Talk:North Macedonia

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, and changes to the name without discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name will be reverted. Discussion of the naming issue should be posted to the subpage Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name.

Important notice: Wikipedia's naming conventions for entities called "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" are set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). These conventions represent the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion regarding naming, please read the naming conventions first.

Infobox locator map

I notice that there are several locator maps used for European countries. Macedonia's is Mercator, and extends far north and west, leaving the country looking tiny (if it weren't already quite small). Compare at the map used for Italy, which seems to be far more suitable for showing countries on the European mainland, especially towards the south. Can the other base map be adapted for use here? Jd2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the originator of the PNG locator maps as used in Italy and various other European countries, which are consistent with maps used for most other countries. Surprisingly, there was a prior edit war regarding these maps, with some arguing that the horrid orange Mercator maps should remain without there really being a prior consensus to keep them. Anyhow, it is my intent to produce SVG maps for all European countries when able, but I have been delayed in doing so. This is still on my to-do list, so stay tuned! Quizimodo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References to ancient Macedon in the History section

"Over the centuries the territory which today forms the Republic of Macedonia was ruled by a number of different states and former empires, but Macedonian blood has always run in the genes of the Macedonians living in this region."

Could someone clarify this statement for me? How is "Macedonian blood" defined encyclopedically? Should Wikipedia rely on a nationalist, gene/blood-related definition of ethnicity (see Blood and soil)? If Wikipedia were to rely on such a definition, then this statement would definitely need to cite a credible peer-reviewed source (preferably one including comparative DNA tests performed on the remains of people living in the region during the past 2816 years).

Of course it could be the case that the author intended a different meaning whereby, at any point in time, the people living in the region called themselves Macedonians. So, in that case, the Greek inhabitants of ancient Macedon called themselves Macedonians in ancient times; while, in our times, the predominantly Slavic inhabitants also call themselves Macedonians. If that is the case, then the whole statement should be removed on the grounds of relying on circular reasoning, as this ambiguity would confuse many of the readers (particularly when viewed in the context of the Macedonia naming dispute - i.e. in what context is the word "Macedonian" used and in what context is the word "Macedonians" used in this statement).

Moreover, the part that refers to the "Ancient Period" contains numerous ambiguities with regards to its references to ancient Macedon. While it mentions early on that "The kingdom of Macedon took over Paionia", it then goes on to refer to Alexander the Great as "Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), the King of Macedonia" and "Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia". This begs the question of whether the word "Macedonia" here refers to ancient Macedon or to the former Yugoslav Republic. I am not trying to flame anyone here; all I am trying to say is that you people should pick a naming convention and then stick to it... you can't use the words Macedon and Macedonia interchangeably, in this article, for fear of confusion! This is an encyclopedic article; we can't assume any knowledge of history on behalf of the reader, so it is essential to avoid such situations. As a final remark, I should note that since this is not part of the history of the "Republic of Macedonia" [sic] per se, but of the history of the "Region of Macedonia", this should not be a part of this article for fear of confusion.

--Radjenef (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to transmit knowledge, let's make sure people are not getting "technically" correct but ultimately misleading information. You seem to imply that the blurb on ancient history is sloppily written; however, I think it is intentionally hazy. It is perfectly accurate, yet can lead an unknowing reader to the impression that the Republic of Macedonia has some sort of cultural continuity with ancient Macedon. I conquer, Radjenef, that that whole section should either be clarified or moved to a different article. This also goes for some of those photos appearing in the margin (i.e. readers could be confused into thinking that the emperor Justinian was an "ethnic Macedonian").

Anyway, I find it sadly ironic that in this same article, we learn that:

"The Macedonian State Religion Commission denies the group (the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric) to be registered as a religious group saying that only one group may be registered for each confession and that the name was not sufficiently distinct from that of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."

The government of the Republic of Macedonia seems capable of recognizing the obvious problems in the overlap of religious groups' names, but not in the overlap of the names of countries and cultures.... But perhaps I am delving too far into politics here! Nojamus (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Justinian pic needs to go. He was actually born in Leskovac, Central Serbia, which is quite far from the border with FYROM, he was certainly not a Slavic Macedonian, nor is that mosaic of him located on the territory of FYROM. Therefore there is not a single valid reason why that pic should be included in this article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, add him to the page about Greece or Greek history. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The map of Kosovo is missing. Kosovo should be reflected on the map because it is now a Republic --Arber (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still not a republic. Self-declaring something is not encyclopedic fact. It's just news. The same thing is with Skopje. Self-declaring a name doesn't mean that is fact/closed case. We should wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.155.16 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very biased to describe the Republic of Kosovo as a Serbian Province. We should adopt the neutral sounding "Kosovo" rather than "breakaway province of Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo".

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shortky find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're way off base. First of all, Canada has not recognized Kosovo's independence but, judging from its very pro-US government right now, it really is only a matter of days or weeks before it does so. Secondly, there are examples of countries with territorial disputes that HAVE recognized its independence. Have you forgotten the UK and that pesky trouble in Northern Ireland, for example? The point is this: it is impossible to draw many general conclusions about who is supporting and who isn't supporting Kosovo's independence. The only pertinent one I see is that the West generally is, and the East generally isn't, supporting it. This has more to do with who gets to benefit from small, weak, dependent states than it does with whether a country has its own territorial squabbles. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? Nojamus (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation that the UK should have a vested interest because of Northern Ireland is completely nonsensical; Northern Ireland has historically been a problem and the territory is hardly cherished. If you would like to provide a source to show that the current government of the UK is desperate to retain the province, then I'll be happy to accept your point. The Unionists, naturally, would have a vested interest in preventing independence, but the Government of Serbia does not run from Kosovo, so the two situations are not comparable. Your citing of 1 relevant country with a bias in its political dealings does not validate your flippant dismissal of 2007apm's recognition of the undeniable correlation between states failing to recognize Kosovan independence and their own potential breakaway provinces. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? That would be because of the conspicuously over-wordy phrasing "and its partially recognized breakaway province" before "Kosovo" in the introduction. I think either simply "Kosovo" with an inconspicuous link to the list of countries which recognize her, or "(and Kosovo)" after the mention of Serbia- would be most acceptable. LaFoiblesse (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (GMT)

MAp

Someone remove the redundant weasel tactic monastery pic and restore the map with the Thracians pertaining to the antiquity to its proper position and size .Megistias (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Put it back polybiush diffMegistias (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivism

"In the Republic of Macedonia the past meets the present," what is this, an advert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.203 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah,it sounds like some kind of an advertisement,doesn't it?
     I think it should be removed.Silvery Swirls (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please rename to FYROM or mark that the neutrality of this article is disputed

The fact that an illegal name is being used instead of the legal FYROM one, as has been seen all along through all these discussions, makes it clear that this article has to be tagged as such. Not following the United Nations is already an insult, but making illegal names as if they were worthy is completely unacceptable. Either you rename the article as FYROM or you tag the whole article as 'neutrality disputed'. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding that FYROM does not claim Greek history and territory

I think that in order to calm down things a little bit, it would be wise to add to the article the declarations of the Skopjan President and his ministers, stating that:

1) They do not want to claim any ancient Greek history related to the ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great.

2) They do not have any territorial claims on Greece and that their constitution clearly forbids it.

3) That they know they are slavs that have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonia and have made clear that everything that was attacking Greek history or territory was spread by propagandistic irredentists who have no official nor legal power to do so.

NOTE: I'm trying to be productive here. If you find any other text that could be added so that fellow Greek users will calm down, go ahead. Goodwill is always welcome.
87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the nationalist/not-so-calm Greek IP users actually read anything other than the title? BalkanFever 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Irony and sarcasm are an unnecessary provocation. Yes, I have read the article, but no, I still do not agree the way it is redacted. Sorry for expressing my humble opinion. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually being serious. I wasn't referring to you (although your original contributions weren't helpful...) but other nationalists who just complain about moving the page and attack everyone for being "Anti-Greek". BalkanFever 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Considering that the topic is hot, I would try to persuade them with good manners. Calming the situation is the priority. Anyhow, about the three points I wrote in the beginning, which do you think would be applicable (in a better resentenced way, of course). 87.219.85.149 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed upon motto

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

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

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

The incorrect use of "FYROM"

After attempting to edit a few Wikipedia articles regarding the Republic of Macedonia and specifically the mention of the reference used in international organizations (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) I came to the realization that I am unable to edit either that specific part of the article or the article itself. The problem in question is regarding the reference. I repeatedly see the word “FYROM” used as an abbreviation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the manual for Macedonia related articles YOUR rules specify the correct use of the reference which is, again, “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM. Using FYROM to abbreviate the inconveniently long reference is not a correct way of doing so and it is offensive. In many instances you also seem to put FYROM in parentheses after displaying the full reference. I cannot see the point in doing so since you do not use the same principle in articles regarding Greece (the Hellenic Republic (HR)) or Germany (Federal Republic of Germany(FRG)). The UN resolution states that the Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the UN and not FYROM or F.Y.R.O.M. (note the use of the lower case letters for “the” and “former”). This information is linked from Wikipedia to the following: [1] Another important thing to mention is that whenever the Republic of Macedonia is mentioned in NATO, the full reference is used and a footnote is present referring to the countries that recognize the country by its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia. In footnote #3 in the article about the Republic of Macedonia you claim the reference used in international organizations such as the EU, NATO and the WTO is FYROM. This is not correct as the resolution clearly states that the full reference is to be used. If your intentions, as an information portal, are to be politically correct I ask you not to be subjective in your intentions and please correct the unintentional mistake on your part. Our objection is that when you are using the reference, you use it as intended without modifying or abbreviating it, meaning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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