Talk:North Macedonia

North Macedonia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:AIDnom

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

1981

After seeing that a lot editors were reverting each other, the subtitle of an image, I have written under the 1981 census "Ethnic map of the (back then "Yugoslav Federal Socialist"-) Republic of Macedonia, based on the sensus of 1981" and I've thought that would be acceptable by all sides. It seems that some editors prefer an anachronism, but I'm not in the mood of reverting them - I hope they'll correct their mistake soon. talk to +MATIA 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, maybe we should remove the map, I think it is outdated. Bitola 13:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Map removed. The country has held far more recent ethnic sensus since independence. Regarding the Albanian population, the numbers vary depending on whether you count the Kosovar Albanians and other non-Macedonian Albanians who moved there since 1991. I appreciate the sensitivity this issue may occasion. Politis 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ancientmacedon's edits

I have reverted the edits of Ancientmacedon (talk · contribs) for the following reasons:

It's a blatant copy-paste (not a copyright infringement or plagiarism) and looks bad.
It's irrelevant to this article. If it is agreed that this section should be kept, it belongs on Macedonians (ethnic group), not here.
I looks suspiciously like propaganda. I've heard that about those widely discredited theories on the "sub-Saharan" origins of the Greeks. More akin to pseudoscience than what should be written in an encyclopaedia.

--Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These were discussed thoroughly before. One may go to Talk:Macedonia_(region)/archive#HLA_Genes_research and read till the buttom of the page. talk to +MATIA 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! We now have Genes in macedonians - I can't say that the things started good enough. talk to +MATIA 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder why this user dissappeared from wikipedia! Probably he/she had vanishing chromosomes! NikoSilver 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Macedonian Tomb Found

[1] - oh wait, but.... Chaldean 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the abbreviation

E Pluribus Anthony, I already had a lengthy discussion in the Macedonia talk page about the use of the FYROM abbreviation. Please read it: Talk:Macedonia#Naming_conflict_guidelines. You can also read the UN resolution for admitting the membership of my country (there is no FYROM in the resolution): [2] The bottom line is that the abbreviation is used in many places, but, however, it is considered insulting in my country and for that reason I’m trying to minimize its use in the Wikipedia articles. I hope you will understand why I’m doing this. Bitola 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weeks ago, we agreed to a conciliatory rendition for the name and abbreviation. This initialism is commonly used by the UN and elsewhere, and your link provides no consensus to support your removal of this information. I agree it is unnecessary to indicate FYROM everywhere – for instance, observe the table of European territories and regions, which I created, etc. However, wilfully removing it from the articles where it is directly relevant to the topic matter serves no purpose and is contrary to Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy.

So you will understand why it is necessary for me to restore these notes unless compelled otherwise. I encourage others to comment, however. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is bound to report current usage, and FYROM occurs far more commonly than "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to live with it. The use of the terms "(Republic of) Macedonia" and "Macedonian" is also offensive, to Greeks, but that hasn't stopped them being used ad nauseam here.--Theathenae 11:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bitola => NPOV. All views are to be represented. The naming conflict guidelines deal with the titles of articles, not whether an obviously common abbreviation used by many relevant an neutral sources can or cannot be used. NPOV overrules your POV and the naming conflict guideline. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Latinus, we are talking about facts and NPOV, the fact is that FYROM is unofficial name by any means. Macedonia is accepted in several international organizations under the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, never under FYROM! Moreover, it is considered highly insulting and that is why I insist to remove it from the article. I am not going to open an edit war around this, but I will request other users to include in this discussion as well. Bitola 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to. FYROM is a very common way of referring to your country in the English language and as I told you on Talk:Macedonia should not be covered up and should be used where relevant. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bitola. Indeed, the link for the UN resolution you provide us with above[3] , does NOT include FYROM. But it DOES say, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"; would you like us to use this? I don't think so. The fact is that the appellation 'FYROM' is used internationally. It simply reflects a transitory international situation. It indicates no disrespect to the Macedonian state when used in its right place. I look forward to your valuable contributions on your country. Politis 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain why I’m insisting on this so much. I had an opportunity to live in the former Yugoslavia, when my country was one of the six Yugoslavian republics. We were called officially Socialist Republic of Macedonia, but, unofficially, everyone used to call us Macedonia. During that period, as I remember, we had no naming problems with Greece. We used to go in Greece every summer and nobody was mentioning the naming problem at all. Actually, I was quite surprised when the problem begun to emerge when my country became an independent state. When Macedonia admitted to UN under the provisional name, we were told by the previous president Kiro Gligorov that the provisional name (under the long form) will stay only for 2 or 3 months. Unfortunately, more than 10 years from there, UN and other international organizations are still using that name.

The most important is that the provisional name was and is still considered insulting in my country. For example, we had a campaign called: "Don’t you FYROM me, call me Macedonia": [4]. Or, we can take a look at the following article written by Nano Ruzin, Macedonian envoy to NATO: [5]

FYROM, the acronym of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", is a very insulting and dangerous name because it is associated with an uncompleted process of independence, which might imply a repeated integration of the Republic of Macedonia within the Yugoslav Federation. Therefore, under the mediation of Cyrus Vance, the negotiations are still underway between the diplomats of the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Greece to solve the dispute related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia.

On the other hand, we should also be objective and take a look at the other side and see that Greeks are also very familiar with the name of Macedonia. It is also a fact that many organizations, books and web sites are using the FYROM abbreviation. I hope that this dispute between our countries will be resolved soon and we will not waste our time on things like this.

What I'm proposing: The fact that the abbreviatioin is an insulting, offensive name for us still remains. We already have accepted some compromise solutions regarding Wikipedia articles. For example, the article about my country is named "Republic of Macedonia" (not simply Macedonia) in order to make a distinction from your Macedonia. As part of that compromise, I think it is correct to have several places when the long term is mentioned (for example, in Macedonia disambiguation and in the Republic of Macedonia articles), but I’m asking you to refrain from the use of FYROM abbreviation. To repeat again, I will not involve in an edit war around this. Thanks. Bitola 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear you will not initiate an edit war over this, because the abbreviation will stay anyway.--Theathenae 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TY for elaborating, B. – I empathise and understand. If anything, the above details should be added to the article regarding the republic's relations with its neighbours (to inform anyone who is interested) but removing germane information herein doesn't make it so. As described above, we are very mindful of your concerns and have taken measures to dually reflect them, yet objectify information for everyone's benefit. Thanks for your continued contributions and co-operation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitola, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that what you are trying to do is censor information. I minor investigation reveals that the World Book Encyclopaedia [6] and Encarta [7] use that abbreviation, so it obviously can be used in encyclopaedias. OTOH you should also bear in mind that the threshold for excluding information in Wikipedia is not whether it is found offensive. Do you not think that the article on the Armenian genocide is offensive to some Turks. The truth sometimes hurts; deal with it. Using Wikipedia to present the world as you wish it was is clearly unacceptable. As long as FYROM is used by other relevant and neutral sources, is a commonly used name in the English language (as opposed to "Republic of Skopje" which is commonly used in Greece :-P), is used by the UN website [8] and there is an absence of a policy excluding it, it shall remain in the article, and as long as the mentioned variables stay put, that is the way it is going to stay. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitola, you quote a source that the usage of fyrom, "is a very insulting and dangerous name because it is associated with an uncompleted process of independence". But the usage of ROM for Greeks holds equal concerns because, rightly or wrongly, it can indicate that the ROM sees its current borders as, 'an uncompleted independence' until all of Macedonia is under its jurisdiction. Personally, I think it is inevitable that your country should adopt the name 'Macedonia', but it comes with a loaded historical heritage due to Alexander's Hellenic empire. That heritage has not been absorbed yet by ROM, and neither has its intelligentsia come to terms with it. A big name carries even greater responsibilities (and this is from someone who would gladly live in your country). Politis 14:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The initialism FYROM is already given in the section on the country's name and has been for a very long time. It doesn't need to be added in multiple instances; that's just clutter. Jonathunder 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, you're wrong. You are reverting the only mention of the abbreviation. Look at this [9] the word FYROM is highlighted. There is only one (as far as I can see). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a little research and found out that the most online encyclopedias are using the term "Macedonia" and generally are not using the abbreviation:

Encyclopedia.com:[10]

Britannica online: [11]

Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[12]

Canadian Encyclopedia: [13] Bitola 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to other authoritative references above, your summary conveniently overlooks the 5 million online instances of "FYROM" (raw Google search), which slightly exceed those for "Republic of Macedonia" ... both of which more than double online occurrences of the FYROM spell-out. I defer to prior statements. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about 85,900,000 results for the following search:Macedonia -Greek -Former -Yugoslavian: [14]? Bitola 16:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. That does not prove that FYROM is not widely used in English. If you refine that search of yours, what do you get [15]? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your search: Macedonia -Greek -Former -Yugoslavian -Greece -Bulgaria -Thessaloniki -Hellas -Bulgaria -Pirin -Blagoevgrad -Yugoslav -USA -America -Australia -Romania -Cuba. I'm wondering why you didn't include the rest of the English words as well:)))) Bitola 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Macedonia" is a widely used placename. The last thing we sould want would be to use the hits relating to Macedonia, Ohio - unless that's what you were up to (λες;). Are you disputing the relevance of any of those additional searching criteria? I've been thinking of adding -York -Alabama - Iowa and -Illinois as well, to filter out the results from Macedon (town), New York, Macedonia, Illinois, Macedonia, Alabama and Macedonia, Iowa :-))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look how many you get if you do [16] :-))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Latinus, according to your logic, there is no possibility that one Internet page can contain the words Macedonia (about my country) and, for example, Cuba? Check, for example, the following searches and you will see why you should't exclude that words as you did: [17], [18], [19]. Bitola 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: that's not necessarily an apt search, B., since the results yield far more hits that concern more than just the state. And, after all, that's partially why there's a disambiguation in Wp for the overarching term. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, we are losing the point (I’m again involving in the endless discussion with Latinus), I said what I had to say, I provide my view on the abbreviation problem and I’m leaving other users to decide whether the abbreviation should stay or not in the article. Now I will get off the soapbox. Bitola 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: the abbreviation stays. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian question

In the past few weeks I was pretty much involved in lengthy discussions about the so-called Macedonian question. During that period, using different reliable sources, I was trying to explain why Greeks are making a big mistake regarding my country and my people. Their theory that we are using a name that is Greek property is mistaken from the very beginning; regarding the fact that considerable number of historians is telling that the Ancient Macedonians were different people from the Ancient Greeks. Even if that is not true, it is really funny that some country is forcing another country to change its name for the things happened several thousands years before. Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks are for a long time dead, thanks God we are alive, but we are wasting our time and energy on this meaningless issue for years. This Greek obsession is also wrong regarding the fact that one of the basic human rights is the right of self-determination, in other words, the right to freely express your nationality and your name. If someone is feeling that he is a Macedonian, Greek, American or every other choice, leave him, you shouldn't stop him in his determination. Finding nicknames that are insulting (what they are doing all the time) is, by my opinion, horrible. We should all be proud that we inherited, if not more, the territory where these famous people once lived and made a history. But, obviously, it is hard to explain to someone something when he doesn't want to listen. For that reason, I will try to minimize my discussions about the Macedonian question for some time. I do not intend to explain to every new narrow-minded nationalist why he shouldn't act like that. This time I would like to thank to several moderate Greek editors (like E Pluribus Anthony, Politis and Michalis Farmelis) for their reasonable and non-insulting way of discussing things and to all other editors who are expressing good faith regarding the Macedonian articles. Of course, I will not stop to make my contributions to Wikipedia (and to revert some bad-faith edits as well:)) So long, catch you later! Bitola 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to make a question to user:Bitola... I want your opinion. Let's forget the past and talk only for today.. Your believe that you are Macedonian. ok? I believe that I am a Macedonian too. Is it possible both to be Macedonians? I m not very sure. Let's say that both we are Macedonians, because we both live in the historical region of Macedonia. Don't you think that we must use a word before Macedonia to seperate greeks from slavs? Isn't it more fair?--Makedonas 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your question, but as I already told, I will not discuss this issue anymore. Thanks. Bitola 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about putting a word infront Macedonia, it should be REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA!!!!! There is no greek teritory called Macedonia. Greek's put that name on airports and other, becouse they want to concuere our teritory that left after the Bucharest agreement, 10th of august 1913! The greek gouvernment is lying the greek people that Macedonia is theirs. It's not Macedonia is on macedonians and it will always be!! (Written by Darko from Kumanovo)

1. The Macedonian issue today can only be understood if the history of its development is kept clearly in mind

The Macedonian issue was reactivated when Marshal Tito set up in 1945 the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”. It was a political move fitting the Yugoslav leader’s hegemonistic plans at the time. The Skopje federative republic was seen as the nucleus – or Piedmont – for the annexation of the adjoining Macedonian provinces of Greece and Bulgaria. I am sure you are well aware that Tito, with Stalin’s help, succeeded in forcing the Bulgarian Government of G. Dimitrov to agree to cede Bulgarian Macedonia to Yugoslavia (1947). At the same time, Tito extended his support to the Communist forces in Greece during the Greek civil war, in anticipation of acquiring control of Greek Macedonian provinces. Both plans failed. When Stalin evicted Yugoslavia from the Cominform (1948), Bulgaria stepped back from the Tito-Dimitrov agreement and assumed for a number of years an aggressive role on the Macedonian issue, spear-heading Soviet expansionism. As for Greece, with the termination of the Greek civil war (1949), the immediate annexation of Greek Macedonia to Yugoslavia was avoided.

Subsequently, and despise the normalization of Greek-Yugoslav relations (1951), Skopje continued for 40 years to undermine Greek sovereignty over Greek Macedonia. The Macedonian provinces of Greece and Bulgaria were viewed “as not yet liberated”, while the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”, projected itself as the only “free part” of Macedonia, and the “Piedmont” for the unification of all Macedonian regions.

During the same 40-year period and in order to best serve its expansionist plans, Skopje attempted to appropriate and monopolize the Macedonian name. To achieve this goal, Skopje found necessary to usurp Greek historical and cultural heritage in Macedonia from antiquity to the present. Thus, Alexander the Great and Aristotle have been added to the Skopjan pantheon! So have the Greek apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, simply because they were born in Thessaloniki! Even the victories of the Greek army during the 1940-41 war were attributed to the so-called “Macedonians” of Skopje, only because a Greek army division was named Macedonia after the name of the Greek province! Thessaloniki, whose culture, language and traditions have been Greek for 2300 years, is projected as the capital of the future “united Macedonian state”.

Evidently, by manipulating a geographical term (Macedonia), Skopje expansionists sought to convert this term into an ethnic name for a Slav nation. In the process, they obviously attempted to deny the Greek people their legitimate right to a major part of their cultural identity.

Thus, for 45 years, the Macedonian name became the major vehicle for territorial and cultural expansionism encroaching upon Greek territory. Because of the continued use and abuse by Skopje of the hellenic civilization and traditions in order to promote expansionist aims, any further use of the Macedonian name by an independent state would ipso facto imply territorial expansion against Greece.

2. In view of the historic implication and the nationalist forces behind this issue, the recognition of a Yugoslav Republic as an independent “Republic of Macedonia” would be a constant threat to peace and security in South Eastern Europe now and for many years to come

As I have explained, Bulgaria claims historical and kin ties with the Skopje region and its slavonic part of the population and has already proceeded to recognize the independence of the Republic. Moreover, very recently, recriminations between Bulgaria and Serbia were exchanged and mutual accusations for important troop movements were also hurled at each other. We all, of course, know that the area of the Republic of Skopje has historically always been the target of conflicting interests, due to its mosaic to different nationalities (Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks, Greeks, Roma, etc). Unfortunately, 19th century images of “Greater Bulgaria”, “Greater Serbia” “Greater Albania” are still haunting today the region of Skopje, awaiting the signal of its “independence” to stake their claims…

More onimous for the future is the prospect of a national revival among Skopje’s Slav population. For 45 years Bulgarian ethnicity has been outlawed and its supporters persecuted. A clash between “Macedonists” and pro-Bulgarians will become inevitable, particularly if Sofia emerges in the role of a “big brother” for the young Republic. Allow, for instance, to refer to the VMRO parties that operate under the same name in both Skopje and Sofia. In fact, the VMRO is presently the majority party in the Skopje parliament, while their active Bulgarian counterpart presently operates as a nationalist Bulgaro-“Macedonian” movement. Both VMROs are committed to extremist nationalist goals; goals aiming to territorial expansionism. May I also remind you that in a very recent NATO document the VMRO Skopje party was qualified as a “terrorist” organization.

A more serious and immediate complication could develop as a result of inter-ethnic conflicts. Already, the ethnic Albanians, comprising almost a third of the total population of the Republic, have registered their opposition to the Skopje Government demanding self-rule. Their recent plebiscite, although conducted against Government objections and arbitrary police interventions, was a clear sign of troubles to come.

It is obvious that in the long run Skopje, an economically non-viable and ethnically antagonistic entity, surrounded by competing “suitors” and “protectors”, could be open to manipulations by stronger powers. The possibility of opening a Pandora’s box of Balkan intrigues, guerrilla warfare and armed conflicts involving neighboring states, in addition to inter-ethnic strifes in Skopje itself, could simply ignite the whole Balkan area and become a major destabilization factor for the whole Europe.

Greece will be directly affected by such developments. On the one hand, the economic and social reverberations of a possible armed conflict will be immediately felt, particularly in northern Greece (tourism, trade, movement of people, political and economic refugees). On the other hand, attempts at changing the external borders of the Skopje Republic will upset balances. The “domino effect” we are experiencing in the case of Yugoslav Republics, will contaminate neighbouring states, including Greece. Let me remind you that almost 60% of the total Greek exports are exported from northern Greece via Yugoslavia to Central and Western Europe. The consequences would thus be devastating for the Greek economy.

It goes without saying that the problems briefly enumerated above are not new. However, they now acquire a particularly acute character after Skopje’s request to become an independent state. If in the past, Skopje’s rush actions and propaganda activities have been undertaken within the framework of Yugoslavia, one can imagine the kind of dangerous adventures it will embark upon were it to become an independent state.

3. In the interest of avoiding past destabilizing experiences and promoting permanent peace and security for the future, the prerequisites for the recognition of the independence of Skopje, as endorsed by the Twelve in the “Declaration on Yugoslavia”, must be fully respected

Unfortunately, to this date, the authorities of Skopje have failed to implement these conditions.

Indeed:

— They have not offered sufficient guarantees, constitutional or other, to ensure that they will have no territorial claims.

— They continue carrying hostile propaganda, even at this critical moment, prior to their recognition.

— They have made no attempt to find a suitable denomination for their future independent Republic.

— Greece has spared so far no effect to find fair and equitable solutions. But, despite Greek observations and suggestions concerning various provisions in the constitution raised directly with the Skopje delegation which visited Athens for talks on the implementation of the E. C. decision on 3 January, there has so far been no constructive response.

As you know, the preamble of Skopje’s constitution states that the new Republic rests upon “the statehood-legal traditions of the Krushevo Republic” (1903) and the “historical decisions of the Antifascist Assembly of the People’s Liberation of Macedonia” (ASNOM), passed in 1944. Let me explain:

The events of 1903 and 1944 highlighted the attempt by the Slavs of Macedonia to establish respectively an autonomous or an independent Macedonian state. A state which would absorb the whole of Macedonia, including the Macedonian provinces of Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Indeed, the Krushevo Manifesto, of 2 August 1903, was an appeal to the people to “come beneath the flag of autonomous Macedonia”, while the ASNOM Communist-Titoist Manifesto of 1944, issued also on the 2nd of August for symbolic purposes, proclaimed the “just and unique demand for uniting all the Macedonian people with the right to self-determination”. It further stated: “let the struggle of the Macedonian Piedmont inspire you… it alone leads to freedom and union of all Macedonian people… Let the artificial boundaries which separate brother from brother… be swept away”.

These references in the preamble make it obvious that territorial irredentism and future expansionism are very much part and parcel of the new Constitution. Such a political model is obviously incompatible with the CSCE sprit and fundamental principles.

This is why we consider that the amendments to articles 3 and 49 of the Constitution are simply meaningless and in any way, not of nature to alter its main philosophy and its basic thrust.

— The Gligorov Government, has been engaged in a worldwide “good-will campaign” to impress on world leaders and public opinion the image of a new Republic dedicated to peace and friendly neighbourly relations. The letters sent by Skopje officials to the Arbitration Commission served a similar purpose. Yet, in practice, hostile propaganda against Greece continues unabated.

— For example, Skopje leaders during recent months have publicly spoken about territorial claims against Greece. Allow me to cite just two of them:

-- Vasil Tupurkovski, the Skopje representative to the Yugoslav Presidency, has repeatedly spoken about the unification of all the Macedonian lands. Thus, on 20 January 1991, while on the “Macedonian Heritage” TV program in Toronto, he was asked “if Macedonians should struggle for cultural and spiritual unity rather than territorial unity”. Tupurkovski replied: “I think that our national ideal cannot be limited; the territorial unity is also a part of it”. Also, in December 1990, in a radio interview at Perth (Australia), he said that the “new Macedonian state will have as its primary target, the liberation of the enslaved Macedonians and the unification of the wider Macedonian region”.

-- President Kiro Gligorov in an interview to NIN magazine, (Belgrade 1 Feb. 1991) spoke of “segments of the Macedonian people in Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria which were divided and subjugated after the Balkan Wars” and revealed that the leading “Macedonian” nationalist parties aim at a “Great Macedonia” and do not hide their intention that “the Macedonian power will redraw the borders of Greece and Serbia”!

Skopje has not ceased referring to Greek Macedonia as “Egejska (Aegean) Makedonija”, a term used to imply that the whole of northern Greece is part of a wider Slav territory. Only a few days ago, a conference was organized in Skopje dealing with linguistics questions of “Egejska Makedonija”. In fact, “hate literature” continues to appear in publications both in the Republic and abroad. A recent typical example is provided on a 1992 calendar with maps on which Greek along with Bulgarian and Albanian Macedonia are shown as part of “Great Macedonia”. Those calendars were mailed in thousands of copies throughout Greece; a clear sign of what one should expect after the recognition of independence.

— As for the denomination, Greece has had the opportunity to analyze in detail to the Skopje delegation why the term “Macedonia”, if used in the denomination of the Skopje Republic, is unacceptable as it contains by itself an expansionist notion. Indeed, as I have earlier explained, in order to best serve its expansionist plans, Skopje usurped the Macedonian name and purportedly converted it into an ethnic name for its Slav nation. This becomes all the more brazen, when one takes into account that the geographical region of Macedonia extends across four borders: in Greece (51%), Bulgaria (9,5%), Albania (0,5%) and Yugoslavia (39%). Thus, the adoption of the Macedonian name for the Republic carries the clear message that the Republic’s jurisdiction extends over the Macedonian provinces of all neighbouring states.

It should not be forgotten, dear Colleague, that the Macedonian name was granted by Tito at a time when Moscow was seeking an exit to the Aegean. It will be an irony if, years after the termination of the Cold War, the community would offer, a posteriori, a historical legitimacy to such claims.

4. Despite all the dangers there is still time to find an equitable solution; one that may open the prospects for regional security and cooperation

Greece is the only neighbouring country which harbours no claims against Skopje. If an understanding is reached on the basis of the E. C. terms for recognition, Greece is prepared to help create a regional arrangement to meet the security needs of Skopje, as well as those of its neighbours. Thus, mutual suspicions between Skopje and individual neighbours, as well as between neighbouring countries competing for influence or dominance on Skopje would steadily evaporate.

In addition, Greece could extend to the new Republic special economic privileges, open prospects for an all round economic cooperation, and set in motion the process for a solution to all bilateral issues.

In choosing a name for the new Republic, former administrative denominations of the region could probably provide a logical and acceptable solution. It should be noted that prior to Tito’s decision to assign to Skopje the Macedonian name, no such denomination had ever been used in the past, either as a state or as an administrative denomination for that region. It is a denomination that was artificially introduced to advance territorial claims and has no historical or cultural validity.

It is more than obvious that the establishment of good relations between Skopje and Greece, is of paramount importance for both the new Republic and the whole Balkan region. First, it will allow the Skopjan Republic to survive. Secondly, it will deflate to aspirations of other powers at its own expense and will thus create the necessary conditions for peace in this highly sensitive area.

In this light, it is a matter of urgency that partners impress upon the authorities of Skopje the need to implement fully, by deeds rather than meaningless declarations, the E. C. ministerial decision of 16 December and to desist from any initiatives that may inflame the region.

If and when Skopje decides to abide by the E. C. terms for the recognition of its independence, I suggest that, at that time, an agreement be concluded between the E. C. and Skopje providing guarantees for the proper implementation of the terms specified by the Community.

The other side of the Macedonian Question.

In the past few weeks all of us were involved in lengthy discussions. I was using different reliable sources, and was trying to explain why people from FYROM are making a big mistake. Their theory that the name they are using is not Greek property is mistaken from the very beginning; due to the fact that the vast majority of sane and neutral historians is telling that the Ancient Macedonians were in fact Ancient Greeks (since all their names are Greek and have meanings as Greek words -like eg Alexander means "Man-proof" and Philip means "Horse-friend" unlike eg all the Persian names -like Xerxes, since Megas Alexandros explicitly said he was Greek as written by Herodotus and other historians of the time, since Macedonians participated in the Olympic Games as ONLY Greeks would etc etc etc) and in NO case could they be Slavs, who indisputably came 1,000 years later at 600AD (as Kiro Gligorov himself admitted). Even if that was not true, it is really funny that some country can be using a name of a broader geographical area for its own, even if some part of it occupies about 30% of that geographical area. Next, we will have Spain call itself "Iberia", Serbia call itself "Balkania", Norway call itself "Scandinavia", China call itself "Asia" and Thailand call itself "Polynesia". Ancient Macedonians together with all other Ancient Greeks are for a long time dead, thank God we are alive to keep all thieves of their name and history away, no-matter how much time and energy is needed to be spent on this very important issue. This Slavonic obsession is also wrong due to the fact that self-determination may be one of the basic human rights, but theft of foreign names and foreign history for the reason of internal multi-ethnic peaceful co-existence is not. If someone is feeling that he is a Macedonian, Greek, American or whatever, leave him, you shouldn't stop him in his determination if that determination is true. If, however, someone IS NOT, then do not allow him/her to be called that. Stealing names is insulting (what they are doing all the time), and in my opinion, horrible. We should all be proud that we inherited, if not more, the territory where these famous people once lived and made a history. But, obviously, it is hard to explain to someone something when he doesn't want to listen. For that reason, I will try to minimize my discussions about the Macedonian question for some time, as long as both sides are visible for readers of this page. I do not intend to explain to every new narrow-minded nationalist why he shouldn't act like that. This time I would like to approve the way of discussing things by objective editors like Latinus, +MATIA, Theathenae, Chaldean and others. My warmest regards to everyone, even if he/she needs a stolen I.D. or introduces him/herself as someone else. NikoSilver 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1913 there was one Macedonia, the one and only 100% Macedonia. Now according to the Greeks there is a smaller Macedonia, 51% of the original Macedonia known as "Makedonia". Again, according to the Greeks, there is no other Macedonia. If Macedonia was 100% in 1913 and 51% of Macedonia was taken by the Greeks then what happened to the other 49% of Macedonia? Did it vanish? If you cut Macedonia into three pieces, the pieces are still Macedonia, just as if you cut an apple into three pieces it is still an apple, three pieces of the same apple! In other words, three pieces of Macedonia is still Macedonia! Now if you wish to identify each piece individually then you can call them A, B and C. If A is called Macedonia what should B and C be called? According to the Greeks however, if A is called Macedonia then B and C cannot be called Macedonia! So lets see who is stealing the name. Makedonec 16:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would refrain from writing here if both views were visible. Naturally, they are not. Thank you "Makedonec" for your example in your comment:

When you cut an Apple in 3 pieces, you do NOT call all three pieces "Apple" (unless you are Christ and the Apple is bread). You call them "Apple-pieces". Like in math, A cannot equal to A+B+C, if B and C is different from 0%. Now, if you share those pieces to 3 people, you can call them "NikoSilver's Apple-piece", "B's Apple-piece" and "C's Apple-piece". This would be common logic for something as common as an Apple.
Now, if the Apple was grown in NikoSilver's grandfather (called Alex) garden, sharing a piece of that Apple does neither make you an apple-farmer nor a grandson of Alex! Therefore, you cannot claim the history behind the Apple.
Finally, having shared a piece of the Apple, you cannot demand that you unite these three pieces and take the whole Apple for yourself. NikoSilver 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1913 Your land called juzno Serbije

Vergina 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by NikoSliver - "This time I would like to approve the way of discussing things by objective editors like Latinus, +MATIA, Theathenae, Chaldean" - all Greek - "due to the fact that the vast majority of sane and neutral historians is telling that the Ancient Macedonians were in fact Ancient Greeks." Interesting comments I would say? Macedonian876 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Macedonians aren't and can't be ancient Greeks.They are two different people. That's fact with which Greeks can't stay calm.They can't stay calm becouse Phillip the II concuered whole Greece.His biggest mistake was that he gave them too many rights and that's why today they are thinkig that Macedonia is Greece!! (KUMANOVO)

The area that was called macedonia 1913,Makedonec,was not the area that was called macedonian in ancient times.the old kingdom of Macedon was extended as far as the modern town Bitola of FYROM,while Skopje was in the area called Paionia and other parts in the region called Dardania.in roman times the name 'macedonia' was used to describe a much larger area [[20]].so,if u claim the name 'Macedonia' for your country as a geographical term cause it was part of the prior to 1913 Macedonia,it is fine by me!but u have nothing to do with the ancient region of Macedonia...--Hectorian 22:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you might want to know about the real Macedonia.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/

Everything you might want to know about the real Greek Macedonia:

http://www.macedonia.info/

http://www.hellas.org/macedonia/

http://www.macedonia.com/english/

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/index.html

http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/text4.html

http://www.greece-2004.com/macedonia_is_greek/

http://www.karpathos.org/macedonia/index.shtml

http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm

http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/

NikoSilver 10:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonian Slavs are Bulgars

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

"YOU, Bulgarian, in the name of the patriotism, freedom and saving your life, pay to the bearer of this invitation the sum of ... gold groshes, which are asked from you by the Central Macedonian Revolutionary Commitee in order to help the holy freedom activity. In return of this money you will receive a receipt, which later on freed Macedonia will return your money, or in case of some other factors preventing this, the fighters for freedom of our native land from the Turkish cuffs, we will resolve all our transactions between you and the commitee and you will receive a payment in a way you choose. BUT, it will be better that you complete your duty in your good will as a Bulgarian slave and say with us altogather: NO SLAVERY, LONG LIVE FREE MACEDONIA! / From the Headquarters"

Vergina 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://vicmart.com/ext/en/exrw/item=843/Paper/Documents/1893-Bulgaria-Macedonia-VMRO-racketeer-doc-RR.html