impose a particular opinion on the project, namely that "FYROM" should not appear anywhere, despite what the sources say. Perhaps you should you just drop the dead donkey. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "NATO" can only mean "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"
 * Well, not quite. NATO can also mean http://www.telemarknato.com/ or http://www.beyondtv.org/nato/ or http://www.nato-ladder.com/ Bojancho (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The current sources don't say "FYROM". Not to mention the blatantly misleading sentence saying that it was admitted under the reference "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". Perhaps you should go back to your big fat Greek life.  Balkan Fever  07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι... ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Прости нѝ ги долговите наши, како што им ги проштаваме и ние на нашите должници. 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yuck. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly interesting article that could be added to the name dispute
New York Times source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/lweb22greece.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How is a letter to the editor an article?  Balkan Fever  01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

update
I think the article needs a little update. For example:

"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although a large number of countries recognise it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia." It's not really clear about the number of institutions or countries that have recognised it either way. A better way to say it is:

"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although the majority of UN members recognise it under its constitutional name the Republic of Macedonia." It's sheds more light on the actual situation. If nobody has any objections to this, then please change it. Noompsy (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.  Balkan Fever  03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if I was to refer to Australians as English, if i was to refer to Welsh as English, if I was to refer to Americs as English, if I was to refer to English as Germans, if I was to refer to citizens of FYROM as Greeks, if i was to refer to half of the "old world" citizens as Greeks...Where do we stop? do we go further back in the past? Achaians, Aiolians, Ionians...

Someone said that we should not let history be a problem for today, and that we should look forward? History Mrs Minister is not something that happened 200 years ago. Greece goes back in history for more than a few millenia.

so...Fyrom citizens say that they are "Macedonians", does this mean that they want to become Greek citizens?

This is a never ending cycle. A name means nothing and it also means everything. People follow symbols and a name is definately a symbol.

We should not repeat mistakes of the past, we should aim in maintaining stability and peace and the name "Macedonia" will cause more problems that those that will solve.

just because the majority of the world use the name "Macedonia" it does not mean that they are right. as someone said, some centuries ago the majority believed that the earth was flat.

there are 2 main stakeholders involved: Hellas and FYROM. why do we need referees? why do we care about the rest of the world? if I have a problem with another person i talk to him/her directly and not through a third party. Do we need to hide behind other countries? Are we afraid of the truth?

to conclude: i grew up in believing that there is only one Macedonia, and that it is Greek. I am sure that citizens of FYROM grew up in believing something else. Lets talk, without any referees and without using information operations aiming in gaining an advantage over to what the general public believes at the other side of the world. Lets start thinking for ourselves instead of accepting everything we see in the tely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykoniatis (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be spiteful, but in order for us to sit down and talk rationally you would have to show me that you have an understanding that the person who is sitting in front of you is neither Greek, nor Bulgarian, nor Serbian, nor SlavoMakedonian and let alone Skopian or FYROMian and accept that I am here, that I am a reality and I am not going anywhere. You would also have to accept that there are also a few million of us. You will also have to accept that we call ourselves Macedonian as our fathers did, and their fathers and so on. And that line doesn't stop at Tito.
 * Then, we would also have to agree that compromises have to be made in finding a solution. That meaning a claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks(ancient Greeks) and base it on the fact that Alexander the Great spoke Greek and believed in Greek gods. It is an argument that just is not sufficient to assert that claim. Just as the case would be if he spoke Slavic (I'm not saying he did) would not mean he was of Slavic origin. Continuing on that premise, he could've been a Greek who spoke the Slavic language. But I digress. I'm not saying that this proves that we are the descendants of the ancient Macedonians, but it also doesn't prove that you were either.
 * Then, we would also have to agree that ancient Macedonians did have a separate language that they spoke, but was not understood by the ancient Greeks however, not much of it has been salvaged to restore it substantially.
 * Then, we will have to agree (and this is the point that I specifically stress because I feel it is the most important one) that the concept of a nation today, cannot be applied to the "institutions" (if I dare to call them that) of that time. The concept of a nation as a country that identifies with a specific identity or people is a modern concept from the 18th and 19th century. Applying this notion onto the entity what we label as states back then, is a false premise.


 * I think I will stop it here even though I do have a lot more to say, but I'm afraid that it would only start a series of replies and rants from both sides. As to what you mentioned Mykonaitis, regarding the majority of the world recognizing the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. I think you misinterpreted what that means. The recognition of Macedonia by countries is not the confirmation or the recognition that Macedonia and the people are descendant from ancient Macedonia. Here is where you claim that majority doesn't equal the truth. I agree that majority belief is not necessary the truth. However, what countries are doing by recognizing the country by its own constitutional name is recognizing and allowing us to exercise the right to self-determination as a people and as a country.


 * I apologize upfront to whoever I may have offended by what I said. Bojancho (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just cannot understand the claim that there has only little survived from the language that the ancient Macedonians spoke... Where do you base this assumption? There are thousands of inscriptions both formal and informal that have survived time. There is absolutely no evidence that the ANCIENT Macedonians changed their speech at any historical time. All written evidence (and this is the definition of hard evidence) points to them speaking and writing only Greek. The inscriptions do not only show the language of the nobility (some claim that only the nobles spoke Greek) but also that of the common people, throughout Macedonia and Alexander's empire. Even the scripts of the ancients actually leave very little space for such assumptions, since in the few extracts where a Macedonian language or dialect is mentioned, it NEVER appears as something that the rest of the Greeks do not understand. All uses of the term "ti makedoniki glossi" or "makedonisti" are nothing peculiar in Greek literature and the same phrases are given for the Attic, the Ionian and other clearly Greek (since no one contested them yet) dialects. Even the Romans clearly state in many instances, that when they spoke to Macedonians they spoke to them in Greek. So, even when someone would like to claim that the ancient Macedonians were not of Greek origin, he seldom uses this argument any more... And when people use the dictionary of Hesychios as an argument they also fail to mention that Hesychios wrote of words exclusively found in the Macedonian dialect exactly as he does f.e. for the Lacaedeomonians (for whom he actually presents more...). Even when the vast majority of these words are Greek there are of course some that are not (Is restaurant an English word? Is pharmacy?).

GK1973 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "community view" on this article's name
Instead of entering into a revert war with ChrisO, let me stress once again that there is NO consensus on "Republic of Macedonia", what happens is that is has been there long enough to be considered status quo. However, this issue is now as open as ever, especially with what's going on wrt to FYROM's NATO bid. -   Avg     00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's going on with its NATO bid has no bearing on what the article is presently called. It might have a bearing if the name changes, but until and unless that happens it's just background noise. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Macedonian (Greek) Minority Population
The fact that the government of FYROM does not recognize it, does not mean that there isn't a minority of about 10000 Macedonians (Greeks) in there. Please, contrast your sources before writing things that could mislead readers. 87.221.4.119 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not going to trust Greek sources on the minorities in the Republic of Macedonia, just as we won't trust Macedonian (Republic) sources on the minorities in Greece.  Balkan Fever  06:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake mr. Fever do you think that the two countries are equals? The one (RoM) is having a nationalist government, in the Macedonian schools irredentist ideas are taught etc. Greece in contrast is a member of the EU. If I was to trust a country's records I would trust those of a country in the EU. Unless you consider that irrelevant in which case I can't do anything. Ah and by the way, in my POV a country in europe that is in the EU is more trustworthy. Nobody would allow propaganda to be exercised in Greece because if Greece ever did that, that would cause a fair amount of trouble to its relations. I believe I'm clear.79.131.122.25 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

the core question of the Greek denying Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonian nation
 Greek Helsinki human rights monitor Panajotis Dimitras talks about the discrimination of Macedonian ethnic minority in northern Grece and the reason why Grece won't accept a nothern neighbouring country called Reppublic of Macedonia. Alex Makedon (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found thisdocument by Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Rights in Greece called "Persecuted ethnonational minorities in the ‘cradle of democracy’" from 12 November 1997, i think its relevant for understanding the actual situation in Greece, and the problems official Greece is makeing over Republic Macedonia's name. Alex Makedon (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dimitrasor :-) Lol hadn't seen that before. --   Avg     21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, if you think that the issue you brought up is the core issue, then you are acting against the very core issue you stated!. In a country with 2.6million self-identifying "Macedonians"Greek census you still feel that some 3,000"Rainbow" party election results to 15-30,000Greek Helsinki Monitor "ethnic Macedonians" are ... the core issue? NikoSilver 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The core issue is how the hell are we supposed to distinguish Macedonians from Macedonians if they have the same name! (or from any other Macedonian for that matter) NikoSilver 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The other core issue is that your idiotic irredentist governmental propaganda about a United Macedonia, although opposed in your government's official declarations:


 * exists and is all over your own official sources


 * The Times (London): Greek Macedonia "not a problem", August 5, 1957
 * Patrides, Greek Magazine of Toronto, September — October, 1988, p. 3.
 * New York Times, As Republic Flexes, Greeks Tense Up
 * Greek Helsinki Monitor: Macedonians of Bulgaria
 * Rainbow: The Macedonian minority in Albania
 * Makedonija — General Information
 * Danforth: How can a woman give birth to one Greek and one Macedonian? NikoSilver 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * and is taught in schools through school textbooks and through other governmental publications.


 * Kofos: The vision of "Greater Macedonia"
 * The Macedonian Times, semi-governmental monthly periodical, Issue number 23, July-August 1996:14, Leading article: Bishop Tsarknjas
 * Facts About the Republic of Macedonia - annual booklets since 1992, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Secretariat of Information, Second edition, 1997, ISBN 9989-42-044-0. p.14. 2 August 1944
 * Republic of Macedonia's Embassy in London: History
 * Society for Macedonian Studies: Macedonianism FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006, ISBN: 978-960-8326-30-9 NikoSilver 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And even now you're not helping the situation:


 * Neither with your kind adaptations of the Greek flag (see Godwin's law btw)
 * Nor with your creative caricatures (see Battle of Greece btw)
 * Nor with your prime minister bowing to the irredentist United Macedonia (just 2 months ago!) NikoSilver 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

all this talks are full of rage and hate towards the diferrent, not just the towards the Macedonians bt towards all the non-greeks that live in greece, that is bad, and its a kind of attitude that was typical for the nazi era, take a look at this  i rly hope a new generation of greeks will see the light. As for Macedonia i dont there is any resonable person that will cinsider the poor 2m nation a potential security threat for greece or you simply decide to rename a contry just to distingush Macedonians from Greece from Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia, wow lets change the name of Turkey to distingush them from the Turks in Berlin too. Cmon you cant have this kind of attitude and clame historic and cultural links with the Ancient Greeks - the ones that invented Democracy... And you cant have this discriminatory attitude for long considering you are a part of EU. I sincerly hope a new generation of greeks will see the light soon.Alex Makedon (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which "Macedonians" you refer to? Greeks or Slavs? Sorry but you need to disambiguate. I would have hoped that today you learned the lesson that we will never let you monopolize the name. No matter what. And that's one of the very few issues all Greeks are united. --   Avg     00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... there cannot be Slav Greeks, right like in 1933 there could not be Jewish Germans? Whats next? how can you distingush Slavs in Greece from the Greek Greeks? make them wear yellow badges with the David star? ...Alex Makedon (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are Slavophone Macedonians in Greece if that's what you're asking. Nobody ever denied that. Estimate say there are a couple tens of thousands. However they are Greek. So not of your blend of Macedonians. And, in total, there are 2.5 million Greek Macedonians. That's Macedonians in case you missed it. Who are Greek in case you missed that too. And don't want unrelated people from the north stealing their identity. Oh and you should try to be less predictable, see Godwin's law. This analogy definitely didn't do your country good in the very very recent past. --   Avg     00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You sound like you had something to do with the debasement of the Greek flag in those posters in Skopje. That kind of attitude won't get you anywhere. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No one in Republic of Macedonia clames to be Greek and no one likes (to steal) your identity, we have a very strong Macedonian identity of our own thank you.

The major population living in nothern Greece is from three different regions is either from West Macedonia, Central Macedonia or from East Macedonia and Thrace Peripheries so there is no way to mix them with the Republic of Macedonia population. Furthermore there are 10 000 - 30 000 discriminated ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece that speak the same language and share the same national identity with the Republic of Macedonia population, according to Helsinki Monitor. The other 2,5m inhabitants of West Macedonia, Central Macedonia or from East Macedonia and Thrace Peripheries are Greeks by nationality and by ethnicity. So its cristal clear, no need to create confusing situations, since we all respect the different minorities, right? Alex Makedon (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is something eltse to point out about the reality of the modern Greeks: Rights activists say Greek neo-Nazis increasing attacks on migrantsfromHerald Tribune 05/12/2007, i understand that some things are hard to talk about but just with faceing our problems we can become better person. I think this was the message from the Macedonian artist Atanas Botev. Alex Makedon (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the positively glowing reality of the modern "Macedonians", with their hysterical mass demonstrations in Skopje and associated acts of vandalism against the Greek liaison office, the wreath laid by the prime minister beneath an irredentist map of a United Macedonia, and the death threats against politicians who have dared to support a compromise solution to the naming dispute. Or do you only cite the IHT when it suits you? The posters had nothing to do with the treatment of Pakistani immigrants in Greece, which nobody in Skopje has any reason to care about, and everything to do with anti-Greek nationalist sentiment. The message of the "artist", bullshit aside, is that Greece is a Nazi country. Do you share that view? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * F.Y.R.O.M. is small country, with less than 2 million citizens and a 17 years history in total! This country tried to steal a flag and did not succeed…this country tried to get a invitation to be a NATO member and did not succeed…this country named F.Y.R.O.M. tries to convince us that we the Greeks are the Nazi lover nation…but the F.Y.R.O.M. citizens doesn’t know history. If it were not for us, Nazis would have won in the Russian front!   Learn history first and then ask to be a part of the history itself!  Iordanis_athanasiadis  11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I can’t understand you people! Even if we accept that you are Macedonians…this doesn’t mean that F.Y.R.O.M. is Macedonia. F.Y.R.O.M. is a former Yugoslavian republic which is placed in the north ancient Macedonia….so it is what it is…a former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia!!! It is so simple people! Iordanis_athanasiadis 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Сту куфу тин порта, осо телис вронда. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ti tsi nu zbureshce pi limba a-mea?  Balkan Fever  12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that after the NATO rejection and the looming EU rejection, the state will have no choice but to voluntarily change its name to Novomakedonija. I have it on a good source that Greece will accept this. Nevertheless this state is likely to be dismembered in the near future as the Tetovo Albanians wish to unite with Kosovo and Albania. In this case the EU membeship bid will still be pending and Greece will then require yet another name-change, this time to Slavomakedonija. Sort of like when Ceylon changed its name to Srilanka or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.67.195 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs a new addition for NATO's decision on "former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" request for joining in.
The page also needs an addition with a part similar to the one with the title EU. It should discuss Republic of MAcedonia and NATO and the latest news. It should mention that NATO did not accept the addition of the Republic to it until it resolves the issue of the name dispute with greece etc etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nspanos (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A new source on Bulgaria's policies on the issue:
 * Bulgarian Policies on the Republic of Macedonia: Recommendations on the development of good neighbourly relations following Bulgaria’s accession to the EU and in the context of NATO and EU enlargement in the Western Balkans,
 * see also
 * Bulgarian Policies on the Republic of Macedonia. Apcbg (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

e-Government? e-Infrastructure?
Why do these words occur in the article? Government and e-Government is a heading without content, and the Infrastructure and e-Infrastructure paragraph says nothing about e- anything. 70.20.142.217 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect again
Section: Foreign Relations

"It is referred within the UN as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM", pending a resolution, to the long-running dispute about the country's name." - Really? I know (see the UN resolution) that the UN uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to refer to the country called Republic of Macedonia. Not "FYROM" or "FYR Macedonia" or "FY. Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" or ... So either provide sources (an official document that states that the Republic of Macedonia can be referred to as "FYROM") or delete that part! Noompsy (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=FYROM&as_sitesearch=un.org --   Avg     20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the official document that uses FYROM. I looked at the first two links and discovered the following: The first one is an official document that doesn't use FYROM and the second one is unofficial document that I didn't even bother to read because it's unofficial. Noompsy (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting... Noompsy (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I thought you would be banned by now as a sock...--   Avg     23:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the discussion. Don't let my user status distract you. Noompsy (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has any objections to the changes I suggested, can somebody please implement them. 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you need to make this sort of proposals on the talk page of Manual_of_Style_(Macedonia-related_articles). Consensus here cannot override consensus on the MoS (Manual of Style), much less if it is by WP:SILENCE. And much less on a talk page where wide disagreement for the change has been expressed and backed with several reasons that have not been dismounted, like the country not calling itself FYROM. I'm afraid that other ediors didn't answer simply because they already answered you on a different section above. Stop asking here again for the same change and go to the MoS page to propose it there. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The previous debate was about the use of the acronym by NATO, EU and WTO. Also I objected to the sentece that introduced the reference with the acronym but I saw that under wiki rules it had to be there. This objection is about totally different part/statement of the article. As you can see, it claims that the UN sometimes uses the acronym FYROM. That is simply incorrect. The UN has a resolution that clearly states that if somebody wants to refer to the country he should use the whole reference. I think that the UN respects it's own rules! And if somebody actually read the previous discussion (and the UN resolution) before editing this article I wouldn't have to repeat myself. If you want to inform the reader that some organisations and countries use the acronym by itself then please write it in the article. But don't try to do so by writing incorrect statements! I can see that somebody corrected this article so I will stop now :) Noompsy (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry for that, there have been many attempts to change the name and I didn't notice you were talking about UN usage of an acronym. My bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Avg responded to you with one simple search in the UN site which yielded c.3000 official UN results. Now back off. NikoSilver 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read my responce to Avg Noompsy (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had read it. Just see the context where it is used in the fragments of text right below each search result: "the ICTY informed FYROM authorities", "Both regional and domestic factors have inhibited FYROM’s progress to", "development of the FYROM relations with the EU", "The Constitution of the FYROM was adopted by the Parliament of the FYROM on the 17th of November 1991, effective 20 November 1991."... These are just a few from the first ten results. Now will you drop this unimportant and trollish issue? NikoSilver 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite sure that you have actually read my post. Next time, try to follow the links from google before you write something. I'll explain myself one last time. If you open the first link you will see how an official document from the UN looks like (which doesn't use FYROM). If you open up the link with the fragment "the ICTY informed FYROM authorities", at the very first page you will read the following "this is not an official document". If you are not convinced then please look at the following google search . As you can see, on the first page there is a fragment that says "Referendum shall be announced by the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia." If you go on to the next page, "From the very beginning the Republic of Macedonia has been a pa ... The Republic of Macedonia will continue to even ...", "Local Elections (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia ... Republic of Macedonia no. 12/2003)", "The Government of Republic of Macedonia, in particular the ..... Status: The Republic of Macedonia is a land-locked country and therefore ...", "Bank of the Republic of Macedonia (middle exchange rate) used on the bid opening date. .... standards in force in the Republic of Macedonia," ...... Should I now claim that the UN uses Republic of Macedonia ????? I rest my case! Noompsy (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. It was never about the UN. The name we use was chosen because it is the common English name. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a page with a relevant decision from the UN where it explains its official stance on the name: "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (...) By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name." . I can also see what look like official papers using the term. I think that we would need a UN source stating that they have decided to start using "Republic of Macedony". Otherwise, it might be just people inside UN using the term on their documents independently of UN's official stance.


 * Actually, I added this source to the article.


 * About sourcing the usage of the FYROM acronym, the article already uses an article from UN News Center. I don't think that there is any actual resolution saying that UN can use FYROM, since it's just an acronym for the name "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" --Enric Naval (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice explanation
The following article is very aclaratory and has a nice bunch of references: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60544 87.219.84.61 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About the "wider geographical region of Macedonia"
I have an objection to the determination of what the "wider region of Macedonia" is. In the article "Republic of Macedonia" it is said that :

"The Republic of Macedonia forms approximately 35.8% of the land and 40.9% of the population of the wider geographical region of Macedonia."

This actually is wrong since there is NO such thing as a universal "wider geographical region of Macedonia". The extends of Macedonia varied throughout the ages and comprised few, some, more or even NONE of this which is referred to here. I know that this is a significant argument of the people in FYROM as to their right to the use of this name but the public should know that this "region" is actually nothing more than a Late Ottoman term. Unfortunately it leads to the deduction that this "region" is identical to the kingdom of the ancient Macedonians, the Roman province of Macedonia (where Paul preached), or the Byzantine theme. I propose that this sentence be changed to "The Republic of Macedonia forms approximately 35.8% of the land and 40.9% of the population of the wider geographical region of Macedonia, as it was defined in (or "is defined since") the late Ottoman period".

This is what Wikipedia also states in the appropriate articles (see Macedonia Terminology map of Macedonia, histmap.gif, text : "In the early 19th century, the definition of Macedonia by most scholars, approximately matched the contemporary region, with occasional farther variations" etc), so my proposal is to be consistent with the terminology used by Wikipedia itself.

GK1973 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be easier to explain that by no means it corresponds to the ancient Greek Macedonia? --87.221.5.107 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because it could be argued that it was a part (however minimal) of later stages of the ancient Macedonian Kingdom.

GK1973 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kichevo is missing
In the list of bigger towns in Macedonia, Kicevo is missing, even Kochani and Radovish are smaller. Also, with the villages near it, some of them connected to Kicevo it reacshes around 55.000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.246.75 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Army link error
The current link points to the ancient Macedonian Greek army. You definitely have to fix that. Please, do not added propaganda while you do that. Thanks.

--87.221.5.107 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice explanation source
The following source has a nice explanation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121071745588789659.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

--87.221.5.107 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Albanian name
Albanian is the language of a large and important minority in Macedonia. Would anyone oppose the insertion of "Albanian: Republika e Maqedonisë" after the Macedonian name of the country in the first sentence of this article? Hús ö  nd  18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding the albanian language would be correct, Albanians compose around 30 to 40 % of the population in FYROMacedonia.

Ballkanhistory 12:06 PM,15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More like 25%  Balkan Fever  08:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its more than 30% albanians but many of them arent registred i have talked to families that have more than 4 children the 5th child isnt registred or is registred as muslim, todays fyromacedoanians fear from albanian population in fyromacedonia. PS: its not good to use cursing language... Balkanhistory 8:25 AM May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballkanhistory (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Albanian name should be added. It is a big part culturally and population wise of the country. Reaper7 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support this. That the language of 25%+ of the population is ignored is a wonder. Please add the Albanian name of the country and all of its cities (or at least cities where Albanians are a majority or a significant minority). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Times and Ancient Macedonia
I've seen the history section. There's a gap between prehistoric times and medieval times. I believe that this is due to the fact that the present nation under the name Macedonian has confused at best the most known historicians and archaeologists worldwide. In order to stop possible "thefts of national history" as Greeks say, I suggest that there is a brief announcement that distinguishes the present nation from the ancient Macedonians. I know pretty much that this is a matter of internal propaganda from the state of FYROM. And this last bit is not said to harm the national identity of FYROM, it's said in order to set things straight. I believe that wikipedia is not about politics, it's about facts and the internal propaganda is a fact. And this is NPOV. I carefully read the article and realized that it was in fact acceptable (only the name goes against the UN decisions), however this gap could give Macedonian (Ethnic) Extremists something to argue about and blame others about not being referred. Finally I require that the ones that respond are only those with the authority to criticize my views, or those that have good arguements and do not respond as an act of nationalism and irredentism. Thank you in advance. --79.131.175.107 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About the name, please read Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) and Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name. About distinguishing better the present nation, your suggestment will be more looked at if you suggest small specific improvements on specific paragraphs. Also, please don't make comments about the nationalistic ideas of other editors, you should assume that other editor's suggerences are made in good faith since it will only cause that your comments get ignored by other editors. Please try to comment about content and not about editors. Remember also that one of the WP:PILLARS of wikipedia is that everyine can edit it, so there are no people without the authority to criticize any view, since anyone can comment here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually this is a clearly wrong epicephalis since although the section is named pre-history (a old mistake never corrected maybe?) it talks about clearly historical times... Somebody right it please...

GK1973 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Broader issue
The above edits treat a broader issue: the distinction of nations or ethnic groups, not just of ancient Macedonians from the "ethnic Macedonians" of nowadays, but in general the distinction of "ethnic Macedonians" from other ethnic groups with their roots, culture and history in Macedonia, who also determine themselves as "Macedonians", such as the "Greek Macedonians". This is a very important and broader issue, going beyond the scope of this article, but, on the course of the above discussion, I thought I should mention this parameter. After all, nobody has the right to monopolize the ethnic determination "Macedonian", and Wikipedia's articles, categories, templates etc. should not reflect such misconcepts (that the "ethnic Macedonians" are the only "Macedonians"!).--Yannismarou (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation line makes it clear, I'd think ("for an explanation..."). Plus "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" link directly to a disambiguation page. Let's not be too excessive. Well, actually, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here (since it's a page on RoM). All Macedonia-related pages do it this way (dis. link + article on the subject). 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I treat a broader issue, and not in particular this page. I know about both this disamb page and the Macedonian disamb page. But this is not enough. A disamb page is not enough and does not help, when we have to do with categories speaking about "Macedonians" (in general and with no further clarification, in order to make clear the distinction from the Greek Macedonians), without clarifying which ones they actually speak about, and when we have to do with biographies of the X ethnic Macedonian, speaking in the lead about a "Macedonian" (not specifying "ethnic Macedonian"), but linking then not to the disamb page per the term the editor chose but to the "ethnic Macedonians" page. See, for instance, the Simon Trpčeski lead. But this is not the right place to resolve the issue as a whole. More specific proposals will be worded in the appropriate places.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because no other "Macedonian" is mentioned. It would actually cause more confusion to disambiguate something in a context where there is no ambiguity.  Balkan Fever  08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Ethnic" is barely a disambiguation, honestly. It's fine as it is right now. Wiki has to follow general conventions and call the ethnic group "Macedonians". 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the people of FYROM. These people are of slave origin and speak a slave dialect. The come in the region in the 6th century AD. For these reasons in my opinion the previous history of the Area of Macedonia in an article about the people of FYROM is out of place. More over it can easy create the false impression of link between the Kingdom of Macedon and FYROM. It is a historic fact that ancient Kingdom of Macedon and slaves are completely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.143.152 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, let me make myself clear. What I want to say is pretty simple. I believe that the basis for prevention of conflicts and confusion lies in further disambugation. As written above, it is very clear that the inhabitants of FYROM are mainly of slavic origin (let out the Albanian minorities). Now, making it clear that the present state has nothing to do with Ancient Macedonia must be a priority, for there's much debate and dispute on this matter. There's much talk about the present nation being descended from the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia. I believe we're all careful enough here, for this isn't a light issue. Here's a more clear view on the matter: If there's no disambugation and by that I mean a clear, straight one that states the fact that there's no relation between present FYROM/RoM and Ancient Macedonia, there's much risk that some extremists (I'm sorry for the adjective, that's how they act like) start claiming specific parts of the Ancient History of their neighbours and, uh, leading to further problems. Of course that's as far as my word goes, I won't dispute anything but this. This must be clear please. Thanks in advance, sorry if I have offended anyone in my post.79.131.144.211 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "...there's much risk that some extremists (I'm sorry for the adjective, that's how they act like) start claiming specific parts of the Ancient History of their neighbours and, uh, leading to further problems..."
 * The big problem is that what you mention is happening for years and it's not something new... they even learn that kind of "history" in their schools and they don't only claim ancient history, but also parts of Macedonia in Greece :-( --xvvx (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I'd like to say one or maybe two things. Firstly, the disambiguation is not enough. Saying "Ethnic Macedonians" gives a "loophole" to the extremists. There is no place in the article where it states that the Ethnic Macedonians have NOTHING (yes that's the truth, face it) with the ancient ones. Jesus Christ, let's be honest for a second, the whole thing can go very far and even if it looks rediculous it can cause (has already caused) much trouble. For my part it's indeed laughable for as an encyclopedia it should help the reader understand what the article's about. Of course people understand but who can guarantee that there won't be debate and dispute here on that as well? I strongly support the exact disambiguation about the origins and national identity of this state. There surely can't be a talk about history of neighbours belonging to that state/nation/whatsoever because what I'm watching everywhere is that the extremists (many are on their side but I still hope that there is moderation in all countries) are literally trying to convince the world something as bizarre as saying that the world is flat. Let's leave that out and take it more NPOV: Leaving out the extremists (I've given more attention than they deserve, yes I'm serious with the ones that play with historical matters)are you people convinced that anyone will not be confused not just with the name (ok let's take that as a part of the nation) but with history. To the editors: Do what you think is best but let me conclude this post of mine: The NPOV of the article will be disputed, if the article is not as clear as a crystal. As simple as that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.122.25 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

recognition
Section: Politics / Macedonia naming dispute

"The EU recognises the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - I'm not quite sure that "recognises" is the right word here. An "organisation" like the EU (NATO, UN, WTO, etc) doesn't have the "power" to recognize a country (whether it exists, it's name, etc.). Only a country can recognize another country. I think that "refers to" would be a better choice. Noompsy (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Go ahead, be bold :-)  Balkan Fever  07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An organization is a legal entity, and as such legal entity it has relations with countries, members or not of the organization. In these relations, the organization has to recognize the x country it has relations with, with a certain name. Legal science is not in the beginning of the 18th century, and, yes, international organizations have the power to recognize a country ("whether it exists, its name etc.). For instance of Apri 6, 1992 Eu recognized Bosnia, and on January 15 Croatia and Slovenia. So, it is not ok, and you cannot go ahead, despite the agreement of BalkanFever.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of FYRM instead of FYROM
FYRM redirects, but is it a correct abbreviation as FYROM is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirects are sometimes used for "likely typos", to redirect the visitors to the correct spelling. I think that this is the case, so that redirect is OK. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FYRO Macedonia
It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[3][4] commonly abbreviated to FYROM,[5][6] pending resolution of a naming dispute with Greece.[7]

should probably be changed to

It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[3][4] commonly abbreviated to FYROM or FYRO Macedonia,[5][6] pending resolution of a naming dispute with Greece.[7]

--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not sustained by the sources. I don't know about the sources on reference [5], but I looked at the ones on [6] and every single one used only "FYROM" and doesn't use "FYRO Macedonia" anywhere. You should find sources that use that term, so that we can add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Medieval period - incomplete
I cannot find mention of Skopije and Ohrid being capitals of First Bulgarian Empire under rule of Samuel of Bulgarians. The current article feature a fotograph of Fortress of Tsar Samuel but his role in buliding it is completely disregarded. From my point of view omiting the fact that between 990 and 1018 Ohrid was last capital of First Bulgarian Empire and also fact that Samuel made the city the seat of the Bulgarian Patriarchate is misleading to say the least.

Alexpackov (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can go ahead and add it, then. The problem is MAcedonian editors don't like seeing any mentions of Bulgarian here and they often get removed. -- L a v e o l  T 10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice but as I am new to Wikipedia I cannot edit semi-protected page. Could you possibly do it? From your profile I can see that your view on the matter should have much greater impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpackov (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source? A history book on english will do (including title, author, isbn, page, etc), or a history website on english if you can find one --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be ok to copy some of the material on which the following articles are based: Tsar Samuel and Bulgarian Patriarchate ? Alexpackov (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if it's sourced. I'll give you a more thorough explanation on Wiki policies later. Cheers :) -- L a v e o l  T 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

topic ancient History
The topic ancient History refers to the ancient history of the region and not to the ancient history of the people of Republic of Macedonia. I find this pointless as there are other topics much more relative to this. In my view, it would be much more meaningful if there could be found here elements of the ancient history of the people of Republic of Macedonia or since they constitute a rather new tribe elements of the ancient history of Slabs.

"Ancient History The first recorded state on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia was the Thraco-Illyrian kingdom of Paionia, which covered the Axius River valley and the surrounding areas.[9] Philip II of Macedon took over the southernmost regions of Paeonia in 336 BC and founded the city of Heraclea Lyncestis, near what is now Bitola.[10] Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of Paeonia, which then became part of his empire. Subsequently the territory was conquered by Rome and became part of two Roman provinces. The greater part was within Macedonia Salutaris, but the northern border regions, inhabited by the Dardani, became a part of Moesia Superior.[11] By 400 AD the Paeonians had lost their identity, and Paeonia was merely a geographic term." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiporos (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong statistics used in infobox
I just noticed that the statistics used in the infobox are incorrect. The nominal GDP per capita of Macedonia is not USD 7.645, but was substantially lower at USD 3.659 in 2007 (according to the IMF; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita). This error should be corrected as it gives a somehwat wrong impression of the economic state of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.212.253 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 July 2008


 * Hum, the CIA factbook gives yet another number: $8,500 on 2007 . However, looking at the raw GPD data of 2006 from World Bank, I get $3100 (that would be $6.2 billion (for non-americans, 6.2 thousands of millions or $6.200.000.000) of GDP divided by a 2 million population = $3100). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the CIA includes monies from the rampant illicit narcotics trade in its estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.129.126 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I know what happens here. The CIA factbook used PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) for the capita calculation, that explains why it lists such a high GDP. From the wikipedia article "Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison".


 * Nah, it's because the CIA lists a GDP as three times higher (17.35 billion) than the World Bank (6.2 billion only). Using the CIA's GDP data, and the population on 2008 to be 2,061,315, if I make the calculation I get a GDP per capita of $8417 ($17,350,000,000 / 2,061,315 persons = $8416,9571365...), that they have rounded up to $8500.


 * If you go to List of countries by GDP, it desambiguates to a list nominal list and to a  PPP list


 * Someone screwed on the infobox by using the same data for PPP and nominal. I updated the infobox, and corrected the position and number on the list article --Enric Naval (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Το ψέμα έχει κοντά ποδάρια
Relax, the truth will attend to itself. --Leladax (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello, i would like someone from the english wikipedia to inform me of the reasons why such an internationally controversial name as "Republic of Macedona" is used to refer to the spesific state instead of the internationally commonly used name of FYROM ordained. It is not the Fyromian wikipedia, but the english one and i believe it should be neutral on such a controversial matter, abiding by the internationally accepted practice.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)