Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:47, 21 October 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] North Macedonia Top‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2006 – January 2008 January – June 2008 July – September 2008

Kosovo

Macedonia recognised Kosovo yesterday, so did Kosovo the same with the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Njohjet/tabid/93/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kosovo be under "Former Yugoslav Republics" in the ROM/FYROM columns?Hrcolyer (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_consularvisa.asp?web_id=229

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_ConsularVisa.asp?web_id=121

http://notesapp2.internet.gov.sg/mfa/dipCon/dipCon.nsf/FMDetailsAgent?OpenAgent&id=194

The last two links mention "Macedonia', The first one is the pre-selection page of the second, i added it for the disclaimer.

The third is just a copy of the source i added with the difference that it hasn't been updated since 2004.

Do i have to draw my conclusion ? If anyone finds something else post it here first to save time. Cukiger, try not to call me a "parrot" even by mistake, it leaves a bad impression. --Zakronian (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did what!?!? Cukiger (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add on the matter ?

(In the edit summary you said "sorry, zako", strange mistake :p) --Zakronian (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just shortened your username. Does it mean "parrot" in Greek language? If so, I did not know. Cukiger (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means "parrot" in some Slavic dialects in Greece, with a fat "z" it is used in Russian for pheasant also. Anyway, do you have any other source or arguement for moving Singapore again ? Cause i think it should be.--Zakronian (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving Singapore to which list? Obviously, the country uses both, the constitutional name and the refernce, doesn't it?. Cukiger (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference in weight, the visa information page is for Singaporeans, it's more of a practical matter stating "Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia " in China which uses the constitutional name. I don't think most of the citizens of Singapore have any knowledge of the dispute, the most important thing to the purpose of this page is to inform for visa reguirements not to state the official name used, not that it's completely unrelated though. Moreover from the third link one can conclude that there was a change in the official position. If you disagree with me i won't move it, but remember your arguement. A third opinion would be helpfull also.--Zakronian (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs to the list of countries to be sorted, because of the first link (with 'macedonia', but without any reference to the embassy in China). Cukiger (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the one you added, the 1999 statement (press relase or something) ?--Zakronian (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's the difference between this situation and Brazil? Are we disregarding visa info? BalkanFever 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree a source like this is ideal: Turkey. It's in English, and it clearly states Turkey's position. Can't beat that. BalkanFever 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically for Brazil it's the only mention in the MFA site i found, the embassy site (which i consider less credible) was added to show that the country does have diplomatic relations, not so much for the name (something that's not clarified in Costa Rica for example), "Fyrom (Macedonia)" was enough for me not to add it elsewhere. Now in general, using the UN name in a visa reguirement info page would not raise as much doubt as the opposite, because as i said before it's not unrelated but the purpose is mixed, one can think for a reason to use RoM when FYROM is official but what would be the reason to use FYROM in a page like that other than to be clear of the official country position or because they ignore the issue and the existence of a different constitutional name (which might mean that either they don't recognise/have bilateral relations with the state but have a visa policy or that they do not care to know better and follow UN standards) ? One last remark, since the list is used for countries that either have a specific stance which we are not able to specify at the time being and for those that don't really have a concrete position, when we analyze two contradicting sources we have to bear in mind the possibility of changing positions, my source for Singapore mentions the last update so we can exclude the possibility that FYROM has changed, that also raises the odds. Another example is Argentina, i found a press release from 2001 that uses the reference, not to mention 2-3 similar press statements in relation to the UN, but we have to speculate that the embassy page is more up to date and reflects a recent change. This Turkey page is indeed ideal, not many similar sources to work with. I will say it again, given the loosely defined criteria i'm struggling to assume good faith on the way this section is dealt.--Zakronian (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow Cukiger will be able to edit again. BF, i suppose you don't have a problem, so i will wait one more day and then put it back.--Zakronian (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

Please, find more evidence before adding Armenia. For example here , here , here , etc this state is reffered to as FYROM Kapnisma ? 08:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it is to be added it should go to the list of countries to be sorted, definetely.--Zakronian (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Austria

I dont know if someone asked this before, but why is Austria not in the "List of countries/entities to be sorted", too? Neutralista (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you know German, could you look thoroughly around the site and see? BalkanFever 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, Austria is such an insignificant country, I'm sure they were omitted on purpose. Austria only has apple strudel and Mozart, why would we care how they call the country of Sarma and Tose Proeski?

But actually, they do seem to be using just "Macedonia" (, ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On this page with a disclaimer distinguishing their own usage from that of the EU: . Plus a list of bilateral treaties, using "RoM" since 2002: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) LOL, I'm sure you're not biased ;) That's in reference to your first comment BalkanFever 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Add similar homonymous states and regions in the world refference

examples:

• Luxembourg (Belgium)region and Luxembourg state
• Moldavia the region part of the states Romania and the homonymous state Moldova
• Azerbaijan (Iran) and the Republic Azerbaijan

Alex Makedon (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's not really anywhere to add them, since it's basically WP:OR. Unless someone has made such parallels, there's no reason for them to be included. BalkanFever 10:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedic information refference on identical issues, namely homonymous states and regions. They could be added as a "See Also" refference. Than im pretty sure there was an EU politician that made the paralell between Luxembourg and Macedonia. I'll get the quote.Alex Makedon (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the addition provided examples of any nations that were forced to change their name are also added to show there are precedents for that too. (e.g. the most famous 20th century example being Austria)--Crossthets (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah! That "see also" list would have to be expanded to include New Caledonia vs Caledonia, New Mexico vs Mexico, North vs South Korea, New Zealand vs Zealand, New York vs York, Baja California vs California... (the list is huge). I say we scrap it all together and let people think on their own (but if you prefer...) NikoSilver 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

revokes recognition as ROM and will use FYROM

'Meanwhile Serbia, as expected, has taken revenge on Macedonia and from today will refer to their neighbor under the UN acronym.

Serbian Minister of Interior, Ivica Dacic, stated that Belgrade will use the UN reference from Monday, October 13th." according to MINA news agency

If the link doesn't open look under the tile "Macedonia betters realtions with Kosovo worsens with Serbia

--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is the 14th and there is no such use. BalkanFever 10:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, according to today's Eleftherotipia there was no such decision taken; they are still presenting it as something that was only considered by some government ministers. . The sourcing of that "macedoniaonline.eu" article seems sketchy. Unlike other factbites given in the piece, the one about the alleged change of name from Monday is not attributed to any particular channel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic of North Macedonia or Republic of Northern Macedonia?

As I have red, Macedonian media used Republic of North Macedonia, but Greek media translated it Republic of Northern Macedonia.. what is the correct name used in Mr. Nimetz' proposal? Cukiger (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For Mexico Macedonia is Macedonia

Despite the disinformation by the Greek media about Mexico, same as the Panama case from July 2008, attributed to use the FYROM reference, an information denied both by official Macedonian and Panama sources, Maxico continues to use the Macedonian constitutional name. On the official Mexican site http://www.sre.gob.mx/delviajero/europa/mcd.htm it is stated: Nombre Oficial: Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia (Official Name: former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) still the page and all the content is simply named Macedonia. So the place of Mexico is not in the "List of countries/entities using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes".Alex Makedon (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what you allege happened with Panama but I fail to see what it has to do with this case. The page you list clearly lists Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia. It uses the short form for all nations... not only FYROM. However, to satisfy your worries of inaccurate reporting I will wait a little longer to confirm from FYROM sources (since they've asked for official confirmation of Mexico's position I believe).

Now that we are on the matter though... why is the US listed in the recognized category when it continues to use both? Congress just referred to it as FYROM last week. --Crossthets (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has clearly stated that it recognises the country by its constitutional name. BalkanFever 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Only by the executive (i.e. Bush). The legisilative branch (congress) still intermittently uses FYROM. Don't worry. I won't try to change it for now because it does make note of the issue in the current article. However if Obama wins the election and follows through with Res. 356 and 300... it will likely come up as a topic for debate again. --Crossthets (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to Mexico here. You clearly fail to understand that "Macedonia" is not the constitutional name. The constitutional name is "Republic of Macedonia". So the only acceptable proof that a country uses the constitutional over the international name are documents referring to the country as "Republic of" instead of "former Yugoslav Republic of". Plain Macedonia is a short form and does not qualify.--Avg (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though Greece's problem is with the short form. BalkanFever 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece's problem is with all forms that mention "Macedonia" without a qualifier, so both. This is completely irrelevant to the fact that many countries using the short form "Macedonia" for convenience does not imply that they have any sort of preference for ROM instead of FYROM.--Avg (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

take a look at this article: Greece caught lying, again Alex Makedon (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in your link that suggest that. All it says is "Macedonia" was used not "Republic of Macedonia". If anything the lack of specifics make it seem the Mina news service is the one jumping the gun. (What a surprise from such a balanced news service whose focus is anti-Greek rants and whose comment section has become more racist than a Klan meeting) Official confirmation is supposed to come on Friday. I reserve judgment on the issue until then (and would note willing removed Mexico from the list until that confirmation) --Crossthets (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Mexico to the list of inconsistent countries. The notion that it belongs to the "Republic of Macedonia" amen corner, when it has the words Nombre Oficial right before Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia on the official website of its foreign ministry, is patently pathetic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=57958501&lId=2 Cukiger (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no more news sites, please. Official and verifiable sources only. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sre.gob.mx/acerca/directorio/embajadas/serbia.htm "Concurrencias: República de Bosnia y Herzegovina, Republica de Macedonia, y Montenegro"Alex Makedon (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is misspelled (it should be República) indicates that it was probably strung together rather hastily, and in any case should not be treated on a par with the page dedicated specifically to Skopje, which clearly cites Antígua República Yugoslava de Macedonia as the official name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Scandal coming up

It was yesterday revealed by the "Ethnos" newspaper in Greece, that Nimetz proposal was not Nimetz's after all. The US government had secret discussions with FYROM government via the US embassy in Skopje informing of possible proposals and ways to pass FYROM positions through "in a discrete way". Sources for this will be coming up the next few days and I think it should be included here. We already have (in Greek): ,,.--Michael X the White (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And we all know the Greek media to report verified and most of all objective information right? Alex Makedon (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty soon they'll report that Macedonia changed it's name to "Northern Republic of Northern Macedonia of the Northern North" and we'll have Dora herself filing a requested move. BalkanFever 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you use that nationalistic pit of junk for a RS... to justify things you can't accept! Anyway, you are justified for a number of reasons. Here, one of them is that I haven't yet provided this in English.But you'll soon have that as well.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

124 countries in the world and 4 out of the 5 permanent UN security council members have recognized Republic of Macedonia as such, not paying attention on the idiotic disputes Greece is making, try to accept that.Alex Makedon (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So why do you keep bringing this issue up then? ;-) NikoSilver 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not =) Alex Makedon (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nationalist pit of junk" quite adequately describes the entire Greek media. BalkanFever 05:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as opposed to such bastions of free and rigorous journalism as Nova Makedonija, A1 and MINA. Why not just say the entire Greek people? You know you want to. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not their fault they're being brainwashed. BalkanFever 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Μην κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Гѹмарлу ту гѹмараггаѳи шгреклѹ ту грѵдинъ ѯѣнъ. BalkanFever 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What's that supposed to be? Ancient Macedonian? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go with that. BalkanFever 07:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a direct quote from the Rosetta Stone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it says "nationalist pit of junk". BalkanFever 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Demotic Egyptian, дѹпка моꙗ. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alal da ti e be čoek. BalkanFever 08:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for use of "FYROM", specifically in bilateral relations

Sorry, but Greek press releases do not count as reliable sources for Macedonian-whoever relations. If a country starts using "FYROM" in bilateral relations, it will obviously tell that to the Macedonian MFA. What it tells Greece (or to reflect reality, what Greek media interprets) is irrelevant as Greece has no business in the bilateral relations of two other countries. BalkanFever 09:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added two official press releases for Mexico and Congo that decided to use the term "FYROM" instead of "Macedonia" as they were using until now. What evidence more you need?-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about confirmation from Mexico and Congo? How about confirmation from the Republic of Macedonia? BalkanFever 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Macedonia" is part of the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".. even if a lot of people wished that the "M" would be another term.. Cukiger (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think we ought to expect confirmation from the Macedonian side in such cases. If a Mexican government official has a a statement of intent published through such a joint press release on a Greek government site, that's a reliable source for just that, an official statement of intent. I think I've said it before, recognising or not recognising a name isn't something there's any particular formal protocol for. The Mexican government is under no obligation to publish its decision or communicate it to the Macedonian side in any particular way (and if they did, the Macedonians would hardly re-publish it, would they?) They'll just start using this or that term the next time they have to address them in some context. Or they won't.

Of course, we need to read the fine print carefully - like the other day with the Panama case, where they made what sounded like a promise to the Greek side but then turned out to have been quite vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, if Greek government press releases aren't good enough for BF, I trust that statements such as this aren't either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you missed BF's point. The question was whether government press releases are good sources about countries other than their own. I would certainly consider a RoM government press release a reliable source about their own bilateral affairs with country X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The name under which Mexico chooses to recognize Skopje falls within the realm of Greek-Mexican bilateral affairs, I dare say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Greek government press releases aren't good enough? Sourcing will continue as it was until now. If there are sources for a country using "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" it will be put under list of countries to be sorted. if there are sources for this and that, too. if there is only one source confirming the use of one name (as it is the case with chile) it's going to the ROM or FYROM-list respectively. Panama and Chile are sourced and will go to ROM. Mexico is probably disputed, so it shall be listed under 'countries to be sorted'. Cukiger (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Congo case, another fabrication by our southern neighbor. "Taking into account previous experiences with Panama and Mexico, the Ministry expects this case to be another fabrication by our southern neighbor and an attempt to manipulate the Greek public, especially after Macedonia's recognition by Chile." Alex Makedon (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a Greek misinformation conspiracy... says Alexander of Macedon. Uhmmm, if either Mexico or Panama intended to recognize FYRoM as RoM rather than FYRoM... it's something completely out of Greece's hands. There is absolutely no motive for Greece to intentionally claim otherwise about something so easily evident a short time later.

The far more interesting question is where do these documents come from? Leaked documents don't really mean anything without more details. Perhaps they are from the US and intentionally leaked by Bush. He does seem to be on the side of FYROM nationals at the expense of a longtime Nato ally and I believe FYROM is one of few nations in the world that supports McCain. On the other hand perhaps they are from other sources trying to create a wedge between allies by breeding anti-American sentiment in Greece (prior to the US elections where a philhellene politician may win - Obama). Personally I reserve judgment on the issue until more is known about the source of the leak. Does anyone have anything with substance to contribute on the issue? --Crossthets (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Macedonian MFA followed up these Greek claims, and they got answers from Mexico and Panama. They will soon get an answer from the Congo. FP, you are probably right about confirmation, but what we have is confirmation from Macedonia about the exact opposite of what Greece says. Kekrops, I don't care about your thoughts on how retarded the Greek MFA is (they need to learn what "bilateral" means) but that nationalist pit of junk is not going to be used in light of much better sourcing. We trust Armenia over Azerbaijan in regards to Armenian-Mexican relations, and Azerbaijan over Armenia for Azeri-Panamanian relations. BalkanFever 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When Antonijo gets round to translating his bitchy rant into a language we can all understand, perhaps we can consider moving them to the "to be sorted" list. Until then, pull up. And, as far as I'm concerned, there can be no greater "nationalist pit of junk" than a ministry serving a government headed by your beloved Nikola. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as you're concerned. Good thing nobody gives a shit about what you think, then. BalkanFever 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why should someone give one to you? Kapnisma ? 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the stench surrounding you is palpable. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not me, common sense. They don't have that in Athens do they? BalkanFever 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Learn English, Kapnisma. BalkanFever 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class North Macedonia articles
• Top-importance North Macedonia articles
• WikiProject North Macedonia articles
• B-Class Greek articles
• Top-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class Europe articles
• Top-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles