Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NikoSilver (talk | contribs) at 11:26, 8 May 2006 (→Comments: rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the North Macedonia ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political issues on the Related disputes page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Two subpages for the naming conflict have also been created:


Read before Poll

On April 11, Archive 9 was created. This was an attempt to reduce the amount of reading necessary for people coming to the page new. However, it is suggested that anyone with time to spend, or anyone who wants to become deeply invloved in the article, read archive 9, if not some of the other archives too. It is also suggested that the comments are read first, in order to understand the poll's context. Robdurbar 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions above and recent edit warring, the following poll is to decide the current rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Namely, there is contention regarding the appellation "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and the degree to which it should be emphasised in this overview article.

Two renditions are primarily in contention. The first, in place for some two months before recent events, contains a note regarding the above appellation; while the second explicitly indicates the appellation in the first paragraph with details. With both versions, the topic is expatiated with an article section specifically dealing with the topic and further in the country's foreign relations subarticle.

Through approval voting in this poll, Wikipedians can assert support for one or more options and should indicate their choice by simply signing with four tildes (~~~~), followed by an optional one sentence explanation. Wikipedians may also propose variants. Opposing votes will be disallowed, as will be votes from users who have registered on or after 1 March 2006 or those posted by anonymous IPs. This is not a poll/vote about retitling/moving the article nor about mitigating the current article's content; if necessary, those can stem from decisions resulting from this poll. Any Wikipedian who votes below accepts the conditions herein and votes not recorded are effectively abstentions.

Voting will continue to 30 April 2006 23:59 UTC, but may be extended beyond that if any option does not garner a clear consensus or plurality of support.

Thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the poll supposed to be closed already? Is there a decision to extend because of lack of plurality? FunkyFly 16:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the poll is over ... but there's also no harm in it garnering added commentary, particularly if the vote share does not appreciably change. And I believe there is a clear plurality already but I will keep you apprised after connecting with the Wp bureaucrat. As well, I've made a request of a Wp admin to remove the article block. Thanks for your continued patience. E Pluribus Anthony | talk |

Unprotecting

I'll unprotect the article if we're agreed that it makes sense to do so. Did you intend to wait until the 'crat opines on the poll? Jkelly 16:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the plurality for option #2 in the poll, I think it makes sense to unblock it at this point, some four weeks after the article was protected. I am going to summarise the results of the poll, but this isn't a clincher. If anything, the 'crat will either validate the result of the poll or pose questions about it. Of course, I haven't been able to turn on a dime, recently. :)
In any event, if unblocked, I ask that editors any which way respect the outcome of the poll and not engage in edit warring regarding the lead. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for the opinion. Apart from the clear plurality of option #2, there seem to exist more issues that stem from the faulty design of this poll:

  1. There are extremely similar options who should be regarded as one and their votes summed up.
  2. There are comments along with certain votes that may direct to another similar option which was added later.
  3. Certain options are more hardcore than others (#4 and #9), which means that the users who supported those, would definitely prefer option #2 from option #1.

Please bear my scepticism, I think we must not open the can of WP:BEANS just yet [sic].  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, the can of worms was opened long ago with edit warring. And given your participation in the poll and other comments in support of the poll or assertions made in it, which the commentary above conveniently glazes over, I see little reason to wait ... but I'm not in a rush. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those reasons were stated all along by me and other users. When you are forced to play under certain rules, you do your best with what you have. There are further pending contributions to the article, so I guess you are right for rushing unblock. I still would like to listen to that opinion, though.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with E Pluribus Anthony here; regardless of whatever concerns I've mentioned about using a poll, it is the edit-warring that halts article improvement (and was the original reason we protected this article). I further agree that we're in no rush, however, so I won't unprotect just yet. Jkelly 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, either-way, per my comment above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at option #2 again, which clearly prevailed:

The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.

Some very constructive comments have been made from both sides during this month, which I believe need somehow to be reflected in the final phrasing. Namely, the verb "adopted" has to be changed with "accepted", the word former has to be written with a lower case f, the expression "or simply Macedonia" is poorly written and should be either omitted or rephrased (e.g. "sometimes referred to as Macedonia"). --   Avg    19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "accepted" for "adopted" seems reasonable; but "sometimes referred to as Macedonia" seems a gross understatement to me; we should say "often referred to as Macedonia" or "often unformally reffered to as Macedonia". It may be not liked, but it's a fact that the the use of the term Macedonia as by far dominant in the media and in books to indicate the RoM.--Aldux 20:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Which rendition do you prefer for the introduction to the Wp Republic of Macedonia article?

Poll: Response from Cecropia

Excuse me for putting this up front, but I have been asked by E Pluribus Anthony to look at this and try to see if there is a consensus that can be determined from the voting and opinions this far. It would seem that a number of editors may be waiting on my response, so I want you to know I'm working on it. I believe I am aware of the basic dispute involved and understand why this is a difficult issue. I will attempt to frame an opinion only on the poll; i.e., not inject my personal evaluation. Will get back to you all shortly. Cheers, Cecropia 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial opinion on poll results

I read through the various options and looked at combinations and I believe a consensus has not yet been reached as to any one particular option. There were so many possibilities, that I think what would be best would be to first nail down what all seem to agree on. In fact I think we should put it to a vote, and I'm going to cast it that way. I ran this on a spreadsheet (see here--check that I transcribed the options correctly as of ~0400 UTC) using standard weighting methods, out of which I came to the following conclusions:

  • FYROM should be metnioned in the initial paragraph (87.34%)
  • An extended, rather than a brief version is preferred (65.82%)
  • The order of the "names" for Macedonia should be (weighted votes: first place weight = 3, second = 2, third = 1, not mentioned = 0)
  • Republic of Macedonia goes first (weight = 396)
  • Macedonia goes second (weight = 258)
  • FYROM goes third (weight = 231)

If we can agree with these findings, we can move on to the specific wording. Please either agree or reject and don't add additional options so we can begin the next (hopefully final) stage. Cheers, Cecropia 06:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE with the above assessment

  1. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lukas (T.|@) 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC). Thanks, I think this may become a constructive way of dealing with it.[reply]
  3. Its the numbers! FrancisTyers 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aldux 10:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REJECT above assessment

  1. I appreciate your valuable input and I agree with the first two of your conclusions. However, I believe that the third one is more complicated and could lead to a course of action people who voted in this poll did not foresee. The poll was not about the usage or not of the term "Macedonia". It was about the usage of the term "FYROM" and the weight it should have in this article (see the rules of the poll). The inclusion or not of the term "Macedonia" and its weight was not an issue in this poll, it was presented de facto and I strongly believe most voters did not make a decision considering this parameter. I will change my vote to Agree if you remove your conclusion about the term "Macedonia", especially in terms of its weight in the intro. --   Avg    23:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Congratulations Cecropia! You are a contemporary Ariadne who helped manage to find the way out of a labyrinth with a ball of thread! Your mathematic logic is a very good start in figuring this out! There are further complications, though, which I would appreciate if you and other users just give me a little time to illustrate. I will use your logic to filter them out. Please be patient for a few hours until I manage to do so.[reply]
  • Thanks, Niko! Great compliments make the work more rewarding! Certainly you should post your observations, but I hope you (and all) will leave any complications to the above observations or argumentation aside (unless they bear directly on acceptance or rejection) until we have nailed down these areas of agreement (or not). If we can definitively accept or reject these results, we will have a solid base to work out details. Cheers, Cecropia 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politis 15:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Question to Cecropia. In all the options we find entries which are numbered and others that are not. For instance in Option #1, there are 13 numbered entries. But after number 13, the entries are no longer numbered. I (user:Politis) made a comment in that option and it does not have a number. So does my signed comment count as a vote? I hope it does not count because I voted for Option #4 and my entry is number 6. Merci.[reply]
I will interject here. As indicated upfront, votes from anon IPs or new users (after 1 Mar.) were disallowed (suffrage, sockpuppetry prevention); apropos, there are 20 valid, numbered votes for Option #1 (not just 13), etc. Apparently, there were a great number of anons et al. that voted in sequence, which explains the gap between #13 and #14. Comments above and beyond those are merely that; if you intended it as a vote, if should be counted as one but not otherwise. If yours was a bona fide vote, it's also possible it was invalidated in error or (due to formatting) overlooked amidst the anon votes but we tried tobe diligent. I hope this helps; my thanks and, if applicable, apologies. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pluribus Anthony, you answered my question and I am happy with your reply. Politis 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above reasoning (and the subpage) was posted yesterday and there still is no feedback for the rationale behind it. I really tried to continue this logic in order to answer all questions, but the whole thing was extremely complicated and I had to make many arbitrary assumptions, that could lead me to false or inaccurate results of the poll. The main reason for that, was that there were 158 votes by the same 89 users. So each user voted for an average of 1.77 times, most of which, (for all other issues apart from the inclusion of the fYRoM term and its spellout) were contradicting! There were many users who voted for virtually all options except Option #1, to illustrate their disagreement in excluding the FYROM term from the intro. Avg above is right that this was the exact reason for the poll, as it was also the exact reason of the recent edit war (please check article history and my comments requesting this poll (here, here and here to verify).

Examples of contradicting votes:

  • All except one (Avala) users who voted for the options that don't include the simple term "Macedonia" (#8 and #9), also voted for some other option(s) that include(s) it!
  • The extended vs brief version rationale is to my opinion (and Cecropia's?) totally irrelevant to the issues (and somewhat silly, I should say...) Most users voted for both brief and extended versions!
  • The order of the names is a very big mess also. It is there that the contradictiong votes are of an amazing extent! Apart from the 15 users that voted for No Macedonia at all (#8, #9), who also voted for Macedonia as second and/or third name, most other users have voted both alternatives (second or third). The same is true for the term fYRoM for all three positions (first, second or third).

I was very tempted to vote "Agree" above, but with all those contradicting votes, the only safe conclusion is Cecropia's first conclusion (fYRoM and spellout in the intro). I will refrain from voting for now, in order to give time to Cecropia and the four first editors that agreed with all three conclusions to re-evaluate their position, given the above facts.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos has made a very thorough analysis, which I agree with. I believe Cecropia's conclusions unintentionally make assumptions of the poll results. My personal opinion is that the results of any poll should be analysed strictly in regards to the topic of the poll. The question was about the inclusion or not and the weight of "FYROM". Any other conclusion, may not be representative of the voters' will. This was also discussed during the voting period, when I remember Nikos was a prominent supporter of the theory that the sheer number of options was distracting voters from the original reason behind the poll and alsothat it opened the door for misrepresentations. This is a misrepresentation of the result. Not everybody who voted for an option including "Macedonia" wants this term to be included. And not everybody who voted for any option agrees 100% with its phrasing. --   Avg    20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you folks have to understand that Cecropia don't have no dog in this race. I attempted to break a logjam on what I know to be an emotionally charged issue by trying to find areas of common ground, therefore I have no position to re-evaluate. If I were an editor ot a print encyclopedia, charged with introducing a disputed country name, I would probably strcuture it something like this:
"[Name of the country as it appears on its own official documents] is a [form of government] located [where]. It is commonly referred to as [common name among its own citizens]. [Name of international organization] refers to it as [outwardly designated name of country] for [reason]. Non-citizens of [common country name] in the [neighbouring country / region / opposition group / dissendent faction] of [whatever] do not accept the official name because [reason], but instead refer to it as [something else].
Those basic guidelines still might not be to acceptable to all, but at least they would be encyclopedic and understandable to a neutral reader not knowing about the issues. -- Cecropia 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent! I agree 100%! If I may, let me simply substitute the text in the brackets with actual data.
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија, Albanian: Republika e Maqedonisë) is a parliamentary republic located on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. It is commonly referred to as Macedonia. All international organisations refer to it as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as the result of a naming dispute with Greece. Non-citizens of Macedonia in Greece do not accept the official name because they consider it conflicts with Greek Macedonia, but instead refer to it as Republic of Skopje.
Again, well done and I believe it was a fantastic input.--   Avg    23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cecropia, why are you jumpy about it? I just said that I don't agree with the scary math behind it, and you come to confirm that it'd be your opinion if you were writing a print encyclopedia... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we can't put "republic of Skopje" as it wasn't in any of the polls. Many of those who supported inserting FYROM, like me, certain wouldn't have approved of "Republic of Skopje". And since it wasn't in the poll, nobody would feel himself obbligated by the poll to not try to remove it.--Aldux 00:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux, apparently this was just Cecropia's opinion, which was elaborated by Avg. I too agree that an appellation by a single country (mine) is not as significant reason for it to enter in the intro of the article. Now for Cecropia's opinion, I guess that we must all understand that (strong feelings aside), I am sure there are plenty of editors in print encyclopedias (and there are -see Encarta) who would use one of the following versions:

[UN designated name of country] is a [form of government] located [where]. The internal constitution name is [Name of the country as it appears on its own official documents]. [Names of international organizations-WOW! what a list that'd be] refers to it as [UN designated name of country] for [reason]. Citizens of [UN designated name of country] do not accept the official name because [reason], but instead refer to it as [common name among its own citizens].

...or others who would use:

[Common name among its own citizens] is a [form of government] located [where]. The official name is [Name of the country as it appears on its own official documents]. [Name of international organization] refers to it as [outwardly designated name of country] for [reason]. Non-citizens of [common country name] in the [neighbouring country / region / opposition group / dissendent faction] of [whatever] do not accept the official name because [reason], but instead refer to it as [something else].

...but both of these would be their opinion not backed up by any scary math. To quote Cecropia: "I will attempt to frame an opinion only on the poll; i.e., not inject my personal evaluation." The above priority of names, however, is Cecropia's interpretation, so please remove the math theory behind it (to which I started as a fan)!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #1 – Brief version

Vote below:

  1. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FrancisTyers 11:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vlatko 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bitola 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (for my opinion click here)[reply]
  5. Preferred option, though not necessarily the only agreeable one, for reasons detailed above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. dcabrilo 16:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Makedonec 16:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Dado 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) This is perhaps the most ridiculous dispute of all that resulted from the break-up of former Yugoslavia and I can't wait until the issue dies. I would however suggest adding FYROM to this option and linking it to a segment that talks about the dispute.[reply]
  9. Luka Jačov 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Most other options are completely wrong or just mostly wrong. The dispute over the name is best covered in a paragraph which gets the sources right and covers the various uses in context. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was never adopted as a formal title; it isn't even a correct rendition of what the U.N. used to avoid the name. Jonathunder 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that you refer to the article "the", although I might be wrong. [1]. FunkyFly 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support with my other suggestions in the section below. -- infinity0 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bomac 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - The unconstitutional name should not be in the introduction, that is a name dispute which is good to be described in a proper section.[reply]
  13. Support. A country chooses its own name. If there is another place, you mention that in disambiguation. (Metb82 04:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    #There is only one name of the country. Mentoning the controversial temporary reference in the intro is missleading in the way that the reference is another or alternative name of the country. Furthermore greek users haven't yet expressed their opinion how many times should the reference be mentioned in the article. --Realek 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 10 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Every country has a name that its citizens chose, and that is how it should be presented. The temporary reference should not be stated in the first paragraph, but, if at all, later in the text. It is wrong to say that the coutry addopted any other name as a formal title. It is just a temporary reference that was imposed on it. --Filip M 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed; suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this NPOV. It is not good an ethiquette which isn't adequate for a country's name to be in the introduction. High Elf 18:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    suport this version. Anelia200 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "FYROM" name is in "use" only when Greece is involved, so no need of overloading. FoxyNet 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage; sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The name was not imposed, it was reached in a civilised manner betwen two negotiating parties. And no, it was not adopted but accepted as a temporary solution. Politis 18:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In those circumstances it was pretty much imposed and forced onto Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless the temporary agreement already expired (in 2003 I think) --Realek 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the Greek "Macedonia" was a territory confiscated from Macedonia Proper by the Greek dictator and ethnically cleansed (as much as it could be), tthe Greeks have no right to claim the name Macedonia as something Greek, therefore the Macedonians have every right to call their country Macedonia as it has been called for thousands of years. --Bjankuloski06en 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage. Sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The naming dispute is a political issue and should not even get mentioned in the first paragraf. Most on-line enciclopedias call the country Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia, and don't even mention the refference. User bitola gave an example list of such enciclopedias. --Dipazi 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (user inception date: 31 March 2006) Sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Trimond 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed; suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. FlavrSavr 14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - It is really a matter of nuances. Is the naming dispute relevant? Yes. Is it relevant enough to enter the opening paragraph? Maybe. If Britannica doesn't mention it in the opening paragraph, [2] I don't see how a similar Wikipedia approach could be regarded as POVish.[reply]
  15. I am convinced by the well argued points made by User:Jonathunder both above and elsewhere on this page. Picapica 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Misos 08:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    JTFryman 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed; suffage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruff 10:59, 16 April (UTC)
    Created March 10? FunkyFly 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) – yes: disallowed;suffrage. Sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even worse, User:pulvis angelus is the same as user:Vlatkoto, who has already voted (or is trying to frame him for unknown reason). Also quite likely user:FoxyNet is the same as user:Bomac, edits follow similar pattern, and both have voted. FunkyFly 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh you insult me.My name is Damir Ruff not Vlatko.But I forgive you becose you are soo <personal attack removed> and you judge too fast.Me and Vlatko we are fellow student we study in same university and I used his computer to write you that letter the same letter you deleted in your discussion edit.And I also forgive to sign in on my user.That's all I can say now you can belive me or not but I'm telling you that you will remembered Damir Ruff ohhh I'm sure :))
    Ruff 2:17, 29 April 2006
  17. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --serbiana - talk 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: I don't think the naming dispute is important enough to need mentioning in the first paragraph. Almost everyone now (with the exception of Greece, and formal international contexts trying overly hard to be neutral) uses Macedonia because FYROM is just too unwieldly for people to use. So, the Macedonians have sort of won by default. --SJK 06:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Greek bigots can get lost. Carl Kenner 03:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #2 – Extended version

Vote below:

  1. Astrokey44|talk 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC). If it has adopted FYROM as a formal title, then it should be mentioned --[reply]
  2. Agree in principle, although "it has adopted" seems suboptimal - isn't it rather the case that others have adopted that name for it? Lukas (T.|@) 08:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks good to me right now. Keep in mind that both countries signed the A/RES/47/225. (and it is former not Former in the long name) talk to +MATIA 09:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Deleting my vote according to the rationale posted at the sub-page /FYROM name support position.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For reasons i have already explained in this (and other) talk pages --Hectorian 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Nakos2208 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Kalogeropoulos 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  7. --Agree with everyone else - looks good for now Mallaccaos, 7 April 2006
  8. Аgree, but to be mentioned exactly where the formal title of FYROM is used - the UN, bilateral relations with Greece etc., etc.--Komitata 14:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Kjkolb 15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Asteraki 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Well, this one looks closest to representing the facts, although I would put FYROM up at the top with the other names. For great justice. 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The ed17 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (talk) If it is a formal title, than this should be the beginning![reply]
    Disallowed; suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. While this is one of the silliest and most egregious international disputes of the last century -- what, would Honduras have to go internationally by the name of "The Grand Duchy of Pigshit" if Mexico demanded it? -- if Macedonia does continue to use FYROM has a formal title, then it must be reflected in the article, whether we like it or not. RGTraynor 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Fine with me, although I would prefer more nuanced version as 3 or 5 abakharev 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --FunkyFly 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Good version, but might require some finetuning (lower case f, adopted → accepted). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Odysses (☜) 07:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Witty lama 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Simple, clear and NPOV.[reply]
  19. --Lucinos 10:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Dada 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is surely to win, most people support it. --147.91.8.64 14:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: anon IP. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Seems the clearest and most inclusive. --Quiddity 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. It's the same thing as in Republic of China: Although this is the name they like themselves, the introduction includes the most common name others use for it: Taiwan. And this is just a common name. FYROM is the name that the country uses to participate in international organisations. --geraki 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -- ChrisO 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC). Agree with the comments above. -- ChrisO 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I've voted for two options, this one or number five, an extended version of number 2. Alexander 007 21:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Clearest, most NPOV. It's (unfortunately, IMHO) a common name in some contexts, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Junes 10:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --makedonas 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good version as well, with some corrections. "Accepted" seems more neutral than "adopted", since the country in question does not use this title as a self-identifying term. In the above mentioned institutions, representatives of this country refer to it as "Republic of Macedonia", while they have accepted that others might formally refer to with the temprorary designation. The following is more important than it seems - it's former (lower case) not Former Republic of Macedonia. [3] The lower case indicates that is it is a only a temporary designation, not a name. --FlavrSavr 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I vote for this option, although, as another user has pointed out and I absolutely agree with him,"it has adopted" seems suboptimal - isn't it rather the case that others have adopted that name for it?". I also agree that "the country in question does not use this title as a self-identifying term". Hence, me might have to use a term like "uses" or "accepted" instead of adopted. Yannismarou 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment FS, Y., et al.: As below, the phrase – and that word ("adopted") – is lifted from the Encyclopædia Britannica; ditto for the upper case F (though I'm cognizant of lower case f in the UN resolution). I make no claim about the accuracy of both per se, but perhaps the following rephrase avoids whether f/FYROM has been accepted or adopted:
    "As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is a formal title [in common use/commonly used in international relations]."
    'Common' being vague about whether it is used internally (by FYROM; not really) or externally (by others; yes). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about: "As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is a formal title [officially (not commolny or in common use) used in international relations]."Yannismarou 10:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. This is an OK solution to a very tiresome debate. I personally do not like using FYROM at all as it reminds me of The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. --Kunzite 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYROM is the name that the country uses to participate in international organisations. --Daio 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC) God I feel sorry for those Macedonians, having neighbours push them into a position of having such a lumbering title. Still, since it is the formal name it may as well be in the opening sentence. Lets just hope it's all sorted soon. Agree with flavrsavr over using accepted rather than adopted.Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you feel just a little bit sorry for Greek Macedonians having been robbed of their identity by their neighbours?--Avg 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote to this option xvvx 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (user inception date 14 April 2006). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. —Khoikhoi 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Kriko 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Keeps things fairly simple while appropriately indicating Greece (as opposed to the UN).[reply]
  33. Personally I prefer versions five and seven, but this one also is OK--Aldux 19:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Vote for this --Gokhan 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Support TheArchon 10:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. --Support Mtiedemann 08:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #3 – Extended version (2)

please indicate and categorise below; copy and render in a fashion similar to options 1/2:

Vote below:

  1. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC). This sounds fine, as does #2[reply]
  2. Better than 2, but "might" doesn't seem to be grammatically appropriate English here - there's nothing hypothetical about it. Propose instead: "it is also formally referred to ... in some contexts". --Lukas (T.|@) 08:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. abakharev 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Stpaul 08:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Shenme 08:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -- When will the controversy stop and the embarassment kick in? (From the convict colony south of the civilised state of Canada)[reply]
    Can you be more specific, because everything seems to be south of Canada :) FunkyFly 07:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, except much of Europe. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When you are on the north pole, there is nowhere else to go but south ;) FunkyFly 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -Fsotrain09 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #4 – Brief version (2)

Vote below:

  1. International treaties do refer on what you call Republika Makedonija as FYROM. Believe it or not any other reference is historically and scientifically wrong and biased. Exactly because wikipedia should be NPOV (because is not in many editions depending on states' policies upon this matter) the name should be FYROM in accordance to international treaties. If national treaties do change I have not -and I believe many Greeks do not have- any kind of problem to change it. In the meanwhile you should cite why you believe that this country should be named accordingly with the POV term Republika Makedonija. Self determination is not enough as reason. For example, if i want to change the title United States to something else as a member of some indigenous movement you will invoke international legal documents in order prevent any kind of alteration. Why don't you do the same in the present situation?--Kalogeropoulos 12:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above. I would also endorse renaming the article. In any case, the paragraph needs expansion to accomodate the FYROM POV as well.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Kalogeropoulos. This version shows what is accepted internationally and not in biliteral relations. I also agree with NikoSilver that there must be an expansion of this version, so that to include the FYROM POV (the only way for this version to be accepted as NPOV) --Hectorian 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I strongly believe it's the whole article that has to be renamed as explained here, but for the purposes of this poll, this is the option I subscribe to. I still believe that it does reflect the FYROM POV, because it uses the name Macedonia on its own. Would it be better if it used Republic of Macedonia instead of Macedonia, hence utilising only the two formal names? --Avg 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Nakos2208 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, this reflects international UN conventions. But we have to take out 'or simply Macedonia' since it confuses the issue with Greek Macedonia; it should be replaced with an entry that 'the constitutional name of the country is Republic of Macedonia even though it is not recoginised by many countries, including most European states'. Politis 13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Aside from option#2, this option seems acceptable also - Mallaccaos, 7 April 2006
  8. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Asteraki 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Odysses (☜) 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The official name (FYROM) by which this state applied for membership to all international organizations [4], but NOT simply Macedonia to avoid any confusion.[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ----sys < in 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Overall acceptable, but the "simply Macedonia" needs to be fixed.[reply]
  12. --Dada 11:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Would also prefer the mention of the name Republic of Macedonia instead of the simply Macedonia reference.[reply]
    - Why is it so hard to to say the legal name: FYROM (at the start) and THEIR STATE prefers the name Republic of Macedonia but not the UN, EU, UEFA, FIFA, NATO, Greece international law ect ect ect? Reaper7 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 26 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Support Miskin 23:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Name should be changed. Bottom line. Opa 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: anon/suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This if fair. Vazehas 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the name change. Diamantidis 18:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed; suffrage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I 'd say their official name used by the UN, EU and Nato should be used and not "Macedonia" because this is causing trouble because of many Macedonians (Greeks!) will feel insulted. FYROM was accepted by both sides. : 14:05, 9 April 2006
  14. --makedonas 12:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I go with what the EU says. Dmn € Դմն 14:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - talk to +MATIA 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Scott3 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This option is in direct opposition of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy (see "Dealing with self-identifying terms"), and since the implementation of policies is the NPOV in effect, I must conclude it is also in breach of the NPOV. My opinion is that it is advisable for the admins to remove this option. --FlavrSavr 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy at "Dealing with self-identifying terms" states: this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. This is the name FYROM uses in all international organisations, whereas RoM is used internally and in (some) bilateral relations. On a more technical note, this is not a policy, it is not even a guideline. it is a ChrisO's POV on how naming disputes should be handled. It is a legitimate option and if consensus is formed, it shall be used. Not to mention that some encyclopedias such as Encarta and Groiler's World Book refer to your country exclusively as the fYROM, so it cannot be POV and can be used in encyclopedias. --Avg 15:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite (excerpts from the policy): "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name."
    "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is."
    And nope, it is a official Wikipedia guideline - there's a giant tag on the page indicating this. The difference between policies and guidelines is quite blurry and they are treated equally at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The fact that ChrisO, one of the most respected administrators on Wikipedia for his continous efforts to implement the NPOV policy in sensitive disputes, contributed to this guideline, does not make it less of a guideline. The bottom line is - if you think there is something biased in it, feel free to discuss on that guideline's talk page. I'm under impression that the vast majority of Wikipedians are quite satisfied with its NPOV level.--FlavrSavr 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the link to it - Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms, I'll let the readers to decide what this policy actually states. --FlavrSavr 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite, we must not forget that FYROM is a compromise name accepted by both sides. No one was really happy with it, but is was accepted and according the the famous Hutchinson Encyclopedia (which sadly does make explosive claims about Northern Greece), the official internal name of this country is Republic of Macedonia - the official international name is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That surely rattles the "official" section and raises questions about what the "self identifying" name is, don't you agree?
    It is a guideline, which has been disputed especially for the specific issue (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict). My comment about a specific user was not personal in nature, I want to clarify that and dismiss any nuances of offense immediately, after all I have not interacted with him at all and I've already apologised in his talk page. It's a simple observation that this is based on his POV and not universally accepted. Moreover, I especially noted that according to the guideline this version is not problematic at all.--Avg 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This country has 2 self-identifying and official names, one used in certain contexts, another used in other contexts. Not to mention that a google search, if done properly (considering that the results for Republic of Macedonia include the results for Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) as above, can find that FYROM is more common in English. Therefore, the guideline is satisfied either way.
    But the point is that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a self-identifying name, while "Republic of Macedonia" is. --FlavrSavr 12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your POV - last time I saw the General Assembly of the United Nations there was an ambassador representing a former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Also, an entity describing itself as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia recently applied to join the EU. This country's self identifying name obviously varies according to the circumstances. It has two official names out of which one (FYROM) ranks higher in a google search (see above). This is a legitimate term and is not a breach of NPOV (it's not possible - NPOV is not based on names, but on presentation of the facts; using either name, the article is capable of being neutral as long as what is actually going on is told in an unbiased way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.114.20 (talk • contribs)
    My POV? While fYROM is a identifying name, it's not a self-identifying name, it's how (most) international organisations refer to this country. That's why we use Republic of China instead of Chinese Taipei, or for that matter, Taiwan. The official self-identifying name of this entity is "Republic of Macedonia", the unnoficial is "Macedonia". I don't see how this is a difficulty for anyone to comprehend. --FlavrSavr 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    -- I agree with this one. FYROM is the internationally recognized name in most orginizations.
    Disallowed; added by User:Coolio125 (created 11 April 2006). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --I prefer this oneCostas Skarlatos 09:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Support Colossus 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. FYROM is the exact name for "Republic of Macedonia". This is what it should be: Former Yugoslavian Republic Of Macedonia! - Christos7
  21. - I support this because I find this country name at UN, at EU and other places; people must not go against international decisions because then we have chaos. We must to respect convention. Trompeta 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User creation date March 8th. Sorry, but rules are rules.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I Although I don't agree with FYROM as the official permanent name of the country, I believe that wikipedia should follow this official temporary name until the dispute is resolved. It is accepted as temporary by both Greek and FYROM's governemnents so its the most universally accepted. Stevepeterson 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --Support. King_Gale
    Disallowed: suffrage. Sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #5 – Detailed version

  • The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title in international relations; however, a majority of United Nations member states formally recognize it under its constitutional name, including all of its other neighbours.

Vote below:

  1. If we're going to present one POV, we should also present the other. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support if you add which name is the constitutional name -- Astrokey44|talk 09:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Deleting my vote according to the rationale posted at the sub-page /FYROM name support position.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For reasons i have already explained in this (and other) talk pages. --Hectorian 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Nakos2208 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Kalogeropoulos 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC) As alternative[reply]
  6. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oldak Quill 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Asteraki 17:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This seems more neutral per my line of thought here. AucamanTalk 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Actualy this is my favorite abakharev 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Aldux 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A bit too detailed on the naming dispute, but acceptable. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Dada 11:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --ElvisThePrince 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Why is it so hard to to say the legal name: FYROM (at the start) and THEIR STATE prefers the name Republic of Macedonia but not the UN, EU, UEFA, FIFA, NATO, Greece international law ect ect ect? Reaper7 19:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 26 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This one seems fine. Alexander 007 21:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I tend to believe that more detailed is better for leads. --Danaman5 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ronline ✉ 11:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) - A detailed version that presents the situation clearly and fairly.[reply]
  18. --makedonas 12:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This seems to accurately represent the situation. <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash; [[User:Akohler|Akohler]] | [[User talk:Akohler|Talk]] 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --XDarklytez 12:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mithent 11:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. A fair and equitable treatment of the circumstances. Lankiveil 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  24. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #6 – Extended version: variation of #2

Vote below:

  1. A variation of option #2 - talk to +MATIA 09:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Deleting my vote according to the rationale posted at the sub-page /FYROM name support position.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For reasons i have already explained in this (and other) talk pages. The small 'f' in the word 'former' of this variation maybe makes it more accurate than Oprion 2. --Hectorian 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nakos2208 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Perhaps this version, but we do not need the passage that reads, 'sometimes it is referred to as Macedonia' because Greek Macedonia was and is sometimes referred to a 'Macedonia'. Also, since the name dispute is not yet settled, we may consider that even the name 'Republic of Macedonia' is temporary (there is talk of 'Nova Makedonija' and 'Republica Makedonija-Skopje'. - Politis 13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Kalogeropoulos 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is fine. Stifle 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I would like very much that the entire world recognizes the Republic of Macedonia as it's people wants. But, here, what I like doesn't matter. What is internationally accepted and what the UN matters, I am afraid. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Asteraki 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. sys < in 20:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Again, acceptable except for the "simply Macedonia" bit[reply]
  11. --GunnarRene 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Lucinos 10:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (in fact no of the proposals is good but realy realy realy the first one is bad bad bad)[reply]
  14. --Dada 11:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --makedonas 12:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Support. TheArchon 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #7 – Extended version: another variation of #2

The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. Due to the naming dispute with Greece, it is also formally referred to as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in some contexts.

Vote below:

  1. A variation of #2, it consists in removing the parenthesis (FYROM) and a rewording of the last sentence. Aldux 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Deleting my vote according to the rationale posted at the sub-page /FYROM name support position.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Asteraki 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would have liked for the "FYROM" to appear somewhere, but this still seems neutral per my line of thought here. AucamanTalk 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. abakharev 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like this one best. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Right, that's actually based on what I suggested above, isn't it? --Lukas (T.|@) 10:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FlavrSavr 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC) OK, better that option #2, but I still think that "accepted" is better than "adopted".[reply]
  9. --DaveOinSF 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)I still think the poll as currently construed is pretty useless and only serves to dilute the votes. People don't really focus on each individual issue. It should be divided up into several polls, one after the other: e.g. 1-What should the title be? REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 2-Should "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" be in the first paragraph? YES 3-Should it be in the first sentence? NO 4-Should it be "The Former" or "the Former" or "the former"? the former, but in bold 5-Should it say that the name has been "adopted" or that the country is "referred" to by this name? REFERRED 6-Should there be a separate section in the article on the naming controvery? YES As such, this proposal comes the closest to my preferred requirements.[reply]
  10. I more or less agree with DaveOinSF, above. Thesmothete 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Andreas 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #8 – Extended version (3)

Vote below:

  1. I consider this a compromise. Not much prominence is given to the naming dispute, just a link to it, but also the formal name FYROM is mentioned.--Avg 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting crazy. How many options do I have to support in order to just rule out the first one? Please see comment below.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Deleting my vote according to the rationale posted at the sub-page /FYROM name support position.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FocalPoint 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Asteraki 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Dado 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Suggest merging it with Option #1[reply]
  5. --Miskin 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Lucinos 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --makedonas 12:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Support. TheArchon TheArchon

Option #9 – Brief version: variation of #4

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM, Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ) ), or Republic of Macedonia(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The official name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) by which this state applied for membership to all international organizations [5], the lokal name Republic of Macedonia, but NOT simply Macedonia to avoid any confusion.[reply]
Vote disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That's also a good one. Similarly with option #8 it sticks only to formal names but additionally it gives precedence to the UN, EU, NATO recognised appelation. --Avg 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Balanced, gives both opinions without showing a preference sys < in 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Lucinos 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Dada 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Asteraki 13:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Very nice option too. Why don't you create some more options, so that the supporting votes are split even further?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The best for non bias as Greeks want the name Skopje they want Macedonia - this is fair Reaper7 19:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disallowed: suffrage (inception date 26 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Support Miskin 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is OK, please stop adding options, this is getting ridiculous.--FocalPoint 07:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Kalogeropoulos 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Support (What kind of tricky situation is this?)[reply]
  10. Avala 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --makedonas 12:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. support - talk to +MATIA 12:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option #10

please indicate and categorise below; copy and render in a fashion similar to options 1/2:

Option #n: [[proposed version]]

  • description; add details

Vote below:



Comments

I'm ok with option 1 or option 2. However, it seems that the main difference between options 2 and 3 hinges on whether the following statement is truthful:

it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.

So has the nation, in fact, adopted that as a formal title? If so, I'd probably vote for option 2. But it doesn't make sense to put options 2 and 3 up for voting when the difference is clearly of a factual nature. Also, option 3's phrasing of "might be formally referred [to] as" is awkwardly passive, and would be better stated as "many nations refer to it as". --Yath 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yath. just to clear up one thing: that title has been formally adopted by that nation, since that's the name under which it's an UN member, an EU candidate and this is how it participates in international fora. --Hectorian 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per H.: the above line (from option #2) is almost verbatim from Encyclopædia Britannica (Ready Reference), and is supported in other literature/usage, so it's a matter of whether or not said source is to be believed. I can't comment per se on your other determinations regarding the appropriateness of the other variants ... which can hopefully be gleaned by perusing relevant article content E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 seems the one for me (Stpaul 07:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Isn't it kind of absurd that there are 5 or 6 options for including FYROM in the title, while all brief version supporting side votes concentrate on the first option? I don't want to think that this was intentional, in order to split the extended version supporting side votes in multiple similar options (divide and conquer), but I think it is unfair. Can you please analyse the vote counting process in advance? Can we first vote on principle, and then debate/vote on details?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facts prove you so right. While Greeks are prepared to accept the mention of the name "Republic of Macedonia" even though they don't recognise it, but only for NPOV sake, noone of our FYROMian friends has subscribed to a single option other than #1, which is strictly FYROM POV. Speaks volumes about who's willing to compromise and who's not. --Avg 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to refrain from voting here because I think there are better options. Few comments though:

  • It is actually not fair to impose such a name on the country. What about calling all European countries "Former Roman Empire Province of ..."?
  • The problem originates from a fact that there is both Macedonia region and Macedonia country. I personally think that situation is similar with "America". There is a small and often forgotten country called "United States of America". There is also even a lesser known region called "America", specifically its north part which includes USA but most of it is not USA (it is Canada). So, both residents of Canada and USA are "North Americans" (and also, just "Americans"). Similar applies to Macedonia. I think that Macedina (region) and "Republic of Macedonia" are quite defining by themselves.
  • I have no intention of going against either "Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" residents/citizens or Greeks as I consider them both good friends. I just think that this needs to be solved better. The current poll polarizes them into camps while a satisfactory solution can be found. Maybe something like starting with "Republic of Macedonia"... is a country situated in the north-west part of Macedonia region spanning Greece, ... Have fun figuring it out.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name FYROM is the result of a UN approved interim agreement between two friendly neighbours and accepted by the international community. Like good friends who know they have much in common, they both compromised at the UN: the RoM accepted that its constitutional name would change, and Greece accepted that its neighbour will use the term 'Makedonija' in its eventual composit name. If only more nations had been a fraction as civilised as that of the two countries... Thank you, efharisto and blagodaram. - Politis 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the options above, and a great many comments, are just factually wrong. We keep hearing the U.N. adopted a a name for this country, or even that this country agreed in its admission to the U.N. to be named such and so. Please read carefully the actual U.N. resolution. Here it is:

Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Having received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations,
Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, 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.

Note how careful the resolution is to avoid naming the country at all. It is certainly not imposing some new name on the country but introducing a phrase so diplomats can refer to the country without naming it. The article section on the naming dispute was crafted carefully to reflect this. The wording that has been repeatedly pushed into the lead, and the wording in the protected version now, is just factually wrong. Jonathunder 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CIA World Factbook it was internationally recognised under the provisional designation of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (including capital letters). Also, see Encarta. The protected version does not mention a name change, it should say that it is refered to as FYROM due to the naming dispute. It is a provisional way of refering to the country and is notable enough to be mentioned. Furthermore, please see all recognitions of international organizations at my complete statement above in point Fourth. Factuality incorrect option claims are therefore inappropriate.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never rely on secondary sources when the primary source is available. You have the primary source directly above, and it says exactly what it says, lower case included. Jonathunder 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that Central Information Agency and Encarta are... uninformed?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be the first time I've seen the CIA factbook get a detail wrong, and certainly not the first for Encarta. Neither are primary sources. Jonathunder 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, we must use what appears in sources, rather than your original research interpretation of the resolution.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to stick to the CIA world factbook, the article title should be simply Macedonia - not Republic of Macedonia (and certainly not FYROM as suggested in some options by the same users advocating the supermacy of the CIA world factbook). It is clear that some users have double standards - wanting to "use" this source only for the things they like and are avioding mentioning the things (from the same source) that they dont like. --Dipazi 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look. It's quite the opposite. The point is, that even while US has rushed to recognize the country as RoM (or plain M), their CIA factbook states BOTH names in the first paragraph, AND uses the capital F (for which I don't care actually). Not to mention that US has declared that they will adopt ANY name that will arise from the bilateral talks between Greece and FYROM. So, in view of this, even the name RoM is provisional. I'll be glad to answer any other question you may have, but please read the extended version position first.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple - you want to use something from a source claiming that it is important and reliable source. Then you dismiss other info from the same source (and your brilliant explanation is because in your POV, US has rushed to recognize the country as Republic of Macedonia). What has that to do with anything. It is very simple - you can't just pick the things you like from the CIA factbook and dismiss the ones that you don't like. I must say your last comment is very obviously inconsistant and transparent in its double-standards. --Dipazi 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your comment that "US has declared that they will adopt ANY name that will arise from the bilateral talks". It came attached to the recognition of the constitutional name of Macedonia. Don't you find it a bit ironic? It's obviously a painkiller pill for greek nationalists. But if you want to belive it it's OK with me. However you made a misteke because they recognized the constitutional name and couldn't have used FYROM but Republic of Macedonia ;) --Dipazi 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was it repeated by Condolezza Rice in the last visit of the Greek Foreign Minister in US, 10 days ago? Fmore, why don't you try to respond to Avg below regarding the RoM name not being a "name" legally as well (instead of making intimidating comments about his arguements)?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard something else about the meeting. Please provide some source about this alleged statement. Otherwise I must conclude that you are making things up. And concerning your POV that Republic of Macedonia is not legally a name also - you are wrong. The legal name of any country is defined in the constitution of that particular country, not by nationalist hot-head bullies in an neighbouring county. --Realek 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here's a source for you, which says: "and is ready to accept any outcome that will result from the negotiations". It was all over the news here. As for your second comment, I guess you are right in that too: You are free to call your country Macedonia, and while you are at it, call it also Balkania, why not even Europe, or World. I mean, if you're free to choose whatever you like, and that's legal, then aim for the biggest!!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably factually incorrect options in the above vote are invalid then. - FrancisTyers 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should agree then that also "Republic of Macedonia" is factually wrong.--Avg 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should report the fact "Republic of Macedonia" is given as the legal name in the state's constitution. It should not report "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was adopted as a name because that just isn't true. Jonathunder 18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be legally precise tell me if you would prefer the intro to not have a name at all. Because, internationally this country does not have a name and for convenience purposes it is referred to as FYROM. RoM is not recognised internationally, it is a name used internally and only in (some) bilateral relations. The closest thing to a name after a consensus is FYROM and definitely the only NPOV choice here. --Avg 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. ps. Sorry Politis, was not deliberate :) - FrancisTyers 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, you give a new meaning to the word elaboration.--Avg 18:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with a nationalist is as boring as dining with a vegetarian, so thanks but no thanks :) - FrancisTyers 19:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done mate! Guess what, I'm neither nationalist nor vegetarian. If I may suggest something, you should refrain from accusing people for things they are not and also educate yourself about the issues you stick your nose into. --Avg 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. - FrancisTyers 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sophomoric reasoning: Sophomoric reasoning is rationalizing about what one understands poorly. It's often apologetics (starting with a conclusion). Though not highly regarded, it's superior to parroting aphorisms. If one's understanding is below freshman level, sophomoric reasoning may seem a desirable achievement. Nonetheless it shouldn't be regarded as an educational achievement. --Avg 21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This line of debate has become entirely focused on the opponent and not on illuminating the issue. I suggest it end here. Jonathunder 21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does the country formally use the term FYROM itself? If not, I propose changing the term "adopted" to "accepted" - since it has accepted others to use it, but doesn't actively use it itself. AucamanTalk 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's only used by Greece and international organizations of which Greece is member, such as the UN or the EU. Themselves keep the oficial name of Republic of Macedonia - though sometimes are forced to appear as FYROM in some international meetings. --Sugaar 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a formal name and yes it does use it in all international organisations. I agree that it didn't want to use it at first, but this provisional name is the result of lengthy talks. People who continuously refer to FYROM as Greek POV forget that Greece did not want FYROM to have the word Macedonia AT ALL in its name, but it finally agreed to the UN solution, just as FYROM did. --Avg 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, It is not a name at all - it is a reference. Avg, legally the difference is huge. Furthermore it is a temporary reference and its date of expiry legally has passed (In 2003 i think). So even the reference has lost its validity (and this is reflected by the trend in the number of countries that recognize the constitutional name). By august 2005 (sorry I don't have a more recent information), 112 countries have recognized Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. That's out of 143 countries with wich Republic of Macedonia has established diplomatic relations. --Dipazi 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to be legally precise, let's be precise. Let's see what is the legal status of FYROM: From 1992 until now, your country does not have a name! In order to bypass the naming dispute and enter the UN (and subsequently all other international organisations), it was decided that UN should refer to your country as FYROM but will not recognize any name at all until the dispute is resolved. This was a provisional solution that could not last for long. Let me admit once again that FYROM is a parody of a name. UN hoped that in the years to come we would have found a solution. Unfortunately this didn't happen. And yes time is with your side, because other countries having to decide between 1) no name at all 2) the parody of FYROM and 3) your self-proclaimed name, find easier to choose the latter. But they also stress that the name they recognise you is only for the bilateral relations and it does not apply to how they refer to you in all international fora. So, to conclude, from an international viewpoint, you don't have a name at all, but for all purposes you are referred to as FYROM. You call yourselves Republic of Macedonia and countries establish bilateral relations with you as such. These are the facts. You seem to ignore completely international organisations and base your decision solely on bilateral relations and you incorporate that to option #1. If we were to impose a solution to you there would be no mention of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". We would say (and let me tell you that this is what I believe and I think a lot of others too), that bilateral relations mean nothing in front of international recognition. There is an hierarchy that goes international > bilateral. But still, have we forced this opinion to you? Have we even proposed it? Show me one option from the other 8 that does not present BOTH international and bilateral appelations.--Avg 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you made any valid points in your last comment, so I won't bother discussing about it. I just want to clear something about your "international > bilateral" hierarcy teory. There is no such thing as "international recognitiona" in international law. Also there is no such thing as an "International organisation for recognizing countries and countries names". Recognition of countries is purely bilateral matter. There is no international entity responsible for recognition of countries. The way you put it, all those countries that recognized Republic of Macedonia under that name have severely broken international law. --Dipazi 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aucaman, please see my answer to johnathunder here above. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I asked a very simple question. Does the Republic of Macedonia use the term FYROM itself? If yes, provide some evidence. If no, then it's incorrect to say the country has "adopted" the name. You can say the name is used by the UN, EU, and NATO, but that's not the same as saying the country has adopted the name. AucamanTalk 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Republic of Macedonia never uses the refference itself. All the official documents contain the constitutional name only. The usage of the refference is only one-way from parties that haven't recognized the constitutional name. --Realek 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and my answer was a little bit irrelevant, I must admit, but I was on my way out, and I didn't read your q. v.well. So, the answer is, it has been adopted by the country, but only officially and for a specific reason: in order to enter the UN (because they had to, immediately). I wouldn't mind skipping the "adopted" verb, but you certainly cannot replace it with "forced", because that would imply that Greece wanted the name FYROM, which is not true because of the "M" in the end (Greek official position is: no Macedonia in the title at all). So Greece's position, now, could be the same: No FYROM in the title. Maybe the verb "accepted" (along with Greece) is more accurate.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improved poll needed

As Nikosilver stated above, this poll doesn't present the options very well. We are trying to find the most acceptable combination of several binary questions, and it would be better to vote on each of those options, and then combine the results into the opening paragraph. For example, each of the following options could be followed by support/oppose votes:

  • Shall the opening paragraph begin with "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"?
  • Shall the opening paragraph refer to the term FYROM?
  • Shall the opening paragraph state that this country has adopted the term FYROM as a formal title, or alternatively, state that many nations and international organizations refer to it as FYROM?

It may be, as stated above, that the current plethora of options are slanted to one or the other of the camps here (divided over whether the most prominent name is FYROM). But the poll is bad enough without that. I am going to abstain. This poll should be discarded and a new one started. --Yath 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. Currently, there are two issues of uneven importance addressed in the poll. One is whether the name FYROM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and the other is the exact phrasing of the paragraph. Let's have a consensus on the former (no pun intended) and then we can proceed to the latter.--Avg 19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agree this is far better than the current poll. Robdurbar 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A different suggestion

Ok, the way I see it is not a matter of nationalism, although it may be for some people. There are clearly two regions called Macedonia, which is the subject of the dispuate, so it might be better if the dablink at the top was accomodated for this. Something like:

This article is about the country of Europe. For the region in Greece, see Macedonia (region). For other uses, see Macedonia
Don't we have the disambiguation page for that? --Dipazi 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be undue weight (I don't know how important this issue really is) but it does clear up the confusion very simply. It avoids stating anything outright, merely arouses the curiousity of the reader to learn more about the issue.

This dablink is meant to replace the sentence "Formally known as FYROM", which may be too much of an emphasis in the intro. -- infinity0 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dablink should be added, but I don't think any reference to "FYROM" should be removed. It looks like some international organizations use the term and this deserves to be mentioned. AucamanTalk 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how important that name is. Is it the official name, such as "People's Republic of China"? If only some organisations use it, then it probably shouldn't go in the intro. The article says the name is losing usage. -- infinity0 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FYROM name has not lost usage. That is definitely POV of the author. It is still how the country is referred to each and every international organisation. However, in bilateral relations, there are more countries than some years ago that have recognised FYROM with the name Republic of Macedonia. There is a debate whether these countries are now the majority of the total number of countries, but no definitive source has been presented on that. --Avg 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like "FYROM" is not used internally by Macedonians themselves (I'm talking about the country of course). AucamanTalk 19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, unless it is refered negatively. They even sent some 200.000 protesting postcards to EU, saying "Don't FYROM me!". In the other Macedonia, though we have some 3 million people calling them "Skopians" (from their capital city), along with the rest of the Greeks. The most complicated part of this deal, is that neither do Greeks want the name FYROM for the country (cause of the M in the end -official Greek position is: No Macedonia in the title). So, we've passed now to the next stage, which is Greeks in WP asking for the insulting compromise name, rather than their country's official position...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In intro #2 (and most of the other intros) the FYROM sentence takes up 1/3 of the whole intro. That would seem to be undue weight. It's probably better removed. Either that, or pad the intro out with other stuff. -- infinity0 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change your opinion, but if it is based solely on that, how about intro #8 then? The weight of both names is equal and about half a line.--Avg 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a half-half thing, though. From what I've read the name is only actually used very occasionally and it seems - eg. from articles such as [6] - that nobody takes it seriously. If it is put into the intro at all, I would say maybe 1/10 or less of the intro should be used to deal with this issue. -- infinity0 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, every site that ends with .mk comes from FYROM. It's biased. Also same thing with every site that ends with .gr. It comes from Greece, it's also biased. Unfortunately, most sites about this issue serve propaganda for either sides. Concerning what you said, FYROM is as official as it can get. Ask directly the FYROMians here: Is it the name that this country uses in EVERY international organisation or not? It's a simple yes or no answer. --Avg 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Avg. let me clear some things:
  • First of all there is no such thing as FYROMians. It is very rude and insulting by you to try to impose a name of an ethnic group based on a 1.silly 2.temporary(already expired) 3.coined refference to their county
  • Furthermore this abbreviation (FYROM) was never legaly existant (show me any UN document where this abbrevation was used)
  • Finally, you are disinformed. The country never uses any other name than the constitutional name -Republic of Macedonia
--Dipazi 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take it one by one:
  • Would you prefer nonameians? (which is indeed rude but in a strange sense, more legally accurate). Well, you are not Macedonians! You stole the name from Greek history and you expect Greeks to refer to you as Macedonians? Never such a thing will happen. Macedonians for us are the inhabitants of the Northern region of Greece. This is who we call Macedonians in every day speech. But let's say that we expand the characterisation Macedonians to all the inhabitants of the ancient reason of Macedonia, even if they came to the area hundreds of years later, and decide to include you as well and call you with the same name. How can we accept that you consider that Greeks cannot be Macedonians(!) and only you are the rightful bearers of this name! You even fabricate DNA tests to prove that Greeks are irrelevant to Macedonians! So what you are asking is that Greeks start calling you Macedonians instead of their own people? That's one of the most absurd things I can imagine of.
  • I think you are trying to step on a technicality here (which we also discussed elsewhere in this talk page). Although it is not a name per se, UN refers to you solely as FYROM. It also says that you do not have a name at all. Would you prefer the latter?
  • Oh really? What does your seat in the UN say? What was your country's tag at the Olympic Games? Under what name you join NATO exercises? What name do you use in EU-FYROM relations? These are usages of FYROM. You do use it. You don't like it, that's another story. We don't like it either, but we do try to be reasonable. --Avg 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avg, I will not be dragged into further pointless exchanges with you. I think enough has been said for any reasonable and neutral person to make his mind on the speccific subject. I leave your comments to be the best testimony for greek views on the matter. --Dipazi 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that it's enough. On a lighter note, whoever neutral person reads the whole page is a hero :-)--Avg 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up some things

After reading the whole discussion and seen the users' comments i found some things worth commenting:

  • First of all, i wanna say that it seems that there are far too many variations of the extended version. this leads to a sort of dividing the votes between them, something not good for the poll as a whole. I am not asking to have a poll like the Olympic Committe (voting again and again, by ommiting the version with the least votes), but somethings must be done about it.
  • A reply to Aucaman: this country has adopted the name (maybe passively adopted it), since they are using this (lets say) title in all that have to do with their EU candidancy, the UN etc. i do not find any actual difference between 'adopted' and 'accepted' in this case... if someone uses the name 'FYROM' for them and ithey accept been calling themselves like that and use it themselves (in many cases), then they have adopted it.
  • A comment for those who see the naming dispute as 'ridiculous': (greek perspective->)it is not only the name, but also what this name implies: history, territory, et cetera. and i am 100% sure that these users would act the same way (if not more loudly) if that happened to their country. --Hectorian 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and i am 100% sure that these users would act the same way (if not more loudly) if that happened to their country. — no, because I'm not a nationalist. By the way, don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a greek perspective, I see it as a greek nationalist perspective. There is a difference, I know several anti-nationalist greeks who think the whole thing is absurd too. - FrancisTyers 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what u think FrancisTyers? u are calling me nationalist?! Do me a favour and visit the pages of the users from FYROM...u will see templates writing 'this user comes from Macedonia' with a link to ancient Macedon, and also maps which show the Greek Macedonia as theirs. then come back and lecture me about been a nationalist... --Hectorian 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian! The Macedonian users are mostly nationalists too! You know what cracks me up — makes me laugh out loud — that they don't have bg-3 or bg-4 in their Babel boxes, if they weren't nationalists they would have. Its completely absurd. I think their crazy nationalist claims are ridiculous too, not just yours! - FrancisTyers 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm not calling you anything. I'm certainly not attacking you, I'm sure you're a cool person. I find I tend to get along quite well with greeks actually... - FrancisTyers 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point and sorry for my aggressive editting before. but allow me to say that if i were as nationalist as them, i would have userboxes saying 'this user supports the rivival of the Byzantine Empire', or 'this user comes from the Hellenistic World (region)' (:p) and then give a brief history lecture according to my POV... --Hectorian 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian welcome to the club :-)--Avg 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is not the point. This poll is wrong. It should be restarted and the question should be what we are arguing over: should the designation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be mentioned in the first paragraph? I have said why it should above, Bitola has said it shouldn't because it violates some alleged past compromise and has also given other reasons here. The poll should be restarted and the users can vote yes or no. Note that I am saying this, while it is currently evident that the brief version is behind in votes.
Also, may I inform all users, I've posted about this issue this comment hours ago to the "Comments" section of this poll, and I also asked the poll's creator E Pluribus Anthony in his talk page to comment on it, but I have no answer yet.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is this a legitimate poll? We cannot work with plurality and we cannot vote on content in Wikipedia in such a way. --dcabrilo 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This poll is wholly legitimate, no more or less so than other options noted, and is precisely what Wikipedians make of it. Approval voting is a common voting method in Wp that entails selective – even strategic – voting by (hopefully) informed Wikipedians to identify one or few options that are workable. With fewer options, a consensus may result; with more options, the one that garners a clear plurality ("first-past-the-post") prevails. Moreover, to provide focus and limit extraneous assumptions/digressions (e.g., picking the article apart, which is a function of normal editing), the poll is limited to the issue of the incipient debate: the rendition of 'FYROM' (or not) in this article's introduction. Specific examples – the ones of primary contention – are provided for clear decision-making. During the poll, Wikipedians propose options at their own advantage or peril and others vote on them (or not); throughout, discussion occurs and, arguably, ad nauseum.

Conditions of the poll are clearly indicated upfront. This poll was reviewed by at least four Wikipedians beforehand, involved and not in this debate. Since its inception, more than a dozen Wikipedians have provided worthwhile input and – even now (without making premature judgements) – Option #2 seems to be garnering a clear plurality. And once the poll is concluded, I will have a neutral Wp bureaucrat review the results (note I've had prior experience in conducting similar votes in Wp; details available upon request). Perhaps Wikipedians should be more judicious in commenting or in proposing/choosing options that fundamentally differ little from ones presented (i.e., those who propose said options split the vote and are making their own bed); given this, Wikipedians should reconsider or even recant their support of a plethora of options in favour of few. In any event, I see little reason to forego progress to date just because some have chosen to let discussions run amok and the poll is now not fully to their liking. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to question the legitimacy of the poll, I agree with Nikosilver that the poll does not present the options very well (and I can easily see quite a few reasonable alternatives beyond those already given). I also agree in principle with Hectorian's first objection above. More precisely, suppose that Option #1 gets 49% of the votes, and the rest 51%. Then #1 has the plurality. But it is the only one not mentioning the dreaded designation "F... Y... Republic" etc. All the others have it. So each side has a "legitimate" claim of having won this highly contentious issue.
Now suppose, somewhat theoretically, that somehow the consensus emerges that Option #1 has lost. But the voters for Option #1, almost half, have lost the opportunity to give any further guidance which of #1 #2 through #99 they prefer.
I'm too lazy to select the alternative that best corresponds to what I think is best if any such is present, or else to formulate it as an option, but in case someone wants to listen here are my two drachmes.
(1) Omit "or simply Macedonia," in the intro. It is mentioned prominently later under "Naming dispute", and that is good enough. But that section should also briefly explain why the name "Macedonia" is (even more) problematic to Greece. (2) Include a mention of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but qualify with: "for use in international relations". The choice between "accepted" and "adopted" is in my humble opinion irrelevant. Details about how, why, when and inasmuch as what can again be presented in a neutral way under "Naming dispute". That's it. LambiamTalk 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is noted, but there are too many 'theoretical' if, ands, and buts involved in these lines of reasoning. I can just as easily contemplate variants of Option #1, for example, that differ from it in meaning. Each of the voting options are specific and discrete: legitimate consensus or plurality is gauged on that basis, not on vague and variably defined pro/con options in toto. Wikipedians have to judge for themselves which of these options to vote for and propose, which ones not to, and do so at their own advantage and peril – that's the nature of approval voting. Essentially, the poll is fine: it's voter behaviour that needs to be scrutinised or modified. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have pointed out the problems with the poll, and suggested better one. It does little good to reply that the current one doesn't break any rules. Due to its poor construction, it won't do much to achieve consensus, and after the winner is placed in the article, the edit wars and locking will continue. And forgive me for nit-picking, but calling Lambian's statement "feedback" sounds a bit like he's petitioning someone in a place of higher authority, which [s]he isn't. --Yath 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And even more people, including some of those who contest the current poll, have chosen one or more options in it or proposed more. Take it up with them. Moreover, said proposals – in lieu of the current poll – would do little to solve the issue and "better" is just a particular point-of-view: for example, we are dealing with at least four possible terms in the intro (Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, and spellout, not including Skopje and other constructs) – if my math is correct, this will yield at least 24 possible combinations (not including variations) and would cause even more problems. Otherwise, I defer to my prior reply. And as for your other opinions/feedback, no comment. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 24 combinations, it's just THREE separate, consecutive votes. Read my comment below (earlier posted). Fmore, I see some 4-5 people claiming the same thing, so I guess we have one of these... "consensa"!!! I am saying this while option #1, which is the only one you voted for, is still much behind in votes. Do you think we could add as option #10, to cancel this poll and proceed on the three separate consecutive ones?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the above and disagree with it. I'm actually stupefied as to what the problem is herein: options are available, people vote, propose more (or not) ... as per the poll, one option – the one with a consensus (possible with fewer options) or plurality of support – will prevail. I'm unconcerned with whether the option I've selected will prevail, particularly if a renewed consensus or plurality supports another – that's the point. The above three options are wholly vague ... not only do they not provide for shades of grey but are not the only three: what should the ordering be, should we use name/title/appellation (all of which differ), legal/official, UN/other/not? Simple: obviate that and present clear, discrete options. And if your position is solidified through this poll – and it might be, time will tell – then propose a renaming after that. Some would like to cancel the vote, 4-5 dissenters want to change it ... most do not have a problem with it – these are not reasons to forego eveything to this point. And beyond this I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I won't elaborate. We've both made our points, just keep in mind that the solidification would be much more consensual if the vote difference were much greater. I wouldn't want the new much more solid and NPOV consensus to be disputed by anyone else in future, and I would expect your support in maintaining it, much more energetically than you did with the previous one.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Remember that I did not initiate the recent maelstrom, having fully commented judiciously throughout it and previously, and helped to barter the prior agreeable arrangement ... so I'd proceed with caution before making any accusations regarding one's positioning with this or that. To use an adage: discretion is the better part of valour. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accused you of anything. I remember you also reverting the article in favor of my supported version. You have absolutely no reason to be itchy about it, apart maybe from my stressed tone, which I hope you will excuse. :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: these are not clear-cut issues and, similarly, I fully explained my rationale at the time. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should first vote on name of the article. Then, taking that into account, vote on intro paragraph. And finally, taking both of these into account on the existence of Naming dispute section summary. Otherwise the votes are split between similar solutions, and the result may be much different than the intentions of the voters themselves.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing factually wrong with any of the multiple proposals above, except the ones that claim or imply that the people and institutions of Macedonia herself use the FYROM acronym in formal or informal discourse. I think it should be stated more unequivocally that FYROM is used in external (diplomatic) contexts and perhaps also worth a mention is the fact that the UN lists the state under the letter T because, in UN terminology, the entity is invariably referred to as The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [7]. Similarly, Moldova and South Korea are listed under the letter R for Republic of Moldova and Republic of Korea, respectively, and the two non-sovereign Palestinian territorial units are lister together under the letter O for Occupied Palestinian Territory. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought UN was multilingual. In e.g. French that would be under the letter La Republique Ex-Yugoslave de Macedoine? Just kidding, but I wanted to stress that the reader will not benefit from such technicalities as articles, small-case/capitals e.t.c., to which I am sure Adamsky agrees!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Poll is ridiculous. Nine choices? You've got to be kidding me. One option can win with 12% of the vote. That's concensus? In any case, here's my 2-cents: the only reason half the world has even heard about Macedonia or ROM or FYROM or fYROM or TheartistformerlyknownasPrince is because of this naming controversy. Not including its UN name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the first paragraph would be ignoring the single most interesting thing about the country.--DaveOinSF 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2 cents is perhaps the best insight I have read on this page. Somebody get this man a drink. Yes, the naming dispute has brought this Balkan nation to the attention of people who otherwise would not have noticed the country; so I also agree it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. It is the big deal going on here. Alexander 007 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much does a drink cost around here? I wanna buy him one too! 100% agree.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although perhaps not the most politic way to phrase it, your point is well taken. It can easily be argued that the naming dispute is the most widely known fact about the nation and thus deserves prominent mention in the introduction. I haven't been involved in this discussion, but I have been following it and I think that any choice that takes the importance of the naming dispute into account, is factually correct, and doesn't unnecessarily offend anyone (it seems some people find the whole question offensive enough) will be a good one. <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash; [[User:Akohler|Akohler]] | [[User talk:Akohler|Talk]] 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of poll and comments here

I would like to also express some concern about this "polling as solution" approach. It seems to me to be setting the cart before the horse. Ideally, we should write a brilliant encyclopedic article about our subject, and the WP:LEAD should be a concise summary of that article. I am especially concerned about the idea that a vote could be understood as some sort of indefinite editorially-binding prohibition against mentioning the common alternate names for the subject of an article in the lead. Feel free to interpret my response as support for option number two, and, further, it can be assumed that I support any edit of User:ChrisO's in the future if this situation comes up again.

I'd also like to ask contributors here, once again, to reduce the amount of speculation about other editor's motives and the labelling of other editor's suspected political views. It isn't helpful. Jkelly 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost missed that comment here. You are absolutely right. In fact, your arguements are common to my First and Second points and more specifically to WP:CON#Consensus vs. other policies, when I was desperately trying to dispute the previous "consensus" of ...5 editors. Thankfully, the poll result so far seems to agree with your position (and mine). We know that WP "is not a majoritarian democracy", but it seems that its users indeed are good judges and voters. Personally, I invited in this poll, mostly users at random, from previous talks/edits I'd been, and (not to my surprise) most of them favored my position. My point is, that sometimes end justifies the means. The end in this case, was an NPOV intro; and the means (quite unorthodoxically) is this poll. I've been through hell to pass this NPOV view, I'd even messaged ChrisO for that when I saw his attempts too, BUT, without all you guys here voting, I wouldn't have a chance. Thank you, and let this be an example of how Democracy and Objectivity may not neccessarily be opposed. I just hope I am not jumping into conclusions...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Jkelly: idealism must be balanced with pragmatism. To extend your metaphor: the horse was on its last legs and being kicked to death. ;) Lengthy, ongoing discussions were (IMO) going nowhere previously and (obviating any semblence of constructivism) concomitant edit warring resulted in an article edit block which remains to this day. In the hopes of ending – or at least mitigating – the current stalemate, I was bold and initiated a poll (reviewed by a number of editors beforehand) where additional discourse has occurred and which will likely be decisive any which way, allowing us to again edit and enhance the article. And other polling options, IMO, would have been more problematic since they do not allow for nuances which, arguably, are at the root of this debate. Given all this, I'm unsure another course of action was available and believe the current course of action to have been correct. If wishes were horses, however ... :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bored beyond belief

Some months ago we were told that the terms Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs are offensive terms (yet they are used in .mk in "not offensive" contexts). Now we are told by Jonathunder that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, but "Republic of Macedonia" is a name. And we have a poll on whether the long name and the fYRoM will be mentioned. What will be next? AfD the redirects like FYROM and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Why some things that are basic WP procedure in other articles (like using a redirect and then having a bot disambiguating it to the "correct" article) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles? talk to +MATIA 06:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why some things that are basic diplomatic procedure in other cases (recognizing a country's name without interference from a neighbour) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles??? --Realek 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are not talking about RoM recognizing Macedonia, are you? :) talk to +MATIA 07:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia we now use the globally accepted definition of the country, Republic of Macedonia, and not by the out-of-date name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Whatever you say won't change the fact and absolutely not the articles name! Albanau 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have I annoyed you that much in Scanderbeg Albanau? This is the second article you are wiki-stalking me... talk to +MATIA 10:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody wants to change the article's name, read what the dispute is about before adapting your anti-greek stance. Miskin 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They take it one step at they time. At first, they try to persuade everybody that the neutral POV is offensive to them and the "actual" neutral POV is their POV. When they succeed that, they attack the (now) neutral POV (x-FYROM POV) and consider this offensive and they try to change it with the new, more hardline, FYROM POV. That's the kind of Goebbelist propaganda we have been experiencing from our northern neighbours during the last decades. Through heavy propaganda and lies, lies, lies they think at some point people will start to believe it and consider it as a given (and some uninformed people actually do). At first we were told Macedonia is just a geographical term, then they created a nation from nowhere, then they speak about enslaved Macedonia, then they deny that anything Greek is Macedonian, then they forget the agreements they themselves signed, then they present themselves as the poor and opressed people by the "bully" Greece! This is truly mind-blowing propaganda that can result in a stroke. We hoped truth will prevail, but it doesn't. They simply won't let it. So we have to do something about it. --Avg 10:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive template off article

If I understand correctly, the Improvement Drive template should only be in the talk page, and not be on the article page. Could somebody fix that? --GunnarRene 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I've removed the template. -- ChrisO 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schematic position of POVs

I believe the following is a good depiction of what actually is going on: 


                          FYROM POV--------------------NPOV--------------------Greek POV
Name 1:            "Republic of Macedonia"----------------------------------------| 
Name 2:                      |-----------------------"FYROM"----------------------|  
Name 3:                      |--------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"    

Current debate:              |------area of debate------|-------------------------|

So you can see above, while fyromians are unshaken in their position, Greeks have already shifted from their position for the sake of compromise, and they are only supporting the NPOV! So the whole debate is whether this article will have a pinch of objectivity or will be 100% fyromian POV! This is where we are.--Avg 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Couldn't have described it better Avg!!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                         |-NM POV-------M POV------NPOV------G POV-----NG POV-------UNG POV---------|
Name 1:                  |------"Republic of Macedonia"---------------------------------------------| 
Name 2:                  |---------------------------------------------"FYROM"----------------------|
Name 3:                  |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"| 

Current debate:          |----------------------------area of debate------|-------------------------|

NM: Nationalist Macedonian (incl. Ultra-nationalist Macedonians)
M: Macedonian
G: Greek
NG: Nationalist Greek
UNG: Ultra-nationalist Greek

You so almost had it right!!! I hope this clears it up. Non-nationalist Greeks don't care either way. Nationalist Macedonians are fearsomely pro-"Republic of Macedonia", as are Ultra-nationalist Macedonians. Nationalist Greeks want to interfere with what another group of people calls their country, and Ultra-nationalist Greeks want to do it in a more offensive manner! The NPOV is to call them what they call themselves. Sorry chaps, I couldn't resist, your fruity little diagram made me laugh! - FrancisTyers 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a segue, I'd actually reckon that this entire debate spans the entire spectrum and the poll allows for that through the addition of options. Though geared towards the FYROM issue (since that was the incipient debate leading to the current lock), the fact that no options have been proposed noting "Republic of/Skopje" (or similar) as part of the introduction – or, conversely, no extra terms at all – is not a symptom of the poll or debate (it actually validates the current approach as being appropriate) but would be more revealing about the prevalence of various points of view. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My wiki-stalker is back with a vengeance and even more ignorance:-) Well, this is just to inform you that "Republic of Skopje" is how all (except guess who, the REAL nationalists, not those that your mind labels) Greeks refer to FYROM, and that is including the government, the press, the media, etc etc. Just for you to finally acquire a perspective, the Greek nationalist name of FYROM is "kratidio ton Skopion"=("the statelet of Skopje"), because the nationalists do not even recognise its existence as a fully-fledged state, and ultra-nationalists refer to fyromians as "bulgar-skopjans" or "gypsy-skopjans" (both terms derogatory and I do NOT adopt them). And is it that difficult for you to understand that FYROM POV and NPOV cannot be the same as you put in your diagram? --Avg 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you are so moderate you only use names like fyromians, nonameans and vardarians (all starting with a small letter to further expose your intentions), adding to an alredy big Greek arsenal of insulting terms for Macedonians eg Skopians, Slavomacedonians, Bulgaromacedonians etc. --Realek 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only use the term Fyromians (and the lower case is not derogatory, just fast typing). I have NEVER used Vardarians and I have only once used nonameans (a term that I do not condone, which I specifically mentioned beside the term) exactly to depict what is your actual legal status. Now, let me stress as emphatically as I can that the term Macedonians used by your people is an insult to Greeks. It is not the place to elaborate on that, but I guess everybody knows that Greeks believe that you stole this name from us. So of course no greek will ever call you macedonians, so they try to be POLITE with you by calling you slavomacedonians and you consider that an insult?--Avg 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close again, but "bulgar-skopjans" or "gypsy-spopjans" is used by hyper-nationalists (I've fortunately yet to meet any — but I guess they're probably the kind of guys who do the anti-semitic grafitti and call Albanians sub-human). Sadly, like many Balkan countries, a large proportion of the population of Greece can be described as ultra-nationalist :( By the way, I've created a nationalist test you might like to take it :) Comments on the talk page! :) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't FYROM POV be the same as NPOV? We call the Jews "Jewish people" just like they do, and not "Kikes" or "Subhuman scum" like the anti-semites do. Same goes for most nations and ethnicities... - FrancisTyers 17:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis please this is getting tiring, you clearly do not understand this issue. These guys invented their name 60 years ago! Yes it IS that absurd! Look where we've arrived, to be characterised as nationalists simply because we object to the theft of our identity. I've already told you, I'm not a nationalist, I'm offended if you brand me a nationalist ok? I HATE nationalism and all similar -isms. --Avg 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing that there are people who belive that a nation was invetned and then imposed overnight onto the Bulgarians in then Socialist Republic of Macedonia. And ofcourse theese "Bulgarians" lost any recollection of what happened. But isn't it strange that Greece didn't object to this at all until 1991??? --Realek 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not again... we've been through that countless times. Either check the talk archives or a Greek POV site, all your questions have been answered thoroughly.--Avg 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. What I found there is irational beyond belif. --Realek 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I couldn't help myself adding ontop of your diagram, the ones that use those names: 


                |--------The Republic--------|---UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD---|----Greek Govt-----|
                |---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------|

              
                |-NM POV-------M POV------NPOV------G POV-----NG POV-------UNG POV---------|
Name 1:         |------"Republic of Macedonia"---------------------------------------------| 
Name 2:         |---------------------------------------------"FYROM"----------------------|
Name 3:         |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"| 

Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate------|-------------------------|

NM: Nationalist Macedonian (incl. Ultra-nationalist Macedonians)
M: Macedonian
G: Greek
NG: Nationalist Greek
UNG: Ultra-nationalist Greek

Now please compare the first three lines of the sketch. That would mean, according to your sketch, the following:

  • The Greek Government is Ultra Nationalist (ok that may not be impossible)
  • All international organizations have adopted the Greek nationalistic POV, hence they are Greek nationalists, or ruled by Greek nationalists, or take Greek nationalists seriously. Gee! It looks like we're ruling the whole world! I must be proud!
  • Some countries ("Other") are also Greek nationalists. Those countries are colonies of Greece?
  • The Republic is NPOV for utilising (monopolizing) a name that is clearly highly connected (the verb is very moderate) to the Greek historical background. (Not to mention claims about Alexander the Great etc). Very NPOV!

Maybe you should think it over and redraw it. Please check my userpage to see a userbox that describes what most Greeks would call a very moderate approach, that borders with treason.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I fell into my own trap. My comments are stricken. - FrancisTyers 21:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire people for supporting their views. The ultimate admiration I express to those who have the capacity to change them and apologise.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis that was a great gesture of yours. No grudges I hope.--Avg 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Things First

Why can there not simply be a poll on whether the first word you read on the page is FYROM or Republic of Macedonia. Is that not logical? Then we can go into specifics later when we have agreed the basics. The Poll is convoluted with slightly different options, some meaningless. The Poll is over analytical, cryptic and confused - almost as if the confusion was created so no serious change can take place. Reaper7 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this poll is okay, although the overkill of options put me off voting till I made time to read all of them :-) Alexander 007 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. R: because it's not that simple: as above, then we get into any number of permutations: one, any, or all of FYROM, spellout, Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, even Skopje, Republic of Skopje ... then what order? And how should they be rendered: name and title? And then after that? There is currently no consistent rendition for country article introductions prescribed in the country wikiproject (though one is being proposed.) This poll initiated with two options that were at the root of recent edit warring. Each of the various options blend all of these notions and have varying measures of some support; being specific also delimits us from having to consider every possible option and opine excessively. Even amidst these discussions, numerous options (and one in particular) seem to be more agreeable than others. Any trends, until the poll's conclusion, and the preferred option will be self-evident. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read so much nonsense and so many nationalistic stupidities in my life! Do you people really think you have the knowledge and intellectual capacity to write encyclopedia articles, when you state that your preferred source is the CIA World Factbook??? Are you all schoolchildren here? The UN situation with the name is quite clear, and the Greek POV is pretending that there is some international agreement about the name of Macedonia. THIS IS A GREEK LIE AND IS QUITE OUTRAGEOUS. 87.202.17.21 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this dispute is quite outrageous. The state calls itself the Republic of Macedonia and that is its own right. Wikipedia should follow that name, and that name only. Of course, prominent mentions of the situation and other names should be made in the first paragraph, like now. But I don't see why Greeks are so upset over this. The Republic of Moldova represents less than half of the population of the historical region of Moldavia ("Moldova" in Romanian) and yet Romanians have never sought to get it to change its name to "Republic of Chişinău" or the like. I think it's time to live with it. And where did this ludicrous name of Fyromians come from? I believe the correct name is Macedonian Slavs. Ronline ✉ 11:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more Ronline. - FrancisTyers 11:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't know that. After the breakup of Yugoslavia and the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, thery just couldn't ignore Greek Macedonia (51% of the Macedonian region). They used symbols from Greek Macedonia, such as the White Tower of Thessaloniki and the Vergina Sun, they published maps showing the Republic of Macedonia annexing large chunks of land from Greece and Bulgaria extending rights down to the Aegean Sea and in their first constitution, they had written something about a "union" of Macedonians abroad. Greece, out of precaution for territorial integrity, imposed an economic blockade and in 1995 it was agreed that the flag and symbols would be changed and the offending (what Greece saw as land claims) were removed and the temporary name FYROM was devised until the whole thing could be solved. What Greece wants is security for its northern provinces and to maintain its territorial integrity. While FYROM has renounced all claims to Greece and Bulgaria, annexing the whole region still remains part of their nationalist mythology and they believe that they have some right to it. The fact that these regions are predominantly populated by Greeks and Bulgarians does not seem to be an obstacle. To answer your other question, no, Romania has not sought to change the name of the Republic of Moldova. They have gone much further than that; they have sought to annex it!

Romania has not sought to annex Moldova outside of a few nationalist union movements. In any case, unlike the Macedonian-Greek case, the Moldovans are very similar, if not identical, to ethnic Romanians. What I was pointing out, however, is that Romania is OK with having the Republic of Moldova as a sovereign state under a name that is as much Romanian as it is Moldovan. In my opinion, the Republic of Macedonia is a progressive state that has a very good record of nationality rights (minority rights are probably the best in the region). The fact that some nationalist Macedonians still see Greek Macedonia as part of the Republic can't be used as an excuse for Greek not recognising the self-identification of this state. In the context of the European Union - and Greek veto power over accession - I find it hard to believe that the Republic of Macedonia would re-claim Greek land, etc. Ronline ✉ 12:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difference is that there is no common ancestry, no common history and no ethnological similarity at all, unlike Romania and Moldavia. I mean, if the Fyromians were of Greek descent, the whole issue would be less controversial because they would have at least some relationship with the term and a certain right to use it. These guys simply came from nowhere and invented their history!--Avg 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC. It is written into their constitution. "Taking into account the Balkan circumstances, the Republic of Macedonia wrote into its contitution that it has no territorial claims toward any of its neighbours.", thats from Topolinjska 1998 that I cited above, but I'll have a look for a corroborating reference. - FrancisTyers 12:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Amendment I

   1. The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial pretensions towards any neighbouring state.
   2. The borders of the Republic of Macedonia can only be changed in accordance with the
 Constitution and on the principle of free will, as well in accordance with generally accepted
 international norms.
   3. Clause 1. of this Amendment is an Addendum to Article 3 of the Constitution of the 
 Republic of Macedonia. Clause 2. replaces Paragraph 3 of the same Article.


I have a solution.

[section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Archive 9

I've attempted to archive some of this to keep the content down. I know much of the archived content might be seen as important by some but this talk page was srupidly long and unreadable. There was far too much for a newbie to the discussion to be expected to read. Robdurbar 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a hero! I'll try to replace my links to Archive 9. I suggest user Bitola/MatriX does the same...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Divisions

I have the information (and maps) on the 1st and 2nd level of administrative division for Macedonia. Would it be possible to add this? Thank you Rarelibra 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask an admin to unprotect the article ... and hopefully respective Wikipedians will edit it judiciously? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no replies to this? I have information that could be added to this article... ? Who is the one that would be able to lift the lock for editing? Rarelibra 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The most simple diagram


                |----(internally)----The Republic----(externally)*---|
                                             |----(externally)---Greek Govt--(internally)--|
                                             |--UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD--|

                |---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------|

Name 1:         |----"Republic of Macedonia"-----------------------------------------------| 
Name 2:         |----------------------------------------"FYROM"---------------------------|
Name 3:         |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"| 

Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate----------|---------------------|

*Except strictly bilateral relations of the country with those (many) countries
 that have recognised its constitutional name.

How can anyone not agree with this or disagree and sleep well at night? Reaper7 02:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper7, I've redrawn the above sketch to exclude previously revoked characterizations. With your permission, I think this one reflects exactly the situation regarding the name and the positions of all parties involved. In any case, if anyone disagrees, please feel free to draw your version below.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, this debate has spanned – or can – the entire continuum through the addition or not of specific options. Moreover, while this closely depicts the current debate, it is mildly inaccurate: namely, I do believe that the area of debate is actually delimited to the left by those who wouldn't even note the naming dispute therein, referring to just Republic of Macedonia or simply Macedonia without any elaboration or added notation of alternate names. Purists and patriots exist on both sides. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate originated from the refusal of certain editors to insert the widely (enough) used "FYROM" name in the intro paragraph, to my honest opinion on the grounds of camouflaged nationalism under the pretence of "purism" (or however you want to call "brief-ism"). This can be verified by the last round of reverts that appears to exist beween ONLY TWO versions.
The fact that certain brief versions exist that do not include the constitutional name, but only the international name, is an example of divide and conquer practices against NPOV users who want to include them BOTH. Hence, the existence of only ONE version (option 1) that excludes the FYROM name, which has miraculously gathered all opposing votes. What a coincidence! I advise all users who want to maintain NPOV to vote for ALL similar versions and note on their comment the minor modifications that would make these versions more agreeable. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the schematics mentioning NPOV

I believe these schematics severely distort the whole concept of the NPOV. NPOV is not midway between two opposing POV's, in fact is has nothing to do with whether any sort of bias exists or not. The NPOV exists seperately of any biased views whether there are none, two opposing views, or five different opinions. The nuetral point view is looking at a situation neutrally, without feeling, and decribing what exists, what different people think about the situation and why they do so. I realize it is hard to achieve, but we need to rememeber what this standard really means. NPOV is not a median view. It is not a compromise. It does not need to take into consideration if anyone will be offended by it. It is not an international designation. It is not agreed upon by the diplomats of various countries. It is simply an explanation of the state of things as they are. This may be hard to do in somes cases such the existance of God, but surely we can give a neutral explanation of the country directly north of Greece.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the sketch above does not:

  • Intend to show where the "middle" solution should be.
  • Show which case is right or wrong
  • Cannot predict the future :-)
  • Does not intend to show if people on either side are biased or not.

What the sketch does:

  • A. It only illustrates who calls FYROM what and under which circumstances. ie (from left to right):
    • A.1. The Republic calls itself internally "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia"
    • A.2. The Republic calls itself externally "FYROM" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" under:
      • A.2.1. All international organizations (namely UN, EU, NATO, IMF, EBRD etc)
      • A.2.2. To and from the "other (fewer) countries that have not recognised its constitutional name.
    • A.3. All international organizations refer to the country as FYROM
    • A.4. Greece calls the republic externally "FYROM"
    • A.5. Greece calls the republic internally "Republic of Skopje"
  • B. It shows the area of debate (main object of poll) regarding the intro paragraph.

One more note: The sketch could have been drawn as a PIE, without extremes in either side. This, I leave to your imagination. That's all.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first apologize. I put my comment in the wrong section. I read all the schematics and the comments following them, and wrote my piece externally. Then I came back here skimmed dowm the last of the charts and put my opinion in. However I did not actually read the graph above my comment. This graph is totally different from the one above which had POV on either end and NPOV in the middle. My comments are completely irrelavent to the graph directly above which does not mention NPOV anywhere. Sorry about that, I have now made this a new section to divest it from the graph you are refering to. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Birgitte. Your comment before was indeed well intended, with all this clutter in the page. To my view NPOV is mentioning the whole sketch, not just someone's opinion on it. I also feel that the Greek position ("Republic of Skopje") does not deserve inclusion in the intro paragraph, since it is just ONE case in the whole world (ofcourse it should be mentioned in the Naming Dispute section). Thank you also for your vote, which demonstrates aggreement with this. You might also want to read my "divide and conquer" comment above and judge for yourself if you should act accordingly.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling sorry about greeks

[section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Feeling sorry about Slavs

[section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]

What's to discuss?!

[section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I've created a related disputes page, because discussion on this page should relate directly to the article and it has been drifting. I have been part of the problem in this, so now I'm trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully this will make the page less susceptible to filling up like a <insert euphemism here> - FrancisTyers 08:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about <sewer> ?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! No objections here :) - FrancisTyers 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

Notice to all editors and voters

Two subpages have been created:

According to the content of the first of the two pages, the article should be renamed as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" under the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline.

An exact copy of the rationale in the first sub-page has been copied into the second, so that we can edit our comments right below each point. Please feel free to post your comments on the second page (/Comments to FYROM name support position), without altering the content of the first sub-page.

 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the counts presented, and concomitant logic, is highly misleading: there are 1.35 million references to the "Republic of Macedonia" (less FYROM spellout) online, not zero as presented. As well, there are 2.38 million for the FYROM spellout.
Moreover, I suggest addressing this title issue (if at all) through a usual move request or the like after the poll is resolved, since the currently preferred option (#2, noting RoM) is garnering a plurality of support. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I disagree with your reasoning. I am copying your comments as they are to the respective sections in the /Comments to FYROM name support position for further discussion. I think you will agree to my suggestion not to clutter this page anymore. My answers will shortly follow.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not belabour this, but what is there to disagree with? Online searches reveal counts that are wholly dissimilar from the ones you've indicated. Arguably, that basis of the argument and rationale stemming from it should be accorded due consideration and treated with skepticism. In any event, moving forward, Wikipedians should weigh all factors and interpret information on their own and not merely based on information provided herein which might represent a particular – even overzealous – viewpoint. And, yes: regarding this, I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers to your commets above have been posted to the specific sections. Namely:
Again, please do not clutter this page any further. Anything related to the reasoning sub-page can be commented on the comment sub-page.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As many Wikipedians choose to 'clutter' this page, I will add to it as necessary. Moreover, if anything the above highlights the possible fallacy of overreliance on Google tests, which should be considered accordingly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key problem with the above disscusion is that it is pretending that formal names are actually common names. Just as the article Greece is not titled Hellenic Republic, the actual common name in my locality (Midwestern US) is Macedonia. I can't say that I have used it alot but when a new neighbor said her family immigrated from Macedonia I knew without question she was talking of the country north of Greece. That was 5 years ago and I got to know her well enough before she moved away to be sure that it was what she meant. Mainly because it was around the time My Big Fat Greek Wedding came out and she said her family was very much like that even though they were not Greek. I never even knew there was all this controversy about the name. I realize that is way too controversial to move the article to Macedonia, and I am not suggesting that at all. However it is silly to pretend that FYROM is the common English name. In fact if someone had said that to me before I discoved Wikipedia I would have no idea what they were talking about. I realize from reading the disscusion here that some people will react to my expierence by saying it proof of the corruption caused by propaganda or something similar. I want to answer that by saying that it does not matter why people in the Midwest of the US recognize Macedonia as refering to the country north of Greece. It does not matter what people should think Macedonia refers, what matters is the reality of the situation right now. Wikipedia is not a place to change peoples' minds or to counter others' claims. The only goal should be to inform people of the full situation.

I realize this discussion is particurly about the title of the article. Please look at the Macedonia disambig page. I truly believe if I came across that page before I heard about this whole dispute, I would not understand that FYROM was meant to be the modern nation. I probably would have thought it was some region embroiled in a civil war without a working goverment with enough control to pickout a real name. Think of how Somalia is now where no group controls any large portion of the country. That is the impression I think most uninformed English speakers would get. The "Republic of" designation is a common enough form that people who have only heard of the country as simply "Macedonia" can figure it out. The same is not true for FYROM. We need to be aware of how people will be looking this article up and strive to focus on ease of use rather than what anyone may believe is "more correct." This is especially true in a case like this where "correctness" is disputed.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point Birgitte. The name Macedonia is indeed more common, only it doesn't refer to the country north of Greece! It refers to the northern province of Greece, its history and its culture. The reasoning in the subpages:
proves so. Do you have any solid evidence to contradict that apart from your otherwise welcome personal experience? Your arguement that FYROM sounds peculiar for the name of a modern nation can be worked around by using the following names (I am not inventing, I am describing):

What do you think? Would you find it hard to understand that these regard the country too?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Macedonia refers to many things. (I cannot believe you really think it is used to only refer to the Greek province) That is why it is a disambiguation page. However we are not talking about what Macedonia refers to. We are talking about what to title the article about the country north of Greece. While I believe FYROM is an important title used by this country it is not the name of common English usage, just as Hellenic Republic is not the common name of Greece. Please bear with me here. There many people who know nothing of all this dispute they think the country north of Greece is Macedonia. This is not uncommon. Those people will look for this article (about the country north of Greece) on Wikipedia. They will type in "Macedonia" and hit the GO button and then they must pick out this article from that large list. I believe that they a more likely to chose correctly if this is titled ROM rather than FYOM. Because the people I am thinking of simply call this nation Macedonia and don't know all the gory details. That is just my opinion, coming from someone who has not always known about this dispute. Just some perspective to consider, but not the main thing the decision should be based on.
However, I feel that it is incorrect to put ROM and FYROM side by side and try and judge which is the name of common English usage. Because neither of them is a common name. We are not titling this article by common name because it too ambiguous or too contriversial or maybe it is different names in different parts of the world. I don't know what the exact reason was. But we can't take two formal names and run some tests and say we are following common English usage guidelins. That doesn't hold water. We need to pick a different standard to judge on.
About your proof. Many of the hits have nothing to do with either modern country. I realize this is at the heart of your interest in this. However I feel the decision should be based solely on the modern situation. The Macedonia refered to historically was no more a province of Greece than an Eastern European Republic. So I don't think it should count in favor of either country, because people looking for that information are looking for Macedon. See here is where you and I at an impasse. I am looking at the article attached to this talk page (BTW take aminute and read the article one more time). I read this article and think how to best direct the average English speaker who is looking for this information to this article. While I believe you are thinking more about what people who have already found the article will think about the concept of Macedonia. There is a place to deal with the concept of Macdonia, but it is not here; it is on the disambiguation page. I realize you are upset to think someone might confuse Macedon with this country, but I cannot share that corcern. You see I live in Missouri where the actual land was taken from people that used that name, and they don't even get a disambiguation page. So while I do see how you are concerned about the confusion of historical references, I cannot take claims that your cultute is being stolen seriously. Culture being stolen looks more like this http://www.omtribe.org/history.htm --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms

(excerpt from the guideline):

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Example

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.

Comment: don't these correspond to an actual territory and (almost) capital? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever they correspond to, the policy above clearly states to include the names within the article. NOT necessarily to name the article after them...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?!? It's a naming guideline! --FlavrSavr 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that sentiment, FS: I was merely highlighting the similarity of your examples to actual locales, but alas ... :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that your link above was not refering to the World Taekwondo Federation! :-) Anyway, could you please explain then, WTF is this guideline doing in WP, sice we've already solved the thing with your above mentioned policy? I insist that the policy mentions clearly that we must use the self-identifying term (also, which of the two would that be) within the article!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are noted. No, not wrestling: I was merely pointing out the similarities of the cited examples to actual locales ... only to prompt a non sequitur riposte about policy. Consequently, I am ending this discussion thread. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy is quite clear. In fact, it can't get any clearer than it is. Proposals to rename this article into Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are in direct opposition to this policy - fYROM is not a self-identifying name for this entity, while Republic of Macedonia is. --FlavrSavr 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we use Republic of China instead of Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. I believe that dispute has a far more geopolitical significance, and surprisingly, it hasn't sparkled that much "naming conflict" objections on Wikipedia discussion pages. --FlavrSavr 18:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha! Indeed, if we rename the article to FYROM you can still include Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia within the article, as the policy clearly states! I am sure that the Japanese vs Nihon-jin example shows you that we are obliged to use the most common name in English! In the sub-pages:

this is very clearly illustrated.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlavrSavr we had the exact same discussion before right below option #4 of this poll. Although I didn't want to include ChrisO without him being present, and this is why I erased my comments about him, I have to remind you that he took the initiative and rewrote the guideline without consulting no one. And still, your logic is still flawed. Let's completely forget all the subjective criteria that the policy mentions. It is no "prescription" to refer to this country as fYRoM. This name is currently used by them OFFICIALLY. They use RoM ONLY internally and in bilateral relations. This fact is uncontested. They agreed to the usage of fYRoM, specifically for all references within an international context, because NO international organisation recognises any other name. Wikipedia represents such an international context. And (I suggest you read this very carefully) fYRoM has explicitly agreed that their final name should be reached after deliberations with Greece"Henceforth the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has formally accepted that the name of its State is an issue for negotiation as provided for in UN Security Council Resolution 817 (1993). ". Moreover, by the three criteria balance table, fYRoM is a clear choice.--Avg 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which can be very easily seen in the sub-pages:
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is supposed to obviate the country's website, et al. and notations in other reputable publications that simply render the country's name with provisos? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't quite understand your point. The country wants to be called RoM, that's obvious. But it is not officially called RoM. It is officially referred to by each and every international organisation as fYRoM. The name RoM is not recognised. It has no validity whatsoever in international relations. And most importantly, they themselves have agreed not to use any name other than fYRoM in any international forum before the dispute is resolved. So it's not that between two official names, they prefer the first, it's that they don't have an official name and until the dispute is solved, they are referred to as fYRoM. Leaving the "official" part aside and concentrating on self-identification only, they currently use both RoM and fYRoM, although they do prefer the first. But fYRoM is a self-identifying name, because they have agreed that it is. --Avg 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest any further comments to be made in /Comments to FYROM name support position because the size of this page is way too large.--Avg 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite understand yours. The country's legal name is the Republic of Macedonia; officially, however, it is known by various appellations, including FYROM (both in brief and extended) which is a government sanctioned title that is increasingly deprecated by the international community. Pragmatically and within context, as various publications and compendiums will indicate, it is known simply as Macedonia. The republic's statehood is not contingent on recognition of the title FYROM and it is more than what politicians agree to refer to it as. Many entities are referred to using names/titles of varying authority: for example, Canada: known almost universally as just Canada (its legal name), the term Dominion of Canada is an official disused title that is still sanctioned by the government and a favourite of patriots. Other examples abound: there is little utility to move Libya to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (its UN appellation and part of its long-form name), etc., when simpler renditions suffice.
If the option which has so far garnered a plurality in the poll prevails, I maintain this is sufficient and conforms to Wp policies: the proposal to move this article – and prematurely, I might add – to just one official title over a legal, simpler one that is not at all inaccurate (the dispute of which is already detailed elsewhere) caters to and promulgates an external political debate and POV (which the above provided link to the Greek ministry reiterates) which I'm sure most Wikipedians would not share. And, given excessive text above and throughout, I won't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A long, long reply (neutrals, please read!)

The difference between an identifying and a self-identifying name. Republic of Macedonia is the official self-identifying name of this entity, as defined by its constitution. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia isn't. If you're looking for similar parallels try Republic of China - Taiwan - Chinese Taipei. Avg, I'm not intending to explain you the difference between an identifying name and a self-identifying name, again. Also, I'm not interested in your link, I'm well acquainted with the positions of the Greek Ministry of External Affairs - I'll provide you with the original UN resolution, instead:

Having considered the application for membership contained in document

A/47/876-S/25147,

Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document

A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, 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. --FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: provisionally referred to. Others refer to it as fYROM. The failure to comprehend that is a failure to understand the concept of self-identifying. As for the UN practice - check Modi's explanation here. --FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Naming conflict, part one - Self-identifying terms. Niko, your argumentation is peculiar. In your opinion, article titles lay somewhere outside the article? Or in other words, Wikipedia can be prescriptive in article titles. So, let's rename it to FYROM and use RoM everywhere within articles? That makes zero sense, no? I hope that the (de facto) author of this policy, ChrisO will find the time to explain this guideline's implications. --FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Naming conflict, part two - Most common names. It's quite obvious how this guideline deals with this type of conflicts - see "Dealing with self-identifying terms". Therefore, there is basically no need for searching the most common names. We are not obliged to use the most common name (although it's quite important) - see Republic of China and Taiwan. However, as some native English speakers here noted - FYROM is not the most common name for this state, and Niko, I doubt that your Google tests will prove the contrary. It's quite obvious that news outlets, encyclopedias, geographical name servers prove that "Macedonia" is the most common term. And then again, your Google test is simply wrong. You've excluded so much terms that even a basic country fact such as "Macedonia borders Bulgaria" cannot be considered a valid indicator that Macedonia is, in fact, the most common name for this country. You even say that Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions. Damn Google! --FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I've conducted an another search - including:

  • Cyprus (why exclude Cyprus?!?)
  • Bulgaria ("Macedonia borders Bulgaria". "Macedonia trades with Bulgaria".)
  • Greece ("Macedonia borders Greece". "Macedonia trades with Greece".)

and excluding .mk domain hits.--FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that other unnecessary exclusions are made as well (Niko admits that These exclusions, do not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).), those three inclusions, and one exclusion render 63 million hits. Contrary to your claims - the vast majority of the hits refer to the modern Republic of Macedonia. And if you like Google that much - check how Google itself refers to this country at the Google directory. Damn Google! --FlavrSavr 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are sooooo wrong for NOT excluding Greece! I'll prove it to you right now! Check the results themselves one-by-one of the first two pages of the google search for "+macedonia +greece -wikipedia" here some 137 million hits. You'll see immediately that they ONLY refer to the Greek Macedonia! Damn Google, busted FlavSavr's arguement!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So indeed uninformed readers will be confused because they are used to the name Macedonia for addressing the Greek part (137 million vs your 63 million) and the article must be renamed to avoid such confusions! Damn Google!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So nice that you're trying to be objective (NOT). Let me start at the end. The actual comparison is between "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which one of these two is more commonly used in English, nothing else. Don't mix plain "Macedonia" there, because there is already a disambiguation page where the country is on top. The Google test (and not Google itself, two very very different things), which is a suggested method for resolution of the conflict within the guideline, easily gives prominence to fYRoM over RoM. "Republic of Macedonia" - "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
You don't seem to understand at all the meaning of the link I provided. fYRoM has accepted that its name cannot be decided unilaterally. Again, the Republic itself has officially agreed (and it is still bound by this agreement) that it has to deliberate with Greece before finalising its name. It has agreed that Greece has VETO power over its name in both EU and NATO accession procedures. It has agreed that no name is final until the dispute is resolved. This means that the name RoM is PROVISIONAL as well. As simple as that, is it really that difficult to understand? Wikipedia cannot surpass official agreements and international law because of some distorted sense of objectivity that some users possess. Don't decide for someone else what they have signed and what not.

And again, for further comment I suggest the usage of

because this page will again become a byte-eater.--Avg 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give up guys, the name of this article is never going to be "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any permutation thereof. You're just wasting time, bandwidth and bytes. - FrancisTyers 09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Why don't you check what the term Macedonia is used for. Compare:

vs

and then tell me how an uninformed reader will react when they are presented with your povish interpretation of more common name!!
And again, for further comment I suggest the usage of
because this page will again become a byte-eater, as you say and as Avg suggested above.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Republic of Western Bulgaria?

The Bulgarian capital Sofia was a minor town but it was chosen as the capital of the emerging Bulgarian state because it is at the centre of the territories where Bulgarians are the dominant ethnicity. Sofia is situated between Bulgaria's religious capital in Ochrid and its cultural capital in Veliko Turnovo. The government in Sofia has recognised that Western Bulgaria is called, Republic of Macedonia and that it is an independent Bulgarian region. The new republic takes its name from its southern area that belongs to the region of Macedonia and streches between Bitola and Lake Doiran. The area north of that line is Vardar Bulgaria. The area west of Skopje and north of Struga are not Bugarian but traditionally have been Albanian. No problem. Makedonija 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to overcome the political stalemate are well taken. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Please abstain from comments not directly related to the improvement of the article. Andreas 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyromian falsification of Cleopatras Identity

EGIPETSKATA KRALICA KLEOPATRA BILA ETNI^KA MAKEDONKA

http://www.unitedmacedonians.org/newspaper/aug00/kleopatra.htm

Vergina/Macedonia 07:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most citizens of ROM/FYROM do not speak the language of the Macedonians, they speak a fine and 'axioprepi' Slavic language. 'Alexander' said, "'Ανδρες Αθηναίοι [...] αυτός τε γάρ Έλλην γένος ειμί τωρχαίον..." = "Men of Athens [...] had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent..." (Herodotus, Histories IX). He never said, 'jas sum Grcki' or 'jas sum Makedonski', just 'Ellin genos eimi'. So relax everybody, one day those new 'ethnic Macedonians' who claim the ancient Macedonians for their ancestors, will probably learn the known language of those 'ancestors'. Then, everyone will continue as one happy family in two independent states. Nothing will change that, even if ROM/FYROM becomes simply ROM. Politis 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Politis. As I explained before, the name was Maz^obran, and his father was Ljubokonj. Also, as long as there are thousands of persistant supporters of this twisted falsification of history, I doubt that there won't be serious objection from the Greek side for the name...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :)) - FrancisTyers 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vergina, you obviously inflamate your nationalistic feelings quite fast (or you know Macedonian partly)... It doesn't says that she was a (Slavic) Macedonian, she was ethnic (Ancient) Macedonian. Bomac 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares, let the Greeks have their history. You've got yours, it starts from the 6th Century. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone denies the Greek history. They are making this whole fuss themselves. Pretensions towards Greece? Gimme a break... Some of them are so... xenophobic... Bomac 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in your case there's more to be afraid. Weren't you the one that made these comments:
So, I guess you're just pretending that you don't deny Greek history (or Greek sovereignity for that matter) so that the fresh readers of this page don't find out how biased your propaganda is...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I said - some of the Greeks are so xenophobic... can't we leave the past and see the future? The Balkan history is a bit of a complex one, which involves all countries and regions in it. And please, don't try to ,,excuse" yourself with these comments, 'caus they are reaction of the other ,,side's" posts and messages. We need the whole picture. Bomac 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And - if Greece didn't made this mess 'round the name, none of this would happen. Bomac 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't characterise all Greeks as xenophobic. By the way, Bomac, was Alexander the Great Greek, or not? - FrancisTyers 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them. According to my personal opinion, Alexander was (Ancient) Macedonian, who, taught by Aristotle, was spreading the Hellenistic culture into the lands he conquerred.

Note: ,,Hellenistic" doesn't mean's that he was actually a Greek. It means that he, influenced by Aristotle (and the Greek language, which, in that time, was something like the English today + the Greek, very develloped culture in those periods), simply, was ,,civilizing" other eastern cultures with the help of the most (already) develloped culture and language in that time.

Note: I don't claim that only Slavs absorbed some features from the Ancient Macedonians, but Greeks and others in this region. Bomac 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! What you mean is that it is a genes thing, then. So you use an arguement that you-yourself think it is nationalistic (when you respond to Greeks claiming that their genes are 3000 years old), in order to support your position where it suits you! Despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever if he had non-Greek ancestry! Even so, please read the following sentence and educate yourself:
"Ethnicity is not determinated by blood, but by a common tradition and history."
Any more comments about GA's ethnicity?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking 'bout? I didn't mentioned genes. How did that happen genes to interfere? Gee. Bomac 17:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about that. The Queen of England is English (most would say), but she's largely German heritage. She is English because of culture. Alexander the Great was Greek because of culture. Fullstop. Anything else is pointless nationalism. - FrancisTyers 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, calm down... Bomac 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop winding up the Greeks :P And encourage others to stop too. - FrancisTyers 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN resolution 817 says FYROM

Dear friends, according to UN resolutioin 817 [8]and [9], the UN received the Republic of Macedonia on 7 April 1993 under the name, ‘Former Yugolav Republic of Macedonia’… Question: is it ‘nationalistic' to point this out? No, it is fact. Politis 14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, it's because of Greece's political pressure, nothing else (or personal :-)) Bomac 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, no one can argue otherwise. But there is nothing exeptional about this; UN resolutions are dominated by the initiatives of single countries. Politis 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you got yourself quite a resolution, I must say... Bomac 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. Some members of the Greek government were against any use of the word 'Macedonia'. Others compromised and argued for, Nova Makedonija (Nea Makedonia, New Macedonia, Nouvelle Macedoine, etc...). I think the political climate up to 1993 was ripe in Skopje and UN for the acceptance of that term; unfortunately, Athens lacked vision. Personally, I like it because it contains the term 'Macedonia' and it includes a disabiguation in 'New' (as in Nouvelle Caledonie, New York, Nea Smyrni...). But... here we are my friend trying to square the circle. Politis 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... Bomac 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the UN counts for nothing on wiki, only nationalism. Also it is noted FYROM denies Greek/world knowledge of ancient history inorder to insert their own nation in the strange void created. The title of the page should be FYROM and there should be a simple two option vote on this. Reaper7 15:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right Reaper, it doesn't. Actually, as I have commented in:
...they prefer to "put words in UN's mouth" instead...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good job, otherwise we'd probably still be calling the Rwandan genocide a "little misunderstanding" :P Get over it guys, the UN makes mistakes — and this is one of them! - FrancisTyers 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints can be forwarded to Kofi Annan! In the meantime, it's not our business (as wikipedians) to discuss if it is a mistake or not. We must just use the standard appellation in all UN, EU, etc lists of members. Otherwise we are really "putting words in UN's mouth", and we wouldn't do that even if we disagreed. Would we?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Hangon, I think I had this argument before... Western Sahara or perhaps Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh. Just because they aren't recognised by the UN doesn't mean we don't give them their names. We don't call "Western Sahara" the "Southern Provinces" and we don't call "Nagorno-Karabakh" part of Azerbaijan — or whatever they call it. The UN is good in some areas, but bad in others. This is one of the times it screwed up. cf. Rwanda, Sudan etc. - FrancisTyers 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point Francis. I was talking about LISTS of MEMBERS. RTF/Comments to FYROM name support position in the objective criteria point #6 about international organizations to see examples of how many lists are twisted here!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that it's actual name is FYROM because the UN et al so call it not a valid point. The CIA Factbook lays it out rather nicely:

conventional long form: Republic of Macedonia
conventional short form: Macedonia; note - the provisional designation used by the UN, EU, and NATO is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
local long form: Republika Makedonija
local short form: Makedonija
former: People's Republic of Macedonia, Socialist Republic of Macedonia

FYROM is a provisional and non-permanent designation. Either mention neither or both, but if we introduce one, it should just be "Depending on contexts, it can be formally referred to as FYROM and colloquially as M". If they want to know the difference, they can read on. I think an even BETTER example than China for the naming problem is Galicia. Which is it? Iberian or Easter European? Both names come from a Celtic tradition. Neither article mentions the naming issue until several paragraphs into the article. Since users havea already been through a disamimbiguation page, there is no reason to mention "the naming dispute with greece", it can be assumed and infered, and if it can't, it can be read later on in the article. Guifa 01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move, not surprisingly. Once Macedonia and Greece settle their naming conflict, maybe we too can finally settle this naming conflict... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Not going to happen my friend... ;) - FrancisTyers 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shhh! The Epsilons will hear you! :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Question of Palestine.

Everyone compares the situation of FYROM naming dispute with other UN names not in use. The truth is there is currently no other situation that comes even close to comparison with the dispute between Greece and FYROM - so comparisons are futile and desperate by those wanting the page called Macedoinia. However I have noticed many here saying, it is what FYROM sees it self as that counts, not what Greece or the UN, EU, NATO ect want. Therefore it is strange whenever I speak to a Palestinian and they all believe their country to be called Palestine, why then when I type the name Palestine into Wiki do I get the UN/ Isreali explanation of their country and not their explanation of their occupied country. It seems that for this page of Macedonia the World Bodies are ignored including Greece as having got it wrong, LOL, but for the Palestine page the world bodies are taken into huge account and the page does not revolve around what the Palestinians see as their occupied state. Reaper7 14:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Македонија

First of all, I was shocked that after typing Macedonia in the Wikipedia search box, I wasn't automatically redirected to the Republic of Macedonia page. There should be an automatic redirect, or at least put Republic of Macedonia as the term number 1, and not 2.

A huge part of Macedonia was given to Greece by world powers after WWII. Almost no Greeks ever lived there. The "Greek" Macedonia has only been a part of Macedonia for these 60 years, I think the Republic of Macedonia represents Macedonia better than the region given to Greece.

Its fact, not opinion, that the Greeks don't even want to give Macedonia the right to use their ancient name, so that Macedonia won't ask for their territories back. Macedonia is the land of Macedonians, it has always been like that, just because they lost a part of their territory, you can't erase history. MACEDONIA SHOULD REDIRECT TO REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, and then put "Macedonia redirects here, for other uses...". It's the right thing to do. --serbiana - talk 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be supporting the move vote above then. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user serbiana, u posted the same message in the article Macedonia. i will not copy-paste my reply here as well...U know what u have to do in order to read it:) --Hectorian 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just posted exactly the same thing above serbiana, someone delete this, we are not stupid, we read it and ignored it the first time. Reaper7 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fyrom guys are getting funnier by the day.--Avg 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A huge part of Macedonia was given to Greece by world powers after WWII"
After reading this line I did not even bother to consider an answer. I think your historical knowledge speaks in my stead. Miskin 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is User:Bormalagurski who goes by night under Serbiana. Miskin 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Also, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia was formed after the first Balkan War ;-) Telex 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he says I think the Republic of Macedonia represents Macedonia better than the region given to Greece. Well that's just rubbish - original Macedon was almost exclusively within the area now known as Greek Macedonia and all the archaeological sites of ancient Macedon are there (hell - that's where the Vergina Sun was found, which was on the first flag of the Republic of Macedonia). Telex 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The only issue is that, however, the Macedonia region in Greece is not an autonomous country. Theoretical question: What will happen if the region was autonomous, and therefore the Republic couldn't pull off "the only independent state entirely in the region" card. They will sure have to come up with a different name: Northern or Vardar Macedonia maybe? FunkyFly 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (it depends how autonomous though - Wales style autonomy or Serbia and Montenegro style autonomy). I wonder what would happen if Bulgaria decided to grant full autonomy to the Blagoevgrad Oblast under the name Pirin Macedonia (or, Serbia or Albania decided to grant autonomy to their portions (they're only a couple of villages in reality) of Macedonia under the names Serbian or Albanian Macedonia). Telex 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, we'd have four Republics of Macedonia then, wouldn't we? And they'd all claim they are the true one, I guess...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like present discussions and arguments and polls and what not are not sufficient, we'll have four times as much. Good times :) FunkyFly 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if that were to happen, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would be the one furthest from being the true Macedonia. Greece has the land (plus archaeological sites) and possible the ethnicity of ancient Macedon along with the centuries of medieval and modern Macedonia; according to FYROM scholars, the ancient Macedonians did not speak Greek but another language; most scholars hypothesize that the ancient Macedonian language was an Illyrian (or Thracian or other possible ancestor of Albanian) language, so in effect, FYROM is claiming that the ancient Macedonians were ethnic Albanians. For more in this, you can Ernesto Sucra's Gli Illiri del Afganistan - it is indeed a good read. So Albania does have some claim to ancient Macedon and Leka i Madh. Bulgaria has all those centuries of history since the seventh century, including many prominent individuals such as Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev, Pitu Guli and Yane Sandanski ;-) The Macedonian Slavs date back relatively recently, so they less than everyone else in term of actual history in the region. Telex 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my reaction to all of your comments. First of all, almost all of the people that are against my opinion are Greek. That tells me a lot. It's not that I have anything against Greece and Greek people, it's just that you guys can't accept some stuff. Secondly, I am not Macedonian, I am not from Macedonia, I saw that some people thought I was. --serbiana - talk 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And to continue from where we were, the ultimate problem would be that of WP! The wouldn't be able to name all four article with the same name... Would they?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could try different capitalization?! Republic of Macedonia, rEpublic of Macedonia, rePublic of Macedonia and repUblic of Macedonia, they sound the same to me, or just work out another scheme. Joking of course, as I said endless discussions between official UN documents and local claims. FunkyFly 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Ha! I can imagine Kofi Annan saying: "And now let us hear the opinion of the Republic of Macedonia". The crowd on the podium would be amazing!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like four representatives stand up in the same time? FunkyFly 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they'd all four squeeze themselves on the podium!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the Eurovision Song Contest it would be trickier. There would be a:

  • Δημοκρατία Μακεδονίας
  • Република Македония
  • Republika e Maqedonisë
  • Република Македонија

How would the ignorant outsiders tell them apart and know who to vote for (they may get them mixed up and vote for the Republika e Maqedonisë when they liked the song of the Република Македония)? Telex 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above list, I just realized why the Macedonian language (the mother tongue (!) of Cyril and Methodius who initiated this script) has dropped the ancient letter я and replaced it with ја ;-) Telex 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you must be joking when you imply that "Macedonian" is Bulgarian. Haven't you read the paper yet?--Avg 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I advise you to read this - much more enlightening ;-) Telex 00:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telex, I think your contribution would be of value in the respective article for the language... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha! Seriously now: Doesn't all this talk show how ridiculous it is for a country to monopolize the name of a wider region, refusing even to add a disambiguating term, along with the name of that region?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a disambiguating term like "Republic of"? - FrancisTyers 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No coz then all four would have the same name (duh? -can't you read?). Plus the short-form of the name would be just Macedonia, as it would be with the other three. It'd be really confusing, why can't you just accept it? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, but I thought the Macedonians in Greece didn't want independence. o_____O I would certainly agree if the other four/five Macedonian subregions were to secede then sure you'd have a hell of a nomenclature problem on your hands. But seeing as how none of them want to (at least thats what I understand) it doesn't really present a problem. There is only one "Republic of". - FrancisTyers 13:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So (1) you agree that if all or some of the other three were independent, the name would be a problem, and (2) you propose that Greeks should shoot their leg and go for independent Macedonia, which could quite possibly bring them before a new 1974, and which would definitely cause more borders to exist, in order to protect themselves from the apparent attempts for falsification of history? Or is it your point that while there are not any other independent Macedonias, there doesn't need to be a disambiguating term, and when and if a new one declares independence, it can have a different name, because the "RoM" one will have been used for too long to describe FYROM (with your help) and it will be impossible to take it back? Since when are people that happen to live in a province inferior to people that happen to live in a country? (oh and those in the province have a bigger population)...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, you cheeky chaps. a site from Bulgaria, publishing an essay by an American linguist working for the Bulgarian International Institute for Macedonia. My, their scholarship is top rate! Saying that, he makes some valid points, although also some errors of judgement:

  • The other, as now practiced in Yugoslav Macedonia, is the latest, the smallest (exept for Lusatian Serbian) and we may presume, the last Slavic literary language.
    Just plain wrong.
  • The purpose is to make Macedonian as different as possible. The result is barbarous jargon, literally a Macedonian Salad.
    Making value judgements about language is so passé

And the point of my essay:

  • I am not here to quarrel with the current Macedonian literary language. No less an authority than Roman Jakobson years ago declared it the thirteenth Slavic literary language. Every man has the right to invent and write in his own language. Nor is the upgrading of a dialect into a literary language a heresy...

In all, its a shame he didn't cover the standardisation of Macedonian within the overall context of the greater standardisation process of all the Balkan Slavic languages. He also neglected to mention the Bulgarian occupation and subsequent "compulsion" of Bulgarian. All in all a fairly average, although very partisan essay. Perhaps he is a famous linguist, I don't know, but these guys do make mistakes, you should see my essay slating Larry Trask. In fact, it is a shame that I didn't see this during my research, he would have made my essay even better — in terms of argumentation. - FrancisTyers 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is allowed to make mistakes!even this linguist that u mentioned (whom i've never heard of)... but also Roman Jakobson (whose works i know pretty well) --Hectorian 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true, I know there are bound to be mistakes in my essay, although I couldn't tell you them. Incidentally, was this paper published in any reputable journals ? - FrancisTyers 01:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i know, i have never seen it published nor had i heard about it before. --Hectorian 02:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians?

Excuse me would really appreciate any info on the Egyptians in Macedonia, when did they get there? How many are there? What religion do they follow Coptic orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam? How did they get there or why? Is it a common occurence in the region, in neighbouring countries? Plz any info would be greatly appreciated.

See Macedonian salad. Miskin 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are the remnants of older Greek inhabitants. Much more of them can be found further south (Aegean Macedonia), since scientific studies have conclusively proven that Greeks are basically a mix of Egyptians and Ethiopians. Of course the native Makedonski had spotted them thousands of years ago and killed most of them. --Avg 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha.the subsaharan origin of the Greeks!i have heard this joke before:) --Hectorian 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - see this - apparently the same "research" found that the Japanese also have sub-Saharan origins ;-) Telex 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KARALOL!'άλλος για τη βάρκα μας...?'...:). (=who else will join us?) --Hectorian 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afro-Samurais and Macedonian-Slavs. Life is full of surprises. Miskin 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why some nationalist people can't just accept the fact that Macedonian Slavs are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great. It is a well documented fact (by the respected historian G. Paparovski) that when he liberated Macedonia from the Greeks he yelled Слобода или Смрт!--Avg 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... heh, and then what, did he sing Еј, Словени? Telex 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not just him! there was also the wellknown Mr Moufovski...;-) --Hectorian 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let them name the page Republic of macedonia, it is quite obvious their research of Greeks and Japanese being African is flawless and Alexander the Great spoke a language nothing like Greek despite 3-5bc finds in macedon with greek inscriptions, but one that would be invented 9 centuries after his death. Having said this I would also like to nominate Joey from Friends as the next US president, perhaps he will let the slavs rename Skopje Solun? Some more nice humour for you: http://macedoniancivilization.blog.com.mk/node/1301 Reaper7 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's these kind of things that show manifest inferiority complexes and vile racism most effectively - why else would one resort to such pseudoscience to make themselves feel better. Assuming the HLA genes research was spot on and the Greeks and Japanese (and God knows who else they grouped in that category) do have sub-Saharan origins, is there anything wrong with that, or are Africans necessarily in some way inferior to everyone else? That's what the authors of that web page seem to think - there's more gloating there than when GWB won the elections. I'd be prepared to say that the Jews, the Turks, the Arabs and other non-Aryan peoples have contributed more to mankind than the Macedonian Slavs (whose own status as falling within that allegedly superior category remains dubious). Telex 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everyone in this discussion should be familiar with this, but let me mention it again just to make sure: it is beyond reasonable doubt that Homo Sapiens first appeared in Africa and spread to conquer the world subsequently. So I do not find anything surprising in the fact that the Japanese or whoever else has genes in common with the African population. In fact I'll be rather surprised if they did not, because of its implications to the human evolution. FunkyFly 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! According to most scientists, the human race was born in Africa. According to the Christian tradition, it was born in the Garden of Edem (modern day Iraq), but noone says that the whole world is Iraqis...Anyway, we all know that those who create such articles are motivated by racist ideas, in order to show that a nation (Greeks and Japanese in the case discussed) are inferior than the others, for they are/were descendants of black people. So, we should first totally reject such ideas as racist, and then as unhistoric (we all know that they are both...). --Hectorian 04:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion in this section, i have to say that we (all of those who have editted comments here) did not behave right to the user:Zakaria mohyeldin, who simply asked for info about the Egyptians in FYROM. we kept on refearing to really stupid websites, instead of just typing Egyptians (Balkans), in order to give him the info he kindly asked... --Hectorian 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is really bad is how Greek-African people in the Macedonian blog are presented as something inferior. It is like saying to your grandfather that he is inferior, because he did not go to college. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that race correlates with intellect or enculturation, people who claim that are (surprise?) racists. FunkyFly 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the new DNA research from FYROM, proving that Greeks actualy have alien origins and they must go from earth??? :P I believe that sometimes we have to be serious and stop the stupidities! --xvvx 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This was done by us Greeks! Yeah, read Epsilon Team and Dimosthenis Liakopoulos!!! No wonder how we managed to convince every int'l org. that it should be called FYROM!!! :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia is Bulgarian heritage

People are forgeting the Bulgarian identity and heritage of the Republic of Macedonia. It is impossible to study Bulgarian history and culture and leave out its lost western heartland that reaches Ohrid. The history of the Republic of Macedonia starts with Bulgaria; to deny this truth would be like saying that Yorkshire is not English, or Peloponnese not Greek, or Elbasan not Albanian. Goce Delcev and many more are Bulgarian heros for peace and democracy for all. They never spoke of our brothers in Vardar Bulgaria as 'ethnic Macedonians', no one spoke of that until Tito. We were all Bulgarians, even if we were born in Skopje, Sandanski, America or Western Europe. Makedonija 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say this, you are right, but who listens? The "Macedonians" evidently don't want to have anything to do with the... "Bulgaro-Tatars" [12] and the "Greek Ethiopians" ;-) Telex 11:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now we aren't. You know very well that many Goce's statements speak about Macedonians different from Bulgarians. Make peace with this. Bomac 11:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right ;-) Telex 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the truth. BTW, Goce never fought for Bulgaria, he fought for independent Macedonia with free Macedonians. Bomac 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, IMARO served Bulgarian interests. His aim was autonomy for the Bulgarians of Macedonia. Telex 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anybody do a separate country from a region, with the same people? C'm on, this is really bizarre. Bomac 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that Serb nationalists want the independence of Republika Srpska rather than union with Serbia, or the same reasons that Albanian nationalists want independence for Kosovo rather than union with Albania. They know they have no chance of uniting immediately, so they go for independence instead - they know that in time though, the two states will eventually unite. Telex 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a heck of analogy. Do you really think this is adequate? Bomac 11:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Telex, the FYROMians search so hard to find evidence that the Bulgarian Macedonians are unique, your examples are well thought out, especially the kosovo one. Now we need to teach them how the Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, Athenians ect were just that - Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, Athenians - bound only by hellenism. Then we need to show the archeaology that shows they all wrote and spoke a language similar to the various Greeks spoken by all the different city states, then we need to write an essay on small cultures with inferiority complexes, then hopefully a few of them will start to go,' that stuff they taught me at school in Skopje that us slavs are the real Macedonians - that is true.,.,.,.isn't it??' Reaper7 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Nothing else... LOL... Bomac 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known fact that prior to the 1940s the designation Macedonians (Македонци/Μακεδόνες) was only a designation of regional origin, much like Thracians (Тракийци/Θράκες) was then and still is today, by Greeks, Bulgarians and others. After Tito's propaganda came into force, the ethnically Bulgarian Македонци were transformed, after a few years of communist terror, into an ethnic group in their own right. Had Yugoslavia acquired an ethnically Greek portion of Macedonia, then the ethnically Greek Μακεδόνες, would have been made into the Macedonian ethnic group, speaking a Macedonian language, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bulgaria would have probably imposed the economic blockade once the people speaking a Yugoslav socialism influenced Greek language in this hypothetical former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia started presenting Bulgarian history as their own and stared making land claims to Bulgaria :p). Telex 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was terrible. There was a huge portal in which they put the regional Macedonians, and when they came out, they were ethnic Macedonians... God saved the Greek Macedonians (but - they are ethnic group according Miskin in Macedonians (ethnic group). Wonder what converted them? Bomac 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Miskin ever claimed that (I don't know what he claimed). For some idea of what's going on, try reading this article and try explaining the weird fact that the Bulgarian language was prohibited in the Republic of Macedonia until relatively recently (probably so that the ethnic Macedonians wouldn't notice the uncanny similarities between "Macedonian" and Bulgarian) and when this law was finally lifted, 63,000 ethnic Macedonians declared themselves Bulgarians and acquired Bulgarian citizenship ;-) If Tito wasn't able to "convert" the Greek minority (actually they were a majority before 1945 in Bitola) and other cities it was because, what he called the "Macedonian" language was the regional variation of the Bulgarian language, not the Greek language, so it was easier for the Bulgarian Macedonians to adopt this new identity. Interestingly, the Republic of Macedonia government claims there are no Greeks there today; I see three possibilities: a) the Rep. Macedonia government is lying, b) they were "converted" (ie Slavicized), c) genocide was inflicted upon them. I don't know which you prefer. Telex 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think God saved the ethnic Macedonians, they just built a strong city known in ancient times (see carvings) and modern as Thessaloniki. When the slavs invaded they were safe in there. I think the macedonians have the walls to thank for that. But according to modern FYROM mythology, who were those Greeks in Salonika? Aliens put them in there? Is it possible they are the remnents of the Ancient Macedonians? According to FYROM they must have just been shipped there by ET, where as the real Macedonians stayed outside the walls of Salonika because it was safe in the fields, waited for the slavs 5-9AD, mixed with them exclusively - every last one - lost their language, and now are Alexander the Great's little slav children living in Skopje..mmmm Reaper7 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See:
  • "what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history."-Misirkov Krste
  • "..as follows: now that we are old we cannot learn a new language Bulgarian is the language we know and we shall speak Bulgarian; we are Bulgarians."-Misirkov
  • "nobody had bothered particularly with the question of our nationality. We did indeed call ourselves "Bulgarians" and "Christians" in the national sense; but why this was so, and whether it really had to be so, we did not very much care to ask."-Misirkov Krste
  • Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:

"Sofia, 01.05.1899, Kolyo, ... May the dissents and cleavages not frighten you. It is really a pity, but what can we possibly do when we ourselves are Bulgarians and all suffer from the same disease! If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans..."

  • "We are Bulgarians and we always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgariandom."

-Dame Gruev (Director of the Bulgarian school in Stip).

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

http://img67.exs.cx/img67/8450/MapbyAmiBoue1847.jpg http://img56.exs.cx/img56/5857/VolkerkartevonMittel-undSudosteuropa.jpg http://img56.exs.cx/img56/3069/slaveni-karta.jpg http://img57.exs.cx/img57/1241/ResizeofEuropavolkerundsprachenkarte.jpg http://img57.exs.cx/img57/8127/1880-geoturkeyethnographical.jpg http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/races_balkan_shepherd_1923.jpg http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/gateway/maps/Ethnic16.gif http://mitglied.lycos.de/anakin77/Sprachkarten/eth2.jpg http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7540/makedonienlandschaftsundkultur.jpg

  • Ethnographic statistic:

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolaz-ottomana1911.jpg

  • Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgars in Skopje....

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7216/Invitation1893.jpg

  • VMRO stamp in Bulgarian language..........

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/6279/Svobodailismyrtpechat.jpg

  • The Bulgarian society in Skopje 1870 :

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4454/skopie18701nx.jpg

  • Bulgarian municipality - Prilep

http://img47.exs.cx/img47/9107/balgarska_Obshtina_v_prilep.jpg

  • Theophylacti Bulgariae archiepiscopi In omnes divi Pauli apostoli epistolas enarrationes

THEOPHYLACTUS, arcivescovo di Ochrida http://www.comune.empoli.fi.it/biblioteca/CATALOGO/schede/sch785.html http://www.comune.empoli.fi.it/biblioteca/CATALOGO/schede/front785.html

Vergina/Macedonia 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page title / bias

The article's title should be "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accordance to the name recognized by the United Nations, as happens to all nation entries. Also the links at the bottom of the entry are biased towards supporting the FYROM opinion on the disputes with Greece, lacking any credible reference to the Greek arguments. Dr. Manos 22:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the title, you should make your case in a bit more depth. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position. I say that because the current article title has been settled on after quite a bit of turmoil, and just changing it would not be a good idea. On the other hand, with regard to the links, sofixit. I'm sure that more references would benefit the article. --Yath 23:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Manos, please be patient...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: given that one move request/proposal is currently underway, another one now is analogous to putting the proverbial cart before the Trojan horse. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I wish it were (had thought of it myself)...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the country in question have a boundary with Kosovo? Leshkuq 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Po, edhe minoritet shqiptar i shtypur. Telex 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which would translate to??  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"minoritet shqiptar" is albanian minority, not the rest is left to the imagination:-)--Avg 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My imagination stretches as near as yours... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be something like "Yes, and the Albanian minority is oppressed", and my other guess is that the comment is because Leshkuq is an Albanian who supports Albanian Kosovars. --Avg 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your imagination isn't that much wild, after all... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators wake up to the cleansing of Bulgarian history

You "Macedonian" guys are behaving like confused western Bugarians and you ignore the history of your ancestors. Instead you try to turn all your neighbours against you with your maps and invented history. The regional map in the main article reflects clear distortion of reality against Bulgaria (and the other 3 neighbours). OK then, how about this: as other people have pointed out, the Republic is and has always been Vardar Bulgaria. The way you are going, one day you will be responsible for the religious heartland of Bulgarians (Ohrid) to be inhabited by Albanians and anyone callling themselves Macedonian will be coming to Bulgari... [user:Makedonija]]

I thought the religious heartland of Bulgarians, as well as that of all Christians, was Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land. Telex 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohrid is the religious centre of the Bulgarian church, in a way, that is where Bulgaria discovered it had absorbed the lessons of Byzantium and realized it was a civilising power. user:Makedonija

I see... like Constantinople is for the Greeks (who lost it to the Turks). Telex 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference. Bulgaria lost Ohrid to the 'lost Bulgarians'; Greeks did not loose Istanbul until the 1950s with the pogroms. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople the Greeks became the masters of the Christians. When Serbia / Yugoslavia took Ohrid, the Bulgarians lost even the right to worship there. user:Makedonija

Unfortunately your fellow Bulgarians who came down with you in the 5-9AD now think they are the only true relatives of Alexander the Great. As soon as you say the word Bulgarian 50 years of propaganda forces them to explode. Reaper7 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and Greeks aren't "masters of the Christians". See Pope vs Patriarch of Constantinople and Halki seminary etc...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Masters" of the Christians?! Oh boy... Not even the most ultra nationalist Greeks would have conceived this one! We are completely unable to even sort out our own Greek Orthodox Church problems! If you haven't seen Christodoulos vs Vartholomeos or heard of what Irineos and Babylis have done you haven't seen how low church debates can go:-) --Avg 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonija is right on every account. In the Ottoman Empire all Orthodox Christian peoples independently of their ethnic origin were political and religious subjects of the Ecumenical patriarch, ethnarch of the Greek Millet. This is not nationalism, only history. The region of FYROM was in fact the heart of the medieval Bugarian state. Miskin 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, i'm sure a in a couple more years the FYROMians will claim to have started our church too, so all this mess in our church is down to them at the end of the day. Some of the benfits of having your history altered, they can take the corruption aswell as the glory.. Reaper7 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the FYROMian church has accidentally "mistranslated" some chapters of the Holy Book, such as Daniel's prophecy on the Greek King who will rule the world, or the deuterocanon's account on the establishment of the Kingdom of Greece over the Persian Empire. Miskin 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha! Reaper7 your lines are unbelievable man... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-hmm... aren't we supposed to be done here today?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, N.: I'll summarise the vote and request a removal of the article block very shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are making mistake if we allow post-Tito "Macedonian" dreams to confuse reality with wishful thinking. A few people think they are defending the Republic of Macedonia (also FYROM) and are not willing to appreciate reality. The reasonable voices of Skopje historian have to speak out (even if they study in Sofia)...
It is a fact that no European country is ashamed of its ancient and Christian (Greek) roots because this has nothing to do with nationalism. First,the great Romans were influenced. The Second people to learn the lessons were the Bulgarians and they civilised the Slavs. The third, fourth, etc were the nations north of the Alps. Bulgaria suffered under the communist propaganda of the USSR, of Tito, and its own propadandists, but it has always been proud of its heritage and its infuences. Makedonija 10:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those ..."defenders" are just trying to fight any country that actually has a culture and a history to be proud of (such as yours). I think the ultimate form of nationalism is trying to accuse everybody else of being a nationalist, so that you make them less proud of their heritage and steal from their history! Hell, you can even attract supporters from their own camp, by camouflaging your approach with the pretence of liberalism and neutrality! So I guess you too are a nationalist, my friend Makedonija, just for being proud of your country's "heritage and influences". And let's not bring the discussion to what that would make me, because Super- and Hyper- are not big enough loan-prefixes from Greek to describe it... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like those ultimate communists, the anti-communists and those ultimate liberals, the conservatives, not to mention the ultra-orthodox catholic atheists! Your "theory" is as watertight as a holey sieve and with much less explanatory power! I think "ultra hellenic nationalist fundamentalist" probably describes you quite well Niko :)) You can call me "hyper anti-nationalist nationalist fundamentalist" if you want ^_^ Sorry I haven't replied to your email yet btw, I was away over the weekend. - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not MY theory. Check this and this book (among others). Also, check here that the definition of nationalism includes the text "...as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" (and the text continues to specify which nations' ultimate nationalists may those be).
Furthermore, I carefully didn't use anti-nationalist (as opposed to your "conservative" and "a-theist" poor examples); I used ultimate nationalism.
Finally, I don't accuse you of being a "hyper anti-nationalist nationalist fundamentalist". I accuse you of being an "unaware victim of hyper ultimate nationalists fundamentalists". You have every right to call me an "unaware victim of..." whatever too, but not a nationalist, because then "...I think you would just prove my point" further (<-sounds familiar to you?).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your case would be made better if the links you posted actually had anything to do with your "theory". No I did not read the book yet, know where I can get a copy on the cheap? Again, your theory is bunk, considering the definition of nationalist includes "loyalty to a nation" and something about "national consciousness", and considering as an anti-nationalist I have loyalty to no nation. Including the fact that I don't exhalt any one culture above any other, although I am, you could say "patriotic" (if you wanted to abuse the word) about certain ideals I hold. Or can you point out where I've placed "primary emphasis on promotion of [a nations] culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups". Oh, I see! I'm an "unaware victim". Well, if you think I'd be better waving the flag of St. George, kicking the shit out of immigrants while singing Rule Britannia, and using derogatory terms to describe ethnic minorities, then I guess its your loss. - FrancisTyers 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of renouncing your ethnic id Fran. You missed the point, but maybe it is because I started on the wrong foot. I am just saying that if someone would be under-valueing other people's ethnic id's, that would be more nationalistic than being a nationalist himself. I think you agree to that. And maybe I was a little harsh in calling you an "unaware victim", but you had given on my nerves (or maybe my nerves themselves are the issue). Maybe your page about nationalists is not intended in promoting under-valueing of other people's ethnic id's, but you must admit that there is no clear boundary for that. For one thing it is not clear what someone may consider as under-valueing his ethnic id. And for another, in more than one case, I can observe examples that could be contradicting with other examples, and yet you choose which of the two to use, with your own criteria. The other side may just think that you are under-valueing their ethnic id by choosing the other's POV. (actually I think that the whole point of your page should be illustrating those contradictions, but then again, it's your page).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't undervalue or overvalue anyone's ethnic identity. I don't think ethnic identity should be based on, to give a specific example, whether the Armenian Genocide happened or not. I seriously don't think that these facts are part of an ethnic identity, but rather of an underlying national ideology instituted during acculturation. I don't think a Turk has to give up his ethnic identity to accept that the Armenian Genocide happened, and I'd be very disappointed if we lost diversity through coca-colonisation -- for one I wouldn't be able to rip on my flatmate for buying Danish feta! I agree that I am in some sense seemingly "arbitrary" with regard to these facts, but I hope you realise I am presenting them as I come accross them and understand them, and any perceived bias is probably due to either not knowing both sides, or just not having read enough. As I have continuously mentioned, I welcome input from all sides, as you can see from the reasonably active talk page. I'm interested in your idea about illustrating the contradictions and think we should continue it on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 23:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Macedonian citizens' chasing Bulgarian pasports

As a follow up to the above entry: Thousands of Macedonian citizens have requested and received Bulgarian passports; the recognise that they are “of Bulgarian origin and have Bulgarian national feelings”. [13]. Conclusion: we cannot ignore the thousands of citizens from FYRO/ROM who consider themselves 'Bulgarian' and who have been left out of the census. Politis 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And with Bulgaria just about to join the EU, who would have thought it! Definately unexpected :)) - FrancisTyers 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad we are talking about probably 5-6% of all the republican Macedonians, the other 95% seem to be consolidating their hatred even more. It is bad that all people with bulgarian consciousness are leaving because the willingness of political reforms and acceptance of certain historical truths leaves with them, but that's life. FunkyFly 14:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that isn't a bad choice of disambiguator... "Macedonian Republican". - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just dont say it to an American, it will drive him nuts. FunkyFly 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think leaving above is a very moderate term that implies choice. Isn't it?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're probably "leaving" for the chance of getting out of the Balkans! - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you're already sold into it! :) Good job, read those Macedonian newspapers. FunkyFly 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Bulgaria, but if one acquires Greek citizenship, they he'll have to serve twelve months in the Greek armed forces. In my opinion, the purpose of this is to assimilate them. If Bulgaria still does conscript, and their armed services are anything like the Greek ones, by the time a Macedonian has finished his draft, he'll be more Bulgarian that the Bulgarians ;-) Telex 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, there are drafts, only 6 months though. It seems like they'll abolish the draft in 2008 and the army will be professional from them on though. FunkyFly 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And... that would imply that there are more women acquiring the Greek one, which is not true. But anyway... I guess the army didn't earn that motto for nothing: "Army begins where logic ends!"  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Screw the draft! :) - FrancisTyers 15:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they do abolish it, then they should tighten their nationality laws. People riding through scott-free from a country which is not likely to join the EU until 2015 (according to the BBC) would just dampen the freedom of movement for everyone else from eastern Europe. Even today, people from former communist countries face restrictions on the right to the free movement of workers to as to control the influx of immigrants. Telex 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality laws are pretty strict at present. There's background checks with the police and the justice dept. And there will be visas starting from 2007 when the country joins the EU, right now people from the Republic dont need visa if they are visiting for less than 3 months I think FunkyFly 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats shit. You guys are more than welcome in the UK and Republic of Ireland. That is, as far as I know there is no restriction on movement. I think the same goes for Sweden too, but I can't be 100% sure. - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I just checked and its only Ireland that doesn't have any restrictions. UK assholes! Not to mention all the other EU states. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Ireland has a restriction of smoking in public places... :P Miskin 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this. Telex 15:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome!!! And on May Day too. That really made my day :)) - FrancisTyers 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, FunkyFly, I like 'Macedonian republicans'; I will be using it. But I disagree that 95% are consolidating their hatred. I have visited their country 7 or 8 times, I always mentioned my Greek roots and I never came across any hatred against Greeks or Bulgarians; a few people spoke Greek to me and a few were half Greek or saw themselves as Hellenes. I would be very happy to live there for a while. On the other hand, I came across repeated anger/suspicion (not hatred) towards Albanians. I think (nomizo) that the vast majority in FYROM/ROM are good and peaceful people. Politis 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Macedonian republicans is Francis's idea, I suggested Republican Macedonians. FunkyFly 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, they still are "automomous Macedonian regioners of Slavic origin", or "Macedonian Slavs" or even "Slavomacedonians" for short. I am not trying to tell them how to call themselves, so let them not try to tell me (or us) how to call them either. Anything else would be too confusing for me, because as you may know, there may be Greek Macedonians with "Republican" feelings (autonomous or just political) as well... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are Greek Macedonians "Hellenomacedonians", or is that redundant? Because all Macedonians are Greek anyway. Just to be clear... - FrancisTyers 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be reluctant to use that term, but not for the reason you think. Greeks are not the only people populating the geographical region of Macedonia and I would indeed find this to be disambiguating them from the other regioners. I would only object to the separatist tendencies that such a term could imply. I am sure you were not implying such a thing, Fran, so aside from that, the term is fine by me.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most Macedonians are Greek (population of the region of Macedonia says so). But surprisingly they do not claim that they are the only ones... others do.--   Avg    21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Bizarrely enough it is best to use history, Alexander the Great spread hellenism, not slavoism across asia, Ptolemy in Eygpt ect ect. The Greeks who live up there are the decendants, as much as that is possible (no one is 100% anything these days)of those Macedonians. The Slavs claiming to be Ancient Macedonians too, are slavs..er who live in the northern part of what was Macedonia according to maps 2000 years ago. The problem is, inorder for the slavs to prove they infact the ancient macedonians there are a few key obsticles in the way, mainly reality. To be more precise there are 2 million Greeks in the north that have to be re-cultured into something non ancient macedonian, there is the problem that when the slavs (who are now apparently the same 3rdC. BC Macedonians) came down into the Balkans in 5-9 AD some people happened to notice and wrote it down, and finally there is the problem of them not having any characteristics of the Ancient Macedonians, IE Alphabet, Language, Culture ect where as the Greeks - what they do have left is 90% more then what the slavs ever had, besides this, yes the Greeks are the true Hellenes. Reaper7 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a can of WP:BEANS

Is any of the above related to improving this article? Jkelly 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It helps set the mood. Republic of Jkelly (You cannot protest at me using your name because I am a republic and can do whatever I want) 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Congratulations on your adminship too, Telex! (you can also claim the history behind Jkelly's name).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe JKelly will oppose Telex's right for self-determination! It's a Wikipedia guideline:-) --   Avg    23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes he will. Please compare:
Jkelly: 122,000 hits
Telex: 8.58M hits
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard somewhere that until this dispute is resolved, JKelly managed to obtain a UN resolution that refers to Telex as FWKAT (former Wikipedian known as Telex). But who cares what the UN does anyway. I go with Telex. It's his right to be called what he wants. JKelly is an oppressor.--   Avg    23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A billion hits for "Macedonia". FunkyFly 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one support our new JKelly. May he use the name wisely. - FrancisTyers 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor has it that Jimbo recognised Telex under his constitutional name "Republic of Jkelly" or simply "Jkelly". The recognition is temporary until Telex and Jkelly find a diplomatic solution, which Jimbo will accept. One third of the users still call "Republic of Jkelly" as Telex, while the other two thirds call him simply Jkelly. All, repeat: ALL, international organizations refer to Telex as FWKAT. Wikipedia attributes all of Telex's contributions to the name "Republic of Jkelly". Thank God Telex doesn't have a flag yet, or we would be debating about Jkelly lifting his permablock on "Republic of Jkelly".  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The weird thing is the guys real name is J Kellyeski, but it was altered 60 years ago to sound more JKelly Reaper7 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...sigh... Jkelly 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


9 archives.....

Far out is there any article with more archives/discussion/arguments/talks than this? For such a small country..... Random viewer. user:144.132.12.83

You? A random viewer? I just don't believe. Your edits read like those of a sockpuppet. Politis 13:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now which particular edit exactly would you mean by that Politis?
this? (image originally uploaded by User:Vlatkoto)
Hmmmm...very appropriate for a "random viewer"... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vlatkoto, how come a 'random editor' just happens to locate a map of 'greater Macedonia' :this? which most had never seen? And then, as someone out of the blue, he/she performs an edit (on user:Makedonija) without any idea of what he/she is doing. I think we have to revert their edit. :  Politis   (T) @ (C)

Nice signature! Looks like my dog-rug! I wonder who was the idiot that proposed it to you... :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out! The design is based on a very rare kilim from Chios, once used by the Pasha in Constantinople. :  Politis   (T) @ (C)

Irredentist map is offensive

The map of the macedonia region in this article is offensive. There are special propaganda websites for such distortions. How would some people feel if someone inrtoduced a map of 'Bulgarian lands' and included Republic of Macedonia? Makedonija 11:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm; I've no opinion at present but don't disagree. If anything, I'd prefer a similar, though more inclusive, map (solely) at Macedonia to help clarify accompanying text/notions. I'm uncertain of the practicality of including images in DAB pages, but think it'd be useful for this topic.
And if it helps any, I'm working on a map of Macedonia with current municipal borders etc.; I should have this ready in the coming days. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this is [[14]] is very useful and very respectful. No Macedonian student in Bulgaria uses the 'region map'; and there are 300,000(?) people of Bulgarian Macedonian origin in Bulgaria who came in the 1920s and 1930s but no one uses map of 'macedonia region' or map of 'Bulgarian region'. Makedonija 12:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you; no real argument. I guess that's what I mean(t) by having a single, inclusive map of the region (depicting all major notions) at Macedonia: take a glance at Americas (terminology) for a variation of what I'm contemplating, in which various maps of the Americas are arrayed to help clarify this or that. In any event, I won't lose any sleep if the prior map doesn't return. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!! Most people in the Balkans want to go to America but you bring America to Macedonia!

I'm smiling, but there's no problem standing pat or in coming to Canada instead. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: is it me or (on the map) are the 10 municipalities for Greater Skopje amalgamted into one? Shouldn't they be discrete? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention!

This is a notification to all involved editors that there are some apparent double standards used in:

  • Portal:Greece/Intro: Inclusion of languages (Vlach, Arvanitic, Turkish, Slavomacedonian) in the intro that are neither official nor frequent (only claimed to be used partly -along with Greek- by 1% or 2% of the population).
  • Portal:Republic of Macedonia/Intro: Removal of the Albanian language from the intro, which is both (partly?) official and extremely frequent (as it is used by ONE out of FOUR republican Macedonians mostly exclusively).

Please place those portals in your watchlists.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the Ohrid Agreement, Albanian is co-official with Macedonian on a national level, so the problem seems to have been solved. How come you couldn't find that out by yourself? ;) - FrancisTyers 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you on the talk page that this was one of the terms of the agreement, but I was ignored. Telex 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why has the Albanian name been removed from the infobox. See Belgium and Finland - this is double standards, ethnic Albanians are not second class citizens. Telex 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted to FT, the following can be found on p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7);the entry for Macedonia (typically one country per page, sometimes more) indicates the following uptop:

  • Official name1: Republika Makedonija (Republic of Macedonia).
...
  • Official languages2: Macedonian; Albanian.

The footnote(s) below indicate the following:

  • 1 Member of the United Nations under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 2 Albanian was made an official language in June 2002. . . .

which is verbatim the note I added to the infobox, with other content since embellished.

I've restored a conciliatory version, w/o Albanian name in infobox (though I don't deny it, strangely, the Albanian name isn't noted in EB), but with note as before. Telex, I think we were crossing paths (I only realised your restoration after the fact); please restore if problematic and let me know if you've questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For additional context and clarity, the following can be found on p. 463 of the same volume as above in the World Affairs article for Macedonia (different than the country's statistical portrait later in the same volume):

  • ... Implementing the August 2001 Ohrid agreement, the parliament passed several key pieces of legislation aimed at improving relations between Macedonia's two largest ethnic communities. These included a new law in January on local self-government that transferred some powers from the central government to the municipal level, an amnesty law in March, and a package of language laws in June that established Albanian as the second official language.

I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the Fyromian language?

SYNOPSIS OF LANGUAGES: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17124/17124-h/images/migrations.jpg

Vergina/Macedonia 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official language in Macedonia

We can see these days some of the editors trying to equalize the Macedonian and Albanian language in the Macedonian articles. IMO this is wrong. In Macedonia the fundamental, supreme law is the constitution, not the Ohrid agreement. The principles set in the Ohrid agreement were incorporated through the amendments into the constitution in 2001. If we take a look in the Article 7 of the Macedonian constitution([15]), we can see the following:

(1) The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia.

(2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

(3) Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law.

(4) Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use any official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

(5) In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law.

(6) In the units of local self-government where at least 20 percent of the population speaks a particular language, that language and its alphabet shall be used as an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet. With respect to languages spoken by less than 20 percent of the population of a unit of local self-government, the local authorities shall decide on their use in public bodies.

What are the conclusions:

1. Macedonian language is the official language in the whole territory in the country, used in the international relations, in the army, in the Government etc.

2. Any language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is official in a manner of using it in the units of local self-government, in the Parliament of the country etc, but in addition with the Macedonian, not in parallel!

3. The only language that stays as official in the whole country is the Macedonian and for that reason Albanian IMO can be mentioned appropriately in the article, but cannot be totaly equalized with the Macedonian (it doesn’t have the same level of importance).

MatriX 09:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian is official in the municipalties where the Albanian population is more than 20%. South Tyrol in Italy has a German official language, but it is only in the region. Bomac 09:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian is spoken by 25% of the population therefore is an official language at national level, even you failed to disprove this. All MatriX managed to prove is that Albanian is official in addition to Macedonian. I guess this doctrine of ethnic purity and the nation state still persists amongst the people of the Vardar Valley :-( Telex 09:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to say that Albanian doesn't have the same importance as the Macedonian, for example, it cannot be used in the army, in the international relations, only in addition to the Macedonian (and therefore it should't be equalized with the Macedonian in the article). For example, the national currency denar is written only in Macedonian, the Government is obligated to conduct its work on Macedonian... I agree Albanian should be mentioned in the article appropriately, but not in every place where the Macedonian is mentioned MatriX 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one claims it has the same importance - you don't have to downplay the importance of Albanian, an official language at national level (that is the only criterion to enter the infobox). You can use footnotes for that effect - Wikipedia practice is to use the official languages in the infobox and the introductions. I don't see why this should be tweaked just because you think that the fact that Albanian is of less importance to Macedonian should be emphasized. Telex 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not downplaying the importance of Albanian, I'm just trying to stop you from emphasizing it to the level that is not real at all. For the sake of truth, there is a debate in my country whether the Albanian should be recognized as second official in the country (that means using it in all instances of the government, army, police etc). It is pushed by the Albanian representatives, but, for now, that hasn't happened (read the following article if you can;):[16]
Just to quote the Macedonian minister of justice:
The justice minister, Meri Mladenovska, said the DUI was taking its case too far. "I don't know how they came up with their arguments on the second official language when the constitution is quite precise," Mladenovska said.
or Ljubomir Frckovski, one of the authors of the Ohrid agreement:
Frckovski said the Albanians were unlikely to succeed in making Albanian an official tongue in the police and the army. "Such a thing will never pass," Frckovski said.
Conclusion: Albanian is not officialy declared as the second official language at the national level.
MatriX 10:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Constitution, it can't get any more official than that. Law 101.--   Avg    10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote from the Macedonian justice minister (from the same article): "The official language over the entire territory of the state and in international communication is the Macedonian language and the cyrillic alphabet", Mladenovska told the daily newspaper Dnevnik. MatriX 10:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article 7 subsection 2 of the constitution: (2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. Therefore, it can go in the infobox. Telex 10:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not with the same importance with Macedonian and, to repeat again, it cannot be equalized with the Macedonian everywhere in the article MatriX 10:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to deny reality. "Importance" is not the issue here, "officiality" is. The Constritution says it is official in the clearest of ways. --   Avg    10:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one said with the same importance. We give Albanian its due position, it is an official language at national level, therefore, it goes in the infobox. If there are any loose ends, then footnotes are used to clear up the mess (or pipified wikified superscript notes which you like so much). You are downplaying its position by not even mentioning it until the end of the article. As an official language (per article 7), it should go in the infobox. Telex 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read the following article:[17]. The main point I see there is that there are demands from the Albanian community to designate Albanian as the official second language for Macedonia. THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT OFFICIAL AT NATIONAL LEVEL AT THE MOMENT!!!, otherwise why Albanians whould have to ask for it? The second thing that should be noticed:
The Government of Macedonia is in the process of preparing a language law that addresses Ohrid Framework Agreement provisions for the use of languages other than the Macedonian language.
So, such a language law is not jet done and we cannot make assumptions whether this law will declare Albanian as official on a national level or not! Please, don't become greater catholics than pope (I hope I said this properly):)) MatriX 10:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7) claim that there are two official languages, Macedonian and Albanian? Perhaps the Albanian request was to make the equal, who knows? Telex 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is just an encyclopedia just like ours, I'm just telling what is the situation in Macedonia as I'm seeing it every day, I hope we will find a way to present the complexity around the official languages policy in Macedonia as close to the real situation as we can. MatriX 11:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bitola what you write above, if we're to accept it, actually means that the government delays the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement and ignores its own amendments to the Constitution. The documents are all before our eyes, we can read them. If the actual situation is not like that, then we also have a blatant violation of legality and agreements by the RoM goverment.--   Avg    11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why don't we say that according to the Ohrid Agreement and Britannica and the Macedonian constitution (article 7(2) uses the very word "official"), Albanian is official, but according to some news article it isn't. That's the NPOV way, it's Wikipedia. Telex 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow NPOV, then lets describe the situation as it really is. Constitution says it is official, but not at national level: this is not jet regulated by the laws that normally follow every constitution. Lets stick only to the facts, and the facts are that Macedonian is the only official language on the whole teritory of the country and in the international relations (read the subsection (1) of the Constitution's article 7). MatriX 11:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the constitution say that Albanian is official but not at national level? I see the "official" part, but not the "not at national level" part. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Telex 11:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subsection one says that Macedonian is official (etc... etc...) and subsection two says that any language spoken by 20% or more is also official. Telex 11:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you are reading ends with as specified below, and in the subsections below you can see that Albanian is always mentioned as in addition to Macedonian (you will never find something like: Macedonian in addition to Albanian, that is why these two languages have no equal importance at the national level). Officiality of the Albanian language in reality here means that this language can be officialy used by Albanian minority, especially in the communities where the Albanians are more than 20% of the population and some exclusive rights as the opportunity to use that language in the Parliament, nothing more than that. MatriX 11:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution doesn't say that. It says that Macedonian is official and Albanian is also official (it doesn't say that they are equal, it does say that they are both official). Telex 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok Bitola don't worry, the Albanian name will be mentioned in addition to Macedonian.--   Avg    11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Official as specified below, i.e. it can be used by the minorities, not at national level.MatriX 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that. Telex 11:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like it, but, it is official. The Constitution says so. It can't get any more explicit than this. The rest is your POV. You are fighting a lost battle. --   Avg    11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't get these things. It says that any language spoken by more than 20% of the population is official (and then a few exceptions are given). The very wording of the constitution says it is official and that is enough to fit it into the "official languages" cell. Unfortunately, there are people who with their country was like Greece: 98% ethnic Greek and only one official language. Telex 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one Macedonian minister of justice admits that there is only one official language at the national level, then who are we to dispute that? It becomes obvious that we cannot agree at the moment around this and for now I will quit the discussion. MatriX 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't really admit that. You are willing to infer that from his words though. We can follow the NPOV principle though, and say that according to Britannica, the Constitution and the Ohrid Agreement, Albanian is official, but according to the Minister of Justice and some news article is isn't. Telex 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV principle is to mention that Albanian is official in the municipalties and refers to various documents and stuff. Bomac 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Britannica says that it is official. The constitution also says that any language spoken by more than 20% of the population is official. This should be mentioned. Telex 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in the place that is spoken. Bomac 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that - that's what you want it to say though. BTW can't we join the two conversations we are having ;-) Telex 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you want to be like that ;-). It clearly states passports, I.D.'s and similar administration stuff + ofcourse municipalties. Bomac 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see tha actual text above - we are about "the official language of the Republic of Macedonia" [sic]. Telex 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as specified below. Bomac 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is specified below. Give me a quote that proves that such a language is not official. Telex 14:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example:

(3) Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law.

(4) Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use any official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

--Bomac 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomac, read what you are citing: Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian. In other words, there are other official languages in addition to Macedonian. Not to mention Any person may use any official language [ie there are more than one] to communicate with a main office of the central government [ie not just in municipalities]. Telex 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, no, no... you are not getting the whole picture. You read only what you want to read: Any person. Simply, it's a life relief. Bomac 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomac, bite me - you are deliberately ignoring the interesting parts of the text and are focusing on the part you imagine prove your point. Telex 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Again, your POV. You are not getting the whole picture. Bomac 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... you are not getting it. When I read "official language" and municipalities are not even mentioned, but the section of the text deals with the national level, then I understant official language at national level. Telex 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of South Tyrol, cosmopolitan? Bomac 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Telex 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'm on, think twice... Bomac 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this page should be back to the version where it gives correct data. The minority lang. should be mentioned in the text, according constitution, where it clearly states that these are official in the municipalties where they are spoken. Bomac 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, compromise. I remove it from the infobox, but leave it in the first paragraph. Telex 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bomac 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Albanian name has been nixed from the infobox. I'm agreeing to this, as this name does not appear on an MK passport. I have left it in the first paragraph though and will expand on the endnotes shortly (give me a few minutes). Telex 15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What will be in those endnotes, if I may ask? Bomac 15:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'bout the municipalities. Telex 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slododa ili smrt

Is there a source for this, or should I erase it? Telex 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this concern going to be addressed? Telex 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it dates back from the ,,Ilindensko vostanie" (uprising), see the pic below:
The banner of the insurgents from Ohrid
One source I found so far:[18] MatriX 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Bomac 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right - it's a rip-off of the Greek motto. Telex 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the text in the picture is Bulgarian. Telex 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is written in the Slavonic letters that are used in today's Bulgarian. Bomac 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's pure Bulgarian language (looks and sounds like Bulgarian). Ask any Bulgarian - they'll tell you. Telex 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telex, Macedonian and Bulgarian are closely related languages, many IMRO activists were active in Sofia for example, that time the Macedonian language wasn't standardized, so I can't see what is wrong with that. MatriX 15:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer version of the image. 2nd okrug, 6th okolia can be read to the right.

The flag of the April Uprising, sewn by Rayna Knyaginya
Yeah, and the flag also has the bulgarian colors. How do you explain that? The Vergina star was not discovered yet? The truth is, the Ilinden uprising was largely seen as a continuation of the april uprising of 1876, which eventually lead to the liberation of Trace and Moesia. Also, pay attention to the standing lion right of the girl (look at the clear version, it looks like a girl or I might be wrong :) ) and compare it to the flag of the april uprising. Coincidence? I wonder if there is a country where this symbolism is still used today... On a final note - Sloboda is a serb word, which has somehow slipped in the republican dictionary and replaced the bulgarian Svoboda since the beginning of the 20th century, another coincidence? FunkyFly 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making an observation. If the phrase sounds the same in both languages, although both languages are written using different alphabets, how do you tell the difference? By which alphabet is being used, of course. In this text, the Bulgarian alphabet is being used, so I'm likely to assume that it's Bulgarian. How are you so certain it's Macedonian? Telex 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, guys, let's focus... I inserted the picture to allude the period this motto dates from. Bomac 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One source I found so far:[19] MatriX 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a mirror of the wiki article List of state mottos. Come on, you must know - everyone knows what their state motto is. If you're sure, we'll leave it at that (although sources would be nice). Telex 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Bomac said, it is a state motto (of course that we know that), but I cannot provide other internet sources at the moment. If you find somewhere that this info is incorrect, then you are wellcomed to tell us that, so we can change the motto. MatriX 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can sort it out... ;-)) Bomac 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. We just need to leave it as it is and add a footnote that reads:
One more blatant copy-vio (as usual) that tries to capitalise on Bulgarian history too.
Then we can keep it.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. sigh.... why cant people stp stealing others History Heraklios 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't have a history, they have to steal from someone. Actually no I'm wrong, they do have a history, the Bulgarian history, but apparently they don't like it and want someone else's. --   Avg    00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why they admire greek history but Stealing it?? and using false claims???? I dont know.... i guess you believe what you were brought upto believe. personally one of my favourite "arguements" of theirs is that Gotse Delchev was a "Macedonian" :) Heraklios 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection?

Folks, what a silly editwar again. Can't you guys stop it for a week? I've requested page protection. Lukas (T.|@) 14:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new falsification book of MACEDONIAN history

The Macedonian Slavs as "Vardar-Bulgars" are not Hellenistic People!!

Vergina/Macedonia 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&oldid=52125724"