Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 3

Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive1, Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive2

Given international usage and media usage, I think the best location for this article is actually Macedonia (country). That avoids usage of either term, the silly one and the one disputed by the Greeks, and it matches common usage. It is not unlike United States or United Kingdom, both of which are short forms of longer more official names, is clear that it is about the country and not the region, etc. I propose we settle on that as the most neutral and natural location for the page talking about Macedonia, the country. Daniel Quinlan 21:03, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand the complex nature of the debate. For many people with strong nationalist inclinations, the country involves both the FYROM and the province of Macedonia in Greece. So Macedonia (country) is unworkable as different meanings could be attached to it. Nor is state necessarily any better. Macedonia is clearly a non-starter as they are, depending on your politics, one or two Macedonias. Republic of Macedonia is an internal state name not accepted internationally. The world-recognised name is the FYROM, a temporary term created to try to solve the problem Daniel is unsuccessfully trying to solve. As this is an international encyclopædia and not a ROM encyclopædia, the logical name to use is FYROM. It carries no interpretation, makes no claims, simply identifies the republic in a disambigulated way. A standard reference point when dealing with controversial claims (eg., the Republic of Ireland's claim over Northern Ireland, Cornwall's claim to independence from the United Kingdom, Spain's claim over Gibraltar, etc) is to use the accepted international form, rather than pick which side of the local argument to back. So no encyclopædia stated that Northern Ireland is part of the RoI, that Gibraltar is part of Spain, or that Cornwall is not part of the UK. Using international agreed formulæ is the standard NPOV approach. In this case, FYROM is the neutral agreed term, ROM is not accepted by many outside the state. So NPOV and encyclopædic logic suggests that FYROM should be the name at which the article is kept, with the content, as with Ireland, Spain, Cornwall, etc being the place where the controversy is discussed, without having the handicap of taking sides in the article name. FearÉIREANN 21:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for being bold, but a post-move poll is running 4 to 1 in favor of FYROM for the article placement. I'm still reading "breaking news", so to speak, on the events of the last 8 years. My latest take is, Macedon or Macedonia (not sure which?) is an ancient region, which was always Greek (or mostly). Then part of it got absorbed somehow into Yugoslavia (?). But when the USSR dissolved, so did Yugoslavia.

What I still don't understand is the disposition of "Macedonian" territory. Near as I can tell, FYROM is governing part of it, and the rest is "within the borders of Greece". (Now I know why International Relations requires a master's degree.)

Anyway, isn't this article about the, um, non-Greek government - rather than the historical region?

And if it's wrong to move without a ponyull, why did you just move it back (despite a poll which went against you)? If I didn't know you better, I'd, um, well, never mind. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Is there any other REPUBLIC of Macedonia? What is the full name of the Greek province? The country neighboring Greece in their constitution clearly states what their name is . How can we or any other country or international body decide otherwise? I don't see the article on Myanmar located at Burma just because the US disputes it. Whether the article resides at FYROM is another question. I prefer the correct name but already lost that battle at United States. Rmhermen 21:19, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Your "poll" lasted less than a day. I went to bed, went to class, and just got back. I've seen it just now. Let it run for at least 5 days so people can notice it. --Jiang 00:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd oppose Macedonia (country), and I think this would probably upset most Greeks more than Republic of Macedonia does, as it in some sense implies that the country is synonymous with Macedonia; it would be like moving Republic of China to China (country). I'm alright with either Republic of Macedonia or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Since the article discusses the dispute at some length, I think the title itself isn't all that important. --Delirium 21:27, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

To RMH: In case you overlooked the What the name of the country is section above, I have no opinion on what we should call the country. I'm just a little jarred by someone saying let's respect the poll and then immediately disregarding the latest poll.

You're not afraid I'm going to move it back, are you? Martin wouldn't like it if I did that, because he has proposed a guideline of no one move the same page more than once per day, and I pretty much automatically go along with whatever Martin says.

I'm one of those "easily-led Christians" the Washington Post is always talking about... ;-)

--Uncle Ed 21:31, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,as "Republic of Macedonia" is fabrik for forgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! Vergina 21:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, we heard you. This isn't really adding to the constructive debate though.  What do you propose we do, write an article saying The country calling itself the "Republic of Macedonia" is a forgery of Greek history, Greek culture, Greek geography, and Greek symbols, which are properly retained by the Macedonians, an ancient Greek-speaking people currently residing in northern Greece. ? Certainly that'd make some happy, but we obviously can't take that position. --Delirium 21:43, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the poll, I'm waiting for it to finish, no, to get started. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and please take it a bit easier on the posturing and I will too. I really don't have a firm opinion on this (and, believe it or not, when researching this last night, I was halfway tempted to move the article to the FYROM name, but decided against it after seeing that name was only used in diplomatic contexts, and well, the issue was too hot to move a page without further consensus). Daniel Quinlan 21:47, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not diplomatic alone, but also political (EU, UN, US, Council of Europe, etc), cultural (UNESCO), broadcasting (EBU), media (BBC, ITN, CBS, RTÉ, RAI, etc), etc. FearÉIREANN 21:49, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I presume Ed was talking to Daniel, then. It should also be noted that the 1995 agreement between Greece and Macedonia mentions the dispute only by reference to the UN resolution numbers. And the UN resolution merely says "this 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 has arisen over the name of the State;...". So it is not clear that Macedonia has even agreed to be known internationally and diplomatically as FYROM, but merely is known by that "within" the UN. The website for their embassy in Canada clearly says The Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia. Rmhermen 21:56, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, I was including political in diplomatic, but whatever. NATO too.  No, media almost always use the shorthand of "Macedonia" when talking about the country.  That includes the BBC and CNN.  Daniel Quinlan 21:59, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

They most definitely do not. A producer on a BBC radio news programme whom I was in college with was summoned by senior management and given a verbal dressing down for using Macedonia for the FYROM. They top copy where possible with FYROM. If timing does not allow, they use "Macedonian". Having contextualised the copy with the article top as referring to the FYROM and not Greek Macedonia, then Macedonia is used, but most media organisations view using Macedonia at the lead as the state name of the copy text as a breach of their codes of ethics and neutrality. How you top copy (or in some organisations top and tail it) is guided by very strict linguistic rules because the use of a particular colour reference or terminology can have the effect of POVing copy even if central copy itself is NPOV. And no, Daniel, political and diplomatic are not the same, except in a minority of states (notably the US) where the fundamental differences are blurred through the party politicisation of diplomatic functioning. :-) FearÉIREANN 22:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most definitely? I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt here since I'm generally an accurate sort of person. (a) I don't know your producer nor do I get BBC radio news, but I do use the BBC web site. And uses Macedonia the vast majority of the time. "Notably the US"? Diplomacy is driven by politics everywhere. Politics are not fundamentally different in the US either. I'm surprised you'd claim this, but I'll leave it at that and go to a list of BBC news articles:
 * Only says "Macedonia":
 * uses "Macedonia" and mentions "former Yugoslavia", but does not use FYROM term:
 * Only says "Macedonia". Does mention that it "seceded peacefully from the former Yugoslavia" in a quote, but not as name:
 * Only says "Macedonia". Even has a map with "Macedonia".
 * Only says "Macedonia". However, has a map with "FYR Macedonia".
 * Only the country profile predominately uses FYROM term, but uses "Macedonia" several times as well. Also links to various external pages and articles that just use "Macedonia".

Daniel Quinlan 02:39, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * If you are talking to me Ed, I am confused. I haven't moved any article today. I rarely do since it involves changing the skin under user preferences. I haven't said anythin about moving it or about respecting any poll. This is also the only poll I am aware of and it started a mere couple of hours ago. Quite confused. Rmhermen 21:44, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not as confused as I am. I tried to mediate 5 different (but similar) disputes today, and I can't keep track of them any more. A quick look at recent changes reveals it was Daniel Q. I think I'll post my favorite ice cream flavor and then sign off! Have a good one... ---Uncle Ed 21:48, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, what is it? Where's the poll?  Mine's chocolate.  ;-) Daniel Quinlan 21:58, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example where the media uses FYROM? Link? --Jiang

Socialist Yugoslav "Republic of Macedonia" is the Tito Broz clon name for the Serb province Vardarska banovina !! Vergina 22:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Skopje as ÜSKÜB is osman province Kosovo !! Vergina 22:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1819-1939(?) people Yugoslavias are slovenians ,Croatians and Serbs ! Not Macedonians !! Vergina 22:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bulgars language & Serbian language is not "Macedonian" language !!Vergina 22:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Macedonians are Greek people for 3000 years !! See old coins of Macedonia !!! http://www.sixbid.com/catalogs/la114/00094h00.htm

Vergina 22:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In Greece called the region Makedonia ! Not Titos "Aegean Macedonia" !!Vergina 22:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you even reading this discussion anymore? The Macedonia (Greece) page has been changed to no longer be at Aegean Macedonia, and no longer to use that appellation primarily. As for the rest of it, we're all now very aware of the dispute between the fact that "Macedonia" is seen by many as a historically Greek country (Macedon) and the competing fact that there is a Slavic country that calls itself Macedonia. Do you have any constructive suggestions for how to neutrally discuss this, or are you just going to rant? --Delirium 22:38, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

This is Macedon republic Macedonia or history folgery ?

http://www.macedonianpride.cjb.net/   Vergina 23:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is something radically wrong with this whole debate, and with conducting a poll about what an encyclopaedia should call a country. It is absolutely indisputable that the country's legal and constitutional name in Republic of Macedonia, or Macedonia for short, just the Republic of Greece is called Greece for short. The Greeks have a perfect right to argue that the country should not call itself Macedonia, but they have no right to tell another country what to call itself, nor can they dictate what an encyclopaedia should call it. We should call the country by its name.

Polls are all very well for matters of opinion, but this is not a matter of opinion. If User A says that 2 + 2 = 6, and User B says 2 + 2 = 4, we do not conduct a poll to see who is right. No do we compromise by agreeing to say that 2 + 2 = 5. A compromise between truth and falsehood is still falsehood.

What is happening here is that out Greek friends are just repeating the same arguments over and over again (or in Vergina's case, the same hysterical assertions), in the hope of wearing us down. They should not be allowed to succeed in this. The current formulation of the naming issue in the article is correct and should be defended.

Adam 01:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Quite so Adam. The very first line on the Main Page says Wikiedia is a "project to create a complete and accurate" encyclopedia. To be accurate Wikipedia must call the country by its legal name "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". To be complete, the article should explain how/why it was named and explain that some people dispute the usage, and why. Moriori 01:48, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Adam's analysis is based on two misunderstandings; (1) That countries invariably have clear set names, and (2) that what a state declares is by definition the reality that must be reflected in an encyclopædia. Neither are true in reality. There are numerous cases of disputes over names, titles, references, etc involving states and countries. For example, the Éire/Republic of Ireland traditionally rejected the right of the UK to call itself the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as it constitutionally rejected the right of the UK to rule Northern Ireland. The UK in turn rejected the use of the term 'Republic of Ireland' because it interpreted the name as implying there was only one Ireland, the republic of Ireland. So Britain insisted on using the term Irish Republic which implied there could also be an Irish something else alongside, ie, Northern Ireland. Luckily this dispute was solved before Wikipedia came along. In any case the solution followed was to follow internationally recognised legal terminology. However much the RoI may have disapproved, every other country on the planet accepted that the UK was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that was the valid name to use. Ditto with the Republic of Ireland, which however much Britain may have had a problem, was the internationally accepted name.

Just because a state declares its existence and adopts a name does not make it a reality. If Yasser Arafat was to declare the territory of Israel a state called Palestine would not in itself make Palestine a reality. Unilateral Declaration of Independence states don't gain acceptance just by declaring they exist but by proving they exist and having due acceptance granted under international law and procedures. Apartheid South Africa set up black 'homelands' that it claimed were independent states and which acted as though they were independent states. But in reality they were as phoney as a three dollar bill and were treated as being about as real as micronations internationally. An 'Irish Republic' was declared in April 1916 by Irish rebels, yet at the time no state on the planet accepted this supposed state as being anything more than a fiction in the minds of the rebels. Even when an Irish Republic was formally declared by Irish MPs in January 1919, this time through some semblance of legality, it received legal acceptance from no-one but Lenin's new Russian Republic and today even most Irish people don't believe it was a real state. 99% of the world regards the 'Turkish Republic of Cyprus' as a legal fiction, just as it rejected Ian Smith's UDI Rhodesia and in particular Smith's attempts to create Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. So simply saying 'but the Republic of Macedonia calls itself that' means nothing. Biafra called itself independent. Mussolini declared a North Italian republic. Many in Sicily insisted that the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies continued after 1860. But no-one outside accepted that those lands were other than part of the embroilic Italian state following the overthrow of the Bourbons.

Quite simply, the world does not operate on the basis that if some group declares they are a state with the name 'x', state x exists. What is clear is that a state emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia. It claimed a name for itself. The rest of the world refused to accept its right to use that name. It accepted the right of the rest of the world to raise the issue and it signed deals that brought into existence the FYROM name. And it uses the FYROM designation and its own 'Republic of Macedonia' name. For example, on 23rd May this year, the Pope addressed representatives of the FYROM, including the Prime Minister, as follows:

''Dear Prime Minister, Distinguished Friends,

The feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius has brought you once more to Rome, where the relics of Saint Cyril are preserved, and I am pleased to greet you. I thank the President of the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for his kind words and good wishes. It is my fervent prayer that your country will be ever strengthened in its commitment to unity and solidarity, ideals which the Holy Brothers of Salonika so effectively embodied in their lives dedicated to preaching the Christian faith.''

In diplomacy, the words of the pope as Vatican head of state would not be taken in isolation but would have been written by his diplomatic service after consultation with Macedonia. That is how the system does it. If the Macedonians had said 'don't use FYROM' it wouldn't have been used. The issue would have been handled simply by saying "I thank the President of the Government for his kind words and good wishes." FYROM was used because the Macedonians would have said they had no problem with it. (The British/Irish dispute over each other's respective titles was solved by agreement where each accredited diplomats to the other's head of state in a personal capacity. So British ambassadors brought Letters of Credence from HM Queen Elizabeth and gave them to HE President Hillery, not the standard From her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of Ireland.) Similarly President Gligorov's address to the Plenum on the &#8220;Reconstruction the Economies of the Former Yugoslavia&#8221; used both the ROM and the FYROM designations to refer to his state. He spoke of how in the Republic of Macedonia, we are seriously concerned about the right answers to these questions, then finished his speech with the words  To this end, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will give it active contribution, firmly oriented to see the Balkans triumph in Europe. The use of both forms was a linguistic arrangement to which the Macedonian state was itself a central and willing participant. 

Again the US government announced its acceptance of Macedonian independence with the words in a press release ''Today, the United States extended formal recognition to The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and declared its intent to establish full diplomatic relations. The President conveyed this decision in a letter delivered in Skopje to President Gligorov. This move is in recognition of the democratic expression of the citizens of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to establish a sovereign and independent state based on democratic principles. This action will help promote stability in the region. We join nearly every other country of Europe in taking this step.'' Those words were not simply expressed by the US in isolation but would have been discussed by both states in draft form and agreed by both. Similarly when the The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) issued the following statement On 20 June, the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and on 24 June, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Convention or CWC), they did so using a form of words agreed by the Macedonian state, including the use of FYROM. States do not sign agreements under nomenclatures that they are unhappy at using. In diplomacy, every comma, every term, every tense, every grammatical construction is gone through and agreed.

So Adam's claim that in effect the Macedonians call themselves the Republic of Macedonia and so therefore the issue is closed, with that alone being the right answer, is fundamentally mistaken. There are many states or proto-states who have used forms of names in organic laws and constitutions that are never used internationally, not accepted internationally and are simply examples regarded (even by the state themselves sometimes) as 'grandstanding'. (According to the Irish constitution, for example, the Irish state's name is Éire, yet not even Ireland calls itself that now, using the description 'Republic of Ireland' instead.) In the Macedonian case, you have two names; one used exclusively by the state itself but by no-one else, and one used by everyone else, including the state, who agrees with its use, uses it sometimes itself (as the President's speech shows). Opting for a name, the Republic of Macedonia that unaccepted in international diplomacy and whose use is largely restricted to one state and is highly controversial elsewhere involving wikipedia taking sides in a controversy and so expressing a POV. Opting for a name used worldwide to refer to the state, a name the state itself uses as its international nomenclature, is elementary NPOV. If the Macedonian state was 100% opposed to using the FYROM designation, then it could be argued that its usage would be POV. But the fact that the Macedonian state uses the FYROM, accepts the use of the FYROM, signs international treaties as the FYROM, the fact that the President of the Republic himself uses FYROM in international speeches, shows that the FYROM designation is absolutely NPOV. It avoids expressing a POV on the issue of the validity or otherwise of the ROM designation, and simply uses a form of name the Macedonian state itself in international contexts uses. FYROM is clearly NPOV and agenda-free. ROM is agenda-laiden and POV. In the circumstances there is no justification for using ROM as the name of the article in preference to a more widely acceptable alternative. The article should be at the FYROM with both names and contexts explained in the relevant detail in the article text.

BTW Adam talks about the Republic of Greece. There is no such place. The 1975 constitution unambiguously names the state the Hellenic Republic (just as the 1952 constitution called the state the Kingdom of the Hellenes. Going by Adam's logic, the article on Greece should be called the Hellenic Republic as that is its constitution-given name, just as the Republic of Macedonia is Macedonia's constitution-given name. But instead, logically, we use the Greek state's internationally recognisable name. Yet Hellenic Republic isn't controversial, merely unrecognisable. Republic of Macedonia is controversial, hence it should not be the article's title. FearÉIREANN 04:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Goodness me. FearÉIREANN expends hundreds of words on points which are not in dispute, and more hundreds on false analogies.
 * We already know that Macedonia accepts the use of FYROM for diplomatic purposes, so none of that stuff is relevant at all.
 * Macedonia is an internationally recognised state, so all his stuff about UDIs and quirks of Irish history etc is not relevant either.
 * The sole point is: what is the legal name of the country? There is no ambiguity about this. Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia says: "The Republic of Macedonia is a sovereign, independent, democratic and social state."
 * What they do at the BBC or the CIA or anywhere else is not relevant. All that is relevant for us is to find the official name of the country, and use it. I really don't see why there is such a fuss about this. Adam 05:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(PS I know perfectly well what the Greek name of Greece is, &epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omega; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&iota;. I only used that as an analogy - perhaps Bulgaria would have been better). Adam

No Adam. The sole point is not what is the legal name of the country. The legal name is 100% irrelevant to the name of the article. We do not use the legal name as the name of an article about a country. If we did, Republic of Ireland would be at Éire, United Kingdom would be at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Italy would not be at Italy, France not at France, Greece would be at Hellenic Republic. Australia would be at Commonwealth of Australia. The legal name is a 100% irrelevance to the name of the article and I am surprised that you keep returning to a totally irrelevant point as if it was of some consequence to the name of the article. It is of relevance in the article, but that is not what we are discussing. We are trying to find a workable, usable, recognisable NPOV article title and by any logical criteria, Republic of Macedonia ain't any of those. FearÉIREANN 07:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an argument for a title of Republic of Macedonia (somewhat shorter) or Macedonia (country). In each of the cases you mention, a shorter, sufficiently unique, and common moniker is used.  FYROM is the most legalistic name (international treaties and agreements being a form of law) anyone could possibly come up with.  I think perhaps the people of Macedonia could have picked a less controversial name, but that's merely my POV.  Daniel Quinlan 08:15, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Republic Albanoslavia is the correct name FYROMs as definitive ! Vergina 08:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * In wqhat universe is this the correct name? RickK 08:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The weakness of FearÉIREANN's response encourges me in my views. Of course we don't title the article for Australia Commonwealth of Australia, because there is no ambiguity in the use of the name Australia. The only reason we call this article Republic of Macedonia rather than just Macedonia is because there is already an article called Macedonia to describe the larger geographical area of that name. FearÉIREANN entirely fails to give any reason why the opening paragraph of the article as it now stands should be changed. Adam 10:03, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Australia is not at Commonwealth of Australia because our policy is to use common names if the name "does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Eire translates into Ireland, and that is the common name. We have the country article at Republic of Ireland because "Ireland" (by itself) is POV. In the same way, we have China at "People's Republic of China" and Taiwan at "Republic of China." We would never have the country template at Eire (POV or not) because English speakers don't use that term.

I think the current text is good enough in explaining the controversy. The question is where it should be located. --Jiang


 * yes they do. The British media do. The Duke of Edinburgh does. It features in British legislation, etc. Éire is widely used as is the correct name, not Ireland, according to Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Irish constitution. And if we were using constitutional names in articles titles, as you are advocating in the case of Macedonia, then the Irish article would have to be at Éire, not Ireland, given Éire's use in english also. FearÉIREANN 21:54, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. Eire is in no way more common than Ireland. Since Ireland is the conventional short form, the Republic of IReland article would logically belong there. The conventional short form (in this case "Macedonia") can only be defied if it is POV/ambiguous. Our next step is to use the full/constitutional name as we are doing here, and as we have done for the PRC and ROC. I do not support moving this to Macedonia or Macedonia (country). --Jiang 23:51, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It should be located where it is currently located. There should be four articles: Macedonia about the geographical region Macedon about the ancient kingdom Republic of Macedonia about the modern state Greek Macedonia about the Greek region

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should redirect to Republic of Macedonia Adam 10:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * CONFUSED 100% ---

http://www.macedonianpride.cjb.net/ What is it ? Macedonia ? Macedon ? Republic of Macedonia? Greek Macedonia ? OOOOOR  CONFUSED ??? Vergina 11:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

&tau;&iota; &eta;&lambda;&iota;&theta;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; Adam

The reason why we cannot use Macedonia is obvious. We have 2 choices. One is a version used worldwide and by the state itself internationally. One is used only by the state and by no-one else. We have a long-standing policy of not automatically using formal constitutional titles as article names. So what the state calls itself in its constitution is irrelevant. The question is - use a controversial name form not used worldwide, not accepted worldwide, widely seen as POV and which if used would involve wikipedia coming down on one side of an argument (a clear departure from NPOV) or using a form of name used worldwide, used by all international bodies, states and nations, one whose usage was agreed by both sides in the dispute over the name of the state and a name that the Macedonian state itself uses, that its Foreign Ministry uses, its president uses, its prime minister uses, its parliament uses, etc when referring to the state with everyone but itself. Adam continually misses this point, and has offering not one single solitary justification for wikipedia leaving aside its own NPOV rules and its own precedent to use the less common, more POV and more controversial name when there a clearly established, widely accepted and far more widely used NPOV alternative on offer. the logic in inescapable. His only reference is to the constitution, but that is as shown irrelevant. ROM breaks all precedent and logic on wikipedia. FYROM follows all precedent and logic. FearÉIREANN 21:54, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Why doesnt the news media follow NPOV? --Jiang

Why can't we just use a name that does not offend ANYONE? Why not use the neutal point of view? What obsesses you guys - in support of ROM or just "Macedonia" - to take the side of FYROM into this matter? The name they chose in their constitution is irrelevant if nobody else recognises them under this name. Please show some sense and use the non controversial name. FYROM is a name that is NOT disputed. I am against including the term "Macedonia" for that state myself, but as you see I accept the compromise the state itself and Greece reached and use "former yugoslav republic of macedonia" (FYROM) to refer to it, as it was dictated in the AGGREEMENT between the two states. Greece supports that to call FYROM "Macedonia" is identity theft, and has many supporters in this. Identity theft is a serious issue, and there is no reason for this encyclopedia to assume the side of FYROM in this OR the side of Greece. Just use the name all states agreed to use, it cannot be simpler than this. Go with FYROM please. 193.195.0.102 22:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This agreement was obtained through coercion. Greece imposed a trade embargo and prevented the republic from getting international recognition and badly needed loans (especially when there was a failing economy and influx of war refugees). Just because everyone agrees to something doesn't make it fair. --Jiang


 * Excuse me, can you tell me again what is your authority in international politics and how you are more right in me to judge who was right or wrong to enforce this embargo? Cause apparently if Greece was so wrong, economic sanctions could be taken against it, but this never happened. Not only that. The UN agreed with Greece. Also what "influx of war refuges" are you talking about? You are obviously lacking some clues on the subject. No refuges went to FYROM before the Kosovo crisis, and when they went there, the "Macedonians" tried to kick them all out to Albania. I guess this should make me feel proud for being a Macedonian, right? Can you keep this conversation using facts instead of fiction please? Greece felt threatened by FYROM and acted accordingly. It is not the only country to enforce an embargo, and you are too simple a person to be the judge of whether it was right or wrong to do so. So leave it at that and do us all a favour of staying in topic please. Thanks 193.195.0.102 04:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just because most of the world adheres to some convention doesn't mean that convention is undisputed. Should we move Republic of China to "Chinese Taipei" becuause almost every international organization the ROC is allowed to join calls it that? Surely, the ROC shouldn't mind since it agreed to use that name, and Taiwanese athletes march out in the Olympics with "Chinese Taipei" banners?

So how was Greek threated by that name? Were they afraid that they would be invaded? Did they think they would self-destruct? So what if the UN/EU agreed with Greece? The argument that the UN is some unbiased moral arbiter is a ridiculous one. What other countries enforced an embargo? Name them.

No, I cannot judge what is right or wrong, but nor can you and international treaties. Just because FYROM is an internationally agreed to title doesn't make it NPOV. Unfortunately, there's no easy solution to this. I'm not strongly opposed to moving this page, but I just think the arguments you're using, especially in /Archive1 are quite ridiculous.

Can you explain to me what adding "former Yugoslav" accomplishes, since the Macedonia in Greece is not a republic? This is an honest question. --Jiang 05:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why not Macedonia (country)? That would be in line with Mongolia (country). --Wik 22:09, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * because Macedonis is a disputed name and it would be POV to assume it. 193.195.0.102 22:11, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it's better than Republic of Macedonia in any case, since we normally use the common short form, and the "(country)" addition sufficiently qualifies it. If you search Google News, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" gets 12 hits, "FYROM" 16, but "Macedonia" 782 (and most of those relate to the country). --Wik 22:22, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Mongolia wouldnt be disambiguated that way if it had a longer constitutional name. The extra stuff in the parenthesis is a pain to type. --Jiang

Sure, I am sure that if you search some arabic news agancies they will also say that Bin Laden is a hero. I suppose this is correct, right? FYROM has agreed to be called that. Calling it "Macedonia" is confusing and a POV. Cheers, 193.195.0.102 22:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Red herring --Jiang


 * The only red herring here is caused by your continuous denial to answer this simple question: Why not use the undisputed NPOV name FYROM instead of the one sided disputed name ROM. What is this? The 9th time you do not answer this question directly?


 * Another red herring. Please see above. FYROM is not "undisputed". The fact that we can argue over this makes it disputed. --Jiang


 * Well you still didn't answer the question directly.FYROM IS undisputed. We are not talking about personal views here (like you seem to believe). There is noone in any state that will claim that the name FYROM is not valid. They may say they don't like it, but all agree that it is a valid name. This is not disputed (not even by you). You have problems with the context in which we use the word dispute. Is English your first language? 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It isn't that simple, Wik. Two different locations beside each other claim the right to the name Macedonia and it is used in different contexts to refer to either or the region together. So Macedonia is a non-starter. Macedonia (country) is similarly unworkable as people, depending on their politics would interpret as meaning Macedonia in the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia in Greece or in effect greater Macdonia (the region). People in both entities dispute the right of the other to use the name. Macedonia or Macedonia (country) would be unusable as using Ireland to mean one of the 2 Irelands, Nothern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. The options are to use a name used exclusively by the Macedonian state to refer to itself but whose usage is disputed by everyone else, or a compromise name Macedonia itself agrees to use to mean itself internationally. FYROM avoids taking sides in the dispute and is the name format most wikipedia users wouldwide would recognise. Using Republic of Macedonia is like using Ulster, North of Ireland or the Six Countries for Northern Ireland. It would involve using a disputed name in a way that would leave the article title open to the charge of taking sides in the dispute over the name and sending out the message to Europe-based wikipedia readers that this encyclopædia is coming down on one side of the dispute. That is something wikipedia cannot do, anymore than it can take sides on name controversies in Northern Ireland, China, Taiwan or elsewhere. But a small group of people here, presumably with the best of intentions and illinformed as to full complexity, have been determined to get wikipedia to use a name that takes sides, when an obvious, more used NPOV alternative agreed by the Macedonian state itself and used by it, exists. FearÉIREANN 22:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The use of the term Republic of Macedonia is not in fact "disputed" by anyone except Greece. Everyone else agreed to the FYROM formula to appease the Greeks and for no other reason. No other country could care less what Macedonia calls itself, but Greece is an EU member and because the EU works on a consensus model the Greeks had to be appeased or they could have wrecked the whole EU system. That is the fact of the matter.


 * And your evidence for this is, where? I find the statement that Greece could distabilize the whole EU at least ridiculous. 193.195.0.102 04:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Even in Greece, this issue was driven by the competitive demagoguery of Papandreou and Mitsotakis competing for votes in (Greek) Macedonia. Now that the 1995 agreement has curbed nationalist provocations from Macedonia (which were mostly the doing of the IMRO party, which is no longer in office), and now that Greek politics has settled down somewhat, the issue has largely faded away. No-one except nationalist fanatics (like Vergina) care very much about it.
 * An encyclopaedia should not be held hostage by nationalist hysterics of any description. We should use the correct legal and commonly used title of the country. FearÉIREANN should stop dragging this debate out because of his taste for being contrary. Adam 01:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Wow! This is all news to me. Strange how people who have nothing to do with the country know so much about it NOT! This is like reading a .mk site. Let me give you some insight. You just called the vast majority of Greeks, nazis. Most of the Greeks consider the use of the name "Macedonia" by FYROM as identity theft. I don't see much nationalism in the dislike of identity theft. Not to mention that it is proven (and if you had read the article you would have known that), that FYROM had indeed territorial claims towards Macedonia in Greece. I suppose that is just "nationalist hysterics" for you right? 193.195.0.102 04:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Adam, Jtdirl's arguments are as valid as yours. The fact is that FYROM is the internationally recognized name, it shouldn't matter how that came about (i.e. nationalist hysterics). I also think a lot of Greeks care about it, but likewise the Macedonians (or should I say Fyromese) aren't happy at all with the name FYROM. So some people will be upset with either version. I don't see a perfect solution. --Wik 03:19, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Regardless, as it has been said and mentioned a gazzilion times already, FYROM is a name that has been agreed by all parties. For the love of whaveter you care about, please, respect this agreement that nobody disputes. Thanks, 193.195.0.102 04:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Obviously 193 is not familiar with the "Nazi debate rule": which is that the first person who uses the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" in any debate which is not actually about those subjects automatically forfeits the debate. Adam


 * I am dense so I didn't understand this. Did I call anyone "nazi"? 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I don't think this issue is as settled as you make it out to be, when it comes to the cultural matter (the political dispute has largely died down, as there's no good resolution in sight, and neither side considers it in its interests to make it an issue again at the moment). The majority of Greeks, including those without a nationalistic or political bent, find it offensive and simply incorrect for a Slavic country to bear the name of an ancient Greek empire, and to attempt to appropriate its symbols (for example, the Vergina Sun). They'd be similarly upset if Turkey tried to pass off the ancient ruins near Ephesos as being part of Turkish cultural heritage. Heck, there's plenty of Native Americans who would be upset if white people tried to pass off the New Mexico cliff dwellings as part of their cultural heritage. The main argument is that the people living in the country called the Republic of Macedonia are not in any way remotely Macedonian, having no relation, culturally or linguistically to the Macedonian Empire, since the Slavic immigration to the region happened some centuries later (and similarly, that the Macedonian language is not in any way a Macedonian language, because the Macedonian Empire had Greek as its language, and Slavic didn't enter the region until the 3rd century AD at the earliest). --Delirium 06:13, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * That said, I think this article should remain at Republic of Macedonia, as the most neutral solution. I don't think most moderate Greeks will object to that name being the location of the article as long as there is a mention up front that the name is disputed.  All but the most nationalistic accept that the country has named itself that, and accept that English-language media is unlikely to follow their lead of calling it the Skopje or something like that.  This follows the Republic of China precedent fairly closely as well. --Delirium 06:28, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

(Oh dear, where to start?) I am, believe me, entirely familiar with the Greek arguments on this subject. I have many Greek friends, I was in Thessaloniki, Pella and Vergina last year, I have enough Greek to read a newspaper. I have spent many hours arguing about this with both Greeks and Macedonians. I agree, and I have said all along, that Greek grievances about Macedonia ought to be fully listed in the article. But the fact remains that Macedonia is, whether Greeks like it or not, a sovereign state, and the people who live there choose to call themselves Macedonians and their country Macedonia. The Greeks can voice their objections to that, and I might even agree with them, but that is not relevant to what an encyclopaedia article ought to say about the matter. It is an encyclopaedia's job to tell the truth. And the truth about this matter is that there is a country called the Republic of Macedonia, which, under duress from Greece, agreed in 1995 that for diplomatic purposes it would be refered to as FYROM. But the name of the country is the name its people choose to call it (for us, the nearest English rendering thereof), particurly when (as is the case here) that is also the name that appears in its constitution. A lot of the above debate seems to rest on the amazing proposition that country A has a right to dictate to country B what it can call itself. Do people here really accept that? Would FearÉIREANN accept Britain telling Ireland that it had to call itself Uzbekistan? Would Wik accept Russia telling Poland that it had to call itself Bolivia? I don't think so. Why are the Macedonians the only people in the world who have lost their right to name themselves and their country as they see fit? Adam 06:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * A slightly better analogy would be European countries complaining about all the "New Name" names in the United States, or some country complaining about Colombia since Columbus never landed there, etc. Or, perhaps Indiana since India is nowhere near it.  Maybe Washington is offensive to descendents of Washington.  Oops, he had no kids.  Anyway, you get my point, there are better examples.  The fact still remains that the vast majority of media reporting uses plain old "Macedonia" as the country name.  Using FYROM instead is a long long leap of obfuscation.  Daniel Quinlan 06:41, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. The facts, as close as I can discern them, are that there is a country that calls itself the Republic of Macedonia, but that is referred to as something else in many international bodies due to a dispute with Greece.  So I'm happy to accept Republic of Macedonia as the article location.  Macedonia (country) I'd be less happy with, since by even the most sympathetic accounts the country isn't the country of Macedonia, but merely a country in Macedonia (even most nationalists of the country agree that there are parts of Macedonia in other nearby countries). --Delirium 08:11, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes of course that is correct. The ROM Macedonians don't claim to be the only Macedonians - they agree that Greeks in Greek Macedonia are Macedonians too. They also (to respond to an earlier point) don't claimn to be descendants of the ancient Macedonians. They are a South Slav people who settled in the area more than 1,000 years ago. Their argument is that they are a people who live in (part of) Macedonia and are therefore entitled to call themselves Macedonians. Just as, incidentally, Slavs who settled on the lower Danube called themselves called themselves Bulgarians although they are not in fact descended from the ancient Bulgars. For that matter, if you did a DNA test you'd find that most modern Greeks are in fact of Slavic, Turkic, Vlach or Albanian descent, since Greece was virtually depopulated during the late Roman period and resettled by other peoples - but no-one now disputes their right to call themselves Hellenes. But I digress :) Adam 08:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the ROM Macedonians in large part have tried to claim to be the cultural heirs to the ancient Macedonian Empire: the Vergina Sun on their flag, which they only removed as part of the settlement with Greece to get trade sanctions lifted, is a good example. So I think they've exacerbated the situation by claiming something more than just "we're people who live in the region of Macedonia". --Delirium 09:02, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Well there are party politics in Macedonia as there are in Greece. The IMRO party which took office when Macedonian became independent is descended from the 19th century terrorist organisation which tried to establish a Slav state in the whole of Macedonia. They came to power with some fairly extreme ideas, and they acted very stupidly in antagonising the Greeks by using the Vergina Sun and the White Tower as national symbols. That was one of the reasons why the electorate turned them out. The current government which signed the 1995 agreement has renounced such provocations. And in Greece both PASOK and ND have also retreated from the extreme nationalist rhetoric of the early 90s. It is only a few radical hotheads (like Mr Vergina) on both sides who are keeping the issue alive - which is another reason why this debate is so silly. Adam 10:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the UNO(See FYROM) nationalismus Mr.Adam? Vergina 10:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,as "Republic of Macedonia" is fabrik for forgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! See http://www.macedonianpride.cjb.net/ Vergina 10:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See United Macedonia... Aegean Macedonia (occupied by Greece since 1913),... http://www.unitedmacedonians.org/macedonia/maps.html This is nationalism !! Vergina 10:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is this "Republic of Macedonia" ? See: http://www.f1.net.au/users/igortoni/histeve.html Vergina 10:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Vergina, consider yourself to be spamming this talk page. --Jiang 21:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I can't see how you are better than her. At least her excuse is lack of understanding of the language she tries to use. Appart from that she doesn't seem to have less points than you do. You both seem to give the same reason: "Nuhuh! I am right cause I said so!" 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This argument is getting us nowhere. It is 100% irrelevant which countries use what format, who sees what in what light. We are not arguing over the rights and wrongs of which is the real Macedonia. We are simply trying to find a workable, recognisable, functionable title for this article, nothing more. So can we please stop getting into debates on who is entitled to use the name Macedonia

Hello my Name is Zivko. Im 16 years old, my parents come from the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM to some). I love Macedonian History. So let me tell you this. Back in 1913, the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars, beat the Turks out of Europe (Balkan War I) then they turned their efforts into splitting up the ancient land of Macedonia (Balkan War II). Greece took Aegean, Serbia took Vardar and Bulgaria took Pirin, Albanians got a little bit as well. The governments of these countries, disallowed the speaking of Macedonian, and the recognition of Macedonian identity. When finally The Vardar part became a republic, 1/3 of the ancient land broken up, the Greeks realised their stolen history of Alexander the Great and the tomb (that was found in Aegean Macedonia) of Phillip II were all going to be found to be really Macedonian. And they are. If the Vergina Sun is Greek, why is it not on their national flag?