Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Shqiptarët të Maqedonisë

Pse fshini numri i shqiptarëve të Maqedonisë? Në Maqedoni, shqiptarët janë 45 për qind e popullatës. Regjistrimi i përgjithshëm së maqedonisë është propagandë e sllavëve dhe s' është i besueshëm.

Archive10

I took the liberty of emptying this <sewer> of 407Kb of mostly rants. I even worked on the links in the archive. Feel free to revert me if you think that there was any meaning in all these polls with multiple choices that lead to an un-decipher-able [sic] dead-end. :NikoSilver: 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all this talking HAS to stop! :-) Bomac 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
May archive 11 be full of smileys Bomac! :NikoSilver: 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral violence in ROM/FYROM reflected in wikipedia

Pre-electoral violence is, saddly, rife in ROM/FYROM, with a number of deaths occuring. And yet, some Slavomakedonjians(?) in wikipedia and other websites still have the naivity to propagate maps and claims for a Skopjian Macedonian country that would swallow sections of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Question: and just which violent gang of politicians in Skopje would govern this 'happy', ethnically cleased and decimated 'greater Macedonia'? It is time for the sensible Slavomakedonjians to start contributing, people who do not play with 'macedonianising' words and 'ethnic maps' and to show a different, modern face of the country. Politis 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not use 'Macedonian Slavs' to refer to Macedonians, the wording is less offensive and will make you appear more tolerant! Further bonus: it happens to be easier to spell! - FrancisTyers · 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Refer to the Macedonians as 'Macedonian Slavs'? --Tēlex 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe he means referring to the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no "Slavomacedonians"! There are Macedonians! No matter are they an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else. ;-) Bomac 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No Slavomacedonians? I thought the last census showed 1.5million or so. You mean those are an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else? I am confused! (we've both made our point, let's leave it at that - also see the last addition in the heading) :-) :NikoSilver: 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not trolling, I am telling the truth. The ethnic group doesn't calls itself "Slavomacedonians", it calls itself "Macedonians". That goes for the Greeks from Makedonia. Or? Bomac 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends - some of them call themselves Europeans. --Tēlex 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes the two of us. Bomac 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

EUropeans though?:NikoSilver: 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And some Serbs call themselves Yugoslavs (see article in question). --Tēlex 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave Serbs out of this. Focus on Macedonians. Bomac 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Macedonians? --Tēlex 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonians from Macedonia. Bomac 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore certain Serbs are Macedonians! Why should they be left out of this? --Tēlex 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia, too. Bomac 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They are the people who advocated the creation of Greater Serbia, aren't they? --Tēlex 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not them, but the Serbian schauvinistic politicians. Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To Bomac (edit conflict): Ah, I see. That would mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, and the Macedonians. Right? :NikoSilver: 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's right! Celebrate diversity! ;-) Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, it depends how we define diversity. There are some who think that the names are not that diversified, "creating confusion even among the inhabitants themselves"...:NikoSilver: 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wouldn't say so that it can create confusion even among the inhabitants themselves. If you speak with a Macedonian from Greece, you'll know that he is Greek because of the language. Bomac 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And what if he's one of those who identify as Greeks and speak also this? Also, what if you're communicating in another language (like we do now)? :NikoSilver: 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For the first person - all Slavic languages are not the same. It is very poorly to say only that he speaks Slavic language.
For the second person - that goes the same way as others communicate. BTW, if someone asks a Greek what is his/hers nationality, he/she will answer Greek (100%). No need to mention about the Macedonian ethnic group. Bomac 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. You found the only question that can be answered possibly without any confusion. How about these:
  • Where are you from?
  • Where were you born?
  • Where do you live?
  • What do you speak?
  • etc etc etc
...and many more quite frequent questions that anybody would prefer to the... nationalistic banale question: "What is your nationality?". :NikoSilver: 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How can terms like 'Slav', or 'Scandinavian', or 'Germanic' or 'Latin' be 'offensive'? Our Bulgarian, Polish, Russian, Croatian friends are 'Slavs', how can it be dismissive? For nearly 50 years, the inhabitans of ROM/FYROM were Yugoslavs (Southern Slavs); no one said, drop the 'slav' and call us Yugos (in any case, that's a car). Today, they are independent and their culture is not Greek Macedonian, but Slavo Macedonian with healthy blends of Bulgarian, Hellenic, Albanian and Gipsy elements. Anyway, at least you do not risk your life during the elections period in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Politis 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can a term like "Negro" be offensive? I mean, "Negro" means "Black" right? Possibly it is offensive because Black people consider it to be offensive, maybe you don't think it is offensive. We don't have the page at Negro people. I only use this example because it is so obvious you could trip over it. Incidentally, maybe "Slavomacedonian" isn't offensive when said in Greek, much like the term Negro in Spanish. But please, when speaking in English, do try to use "Black people" and not Negros. Of course the analogy isn't perfect (are any analogies?), but I hope you at least try and understand the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally I note you use the term "Gipsy" for Roma people, perhaps you aren't aware that, "This ethnonym is not used by the Roma to describe themselves, and is often considered pejorative." Perhaps you just aren't aware of this, as you weren't aware that "Slavomacedonian" is disliked. Consider taking action as a result of this novel information. - FrancisTyers · 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even at the frequent social strikes and bombs in the center of Athens (Synthagma square etc.)? What was the organisation name... September/October 8?

BTW, do I feel that the ethnic purity doctrine circles again around us? Bomac 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded 100% :NikoSilver: 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "Slav" in a Greek context is not meant to be offensive. I'm certain I've seen the Russian language referred to as Slavorossisti in certain older and formal publications. --Tēlex 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Bomac: ethnic circles and purity? That is a pleasantly LOL remark, especially coming from a person who, it seems, is desperate to identify a distinct 'pure Macedonian' ethnicity. Someone who imposes 'ethnic maps of pure ethnic Macedonians'! Slavism is a culture primarily identified through language and partially through the Cyrillic alphabet. Dear Bomac, I think we have to protect you from your own naivity because you are really not a bad person. Politis 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Pure Macedonian? There is no such thing. I confirm that that is naive and desperate, but I really don't have an attitide towards that claim. I was only trying to say that you are starting to claim that every other neighbouring nation of Greece is a mixture and Greeks are the only ethnicaly pure people in the world. :-) Bomac 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no such 'ethnic purity' claims on this chapter. Being a 'Slav' is not an ethnic attribute but, as pointed out, to share certain common cultural traits. Some people are offended if they are called Slavs and Macedonians in the same breath. The only other choice is Hellenic Macedonians and it is well suited to those who do not consider themselves 'Greek' but who claim links with Alexander's Macedonia. But if you want to drop the 'Slav' epithet, then go back to the Greek language (or call it Romaic if you dislike the term 'Greek'). I accept that just 'Macedonian', on its own is, indeed of common usage in most parts of the world, but that does not mean the problem has been solved because the appelation is so recent and so imbued with Hellenic conotations that one can reasonably question its future. Politis 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


To Francis about negroes/Black people vs Slavs/Macedonians: No. Not applicable for one simple reason: There is no black person that is not offended by the word "negro". However, all other Slavs are proud to be Slavs. I personally know many of them in real life, who do not find the term offensive. The only problems here for the Slavomacedonian editors, are that none of them wants to accept it in order not to lose face infront of the rest, and ofcourse it is one major argument in insisting for simply Macedonia/ns that must not be lost for reasons of national interest.:NikoSilver: 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point, it isn't about the name, it is about who is using the name. There is nothing per se wrong with any calling anyone any descriptive term. What matters is how people feel about those terms. Why continue using a term when it is obvious that the person on the receiving end doesn't like it, and it is also clear that a good proportion of the negative discourse surrounding a group uses this term. Anyway, its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind here, so move along... - FrancisTyers · 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I can perfectly understand you though, coz right here there are some other people who feel offended by that other term when referring to the Slavomacedonians. In that sense, why continue using it openly when some feel offended just listening to it? Republic of FrancisTyers or simply FrancisTyers 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Continue to use my name, I'd be honoured :) In fact, in terms of privacy it would be a good thing, there aren't so many people called "Francis Morton Tyers" around. And no, you continue to miss the point by failing to distinguish between; 1. A person, or group, calling themselves a name, and 2. A separate person, or group calling the first person, or group a name. You know, the difference between a black person calling another black person "nigger" and a white person calling a black person "nigger". In fact, I'm sure there is a whole academic discipline relating solely to this issue. - FrancisTyers · 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the permission in using your name but nobody asked you in the first place (like these Greeks weren't asked). To tell you the truth, I'd be honoured as well if someone chose to use my name, my history, my heritage etc. I wouldn't be if he used it to enter my home, open my bank account, or sleep with my wife! I think that widespread theories of the sort are prohibiting me from enjoying this honour! Now to your (still) incompatible example, (1)they don't even call each other Slavomacedonians, (2)Blacks as a whole never claimed United Black Republic or a name of someone else, e.g. Chinese people!! Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers 13:smthg, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
And again we come to the history and politics nonsense, which is tangential to the issue at hand. You know my opinion on that malarkey; 1. So why do you use it? Why not use "Macedonian Slavs" instead, and then eventually you can develop toward dropping the "Slavs" bit! Perhaps even a letter at a time! Or hey, how about Macedonizzles! :)) 2. You're on shaky ground there, can you be sure that some black people haven't used a named that was originally something else? - FrancisTyers · 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! No, I didn't object to Macedonian Slavs. No problem for that. Actually I don't object to Macedonians + anything. What I object to is simply Macedonians. Oh, I lost you in #2, but nevermind...Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers, husband of Ms.Tyers and holder of Mr.Tyer's bank account, home, car, mobile etc 13:smthnmore, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I said in the first place (2nd post ---^) And with the "Ms. Tyers", I'm hoping you aren't indirectly accusing me of incest, that's a personal attack! And regarding your other points I think you're probably better off with what you already have :)) - FrancisTyers · 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, glad we agree, and glad Bomac abgreed as well (below). For the record, who said we're exchanging? I am just taking. And also, this FrancisTyers here wouldn't technically commit incest...:-) 13:smthn, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me put it this way, "taking" what I have would put you in a worse position than you already are :) - FrancisTyers · 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about if someone is proud beeing a Slav, it's about the name that the people use in their everyday lives. The name they identify with and differ from other Slavic nations. OK, you can have your POV by calling the nation "Slavomacedonians", but the real/existing name of the nation is Macedonians. Bomac 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, or the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogue to this would be: Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks or Greeks? ;-) Bomac 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this in any way related to improving this article? Jkelly 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We are making circulus vitiosus all the time. I'm getting tired of it. Bomac 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly has a point here; this talk section should never have been started, as from the beginning it only started yet another pointless squabble; please, lets try to be constructive! On my own, I'm going to follow Niko; many many smiles

--Aldux 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


This whole arguement started by one genius saying 'there are no slavomacedonians.' Never in the history of Europe has there been a people so confused and sensitive about how others perceive them beside perhaps certain nazi party members who would get angry if someone didn't adhere to their Aryan roots. So very postmodern... # Reaper7  

My last comment: you are really good in changing names. Bomac 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My last comment: I'll stop. Please respect both POV's. I'll never ask again which Macedonians you mean (unless I am really confused) and you never correct me again when saying "Slavomacedonians", or better "Macedonian Slavs" (you choose). Deal? :NikoSilver: 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Bomac 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Connection

Quick qestion. Is there even a mention of the word 'slav' in the whole article? Or do the Fyromians carry direct decent from 500BC to present day with less slav culture and blood than even the Greeks? Anyone reading this article might think they are not a slavic people. Reaper7  

Some guys simply can't resist to quarelling.

--Aldux 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No really, there is no mentioning of the slavic descent of Macedonian Slavs. I don't consider this ranting or anything, but I think a neutral summary of the article Slav Macedonians in the Demographics section would include this information at least. Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 13:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe the problem is more due to modest quality of the history section; there's an incredible leap from 146 BC to AD 1912, 2000 years in 2 lines. Probably 1912-2005 should be shortened (there's History of the Republic of Macedonia, isn't there?) and right a couple of not-too-long paragraphs on the 146 BC to 1912 period; there we could speak of the Slavic invasions.--Aldux 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am not of greek decent and you also from another part of the world and we visit FYROM and Greece we will notice the Greeks speak a language that is the direct decendant of Ancient Greek besides a few Roman and Turkish words thrown in. It has mostly Words and roots found in ancient Theban, Macedonian, Athenian, Thessalian ect texts and monuments. Therefore there is an obvious link seeing that the Greeks still live in these same lands today. Slavs and Albanians famously settled in Greece north and esp south, and now they are Greeks. Unfortunately there were not enough to alter greek culture or language significantly. FYROM does not share this History. The language and names are far far more obviously AD slav than anything else and this should be mentioned because everyday it becomes clearer it is not just Macedonian they speak as if it has a shred of connection to Ancient Macedonian which is how the article appears by not mentioning the word 'slav' at all. Someone who has a basic knowledge of the world will go, 'Is it me or are they speaking and writing russian?' Someone intelligent will simply say, hold on, they are speaking bad bulgarian, I thought i recognised it.' At least with Greek you can see in the alphabet and culture that they have kept and retained certain key aspects of the ancient world besides a name 'Hellenic.' There is a link to the ancient world greater than the name of the country and some ruins. I feel if someone reads this article they need to atleast read that the language is virtually bulgarian and there are countless articles not from FYROM stating that. Also as you said the slav invasions should be mentioned as whatever anyone says either side, these invasions had an impact on those who claim to be from the Republic of Macedonia that affects language, culture, religion appearance - everything. # Reaper7  

folk linguistics. Keep to what you know. - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Aldux, I generally agree. Also, we see as it goes and modify accordingly. Would you care to do the honours of making the modifications you proposed above?:NikoSilver: 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll try; but I'm not very good in being brief, so don't be shy in modifying the text if you don't like it.--Aldux 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-id

Luka, it is POV to say that some ethnic Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians. As far as people declaring themselves as Bulgarians are concerned, they are Bulgarians declaring as Bulgarians. Respect their right to self-identification - imagine if I went to Croatia and said that it is inhabited by predominantly by ethnic Serbs declaring themselves as Croats, or to Romania and said that it is inhabited by ethnic Moldovans declaring themselves as Romanians, or even to say that the Republic of Macedonia is inhabited by Bulgarians declaring themselves Macedonians. People are who they say they are - don't impose POV labels, especially without citing sources. --Tēlex 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, with one caveat, some Macedonians may declare themselves as Bulgarians for financial and other benefits that come from having (or will come from having) a Bulgarian passport [1]. And yes, the article does highlight some bad things about Macedonia, so you should enjoy it :) - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that 'Radko', a pro-Bulgarian political party in FYROM, which was banned by the "Macedonian" Constitutional Court as separatist for merely saying in public that the "Macedonian" "nation" are brainwashed Bulgarians, did so for financial benefits? --Tēlex 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The FYROM government weren't happy at all about that organization. Apparently, the Bulgarian ambassador to FYROM attended one of their events, and the FYROM government complained saying that: the presence of a high Bulgarian official at an event intended to deny the Macedonian identity is not within the framework of the usual diplomatic activities in the country which has offered him hospitality [2]. I suppose that, at the very least, they do gain publicity. Anyway, I guess you're right Francis. It's simply impossible that there are people with a genuine Bulgarian national identity in FYROM, for the doctrine tells me so, --Tēlex 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
may - FrancisTyers · 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language

According to this article of the Macedonian constitution, actualy article number 7:

Article 7 The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia.

In the units of local self-government where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in a manner determined by law. In the units of local self-government where there is a considerable number of inhabitants belonging to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, under conditions and in a manner determined by law.

As it is specified in this article, the context must not be mussunderstood, the only official language in the Republic of Macedonia is the Macedonian on a state level, all other languages spoken by the minorities as defined by the article and with the regarding low are official only on municipal level, and the official documents to the citisens who do speak a language different than macedonian and that is official in a municipality where the minority represents more than 20% are given in "company" with the macedonian. It is a completly nonsence the albanian language to stand by the macedonian as it is still not an official one.--Vlatko 22:41, 05 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive10#Languages. --Tēlex 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And it means not that it has been "droven" to a wrong conclusion and can't be discused again, you are makeing a messtake. I'm explainig that over, how is it posoible to be not understanded.--Vlatko 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia: Article 7 (2):

Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

Affirmed by p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7). If Albanian is spoken by more than 20% of the populationm, it is also official according to the constitution. This is confirmed by Britannica. Please read the archives - this has all been answered; we agreed even not to have the Albanian name in the infobox so as to keep you happy. If we are to play by the book, then we should readd it. --Tēlex 21:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Enciclopedia brotanica is not the constitution of Rom, and it is complletly wrong, I asure you.--Vlatko 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm quoting the goddam constitution!!! It says: Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик. --Tēlex 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Telex, if you are asking me, it is same if Albanian will stay in the first line or second. I was just trying to NPOV-ise as I've red the discussions made here by Vlatkoto and you. So get a deal and let's get over with this nonsense. Bomac 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It was agreed a while ago as a compromise that the "Albanian" would remain in the languages list, but the Albanian name "Republika e Maqedonisë" would not be in the infobox. --Tēlex 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Albanian is still in the language box, but if you insist for location in it, change to the previous version, but, please let's quit the nonsense. Bomac 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agreed not with that, no need for agreement for something wrongly stated and interpreted. We can disscus this till tomorrow if you want, you are wrong. Here again, you are regarding just a part, realy "smart": again the article:

Член 7

На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. (You pointed this part) Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, (and whats the meaning of the following) како што е определено со овој член. <<<It says as it is defined bellow of this article. (Please read it slowly). Личните документи на граѓаните кои зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, се издаваат на македонски јазик и неговото писмо, како и на тој јазик и неговото писмо во согласност со закон. Кој било граѓанин кој живее во единиците на локалната самоуправа во која најмалку 20% од граѓаните зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, во комуникацијата со подрачните единици на министерствата, може да употреби кој било од службените јазици и неговото писмо. Подрачните единици надлежни за тие единици на локалната самоуправа одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик и писмо што го употребува граѓанинот. Секој граѓанин во комуникација со министерствата може да употребува еден од службените јазици и неговото писмо, а министерствата одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик писмото што го употребува граѓанинот. Во органите на државната власт во Република Македонија службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, може да се користи во согласност со закон. Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа. (And finaly it is defned opnly as an municipality language not a state one)

If the constitution designates it official then it's official. Just like the rarely used Swedish language is in the Republic of Finland (oops - they have Sewdish in the infobox). --Tēlex 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do I give the efort. You are realy ...... as you do not understand, please do your wrong edits on the greek and the albanian wikipedia and the articles regarding them, and ....of macedonia. You do not improuve nothing here. --Vlatko 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fellas, lets not get so anti-WP:NPA. Bomac 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what he's talking about. I do very little on the Albanian and Greek Wikipedias - only start articles like Slavomakedones and Sllavomaqedonë. Very WP:NPOV... --Tēlex 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, but can you make a compromise here, at en-Wiki? Can you Vlatko and Telex make a compromise? Bomac 22:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - he seems to be nationalistic and wants a United Macedonia, whereas I am a cosmopolitan. --Tēlex 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (actually, I'm waiting for Francis to respond to all this)
What, a compromise about a verificated and fully amanded constitution of a state that is in legislative and in real use of the word "in strenght". HA, never heard about. Telex please regard in back your actions, And I'm not for a united macedonia, but for recognition of the rights of my people--Vlatko 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The constitution uses the very word "official"! --Tēlex 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Get out of here, the only thing you have to say is: sorry but I do not understand. Aren't you ashamed of this play of yours. I explaned enough, what more do you want. In what context is used that word. As I see you have no Ide, you just like to dispute with your "enemy", even when you are not righ just the "contra" gives you some pleasure.--Vlatko 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Vlatko, this is where you are wrong. I am of Arvanite origin, and I would even like Albanian to be official in Greece. I can't tell you how much I feel 'Republika Greke' or 'Republika Helene' should be at the article Greece. I want this article to be fair, and you know it. --Tēlex 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
More internal problems [3], more WP edit-warring... Guys, you won't exactly make peace with 25%+ of your population if you continue to refuse basic human rights. Even if it wasn't official (which it evidently is) it would be worth being included in the article, as it is spoken by every one out of four! Live with it and make peace. It will be much simpler (and quieter) for all of you. 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with, can't you understand that if it is official I will personaly put it there in the infobox, so please stop adding it.--Vlatko 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Then go ahead and stop pretending you are a constitution analyst. It says clearly that 20%+ is official. It doesn't say less than official or mostly official or near-official. It says official. Now if you don't have what it takes to specify within your constitution which is the only language that has more than 20% frequency in your country, then at least don't pretend it is not so by disputable WP:OR constitutional interpretations. :NikoSilver: 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not pretend, And realy mature for colling me sick, thank you. It says so, ask Telex, as he understands something of Macedonian, he has readed and the Macedonian language costitution, in the article it is written this :Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, како што е определено со овој член. >>>>Another language that at least 20% of the citisents speak, is also, an official language and his letter, as it is defined by this article (and it is clearly defined here how much the other language is official and where) >>>read the other part bellow this one sentence. And you can convince you alln by your self in the originality of this^^^^^^. The albanian is not official on state level, only on municipality level.--Vlatko 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But Vlat, if the things are really like you say, what's the sense of speaking of a national 20% and a municipal 20%? Also it seems hard to believe Albanians would give up so much of what they had obtained at Ohrid.--Aldux 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The more languages the better. See United Kingdom, 6 languages in the Infobox *cool* :)) - FrancisTyers · 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greece biggest investor to FYROM Economy

Should this not even be mentioned once? IE if this suddenly stops being the case, the country will significantly suffer as greece is its only major investor. # Reaper7  

We should need some reliable sources before, giving also the number of the other countries. As an output of the country's exports, Serbia seems to be more important (31% to 9%).--Aldux 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Greece is the first among foreign investors in FYROM, having invested a total of more than 460 million euros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Greece

LOL

Reaper7  ]]

Please read the articles before making requests. The source is the European Commission. If in any doubht, log on to its site. People can always write to the Commission and explain to them that they disagree... :-) Politis 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greeks etc

Please Luka Jačov, do not go about asking for proof about everything - or as targetting in a prejudicial manner ethnicities you may despise (I am sure you respect them all). The republic has many minorities and ethnicities because it never went to war in the 1990s trying to wipe them out. Politis 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If we dont have proof how can we know if information is verifibal? During Balkan Wars Greeks took much of Macedonian Slav ethnic territory leaving no Greeks north from then Serbian-Greek border. Show us some proof (presence of Greek Orthodox Church, Association of Ethnic Greeks in Macedonia or similar) and then it could be put again. Sorry but this is wikipedia policy. Luka Jačov 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Luka, we have been through this before. The Joshua Project claims that they have a Greek minority of c. 20,000 [4]. The former Greek minister for Macedonia-Thrace claimed that there are at least 200,000 Greeks in FYROM [5]. The Ethnologue says that Greek is amongst the languages spoken there. Greeks have a historic presence in the area, especially in the south, but there was a recorded Greek community in Krushevo before communism, and Ottoman censi have recorded a Greek presence in the area. Finally, the evidence supporting the existence "Macedonian minority in Greece" is of a similar nature, so if you persist in removing the Greeks from here, I will be removing any reference to Macedonians from Greece. Double standards are not allowed. --Tēlex 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you erase the fact that the "Macedonian" language has a substantial Greek influence and many words of Greek origin. This is a fact, and has been sourced at Macedonian language. Do you espouse anti-Greek sentiment - I wouldn't be surprised. --Tēlex 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this rubbish about Greeks taking Macedonian Slav ethnic territory? The Macedonian Slav ethnicity wasn't created by Tito until the 1940s - during the Balkan Wars, the main ethnicities in Macedonia were Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. All Ottoman censi show Greeks as the largest Christian population in the area. If you really don't know what you're talking about and are as clueless on the topic as you seem to be, then I advise silence. I you want to know more abut the historic ethnic composition of Macedonia, see Demographic history of Macedonia. --Tēlex 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Luka, I just had a bit of an exchange with Telex and he really comes down when he thinks there are double standards, irrespective of their source (mine, yours, or the man in the moon). I think that is a positive attribute and welcome in wikipedia. Politis 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Telex we've been through this before and we came to conclusion there is no Greek community in Republic of Macedonia. Joshuaproject cannot be taken as relevant and not to say quote of Greek Minister and could be serious violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also you say "historic presense". Kruševo has Vlach community which was historicly pro-Greek. I didnt found anything that says about "substantial" Greek influence. Could you gives a proof that Macedonian is influenced by Greek more then it is for example by Turkish language or that Macedonian language has more Greek influence than Bulgarian language (as sentence sounds that one of difference of Bulgarian and Macedonian is Greek influence). I said Macedonian Slavs as neutral term (they are Slavs they are Macedonians no matter if we say they Bulgarians or seperate nation). As you can see on maps of article you gave me there are no Greeks showed in area of today's Republic Macedonia but also not even near its border as maps show Greeks inhabitated only southern edge of historical Macedonia. And I should also point you up that blackmailing not only that is against wikipedia's policy and against normal deceint behaviour it also shows your lack of arguments. So until we get reliable sources we cannot have that information listed. Luka Jačov 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yawn - I'm afraid there are more sources to support the existence of a Greek community than the Egyptians (which you left in the article). I did not say that "Macedonian" is more influenced by Greek than any other language. I said it has been influenced substantially, and this is sourced at Macedonian language like I told you. I don't know how much it is influenced by Turkish etc, if you can cite a source, add that as well. As for the maps on that article, there are statistics and which show a Greek presence in the area, and I think Stanford's map from 1877 in that article shows a Greek majority in all Macedonia. Finally, what blackmailing? Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere. I'll repeat my prior statement. As the sources on the existence of a Greek minority in FYROM and a "Macedonian" minority in Greece are of a similar nature, if you remove Greeks from here, then remove the Macedonian Slavs from Greece so as to avoid double standards. --Tēlex 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why are you saying that "some Macedonians identify as Bulgarians". If they say they are Bulgarians, then they are Bulgarians. Period. See #Self-id. --Tēlex 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW soomeone in the FYROM government claimed in 1993 that there are between 230,000 and 270,000 "Macedonians" in Greece [6]. How come we can write that in Wikipedia, but not what the Greek minister says. Neutrality works both ways, you know. Either we say both, or none. Period. --Tēlex 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you check Egyptians article you ll see they were recorded on 1994 census. Macedonian language does not mentions that the language is "substantialy influenced by Greek" so this is clear pushing of POV. About Bulgarians it should be noted that some people that would otherwise be considered as Macedonians feel Macedonians belong to Bulgarian nation and that they are not seperate. Therefore this is more political preference then ethnical distinction and that should be noted. I dont care what you are goin to do with Macedonians in Greece you do what ever you want. Luka Jačov 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested, it seems that Greeks were recorded in the census [7]. --Kiro Gligorov 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And in case you didn't notice (which I doubt) the above commment, then read it now and stop reverting sourced material, by saying that it wasn't discussed. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Population according to declared ethnic affiliation, 2002 census

Requested by Luka Jačov. Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2004 (CD version)

  • Macedonian: 1297981
  • Albanian: 509083
  • Vlach: 9695
  • Roma: 53879
  • Turkish: 77959
  • Austrian: 35
  • Bosniak: 17018
  • Bulgarian: 1487
  • German: 88
  • Greek: 422
  • Jew: 53
  • Egyptian: 3713
  • Italian: 46
  • Muslim: 2553
  • Polish: 162
  • Romanian: 38
  • Russian: 368
  • Ruthenian: 24
  • Slovak: 60
  • Slovene: 365
  • Serb: 35939
  • Ukrainian: 136
  • Croat: 129
  • Montenegrin: 2686
  • Hungarian: 2003
  • Czech: 60
  • Other: 5332
  • Ethnically undeclared: 404
  • Regional affiliation: 829

--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference for motto

I have looked through the archive and this appears not to have been discussed. Is there a verifiable reliable reference for the motto for Republic of Macedonia (Слобода или смрт (English: Liberty or death))? It appears to have only been valid about 100 years ago, and even then quite unofficially and by a small group of people. I'm inclined to remove it unless it can be verified. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion (bitchin') about it between myself, Realek, Avg and others in Archives 8-10. There was no productive result. The Greek side stresses that it is exactly similar to Eleftheria i thanatos which is the Greek motto since the Greek War of Independence in 1821 (no sign of "ethnic Macedonians" back then). No objection to delete if a reliable recent source cannot be provided.:NikoSilver: 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Relevant archived rants:
Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive10#Slododa_ili_smrt
Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive9#What_is_acceptable: (long, see most indented part)
There is nothing productive I can make of these. Please cite or delete. :NikoSilver: 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Telex about the rape of "MAcedonian" land from its "rightful" owners. also i believe the Skopjan uprising took inspiration from the Greek independance struggle and used the Greek's motto. Heraklios 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

External links cull

Its fun to go through external links with reference to Wikipedia:External links and determine which ones should be included according to policies and to cut down on external link spam! Like a game! - FrancisTyers · 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats a reasonable amount done for tonight, if anyone else wants to have a go, be my guest. - FrancisTyers · 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Official government sites

Other, unofficial web sites

Stupid

This map is stupid. It allocates Albanian populated areas (Tetovo, Gostivar) to Serbia. --Tēlex 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a new user's personal opinion of how the RoM should be divided between its neighbours. It's obviously unsuitable for inclusion - I've nominated it for deletion. -- ChrisO 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think that image would be appropriate on Wikipedia:No international summits as a sister article to Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man --GunnarRene 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

Well I appreciate the fact that the article was reviewed officially but I still think it needs to be labeled. My reasons are that in the article there are still far too many "facts" to be disputed as representing a certain viewpoint on the matter in question. I feel biased from the Bulgarian viewpoint so I would refrain from editing bits but I would insist that there remains a warning that the article could contain statements whose neutrality is disputable. I deliberatly avoid going into details because there is far too much talking going on already.

International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles.

I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html

OK, just saw that wiki puts everything in bold. Politis 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Electoral tensions in 2006

Elections tend to act as a fuse for violent inter-ethnic and cross-political confrontations, occasionally resulting in deaths. The situation is seen as seriously tarnishing the international reputation of the country. The government in Skoplje hopes to uphold EU and NATO standards with a view to joining them, but has to contend with un-democratic procedures. In the July 2006 elections, NATO warned it over pre-election violence or risk delays in the country's ambitions to join the military alliance. NATO and E.U. officials see the elections as a key test of Macedonian ambitions of joining both organizations after local elections in March 2005 were marred by irregularities. NATO intervention in 2001 helped prevent ethnic conflict developing into full-scale civil war. For the 2006 Parliamentary Elections, the international community sent 6,000 observers to monitor electoral procedures. [8] [9], AP and other agencies. The 2006 electoral violence included clashes between Albanian Macedonians [10].

  • Elections tend to act as a fuse for violent inter-ethnic and cross-political confrontations,
There weren't major inter-ethnic confrotations during the elections. The main confrotation was between the Democratic Union for Integration and the Democratic Party of Albanians, the two biggest Albanian parties. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • occasionally resulting in deaths.
Deaths??? What? Can anyone quote a source? --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Skoplje
It is Skopje. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The government in Skoplje hopes to uphold EU and NATO standards with a view to joining them, but has to contend with un-democratic procedures.
No indication where these un-democratic procedures come from.
Why has no one mentioned the election results and the general international opinion of the elections, although they ended more than a month ago? Luckily, despite pre-election day violence, the elections were quite calm, and no one seriously questioned the results. [11] The government is also formed. However, there will be problems because DUI who won the majority of the Albanian votes (17 seats) will not be included in the government, as VMRO-DPMNE decided to form a coalition with it's traditional Albanian partner DPA (11 seats), and also with the newly formed NSDP (7 seats) [12]. The DUI, so far, refuses to accept that it won't be in the government, and organizes protest throughout the country, and as Musa Xhaferi (a DUI offical) has put it: “If the final objective of future prime minister-designate Nikola Gruevski is to disrespect our electorate, that is, the election results of the DUI-PDP (Party for Democratic Prosperity) coalition, whereby we would not be part of the future ruling coalition, then protests, rebellion, Kalashnikovs are possible”. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Flavr that it's biased, so why don't you edit it? You seem to have the right knowledge of the situation to make it informative and NPOV.--Aldux 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Aldux, I think the whole Electoral predictions and the new government of 2006 section looks...ugly. This article should be about Republic of Macedonia in general, and not about the elections. I propose that we only summarize the election aftermath and move the largest chunk of the section to Politics of the Republic of Macedonia. I can expand the information given, as well, but it makes no sense to expand it in this article. --FlavrSavr 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you the truth FlavrSavr, I've been thinking exactly the same thing from the creation of the section. But regarding the destination of the material, wouldn't it be better to put it in Macedonian parliamentary election, 2006 or Elections in the Republic of Macedonia?--Aldux 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair is fair. I agree. •NikoSilver• 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope that everything's OK with the summary. I really have no time to expand the Macedonian election article at the moment. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete, distortion of facts and most of all some FUNDAMENTAL facts are missing here

I wonder why the article doesnt mention the Antifascist Assembly of The National Liberation of Macedonia (Antifashistichko Sobranie na Narodnoto oslobododuvanje na Makedonija- ASNOM) held on the 2nd of August 1944 (as a symbolical continuation from The Ilinden Uprising and the Krushevo Republic from the 2nd of August 1903) when this state was in fact formally created? Let me remind you and I will cite sources if needed that ASNOM was recognized by the Allies (USA, UK, USSR) and foreign missions have visited the People's-Liberation army (Partisans) and attended the ASssembly itself.(
I mean, people, you may dispute this and that, the ethnicity, the language, the name of the state and so on and so on, but some basic information on this subject is missing here in this article and Im talking about FACTS that all the sides will agree on. The article only says something like (not an exact but rather an ironical quote): the war ended tito became president he said "from now on u will be called Macedonia". Fullstop. Nothing is mentioned about the ideological basis for the creation of the state, about the continuity with the struggle for "autonomous Macedonia" of VMRO in the past, btw the veteran from Ilinden 1903 Panko Brashnarov was the first speaker of that above mentioned historical Assembly on the 2nd of August 1944 and some of the members of the government incl. former VMRO and Ilinden revolutionaries such as Pavel Shatev for example. Tito did help the whole thing, but he was certainly not the initiator and also later he actually persecuted those who demanded more or complete independence of that Macedonian state from Yugoslavia.
This article may give a wrong impression to uninformed readers that the state was created on the 8th of September 1991?! It only gives the 8th of September as the beginning of the whole thing, while disregarding the continuity with the previous Socialist republic of Macedonia which existed all the time as a STATE with some degree of souvereinity withing Yugoslavia, with capital Skopje, flag, coat of arms, own government, national institutions, Academy of Sciences and Arts etc. All the time during the existing of Tito's Yugoslavia, Republic of Macedonia existed (the formal name doesnt matter, People's Republic of Macedonia, then Socialist Republic of Macedonia etc.). You may claim that it was "an artificial nation that was once Bulgarian but suddenly became "Macedonian", it doesnt matter, adding some simple coldblooded FACTS is needed, how this south european state was formed is among the most important. If Greece for example can claim continuity regardless of the changes to the political system (monarchy, republic, again monarchy, again republic, metaxas dictatorship 1936-1941, military junta '67 and what not), also today's Republic of Macedonia is a continuation of what was created at ASNOM and the struggle during the VMRO/Ilinden period and Krste Misirkov , who who was the first who began seriously propagating "macedonian nation", separate "macedonian language", separate "Macedonian church", codification of the language and phonetic alphabet back in late 19th-early 20th century.
At least, these things can be added with a note that this is the official point of view of Republic of macedonia regarding her history, Im sure that even ppl who would opposed it, they may be interested to learn about it.
This article is written in a so simplified way, also the external link section is so empty?! Why no one puts for example The official website of the Archive of republic of Macedonia. I mean if this wikipedia article is about RoM/FYROM I suppose that IT IS ABSOLUTELY NORMAL to have a link to a RoM/FYROM website with RoM/FYROM POV about history and politics.--Vbb-sk-mk 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been a quote added by an anon in Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 2#International Reactions. The quote is from the web page of Mister Sartzetakis (Greeks will laugh, I'll explain below why), former President of Greece [13]. It includes an alleged quote by Edward Stettinius, foreign minister of the US in 1946. The quote follows:
"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."
- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
I took the time to verify this quote. Following are two links from State Department interviews and one from the Library of congress that verify it: [14], [15], [16]
I don't know what that should mean. Maybe the anon implies that times change (along with policies)? By the way, Eddy appears to be one of the nicest guys in US foreign affairs. He was the co-founder of the UN among other things...
In case we add the above "recognition by USA, UK, USSR" of ASNOM, shouldn't we also add the fact that the existence of such an ethnic group was disputed also?
PS. 'Mister' is funny because most Greeks remember him prosecuting people for not capitalising Kyrie (=sir) when referring to him. •NikoSilver• 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr

Should it not be mentioned that unless FYROM's name is changed from the title page's version, Greece will Veto FYROM's entry into the EU and the country will be even more isloated? The article is written as if that is the permanent name and there is no chance of a change.. Reaper7 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Although that veto is highly probable, to my knowledge, there is no such explicit statement from the Greek officials. •NikoSilver• 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday translated from Greek so we can all read.

http://www.phantis.com/news/?newsID=20060830130047 Reaper7 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Question?

It says that most people are adherents of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. I share a neutral POV and would very much like the MOC officially recognized - but isn't this contradicting with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Also, what about atheists and agnostics? They're always a majority in former Communist states. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on History

I think this article is very ambiguous with very little reference. When you read it you get the impression that there was no difference between Bulgarian or Byzanthine rule, i.e. it was not part of Bulgaria. This cannot have been true because under Samuil the capital of Bulgaria was Ohrid (which is not mentioned,) there is no point making a capital in a foreign land so obviously this region was an integral part of Bulgaria. Also, it is not mentioned the macedonian music which is popular in Bulgaria and all over the world and is not in Macedonian but in Bulgarian dialect language. I notice this sentence "Harsh rule by the occupying forces encouraged many Macedonians to support the Communist Partisan resistance movement of Josip Broz Tito." - it's not very clear which occupying forces and this sounds like an opinion not facts. So basically, I think this article needs to expand more on the History - it seems like there was no history during ottoman rule which is not true at all - there are many documents about the liberation movement and the famous liberation leaders like Jane Sandanski, also VMRO should be mentioned as well. -- Edi

Macedonia is probably the most disputed region in the world - I apologize to the Israelis and the Palestinians but there issue is like a fight between 3-year-olds compared to the macedonian matters.I am bulgarian and like all bulgarians I support our version because it is the right version.Don't put us aside and don't neglect our role and contributions , because they are also the most crucial ! - BraikoT

Honesty

Some points:

I understand that each nation tries to make their nation as good as possible on this site. However i feel reality is being ever so gently sedated with pretentious dribble.

  • 1st The Republic of Macedonia generally has good relationships with Greece. Is how the Greece section begins. Surely that is a bad joke. The fact that they have had major disputes in the past and FYROM will not get into the EU or NATO because of Greece unless it alters its nation's name surely makes the above statement trash.
  • 2nd The Republic of Macedonia maintains good relations with the Republic of Bulgaria. Another joke. For both these opening statements a more real opening would be Fyrom has a complex or difficult relationship with said nation. The title instead of 'Greece' should read 'Disputes with Greece'. Under Bulgaria we should see, 'Like Greece Bulgaria openly questions the true ethnicity of FYROMians'
  • 3rd The fact the banned flag of Vergina is present under the Greek section is an obvious insult and should not be there.
  • 4th Surely if Greece is the largest investor in a nation dependant of outside investment that should be in the first para of the economy section, not the last?

All in all I find the article like someone trying to butter a bad situation. The country's future is uncertain yet the underlying problems seem sugared over. Reaper7 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


By an anon: Next time don't erase them if they are in the wrong place,try moving them yourself since you are so unbiased.

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.
(from the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe,
February 26, 1992, p. 35. )
"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)."
Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.
(from the Toronto Star newspaper, March 15, 1992)
22 January 1999: FYROM'S Ambassador in Washington, Mrs. Ljubica Acevshka, gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. At the end of her speech answering questions Mrs. Acevshka said:
"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great." "Greece is FYROM'S second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language."


24 February 1999: In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented "there is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country."


U.S STATE DEPARTMENT
Foreign Relations Vol. VIII
Washington D.C.
Circular Airgram
(868.014/26 Dec. 1944)


The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers*
The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time.
The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece".
The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian Forces" against Greece.
The Department would appreciate any information pertinent to this subject which may come to your attention.
Secretary of State
STETTINIUS

Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

EXPLAIN THIS

Scroll down to the group photo - http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/articles/. Also have a read of this article from the Time archives http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html

If someone is Macedonian he has to speek greek greek the language of Hellenic nation the nation that Alexander the Great make and includes only Greeks.

Politis for you:

This does NOT include trade embargos ect, just a basic display first for you why the phrase 'good relations' is what we call a lie in english:


Greece

The indeterminate status of the Republic of Macedonia's name arises from a long-running dispute with Greece, which criticizes the use of what is considered to be Greek name and symbols. The main points of the dispute are:

  • The name: the Republic of Macedonia is only part of the wider region of Macedonia, 51% of which is part of Greece, and it is inhabited by an ethnic group of Slavic origin, unrelated to the Ancient Macedonians.
  • The flag: the use of a symbol found in Greece.
  • Constitutional issues: certain articles of the constitution that were seen as claims on Greek territory.

The naming issue was "parked" in a compromise agreed at the United Nations in 1993. However, Greece refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic and imposed an economic blockade that lasted until the flag and constitutional issues were resolved in 1995.

Naming issue

Greek concerns over the name arise from a number of factors:

  • The name is historically associated with Greek culture, notably that of the kingdom of Macedon. Greeks consider that the inhabitants of the neighbouring republic—most of whom are descendants of Slavic tribes who moved into the region around the 6th century AD—have no moral or historical right to claim the name "Macedonia" for themselves. Some Macedonian nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon, making a number of historically dubious claims.
  • The territory of the Republic of Macedonia was not so called until 1944, when it was made a separate republic. Thus, although it is certainly part of the historical region of Macedonia, there is no political continuity between ancient Macedon and the modern Republic of Macedonia.
  • Greece suspected that the Republic of Macedonia had territorial ambitions in the northern Greek provinces of Macedonia. This has been a Greek concern for decades; as far back as 1957, the Greek government expressed concern about reported Yugoslav ambitions to create an "independent" People's Republic of Macedonia with the Greek city of Thessaloniki as its capital. [7]

The naming issue has not yet been resolved, but it has effectively reached a stalemate. In 1993, the United Nations obtained Greece's acquiesence to the admission of the Republic of Macedonia by adopting the provisional name of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" [1] (поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија - ПЈРМ) [2] However, much to the annoyance of the Greek government, the compromise is wearing increasingly thin, as most states have recognised the country as the "Republic of Macedonia" instead. These include the permanent UN Security Council members of the United States, Russia, and the People's Republic of China, and the former Yugoslavian republics of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In addition, the Republic of Macedonia's other neighbours, Bulgaria and Albania, have also recognised the nation by its constitutional name.

This compromise name is always used in relations when states not recognizing the constitutional name are parties. This is due to the fact that the UN refers to the country only as FYROM, although all UN member-states (and the UN as a whole) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries.

The dispute continues to excite passions in both nations, but in practice the two countries deal pragmatically with each other. Economic relations and cooperation have resumed since 1995 to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[3]

Within Greece, many Greeks reject any use of the word "Macedonia" to describe the Republic of Macedonia, instead calling it ΠΓΔΜ, the Greek version of FYROM, or Skopje and its inhabitants Skopians (Greek: Skopiani), after the country's capital. This metonymic name is not used by non-Greeks, and many inhabitants of the Republic regard it as insulting. Greek official sources sometimes use the term "Slavomacedonian" to refer to the Republic's inhabitants and its language (even the US State Department has used the term side by side with Macedonian, albeit having them both in quotation marks [4]). The term "Macedonian Slavs" is another term sometimes used to refer to the ethnic Macedonians by non-Greeks. A number of news agencies have used it (although the BBC recently discontinued its use on the grounds that people had alleged it was offensive), and it is used by the Encarta Encyclopedia. The Macedonian language translation of Macedonian Slavs - Македонски Словени - has been occasionally used in the past by Macedonian sources, and the term is used in Krste Misirkov's work On Macedonian Issues.

The United Nations set a target of September 13, 2002 for reaching a solution to the issue. This date passed without any solution being found and it is unclear how the issue will be resolved, given the apparently irreconcilable positions of the two sides. The Republic of Macedonia says that it will not abandon the name "Macedonia", while Greece says that it will not accept any permanent name that includes "Macedonia".

The March 2004 application of the Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union may help to speed efforts to find a solution; in a meeting of 14 September 2004, the EU noted that the difference over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still persists and encouraged parties to find a mutually acceptable solution, but stated that it is not part of the conditions for EU accession.

In 2005, Matthew Nimetz, UN Special Representative for the country, suggested using "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] for official purposes. Greece did not accept the proposal outright, but characterized it as "a basis for constructive negotiations". Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski rejected the proposal and counterproposed a "double formula" where the international community uses "Republic of Macedonia" and Greece uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [5][6]

In October 2005 Nimetz made a new proposal. It proposes that the name “Republika Makedonija” should be used by the 106 countries that have recognized the country under that name. It proposes, also, that Greece should use the formula “Republika Makedonija – Skopje”, while the international institutions and organizations should use the name “Republika Makedonia” in Latin alphabet transcription. While the government of the Republic of Macedonia accepted the proposal as a good basis for solving the dispute, Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable.[7]

[edit] Flag issue The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995) Enlarge The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)

Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence flag caused a major controversy when it was unveiled. The use of the Vergina Sun on the flag offended Greeks, as the symbol is being associated with King Philip II of Macedon and by extension with his son, Alexander the Great. The Greek viewpoint was summed up in an FAQ circulated on the Internet in the late 1990s:

The Vergina Sun, the emblem of Philip's dynasty, symbolizes the birth of our nation. It was the first time (4th century BC) that the Greek mainland (city-states and kingdoms) with the same language, culture, and religion were united against the enemies of Asia in one league. At the same time the fractured Greek world grew conscious of its unity. And, in this sense, we have never been apart since then. The "Sun" was excavated in Greece in 1978, and it is sacred to us. [8]

The symbol was removed from the flag under an agreement reached between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece in September 1995. The Republic agreed to meet a number of Greek demands for changes to its national symbols and constitution, while Greece agreed to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic and end its economic blockade.

Constitutional issue

The Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence constitution, adopted on November 17, 1991 included a number of clauses that Greece interpreted as promoting secessionist sentiment among the Slavophone population of northern Greece, and making irredentist claims on Greek territory. Article 49 of the constitution caused particular concern. It read:

  1. The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian expatriates, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them. In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.
  2. The Republic cares for the cultural, economic and social rights of the citizens of the Republic abroad. [8]

In the Greek view, this was effectively a license for the Republic to interfere in Greek internal affairs. The offending articles were removed under the 1995 agreement between the two sides.

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Greece

Reaper7 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Name Issue

I have read the article and I was amazed by the use of the word Macedonian. There is an open name dispute that is not a matter of foreign relations or of how many countries will recognize the small country with the name it wants.

The problem is very important and very real. I tried to find a good analogy in the comments by I was not able to find something close. Let me state my own analogy.
How would an american (US) feel if mexico was renamed by it's own government as Indians?
How would someone living in Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark feel if a new country was created in the region and the name it chose would be "The Vikings"?

It is clear that the problem Greeks have is more than historical. It is a problem of human rights (of the Greeks is macedonia), it is an economic problem (commerce and trading confusion) and finally a major historic distorion.

Please comment on what I state below.

By Everydaypanos 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What is the problem?


The choice of the name Macedonia by FYROM directly raises the issue of usurpation of the cultural heritage of a neighbouring country. The name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim over the entire geographical area of Macedonia. More specifically, to call only the Slavo-Macedonians Macedonians monopolizes the name for the Slavo-Macedonians and creates semiological confusion, whilst violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians. The use of the name by FYROM alone may also create problems in the trade area, and subsequently become a potential springboard for distorting reality, and a basis for activities far removed from the standards set by the European Union and more specifically the clause on good neighbourly relations. The best example of this is to be seen in the content of school textbooks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.


For the first time in their history, in recognition of the problem the United Nations (Security Council and General Assembly) gave the new state the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).


2. What caused the problem?


The problem arose when in 1944 the then Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Tito formed a federal state from scratch, to which it gave the name of a large neighbouring administrative region of Greece - Macedonia. The present-day independent state has evolved from the calculations and steps taken in the 40s.


3. How has the problem evolved?


In 1992 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia tabled an application to join the United Nations under the name of Republic of Macedonia. On 7th April 1993 the Security Council noted that although the country fulfilled the criteria for accession to the UN, there was nonetheless a dispute over its name, which needed to be resolved in the interests of maintaining peace and good neighbourliness in the region. The country was consequently accepted under the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.


Security Council Resolution 817/7.4.1993 officially states that the difference over the name of the State needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region and calls upon the parties to work together for a speedy solution to their dispute. The process for solving this dispute is indicated in Security Council Resolution 817/7.4.1993 and Resolution 845/18.6.1993, which calls upon the parties to continue their bilateral talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General with the objective of solving outstanding bilateral issues as soon as possible. Also, on 8th April 1993, the General Assembly unanimously accepted the accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations with this name. Consequently, both the Security Council and the General Assembly recognised the validity of the Greek arguments on the name issue.


On 13th September 1995, Greece and FYROM signed an Interim Agreement which constituted the point of departure for normalisation of their relations, with the only pending issue being that of the name. According to the Interim Agreement, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has officially accepted that the name of the State is a subject of bilateral negotiations with Greece, as provided for by the two Security Council Resolutions, in other words 817/93 and 845/93, and Article 5.1 of the Interim Agreement. It is therefore clear that the object of the exercise is to replace the temporary international name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with a permanent name acceptable to both parties.


4. Why has the issue not been settled so far?


Over the past decade the two countries have many times been on the brink of reaching a solution. Unfortunately, FYROMs intransigence and more specifically that of the present government has not enabled us to reach a mutually acceptable solution.


5. Does Greece maybe feel threatened by a small country such as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?


There is no question of a military threat to Greece by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the contrary, cooperation between the two neighbouring countries is developing in many sectors. The fact, however, that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia insists on achieving exclusive use of the name Macedonia, or Democracy of Macedonia on the one hand, is not in accordance with the respective UN Resolutions (Security Council Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93) and, on the other hand, is directed against the cultural heritage and historical identity of the Greeks. The visible risk of future destabilisation in the region should therefore not be ignored. Moreover, since the Ohrid Agreement, FYROM has changed its constitutional form and no longer sees itself, as foreseen in the 1991 Constitution, as the state of the Macedonians.


6. Will FYROMs European prospects help settle the issue?


It is a good opportunity for settling the issue, since good neighbourly relations are a requirement of states wanting to join the European Union and do not square with the FYROM Slavo-Macedonians insistence in standing by their intransigent and negative stance towards efforts to resolve the issue.


7. Does recognition of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by the United States under the name of Democracy of Macedonia make it more difficult to solve the dispute?


The United States recognise the need for a mutually acceptable solution within the United Nations framework, irrespective of the reasoning that led to their unilateral recognition. As they have repeated on many occasions, the United States support Mr. Nimetz efforts.


8. What is the current state of play?


For the first time on 29th March, the UN Secretary-Generals Special Envoy Mr. Nimetz tabled a global proposal for finding a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue. Mr. Nimetz proposes that for international use the name Republika Makedonija-Skopje should be used in untranslated form. This name would be valid for all UN bodies, and the UN will propose to other international organisations and states that they also adopt it for official international use. On 8th April, Greece announced that she accepted the Nimetz proposal as a basis for negotiations despite the fact that there were many points in the proposal which needed to be clarified and amended. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the other hand, rejected the proposal and insisted on a double name.


On 25 April, 2005, for the first time in many years, the Conclusions of the E.U. General Affairs Council referred to recent developments on the issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as follows: The Council noted recent developments concerning the dispute as to the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and, in particular, all of the ideas put forward by the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose efforts it supports. The Council encouraged Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to intensify their efforts with a view to finding a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution within the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 817/1993 and 845/1993 as quickly as possible.


On 8 October, 2005, Mr. Nimetz presented a new proposal, the contents of which have not been made public. FYROM initially accepted this new proposal. Greece, however, declared it unacceptable as it adopted FYROMs position.


Greece continues to support the procedure stipulated in UN Resolution 813/93, stating her readiness to reach a jointly acceptable solution on the name issue.

Greece has demonstrated her desire to reach a solution that will lead to the full normalisation of bilateral relations, facilitate the course of her neighbour towards the Euro-Atlantic institutions, and consolidate stability and cooperation in our region, which would be conducive to solving the issue of Kosovo. Greece has also made it clear that there is no question of her neighbour acceding either to the European Union or to NATO under the name Republic of Macedonia.

Conscription?

Do Macedonia stil have conscription?

Nope. Its now vuluntary/paid army. (Or whatever its called.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublic_of_Macedonia_Archive11_0248.html"