Talk:Macedonia/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 June 2005 and 14 February 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Macedonia/Archive2. Thank you. --Latinus 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The old talk pertaining to Macedonia is now located at Talk:Macedonia/Old history--Commander Keane 09:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose to sort all this out, but I'll wait a few days for comments first. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


Contents

was

places in the Macedonian region of Europe:

should be

places in the south of Europe (order not significant):

See also:



Status of the state FYROM

The international status of the state FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"!

Vergina 09:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So what? The official name of this country as far as its government is concerned and as far as Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming conflict is concerned is Republic of Macedonia'. Nearly every country on earth call this state the Republic of Macedonia, not Fyrom in bilateral negotiations, and Fyron is only used in cases where Greece is a party. Anyway, as far as Wikipedia policy goes, the name is Republic of Macedonia. Rex(talk) 12:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in this dispute, I understand the intensity of feeling on both sides (if indeed there are only two!). I am hopeful we are getting closer to an acceptable solution. It is clear that all participants have valuable contributions to make to Wikipedia, but are getting bogged down in this tug-of-war. The present wording, which simply states that the Republic of Macedonia is "also known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" seems as close to neutral as one could get.
In my opinion, however, the wikilinks to terms other than Macedon or Macedonia--not to mention multiple links to Republic of Macedonia and Blagoevgrad Province--are excessive. Anyone who disagrees might try using the popups tool to help disambiguate links to "Macedonia" in articles, as I have been doing for the past couple of weeks, and note how cluttered the resulting display becomes. The same goes for the detailed descriptions that have appeared in some versions of this page. Aren't the individual articles the place for those? Here, one wants to give just enough information to lead users and editors to the "Macedonia" that is relevant to their needs. (By the way, I confess to having added some of the excessive links and detailed descriptions myself earlier; my thinking has since changed.)
Best wishes to all, Flauto Dolce 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone replaced User:Vergina with a script that posted "FYROM is not Macedonia!!!" every 24 hours, would we be able to tell the difference? -- ChrisO 23:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

wow. +MATIA ☎ 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Seriously though, I don't think I've ever seen a positive contribution to an article from Vergina - only complaints and reversions. Vergina, surely there must be something other than Macedonia/FYROM that you're interested in? -- ChrisO 08:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe Vergina is cooler during the last months and judging by changes in *disambig pages, Vergina mostly tries to clarify things and not to revert. +MATIA ☎ 19:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

FORMER OTTOMAN REPUBLIC OF GREECE is not HELLAS. ;-) No Account 18:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to someone saying "GREECE IS NOT VILAYET!"  ;-) -- ChrisO 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I want to add a simple note, something that everyone should understand. I already presented that to MATIA. Maybe he does not agree, but I think he understands that it is much more than just a name for us (citizens of Republic of Macedonia, regardless the nationality).
The name expresses the identity of the Macedonians. On the other hand, for the Greeks this name represents History and teritory (that, whatever was in the past, nowdays is in Greece and will stay there forever).
Concerning FYROM versus Republic of Macedonia... It is simple. Wikipedia is not a political organization. Everyone who uses the FYROM refference is because he was presured by the Greek side. So, of course they will respect a present member more than a future member. So, my country was forced to join these institutions under another name.
But, Wikipedia is not a political organizations. So, it is senceless if it follows political decisions.
It is a fact that most people reffer to the country as Macedonia. And be sure that at least 50% of the people do not even know what is "FYROM", so that will only lead to confusion to many people. We should all respect the Greek side, but that can not be our basic principle. Macedonian(talk) 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Another note. The FYROM refference also has no sence at all. It only use is to be discriptive and as said in the deal that Macedonia and Greece signed, it is temporaly solution only in situations where the name can be a problem. 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of the FYROM note

We seem to be having a bit of a conflict over the line:

and specifically that hyperlinked note at the end, which goes to the naming dispute footnote on Republic of Macedonia. I think this is useful to retain because of all the complaints about how Wikipedia is "endorsing" the name by using it. We seem to get an endless stream of anonymous editors who change the name for POV reasons without looking at why we're using it in the first place. If having the note deters them from doing this, I'd suggest that we keep it. What do others think? -- ChrisO 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the idea. However, I must add that only the name of the country is a matter of the international dispute, and not the related terms (eg - Macedonian language, Macedonians etc). Greece disputes all the related terms, but I think that has no consequence in international law. According to the Universal Charter of Human Rights people are free to declare their ethnicity, regardless Macedonian or Martian, even if some disputes that. The name of the language is Macedonian, it has it's own language code, and it is oficially recognized by all relevant institutions. --FlavrSavr 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the note, but I also completely agree with FlavrSavr. The Macedonian language and ethnicity are not and never were a part of any deal. They are internationaly completely recognised. Macedonian(talk) 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Your language is a TITO version of the Bulgarian language!
It is the Serbocroatian translation of Bulgarian language(Yugobulgarian).
Vergina 08:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Then, how come I can not understand the Bulgarians well? You can say and imagine anything you want. I am aware that there is similarities between the Bulgarian and Macedonian language. But, isn't there similarities between Portugish and Spanish?
This only shows how narrow minded a nationalist can be. I can only wish you good luck in your life, you will need it, if you want anyone taking you serious. Macedonian(talk) 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


There was a template proposal from Theathenae with a similar content, but extremely POV configured, and it was rejected with the approval of the whole Wiki community, except the Greek editors. The current text is quite neutral, but however, I have two questions to add:

  • Are we going to put this to every occurence of the term Republic of Macedonia? (Isn't that a bit irritating?)
  • Are we going to put this to every occurence of related terms? (I'm afraid that will happen)
  • Is the use of this note going to put an end to tolerance to FYRO, and Former Yugoslav add-ons to the term Republic of Macedonia?
  • Are we going to put a similar note to all naming conflicts - Republic of China/People's Republic of China, Sea of Japan/East Sea etc. (I can't see any good reason why should only this naming conflict have a note) --FlavrSavr 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that Theathenae can ever give us something else than nationalistic POV. Yes, this might be seen as personal attack. But, I am completely ready to appologise to this user if he proofs that he was constructive, at least once. Macedonian(talk) 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think that we should clearly avoid putting this note everywhere around Wikipedia. This was already refused when the Wikipedia comunity decided to delete the template of the naming dispute because everyone was iritated because it was clearly overused.
Also, we should not allow this issue to be an exeption from the other similar cases. If we use one tactic here, it should be one that is used on the most of other similar naming conflicts. Macedonian(talk) 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Could the "macedonian" guy please explain to me how can he expect us "nationalists" greeks to accept that he is part of an ethnik :group called "macedonian" if this group was historically led by someone who was talking ancient greek aka Alexander in xxx BC and :slavs are recorded in the regional area of EUROPE in general in xxxX AD?
You and your country, no offense, are the product of certain political circumstances:
1. tito wanted to expand, as every dictator-totalitarian leader wants and used the "macedonian" propaganda to enforce teritorial :claims 30 or so years ago.
2. after the split of the united ygoslavia the "great powers" wanted stability in the region and granded u this name.
3. nowadays they seem to want instability and they seem to enforce "multinational" countries in the balkan region which
has been in contant conflict for the last decade, the last one, the revolt of ethnik albanians in slavomacedonia
avoided at the last minute.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY name IS place in international diplomacy, those who know history can understant this.
Noticed that i used the word SLAVOmacedonia which contrary to what most people in my country thing is the most-descriptive name
this country should have been given. It IS regionally macedonia(in the ancient kind of way) but it is also populated with slavs. An :ethicity which is VERY similar to the other slavs in the balkan region. Ethnologically, in Europe for the sake of the argument, the
french have DISTINCT characteristics that distinguish them from the german lets say. The English have also distinct characteristics
that distinuish them from the spanish. In addition to that they have their own history which can lead to the definition of the :terms spanish NATION, french NATION e.t.c. This certain slavs majority, which by the way is less than 3/4 of the population in :their own country DOES not have distinct characteristics to distinguish them from the other slavs in the balkans NOR do they have a :history behind, unless 40 years is a lot to you compared to xxxX years of the other european nations.
I was born in Greece, in particular thessaloniki, 26 years ago, and i have never seen a non-greek person anywhere in my country :claiming to be macedonian and NOT greek. I have seen Alexander the great and ancient Macedonian monuments with ancient GREEK :written on them. All the names used by macedonians to describe their army formations, e.g. phalanx -φαλαγγα, are greek and if :Alexander the great and all his people could be raised from the dead i could have a conversation with them and they could :understant me. I can see
that for people from the USA for example this may seem a not-worthy argument but for me it is important to speak a language that :was
first spoken not a thousand, not two thousand but 5000 years ago. As it is important to remember my heritage and honour my history :as the second most ancient live nation in the planet after the chinese. Maybe that is the reason that 1,500,000 people were :gathered not once but 3 times in a row in the center of my city just to say to the world "macedonia is greek". And by the way the :population of thessaloniki around those years was less than 900,000 and of the whole northern greece around 1,200,00 . Why should :the other greeks from the south support us if they think that we are not the same nation? Also why should people living is a region :liberated just around 1912 believe that if they could not see all the evidence that they speak the same language with ancient :macedons and generally belong to this nation, particularly since just across the border there is a country where their "real"-according to your propaganda nation exists.
What i cannot understant about u people is how can you be so dogmatically assured about things when ALL the REAL evidence, and not :what they teach you at school, is against you. Even the undisputable fact that the years that Alexander the great lived the climate :itself could NOT allow a person so white-skinned to survive. The climate was the same as it is in SAHARA desert today. :
Don't worry i will not change anything to your precious site, i really don't want to know how it all works, but being an : :encyclopaedia it should be at least neutral and not politically biased like IT IS IN THIS ISSUE.
i have to say that i expected more than this rape of the truth regarding the macedonian issue i found in this site from a :revolutionary encyclopaedia like this...
just a dissapointed greek guy
P.S. there is no single truth only opinions and they too are biased...



dab style

I edited this page per MoS:DP today and was reverted without explanation. Could someone please help? Tedernst | talk 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

The real question is "Is WP an encyclopedia"? If it is and if the rest aforisms at WP:NOT are correct, then the current version is POV. The first who used the term Macedonia, were Macedonia. From that kingdom came all the rest. Macedonia (region) is the superset of them all. With the definition that WP uses for the region (let's not get into details why it is not very accurate), RoM has less than half of that region (we must note that parts of RoM are outside the Macedonia (region), there's a small percentage of that region in Bulgaria and more than half is what WP calls Macedonia (Greece). Macedonia (Greece) used the term Macedonia (and not anything else or even "Greek Macedonia") constantly and it's still called Macedonia. I could understand a historical/geographical version for this page (see previous version) but I cannot understand the POV pushing in favor of RoM. +MATIA ☎ 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The only reason for a disambiguation page is to help the reader quickly and precisely find the page she or he is looking for. To that end, sorting a page like this logically with the most sought-for categories toward the top is the way other pages like this are organized and the way this one should be too. It had been that way for a long time until someone took out the independent states category so that the independent modern country was between an airport and some political subdivision in a list. That doesn't help the reader, so of course I reverted that. When making changes to this page, please remember its only purpose, and leave the political stuff on the articles this page sends readers to. Jonathunder 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You should either place again the POV tag, or make the page encyclopedical: WP is NOT a propaganda machine. Your removal of the tag was totally inappropriate. And the current "scheme" is POV. +MATIA ☎ 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as making the page "encyclopedical", please remember this page is not an article, it is a guide to navigation: a list of see also notations. Ordering in a logical fashion to help the reader is not POV. Kind regards. Jonathunder 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we delete everything else and make it a redirect to Republic of Macedonia. Do you agree with WP:NOT? +MATIA ☎ 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I think your POV tag is misplaced. The dab page can only point to the articles that exist. Seems the POV issue is with those articles, not here. Tedernst | talk 17:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The {{POV}} template is a self-reference (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references) and as such, must be used sparingly. I know it's tempting to slap a POV tag on an article when it's not the way you want it, but they shouldn't be abused. What I don't get is how can a disambiguation page be POV. Izehar (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The non logical way that the dab'ed links are listed now, is pro-RoM. Do bother and read my first comment on that section. +MATIA ☎ 18:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Matia, a disambiguation page are like a Telephone directory. You split the entries into categories such as "dentists", "driving schools" and so on. How is it pro RoM? By designating it as an independent state? Encyclopaedias are about the world as it is today and not just about history. RoM is more significant in world politics today that Macedon or Modern Greek Macedonia. It only makes sense that they are at the head. Izehar (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Telephone directories are sorted (alphabeticaly). Your argument about world politics is a nice argument, but is it NPOV? Entries in a list of an encyclopedia, could be listed as I have mentioned in my first comment here, historicaly (by date), geographicaly or even alphabeticaly. If we sort it "politicaly" we contradict NPOV and WP:NOT. +MATIA ☎ 18:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. If RoM is an independent state, then readers are more likely to look up that. I'm not disputing the content, I stating that your POV tag was improperly placed. As for the content, well you can sort that out yourselves. Also note that telephone directories list categories alphabetically. You may want to copy the layout of China (disambiguation). Izehar (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Your guesses on what the readers are more likely to read are interesting, but if they 're looking for a Republic, then they would search for a republic. If they are here to learn, then they'll be also interested in history and geography. Thanks for the link of China (disambiguation), I think my version of the article is closer to that page, than the current "independent states" version. +MATIA ☎ 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome - just don't slap POV tags on to articles just because you disagree with the layout, it clutters up the category. Also, if I were looking for France, I would look for France, not French Republic (Republique Francais) just because it is a republic. I don't see why this case should be any different. I'm sure most people refer to this country as Macedonia plain. Perhaps you should add the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template. Izehar (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

POV certainly isn't an appropriate tag for this article. However, I think Matia has a point - every other instance of Macedonia/Macedon is a subset of Macedonia (region), in the same way that countries, provinces etc. in southeastern Europe are in the Balkans superset. I think the hierarchy goes something like this:

  • Region
  • States in the region
  • Subnational entities in the region (provinces, dioceses)
  • Historical entities in the region
  • Other entities named after the region but not actually in it.

I've revised the sort order of the list to reflect this. What do the rest of you think? -- ChrisO

Suits me. Izehar (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think it is a fair and reasonable assumption, that any user searching for the word "Macedonia" in an English-language encyclopedia is not primarily looking to know more about the Airport of Thessaloniki. I understand that there may be raw nerves exposed on this disambiguation page, but logically it seems unnecessary with so many interrelated or overlapping articles to choos from. To me, at least. 8-] --Big Adamsky 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This version is better than the previous (though perhaps not perfect). +MATIA ☎ 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, please tell me what would it look like the perfect version according to you? (if you want, of course) Bomac 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Macedon. Did Macedon kingdom gave the name Macedonia to the region? If yes should it be mentioned before the region at the begining? Should Hellenistic civilization be mentioned along with Macedon? But I'm unsure about the answers. +MATIA ☎ 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

As User:REX has requested, I'm quoting and linking the Britannica article:

  • ancient kingdom centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai. In the 4th century BC it achieved hegemony over Greece and conquered lands as far east as the Indus River, establishing a short-lived empire that introduced the Hellenistic Age of ancient Greek civilization. [1]

Therefore starting from now, any editing on this will be regarded as vandalism. Miskin 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You may wanna look at this one as well: link Rex(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the sorting

If the article is going to be sorted in reverse chronological order, we should state it in the begining. +MATIA ☎ 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an animated map. I have to repeat that probably the kingdom of Macedon gave the name to the geographical region. +MATIA ☎ 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

peripheries

Tedernst pointed to me that the word periphery (and the wikilink that was for the explanation of that term) should be omitted. I think that in a list or in a disambiguation page, a small summary is needed for all the disambiguated terms. Since we have listed about 20 Macedonias in USA, perhaps we should list Macedonia (Greece) as a region and/or province and the three peripheries as were in the past (check Talk:Macedonia_(disambiguation)#was this link) or as administrative districts. Any thoughts by editors who are familiar with Macedonia (Greece)? +MATIA ☎ 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I've implemented it now. Is that any better? -- ChrisO 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that part of the article is now improved. +MATIA ☎ 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Removal of name of the greek region in Greek language

Although he didn't ask anybody in the discussion, I agree with CrissO's decision to remove the name of the greek region in greek language, as it might misslead people about the (slavic?) origin of the word Macedonia (macedonia comes from the greek word blah blah blah) Arnegjor 12:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


reason for name

Bomac tells us The reason why this country is called like this must be written. Why? How could this possible help someone find the article they are looking for? This information should be on the target page, not on this dab page. Bomac, please explain, in encyclopdic, not political terms. Tedernst | talk 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That issue is not "politicized" by me, but by some other users. Sincerely, my opinion is that even "FYROM" is unworthy to mention here. The one who wants to read about "FYROM" will find it in the article about Republic of Macedonia. FYROM is too much text for the disambiguation page also. Regards, Bomac 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

the successors

I think that the dates or those who preceded Philip II, are more important than the "successors", perhaps that phrase should be removed. +MATIA ☎ 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sort Order

When was the "Sort Order" agreed upon? By what criteria? Why should the smaller, less populous, less prosperous, less ancient, less historic, less travelled to of the two Macedonias be first? This is completely against standard practice on disambiguation pages. Sysin 11:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See under #POV above. The sort order that was agreed was as follows:
  • Region
  • States in the region
  • Subnational entities in the region (provinces, dioceses)
  • Historical entities in the region
  • Other entities named after the region but not actually in it.
So in this case, the region of Macedonia is the superset; the Republic of Macedonia is the next most important entity, as a nation state within the region; the Greek province of Macedonia is one level further down, as a subnational entity; then the historical Macedonias are another level down, as former entities; then finally Macedonias elsewhere in the world, as entities outside the region but named after it.
If you were talking about Europe, would you list Luxembourg above Bavaria on the grounds that Bavaria was bigger, more populous, more prosperous, and more travelled to? I also really don't understand your argument about "less ancient, less historic" - no place is any less ancient or historic than any other. Its history may be less well known but that's a different issue. -- ChrisO 12:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

?????

Which titles does this side have with FYROMian Wikipedia?

Vergina 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambig page conventions

This is a diambiguation page, a page of quick see also notes to help the reader get to the page sought for. It is not a place to talk about which name is "official" according to this or that international body or to have long notes about why something should be called this or that. Those details can be covered in the relevant articles, as you will find they already are. Additions of links to United Nations or to double redirects should be reverted. Jonathunder 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • In disambiguation pages the distinctions between alternative meanings should be made clear, otherwise their purpose is defeated. The so-called "Republic of Macedonia" is an entity geographically and politically distinct from Macedonia. I find it hard to believe that obscuring basic facts and promoting ambiguity on a disambiguation page is a way to improve WP. Sysin 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles linked to already have a great deal to say about naming. We do not need to repeat that material here. There is enough here for the reader to distinguish which page she or he was looking for--more will slow down the reader's search. Jonathunder 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

it is not a matter of repeating material, it is a matter of keeping this non-POV. The words "Republic of Macedonia" are POV - that a compromise name had to be used to admit the country to the United Nations proves that there is a legitimate dispute over the name. The only way to keep this article within NPOV guidelines is to compromise and clearly state that the name given is not universally accepted.

It is non-POV. In the brackets, it can be obviously seen FYROM. Which means, you are repeating the material. Bomac 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Four points:

1) Jonathunder is obviously right about what should go in this page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says: "Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term". Sysin, please don't ignore this. Your own POV doesn't override standard Wikipedia practice.

2) The words "Republic of Macedonia" are the state's own description of itself. Wikipedia:Naming conflict sets out the policy on the subject. Our role is to describe what it calls itself, not to argue that it should be called something else. The fact that some Greek nationalists (FocalPoint indicates an objection to the last phrase: It is official policy of of all those countries which have not recognized this state's description of itself - not 'some Greek nationalists'- and hereby suggests to ChrisO to edit his text accordingly, deleting also the present comment) object to the name "Republic of Macedonia" is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this disambiguation page.

3) The point of mentioning the FYROM acronym is simply so that doing a search for that term will produce this page. It's not there for any other reason, POV or otherwise. The fact that Macedonian nationalists object to the name "FYROM" is likewise completely irrelevant for the purposes of this disambiguation page.

4) "Blagoevgrad Province" is not a term that needs disambiguating. There's only one place in the world called that. The ambiguity concerns the term "Pirin Macedonia". Sysin, please don't change the link to point to Blagoevgrad Province rather than Pirin Macedonia.

I've asked for this page to be protected temporarily to stop the edit war that seems to be developing here. -- ChrisO 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. 1) The problem here is that the proper name is itself the subject of dispute, and offensive to many. The United Nations recognized that when the "FYROM" formula was created as a compromise. The word "Republic of Macedonia" is a disputed property, and to just display one view on any page (disambig or not) without any disclaimer is, by definition, biased against the party that finds it offensive.
Re. 2) The problem is just that, the page does not explain that "RoM" is "state's own description of itself". It is not the accepted international name of the country. The only name which all parties have agreed to use is (the long form of) "fYROM". The FYROM authorities cosigned that agreement, making FYROM legally a non-POV name; in fact the only non-POV name for the country.
In a world where everything was indexed properly, the link "Republic of Macedonia" would point to an article about the name dispute, and "Former Yugoslav etc." to the country. I'm not asking that much, all I'm asking for is an acknowledgment that using the words "R. of M." to describe the country is a matter of opinion, and a practice that is not universally accepted.
The UN recognizes that FYROM's right to use the "Republic of Macedonia" is contested, and with good cause (otherwise the compromise would not have been adopted). A decision made by world's leading international organization is being suppressed. If WP is ever to become an authoritative source, it needs to present facts as they are, not as some people wish they should be.
Re. 3) The FYROM gov. has agreed to use the FYROM name in international relations, and regularly does that, thus proving that there is nothing insulting about this name. RoM, on the contrary, is a disputed name, and that needs to be pointed out.
Re. 4) I do not disagree, and I would not have purposely made such an edit; perhaps I recovered someone else's edit inadvertently? I get a "connect failed" when I try to view the article history right now, so I can't check. Doesn't matter, I agree "Pirin Macedonia" should be the link. Sysin 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

These Problems are the Work of the British

The British first take a great deal of Greece's national treasures, position the Greeks and Turks at each others throats, cause conflict in the Middle East, rape Africa, take so much away from India, go to war with China during the Opium Wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs from the British, and help brake Yugoslavia. The situation in Macedonia must be settled by Greeks and Slavs peacefully as neighbours. Similar problems are being nurtured for Iran by the same parties in relations to Azerbaijan and other Iranian sub-groups.

The problem in Cyprus was the work of the British, the division of India and Pakistan, and the problems in the Arab World. Greeks and Slavic Macedonians must sit together with no outsiders like the Americans and British manipulating both sides.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) .

A college drinking buddy of mine, who was a history major and future lawyer, was great at a Pub game called "blame the Brits". We could call out any problem anywhere in the world, no matter how remote or obscure, and he would offer a somewhat plausible explanation of how that was all the fault of the U.K. or the British Empire. It was amusing, sophmoric, and completely irrelevant. Jonathunder 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't blame us for Minnesota, surely... ;-) -- ChrisO 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Respect

when some calls you by some name you don't like you feel offended,i dont like to be called FYROM. So please stop.Remove "FYROM" from this disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.141.39.2 (talk • contribs) .

See point 3 above. Your likes or dislikes are irrelevant to this discussion. -- ChrisO 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Macedonia

Naming conflict policy clearly states that "If the term "Cabindan" (i.e. RoM) is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised". The deleted note brought this article to compliance with the policy. Please explain why meeting the requirements of the Naming Conflict Policy is grounds for locking the page. Regards, Sysin 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming conflict guidelines

If you take a better look at the Naming conflict policy article, you will notice the objective criteria that should be used and the subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) that should not be used to determine usage.

A ways to provide the objective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
I performed the Google test proposed in the article to find the most commonly used term using the advanced search options and excluded the word Wikipedia. I entered Republic of Macedonia (because if I entered just Macedonia it will produce even more results) and it returned 60,300,000 results.
Then I entered FYROM and got 2,460,000 results.
I also entered the word Macedonia in the Encyclopedia Britannica and got first ten results are about the country named Macedonia. (Their article about Macedonia:[2]).
  • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
The Macedonian Constitution uses the term: Macedonia (Republic of)
  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)
Yes, we are using the term Macedonia and Macedonians when describing our country


A ways to provide the subjective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Greece claims that we have no moral right to use that name.
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Greece claims that we have no legal right to use that name.
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Greece claims that the use of the name Macedonia is an infringement.
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
Greece claims that the name is politically unacceptable.


I think it is clearly enough to find which term should be used throughout Wikipedia articles based on the objective/subjective criteria.


Another way to determine the balance of these criteria is the following table proposed in the mentioned article. I check it and found that the term Macedonia is again prevalent:

Criterion Macedonia FYROM
1. Most commonly used name in English 1 0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 0 (lets say) 1
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
3. Final scores 2 1

Now, lets consider the example that Sysin is taking from the naming conflict article:

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa (Greece) oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" (Macedonia) as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans (Macedonians) use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans (Greeks) oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed. Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves Cabindans (Macedonians) is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" (Macedonia) does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan (Greek) objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan (Greek) POV.In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

Cheers, Bitola 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be forgetting that other sources, such asEncarta use the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Also, a Google test produces the following results:
1,180,000 hits for [3] Searched for: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" –Wikipedia
492,000 hits for [4] "Republic of Macedonia" -Former -Wikipedia
Quite obviously, the most common name in English for your country is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Indeed, the usage of that name will increase a lot if FYROM joins the EU (assuming Greece does not veto), because there is no way that FYROM is joining the EU under the ROM name. Anyway, to get back to the point, the table should be:
Criterion Republic of Macedonia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 0 (there is no undisputed name) 0 (there is no undisputed name)
3. Current self-identifying name of entity (see below) 1 (see below) 1 (see below)
3. Final scores 1 2
You do the maths. We should also take into consideration the fact that FYROM consented to be admitted to the UN under the name FYROM - it sometimes self identifies as FYROM. As you can see, anyone can manipulate the figures, so don't try to pull wool over our eyes. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No dear, the facts are telling the opposite. I again performed the check as described in the Naming policy article (The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.)
In checked the following terms:
"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" (excluded Wikipedia) and “Republic of Macedonia” (excluded Wikipedia)
I have the following:
"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" - 2,300,000 results [5]]
"Republic of Macedonia" - 5,090,000 results [6]
Also, the same article recommends another check based on the news agencies (Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
I used the Google News search engine and got the following results:
"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" OR "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" 89 [7]
"Republic of Macedonia" 176 [8]
I have not much time at the moment, but I'm sure the other search engines will produce the similar output.
Of course, you can find some combination as you did before when you will get some incorrect output, however, I’m asking every user to perform the search and find itself what is the truth. Also, be sure that nobody on the planet, no mather English speaking or not, is using the funny FYROM or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia terms except Greeks and some international organizations under enormous pressure of Greece.
Bitola 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to get angry, Bitola. Your searching method is wrong: if you search for "Republic of Macedonia", you find the results for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as well. You have to exclude the Former Yugoslav from the name like I did above. Again, I ask you: don't try to pull wool over peoples eyes. I'm not proposing to rename the article - I don't want it renamed (for reasons of my own - if this article is renamed, then another article will have to be renamed and I don't want that to happen). What I am seeking is the following:
  • Usage of the name "Republic of Macedonia"
  • Footnotes (a lot of them) with links to the conflict
Also, don't forget that the "Macedonian" Ambassador to the UN, in the assembly hall, sits behind a name plate which reads: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Don't try to sweep that name under the carpet. Wikipedia should be neutral and explain things as they are. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, the truth is revealed: 76 results for "Republic of Macedonia" on its own! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)h
The problem with your searching method is that it includes the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - that is illustrated at you 176 results [9]. Many of them are written "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - you see what I am saying? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
We can find fallacy to every searching method if we go that way. For example, it is not correct to search the term “Republic of Macedonia”, because the country is many times referred simply by Macedonia, not always with the “Republic of” before it. For example, if you perform the following searching: Macedonia -Greek -Former -Yugoslav –Yugoslavian you will get impressive 48 000 000 results:[10].  :However, it was not the only method proposed in the article. What do you think about the objective and subjective criteria and the “Cabindans” example?Bitola 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, look at the results of your latest search. They include the University of Macedonia. How very apt :-))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
To get back to the point, as I've already told you, I'm not advocating renaming the page - only occasional links to the naming dispute and let the reader make up his/her own mind. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As FYROM is a widely used and significant name (in international circles at least), there's no point in trying to cover it up. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm from The Republic of Macedonia and I don't like to be called FYROM,by the way more than 110 contries in the OON have recognised Macedonia under its legitime name and the others are aren't)so the most used name is Republic of Macedonia.Remove FYROM rfom all articles.
The bottom lines here are that:
  • There is no international agreement about what to call the country - the UN's members states have about a 50-50 split between FYROM and RoM, so neither name can be regarded as definitive in an international context;
  • Wikipedia is not an agency of the EU, the UN or any other international body, so decisions made by those bodies do not dictate our naming of articles (otherwise we wouldn't have articles called "Republic of Taiwan" or "Republic of Serbian Krajina", for instance);
  • The FYROM name is widely used, like it or not - we have to at least mention it, and suppressing any mention of the name for political reasons would violate WP:NPOV;
  • Like it or not, the country calls itself the "Republic of Macedonia". We aren't in any position to impose another name on it because of our personal points of view - that would violate WP:NPOV. We aren't endorsing its right to use that name. We're simply describing it by the name that it describes itself, without making any judgment on whether the RoM/FYROM has any right to do so.
  • Remember, describe, don't prescribe. Your personal views on whether "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia" is the right name are simply not relevant here - all that you are being asked to do, as Wikipedians, is to describe the situation as it is, not as you would like it to be.
The naming policy is clear on this issue, and the disambiguation policy is also clear about what should go in a disambiguation page. An explanation of the naming conflict and a mass of footnotes do not belong here. -- ChrisO 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, I agree with your bottom lines. By my opinion the country is properly described throughout the WP articles under the name "Republic of Macedonia" because it is the constitutional name of the country. My only objection would be about the use of the abbreviation FYROM. Like it or not, it is highly offensive to every Macedonian I know. I noticed that some Greek editors are using it very frequently and, to make the situation even worse, some of them are using the term FYROMians for the Macedonian nation. Just to remind everyone: the country was accepted in the UN and other international institutions under the provisional name "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not under the mentioned abbreviation. I know that it is a long name, but if someone wants to use it, please, use it as it is. I think it is not fair, even for the Greek editors, to call somebody with the name that is highly insulting for him. Bitola 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Come on, it can't be that insulting, for your contry to have consented to be admitted to the UN and accepted as a EU candidate under that name. I'm seeking neutrality; at the article European Union for example, where your country is listed as a candidate, you cannot expect to list your country as Republic of Macedonia without a footnote saying that the EU admitted that country as a candiadate under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Covering up the truth is a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm sure that thought had never occured to you though ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm speaking about the abreviation, not about the long version of the term. Bitola 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with it? If the UN[11] can use it, then so can Wikipedia. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that it is insulting. Bitola 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the fact thet your government consented must mean something - if it was that insulting, they would have protested (countries protest all the time - like Greece did). Are you trying to cover up that abbreviation and pretend it doesn't exist? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the fact that credible .mk websites (such as those of Universities) use it [12], mean it can't be as insulting as you say it is. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is mentioned in the .mk websites, but did you notice in which context? At the bottom of the first results page you can see the following sentence: Don’t you FYROM-ian me!!! There was a campaign in my country called “Don’t you FYROM me, say MACEDONIA”. If you want to read more: [13]
Also, did you notice the very first result: What’s up with FYROM? If you want to read the whole article: [14] In case you don’t want to read it all, here are a few sentences from it: I don’t know what it is with this "term," more or less, plastered on the Republic of Macedonia’s head like a cheap toupee, but it seems to attract "international visitors" to Macedonia like flies swarming around freshly laid horse feces on Bitola’s city walkway. At first glance, this abbreviation reminds me of one of those Japanese designed robots that can do aerobics and laundry, while humming Ozzy Osbourne’s "Bark At the Moon." After further scrutiny, I must concede that pronunciation by some of Macedonia’s recent "visitors" embellishes a whole new universe of meanings and associations, for instance: "Fai-ROM": CD ROM’s sister, or "FA-RUM" an exotic liquor named after the gentleman who couldn’t reach the fourth note in the musical scale after drinking his concoction, and finally "Fa-RAM," the end result of drinking a whole bottle of "FA-RUM."... Maybe you now understand why that abbreviation is insulting for me and for every ordinary Macedonian, however, I should go now to lunch, have I nice day, bye… Bitola 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not a university website (it looks like a POV website). Look at this and this. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Look at this search. Apparently you use it in your own language as well. Doesn't look insulting. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
To get back to the point, as according to policy Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and the fact that Encarta uses the term FYROM allowed that abbreviation to be used in articles. If you are seeking to ban the word FYROM from Wikipedia, you'll need a survey and a consensus poll - not to mention the fact that it would probably fail. I understand your objection to the "ethnonym" "Fyromians" and the other ethnonyms cooked up in Greece such as "Slopianii" (Σκοπιανοί) and "Bulgaro-skopianii" (Βουλγαροσκοπιανοί) and I'll support you in seeking to ban those words from articles (not that they are, or are ever likely to be used). Serious academic sources use the abbreviation FYROM and even serious .mk websites use it prove that you are overblowing how "offensive" it is, but it is widely used in the English language and forcing your POV is not the way to go. As we've said, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. That name exists and is used, both in your country and abroad - pretending that it doesn't exist is like fooling ouselves and is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, as we’ve both bursted into long incoherent rants, I think it’s time for proposals. Bitola, what do you want? Unconditional use of the name “Republic of Macedonia” and to imply that the Greek objections and alternative names do not exist? I think that reduction of the use of FYROM to mere description of the circumstances and usage of “Republic of Macedonia” can be achieved if you attach a sweetener to it. Currently, there is no policy on naming and that “policy” you are citing is not binding in any way, but it a merely persuasive guideline. I for one have no problem with using Republic of Macedonia only to refer to your country, but have concerns elsewhere. You do realise that there are tremendous gaps in your logic on how FYROM is offending, but somehow is used as a self-identifying term on some occasions (go figure...). My concerns lie with assumption and monopolisation of the identifier “Macedonian” by your ethnic group. A typical example would be when an article mentions “the Greeks and the Macedonians”, when it is talking about your ethnic group. Currently, those phrases are subject to intense edit warring with Greek users trying to say “Greeks and Macedonian Slavs (a legitimate term used by Encarta)” and the users of your ethnic groups trying to say “Greeks and Macedonians”. I would advocate, in confusing circumstances such as these, to write, “Greeks and ethnic Macedonians”, in order to disambiguate them from the other Macedonians listed at the article Macedonians. Should you and the users of the same ethnicity as you agree to this, I’m sure that with a lot of debating, I may be able to get the Greek users to agree to this fragile compromise as well. Of course, this is just my proposal, which can be summed up as follows:

  • Usage of Republic of Macedonia in articles
  • Usage of Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians (depending on the circumstances, whether disambiguation is necessary - case by case basis)
  • Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM and Macedonian Slavs may be mentioned provided they are relevant (case by case basis), but shall not be used to refer to the state of people in the majority of the article in question.
  • In areas with limited space only (eg templates), shall the country be referred to as Macedonia plain?
  • Where relevant (case by case basis), footnotes may be needed (eg EU related articles)
  • All the above is generic and in certain circumstances, providing there is sufficient support, need not be followed (case by case basis).

It should be noted that this is all in favour of the ROM, and is contrary to the commonly accepted international status and impending future status once the ROM starts ascending to the EU. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that the abbreviation FYROM is not welcomed in my country. I’m not in a position to ban the usage of FYROM and I don’t intend to cover it up. What I’m asking is to minimize the usage of the abbreviation as much as possible and to mention the accurate (long) provisional name in appropriate locations.
About your proposal, I think that it is reasonable and I hope that it is acceptable for the other users as well.
If everyone agrees on the proposal, then I propose to unprotect the article and write the following description:
Republic of Macedonia, a country in Europe (also called the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Bitola 08:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Bitola, but I think this is already written. talk to +MATIA 12:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is at the absence of the abbreviation at the end Bitola 12:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean fYRoM? This abbreviation has been used along with the long name by UN and other international organizations. talk to +MATIA 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire!

Check the information in the wikipedia about Holy Roman Empire. Is exactly the same situation. EVERYONE knows that H.R.E. has nothing to do with the Roman Empire: king's names, language, culture, architecture just geographically happened to be part of the Roman Empire. EVERYONE knows that they were German-culture nation. The name was reasons of pride but today we can understand that is a joke in history. From 5th-6th AD when Slavs took this part of Byzantine Empire till Tito's nationalistic imaginations the Slavs of that area never used to call themselves macedonians. They can call themselves Republic of Macedonia, or Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire or Ottoman Empire, or Nazis but they will be Slav-culture nation. cheers! (unsigned comment by User:86.139.188.33 (talk)

Wow ... talk about rampant ... If Greeks are so confident about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia, then why do they get so worked up about this. Oh, and just because the Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia speak a Slavic language, it doesn't mean the majority of the people are descended from Slavic immigrants. Many Greek are descended from Slavic "invaders" too, doesn't mean they aren't Greek. Let's not be backward, let's look ahead to the future, and let's not draw antagonism between Macedonians who speak modern Greek and Macedonians who speak the modern Macedonian language. Thanks. - Calgacus 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The real issues at stake here are the political implications depending on whether Macedonia is Greek or Slavonic. These implications are related to nationalist myths and fears of territorial expansion as well as national pride. It's no secret that the original constitution of the Republic of Macedonia implied territorial expansion into Greece - irridentism at its fullest. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for this? Bitola 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to, just look at User:Macedonia's userpage. What is a "United Macedonia"? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about the Macedonian constitution? Bitola 19:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I was: Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Constitutional issue. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing no irredentism if some country cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighbouring countries, especially when in the same paragraph is literally written: In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs. However, these articles were removed from the constitution with the agreement between the Greece and the Republic of Macedonia in 1995. Just to remind you that in the Greek constitution (article 108) you can find the following: The State shall also attend to the education, the social and professional advancement of Greeks working outside the State (I see no irredentism in that either).Bitola 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how User:Macedonia, who is in favor of an "United Macedonia" (sic) which includes the Greek city of Thessaloniki, views it ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking about the users, have you seen the "wonderful" description of my country at the Makedonas user page?:)) Bitola 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's inspired by the Greek point of view - the fact that I may not approve of userpages being used like that can be illustrated by the fact that no nationalistic icons can be seen on my userpage. However, as there is no specific policy against it (or none that I can thik of), there's nothing that can be done about it. The same applies to User:Macedonia's userpage. Anyway, I think that out little chat is getting a bit long and as Wikipedia talk pages are not inteded for discussing anything other that the articles, you are welcome to continue this discussion on IRC. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, thanks for the invitation. Bitola 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-unprotection

I've semi-unprotected this disambiguation page - it's been locked for long enough. New and unregistered users still can't edit it, however. I've taken this step in the hope of deterring some of the hit-and-run POV vandalism that seems to plague any article that mentions the M******** word. -- ChrisO 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)