Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:57, 30 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. North Macedonia Top‑importance 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)

the list is not that long Niko its just the link List of homonymous states and regions. Crossthets if you want to add a link to a page of nations that were "forced" to change their name feel free to do so.Alex Makedon (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To what exactly are you answering with your first sentence ? The list you've created needs expansion to be considered an encyclopedic reference to "identical" cases. Right now it contains a limited selection, the fact that it's just a see also link does not solve the issue of intoducing a POV with no sources linking only these cherry-picked cases with the one that's handled here. --Zakronian (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not that Misplaced Pages can be shaped at personal will, just cuz by your POV the links "should not be there" it doesn't mean that you can actually go and revert something approved by the community and by admins. let me just quote some of the community opinion on the matter: "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples, Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF", if you find that the article List of homonymous states and regions is uncompleate do edit it, still it has nothing to do with your POV reverts. Dont be silly with this lame reverts, there is not a "conspiracy" behind the adding List of homonymous states and regions under see also and this doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. Republic of Macedonia shares the name with the region, so it defacto is on the List of homonymous states and regions, things are crystal clear there is nothing to debate over. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The link already exists at Macedonia and Macedonia (region), why does it need to be here too other than to push a particular agenda? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "push a particular agenda" thats unresonable, it doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. The article is about a naming dispute over a homonymous state and region and thereby is important to submit a link to similar homonymous states and regions cases in the word, its an information on related matters and its important for the wikipedia readers. Alex Makedon (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. The reason you're so keen to have it in the article is to be able to say See? If Belgium, Iran and Roumania can accept an independent Luxembourg, Azerbaijan and Moldova on their borders, then Greece should accept an independent "Macedonia" too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In the bottom line the link to List of homonymous states and regions states nothing more and nothing less than a basic encyclopedic information on related subjects, mainly homonymous states and regions. There is no "see if X homonymous state and region exists than the Macedonia name disputes are senseless" since there is no information that the X state did not have any name disputes (which most probably occurred) so Macedonia is the only exception in this kind of debates. And when talking about "pushing personal agendas" can you explain why you insist on hiding this encyclopedic information? Alex Makedon (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do then would be to link to other naming disputes, not other regions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As i have sad before if you want to add a link feel free to do so, we will discuss if its appropriate or not afterwards. The List of homonymous states and regions is related to the Macedonia naming dispute since the homonymous state and region is the core of the naming dispute, so the link should be present. It is not just mine opinion but of many editors and admins. Quit with the lame useless obstruction. Alex Makedon (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"It is not just mine opinion but of many editors and admins." Name one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples... Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF" do you read before debating or your debates are just disruption oriented? What is the argument about not keeping the link on the page? A lot of bla-bla-bla and not a single significant contaargument Alex Makedon (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

After initially rejecting the idea as OR, BF now doesn't care either way, and Cross rejects your list in its current form. On the other end, you have at least three editors, including yours truly. Where is the consensus? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three greek only reverteditors with NO-arguments like:

• "did you bother to check it again yourself",
• "POINTish article", and your childish disputing the obvious *
• "Even BF's against you"

that try to shape the article by their POV and on the other hand we have

• "sounds good" by BalkanFever "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever" (that is far from i dont care and even further from "BF's against you")
• "I am not opposed" by Crossthets thats a strange way to reject something, there is the "given that" part, but hey add whatever link you like
• "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also" by Balcan Fever that is an OK not an "i dont care"

I hope you realize your desperate attempts to manipulate the facts are just ridiculous. Try to state some valid contaarguments or the link will be on the page despite your pov on the matter. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Αυτό θα το βρει η υπηρεσία. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:47, 29 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)

What a surprise. Reporters sans frontières doesn't quite share BF's bitchy characterization of the "entire" Greek media as a "nationalist pit of junk". In fact, they even describe the situation regarding freedom of the press as "good". Greece also happens to be the only white patch on the map in the entire region. That's if you really want to compare endowments. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But, following up in the same spirit, the RSF is only talking about freedom, not quality. Greek media could very well be an entirely free nationalist pile of junk. (Just like Misplaced Pages, the free nationalist pile of junk that anybody can pile on on?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's free, then what does it matter? As for quality, that's entirely subjective, nein? BF's beef could simply be that the Greek media are a perennial thorn in his team's side, exposing their surreptitious summer love-ins with Dominatrix Condoleezza, for example. The "quality" of the Greek media might skyrocket for Condi's gimps if they came out in unison tomorrow and demanded that Greece "pity" its "poor" northern neighbour and hand over Macedonia to its "rightful owners". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Whenever Kekrops starts flavouring his postings with expressions in German, it's a sign it might be about time to end a discussion ... ;) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you weren't the intended audience of my initial RSF post anyway. Τι φταίω εγώ αν σου αρέσει να πετάγεσαι σαν την πορδή; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:17, 22 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)

Look, BF, your anti-Greek obsession may be typical of the descendants of de-Hellenized Vlachs, I know, but this really isn't the place to vent all that pent up self-loathing frustration. We have two announcements from the respective foreign ministries, and the one in English takes precedence here. Perhaps you should stop sulking and start calling Skopje to tell them they need to improve their linguistic skills if they want whatever they say to bear any weight whatsoever in the world around them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, other quality issues aside, but it being in English or not plays no role whatsoever. If there's a source you can't read, just ask somebody what it says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what does it say, then, and why should we take Skopje's word over that of Athens regarding precisely the same matter? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh, you got the message, I am sure... Kapnisma ? 10:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Learn to indent too. BalkanFever 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, I know it's difficult for you to understand Greek, so.... Kapnisma ? 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No need, Kapnisma. Our lot actually do know English. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. There's a nice piece of misinformation. Touting the following Panamaian declaration: "the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name", as if it proved anything. The fun bit is, there is no UN resolution asking countries to use FYROM bilaterally. Panama can easily "abide by" the UN and still continue to use RoM. Which is what they seem to be doing. The other two, however, seem to contain an actual promise to use FYROM. So in the case of Mexico, we have one reliable source saying they promised to do X, and another equally reliable source that they are actually doing ¬X. Correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to be disingenuous, FP. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted reads as follows: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama is honoured to announce to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic that, following a series of discussions regarding the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia..." (emphasis mine). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? They are of course perfectly free to use FYROM when talking to the Greeks. The question is what they do in bilateral contact with the RoM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please. "...we would like to assure you that the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name, for international and bilateral purposes". Not "bilateral purposes vis-à-vis Greece"; "bilateral purposes" period. Why would they feel the need to make such an announcement at all, if not to say "we'll be using FYROM from now on"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I just pointed out, "abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions" doesn't entail using FYROM. There is no resolution demanding that. Why they would make such a statement when it's vacuous? Because they are craftier diplomats than the Mexicans, perhaps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to spin this into something it's not. Perhaps your German precision is having difficulty with the flexibility of the word "abide", which doesn't necessarily mean "obey"; according to my word processor, it can also mean "follow", "keep to", "conform to", "stick to" or "accept". There doesn't need to be a UN resolution demanding anything; they're simply saying that they will follow the nomenclature of the relevant UN resolutions, and they explicitly state that as meaning the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not thinking like a German, it's thinking like a diplomat. When diplomats say "abide by", they mean "abide by" (unless of course it suits their interests to mean something else, which in this case it doesn't). "Abide by" means: do what the text demands, and not a iota more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but that smacks of pure OR. The Panamanians have unambiguously said that they'll use FYROM for "international and bilateral purposes", and there's nothing further that can be read into it, no matter how hard you twist. Skopje's denial doesn't change the Panamanian statement one iota, if we really want to talk about who has the right to talk about whom. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading/interpretation is no more OR than yours. Plus it has the added advantage of being closer to the literal meaning of the text (it is you who is having to twist the words around, not me), and of not being in need of calling the other side a liar with no evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah alright, mine's bigger than yours too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) but, speaking of OR: has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole exercise of ours is pretty OR-ish? Perhaps we ought to scrap the whole table and just report the total numbers (hedged by "... according to X government....", of course), and quote only a few of the better-documented cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly save us the endless agony of having to interpret ambiguous Latin American pronouncements. Que vaya toda al diablo, ποσώς με ενδιαφέρει. Go on, do something that'll make everyone despise you again. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have another reliable source saying that Mexico refuted the Greek MFA in a note to the Macedonian delegation, using the constitutional name throughout the note, and saying that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name). BalkanFever 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Can we see the original Mexican document, please? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, another detail: somebody cited the Mexican government website the other day where it lists "FYROM" as the "official name". The trouble is only, that page was last updated in 2004. So it can impossibly be a document of a recent change in policies. But everybody seems to agree that Mexico in fact did previously recognise RoM, otherwise the alleged change wouldn't be news. So, at best, we have Mexico continue to be among the inconsistent ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is either under "to be sorted" or "RoM". BalkanFever 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure everybody does agree that Mexico used "RoM" until now. That's not what the joint press statement says; it could simply be the reiteration of an existing policy. Before last week, we had an Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia and a misspelled Republica de Macedonia. And my Spanish teacher always placed great emphasis on correct accentuation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally the official Mexico note unveils the Greek Goverment desperate lies: - The Permanent Mission of Mexico has the honor to convey the deep appreciation of the Government of Mexico to the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for the valuable support it will render to the above mentioned candidature. This support constitutes a very important testimony that confirms the excellent relations existing between our two countries, reads the Note No. 61/21 dated Oct. 15 sent by Mexico's UN Permanent Mission to the Macedonian Permanent Mission to the Organisation. from the Macedonian News Agency and from other international news sources Alex Makedon (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Can we have it from a non-Greek-hating source now? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, nowhere in the alleged thank-you note do the Mexicans say "that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name)", as BF claims. Also, the note is dated 15 October, while the Greek-Mexican joint press statement followed a whole two days later, i.e. after Valinakis's lobbying. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At least this note, from 15 October, is two days earlier than the joint declaration with Greece. I grant you there is at least a theoretical possibility they actually changed their mind during those two days. Although I find it entirely more likely they simply wiggle around to try to make everybody happy and will continue to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

lol "greek-hating sources", this is a new one, it does seems relevant information for wikipedia: the distinction between Greek-hating and Greek-non hating sources, you should write a new article on The Greek-hating-Sources and provide a full list, so the rest of us knows what sources are the "bad" ones. This desperate cheap lies by the Greek Goverment in attempt to manipulate the Greek public (dont even think it will be able to manipulate any other public), is getting more comic by the minute. Alex Makedon (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How about citing a source that doesn't involve the words "Makedonija", "MIA", "MINA", "A1" or "Turkish", for starters? The supposed Mexican gracias doesn't even say what you claim it does, and, given that it came before the Greek-Mexican statement on the issue, I don't know why you're even bothering. Drop the dead donkey, mate. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Having mentioned the general criteria problem myself in the Thailand section i agree with FP that we should discuss limiting the section. I was really troubled from the start how can we be conclusive with most sources. Say, how can the source i used to add Micronesia be a clear proof of the name this country uses in bilateral relations ? It can't, but i followed the established practice from other users. The constitutional name often has an intuitive "priority" when intepreting a questionable source, i can understand it. But do we really have to engage in something like that every now and then ? As the section is getting bigger it's not only an issue of OR but of undue weight as well.--Zakronian (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexico Sucks??

Why saying such an awful thing as that, especially an administrator? Administrators are not here to judge a nation's position, but simply record it here.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you are taking things way too seriously. If any Mexican comes here to protest I will whole-heartedly confirm that they don't suck at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we finally have Mexican government confirmation, dated 17 October 2008, so maybe we're the ones who suck for not looking hard enough all this time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect will probably have you explaining the meaning of the statement word by word and then the meaning in the context and then the meaning whithin the syntax and then the meaning in the diplomatic language and then the............................................... but in a mysterious way, only for the right list of the countries.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. He's already accepted the validity of the Greek press release, but until now it was our word against Skopje's. Now we have it straight from the horse's mouth, ergo game over. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Mexico is hereby officially de-sucked. It seems the Greek diplomats have wisened up and are now insisting on less ambiguous wording, after being pwned so badly by the Panamaians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know if that press release has been sitting there since the 17? Strangely, I only started looking for it after someone posted this earlier today. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chile, Mexico, Panama

Hi everyone, I am not a member of WP, but I read the discussion of the Mexico issue, and some portions of the Mexico government do say "Republic of Macedonia" while others say "FYR. Macedonia" so I don't think Mexico should be under the "FYROM" portion of the name recognitions. If a nation calls the RoM under its consitutional name, it will use it on its governmental website.

The same case is true for Chile, the Chile government website stats RoM therefore they have recognized it. In the case of Panama, their government website should also be used, instead of simply a Greek source. ] (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chile is under "recognition' and "to be sorted" 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panama: I looked on google for a few minutes for its ministry of foreign affairs and I found this, it says "macedonia" but ill keep looking 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is panamas ministry... 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the post. I think that would be a good idea. I looked at the website you showed, but I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't get to the appropriate sight. I'll keep trying. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think governmental websites should be used. Mexico's uses both RoM and FYROM, while both Panama and Chile only use RoM as far as I can tell. 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panamá, de nuevo

Would this be enough to sort Panama accordingly? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguably, that illustrates "usage within the UN", which, unlike usage in bilateral contexts, could be construed as actually mandated by the UN resolutions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we know for certain that that's what actually goes on? I find it hard to imagine the representative of the US, for example, with its rabidly anti-Greek stance on this issue, referring to the country as anything but "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly before whatever it was that happened in July and which Greek media touted as a significant "change of stance" by Panama, noting that Panama had "been using the neighbouring country's constitutional name since 2002". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That still isn't an official source, I'm afraid. In fact, as far as reliable sources go, we have only the conflicting statements of Athens and Skopje. It will all remain a bit murky until we find a Panamanian statement analogous to the Mexican one. And that UN transcript was all I could find on their MFA's website. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, what? But we have Panama's official statement, quoted verbatim by the Greek government. It's exactly the text we were discussing yesterday. Plus, we have the statement of Panama's foreign minister, quoted in Macedonian government statements, explaining that the text didn't mean what the Greek side thought it meant. No contradiction there, no sourcing problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? That Panama should be in the "RoM" list? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would probably put it there, if anywhere. I've lost sight of it, where is it currently? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? We have a Panamanian declaration interpreted by Athens as supporting its side of the argument, and Skopje's interpretation of what it claims was a Panamanian denial. We have no direct quote of said denial. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ι believe this was before Serbia's actions towards the EU. Fut. Perf. will probably say the fYROM name was used within the UN context. Nonetheless, some countries should be exemplefied by their neighbours' developement and wishing for well being. Croatia, Romania, Boulgaria and Serbia march towards being the next European superpowers, whereas Greece's northern neighbour is stuck into their stubborness and lose the essence and I'm talking about political poorness that will be stigmatized by the state's people after witnessing the surrounding developement, even Albania's I dare to say. Not to mention the USA derision during the last presidential incumbency. It's rather sad....--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any further information on the official Panamanian stance to offer? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but I believe this document is not good enough. The USA's partiality is known, but using the fYROM and Macedonia names incosistently does not say anything about Panama's position, especially within the UN context. It's up to the greek officials and Panama itself.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

I propose a map to be included in the article in which the countries using RoM and the countries using FYROM in bilateral relations shall be depicted (similar to the map of the 'countries recognizing Kosovo') . Neutralista (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, you know. FP? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth it – see my OR concerns expressed above. Also, given the small size of the countries in this corner of the world, the interesting parts of such a map would be hardly readable. I mean, if you want to try your hand, I'm sure you know where to find the templates, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know where to start. In all my time here, I haven't even figured out how to upload an image, let alone create one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BlankMap-World6, compact.svg. Download the SVG file, open it in a plain text editor , and follow the commented instructions at the beginning of the file on how to edit the internal stylesheet to change colors for each country. Or edit it in Inkscape if you have it installed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a png and the svg version based on the list from the main article as of 2008-10-23. I'll add it to the main article with a legend. --89.205.5.62 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ι don't think it's worth it. Countries change their stance all the time on such an ongoing matter. There will probably will be fighting on changing the map all the time!--Dimorsitanos (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is a bad idea. And I don't think there will be so much edit-warring on the map, certainly less than it is now (with the list). Neutralista, are you or anybody else here familiar with construct such an image? Cukiger (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's new, talking to oneself. I oughta try it sometime.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, you should.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

very good idea Alex Makedon (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand recognizes the country as FYROM, according to the Hellenic MFA. Note that Ireland, Thailand and Vietnam were confirmed as belonging to the "RoM" list using the same source. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

DR CONGO still refers to Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia"

According to MIA and BALKAN insight and the Macedonian foreign affairs, DR Congo rebuffed Greece's claims that it changed its stance to "FYROM" and still refers to Macedonia as "ROM" 98.243.158.123 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please update the world map to reflect this. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Other nations on the world map also need to be updated, such as Ireland. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To recent reverters, especially Dimorsitanos and 98.*: It would be far easier to follow the issue in cases such as Congo if you would please not erase the other side's sources. Please, in whatever category you place the state, leave in a footnote referencing both conflicting reports. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But cheap macedonian news agencies such as that MIA or whatever, which do not even translate the news in english cannot stand in wikipedia as references, is it such a surprise to you? --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

+ 2 comments. I've read the article in balkan insight, but to my surprise the document it depicts is too small for my eyes to read. And I also noticed that although you urge editors to mention both (official) references, you forgot to add the greek ministry of affairs notice. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you there whould be fighting over the map. It was a stupid idea in the first place.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cheap macedonian news agencies such as that MIA"? I believe it is the country's official news agency, akin to Greece's Athens News Agency. That's my reading of "Established on February 14 1992 by The Macedonian Parliament", anyway. In any case, I would much prefer to see the actual Congolese document itself. Does anyone have a copy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such a well established news agency that though established over a decade ago, the webside is still on a trial version. Not to mention the flag accompanying the article instead of the congolese document. Nice... --Dimorsitanos (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Each according to his means, I suppose. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for pasting in the wrong source link. Fixed now. Of course I meant to use the Greek MFA one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The copy of the Congolese permanent UN mission Document dating 23/10/2008 referring to Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name Greek Government caught lying to their public, again there isn't any doubt as we have both Congolese and Republic of Macedonia official sources that DR Congo doesn’t change position on using Macedonia’s constitutional name. Alex Makedon (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, if this document is true, then some countries want to have the entire pie available and the dog full, as a greek saying states. If a state assures to use the name FYROM for all international purposes and remain within the UN principles, then it may not use the name Republic of Macedonia for bilateral reasons. Let's wait and see what happens.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DR Congo can be waited on until the official government website has "Macedonia" or "FYROM" on it, but I donno if they will even discuss the issue on their website. The map also needs to be updated. nations that recognize Macedonia like UK and Ireland are not shown. There are many more... 98.243.158.123 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

With this and this the DR Congo case is closed and its place is clearly on the List of countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" in bilateral diplomatic relations. Alex Makedon (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. We have two declarations from Congo, both equally reliably sourced, both within the span of a few days, both unambiguous, both worded as if meant to be binding. They are in downright contradiction to each other. One of them is licking up to the Greeks and the other to the Macedonians. There's no evidence the Congolese have any real interest in sticking to either, or that they care either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And why the fuck should they, with the Battle of Goma still raging? Let's just put the Congolese in the "too hard" basket and leave them be, shall we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

US Congress resolutions

My apologies if this has been raised before, but shouldn't this and this be treated in this article somehow? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussed in August. Last archive page, heading "US Senate". Last article edit related to it that I remember was this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I guess the most tantalizing aspect of it all is Obama's co-sponsoring of the Senate resolution, which could explain why Skopje is one of only a handful of countries not rooting for him. Shall we wait until he wins the presidential election in the coming days to deem it sufficiently noteworthy? He is still only a junior senator from Illinois, after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be relevant on the matter , let me quote something: Congressman Pomeroy says: 'The US has recognized the Republic of Macedonia. This is and will be the US position'. After all USA is a serious state and cannot be "bought" with lets say 100 tanks, sounds familiar? Alex Makedon (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

USA is a serious state? No, it isn't; especially in October of years divisible by four. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so chirpy if I were you. Who is Congressman Pomeroy? Never heard of him. Certainly not the man who will be president in under three months' time. Yes, it is the US position, but for how much longer? Have you even read the text of Senate Res. 300, co-sponsored by and submitted on behalf of Sen. Barack Obama? It reads almost like a ΛΑΟΣ press release. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully in three months' time the man who is president will be the only man fit to be president. And if Barack Obama does become president (God forbid) he's got more important things to worry about than this dispute. --Local hero 04:21, 26 October (UTC)

Fit to be president? The man can barely walk. You don't really want Miss Congeniality running the planet, do you? If only the election were held in Skopje, the other Georgia or Namibia, McCain might even be in with a chance. As for having more important things to worry about, clearly. But that hasn't stopped Dominatrix Condoleezza sticking her nose in, has it? There's no reason to believe the next administration will take any less interest in the matter. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I don't really like John McCain, I just dislike Barack Obama (not just because of the dispute, if you were wondering). This is the way I see it: If I had to get a life-saving surgery, I would rather have it done by the guy who's been around the block a few times than the guy who just graduated. Either way, I don't think we will have to worry about America shifting its postition any time at least within the next year. --Local hero 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I, thankfully, live in a country where universal health care is taken for granted. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Touché. --Local hero 6:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note when I added into the article... it was slowly erased with "neutral" Futper delivering the final blow of erasure. Apparently 120 US congressmen and the probable future President of the United States condemning FYRoM government for propaganda and hostility towards Greeks... wasn't deemed newsworthy enough for Furper. As as I was a newb just trying to simply survive the constant threats/blocks by FP I didn't pursue the matter... but I still firmly believe it should be included in the article. --Crossthets (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Census shows no references to "Macedonians

Here is | Ottoman census data from from 1911. Anyone notice anything missing? I believe there is another Ottoman census of Thessaloníki region (under the turkish name) from 1903 and another one from the 1890s, Does anyone have any links to sources so the references can be added? --Crossthets (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Old news, mate Hxseek (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you acknowledge the point or deny it? If you deny it.. please lay out your reasons here. If you acknowledge the point then I don't see why Cukiger (seemingly a FYRoM national) is removing my comment by justifying it as...

the roots of Macedonism ie. date back to the time of Ottoman rule. such claims shall only be listed in the article with a source

His reasoning for doing the revert is a logical fallacy. The onus is on FYRoM nationals (or someone else) to produce official verifiable Ottoman census data demonstrating the existence of an Macedonian ethnic group (and one that distinguishes them as FYRoM nationals as opposed to regional Greek Macedonians)... not to disprove the non-existence of something that doesn't seem to exist. (and I would note the FYRoM government has been working closely with the Turkish government to uncover such records for quite awhile....to seemingly no avail). I also believe the League of Nations has official census data of the region that makes no mention of "ethnic Macedonians". Please feel free to add any official references pro-con census information here so that we can document the first verifiable examples of "Macedonians" (that relate to FYRoM)... thus pinpoint the date of their creation. (both from within the communist block and from outside of it)

One other pertinent related item I'd like to see added to the article in a visible location is the US government denied the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity as late as 1944 and viewed it as communist demagoguery against Greece.

The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

(U.S. State Department, E.Stettinius Secretary of State :Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note, FP reverted another Greek editor trying to add the comment back in about lack of Ottoman census data. His claim for doing so...

no, this is not a central part of the Greek argument.

FP has now gone against two Greek contributers who most certainly do consider it part of the Greek position (seeing as Greece argues communist propaganda is mostly responsible for the FYRoM identity... which the article does already mentions referencing Tito). I therefore recommend Greek contributers input to be added here and it be compared against FP who now claims to be representing the Greek POV. --Crossthets (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Ottomans or the USA are a good source? Turks recorded the population under religioous aspects (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian Orthodox,.. so because there was no Macedonian Orthodox Church their ethnicity was considered to be the same as the church they were part of) Greece and Bulgaria even today, in 2008 (!), claim there are no Macedonians living in therir countries.. so, you can't even use today's sources for such claims..

I'd like to document that both a FYRoM national and then Futper once again are dictating what the "Greek POV" on Ottoman census data and US denials of existence of Macedonian nationality.....in a section called "Greek position" specifically dedicated to describing the Greek POV... reverting two Greek contributers views on it... with references provided. The points are extremely relevant to the Greek position and have been mentioned many times by Greek politicians and media.

This time FP stated...rv, obsessive POV edits rather than his prior not a central part of the Greek argument' (Well which story is it FP?)

I wholehearted protest the removal of the edit and see it as anti-Greek POV pushing by FYRoM nationals and an admin in a COI (who only quite recently has made any effort to make balance edits... after I had made a complaint to another admin). --Crossthets (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman census is not divided by ethnicity; it's divided by religious faith (see Millet) - hence the inclusion of Catholic. The Republic of Macedonia is not a confessional community. Therefore this proves nothing on the questions now at issue, for either side. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first question arises... so why did they recognize themselves as Bulgarians instead of the Macedonian church (assuming such a thing existed)? The second question arises... why didn't the league of nations not recognize them either? The third question arises why did the US government claim they didn't exist and that it was a commnist attempt to attack Greece? (Not to mention there are a zillion other points to add about the lack of any signficant "Macedonian" literature from that period). The points are still relevant evidence... and they do represent the Greek POV... in a section called "Greek Postion"... not FYROM national position. --Crossthets (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• There was no Macedonian church. (The present Macedonian Orthodox Church split from the Serbian Orthodox Church under Tito.) The ancestors of those who now consider themselves the Macedonian people were divided among the Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox churches - and these are what the Ottoman census-takers counted.
• The League of Nations only recognized states.
• Why did Edward Stettinius say anything? Because it was politically and diplomatically convenient. He was a diplomat, "an honest man sent to lie abroad for his country." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well why wasn't there church? On the one side FYRoM government claims millions of "Macedonians" were displaced... on the other they seem to suggest that they didn't have the numbers and influence to have their own church?

You claim that league of nations only recognized states for census data. Please back that up with references (related to the specific census in question).

You can spin Stettinius comments and motives how ever you like... they were still the official documented US position. Since the US denied the existence of a "Macedonian nation"... and you say it existed... you appear to be accusing the US of participating in ethnic cleansing on some level. --Crossthets (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the reference you refer to is already known. The censi only referred to greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, no "Macedonians". Crossthets, your attitude and tone is not in the spirit of wikipedia. You are obviously an angry individual. you are a new editor and have just intruded and ignited nationalistic debates all over again. i really think your we can do without your 'contributions' here. There are other sites for hot-headed, semi-educated nationalists out there Hxseek (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, don't say that. Everyone is welcome to contribute in wikipedia and the contribution history does not ablate from someone the right to express his/her opinion in a talk page. Without communication and disagreement, how else whould these articles get neutral and better ?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Andthe opinion of the US secreatary of state of 1944 is hardly worthwhile as an acaedminc reference. Americans don;t even know where Mexico is, let alone the complex history and ethnogenetic processes in a melting pot like Macedonia  ! ! Hxseek (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"the greek position" is the position of the greek government or of notable greek scholars. The position of greek editors on wikipedia is only the personal opinion of those editors.... The point is: "has the greek government/scholars ever used the ottoman census or the US 1944 declarations as a relevant part of its arguments?". If they haven't, then they don't belong there. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I will dig up some comments to try and deal with your concerns Enric. I'd like to point out to the FYRoM nationals trying to hide this evidence from WP readers (to give them a chance to make their own choices based on relevant evidence sources by third parties)... communist Tito is constantly blamed by the Greek government for the creation of a distinct Macedonian ethnic group. Census data and comments by third party (non-communist) nations on the issue of their existence prior to that date... is implicitly extremely relevant to the article. A handful of works and small groups like IMRO... that acknowledged their Bulgarian connection.. makes not an ancient ethnic group. Census data and official positions by reputable third party countries during that period is extremely important.

When one throws in that the US government denied the existence of a distinct "Macedonian ethnicity" as late as 1944 (calling such talk communist demagoguery against Greece) ... that the League of Nations also did not note their existence... that their "Macedonian" church didn't seem to attempt to get Autocephaly "coincidentally" until 1944... the point that the "Macedonian ethnic identity" simply DID not exist prior to this point becomes more evident (at least as a distinct ethnic group in any notable numbers) However, reading WP articles on Macedonia at the moment... one would think they date back centuries??? (with constant use of unverified images supplied from FYRoM government showing "ethnic Macedonians" from the period)

Most of the dates of "Macedonian ethnicity" appear to revolve around communist Tito's renaming of Vardar Baninova region of Yugoslavia into the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". This fact is constantly obfuscated by FYRoM nationals (and tenaciousness FP edits) Even Kiro Gligorov (FYRoM's first President) admitted they aren't related to ancient Macedonians by stating We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians (who was shortly thereafter a target of an assassination attempt).

And is Obama, probably the next US President, cosponsoring a bill condemning FYRoM government for hostility and propaganda against Greece (plus another 120 Congressman) everyone's imagination too? Meanwhile... FYRoM nationals on WP constantly accuse Greeks of trying to wipe out the "Macedonian" identity... as if that identity didn't already exist in Greece.--Crossthets (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, please, I mean that you need to find a declaration from the Greek Government saying "There are not macedonians on Greece/ There is no Macedonia country because the Otoman census didn't list them". Just find a source, then we can evaluate its quality to see if we can add it. For example, a scale of quality would be, a declaration signed by the senate > an official governamental declaration reproduced on a newspaper > a declaration of the prime minister / the foreign matters minister on an interview > a declaration by any other minister on an interview > off-hand remark on a discussion. Seriously, look at past Greek declarations about Macedonia and see if you can find something mentioning Otomans. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on it (juggling several things so it might take me a few more days). I'd just like to mention there were two parts to my edit (so I'm assuming you'd like two references). One deals with Ottoman census data... the other with the comments by US government considering talk of a Macedonian nation demagoguery and aggression against Greece.

To deal with the secondary issue for now... I've found a reference by the Pan-Macedonian Association of American that met with Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried recently to discuss the matter and gave him an official letter. Full details here Will that meet your needs for the second part Enric?

Mexico

Please remove Mexico from the list of contries that use fYROM! You Greeks look ridicilus with that propaganda. Dig a little and you'll find out that nothing has changed between Macedonia and Mexico. 212.120.7.4 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See above, section "Mexico sucks??". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes us Greeks look r-i-d-i-c-i-l-u-s writing that. Thanks for the informative post. Any other hateful comments to add? We have our box of crayons out and are taking notes today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.236.109 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes Crossthets, because your comments are the epitome of constructiveness and civility. BalkanFever 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever dude. You constantly make demeaning comments to Greek contributors. I've tried to not bring the issue up... but since you continue to harass me with personal comments rather than deal with issues... I seem to recall a comment to describe Greeks (for which you were blocked and never apologized for) was "assfuckers"? Surely a sign of someone civil and constructive. --Crossthets (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You call my people a communist invention. You call them all nationalists who spread propaganda. The first thing you did when joining Misplaced Pages was harass me. Then you harassed FP, which you continue to do today, in addition to harassing every other ethnic Macedonian user. How could you possibly "recall" a comment that I made around half a year before you even came here, a time when I could be described as a "noob"? You get to use that excuse so I guess I can too. I don't need to justify myself to you of all people; I already told you that it was a retaliation to a slur. Move on, re. BalkanFever 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to get too involved in this lovely exchange of ideas, what was the original "slur" to which you thought "assfuckers" a commensurate form of retaliation? My first guess is Skopjan, though I could be wrong. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and we're not going over the lame discussion again. You made your points, I made mine. You seem to be able to move on though, unlike the trolls. BalkanFever 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just went through the edit history and found this. After edit-warring over my removal of your inflammatory post, you said you'd "proved Skopjan is pejorative". However, on that page only User:Xstatik had cited "sources and proof" that it is pejorative. And that user has been blocked indefinitely. Was that you all along? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who, Xstatic? Nope. I can't even remember what my point was exactly (it was a year ago after all), but I think the "proof" was meant to be in the offence. Either way. BalkanFever 05:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for my being able to move on—unlike the trolls—I'm sure you've called me a troll at least once or twice. It seems I do grow on people after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep things civilized. Crossthets, you need to keep a cool head, because you are unfortunately letting emotions take over rather than intellectual debating. I'm afraid I fail to see what conclusion your rantings are aiming to achieve.

Hxseek (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come one Hxseek. You constantly make maps using Fines as your source (one of the few academics that supports FYRoMs POV). Don't pretend your in some neutral corner here. If you want anyone to believe you are sincere in stopping the "ranting"... start by telling your countrymen to stop. (e.g. Greeks are ridciulis?) --Crossthets (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Strawman arguments. Go away. BalkanFever 00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because my origins are from macedonia, I certainly (hope) that I am truthful. Never have I denied the Greek position (which I perfectly understand). You cannot deny that the entire article is heavily weighted by Greek perspective, and Greek users , who obviously outnumber others, and seemingly 'patrol' the article, will not let any other persepctive be added. Despite the fact that I add nothing but historical fact, Kekrops and Zykronian and etc just revert, dismissing my edits as "editorialising" , having no actual academic rebuttle for what I am stating. My sources aren't "pro-FYROM", as you put it Crossthets. Despite my heritage, I would nevertheless feel obliged to 'equate out' such an obviously skewed article.

Despite my respect for Greece, i really must state that some greek editors are behaving like spoiled children here. Not intent to compromise . My only interest here is to shed some light from a historical perspective - that is what i love.

I want to highlight that

portraying the macedonian Slavs simply as "newcomers" from 600 AD is simplistic and plain wrong. I can provide ample sources showing, in effect, continuity of modern Macedonians with previous inhabitants of the region (and this is not an attempt to equate them with ancient macedonians because they are an extinct political entity). The ethnogenesis of Macedonians is mixed. Compare to the french- the speak a Roman language, byt they are not Italian. They are predominantly the descendents of the gauls who lived there from the outset, despite all the Roman, Frankish , Gothic invasions. This is the case for all modern nations of Europe. All that changes is the language. People stay the same.

Even if ancient macedon was GReeek, or hellenized (Which I accept and include in my paragraph), the region became generically known as Macedonia with the Roman takeover. Does germany comlain that France is named after the Franks, which were actually a Germanic group ?

macedonians have as much of a right to be called Macedonians as anyone. They have lived there since palaeolithic times. Granted they are not the only macedonians. My illustration that macedonia was only really fuly Hellenized until modern era does not seem to sit well with some users. Have we forgotten that moany GReek macedonians were re-settled from elsewhere. Why are these people 'more Macedonians' than the "Slav macedonians"  ?

the alleged 'territorial concerns' are simple laughable in the face of today's political situation. One cannot deny that it is a political tool of the Greek government. (Hey that's what governments do)

Hxseek (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor editing

I have to notice, that multi-editing in such cases and contents such as this:

"It must be noted (by whom?) that the alleged territorial concerns held by the Greek government are unrealistic (says who?) . By using allusions to the Greek civial war and the "Communist threat", it is intentionally conjuring strongly emotive and nationalistic responces from its citizens. Realistically, the the Republic of Macedonia relies on Greece for infratsracture investment and and defensive cooperation. That Macedonia will invade Greece is simply an act of political scare-mongering. The idea of a "united Macedonia" is, for the large majority of Macedonians, an idealistic thought. (says who?) "

...are the cornerstone of POV.

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's from the passage recently proposed by Hxseek, right? Yes, that is certainly not acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Congo vs Mexico

The cases are very similar. For both of them we have diametrically opposed MoFa press releases:

Congo doesn’t change position (Macedonian MoFA) Congo changes position (Greek MoFa)

Mexico doesn’t change position (Macedonian MoFA) Mexico changes position (Greek MoFa)

In addition we have an official DR Congo document where is stated that Congo will continue to use the | constitutional | name and an official Mexico document where they announce that Mexico will use the provisory reference

My question is how come we have double standards and we keep Mexico on the "List of countries/entities using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes", despite there is a Macedonian MoFa claming the different and we keep DR Congo on the "to be sorted List" with the excuse that the greek MoFa alone calmes something different than official Republic of Macedonia and DR Congo? They either should be both on the "to be sorted List" or should be both on the corresponding lists. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference as I see it is that with Congo we have two equally official declarations by Congo itself, both of which are worded as binding commitments, whereas with Mexico the pro-R.o.M. document did not involve an explicit promise with respect to the name but was merely an instance where Mexicans were using the name in practice, days before the reported change took place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the obvious fact that the Mexican document comes directly from a Mexican government website, while the alleged Congolese document appears on arguably the most unreliable "news" site in the Balkans. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you link the second official declaration by Congo (where it is stated that it will start using the the provisory reference), since i dont manage to find any such document posted yet. Kek in addition to the The Greek-hating-Sources there is a necessity to write also The Macedonian unreliable news article we will all benefit from relevant objective information like that. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the link you gave yourself, from the Greek MFA. It's a joint press release by the Greek and the Congolese side. The language in it is very clear. We can certainly assume that one of the governments involved might occasionally misinterpret what another has said, but to assume they'd literally fake such a declaration is a bit over the top. That text counts for an authentic declaration of the Congolese diplomats, in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Greek MoFa press release and the Macedonian MoFA press release, why one should be considered official "truth" and the other not, on what criteria we can assume this? How come the Greek MoFa press release (dated 18/10/08) about things that Mr. Mbusa Nyamwisi "assured", that assign to the Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93 an inexistant mandatory use of the provisory reference in bilateral purposes, is considered an official DR Congo statement, and the Macedonian MoFa press release over an official DR Congo note (successive to the press release dated 23/10/08) confirming that their position regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia remains unchanged, unreilable? Alex Makedon. If we can't assume that the Greek Goverment would fake a declaration, on what basis we assume that Macedonian MoFA would fake an official DR Congo note? Alex Makedon (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One or other side "faking it" isn't the only possible scenario. One side could simply have misinterpreted the Congolese diplomatic representations. If we accept the authenticity of the document posted on MINA, it simply reiterates the validity of the agreement on the establishment of diplomatic relations, but doesn't explicitly mention the naming dispute, unlike the statement quoted verbatim on the Greek MFA website. On the other hand, it does use "Republic of Macedonia", which complicates the matter. One must wonder, however, why the MFA in Skopje hasn't yet provided direct quotes of the Panamanian and Congolese "denials". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless of course the capitalisation in the phrase "THE Republic of Macedonia" is an abbreviation for "The fHormer Eugoslav". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be a lightly hearted stance of Congo on the matter, while getting pressured by both sides? As far as I know, Congo has more serious things to worry about right now.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, users should wait at least another week before editing the congo's stance on ROM/FYROM. Maybe more sources will arise, give it some time and leave it at that.PMK1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't have that in Athens do they?

Apparently they do. The EIU classifies Greece as a "full democracy", somewhere between Britain and France, while Skopje's democracy, a full 50 notches down the rankings, is "flawed" and not too far off from "hybrid regimes" like Albania and Turkey. Ouch. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:55, 30 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