Revision as of 11:41, 4 April 2006

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

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

Template:AIDnom

Untitled comment

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

Weeks ago, we agreed to a conciliatory rendition for the name and abbreviation. That was done in accordance with all principal editors. We have included a to the initial sentence/reference that refined the hatnotes in the appropriate politics section. Because since than we had no problems with the naming used in the article, please, don't change the starting section. Bitola 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bitola,
but this is the very point I am trying to make. A little asterisk with an in-article link down below is like trying to hide
the fact that this is not the UN recognised name, but the internal name.
Many People do not read the whole article and from the first lines you get the impression that this a universaly accepted and established name! Also the asterisk can VERY easily be missed and not clicked. At least make it a whole word like 'see also FYROM' or 'but see controversy about name' so that people will read the caveat.

Let me repeat again that before this agreement a constant edit war was going on for months (you can easily check that in the article history) and now we have a quiet period that lasts more than 2 months. There is a whole section dedicated to the naming dispute (unlike the other similar articles in WP), so, I suggest to keep the fragile truce because it was very hard achieved. Bitola 13:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You know - as they are going to be joining the EU under that name (or a similar one like Republic of Fyrom), then it makes sense to use this self-identifying name and not the Republic of M one. I think we should really consider moving the page, debate it a bit and then have a renaming poll. --Latinus 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

From UN Website:"By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name." So this decision was taken by the General Assembly. Even a fool knows that NEARLY ALL NATIONS ON EARTH participate in the General Assembly HAVING AN EQUAL VOTE. So the UN-GA POV is 99.9% objective and unbiased, because it encompasses all Earth nation's POVs through the purest democratic (Δημοκρατικό) procedure = VOTING. So the most objective and unbiased POV about the state name is UN's ="The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Because we Greeks are (χουβαρντάδες) generous and munificent, we will do the favor to you and accept "Republic of Slavomacedonia" for formal, "Slavomacedonia" for informal, "Slavomacedonian" for the noun. Otherwise, my dear friends, I'm pretty sure that turbulence and disorder will arise in our area. I don't care who will win, but nobody wants trouble..Only fools renounce peace and stability, so both parts will make a back step in resolving this dispute.

Truth or Peace?

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

I agree. Look at the following Google tests:

• I searched for -"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" -"Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" "Republic of Macedonia" -Misplaced Pages, in other words I searched for the number of pages which include the name "Republic of Macedonia", but don't include the other names: 799,000 results
• I searched for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" -"Republic of Macedonia" -Misplaced Pages, in other words I searched for the number of websites that include the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, but don't include the name Republic of Macedonia: 1,290,000 results

Quite obviously, the Former... name is the more common one and as I said above should not be forced undeground. I understand Bitola not wanting to discuss, but to maintain the version he agrees with, but I think it's time for changes. The UN and most other international organizations refer to it that way and it will consent to be admitted to the EU under that name, so everything's fine. --Latinus 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, FYROM is almost twice as common in use according to your test. Especially if you expand your search to this, you get 5.74 million results. (The search is for: FYROM OR "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" OR "FYRO Macedonia" OR "FYR of Macedonia" OR "FYR Macedonia" -"Republic of Macedonia" -wikipedia)

Also, if we conduct a similar test for plain "Macedonia" but excluding everything that has no relation to the country, as this one we get just 3.57 million results. (the search is for: Macedonia -Greek -Hellas -Cyprus -Bulgaria -Thessaloniki -Salonica -Former -Yugoslavian -Yugoslav -FYROM -FYRO -Greece -"F.Y.R.O.M." -Ohio -wikipedia -.gr -Pittsburgh -FYR -Connecticut -"South -Carolina" -Canton -Texas -"Michael -Macedonia" -Alabama -Corinthians). Exception explanation: 1.Macedonia obviously is part of the verbose term for FYROM, therefore all FYROM-like entries have to be excluded. 2.There are some parts of USA named after Macedonia 3.There is an artist called Michael Macedonia! 4.There are vast references to the Greek and Bulgarian provinces of Macedonia.

It is therefore apparent, that the term "FYROM" (5.74M) is more frequent even than the sum of both terms "Republic of Macedonia" (1.29M) and only Macedonia (3.57M) (total of the two terms is 4.86M).

Furthermore, FYROM is the official name under: the UN , IMF , EU , EBRD , NATO and all international organisations. The acceptance of the term by the country is a form of "selective self-identification".

I suggest we rename the page. NikoSilver 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets clear this once for all:

• Most common name for my country in the world is Macedonia. I performed the following Google searches:

Macedonia –Greek –Bulgarian –Former -Yugoslavian:] 83,000,000 results (this search doesn’t reflect the whole picture because the country is many times mentioned in the following context: Macedonia is one of the Yugoslavian republic, Macedonian Bulgarian Greek border etc…)

Republic of Macedonia:- 4,370,000 results

FYROM: 4,460,000 results

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:- 1,880,000 results

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

• Even if this is not true, we don’t have intention to cover the reference that is temporarily used in the UN, EU and other organizations. Instead, there is a whole section about the naming dispute. I created the Naming dispute section in order to stop the edit war and I believe that it was really successful (in the past few months we have no edit war around the naming dispute in this article).

• The current solution was reached through the Consensus of all principal editors (both Macedonian and Greek)
• The current solution follows the NPOV because it doesn’t endorse any side, instead it has a whole section that describes the naming dispute, which is contrary to the other country articles.
• If you still insist on changing the current solution, I’m going to delete the Naming dispute section (as it doesn’t existed before the agreement) and put a link to the existing lengthy section that describes this dispute:Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue
• You must understand that the naming dispute is bilateral dispute between two countries and it cannot be dominant in the article about a country.

Bitola 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I become enlightnend - I get wiser the older I get... --Latinus 19:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you should know that you are pushing Greek POV that is not acceptable here and you know that it will fail. Bitola 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not Greek POV - it's UN POV or the POV of International law if you will. You are pushing Fyrom's POV, aren't you. Well, it's only a poll - we'll see what happens... --Latinus 19:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEY! User:Bitola USES HIS COUNTRY'S GOOGLE! The results I posted with User:Latinus above are from the ENGLISH version of Google and searching for pages written in English. Since this is the English Misplaced Pages, the Google test should refer to English pages that are written and read by English speaking people!! The results are the following:

"FYROM" (5.74M results)

"Macedonia" (3.57M results) and

"Republic of Macedonia" is included in the above search (therefore ZERO results)!!!

It is apparent that FYROM is almost twice as commonly used than Macedonia when referring to the country!!!

User:Bitola has willingly or unwillingly deceived everybody in the previous poll, in order to push his POV! It is only natural that the country itself will have millions of references in all of its sites because all users in FYROM place the name of their country in all subpages!!! This does not happen in any other language, for any other country! It happens only in the so called "Macedonian" version of Google!!

Could you believe his test that there are 83M results for "Macedonia" in the Google "Macedonian" straw-version, when there are only 6.8M results for Greece (plus Hellas) in the Greek Google, (here)? And keep in mind that Greece has 5 times the population of FYROM!!!

We must DEFINITELY rename the page! NikoSilver 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Never fear - the impending renaming poll will make the final decision, not you - au revoir, mon ami... --Latinus 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's have this poll as soon as possible because the name as it is now, is very offensive. --Avg 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

HEY YOU LOST THE POINT

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

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

1981

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

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

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

User:Ancientmacedon's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Macedonian Tomb Found

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

Use of the abbreviation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encyclopedia.com:

Britannica online:

Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: the abbreviation stays. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UT

FORMER REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

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

Macedonian question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other side of the Macedonian Question.

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

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

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

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

1913 Your land called juzno Serbije

• http://www.postcardman.net/103236.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/103237.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/103242.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/103232.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/49761.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/45031.jpg
• http://www.postcardman.net/130142.jpg

Vergina 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Everything you might want to know about the real Macedonia.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/

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

http://www.macedonia.info/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NikoSilver 10:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I guess your link gives us the creme de la creme of neutral opinions all over the world!  NikoSilver   00:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonian Slavs are Bulgars

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

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

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

Vergina 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Macedonian prospects for full EU membership

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

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

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

So we should put all the German's chancellors statemants about Macedonia in the article. And a whole paragraf for all of them. And this should be aplied to all the other articles ofcourse. Including in the Greece article - the statemant of Claus Kinkel I think (after Germany supported Macedonia on some issue against Greece, he said that Greece is not in a position to shape European politics)

And since you are so interested in German politics, are you familiar with the recent Bundestag resolution for recognition of the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia? --Realek 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The question here is as to what extent can Misplaced Pages potentially sway the opinion of readers of the article, revealing certain not so positive outlooks for full membership. FunkyFly 01:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The question here is that you would use any means to say something "negative" about Macedonia --Realek 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw man's comment: Should we stick to the principle "either good or nothing". :) FunkyFly 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We should stick to the principles of wikipedia and according to those this paragraph shouldn't even remotely be concidered for inclusion (not to mention that the editor didn't include the things he didn't like). Or if you don't think we should stick to wikipedia principles, at least let's not have double standars - let's make a whole paragraf out of each link I provided. And let me ask you, are you willing to include such things in other articles; eg Greece article? Surely you would agree double standars are a bad thing... --Realek 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about which principles preclude this paragraph from inclusion? If you think that something should be included in the article about Greece or other country - do it. Misplaced Pages is not consistent, albeit the opposite would be desirable. FunkyFly 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The principless that you should read more carefully. But let's not get carried away with such "complicated" stuff. For start let's stick to the principles of logics. If we include all such things, this article would be gigabytes long. This is an encyclopedia, not a political bulletin or a daily politics log. Anyway just of curiosity: don't you think the links I provided are at least as important? Do you think we should include them also? Finally I wont do it to the Grece article - I made my position clear about such additions. I just asked to expose your double standards. And if somebody else includes something similar in the Grece article, it's obvious it vould be out in a second. --Realek 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I know one more user who is always talking about 'double standards',but , fortunately , not unrelated to u:).do i have to say again that There is no cabal?--Hectorian 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

One point has to be made very clearly over the EU in the main page. The EU is suffering from enlargement fatigue. Some countries are actively engaged in slowing it down. This has an inescapable impact on the West Balkans, including the ROM/FYROM. Therefore this situation needs to be included. The enlargement does not depend on the Commission but on individual vetoes of member states. So, on the one hand you have the EU commitment promoted by the Greek presidency in Thessaloniki in 2003. On the other, the objections of France, Germany, etc. I agree, that we cannot transform the article into a 'news agency'. No. But the inclusion of the main and long term obstacles to enlargement are de rigueur. - Politis 13:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is a widely known fact (at least among the westerners) that the problems of EU are not caused by the new member states, but rather from within the system itself, even if it still consisted of the first 5 member states only. It is entirely up to the present member states (and their responsibility as well) to decide whether Macedonia meets the criteria or not. If anyone thinks that new members states are blood-suckers, they should only look back when their state was new. How would one feel?

So, here there is no question of whether Macedonia is beneficial for the EU. That is for the EU to decide. As ordinary people, we cannot know all the factors involved in the decidion-making, not to mention all of the political play behind it. If there is such a thing as "the downfall" of the EU, it is entirely a problem of bad management or mistreating the people (like the poor One-Euro-Jobbers in Germany) and not the problem of prospective members states, who for some reason are supposed to be held responsible for something. After all, if the EU as a whole doesn't want Macedonia in, no one forces them to accept it.--Bjankuloski06en 02:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted

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

Sad... Anyway, why don't you sign yourself? --Realek 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thing - this "history student who loves wikipedia" 195.93.21.133 made about 100 edits before he expressed his disgust here, and most of them were reverted because of vandalism. The edits that he made were mostly minor, sometimes he changed only 1 letter, wich leads to the conclusion that he was doing it to gain a voting priviledge. Dear 195.93.21.133, at least we agree on the title you have put. --Realek 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Before jumping into conclusions, it looks like the IP is from a dynamic pool, so chances are multiple persons were editing. FunkyFly 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, 195.93.21.133 was persistant in making minor vandal changes, during his "career". It seems certain that it's the same person. --Realek 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of judging his edits,why don't u say anything about his/her comment?afterall,he/she did not say anything untrue...--Hectorian 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, are you 195.93.21.133 by any chance? --Realek 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are u accusing me for been?No!i am not using sockpuppets,other users may do(i guess u got what i mean)...And if u do not believe me ask for an IP check.btw,make a comment about what he/she said,if u do not mind.--Hectorian 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No I was not acusing you, I just asked. I understand it's wikipedia policy to confront sockpuppets and you almost instanteniously defendet him - so I was right to ask you. And since you insist that I make a comment about his/her worthless post, here it is: 195.93.21.133's post was irational and in a bad taste. --Realek 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I defended noone.in fact i had seen his/her edit long before u made yours.but i had nothing to respond,untill u replied to him.and u did not really comment on his edit...he stated some facts(and u cannot deny it) --Hectorian 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that even someone like 195.93.21.133 would be defended. Anyway I said what I had to say on this matter and I consider arguing about this any more to be a pure waste of time. For me this discussion is over. --Realek 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As u wish.For the record,i defended the accuracy of the comment,not user 195.93.21.133 him/herself.--Hectorian 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FYROMian Identity falsification

==FYROMian falsification of own Bulgarian identity(nr.1)

Dictionary in 4 languages 1802:

The languages are Greek, Vlach, Bulgarian and Albanian.

NOT "(in Macedonian, Greek, Vlach and Albanian)"

• http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G04/01/A04_01/sa1903.htm

Vergina/Macedonia 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FYROMian falsification of own Bulgarian identity(nr.2)

• http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G04/01/A04_01/sa1910.htm

Document:

"Kniga sija zovomaja

Ogledalo

opisasja radi potrebi i polzovanija

preprosteishim i ne knizhnim jazykom

Bolgarskim dolnija Myssii ..."

Translation:

"This book, called

"Mirror"(Ogledalo),

was written for the needs and use of the very simplest and

unlettered "BULGARIAN PEOPLE" of "LOWER MOESIA"

See:

• http://www.b-info.com/places/Macedonia/region/Pejchinovich/

"Macedonians" are Greeks!Not "Bulgarian People"!

"Lower Moesia" is not Macedonia!

Vergina/Macedonia 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For the Disgusted topic above ^^^^^^^^^

I am using a library computer as mine does not have internet access, but I can see that this little enclave of propaganda is aggressive and it is pointless to comment as subjects like Isreal, The Ottoman Empire and this the 3 things I have commented on have already been decided by the editors to be fixed. All I am saying is it is a shame they backed soley the Slav propaganda and not the unbias international bodies I mentioned previously such as the EU and UN. For the record also (not sure why this was in question) I do like Wiki and so do my colleagues, it is just sad to see what should be honest accounts and descriptions infiltrated by a single country's motives and not the world's overview at the time.

Maybe you want to stay anonimous, but your record speaks volumes about you:

.

I'll leave to the other users to judge your "love for wikipedia" --Realek 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That IP seems to be an open proxy. --Latinus 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,u continue to accuse a user about his/her edits,without commenting on what he/she wrote.u just say 'the discussion is over for me'...what are u trying to do?to make the others not take him seriously cause u cannot respond in his comments?--Hectorian 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's called the ad hominem logical fallacy - he attacks the person rather than refuting the argument. The tactics are well known... --Latinus 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing new - yet again you can not face the facts. I said what I had to say about his comment (altough maybe such things don't deserve any comment). Anyway you should read what has been said previously before you accuse me. Furthermore I think that his record is sufficient to discredit him. It's so obvious but you can continue defending him if you want. Your edits describe you best (like his describe him). --Realek 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my edits? FYI I have more than 7500 edits, have more articles under my belt than the number of pages you've accessed, whereas you have contributed nothing to Misplaced Pages except edit warring and you have served two blocks for violating the rules. I think your edits should be scrutinised... --Latinus 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW Latinus, how can I attack the person, when there is no identity behind 195.93.21.133???

Isnt that a logical fallacy???

See straw man - a different type of logical fallacy. --Latinus 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i am not defending the user,but ask a comment on his.yet all u have said is And since you insist that I make a comment about his/her worthless post, here it is: 195.93.21.133's post was irational and in a bad taste and then For me this discussion is over.so,practically,u did not make a comment.--Hectorian 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I did! Thats all I have to say - his/her post was irational and in a bad taste --Realek 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

but he/she also said that no international organisation names your country 'Republic of Macedonia'.no comment on that,so far...(btw,honestly,i do not think that u have anything to say in order to contrantict it);-)--Hectorian 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What that sockpuppet vandal said is not the same with what you are saying now. You take it even further claming: no international organisation names your country Republic of Macedonia. Unfortunately a lot of organisations still havent made the move, but to claim that no organisation does is an obvious lie. But I'm more interested in why do you avoid the question how many countries have recognised the constitutional name. In case you don't know I'll tell you: as of 31.12.2005 113 members of UN did (including USA, China and Russia ) ;) --Realek 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your land is "Republic of Vardar-Bulgaria" !

II. Statistical information from the Turkish yearbook of 1902 for the Bitola Vilaet

1. As Appendix No 2, I am inserting the title page of the Yearbook.

2. In the Appendix No 3 there are given the following data for the city of Bitola (called Monastir in Turkish):

The total population of the city is given as 89,985 people consisting of:

a/ Moslems (Turks, Albanians, etc.) 24,713

b/ Greeks and Vlahs 30,036

c/ Bulgarians 30,891

d/ Jews 4,264

http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_3.html

Vergina/Macedonia 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't in public - only in bilateral relations ;-) When Greece is present, Fyrom comes back on the table ;-) --Latinus 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to belive that be my guest ;) --Realek 20:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do ;-) --Latinus 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But u are still talking about countries,Realek.i am talking about organizations.--Hectorian 20:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What's important is that the EU doesn't and if that is proposed to change, any member state can veto it as all member states possess an absolute veto on any matter (including the budget sadly - that has been the root of 50% of the bureaucracy on earth). --Latinus 20:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to see. But greece will have to dance like the big ones play. Grece is in no position to impose its views on the EU. Not to mention that you would probably like to block the entry of everybody around you (You have problems with all your neighbours). In the end greece won't be able to block anything. --Realek 20:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All the balkan states have problems with many of their neighbours(btw,we do not have any problem with bulgaria).and also have in mind that all our neighbours need greece for their EU (and some for their NATO) process.so,maybe in the end the others will have to step back of their demands;-)--Hectorian 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to belive that be my guest ;) --Realek 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

in case u do not know it,so far the EU recognises the country under the name FYROM.the 'big ones' have not pressed Greece to make any change.so,nothing should make u believe that this is gonna change in the near or not future--Hectorian 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your veto (and other) thraets are legendary, but lets wait and see. --Realek 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's cute, really ;-) Tell me Hectoriane, what did Condoleeza Rice, a minister of the Biggest One say the other day about Fyrom ;-) --Latinus 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

She said that if FYROM wants to have an EU and NATO future,will have to agree with Greece first over the naming dispute:)--Hectorian 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pure and simple lie! --Realek 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about when she said that the USA will recognise Fyrom under the name that will emerge from the resolution of the naming dispute (overseen by the UN). --Latinus 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course!a name decided between greece and fyrom,will be the country's name for the whole word(including USA).i doubt it there will be any country not to recognise a name recognised by EU,NATO,UN,all the other organizations,fyrom,greece.--Hectorian 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, thats why USA recognised the constitutional name of Republic of macedonia. Keep dreaming. You get to impose nothing. --Realek 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

and Rice stated that if the two countries come up to a solution,then they will recognise the country with that name;-)--Hectorian 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You can continue your dialogue with Latinus. I'm out of it. It's below me. I shouldn't have even started arguing - I apologize. Beginers mistake. You wont drag me into such things in the future! --Realek 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

noone dragged u.u entered with your own will(not to say that u started it)...--Hectorian 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said - beginners mistake. I apologise. Now I leave it. It's below me. --Realek 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's below me" - yes, denying the truth is below me, too... --Latinus 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the Americans ignored the UN and went to War with iraq. the War is still illegal whether Britain and the states want to admit it or not. So when the states say you can call yourself whatever you want - it does not mean much - just the Americans rewardin a small nation for supporting an illegal war with an illegal name. i am no greek lover, but this site has made a big dicision to back this small slav state over the UN and EU. So let me get this straight, if Iran tomorrow renames itself 'death to all americans' and most the inhabitants back this name as does lets say another few countries...even if the UN do not recognise it - this site will??? that is hilarious, stop this insanity and give the page the title FYROM, the legal name. If tomorrow the UN and EU says they recognise the name republic of macedonia, whether it offends all of Greece tough - that should be the name. But as it stands that has not happened, so why pick sides? The agreed name is FYROM for a reason, if everyone thought Greece did not have a point they would be laughed out of the negotiations, however that is not the case, the UN and EU does not recognise the name Macedonia for a reason, this page does not recognise the UN, cool for America - for the rest of us, an insult to our intelligence.

Hmmm. For your info there was a poll for that. There could be one more, you know. WP doesn't represent the views of USA (hopefully). It has separate rules. Please log in with a username. So we know how to call you and sign using four ~ in the end. PS. I am Greek (and an active one, as you can see above).  NikoSilver   21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK done, however I have been on another site and whatever i have stated has been ignored by FYROM, they accuse me of being Greek, serch out my IP to discredit me, accuse me of being some else, anything accept acknowledging what me and others who disagree with them say. I have also noticed that they also (when the arguement is put clearly such as I have attempted to do) they decide not to reply and I am left with usually the Greeks to agree with. I was upset when I saw what has been said about isreal, Ottoman Empire and many other articles, but this one is surely the biggest injustice, not just to Greek's history and culture, but to the UN, NATO and EU. Seems now a days if your country is small and new, you can really get away with a hell of a lot on the net.

Ok. How should we call you? If you wanna join in, there are advantages: You can have a "watchlist" to see what articles are modified, a personal "talk page" for comments by other users, a "track record" of all your contributions et al. Will you? I'll be the first to welcome you (if someone else doesnt do it first). I promise.  NikoSilver   22:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok i am logged in as reaper7, beacuse someone already had reaper, thanks for the help Niko and i will 'watch this article and others. Does it say reaper7 after my posts now?

No it doesn't, for TWO reasons:

1. You must place FOUR TILDES (~) in the end of everything you write
2. You must check that you are LOGGED IN, cause if you're not, then WP doesn't place your name, it places your IP instead.

 NikoSilver   22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done Reaper7 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) also can someone realise that this is a library Ip and note that whenever Reaper7 logs on it is me, not others and i have vandalised nothing. Reaper7 23:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) I keep getting this:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Yamla for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Persistent vandalism, multiple warnings" Your IP address is 195.93.21.130.

I have not edited anything, can i be unblocked, i cannot even start a discussion anymore strangely only on this topic. Reaper7 23:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User Reaper7

This has no place here but you started it so I will add my comments:

• It's hard to belive that it's a library computer because it's hard to belive that someone will spend a whole day in a library just to insult Macedonians.
• The "contributions" made from that IP have been pretty consistant: minor vandalisms, addind single letters, duplicating stuff, editing then reverting... (leads to the conclusion that 50+ edits were pursued)
• After all this the user pretends he doesn't know the basics of wikipedia and asks for technical help from other users (a transparent attempt to avoid a conclusion that he might be a sockpuppet)

--Realek 23:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never insulted any macedonian, and have many Greek friends and when I said I will not do Greece any favours it does not mean I hate them - If any macedonian is reading I believe Greece is probably right here (in this issue of FYROM) so take no offence. As for the Slavs on this site - I give up. Think whatever you want, I should be working now anyway - goodluck on distorting Wiki and Greek history. For the record I have never edited a page on here in my life, only discussed on discussion topics and it seems realtec or whatever has not noticed his estimate of how many edits I have done has gone up since he last quoted them by exactly how many posts I have made here. Apparently they are edits too? pointless arguing anyway, bye bye. Reaper7 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you changed your tactics after I exposed you! --Realek 23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You exposed me?? What tactics fool?? You expose yourself as an artificial idiot everytime you post. if this is the quality of members on here why don't you rename your country Atlantis, i'm sure you can quite easily use the same bizarre arguements to get 'proof' and few people will argue, after all you got away with ignoring the UN and NATO for this page, the world is your oyster. Reaper7 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI this is the block log of 195.93.21.130, and this is for Reaper7. Currently 195... is blocked for 24 hours, starting from 23:26, March 26, 2006 (meaning the library IP is blocked until late tonight). The same does not apply for Reaper7 (meaning the user can log on from a different IP and edit normally). However, I strongly advise Reaper7 to refrain from bad language towards other users, or he can be blocked for that also (read WP:NPA). Reaper7, please take your time to read the wikipedia policies and guidelines as they appear in your welcome message in your talk page. You will be able to edit from that library only after tonight. If you have any questions click here to message me.  NikoSilver   12:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

So who has been falsely claiming minor edits? FunkyFly 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You --Realek 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How hypocritical of you my friend. FunkyFly 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the mirror!. Have you even looked at the links??? The links you provide are for two reverts I made agains greek vandalism, by an obvious sockpuppet using different IPs. The sockpuppet that vandalised those pages was promptly blocked by administrators. Ofcourse I claimed minor edits, what do you expect in such a case??? On the other hand you remove and add whole paragraphs without any concent from anybody from Macedonia or neutral for that matter and you claim minor edit! I'm sure it's against wikipedia rules - I'll look it up. On top of that you acuse me of hypocricy. You really should talk to a mirror, like I said. --Realek 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The New Round of Reverts

Check this:

WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."

After this, and keeping in mind the equal-votes poll, reverting is considered vandalism!  NikoSilver 

That is why the naming dispute section exists. Bitola 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just bolded the two words in the previous quote that make the difference between section and initial paragraph. I think, that since the name of the article is still negotiable (both in WP and in a diplomatic level), the very LEAST we can do (for now), is to include the other name in the top. Sorry, tough luck!  NikoSilver  19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaning the changes I made - read before you revert!

1. The naming dispute at least in wikipedia was resolved. Unless this changes: Stop disputing the name in the article itself - there is a link to the Naming dispute article for that.
2. The sentance recognized by most states and international organizations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - FYROM is false anyway - most countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name. "International organizations" is a relative and very strechable term (you surely dont have the statistics to support your claim)
3. Making the former flag appear smaller is just funny. But If it helps solving the situation, I wont object to it. It's silly.
4. All those sites that reffer to Macedonia as FYR Macedonia are overloading the article. And if they are mentioned, then we should also put links to all the government sites of countries that recognise the constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia. But this would unecessarily overload the article even more. So if you wish do it in the Naming dispute article (ofcourse be fair and represent the other side too - countries and organisations that recognise the constitutional name)
5. "Some countries" is relative term and you only have a source for one (not really valid - daily politics). Anyway since you're so insistant that it should be included in the article, lets make it percise:
   1. The link from an official European institution is surely more suitable than the greek link.
   2. The claim that Greece secured the European future of the Balkans is just false - Greece is not in a position to shape European politics and strategy in such a way, no matter how much it supports the process.
   3. You dont show the whole picture - the reafirming of Macedonian EU prospects after Ms Merkel's statemant (I provided links earlier in this discussion, greek users didn't even bothered to discuss it)
   4. The whole game of words looks malicios. The whole paragraf looks POVish, not very percise and argumented.
6. The satelite picture shows area outside the borders of Republic of Macedonia. But ofcourse it does - no country has a rectangle shape. Nobody seems to be bothered by this in other articles. Anyway the map doesn't show the whole region, so the sentance Satellite view of Macedonia, as a geographical region is false anyway. Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.
7. Final note: this is an areticle about Republic of Macedonia. It's not about the naming dispute and it's not about bashing Republic of Macedonia. There are a lot of other things to talk about here: economics, culture, transportation... Please refrain from distorting the article and overloading it in certain areas.

--Realek 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1.The name has to do with this article too,so it can also be discussed here,since it has to do with how the article is named.

2.u are kidding of course when talking about organizations...just to mention some:UN,EU,FIFA,FIBA,UEFA,Counsil of Europe,UNESCO,include this in UN if u want,but it still remains that the international organisations call the country FYROM and especially the largest and most well know organisations.

3.no comment about the former flag...as a matter of fact,i have no idea why it is still in the article.all the countries have former flags,but they are in the respective articles,were they belong.keeping it here is just...funny.

4.if u want to present the countries that call FYROM by the name "Macedonia',u have to mention that they do this only in biliteral relations.also,the sentence Republic of Macedonia is a member of a number of international organisations such as the United Nations, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe Council of Europe, associate member of La Francophonie, World Trade Organization (WTO) etc. is POVish enough,since these organisations recognise 'FYROM' as their member,not the 'Republic of Macedonia'.

5.whether u like it or not,Greece plays a very important role in the Balkans and it has a word in the accession of these states in EU.Merkel's statement is a fact,and so it has to be included,unless u do not want to refear at all about FYROM-EU relations...

6.since i've seen claims from FYROM to the whole geographical region,this image cannot be the way that u want.u said 'Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.'...so,change the image...

7.it is about FYROM in all aspects. --Hectorian 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The naming dispute at least in wikipedia was resolved. Unless this changes: Stop disputing the name in the article itself - there is a link to the Naming dispute article for that.
2. The sentance recognized by most states and international organizations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - FYROM is false anyway - most countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name. "International organizations" is a relative and very strechable term (you surely dont have the statistics to support your claim)

And how is an international organization a stretchable term? How is the UN, WTO, NATO, EU, the World Bank for example stretchable? What statistics are you refering to? FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Making the former flag appear smaller is just funny. But If it helps solving the situation, I wont object to it. It's silly.

Ok, nothing wrong with expressing your opinion. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. All those sites that reffer to Macedonia as FYR Macedonia are overloading the article. And if they are mentioned, then we should also put links to all the government sites of countries that recognise the constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia. But this would unecessarily overload the article even more. So if you wish do it in the Naming dispute article (ofcourse be fair and represent the other side too - countries and organisations that recognise the constitutional name)

The article is hardly overloaded with mentioning the international name in the beginning. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. "Some countries" is relative term and you only have a source for one (not really valid - daily politics). Anyway since you're so insistant that it should be included in the article, lets make it percise:
   1. The link from an official European institution is surely more suitable than the greek link.
   2. The claim that Greece secured the European future of the Balkans is just false - Greece is not in a position to shape European politics and strategy in such a way, no matter how much it supports the process.

That again is certainly your take on the subject matter, open to debate. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. You dont show the whole picture - the reafirming of Macedonian EU prospects after Ms Merkel's statemant (I provided links earlier in this discussion, greek users didn't even bothered to discuss it)
   2. The whole game of words looks malicios. The whole paragraf looks POVish, not very percise and argumented.
2. The satelite picture shows area outside the borders of Republic of Macedonia. But ofcourse it does - no country has a rectangle shape. Nobody seems to be bothered by this in other articles. Anyway the map doesn't show the whole region, so the sentance Satellite view of Macedonia, as a geographical region is false anyway. Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.

It's not false, how can you say that? It sure does cover the entire region. (minus a little bit in the very eastern end of the Greek part). I would not object to "satellite image of the Republic of Macedonia". It would be especilly nice if we could find an example where the borders are drawn, like this one or this one. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Final note: this is an areticle about Republic of Macedonia. It's not about the naming dispute and it's not about bashing Republic of Macedonia. There are a lot of other things to talk about here: economics, culture, transportation... Please refrain from distorting the article and overloading it in certain areas.

Sure but the name used in international organizations sure is used quite common and you simply cant avoid it. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Really sad! I won't argue with you... I'll just have to let any neutral person to make his/her own conclusions from what have been said. --Realek 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You could try, truth is born out of arguments (well most of the time) FunkyFly 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,i thought that u brought your thoughts here for discussion,right?otherwise,u should had said not to comment on them... --Hectorian 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I try to discuss, but even obvious things are disputed (out of nationalism, out of arogance, out of bad intentions). Every time I try to show good faith or to be as constructive as possible I'm met with lies, distortions, insults... It is really sad that few greek users spend their whole days butchering articles on Macedonian, Turkish and Albanian issues. --Realek 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Something might be obvious to you (because of your own nationalism, arrogance, or bad intentions) but it might not be so obvious to others. FunkyFly 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Carefull there. When I mentioned those words It wasn't personal. You are making a personal attack here. Consult NikoSilver how to make a personal attack without being punished. He recently gave Reaper7 a lesson how to insult me without being blocked. He seems to be an expert in the area. --Realek 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! I told him:"However, I strongly advise Reaper7 to refrain from bad language towards other users, or he can be blocked for that also (read WP:NPA)." (right above), and in his talk, after he insisted that "fool/silly" (LOL) is not considered an insult, I told him: "Ok. If you wanna use fool/silly, use it, BUT, not ad hominem (i.e. not he is silly). You can always say this is a silly arguement. Not too often though AND with full citation, or you won't be taken seriously when you say it." (here). According to Realek, this is a lesson!!! From this, you can judge how NPOV he can be on all other issues as well!  NikoSilver  14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mine's also not personal, rather refers to editors from THE REPUBLIC. FunkyFly 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,at least u cannot blame me for personal attacks(insulting u)!if i did,or any other did,just report him.be careful when using the words 'nationalism,arogance,bad intentions',they may fit to the people of your country more than to the greeks.and yes...the greeks are butchering all articles...pffffff...what a comment!now,what would a nationalistic greek do for u breaking the 3RR? --Hectorian 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reaper7 called me a fool and an idiot. I leave for others to conclude if it was a personal attack. And the difference between my coment and FunkyFly's is that mine wasn't personal. So If you blame me for using those words you should blame him much more. --Realek 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking sides when users have conficts between them for personal stuff.personal attacks can be forgiven,resolved,replied by another personal attack,or reported.it is none of my business.all i care is the articles. --Hectorian 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do! and I advise them NOT to do so, as I am advising Realek right now!  NikoSilver  14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, there's nothing to discuss here, the version with the footnote (and not with the redundant edit) was discussed long time ago, and compromise was made. See the archives if you don't believe it. And stop already, think freely, not nationalistic! And get real - the name is Republic of Macedonia Bomac 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the initial paragraph stays with the comment about FYROM, either you like it or not, just as Greeks don't like "RoM". You get real, and RTFM: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." The discussion "a long time ago" you mention, finished with an EQUAL votes poll. I expect EQUAL appearance of FYROM in the article (and just the initial paragraph is far from EQUAL already). Reverting is considered vandalism!  NikoSilver  14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the first paragraph to add a sentence that "It is recognised diplomatically as the "Republic of Macedonia" or the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM)". I've also removed the stand-alone name "Macedonia" from the first sentence. The country identifies itself as the "Republic of Macedonia", hence the article name; the different names are a matter of diplomatic recognition, rather than self-naming. -- ChrisO 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the prior introduction, i.e, before this sleigh ride began (again), which was a discussed and agreeable conciliation to address the multiple viewpoints regarding the country's name; the above rationale is rather subjective. As per the country wikiproject, most countries have short- and long-form renditions that differ but are generally noted in the introduction: this case is only slightly different with the adoption of FYROM ... which is already linked to and noted below in a dedicated section of this article (for those wishing to insinuate arguments regarding undue weight) and at length in the foreign relations article, and also increasingly deprecated. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:E Pluribus Anthony. Namely, before several months, after a long and exhaustive edit warring around the name, all relevant editors (both Macedonian and Greek) agreed to make a compromise. The compromise was to create a new section especially intended to describe the naming dispute and to include ALL DATA related to this dispute there (although such sections are unspecific in all other articles about a country). The compromise was related to the intro section as well: we agreed to include a to the initial sentence/reference that will lead to the naming dispute section. I strongly suggest to stick to this compromise because it was very hardly achieved and saved us from edit warring for several months. Bitola 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is not acceptable. You will have to give EQUAL appearance of FYROM in the article. Your "discussed and agreeable conciliation" is far from general concensus of the editors of the article. The users involved in that talk were E Pluribus Anthony , Bitola, naryathegreat, Erath and Jonathunder (i.e. 5 users in total). Based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each", I will keep reverting, unless we come into a real concensus.  NikoSilver  21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it will have to do until you can compel and garner consensus for edits that support your position and said changes, which doesn't exist. A previous agreeable arrangement, lasting for weeks during which little politically has changed, cannot be obviated by wilful changes that are supported by even fewer editors than originally. As well, little has transpired that would necessitate changes regarding toponymy that are already given due weight (in the form of an entire section) and, arguably, excessively in this overview article already. Anything otherwise will be judiciously dealt with. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your position is unacceptable by WP policy. As per "judiciously dealt", I am picking the glove.  NikoSilver  22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's unacceptable to you ... but agreeable with both policy and most editors involved in these discussions. Garner consensus before insinuating a point-of-view. Pick all you want, but harping about changes which are insinuated by a minority and being made without consensus will be dealt with judiciously. Until you can compel otherwise, deal with it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading all the discussion here, i have not yet realised why is it such a big problem if we and the name 'FYROM' in the first paragraph. the international organisations and several countries refer to the country with this name. we just have to follow what the world recognises. --Hectorian 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a consenual project and the current version was consensually arrived at; recent edits, though not necessarily personally disagreeable, have not been. Importantly, this is an article about the country, not the name: juridically, RoM is unambiguously used (which if, anything, is a truncated version of FYROM and sufficient on its own), and a dedicated section already exists to address this – arguably, enough consideration in this overview article has already been given to the name. Moreover, said edits seem to flow from those who wish to expatiate propriety over the name and who cannot or will not accept the republic's statehood. (And before various editors get up in arms about this, note that I'm writing this from across the pond and my father was born in Tripoli). If necessary, I'm for reopening the issue but, given all of the above, see little reason to. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the article is titled RoM is a result(among others) of 'those' who now want the term 'FYROM' to be incuded in the 1st paragraph. i am not disputing the name of the article, cause of good faith and wiki rules. But i will insist for the term 'FYROM' to be included in the first paragraph, simply cause it does not violate any rule, and because it is a name widely, internationally, and officially used. it is a name for this country and it has to be mentioned 'hand-by-hand' with the other one, for as long as our fellow diplomats are still discussing the dispute. --Hectorian 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeable; however, given the agreeable conciliations arrived at (which recent opponents were either unwilling or unable to contest when originally implemented), I am not as insistent ... and am resistant given the lack of consensus in doing so. Recent opponents decide to change the article and to late embolden text in what others might perceive as deprecating; others will change it back. And for what? I maintain the prior rendition/version a balance of the two positions and see little reason to forego it yet.

Looks like we might have to have a vote on that. FunkyFly 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

in case someone has not understood what i mean,i am saying that the country is rocognised by both names. hence, both should be added in the 1st paragraph. --Hectorian 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and NPOV

FYROM stays in the initial paragraph. And in bold. WP:CON does not apply to 5 users discussing in a page. Until you can provide TRUE concensus, deal with the reverts, based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  NikoSilver  22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it apply to a position beheld by less than five users with NO consensus. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not democracy, and i am sure we all know that. and this goes to all the users involved in this topic. i am saying and insisting in keep being compatible with what is going on with the name problem of this country. and it is so simple:it is recognised by both names, so both names will be stated in the first paragraph. anything different than that is simply POVish. --Hectorian 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a democracy, but various users insinuate edits without requisite consensus or sufficient discussion beforehand. Problems result ... and nothing herein solves them. Moreover, the article can't possibly be partial given the note linking to a dedicated section regarding this issue. And I'm sure Macedonians would take issue. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The article can't be POV-ish because it has a compatible dispute section. High Elf 22:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just listen to what you are saying, E Pluribus: If there was even a true WP:CON by 5 users that we should change the name of the article to "Banania", that would supersede the rule of WP:NPOV and we'd rename it? Let aside that the "consensus" you are referring to is not valid.  NikoSilver  22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Argument = red herring. Pot, meet kettle. Given the presence of a dedicated section (and link), accusations of partiality are bogus. Moreover, given the contentious nature of this article, my point is that NO consensus exists for said changes, no matter how proper they are. Perhaps you should try to constructively discuss and propose changes before insinuating them ... or should have expressed dissent in January when the conciliatory note was first implemented. In cyberspace, noone can hear you scream. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus helps us to determine, through discussion with involved editors, how to make the article consistent with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. We discuss which viewpoint is the majority one, what other viewpoints are notable minority ones important for conclusion, and which ones are fringe and should be left out of the article, and we attempt to reach consensus on those issues. Jkelly 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jkelly. That is exactly my point. There was no real discussion as to which viewpoint is the majority one, nor was there any discussion about which are the minority ones. The alleged "consensus" was conducted under our noses, in no time, by irrelevant users. On top of that, I disagree with your edit summary comment. It is evident to me that WP:NPOV is much more powerful than WP:CON, because NPOV is what the consensa seek.  NikoSilver  23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There are pages and pages dedicated to this issue, openly discussed; if discussions were conducted under 'noses', it's only because said users had them elsewhere or were otherwise indisposed or not compelled to dissent. And I'm unsure who or what the inchoate "irrelevant users" is supposed to refer to. And, still, little has been presented to substantiate that the status quo is not impartial. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I should have stepped forward then, but I was a newbee. We learn as we age (see my favorite motto in my userpage). Irrelevant users, means that I haven't seen the names of the involved parties of the "consensus" as frequently appearing in this talk, as I have seen tens of other users. Status quo substantiation, can be described in 20 characters: WP:NPOV#Undue weight It is obvious that the "Naming dispute" is the hottest issue and the reason why we have 7 arcives of talks already. My POV is that this is THE most serious issue, for the article and for the readers. I think the "Naming dispute" section is definitely unequal in strength to: (1) the name of the article and (2) to the initial paragraph. That's all I've been substantiating about since the beginning of this talk!  NikoSilver  23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw this: The Note. See how many users are trully involved in this "concensus"!!!  NikoSilver  23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is rather inchoate and am unsure what it demonstrates; the wikilink to "The Note" and that discussion differs from that which has been in place for the last two months. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolding

About the bolding of FYROM in the first paragraph, we've been having a dispute similar to this over at the Persian Gulf page. It seems that according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, alternative names should be bolded. However, the dispute is ongoing, whether "Arabian Gulf" is an alternative name or not. The issue here is different - FYROM is definitely an alternative name - however this whole issue seems too controversial to make things simple. What does everyone else think? --Khoikhoi 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

i think that if we can bold, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, an alternative name of a gulf that has been called mostly Persian for far too long, we should definately bold the alternative name of a country that has been using the other name for just 15 years(for as long as the alternative name). not to mention that this name is in use officially by many countries and organizations in diplomatic level. --Hectorian 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Adding the bolding per... WP:BOLD !!!  NikoSilver  09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I've reincorporated the alternate lead, consistent with the MoS, and have balanced it to clearly indicate the nature of the alternate name. Moreover, I've measured disdain for the approach taken by various editors, primarily from ones surrounding Macedonia, that insinuates a particular opinion under veil of neutrality and has overly-politicised this by foregoing or ignoring prior consensus – and yes, it did exist, despite naysayers. My only hope is that a renewed consensus materialises – which has not occurred yet – that equitably treats the country in this overview article. And I reserve the right to restore the prior version if a consensus isn't evident or for other compelling reasons. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Anthony. There is a new nationalistic approach around, that has the unique property of recruiting most anti-nationalist, liberal people, without them knowing it. It is a new kind of nationalism that instead of focusing on increasing the national awareness of its own people, it tries to decrease the one of all others. That way, it can impose it's multiethnic philosophy to any other nation by even recruiting local unaware liberals. This, is the most dangerous form of nationalism ever invented! I believe that people need to live peacefully, while respecting each-other's cultural, linguistic and historical differences. Globalisation is a wonderful thing that will help most people come closer to one another. It will also help people mix and make nationalism an unnecessary cause. It is good, however, that different cultures, languages and histories exist, because a single one would make this planet a very borring place, and because diversity can help progress in diverse fields. I try to be neither the traditional old-fashioned nationalist, nor the dangerous new kind. It's just difficult to find the golden section...  NikoSilver  19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I can see, the compromise solution is not longer in place. Ok, then I’m also not obligated to follow the compromise guidelines. As the Naming dispute section was created only to exclude mentioning of naming dispute in other sections (which is now in a great extent violated with putting the reference in the first section), I will now remove that section as no more relevant in the same way as I created it.Bitola 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the above, I've little argument. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't expect so. I do, though: WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Dear, Bitola, there was no consensus to begin with, unless you consider "consensus", your little talk with naryathegreat and flavsavr here. Unless equal weight is given to both names, you cannot expect consensus. I consider the initial paragraph and the Naming dispute section, FAR inferior to the NAME of the article (unless, ofcourse, you want to discuss renaming the article). I remind you that a relative poll ended with EQUAL votes.  NikoSilver  15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, the effect of our “little” talk (as you are describing that) lasted for several months and now you are initiating the edit warring again (maybe that is your goal, who knows).Bitola 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"As the Naming dispute section was created only to exclude mentioning of naming dispute in other sections "

You can't just decide on your own and order around in wikipedia. Nor you can simply ignore the importance of the UN-officially recognised name by claiming that it is only allowed to appear in one single section. Whether good or bad, the name FYROM has right now an official status, hence we're not given an option. It's an obligation to mention it in the head, I don't even we this is still being discussed. There's always going to be a minority of people to oppose consensus, this should not affect the neutral editing policy. Miskin 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone please demonstrate that a consensus exists now? Good luck. And arguments regarding neutrality and undue weight are moot, even inflammatory, given the ethnicity of said editors and vocal insinuations of this or that. If a consensus isn't in place or can't be demonstrated, usurping one which clearly existed previously, I see no reason to not restore the prior agreeable version ... which, I might add, is reflected in other compendiums like the Encyclopædia Britannica (Ready Reference) (which notes FYROM below in its entry), its annual yearbook (through a note, as per the status quo), the Oxford English Dictionary (which doesn't even note FYROM), et al.

Funny you say this, because the American Dictionary Thesaurus right next to me states (amongst other definitions):

• Macedonia: A landlocked republic in the Balkans; pop. 2,038,000; capital:Skopje, official language: Macedonian. Official name: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... (in bold)

Miskin 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) doesn't note FYROM at all. Given the various renditions and the above, the status quo (with upfront note and dedicated section below) seems to be both equitable and appropriate. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The annual yearbook (2005) that was previously mentioned, also includes FYROM in the head of the article and provides a reason:

• Macedonia is a country in southeastern Europe. From 1946 to 1991, it was the southernmost of the six republics that made up the federal state of Yugoslavia. In 1991, after the republics of Croatia and Slovenia broke away from Yugoslavia, Macedonia also declared its independence. Macedonia is also referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to distinguish it from the region of Macedonia in northern Greece.

Miskin 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. For the Macedonia entry in my yearbook edition (2003), Macedonia (p. 663) is indicated (short name), with official name – Republic of Macedonia – and footnote to the bottom of the page which indicates the following: "Member of the United Natons under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia."

The entry for the country in the EB Ready Reference indicates the following verbatim (wky as they do):

Macedonia: officially Republic of Macedonia; Country, southeastern Europe, southern Balkans region.

Area: 9,928 sq mi (25,713 sq km). Population (2000 est.): 2,041,000. Capital: Skopje. Two-thirds of the population are Slavic Macedonians and about one-fifth are Albanians. Languages: Macedonian (official). Religions: Serbian Orthodoxy, Islam. Currency: denar. Located on a high plateau studded with mountains, Macedonia has few mineral resources and is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Agriculture is central to its economy, and includes the production of tobacco, rice, fruit, vegetables, and wine; sheep herding and dairy farming are also important. It is a republic with one legislative house; its head of state is the president, and the head of government, the prime minister. Macedonia has been inhabited since before 7000BC. Under Roman rule, part of the region was incorporated into the province of Moesia in AD 29. It was settled by Slavic tribes by the mid-6th century AD and was Christianized during the 9th century. Seized by the Bulgarians in 1185, it was ruled by the Ottoman empire 1371-1912. The north and center of the region were annexed by Serbia in 1913 and became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) in 1918. When Yugoslavia was partitioned by the Axis powers in 1941, Yugoslav Macedonia was occupied principally by Bulgaria. Macedonia once again became a republic of Yugoslavia in 1946. After Croatia and Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia, fear of Serbian dominance drove Macedonia to declare its independence in 1991. In order to appease Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, it adopted as its formal title Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and normalized relations with Greece in 1995. In 2001 ethnic strife endangered national stability as pro-Albanian rebel forces in the north, near the Kosovo border, led guerilla attacks on government forces.

My point is this: renditions differ and the Wp status quo, arrived through agreement (while the recent one was not) is an apt conciliation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of online encyclopedias have articles about Macedonia under that short name (not even under the Republic of Macedonia as we are using it here in order to satisfy constant objections of some Greek editors):

• Encyclopedia Britannica :Macedonian Makedonija , officially Republic of Macedonia , Macedonian Republika Makedonija country of the southern Balkans.
• Encyclopedia Columbia :Macedonian Makedonija, officially Republic of Macedonia

• US State department :OFFICIAL NAME: Republic of Macedonia

However,I agree to keep the current rendition unless someone comes with a really good arguments for a better solution acceptable for the majority of editors of this article. Bitola 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any majority here. You posted twice the same source, and then a source which is not encyclopaedic and describes a USA-specific policy. Britannica does mention FYROM, except not in the head, but later in the section. Britannica also starts the "Macedonian (Slavic) language" by "Macedonian Makedonski Jazik South Slavic language that is most closely related to Bulgarian", and makes constant references to "Macedonian Slavs" - wikipedia policies which have been already in favour of the Slav Macedonians. Miskin 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

B., I think the point is this: renditions, and viewpoints, do differ ... which lends even more credence to the status quo. Neither extreme will do. The current version is IMO the "golden section" previously alluded to, not – as some recent editors would have us believe – the goldbrick insinuated recently. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning all significant names in the first paragraph. I think that the solution in this case is pretty straightforward: to describe the situation as it actually is. The country describes itself in its constitution as the Republic of Macedonia and it is also known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because of the naming dispute with Greece which has yet to be resolved. LionKing 03/04/06

Furthermore, it is inherently biased to omit the name FYROM from the first paragraph, when the name Macedonia is included. LionKing 03/04/06

Straw-ncensus and WP:NPOV#Undue weight

First of all, since we have a "consensus", as you call it, kindly provide me the names of the consenting and opposing users that took part in it. I dare you.

Second, WP:NPOV can be described as the constitution of WP. Even if your WP:CON is valid (which it is definitely not as everybody will see if you dare post the names of the consenting parties), that does not mean that we will break the constitution in view of a mere law. You do not need to comment on this point, but keep it in mind, so that you understand how significant the existence of a true consensus is.

Third, both sides have presented enough evidence in 7+1 Archives (or 80,569 words, or 493.8Kb, without the ones you are now reading) that the names are both significant. A large part of the countries in the world call the country "FYROM", all (repeat: ALL) international organizations call the country "FYROM" and two of the three largest English-speaking countries (Australia and UK (under EU) vs USA just recently) call the country also "FYROM".

Fourth, A simple google search is not clear to see how often the names are used. One needs to eliminate all possible mentionings of the name "Macedonia" for purposes that do not refer to the country. Also, since this is the English version of WP, one has to search for pages written in English. Such a test has been conducted below. The results are obvious:

• "FYROM" (10.7M results). The search uses all possible forms of FYROM:
  • "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
  • "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia"
  • "FYRO Macedonia"
  • "FYR of Macedonia"
  • "FYR Macedonia"
  • Excluding: "Republic of Macedonia" (to avoid double inclusions) and wikipedia. Please note that this exclusion, does not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).

• "Macedonia" (6.2M results). The search excludes some obvious words that refer to ...other Macedonias . Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions:
  • -Greek
  • -Greece
  • -Hellas
  • -Cyprus
  • -.gr (ie all Greek sites)
  • -Bulgaria
  • -Thessaloniki (the capital of the Greek part of Macedonia)
  • -Salonica (other name for the above)
  • -Former (to exclude all possible mentionings of the name for FYROM)
  • -Yugoslavian (also)
  • -Yugoslav (also)
  • -"F.Y.R.O.M." (also)
  • -FYROM (also)
  • -FYRO (also)
  • -FYR (also) Same note as above: Please note that these exclusions, do not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).
  • -Ohio (yes, there is a... Macedonia in Ohio!)
  • -Pittsburgh (in Pittsburgh too!)
  • -Connecticut (you guessed right)
  • -"South Carolina" (here too)
  • -Canton (also)
  • -Texas (also)
  • -Alabama (also)
  • -"Michael Macedonia" (there is an artist by that name)
  • -Corinthians (The Bible mentions the name –as Greek, ofcourse)
  • -wikipedia

• "Republic of Macedonia" is included in the above search (therefore ZERO results)!!!

Fifth, there was a recent poll, for a similar subject: whether the article for the ethnic group, should be called "Macedonians (ethnic group)" or "Macedonian Slavs". The result of the poll was a tie.

Sixth, the Republic has willingly accepted the official provisional name "FYROM" that has been provided by the United Nations. This is a demonstration of selective self identification. This self identification is POVishly renounced by some FYROM users due to their extreme nationalistic feelings.

Seventh, all FYROM-like redirects are landed to the article, then the reader could expect to have the name bolded in the introduction paragraph. Otherwise an ignorant reader that clicked on the FYROM link trying to find what it is all about would be completely lost.

In view of all this, the name "FYROM" should be used as the name of the article. If not (for now), then at the very least, it should appear in the intro sentence along with a well presented link to a Naming dispute section as well. Whatever more arguments are presented by the other side, they are just one more justification that BOTH names are under strong debate. I am NOT taking sides in this debate (as the FYROM users are), I am only saying that BOTH names are strongly considered, they are BOTH significant and they should BOTH be presented in the article EQUALLY. Any other solution is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be treated as mere vandalism.

As you see, there is a strong case for including the name FYROM in the intro. For those not yet convinced, that their view is naive, POV and nationalistic, or just "any-version-is-fine-as-long-as-there-are-no-reverts-so-let's-get-done-with-it" I will keep reverting the article, unless there is true consensus. I am closing my statement now, I have an article to revert.  NikoSilver  21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps,NikoSilver,there is nothing to be said against the statements u have made here. or there is noone willing to reply and contrantict your edits... --Hectorian 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard my last 'edit summary comment', as it was written under extreme psychological pressure. Naturally, I do not intend to performing 3 rv's for ever, I am willing to discuss this, and hopefully one of the two sides will be convinced.  NikoSilver  23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also note, that since I consider the above "strong case" indisputable, I will be glad to participate in the WP:RFC procedure, or a new poll if you wish.  NikoSilver  23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the answer why somethimes nobody bothers to answer some of the stuff written here: often it is irational and pure nonsence (and insulting also). So when you dont get a comment, don't jump into a conlusion that nobody dares to opose you. Maybe nobody thinks that some comments deserve an answer. Furthermore I tried to clear some pretty obvious stuff, but I didn't get attention from some users whatsoever. Instead it was promptly burried under a ton of mostly irrelevant stuff. --Realek 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for including your wisdom in this talk. Anybody else? or shall we start the poll and the WP:RFC with these as the comments for your party?  NikoSilver  00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Realek,these things are relevant to the issue. instead of denying what is true, better try to find something to contrantict the edits. what NikoSilver wrote is not his ideas or thoughts, and not replying to them seems that u silently accept them as a fact. --Hectorian 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian surely you should be more critical towards your self. Many relevant issues didn't get answered here. They got buried under greek nationalistic comments. So dont claim Victory quite yet. Lately I avoid commenting about my name/nationality issues. I consider those "discussions" irational and they are also insulting me. NikoSilver, If you want a poll on this issue, you surely wont object to polls on similar issues, or am I wrong? --Realek 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please illustrate your point and I will gladly answer, as I always do (unlike you). I am signing off for tonight. We will continue tomorrow. This blind nationalistic POV pushing to exclude vital information without discussion will be highly criticised in the poll/RFC.  NikoSilver  00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver you are of course 100% correct. The fact is that narrow minded administrators here who do not get this issue at all, will threaten you with the 3RR. It happened to me. --Avg 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at least consensus among greek users is not an issue :))) --Dipazi 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

U are right Dipazi! the same goes for the skopjian users as well :))) --Hectorian 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

At least you should decide what insulting term for my nationality you will use in the furure. We can't be Skopjians, Fyromijans, Bulgarians and Slavomacedonians at the same time --Realek 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Realek, I stopped to answer insulting comments from a few users a long time ago because, believe me, they don’t deserve an answer. Bitola 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try countering the argument? --LionKing 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article so you could solve your dipute on the talk page rather than by edit warring abakharev 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Protection of Republic of Macedonia article

Hi, thanks for your help with protection of Republic of Macedonia article. I'm just asking you if you can make a little change and protect the compromise version of the page. Namely, before several months, after a long and exhaustive edit warring around the name, all relevant editors (both Macedonian and Greek) agreed to make a compromise. The compromise was to create a new section especially intended to describe the naming dispute and to include ALL DATA related to this dispute there (although such sections are unspecific in all other articles about a country). The compromise was related to the intro section as well: we agreed to include a to the initial sentence/reference that will lead to the naming dispute section. Now some users are not satisfied with that and initiated the current ongoing edit war, but I think it is fair to protect the compromise solution as the only one relevant at the moment. One of the compromise versions is this: . Bitola 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Protection, is not an endorsement of a version, it is just a tool to force the users to find a compromise on the talk page instead of the revert warring. If there is a consensus to make the requested change, I can do it while the page is protected. I am certainly not an expert in the matter, but I would think if this is Ugly Name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is used by many respectful International organization and the redirect is landed to the article, then the user could expect to have the name bolded in the introduction paragraph. Otherwise an ignorant user that clicked on the FYROM link trying to find what it is all about would be completely at loss when he would land on this article. This is just my uneducated opinion, please find a better compromise on this talk page. If the compromise would not be found, lets file an RfC to start a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion. abakharev 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand something. Bitola says that Greek editors agreed to that compromise, I can't see any Greek editors anywhere in that discussion. --LionKing 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't see them because they are like the Yeti! You can also not see any counter-arguements, because there aren't any. You can ONLY see POV-nationalistic replies like "insulting (?) comments", "insulting nationality term", "these discussions are irrational and insulting me", "your comments don't deserve an answer" and "there used to be a concensus between Me, Myself, and I". Nobody from the FYROM side has true arguements, nobody dares to point out the consenting users, and nobody has what it takes to call for an RfC or a poll.  NikoSilver  10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Every user can check that archive and see that you, user:NikoSilver was pretty much involved in the discussion before the reaching of the compromise solution. Where have you been then to say something against the compromise? Bitola 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absence does not necessarily mean agreement. He did not participate in that discussion, so you can't claim he agreed to it. --LionKing 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks LionKing. User Bitola has a point, I should have stepped up. Trully, I didn't see it, as I was kept busy discussing with him irrelevant matters in other sections of the talk. And even if I had, I'd not know what to do since I was (and may still be) a newbie (I didn't even know how to check 'history' so as to see messages posted in other parts of the talk). The fact that something unjust had been unilaterally decided without me and other users noticing it, doesn't mean that we must not rectify this injustice. Does it? On the contrary, the more time the allegged consensus version was on air, the greater the harm that has been done and the greater the remedy needed.  NikoSilver  10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a straw poll - I think the administrator who blocked the page made a good point about the redirects. --LionKing 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution

Let me explain again the situation happening at the Republic of Macedonia article. The last compromise solution stopped edit warring for several months before user:NikoSilver and other Greek users started to violate the compromise. The compromise was built on the following:

• All data related to the naming dispute was incorporated into the newly created Naming dispute section in order to avoid repeating of same thing in every section of the article, beside the fact that this problem is already covered in lenght at Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue.
• A superscript note to this new section was added in the intro section

With the addition of temporary reference in the intro section, the compromise is violated and we have mentioning of naming dispute in two sections. I (and IMO all Macedonian and other neutral editors) will not allow mentioning of this naming dispute in several places in the article. All users must understand that this article is not dedicated to the naming dispute, instead it should deal with all aspects of one country as Macedonia is. For that reason, if the temporary reference is going to stay in the intro section, the Naming dispute section will be no more relevant and it is going to be removed from the article in the same way as it was added as part of the compromise, that way avoiding the repetition of same thing in two sections and making a balance between the desire of Macedonian editors to completely eliminate the ugly reference from the article and the desire of Greek editors to overload the article with the naming dispute. Bitola 10:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the country also goes by the name FYROM then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph, the reasons can be dealt with later on. As there is clearly no consensus now, a new one should be formed. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages should respect the UN's decision and name this article "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - as that has not happened, the least that can be done is to mention the other name at the start. --LionKing 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that some encyclopedias refer to this country exclusively as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so merely mentioning it as an alternative name is not dedicating the article to the content dispute. Also, I would dearly love to meet these neutral editors, where are they? One's stand in the matter is not always dependent on ethnicity. I thought Misplaced Pages was descriptive, not prescriptive. But here you are prescribing the use of the name Republic of Macedonia instead of describing all alternative names. It is inherently biased. --LionKing 10:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to New Editors

There is a dispute since last weekend (April 2-3, 2006) between mainly Greek and FYROM users, as to whether the alternative name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" has to be inserted in the intro paragraph of the article. The Greek position has been outlined just above in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Straw-ncensus and WP:NPOV#Undue weight section. Until now, only a part of the outline of the FYROM users position has been posted at the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Compromise solution section by User:Bitola. The new readers of this page should not base their judgement on the complete arguements of just one of the sides.  NikoSilver  10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want, but the compromise solution I made with other relevant editors at the time was a good example of collaboration between the editors and nobody even mentioned the naming dispute on that page for months until your recent attempt to overload the article with the naming dispute. However, as your attempt is not accepted by the majority of Macedonian editors (see the history page of the article): (user:Bitola, user:Realek, user:Bomac,user:Dipazi, user:Vlatkoto etc) and several other editors like user:Upon the stair, user:Jonathunder, user:E Pluribus Anthony, you should now start to find a new compromise or accept the existing one instead making insulting comments with using of the temporary reference for the Macedonian editors.Bitola 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the burden is on NikoSilver to convince you. Collaboration means one side making a proposal to another and then counter proposal being make until a mutually acceptable one is found. Your compromise version, achieved when all Greek editors were away is equally unacceptable to them. The user ManiF, who appears to be in some way affiliated to Iran preferred the Greek version as did Khoikhoi and FunkyFly, so it's not exclusively Greek. OTOH it has been explained why your "compromise" version will not do, you have yet to explain why the "Greek" version is not good enough. Why can't Misplaced Pages be descriptive instead of prescriptive? Why must it prescribe the use of the name Republic of Macedonia when it could describe all alternative names. I understand that you dislike the name FYROM, but why do you have to illegitimize it? If the UN can use it, then Misplaced Pages should give it sufficient prominence. --LionKing 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice! At last we have an attempt for a list of the allegged consenting parties. Can you please also add links to the quotes of their approval in this parody of a consensus?  NikoSilver  11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is that list ;-) --LionKing 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics