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 Vergina~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 26 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Previous discussion have been archived.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.

Untitled comment

I realise how bloods boil around this article but can I make a moderate proposal to put the formal name by which this country is accepted by most of organisations, that is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the first lines and not buried below. This is highly suspicious that the author intends to minimise it and that takes sides with the hopes of this state for total acceptance otheir internal name. May I add a 'also known as' at the start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.45.201 (talk • contribs)

Weeks ago, we agreed to a conciliatory rendition for the name and abbreviation. That was done in accordance with all principal editors. We have included a piped/wikified superscript note (*) to the initial sentence/reference that refined the hatnotes in the appropriate politics section. Because since than we had no problems with the naming used in the article, please, don't change the starting section. Bitola 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bitola,
but this is the very point I am trying to make. A little asterisk with an in-article link down below is like trying to hide
the fact that this is not the UN recognised name, but the internal name.
Many People do not read the whole article and from the first lines you get the impression that this a universaly accepted and established name! Also the asterisk can VERY easily be missed and not clicked. At least make it a whole word like 'see also FYROM' or 'but see controversy about name' so that people will read the caveat.
Let me repeat again that before this agreement a constant edit war was going on for months (you can easily check that in the article history) and now we have a quiet period that lasts more than 2 months. There is a whole section dedicated to the naming dispute (unlike the other similar articles in WP), so, I suggest to keep the fragile truce because it was very hard achieved. Bitola 13:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know - as they are going to be joining the EU under that name (or a similar one like Republic of Fyrom), then it makes sense to use this self-identifying name and not the Republic of M one. I think we should really consider moving the page, debate it a bit and then have a renaming poll. --Latinus 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss that once we enter the EU, maybe the European authorities will realize (as USA realized a few months ago) that we already have a name. Bitola 17:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia is the name it's been for thousands of years if you read history you would know. One thing is for shure if the southern part of Macedonia should be called FYROM just because it was apart of Yugoslavia at one time so called Greece should be called FROT (Former Republic of Turkey) it was a part of Turkey, was it not?

Truth or Peace?

Many people do not read the whole articles, especially if they do a quick search on google etc. The asterisk can VERY easily be missed and not clicked. At least let me make it a whole word like 'but see also' or 'but see controversy about name' so that people will read the caveat. Again the only equal distance position is an edit in the first lines that says 'also known as'. The fact that the people of this country are more militant in their struggle for identity should not give them the right to obscure reality. This is supposed to be an Encyclopaedia. Please I invite comments from others than Bitola as his only argument is 'to keep the truce' even if it is 'taking sides with the ones that shout more'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune (talk • contribs)

I agree. Look at the following Google tests:
  • [1] I searched for -"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" -"Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" "Republic of Macedonia" -Wikipedia, in other words I searched for the number of pages which include the name "Republic of Macedonia", but don't include the other names: 799,000 results
  • [2] I searched for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" -"Republic of Macedonia" -Wikipedia, in other words I searched for the number of websites that include the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, but don't include the name Republic of Macedonia: 1,290,000 results
Quite obviously, the Former... name is the more common one and as I said above should not be forced undeground. I understand Bitola not wanting to discuss, but to maintain the version he agrees with, but I think it's time for changes. The UN and most other international organizations refer to it that way and it will consent to be admitted to the EU under that name, so everything's fine. --Latinus 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, FYROM is almost twice as common in use according to your test. Especially if you expand your search to this, you get 5.74 million results. (The search is for: FYROM OR "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" OR "FYRO Macedonia" OR "FYR of Macedonia" OR "FYR Macedonia" -"Republic of Macedonia" -wikipedia)
Also, if we conduct a similar test for plain "Macedonia" but excluding everything that has no relation to the country, as this one we get just 3.57 million results. (the search is for: Macedonia -Greek -Hellas -Cyprus -Bulgaria -Thessaloniki -Salonica -Former -Yugoslavian -Yugoslav -FYROM -FYRO -Greece -"F.Y.R.O.M." -Ohio -wikipedia -.gr -Pittsburgh -FYR -Connecticut -"South -Carolina" -Canton -Texas -"Michael -Macedonia" -Alabama -Corinthians). Exception explanation: 1.Macedonia obviously is part of the verbose term for FYROM, therefore all FYROM-like entries have to be excluded. 2.There are some parts of USA named after Macedonia 3.There is an artist called Michael Macedonia! 4.There are vast references to the Greek and Bulgarian provinces of Macedonia.
It is therefore apparent, that the term "FYROM" (5.74M) is more frequent even than the sum of both terms "Republic of Macedonia" (1.29M) and only Macedonia (3.57M) (total of the two terms is 4.86M).
Furthermore, FYROM is the official name under: the UN [3], IMF [4], EU [5], EBRD [6], NATO [7] and all international organisations. The acceptance of the term by the country is a form of "selective self-identification".
I suggest we rename the page. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets clear this once for all:

  • Most common name for my country in the world is Macedonia. I performed the following Google searches:
Macedonia –Greek –Bulgarian –Former -Yugoslavian:[[8]] 83,000,000 results (this search doesn’t reflect the whole picture because the country is many times mentioned in the following context: Macedonia is one of the Yugoslavian republic, Macedonian Bulgarian Greek border etc…)
Republic of Macedonia:[9]- 4,370,000 results
FYROM:[10] 4,460,000 results
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:[11]- 1,880,000 results

Of course, you can always find some search combinations that will be suitable to your goal, but I have no intention to further discuss the obvious.

  • Even if this is not true, we don’t have intention to cover the reference that is temporarily used in the UN, EU and other organizations. Instead, there is a whole section about the naming dispute. I created the Naming dispute section in order to stop the edit war and I believe that it was really successful (in the past few months we have no edit war around the naming dispute in this article).
  • The current solution was reached through the Consensus of all principal editors (both Macedonian and Greek)
  • The current solution follows the NPOV because it doesn’t endorse any side, instead it has a whole section that describes the naming dispute, which is contrary to the other country articles.
  • If you still insist on changing the current solution, I’m going to delete the Naming dispute section (as it doesn’t existed before the agreement) and put a link to the existing lengthy section that describes this dispute:Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue
  • You must understand that the naming dispute is bilateral dispute between two countries and it cannot be dominant in the article about a country.

Bitola 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to co-operate in the impending renaming poll to rename the article from the country's self-identifying name on the international stage (as opposed to its internal name) that's your right. A new consensus should be formed to deal with the situation. Your straw man Google search means nothing as I have already demonstrated on Talk:Macedonia - it drops under the results for FYROM if you refine it :-) We should make an RFC on the matter as soon as possible. --Latinus 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latinus, you are changing your mind so fast and I cannot follow you. What happened to the consensus about the naming policy of Macedonia articles you mentioned on rfar?:[12] I'm waiting for your response. Bitola 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I become enlightnend - I get wiser the older I get... --Latinus 19:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should know that you are pushing Greek POV that is not acceptable here and you know that it will fail. Bitola 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Greek POV - it's UN POV or the POV of International law if you will. You are pushing Fyrom's POV, aren't you. Well, it's only a poll - we'll see what happens... --Latinus 19:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break! Ha, ha, ha LOL... UN POV! A UN POV desperately pushed-on by Greece, isn't it? Bomac 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgot the other half of the countries on earth (perhaps beyond - how do the Martians recognise you?) --Latinus 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are denying that Greece is the premordial of all this unnecessary mess?!? Bomac 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divine justice is. You can't expect to commit the crime and sin of theft (stealing Greek and Bulgarian history) without some kind of divine intervention. --Latinus 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's the contrary - Greece steals history of every neighbour it borders. Bomac 20:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can not steal from someone that doesn't have any!!! NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Sure it has! It has plenty, but you don't want to admit it, caus in that way the fortified Greek keep of lies will BOOM... And the justice will come... Bomac 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! User:Bitola USES HIS COUNTRY'S GOOGLE! The results I posted with User:Latinus above are from the ENGLISH version of Google and searching for pages written in English. Since this is the English Wikipedia, the Google test should refer to English pages that are written and read by English speaking people!! The results are the following:
"FYROM" (5.74M results)
"Macedonia" (3.57M results) and
"Republic of Macedonia" is included in the above search (therefore ZERO results)!!!
It is apparent that FYROM is almost twice as commonly used than Macedonia when referring to the country!!!
User:Bitola has willingly or unwillingly deceived everybody in the previous poll, in order to push his POV! It is only natural that the country itself will have millions of references in all of its sites because all users in FYROM place the name of their country in all subpages!!! This does not happen in any other language, for any other country! It happens only in the so called "Macedonian" version of Google!!
Could you believe his test that there are 83M results for "Macedonia" in the Google "Macedonian" straw-version, when there are only 6.8M results for Greece (plus Hellas) in the Greek Google, (here)? And keep in mind that Greece has 5 times the population of FYROM!!!
We must DEFINITELY rename the page! NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Νικόλαε, we'll be having a poll on this very soon. --Latinus 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm thinking of having a peer review first. The last one was in favor of renaming - let's see if they have changed their mind :-) --Latinus 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikoSilver, why you are always trying to puzzle the truth? Macedonian Google gives the identical results as the English one: [13],[14],[15], [16] Bitola 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. However, your search is flawed due to the fact that it contains not sufficient refining terms to remove reference to GR Macedonia or ANT Macedonia as I'm sure you're aware... --Latinus 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that you cannot exclude these words from the search:[17], [18], [19], but, how to convince someone when he doesn't want to listen? I'm finding my self involving in pointless discussions that have nothing with the article, and the talk pages of an article should serve for improving the contents of the article, so , bye... Bitola 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never fear - the impending renaming poll will make the final decision, not you - au revoir, mon ami... --Latinus 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have this poll as soon as possible because the name as it is now, is very offensive. --Avg 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY YOU LOST THE POINT

Please do not shout and call each other thieve or lier. We need to be faithful to reality and not our hopes for nationalistic victory. It is not a matter of 'votes', or how much of their position Macedonians have spread, as I said the one that shouts more and fills the internet with opinions is not also RIGHT. The official name, the one recognised by International Organisations, should be at least mentioned in the first lines. If not is just hiding the truth. I do not say that we should put ONLY FYROM, just to put BOTH, how simpler and fairer can it be?

Bitola, be reasonable, this is ENCYCLOPAEDIA not nationalistic forum. I feel really sorry for your country that is not accepted by the name they chose, but this is beyond the point. We could also make the 'Former Yug Rep Of Maced' to link with 'name dispute'. Let's change it. 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune (talk • contribs)

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

[20] - 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): [21] 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[22] , 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": [23]. Or, we can take a look at the following article written by Nano Ruzin, Macedonian envoy to NATO: [24]
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 [25] and Encarta [26] 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 [27] 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 [28] 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:[29]
Britannica online: [30]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[31]
Canadian Encyclopedia: [32] 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: [33]? 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 [34]? --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 [35] :-))) --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: [36], [37], [38]. 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 (UT

FORMER REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

I am so sick of a so called Greek telling me what my country should be called, what are they going to do tell other countries what they should be called. Macedonia excist before so called Greece does cause I am finding a hard time finding a map that says Greece on it dating back 2000 years ago maybe we should put a question mark on their excistence back then on the maps, under Macedonia there is no country but there are names of tribes. We should find them a more suitable name such as FROT (Former Republic of Turkey).

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 [[39]].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]

Greek propaganda. Keep this for yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.200.171 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I guess your link gives us the creme de la creme of neutral opinions all over the world!  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 00:56, 23 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"

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

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

What is Bulgars. The ancient Bulgars where a turkish tribe. Why do you (Thracians or whatever you are) call yourself of a name of turkish tribe?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.200.171 (talk • contribs)

Why the Bulgarians call themselves by the name of a Turkic tribe is neither here nor there. The basis for the national name is one name for the region. In this way, Turkey could be called Anatolia, while Iraq Mesopotamia and so forth, if history had proved otherwise. Bulgars in turn were not originally a Turkic people: during the nomadic period, they assimilaed and thus became a Turkic people, and that Turkic community became Slavic once Slav invaders occupied so to speak. Today there is no telling a Slav descendant from a Bulgar descendant in Bulgaria in quite the way you still have them in Tatar regions such as the Ukraine, so it must be said that they are Slavic people who occupy a region named by someone else and thus use that as an identity. But, it is unfounded to even suggest for a moment that Vardar Macedonians are infact Bulgarians - be it even Bulgarian Slavs. Yes, before World War I, much of the Vardar region under the Ottomans identified as Serbian or Bulgarian until VMRO sentiments reached the people, but the Macedonians of today are no more Bulgarian than they are Serbian. There is nothing inhererently different about Serbs and Bulgarians anyhow, where one border ends, so does the ethnic claim and the next one begins, this puts Macedonia at one corner of a triangle. Though some say otherwise, I may argue that none of the Slavic peoples are inherently different but I shalln't do that here because this is not the page. I should stress that whilst the Republic of Macedonia falls within proposed maps of Greater Serbia and Greater Bulgaria, a complete Slav Macedonian state would also cut into Serbia and Bulgaria too as my family (from Bitola) claim Pirin and areas of Southern Serbia. Evlekis 18 March 2006

The Macedonian prospects for full EU membership

There is an effort going on to include daily politics statemants in the article, aiming to put doubt on the prospects for full Macedonian membership in the EU. A whole paragraph has been added based on a single answer by Merckel on a press conference. Furthermore, only fragments of the statement were added - distorting Merckel's point (1.she only sugested it as a possibility; 2.it wasn't about Macedonia but about the western Balkans in general, nevertheless it is being added only in this article). Daily politics is almost always missleading... Furthermore there is no place in the article for every statemant that some politician makes. The official EU policy is clear; The procedure and conditions for joining the EU (concerning Macedonia) were never put in doubt after the candidate status; The European institutions to this day stay firm on their promisses; The Austrian presidancy is strongly in favour of enlargment towards the whole western Balkans; The prospects for full membership were reafirmed again and again, especially after Merckel's statemmant; The commisioner for enlargement Rehn urged against such statemants. Here are some developments from the last few days: [40] [41] [42] [43]

--Realek 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of the german head of state is always important.noone said that FYROM will not join the EU.but in case u did not notice,u are still a canditate.and germany is one of the most infuential EU members.so,do not delete its chancellor's statement cause u simply do not like it.--Hectorian 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we should put all the German's chancellors statemants about Macedonia in the article. And a whole paragraf for all of them. And this should be aplied to all the other articles ofcourse. Including in the Greece article - the statemant of Claus Kinkel I think (after Germany supported Macedonia on some issue against Greece, he said that Greece is not in a position to shape European politics)
And since you are so interested in German politics, are you familiar with the recent Bundestag resolution for recognition of the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia? --Realek 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is as to what extent can Wikipedia potentially sway the opinion of readers of the article, revealing certain not so positive outlooks for full membership. FunkyFly 01:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is that you would use any means to say something "negative" about Macedonia --Realek 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man's comment: Should we stick to the principle "either good or nothing". :) FunkyFly 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to the principles of wikipedia and according to those this paragraph shouldn't even remotely be concidered for inclusion (not to mention that the editor didn't include the things he didn't like). Or if you don't think we should stick to wikipedia principles, at least let's not have double standars - let's make a whole paragraf out of each link I provided. And let me ask you, are you willing to include such things in other articles; eg Greece article? Surely you would agree double standars are a bad thing... --Realek 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific about which principles preclude this paragraph from inclusion? If you think that something should be included in the article about Greece or other country - do it. Wikipedia is not consistent, albeit the opposite would be desirable. FunkyFly 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The principless that you should read more carefully. But let's not get carried away with such "complicated" stuff. For start let's stick to the principles of logics. If we include all such things, this article would be gigabytes long. This is an encyclopedia, not a political bulletin or a daily politics log. Anyway just of curiosity: don't you think the links I provided are at least as important? Do you think we should include them also? Finally I wont do it to the Grece article - I made my position clear about such additions. I just asked to expose your double standards. And if somebody else includes something similar in the Grece article, it's obvious it vould be out in a second. --Realek 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know one more user who is always talking about 'double standards',but , fortunately , not unrelated to u:).do i have to say again that There is no cabal?--Hectorian 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One point has to be made very clearly over the EU in the main page. The EU is suffering from enlargement fatigue. Some countries are actively engaged in slowing it down. This has an inescapable impact on the West Balkans, including the ROM/FYROM. Therefore this situation needs to be included. The enlargement does not depend on the Commission but on individual vetoes of member states. So, on the one hand you have the EU commitment promoted by the Greek presidency in Thessaloniki in 2003. On the other, the objections of France, Germany, etc. I agree, that we cannot transform the article into a 'news agency'. No. But the inclusion of the main and long term obstacles to enlargement are de rigueur. - Politis 13:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a widely known fact (at least among the westerners) that the problems of EU are not caused by the new member states, but rather from within the system itself, even if it still consisted of the first 5 member states only. It is entirely up to the present member states (and their responsibility as well) to decide whether Macedonia meets the criteria or not. If anyone thinks that new members states are blood-suckers, they should only look back when their state was new. How would one feel?
So, here there is no question of whether Macedonia is beneficial for the EU. That is for the EU to decide. As ordinary people, we cannot know all the factors involved in the decidion-making, not to mention all of the political play behind it. If there is such a thing as "the downfall" of the EU, it is entirely a problem of bad management or mistreating the people (like the poor One-Euro-Jobbers in Germany) and not the problem of prospective members states, who for some reason are supposed to be held responsible for something. After all, if the EU as a whole doesn't want Macedonia in, no one forces them to accept it.--Bjankuloski06en 02:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusted

As a history student and someone up to date with contemporary politics i find it frightening how this great Wikipedia we all know and love could have fallen victim to FYROM propagandists. If in doubt, do not take the Greek side or the FYROM - take the UN, EU, NATO, UEFA, FIFA and everyother organisation of the world side and use the name FYROM. Don't give into the Greeks and don't give into the Slavs, fall back on international law editors, this page is a disgrace living //

Sad... Anyway, why don't you sign yourself? --Realek 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thing - this "history student who loves wikipedia" 195.93.21.133 made about 100 edits [44] before he expressed his disgust here, and most of them were reverted because of vandalism. The edits that he made were mostly minor, sometimes he changed only 1 letter, wich leads to the conclusion that he was doing it to gain a voting priviledge. Dear 195.93.21.133, at least we agree on the title you have put. --Realek 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before jumping into conclusions, it looks like the IP is from a dynamic pool, so chances are multiple persons were editing. FunkyFly 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, 195.93.21.133 was persistant in making minor vandal changes, during his "career". It seems certain that it's the same person. --Realek 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of judging his edits,why don't u say anything about his/her comment?afterall,he/she did not say anything untrue...--Hectorian 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian, are you 195.93.21.133 by any chance? --Realek 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are u accusing me for been?No!i am not using sockpuppets,other users may do(i guess u got what i mean)...And if u do not believe me ask for an IP check.btw,make a comment about what he/she said,if u do not mind.--Hectorian 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I was not acusing you, I just asked. I understand it's wikipedia policy to confront sockpuppets and you almost instanteniously defendet him - so I was right to ask you. And since you insist that I make a comment about his/her worthless post, here it is: 195.93.21.133's post was irational and in a bad taste. --Realek 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I defended noone.in fact i had seen his/her edit long before u made yours.but i had nothing to respond,untill u replied to him.and u did not really comment on his edit...he stated some facts(and u cannot deny it) --Hectorian 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad that even someone like 195.93.21.133 would be defended. Anyway I said what I had to say on this matter and I consider arguing about this any more to be a pure waste of time. For me this discussion is over. --Realek 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As u wish.For the record,i defended the accuracy of the comment,not user 195.93.21.133 him/herself.--Hectorian 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROMian Identity falsification

Dictionary in 4 languages 1802:
The languages are Greek, Vlach, Bulgarian and Albanian.
NOT "(in Macedonian, Greek, Vlach and Albanian)"
Vegina/Macedonia 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&oldid=45529519"