Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 6

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.

Contents

NPOV needs work?

Looks like this page still has a ways to go! see: this message on inter's talk page. Kim Bruning 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

DNA Testing I am not willing to argue over the many points Igor's article raises, simply because most of them are childish and vindictive. I do not wish to irritate him even more (i understand he has been having some problems with wikipedia due to his temper). What i really want to do is make a short comment on the DNA testings he has mentioned. Igor, please bear in mind that when you are submiting an article in the public domain, it is available for everyone to see and some of the people that will read it are bound to be experts on various subjects. I happen to be an expert in genetics and what you said about DNA testing is completely innacurate. How do you propose you will prove the origin of your nation by DNA testing? Sure you can take DNA samples from subjects demographically chosen but to what are you going to compare these samples against? I would really like to know. Talking about things you do now have knowledge on just works against you.--TheVirus 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

62.162.194.238 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article can be seen in the naming dispute section. First of all the section appears on top so it means somebody really wants to make it a more important issue then it really is. Inside the section you can see the greek arguments for the name of the country, but can you see the arguments of the macedonians(me) why we think that we have the right to use that name? Furthermore do you see at least one sentence describing why did my country accept the name FYROM to be accepted in the UN? Lets go further... take a look at the history page, and look at what users are writing the article for Republic of Macedonia. Vergina, Matia.gr, Theathenae etc, all greek "experts" on the Republic of Macedonia. Neutral wikipedia rocks!!! Dejan --212.186.106.22 12:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Religions of FYROM

  • It is false 66% "Macedonian Orthodox"!
  • See:

Macedonian Orthodox 32.4%, other Christian 0.2%, Muslim 16.9%, other and unspecified 50.5% (2002 census) https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mk.html

Vergina 05:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote

After the revert wars and the locking of the article Macedonian denar due to its disclaimer, a vote was put up at Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote. Please vote whether articles that include the name of the Republic of Macedonia should include the disclaimer or not. bogdan | Talk 19:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

boilerplate text -> template

Cf. {{Macedonian naming dispute}} (t/l). --Joy [shallot] 20:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the "Republic of Macedonia"

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating 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 Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

Extremism in the "Republic of Macedonia"

Extremism in the "Republic of Macedonia" is not individual phenomenon. No! With security not!If a State of stranger of symbols as flag steal (see Macedonian symbol Vergina Sun) and strange identity imitates,one cannot speak of individual cases extremism. In this case most citizens of the state are extremists and the State of is extremistic or nationalistic.

The name Republic of Macedonia is a falsification for the Slavic peoples!It is a imitation of Hellenism and included 2500 years Greek history of Macedonia.This is the reason why the name "Republic of Macedonia" is an international dispute.

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://ret001qm.eresmas.net/images/Macedonia%25202E%252005-r.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ret001qm.eresmas.net/eu-ingle.htm&h=300&w=294&sz=21&tbnid=jZ0lDbN9KbYJ:&tbnh=111&tbnw=108&hl=de&start=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmacedonia%26start%3D140%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Vergina 11:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very concerned that the section you created called "Extremism . . ." is POV. Your additional insertions of Slav before Macedonian in several instances, especially where it reflects badly on the people you are naming such, shows that you are not employing a NPOV here. Please suggest how this information is appropriate and NPOV, else I believe it should be reverted. – Friejose 15:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It is my impression that it is the articles themselves that need to comply with NPOV, not the talk pages. Unless I'm mistaken, talk pages are meant for civilized discussion of various POV's, in case differences of opinion arise, and the eventual formulation of NPOV consensus.
I would be grateful to know why you think that calling a Slav a Slav is POV. Wikipedia has a huge, well-written and very detailed article on the Slavic peoples, which is as it should be because Slavs number several hundred million folks and inhabit vast areas of Europe and Asia. Oh, and just in case you didn't know, the word "Slava" means "glory" in most, if not all, Slavic languages. It is also commonly used in lieu of the English expression "Long Live ..." when applauding e.g. a country or an institution. Chronographos 21:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback, although it is somewhat disingenuous to seize upon the word Slav, which I nowhere mention in my post, as the center of my POV concern. This tack, as you have termed it elsewhere when done to your statements, is a straw argument. My true concern is that (1) the excessive use of exclaimation points, (2) the statement that "most citizens of the state are extremists," (3) the choice of the handle Vergina in this context, and (4) the fact-less disparagement of an entire state demonstrates a lack of a neutral viewpoint. If you care to address the gravamen of my actual concerns, I would be most obliged. Your facility with words and arguments is impressive, but it misrepresents what I actually said and it mispresents the statements of Vergina above. – Friejose 21:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
For a non-native speaker of English, it seems that my reading comprehension is in pretty good shape: You state "... the word Slav, which I nowhere mention in my post ..." and "Your additional insertions of Slav ...". This does look like mentioning to me. The remainder of your concerns had better be addressed to Vergina. It would be highly inappropriate of me to respond on behalf of a person I don't even know. Chronographos 22:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I did say Slav. Sincerest apologies to the Slav nations that you so gallantly defend. As you know, the insertion of Slav following Macedonian necessarily implies that the residents/citizens of the erstwhile Republic of Macedonia lack a historical connection to the term Macedonia and their state is merely an "imitation of Hellenism" as Vergina phrases it. Perhaps I'm jumping to inappropriate conclusions, but your comments here and elsewhere have suggested to me that you agree with such an assessment disparaging the legitimacy of the Republic of Macedonia. Thus, I query you directly Chronographos, am I mistaken in that conclusion? Furthermore, I thought you took on the mantle of Vergina's defense by responding in this very thread. Thus, I direct a second question your way Chronographos, do you believe my four-pronged characterization of Vergina's NPOV problems above is accurate? Since your superlative English skills are abundantly clear in your use of American idioms and in your catch of my embarassing mistake above, I do not doubt you understand the questions, now I await your reply. – Friejose 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Since you are inquiring about my own take of the issue, a fact I again find most flattering, here it is: Macedonia is a geographical area which is divided between Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria. The particulars (wars, treaties etc) are easy to look up. In this area reside about 2.5 million Greeks, 2 million citizens of FYROM, of whom one third are ethnic Albanians, and about 200,000 Bulgarians. The name of FYROM is temporary, and UN-sponsored negotiations are being conducted to resolve the issue. Negotiations are presided over by UN envoy Matthew Nimitz. I await the conclusion of these negotiations. In the meantime I find it unfair that the Slav majority of FYROM should monopolize the term Macedonian without any qualifier. For one, they are not the majority within the geographical area we are discussing. Therefore it seems fair to me that some sort of qualifying statement differentiate them from Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Bulgarians. I think that the "Slav" qualifier is a good one as it accurately describes their linguistic and historical background. After all, they are Slavs living in Macedonia. Should the permanent name of FYROM be, say, Paionia or Vardarska, they could then be called Paionians, Paionian Slavs, Macedonian Paionians, Paionian Macedonians, Vardar Macedonians, or the Boston Red Sox for all I care.
As for Vergina's points, his poor English makes it hard for me to understand exactly what he wants to say. Regardless, you failed to respond to my own point: namely that it is WP articles that need to observe NPOV, not talk pages. Chronographos 23:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I am so disappointed you did not answer me ... Chronographos 19:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
And even more dissapointed by your complete lack of argumentation. This is partly offset by your following my edits around and adding tiny little helpful and insightful edits of your own. I am glad to assist in making your life more fulfilling through Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me in this respect. Wikipedia is a great learning tool. I'll be more than happy to be showing you around. I will focus on the Second Viennese School articles next, in case it interests you. Chronographos 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridicule

This might upset the Macedonian nationalists but the whole claim is ridiculous: when during the 19th century, Pan-Slavism was growing among the Slavic communities of Europe, those occupying present-day Macedonia decided to adopt the name 'Macedonian' for their subnation as it were, so as not to be caught in the cross-fire between Bulgaria and Serbia even though both the latter nations are infact Slavic. Perhaps Bulgars are not originally Slavic but once they were embedded within Slavic communities, they soon assimilated Slavic language, culture and identity and the evidence of their Turkic backgrounds were soon wiped out: first you have two nations, Slavs and Bulgars occupying the same territory, then as Bulgars start speaking the Slav language, marrying Slavs and only teaching their children the Slav language, within a few generations there is nothing left of the old people and nobody now can go to one of the towns and say 'She is Slavic and he is a Bulgar' for they become one and the same. So what then IS Bulgarian? and Serbian? and now Macedonian for that matter? Simple, they are nothing but power bases: names used by influential people in high places to lure as many people around them as possible into believing 'This is who you are, be one of us and you will be rewarded.' When between 1885-86 the Bulgarians defeated the Serbs in the battle for Slivnitsa, the southern-most people still to be under Ottoman rule were (at the same time as developing their culture/language etc) divided as to whether they were Bulgarians or Serbs with both 'bases' trying to encourage these people to accept them and not the other. Finally in the 1890's the southern-most Slavs decided that they would take the historical name for their region 'Macedonia' and use it to standardize and develop and nation with all of its properties which is both seperate to Bulgaria and Serbia, and thus was created the I.M.R.O (their headquarters were in a part of Slav-occuppied Macedonia in present day Bulgaria). Now, after World War I, Macedonia was carved up three ways between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes; Greece; and Bulgaria. This subsequently meant that Blagoevgrad (to take an example) lies in both Macedonia AND Bulgaria. Macedonia is the provincial region and Bulgaria is the name of the government which rules over the regions people; whether or not those people classed themselves as Bulgarians by nationality would have their own choice. But just as it is possible for Blagoevgrad to be a part of Bulgaria AND Macedonia simply for being situated on land which was at different times occupied by both sets of people whilst THESE ones are Slavic, so too can this be the case in todays FYROM. Ancient Bulgars were present there too when they converted identity to Slavic - Turkey can rename herself Anatolia; Iraq may be called Babylon, my point is that it wouldn't make the people Babylonian if in fact they are Arabs! The claims by the principle population of FYROM that they are descended from Alexander the Great and not from the occupying Slavs from AD 555 onwards is preposterous. Ancient Macedonians were a tribe about which nobody knew prior to their crusade when they annexed the Hellenic tribes who fought against each other frequently. Converting to Greek indentity themselves they conquered much of the middle-east but never the less, by the time the Slavs arrived to their present settlement, ONLY a Greek nation could have been living in Ancient Macedonia IF AT ALL these towns were even inhabited. Today, FYROM is a rather heteregenous territory. Asides the principle population you have Albanians, Turks, Gypsies, Romanians, Caucasians (speakers of Adyghe) and pockets of others. Yet it is only the Slavic-speaking people who call themselves 'Macedonian'. The U.N recognizes everybody to have been living in the FYROM since 1993 as being Macedonian with the distinction appearing after the adjective 'Macedonian', for example, Gheg speaking residents of villages near Tetovo are called 'Albanci/Shiptari' by those who speak the Slav language in Prilep but to the U.N are known as 'Macedonian Albanians'. Descendants from the Ottoman Empire who still speak a form of Turkish (such as the Gaugaz nation) are referred to as Macedonian-Turks. So how does this leave the main population of Macedonia? Macedonian-Macedonians? That doesn't make sense since the term Macedonian is already applied...the question is why are they not Turks or Albanians? In fact, they are recognised internationally as Macedonian Slavs, or Slav-Macedonians. They may dispute this and argue with it but let's put this whole issue under closer inspection. Albanians, said to have desecded from the Illyrians have also been present in the region for thousands of years, certainly whilst any original Macedonians would have been roaming the region. There are Albanians who live in the present day Fyrom, as well as Albanians who live in Greek Macedonia. There are Slavic communities who live in parts of Albania (including sections outside of the part of Macedonia within Albania) and there are of course still many tens of thousands of Slavic people living in Greece (though most were relocated after WWII in order to play down their claim to the territory). But why is it that when you speak to someone in Bitola or Skopje, they will tell you that 'The reason that Giorgos and Dimitris from Lerin (that is Florina) speak my language is because they are Macedonians like I am who were forced into dissimilation by the post-war Greek government.' It is true that our fictional characters were dissimilated but from being 'Macedonian'? No sir, from Slavic. Why is the term 'Macedonian' not applied to Albanian or Greek speakers within Macedonia? EVEN the GREEK part of Macedonia! Alexanders descendants becomed Slavisized with the arrival of the Serbs etc. What, all of them?? Did none of them maintain their original Greek language? Then who are these Greek people living in Thessaloniki? It might be said that they are originally from farther south, Athens and the islands, pushed north to dilute the Slavic-speaking population. But what about the Albanians? Not the ones in Albania or the Fyrom but the Alvarites who live in Greek Macedonia? If it were the 'real Macedonians' destiny to convert identity, did that only mean Slavic? Could it not have meant Albanian too since they were also living there? and once again, if not - then who are these Albanian speaking people in Kastoria etc? Does it really wash? Greek speakers are Greek, Albanian speakers are Albanian but the Slav-speaking people of the same town are descendants of ancient Macedonians who history recorded to have switched nationality anyway? It is every nationalist's dream to see his forged nation succeed and take over as much land and people as possible. Bulgaria is the same, she would take the whole of Macedonia if she could and make her 'Bulgaria', adding the same propoganda. Traditional Serbian views see Macedonia as a part of Serbia but they would have done this with Bulgaria too - had they succeeded the first step in capturing the border areas in their 1885 war. Croatia is no different, their government too like to apply the term 'Croat' to people not only outside of Croatia's borders but people who themselves call themselves something else. Yet the remarkable thing is, moving politics to one side: borders may change daily but where you have Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro etc, right through to Slovenia and beyond (because on the opposite end of this region, the problem is mirrored with Slavic communities who might be said to belong to Slovenia indigenous to regions outside Slovenia (ie.Austria and Italy), you don't actually find a cultural border anywhere. A country called Yugoslavia was formed and it fell apart. Bulgaria was never included. But do as I did in the 1980's and start travelling somewhere outside the region, say Kirklisse in Turkey - this town has a traditional Slavic population, claimed by Sofia to be 'Bulgarians' but their claims are unmatched by any of the other Slavic nations since European Turkey is just too far away for Bosnia's government to say 'OOOOYYYYYY - their OUURRSS .... can you hear us??? you're Bosnians!!! remember?? your great-great-great-grandparents started travelling to Ankara hundreds of years ago.......... what's that? ..oh you're Orthodox are you? sorry...' Belgrade: Orthodox? Well they're ours then, what are you doing claiming them you Sarajevo Muslims? Zagreb: Wo! Hold the bullshit, we have documents in Zadar saying that they were forced into Orthodoxy by an invading Russian militia when the region was still under Venice and so they are Croats! ...you get the picture! My point is that IF you travel from Kirklisse (known to the Slavic speakers as Lozengrad), and travel to Bulgaria, then Macedonia, then Serbia, then Montenegro, then Herzegovina, then back into Serbia, then into Macedonia via a different route, then Albania where Slavs live, then Greece where Slavs live, then back up north and into Bosnia, then Vojvodina (Serbia), then Slavonia (Croatia) then into Slovenia, then back down the Dalmatian coast - town by town, village by village, you have a continuum of dialect (eventually language), a continuum of people (Slavs), a continuum of culture (Slovenia and Bulgaria are different but there are many similarities and the differences have intervening stages where-by in some places, two or more customs may be practised), and a continuum of ideology - like Italy and its 60 million people, or Germany's 80 million... so why can't Macedonians just be proud to be Slavic when infact THAT is everything about them, their entire existence is based on it. By using the name Macedonia, they only make things difficult for themselves. User:AlfredG 25/aug/05

This is an excellent summation of what goes on, or rather, how things evolved. What irks me, as a scientist, the most about the whole affair is the now infamous genetic research "findings", based on the HLA studies by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. I will bypass the obvious embarrassments such as the participation of scientists from FYROM in that paper, and the sharp reprimand such papers received fron no less than Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in no less an august science journal than Nature magazine. By far the most outrageous element of this odious story is the ideological backbone of the arguments derived from it, namely that genes prove or disprove something about a population's "true ethnicity"! If this is not pure, true Nazism, I don't know what is. And while FYROMian scientists could conceivably be excused for not being quite aware of mainstream Western anti-racist values, the Spanish geneticist lacks any excuse whatsoever. Having received some genetics training myself, I can only feel contempt for such people. There is nothing inherently wrong with such studies per se, obviously. They can, and do, shed light into patterns of transhumance through prehistorical and historical times alike. But using such studies to somehow justify modern-day politics is beneath contempt. One would hope that such thinking went the way of the Nuremberg Trials convicts 60 years ago. Apparently, and unfortunately, it has not. Chronographos 07:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The sheer ridiculousness of the situation is further illustrated by the following: as you know, Bulgarians maintain that the Macedonian Slav language is practically the same as the Bulgarian language, whereas FYROM insists this is not the case. As a result, whenever officials from these two countries meet or hold a mutual press conference, FYROM officials insist on using Bulgarian-Slavomacedonian translators, whereas Bulgarian officials take all their questions in Slavomacedonian sans translation, and answer them in Bulgarian. Makes one wonder if the FYROM officials undergo "apathy training" to keep their facial expressions and body language from showing that they understand what is being said before the "translator" finishes. Chronographos 14:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just Curious from an Outsider's Point of View

Hi, I heard about this contreversy, and if a neutral party is needed, please let me know. I don't really have any ties to either side, and it'd be nice to solve this dispute.Even if it's happening in the "real world", we here on Wikipedia should be a shining example of objectivity and cooperation regardless of our nationality. Karmafist 01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic Immigration into Byzantine Empire

Began around late 8th Century BC, how on Earth can any Slav claim that Alexander was a Slav when they didn't even EXIST in that geographical area at the time? PROUD TO BE GREEK!

  • Actually it began a little earlier, the first migrations came during the 6th century but never the less, the arguement of the Slav Macedonians is not that Alexander was Slavic - rather that the Slavs dissimilated the Macedonian people but somehow these Macedonians kept their name (ie. they claim to be the descendants of Alexander with a culture influenced by neighbouring Serbia and Bulgaria) meanwhile they say that the Greek-speaking population of the region of Macedonia in Greece is nothing more than a diaspora pushed northwards from the islands where Greeks are said to be indigenous by the government in order to dilute the 'real' Macedonians. This is their arguement, not mine. I sympathise more with you on this one Proud Greek. User:AlfredG

By some non-Greeks

@Given the long name, the state is often referred to as Macedonia by some non-Greeks.

I can imagine why this phrasing was chosen, but I don't think anyone would use the full name instead of just Macedonia in normal conversation (especially not when referred to more than once). I realize that probably nothing will happen with this, I still feel I should say something about it. For one thing it's obvious the moment you read it that the writer meant to write "most", giving the sentence a ludicrous appearance. Secondly, everyone knows from their own experience that most peope just say "Macedonia". Web searches seem to back up this intuitive idea (in Google's index "Macedonia" is 44 times more common than the full name). Yours sincerely, Shinobu 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the official name of the country needs to be stated regardless of the frequency in its usage. The U.K. is seldom refered to as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nevertheless, is its proper name and as thus is mentioned, and not without good reason. Colossus 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that the UK's official name is longer and different than the name in common use, that "official" name is self-chosen by the British, not foisted upon them by the international community. I don't believe that the UN or NATO or any international entity can delineate an "official" name of a state. Perhaps there is an "internationally-recognized" name of a state, but to the extent that a name is "official," I believe it is the name chosen by the independent country itself and not decided on by other external to the state.
Sorry, forgot to sign the above, Friejose 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Being from the UK, i have to state that UK is a name, which insults no one and does not take advantage of the history of other nations, destorting it to suit its purpose. Unfortunately, this is more than i can say about FYROM. Countries have the right to name themselves as they wish, provided that their name does not insult other cultures and their history, which is clearly not the case with FYROM. Therefore, objection to the use of any name other than FYROM (which is a temporary one anyway) is justified and should not be viewed as international bullying!--TheVirus 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the name SFRY better more meaningful?
SFRY="Socialistic Federativ Republic of Yugoslavia"
Vergina 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at with your comment. But I am concerned that you have a too-strong POV after reading your additional comments below. As someone with no ties to either side of the naming dispute, I simply wanted to point out that the argument that one name of a country was "official" and should therefore receive more prominent listing was fallacious. All three current names for the former Yugoslav entity, "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", and "FYROM" should receive mention in the article, with an emphasis on what the citizens of that state call themselves. Especially since there is already a lengthy section on the naming dispute in the article. – Friejose 15:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

@Colossus: I never said it shouldn't. It's just this sentence that lifts my eyebrows, so to speak.

And to the extent that the name is not contrued as a threat by its neighbours, that country has the right to choose any name it likes. But for better or worse, the international community has enforced a commonly accepted name, at least in the international level, and since the international community is the only authoritative organization, we can, and ought to regard it as official. Wether it serves best the interests of the citizens of that country or nor is not for dispute heree, since Wikipedia isnt for original research. Like you said , the constitutional name (RoM) is already mentioned, but since its not widely embraced outside the country, we need to mention the name by which it is (FYROM). Official simply means authorized by the international community, and doesnt undermine the constitutional name. Colossus 09:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

@everyone else: My comment is not about the naming dispute, which is already addressed in the article.

Shinobu 02:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Since the long discussion below has nothing to do with this, I split this section in two.

Admittedly some (most) of the answers above haven't either, but I needed to cut somewhere, because splitting this section is the only way a sensible answer is going to appear. People who want to have a long discussion about what is and is not official, please be so kind to post remarks in the section below and not here. Shinobu 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Naryathegreat has corrected the sentence, something I should perhaps have done in the first place, instead of placing notes on the talk page. After all, aren't we supposed to "be bold"? Shinobu 02:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What's official and not

  • Colossus, happy to oblige and post here, but we've been around and around on this. ChrisO said it best above in this very talk page:

"Official Country Name" is what the country calls itself, not what others call it. Compare the infobox on People's Republic of China. -- ChrisO 08:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thus, I know that you know the reasoning here, yet you neverthess persist in reverting and playing the ingenue. The "official" issue and the name dispute is discussed at length in the text of the article, not in the introductory sentence. Where it belongs. Thanks, Friejose 14:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The international community is above the nation-state, just like international law suprecedes national law. The country may call itself as it wishes but until the constitutional name of the country is approved and recognized by the UN, it's usage is in breach of international law, and therefore POV. FYROM is a member of the United Nations and has agreed to enforce all of its edicts. The UN, and by extention all of its members, have prohibited the name RoM, so its usage is in breach of international law as well as FYROMian law. That the UN lacks enforcement powers of its and failed to prevent it from turning into a "de facto" name does not legitimize its use nor is it an endorcement of NPOV. Agreeably, RoM has become common enough so I can accept some leniency in Wikipedia, but claiming that it has equal status, at least legally, with its proper though not as popular name, FYROM, that is an endorsement of POV.
The United Nations is above FYROM, therefore UN desicions are above the decisions of FYROM. If the name "Republic of Macedonia" is to be used in Wikipedia, it should at least be made clear from the beggining that it is not the agreed upon name of the country. "Official" implies the UN and can make the legal status between the two names easily and quickly apprehensible. "Also known as" on the other hand implies equal status between the two, falsely raising RoM to the level of FYROM. "Recognized" does not imply decision-making and "official" merely pertains to a proper authority.
Perhaps there is an "internationally-recognized" name of a state, but to the extent that a name is "official," I believe it is the name chosen by the independent country itself and not decided on by other external to the state.
Would that if there didnt exists that first article of the UN charter binding all of its members to adhere to any of its decisions. Simply put, UN authority supercedes national authority, in the same way national authority supercedes individual persons. Or like an American as yourself surely must be aware of, Federal law is above State law and in case of conflict between the two, the Federal government has the right to amend that specific state law. Colossus 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, the purported norms of international law you cite above are by no means universally accepted. Cite me one case that says that the Macedonians calling themselves Macedonian violates international law. What is more, I've never voted for anyone to hold any post as part of the "international community" and neither have you, because they are unelected and unaccountable. The judges on the ICJ (among other international courts) are unelected and unaccountable, and they are appointed by people who are unelected and unaccountable. Hence, international law does not govern national law in the same way as federal governing state law; there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority. As a person of Greek descent, you can appreciate that I'm sure. Further, the UN is made up of numerous nation states that do not have the consent of the governed, so their UN resolutions mean much as realpolitik perhaps, but little as precedental authority. But before this devolves into an unnecessary squabble over international law, let me point out that I've linked to quotes that are internal to Wikipedia to support be edit removing the word "official". You are attempting to enforce your view of a situation (i.e. POV) by reference to authority that is external to Wikipedia. The UN has no purview here, there is no "official" in Wikipedia (otherwise why have it be open to edits from all?). The denizens of the Republic of Macedonia call their nation such, so should this article. – Friejose 15:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (As a side note to Colossus, thank you for replying here instead of reverting.)

Can you Friejose see any reference here that the Template:Macedonian_naming_dispute is in a vote to be deleted? I can't, but I can see that its origin can be traced back to January. And a lot of people involved in its shape have no idea that it is regarded as pov. MATIA 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the purported norms of international law you cite above are by no means universally accepted. Cite me one case that says that the Macedonians calling themselves Macedonian violates international law.

You are mistaken. As far as any UN member is concerned, UN law is universal, and therefore supreme. Article 2[1] of the UN charter makes it perfectly clear that UN members are obliged to enforce any UN decision. That the UN lacks the power to enforce its decisions directly itself is only because it has good faith in its members. The United Nations has decreed that the use of the name Republic of Macedonia is prohibited. UN member FYROM has ignored this decree. The state of FYROM is in breach of international law. Simple.

What is more, I've never voted for anyone to hold any post as part of the "international community" and neither have you, because they are unelected and unaccountable.

No. Unelected does not equal unaccountable. You have elected certain representatives to deal with public matters and they in turn have appointed people to certain offices using the power you have bestowed upon them in accordance to the law. The Prime Minister of FYROM which has been elected by the people of FYROM represents them in the international community and is accountable to them every four years.

The judges on the ICJ (among other international courts) are unelected and unaccountable, and they are appointed by people who are unelected and unaccountable. Hence, international law does not govern national law in the same way as federal governing state law; there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority.

The judges of the ICJ are apointed by UN the Heads of States of UN members which are elected directly by the citizenry and are accountable to them rather than the citizenry itself. The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States are not elected either. They are appointed by elected representatives and are accountable to them instead. In fact, Supreme court decisions supercede State Court decisions in the same way UN decisions supercede national decisions. So, international law does govern national law in much the same way Federal law governs State law.

there is no democracy in the "international community" and, therefore, no binding authority. As a person of Greek descent, you can appreciate that I'm sure. Further, the UN is made up of numerous nation states that do not have the consent of the governed, so their UN resolutions mean much as realpolitik perhaps, but little as precedental authority.

The UN does have the consent of the governed. The UN consists of the elected representatives of the governened speaking for them abroad, so its resolutions are legally sanctioned. As I said above, the prime minister of FYROM represents his people in the UN, and is obliged by the Constitution of FYROM as well as the UN charter to obey its resolutions. The problem is that seem to define democracy according to the Athenian definition. Ancient Athens was a direct democracy in which the citizenry was directly involved in decision making. Modern democracies are representative, in that elected representatives rather than the citizens themselves govern.

I've linked to quotes that are internal to Wikipedia to support be edit removing the word "official". You are attempting to enforce your view of a situation (i.e. POV) by reference to authority that is external to Wikipedia. The UN has no purview here, there is no "official" in Wikipedia (otherwise why have it be open to edits from all?). The denizens of the Republic of Macedonia call their nation such, so should this article.

Do you mind posting these quotes or links again? The word official simply points out to the UN and helps the reader understand that Republic of Macedonia, though more popular, is also not the legal name of the country. It helps to differentiate between the de jure and de facto name. The phrasing also known as is much more dubious and confuses rather than clarifies. FYROM isnt just a second name for the country. It's the proper legal designation. Colossus 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Friejose states that since a number of states are not true democracies, any international institutions in which these states participate, such as the ICJ, lack legitimacy. In other words, according to Friejose's "reasoning" the Nuremberg Trials were null and void, since the Stalin-ruled Soviet Union appointed a judge in that court. For a person who claims to be a lawyer, that's a pretty darn incredible thing to say. Chronographos 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I missed you guys over the weekend. Dr. Chrono, I see you didn't misplace your ax during my time away from this squabble, great to know it's still being ground. Another thing, Doc, your straw arguments continue to amaze me with their audacity; you must've missed when I said "[b]ut before this devolves into an unnecessary squabble over international law," let's focus on Wikipedia. It's just unhelpful for your slanted argument regarding this article, so you ignored it. Par for the course. Do you treat your patients like you treat facts and people who argue them: with unmitigated disdain? Colossus, my links to China, New Guinea, and Samoa were elsewhere, not here, sorry for any confusion — they are all naming disputes that don't use the word "official". Also, check Persian Gulf and Gdansk for others. I take it none of you are still using Danzig guilders, right? Friejose 20:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The minute I discuss my patients here, you will be free to comment on how I treat them. You made a serious faux pas, for an alleged legal expert, and your subsequent rudeness only makes it stand out the starker. No one is impressed by "lawyerese", unless it's the butt of a joke (and there are plenty of these going around). Chronographos 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Faux pas, eh? That's the same language as double entendré, right? Oh, and questioning the legitimacy of extranational organizations based on Locke's theories of governance is hardly a blunder (if I may use the English term). Bringing the Nuremberg trials into this chat is . . . wait for it . . . yet another straw argument made by you. You're nothing if not consistent Doc. Also, I recall that in some of your earlier diatribes you have had reference to your medical training when disparaging others, so spare me your plus saint que vous routine. (Did I say that right, Dr. C?) – Friejose 21:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Friejose I thought you discouraged personal attacks. MATIA 21:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Only when it suits him. The rest of the time he resorts to John Locke (!). Chronographos 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
What a load of BS! The only reason that it is known in the UN as FYROM is due to pressure from the Greeks, in many many many official papers, it is known simply as the Republic of Macedonia. The usage of this term is not ilegal. Indeed, within its own borders, it is known as the Republic of Macedonia.--Grcampbell 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice and easy. MATIA 17:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a poor argument, Campbell. If "the only reason that it is known in the UN as FYROM is due to pressure from the Greeks", then the only reason it is called the "Republic of Macedonia" is due to Yugoslav Communist pressure in the 1940s, part of a wider expansionist plan against Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. American disdain for international law notwithstanding, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the only internationally legitimate name until such time as the naming dispute between the two countries is resolved.--Theathenae 10:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality notice

Can anyone here name anything which is in specific dispute due to neutrality? The name of the article is not a reason to include this notice. If there are disputes, it is time to resolve them. Wikipedia is not the place for a debate over names. For cold hard facts, opinion, comparisons, and obscure semantic arguments are unimportant. It's time for some contributors to let this go. Does anyone have a specific complaint to report?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The debate is about clarifying that FYROM and not Republic of Macedonia is the country's legally recognized name, no matter the popularity of either. Colossus 13:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You cannot use the neutrality template for the name of the article. This implies that to a reader that the article itself is biased. If it is, please list concerns. If not, this notice will be removed. It is time to get over this tired debate. Wikipedia is not the place for it. As for this silly title dispute, debates about which name is more popular or what happened in 1250 or what not are not relevant. The only relevant details are those which concern the name dispute are those concerning the present situation.--naryathegreat | (talk) 14:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think you're confused over some stuff. The argument above between me and Friejose isnt related to the argument going on in Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote. Colossus 15:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not wish to be drawn into such a debate. I am merely asking for anyone with a specific neutrality complaint to come forward. Otherwise, I am going to remove the dispute notice.--naryathegreat | (talk) 16:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, arguing that FYROM is an officially recognized state is about neutrality. Claiming that Republic of Macedonia is of equal status is POV. Colossus 18:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Is "Via Egnatia" yet another "secret human rights organization" ...

... now under a different guise? Chronographos 22:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?

Official name

The official name of this state is the "Republic of Macedonia" by what it calls itself. Most big countries like the United States, Russia, China, and dozens of other countries use the official name. This information should not be censored and Wikipedia should not say only the name the Greeks want is the only official one. (signed by User:Via Egnatia)

"Republic of Macedonia" is a local name!The status of the state is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".The status name(See UNO) is the official name.USA recognized the state Bilateral as "Republic of Macedonia". Vergina 05:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to ban the name "Republic of Macedonia". So the use of RoM even within FYROM itself is illegal. Read the debate above. Colossus 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The country's official name, as defined by its constitution, is the Republic of Macedonia. The constitution is the highest law in that country, so to say that name is "illegal" within the country is just nonsense. Most other countries recognize officially it has the right to call itself what it wishes. The term "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not an official name at all but a provisional designation under which it was admitted to the United Nations, and only because Greece claimed it alone had the right to the word "Macedonia" since that is also a region of Greece. (This is something like the United States objecting to the admission of the Republic of Georgia under that name because the U.S. has a state named Georgia.) So, to say "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia " is the country's official name and the name in its constitution is not official is just wrong. Jonathunder 23:19, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of UN law vs. country constitution in this case, but there are other cases where things are quite clear: for example European Union law is explicitly stated and accepted to be above EU member country constitutions, and this has been reaffirmed by the Curia Chronographos 08:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. UN law is FYROM law too, and if the UN says the name is illegal, that means it is illegal everywhere including inside FYROM itself. FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to enforce UN resolutions. That FYROM ignores UN resolutions and goes on ahead to include the name RoM in its constitution only means that FYROM'ss cconstitution as well is in breach of UN law. A constitution, despite being the highest authoritative document in a nation, can be and still is below UN resolutions, which are deemed absolute by its members, and that means by FYROM too. You need to distinguish between de facto and de jure. The name RoM is not legal anywhere, even if its the most popular. Colossus 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

FYROM, when "Republic of Macedonia", neglects self the international right (UNO right) which agreed itself. Vergina 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The name Republic of Macedionia is the official name used for internal affairs and appears on the coinage, all official documents and on its passports. The country is not officialy recognised as FYROM. It is recognised by the United Nations as FYROM. I wouldn't pay much attention to what the UN has to say. The UN maintains that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, not Jerusalem and that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a province of the People's Republic of China, not an seperate state. That doesn't stop the articles Israel and Republic of China saying what the elected governments of those countries have established. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to use the name which is used by the government and add a footnote saying that the UN admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM. REX 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you 'd like to read the section about the meaning of the word official. MATIA 14:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy. To say one name is "official" and the other name is not is not reporting both points of view equally. "Republic of Macedonia" certainly is what that country says is its official name. You may think that is wrong but Wikipedia must be nuetral. CDThieme 17:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And how will WP be neutral if WP takes that side? I think that the term official as described above is neutral. MATIA 18:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should report all relevant positions but take none. It should say what the country calls itself and what others call it. It should not say one designation is THE official name.
The name Republic of Macedionia is the official name used for internal affairs and appears on the coinage, all official documents and on its passports.
And hence the de facto name of the country. Popularization though does not equal with legitimization. FYROM is a UN member and has agreed to prohibit the use of RoM, even in its own country. That it does not only means that it is breaking international law. Hence, its illegal.
The country is not officialy recognised as FYROM. It is recognised by the United Nations as FYROM.
Only that the UN is the highest authority in the world, and its members, including FYROM, are obliged to enforce its resolutions. UN resolutions apply internationally as well as nationally, and that includes inside FYROM's own borders.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is to use the name which is used by the government and add a footnote saying that the UN admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM.
The de facto name is already displayed. The point here is to make known that that name is not legal, and by extention not official. The word "official" pertains to a proper authority, and the worlds highest authority is the UN. The UN hasnt just admitted the Republic of Macedonia unter the name FYROM. It decreed the name RoM illegal altogether and prohibited its use. That's why the use of the name RoM even within FYROM is illegal.
Wikipedia should report all relevant positions but take none. It should say what the country calls itself and what others call it. It should not say one designation is THE official name.
Again, official pertains to a proper authority, that is, the United Nations. And since all nations are bounded by the UN, by extention, it pertains to the international community itself. Look up "official" in a dictionary.
Please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy. To say one name is "official" and the other name is not is not reporting both points of view equally. "Republic of Macedonia" certainly is what that country says is its official name. You may think that is wrong but Wikipedia must be nuetral.
No, its only that you dont know what official means. That the country styles itself Republic of Macedonia makes no difference to legal matters. If something is illegal, it remains illegal no matter how much the law is overlooked. FYROM was obliged by the UN to prohibit the use of RoM. FYROM didnt. FYROM broke international law. International law is FYROM law. FYROM is in breach of its own laws. Therefore, one name is legal, and the other is not. Colossus 20:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove that it is illegal for this country to use the name RoM? Also, I have just read the article official, what am I looking for? I fail to see your point. I invite you to prepare a proposal of what changes you would like to make to the article. For all I know they could be totally legitimate. REX 09:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

FYROM is a UN member. The UN has prohibited the use of "RoM". Inso facto, FYROM is prohibited from using "RoM". There's not much else to say.
Read section "What's official and not" above in this talk page. Most of your objections and queries have already been discussed there. I advised you look up official because it seemed you believed it discredited one name if you attached it to another, which of course is not the case. Official merely suggests legal credibility, which RoM lacks. Colossus 13:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and of course "FYROM" are not names at all. They are ways of referring to the country obliquely.

The democratically elected government of this country has established the use of the name RoM under its constitution. This is all the legal credibility it could need and according to the article official: As an adjective, official often but not always means pertaining to the government, either as state employee or having state recognition. The name FYROM was used as a temporary solution to the nameing dispute to enable this country to be admitted to the UN. If the name indeed was illegal, then it wouldn't be used by the Macedonian government nor by the other countries which have recognised it (ie (USA), Mighty Greece would have taken the case to the International Court of Justice and the name would have been decreed illegal under international law. That has not yet happened. REX 15:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
What ICJ? The Mighty US of A doesn't even recognise its jurisdiction.--Theathenae 18:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The constitutional name is mentioned first and then the official name is mentioned as well. Such disputes between nations are not subject to International Court of Justice but to the UNO and negotiations for this name are still in progress. MATIA 16:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Radio Skopje in its Greek propaganda transmission program gives itself each day as radio "Μακεδονία" out,calls the State of FYROM "Μακεδονία", the citizens as "Μακεδόνες" and the own Bulgarian language as "Μακεδονική γλώσσα".
Here is clearly evident,that the slav people of FYROM the Greek trunk of the Macedonians imitate.
Vergina 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Vergina that is totally irrelevant. REX 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No!It is not irrelevant.It is the Problem of the state-name !
Vergina 17:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
FYROM is not the official name, it is mearly the name which the UN and most countries recognise the country. Now that should be mentiond, but as far as the macedonian government is concerned, the country's name is The Republic of Macedonia. If what you say is correct, the we should go to the page Israel and say Tel Aviv is the official capital and Jerusalem the constitutional capital. REX 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No, technically it is not the even name they recognize. It is a phrase they use to avoid naming it. In fact, U.N. documents sometimes use quite roundabout phrasing to avoid the dispute by saying things like "the state referred to in previous resolutions..." or the like. The United Nations is powerless to force a name on a country and it doesn't pretend that it can. Jonathunder 16:19, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

to everyone who has good will

There's been a long explanation on the word official and I really can't believe that those who read it disagree with it so I won't repeat it, go ahead and read it again for yourselves.
The supreme authority - if I, you, he, she, anyone likes it or not is irrelevant - is the UNO.


I believe that's more than clarified now. If I self-identify myself as anything that won't and can't be official.
I expect those who removed the word official to revert their changes. WP should not say what is my opinion, or yours opinion. WP should state the facts. Thank you very much, in advance.
MATIA 16:24, 2 September 2005

All those are internatianal organisations. So we can assume that these organisations recognise this country as FYROM. But the GOVERNMENT of this country states that the name of the country is The Republic of Macedonia and according to the article official, it is its official name. The name under which the UN and many other countries recognise this country should be mentioned in the article, but its official name is RoM. REX 16:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I was not talking about the wiki official but about the section for the word official - here on this same talk page. UNO is the supreme law. UNO didn't force FYROM to be called that way, it was an agreement (1995 I think) that both FYROM, GREECE and UNO accepted. So FYROM is the official name, and I believe the previous phrasing of the wiki is the most appropriate (the one with the word official etc etc). MATIA 16:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The UN have no authority to force a country to change its name . The UN admitted this country under the name FYROM and that is the name under which many other countries recognise it. The UN is mearly an international organisation whose mission is to promote peace. The term FYROM is not the country's official name as far as its government is concerned and that is what we should be looking at. The agreement which you mention was for the RoM to be called FYROM on the World Stage, not for it to change its constitution. REX 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry too that I can't be laconic (it's a virtue to be able to say what you mean with a few words), but please try to read what I wrote just above, and if you care about defining official read that too. I'll have to repeat it:
FYROM accepted the UNO proposal to be called FYROM.
Though this may change to anything when the negotiations conclude, this is the official name and FYROM has signed this agreement. MATIA 17:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia did not accept to be called FYROM. We were forced to do so. We were a new country that wanted to be a part of the United Nations. Greece already was a part of them and had much stronger voice than ours. So, we had no choice: or to accept the temporal name, or to wait. So, we had no choise.
In mean time, the things are changed. Every single country in the world (except Greece and Cyprus) is using the real name Republic of Macedonia for the country in the direct contacts with it. More than 110 countries (of about 150 with which Macedonia has direct diplomatic relations) officialy recognize this name and use it always, despite the Greek presure. Not to mention that this number is rising constantly since the 1993rd, until when only about 10 countries did that. Just in the last year USA and Poland made this decision and the parlaments of Great Britain, Germany and Italy (Spain will join soon) recomended to their goverments to recognize our constitutional name: Republic of Macedonia.
Maybe Greece is much more powerful than Macedonia, but the truth can not be ignored. It might come slowly, but at the end it will arive. Macedonian 00:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The agreement was for it to be called FYROM temporarally by the UN until the dispute is resolved (It was accepted into the UN under this name). This doesn't make it its official name. If it were, then the country would use it as its official name internally. REX 18:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea! Let's e-mail a Macedonian Embassy explaining our situation and see what they say. REX 18:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, MATIA, if you could make any changes you could, what changes would you make? If they are reasonably acceptable, everyone here might consider it. Personally, I would leave as it is. REX 18:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A long talk has been made about the official word. If I were you, or anyone else who can't understand why it was used, I would read again that section. I'm afraid I can't summarise it for you. I can't justify nor understand the removal of that word by people who didn't read those sections of this talk page. MATIA 19:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for somebody to justify how the word official as discussed so thoroughly few sections above is not neutral. MATIA 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The UN have no authority to force a country to change its name .
Of course it has. I told you to read the debate above before you started questioning issues that had already been discussed before. All UN members are bounded by the UN charter to abide by all its decisions, and that includes FYROM.
The democratically elected government of this country has established the use of the name RoM under its constitution. This is all the legal credibility it could need and according to the article official: As an adjective, official often but not always means pertaining to the government, either as state employee or having state recognition. The name FYROM was used as a temporary solution to the nameing dispute to enable this country to be admitted to the UN. If the name indeed was illegal, then it wouldn't be used by the Macedonian government nor by the other countries which have recognised it
Only that there still exists an authority above the country's constitution. UN resolutions supercede national law. Can you get that through your head? That means the consitution itself is in conflict with international law. You claim legal credibility because the government of FYROM has succesfully established the name RoM in the country by ignoring UN resolutions, but that doesnt make it any less illegal than the US invasion in Iraq simply because they had the power to bypass the UN. The United Nations lacks enforcement powers of its own, but its members are still legally bound to enforce its resolutions themselves.
what you say is correct, the we should go to the page Israel and say Tel Aviv is the official capital and Jerusalem the constitutional capital
I dont see how that would be wrong, but for now I'm only concerned with this. Every article is different and none is the same.
FYROM is not the official name, it is mearly the name which the UN and most countries recognise the country. Now that should be mentiond, but as far as the macedonian government is concerned, the country's name is The Republic of Macedonia.
In case you had never heard of this before, UN resolutions are universal and supreme. That means they apply everywhere and to all, and can only be overuled by the UN itself. That means, the use of RoM was prohibited for everyone, including the inhabitants of FYROM itself. That the government chose to ignore the resolution only strengthens their illegitimacy.
All those are internatianal organisations. So we can assume that these organisations recognise this country as FYROM. But the GOVERNMENT of this country states that the name of the country is The Republic of Macedonia and according to the article official, it is its official name.
The GOVERNMENT of the country itself recognized a still higher authority. The UN. And as a UN member agreed to enforce in its own territory the name assigned by the UN. For the millionth time: UN authority supercedes FYROM authority. UN laws supercede FYROM laws. UN resolutions supercede the constitution of FYROM. That means, the government of FYROM is bounded FIRST by the UN and then by its constitution. As all UN members are.
No, technically it is not the even name they recognize. It is a phrase they use to avoid naming it. In fact, U.N. documents sometimes use quite roundabout phrasing to avoid the dispute by saying things like "the state referred to in previous resolutions..." or the like. The United Nations is powerless to force a name on a country and it doesn't pretend that it can
Nevertheless, its resolutions are legally binding, and legally, that's all that matters.Colossus 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the United Nations resolution which admitted this country then, shall we? Since it is not very long, I will include it here. (Even with the legalese it contains, it's shorter than some of the posts above this.)

Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Having received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations,
Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.

There it is. Note the words "provisionally referred to". Not "recognized as". Not "whose official name is". No. Provisionally referred to. The resolution does not even name the country.

Now, let the article reflect that reality, please. Jonathunder 01:29, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

The article already does reflect that reality. But how does the above affect anything? Th letter of admitance into the UN mentions a country called FYROM, not "Republic of Macedonia". This only proves that FYROM is a legally recognized name, compared to RoM which is not. And provisionally simply means temporarily, nothing more. It seems contributors dont understand the words they use. By virtue of your own post the you should revert your own edits. The document doesnt need to mention the word official because the authority that enacted it is evidence of it.
Can you please state explicitally the reasons you object the use of the word official? I have explained several times that official suggests legality stemming from the international level and only serves to distinguish between the de facto and de jure name.
I also see that the article page has been reverted even though the issue hasnt been settled here. I wont edit it again, only to show good fath to other contributors who so blatanly accuse for POV, even if this is the second time the use of official is being disputed by its oppositionists. If there is no response however I will mimic the oppositionists and revert the page yet again. Colossus 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. This talk page is like the movie "Groundhog Day". Please read the resolution above very carefully. Again, please. You can't have if you say "FYROM is a legally recognized name" in the resolution because it does not name the country at all. It refers to "the former [note lower case] Yugoslav Republic...". If this were a name the word "former" would be in upper case. It was written by diplomats and lawyers who know very well the protocol for capitalising proper names. FYROM is not a name, certainly not the "official" name. It is a way of avoiding the name.
As for your threat of reverting to your version again, Colossus, you've already done that about six or seven times in the last 24 hours. This is not the first day you've broken the three revert rule, either, despite repeated warnings. Jonathunder 05:17, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
No it's not Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day was a very good comedy. You are manipulating the system Jonathunder, you are playing with the words and the worst thing is that you know it and continue to do so, on purpose. MATIA 09:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The crow calls the raven black, and Jonathunder talks to me about reverts? Your entire argumentation on the use of "official" revolves around the fact they used lower case for the letter F? What about all the other instances they use upper? And the UN has named the country. It has reffered to it explicitly half a thousand times already, including in that document.
"officially" with regard to one designation but not the constitutional name is POV.
Since when did national constitutions equal the United Nations? The UN is a source of authority higher than any state's constitution. And like all laws, constitutions owe to be in accordance with UN resolutions, not the other way around. If the constitution of FYROM states RoM, it does so in disobedience to the UN, in other words illegaly. Colossus 09:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

so much for the good will

In the resolution Jonathunder quoted and in all official documents of the UN this country is provisionally referred to as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Some people ignore the talk page section about official and other quote a UN resolution as if this document is not official... MATIA 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, does 'good will' mean agreeing with everything you say? The name FYROM is just the name under which Macedonia was admitted to the UN and the name under which most countries recognise it and the government of the RoM agreed to this and just to this. The UN is not a world government nor are its resolutions International law. I think that you should read the articles Sources of International Law and United Nations and official. Quite simply, if FYROM was the official name of Macedonia, then its government would treat it as such. How do you explain the name 'Republica Macedoniya' on its currency, passports and above all, its constitution? REX 10:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
REX please dont remind me that you are not willing to read few paragraphs. It shouldn't be that hard. Unless you really enjoy being provocative. MATIA 10:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As I told you just yesterday REX I 'm interested in the facts - Talk:Arvanitic language#just the facts. It's at least the second time you falsely accuse me with phrases like does 'good will' mean agreeing with everything you say. And as you go on you convince more and more that you do that to provoke people, do you enjoy seeing other people quarrel? I hope I'm wrong but your pattern continues steady. Perhaps you should find the time needed to read those paragraphs and try to understand what has been already discussed. MATIA 10:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

REX I would really appreciate an explanation: your yesterday diff before I've explained you with quotes from ethnologue.com and today you change this? Did you forgot both what you wrote and what you read yesterday? MATIA 10:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is you who are being provocative. I have read what you asked me to read and I still see no reason why the official name of this country is FYROM. REX 10:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the comments by Colossus, in the section what is official and what not of this page. Then please give your arguments about UN and not being official with regards to my previous comments. Take also in mind that this country accepted those agreements with the UN. Thank you very much.
PS the country self-identifies as Republic of Macedonia, in the country's constitution. The name Macedonia and all related terms are part of negotiations under the UN. Colossus today gave some summaries of what was discussed on that section of this talk page I keep reffering to.
MATIA 13:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems people like REX and his party are good in reverting but bad in discussing their edits. Why dont you bother refuting any of my points above REX? After all, it you who called me to provide argumentation. Colossus 14:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read it, and as I keep saying again and again. The UN is not a World government. The name RoM is not illegal. It is the country's official name. Except, the UN recognises the RoM as FYROM. There is no such thing as UN law. If there had been a treaty (see Sources of International Law please) and the RoM had agreed to stop using that name, they would have had to do it. So far there is no International law prohibiting or permitting the use of that name, therefore the name RoM is not illegal and its constitutional name is official. The RoM just agreed to being called FYROM by the UN. If we have to do everything the UN's way, then we must delete the articles Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Republic of China, because as far as the UN is concerned, they don't exist (they don't officially recognise them) and call Tel Aviv the capital of Israel instead of Jerusalem. REX 14:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So REX since there is not one international treaty recognizing this state, shall we write that this state is not officialy recognized? (the name negotiations between the two states under the UN may result in such a treaty) MATIA 14:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. This just means thet its name is not regulated by International law, and hence, it is not illegal. Personally, I want this name dispute in the UN over and done with. It is a shame no one considered the name Northwestern Macedonia. It reflects reality! REX 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

REX if you check the history of the negotiations you'll see that the Greek goverment have suggested various names with the word Macedonia, even Republic Macedonia-Skopje last April, but the other negotiating party still refuses. Unfortunately, the naming dispute and the ongoing negotiations are poorly documented here on WP. MATIA 17:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
It is very easy for Greece to give sugestions about someone elses names. Why we do not sugest new names for Egipt (for example, no offence)? The most of the people living there are Arabian, but no one want to change their name or the name of the country.
Why you don't mentioned that Macedonia already made a step back when changing its flag and constitution in the way Greece wanted it?
Even the accepting of negotiations was a step back, because no other country ever negotiated for their name.
What about the Macedonia's sugestion: The world to use the name Macedonia and Greece to use any name they choose that is not offensive (the way that actually is in this moment, except international organizations where Greece was a member before Macedonia and only 2 countries: Greece and Cyprus)? Greece rejected this.
Did anyone oppose of USA using that name? As far as I remember, America is much wider than USA. But USA is keeping that name, because they choosed it. The way it should be.
Macedonian 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Albanian, co-official?

Can somebody please verify whether Albanian is now entirely co-official at national level?--Theathenae 08:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Are there any sources so that we can verify that.
What is interesting is that 62.162.232.22 who says that, is in the FYR Macedonia (according to his IP address). REX 11:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Albanian has the same legal status as the Turkish, Roma, Serbian, Bosnian etc languages - if the ethnic community has significant representation in a certain municipality,(20% of the inhabitants, according to the Framework Agreement) then the language is co-official in that municipality. That means that, Albanian is, de facto, co-official in the western part of the country, but not in the central and the eastern part of it. Also, because the Albanian is spoken by more than 20% of the inhabitants of the RoM, Albanian MPs in the Parliament can address their issues in Albanian, but if the Chairman is Albanian, he cannot run the parliamentary session in Albanian. --FlavrSavr 14:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The Albanian is used freely in any meeting of the parlament and is official (same as Macedonian) at every single minicipality where more than 20% of the people are Albanian. 20% of the people in every govermental institutions and the army have to be Albanian.
Also, every document of the national parlament has to be issued in Albanian. The Albanians also can get an passport and IDs where the Albanian language is used (together with the Macedonian and English).
Theathenae, maybe you should learn from this and do something about the not existing of basic human rights for the minorities in Greece. Macedonian 00:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Greece has no minorities anywhere near as large as the Albanian minority in the FYROM. Everyone, regardless of his or her ethnolinguistic origins, speaks and is educated in Greek, so establishing new official languages would be entirely redundant. There was a proposal recently by a former European commissioner to adopt English as a second official language, but it went nowhere.--Theathenae 08:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On Tuesday, I had a lecture on the Human Rights Act 1998 and I thought of Greece. Apparently the Greek parliament doesn't care much for Human Rights. The Cornish minority of the UK is less than 00.5% of the population, that doesn't mean that the government won't grant them basic human rights and fund education of their language. The Muslim (official name for Turkish) minority of Greece is about 1.3% of the population. The Greek government couldn't care less. RACISM is government policy in Greece! REX 09:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And the children of the Muslim minority are instructed in Turkish as well as Greek, in schools operated and funded by the Greek state. But of course, your anti-Greek racism wouldn't allow you to mention that, would it?--Theathenae 09:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are they officially known as Muslims? They are Turks, their language is Turkish, but obviously Greek extremism seems to take the view that by implying that they are Greek Muslims and not urks they will deemphasise their links with Turkey (I love those anti-Greek extremist Helsinki Reports). REX 09:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They are legally known as Greek Muslims because that's what they are: Greek citizens of Islamic faith. If you knew anything about them you would know that a significant proportion are ethnic Pomaks and Roma, even if the majority are of Turkish origin. Your sweeping "they are Turks" statement exposes your pitiful ignorance.--Theathenae 09:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they identify as Turks. Gee, I guess that what they think is not as important as the in the Arvanites' case. Double standards? REX 09:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with those who really are ethnic Turks being recognised as such. The current leader of the opposition, George Papandreou, has expressed a similar viewpoint. But to say that all Greek Muslims are Turks is simply wrong, Recep.--Theathenae 09:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I suspect that you won't object to my saying that while i have no problem with the Greeks of Cameria being identified as such, but to say that all of them are Greeks is wrong! REX 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean northern Epirus, I have no desire to project a Greek identity onto those who would identify otherwise. But the indisputable trend in recent years has been towards non-Greeks desperately trying to be recognised as Greeks in order to gain residency and citizenship rights in the European Union.--Theathenae 11:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wanna learn more about the Turks/Muslims of Thrace? Get a load of these:

After this appalling record of Greece, I feel so happy that I am in the United Kingdom where human rights are observed, unlike remote parts of Europe (ie Greece) where the concept of human rights has not yet sunk in! REX 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the ECRI report is full of praise, if you would care to read it. Greek Muslims are taught Turkish by teachers appointed by Turkey, according to the Treaty of Lausanne. If they are poorly qualified, it is not Greece's fault. Greek Muslims enjoy a quaranteed 0.5% quota in Greek Universities. That's Affirmative action at its finest. Muftis will always be appointed by the Greek state, as indeed it should be because they exercise judicial functions. Greece is not an Islamic theocracy, and its Constitution will be respected no matter what. Chronographos 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rex u are probably kidding when u are saying that UK's policy concerning human rights is better that the situation in Greece...I know that this page is not the appropriate one to edit ideas about this,but since u refeared to it here,my comments come after yours. The UK allowed the usage of scottish,welsh,irish,manese,cornish and the languages of the anglonorman islands only after centuries of harrashment that are responsible for the low numbers of native speakers of these languages nowadays.Also,the cornish language,as far as i am familiar wit the matter,has not official status,despite what the people in cornwal want(what an act of democracy in UK!).Furthermore,do not just judge only if a language is just taught,but also if a language is suffering from cultural genocide attempts by a government(i wonder weather the status of the minority languages in UK is well protected,or if the media and the general english attempts to reduce their usage,will preveil). As u probably know,and if u do not know,let me tell u,Greece did NEVER ban the teaching and usage of any language within its borders: The usage of the turkish language is guaranteed by the Laussane Treaty and the minority schools are built and financially supported by the central government,which means that all of us pay taxes for that(as it is our obligation of course) The aromanian,arvanitic and slavic dialects,mostly in central and northern Greece,are not taught,not cause of supposed government's opposition,but because their speakers did never want such schools.I am an Aromanian,and allow me to know better this matter:)The aromanian,arvanitic,slavic dialects of Greece have always been 'oral tangues',they do not have written history,and their native speakers have always considered themselves Greeks who,for various reasons,adopted a language other than Greek(read some history and u may understand what i mean:co-official status of Latin in the Byzantine Empire,bulgarian(slavic) occupation of Macedonia in the middle ages,'turkoalbanian' partizans in the ottoman period,etc).It is evident that after greek independance,they decided to teach their children in greek,since they eventually had this opportunity.And also note that all these people can use their dialect in any case they want without been afraid of anything-i can speak aromanian in any time i want,without anyone criticising me(but offcourse i could never demand to study it in my university course,simply because it is not something that can be taught!it is a graeco-latin pidgin,derived for special purposes and existed for special reasons,with NO written form and NO literature). ...and if u are about to talk again about human rights in EU and the 'remote parts of Europe'(lol...someone in the 'Troyan Horse of Europe',calls the birthplace of the eyropean civilazation 'remote part'!!!),better talk about the situation of the muslims there,of the indians ,and also consider what the UK government does when the neonazi groups act violently(e.g. in Newcastle,or somewhere else in N.England last year,if i remember well) Sorry if i have been a bit(or a lot) sarcastic towards u,but i do not accept a citizen of the only country without constitution in the world,to talk about the constitutional rights that ALL the citizens in Greece have! Yours sincerely(and study better next time):)

It is completely iresponsible to claim that anyone can get education on their own language in Greece. Especially because there is no bigger Human rights organization in the world that did not criticise Greece on this mattter. What is a matter of fact, many of them reported even arrestings because of speaking some non-Greek language, especially in the period of general Metaxas. Macedonian(talk) 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of those people (for example Arvanites and Vlachs) were bilingual and used Greek when they wanted to write, and Arvanitika or Aromanian in speech. +MATIA ☎ 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right in one point...about what was happening during the dictatorship of Metaxas.And furthermore,such incidents like arrests were happening during the milatary junta of 1967-74.I am not talking about the past,i am talking about the present...And i can assure u that anyone can speak any language he/she wants in Greece nowadays. And since your nick is 'Macedonia' i would really like u to tell me about the Aromanian minority in FYROM...It is really not compatible with history that in the recent census appear only less than 10000 Aromanians.For centuries,everyone was refearing to the Monastir as a Vlach city.So these people much have been either assimilated or simply not appearing in the census,since there has not been recorded an expulsion of them. I also guess u know that during the Balkan Wars there was conflict among the greek leadership of weather they should move the troops towards Bitola or not...and this happened simply because the Vlachs in that city were known for their hellenic identity.I am not sure weather this is correct or not,but i guess that if they were looking at themselves just like Aromanians,the government of Skopje would have given exact numbers of them. I am not any kind of a nationalist,but i believe that the FYROM census is far away from the truth...my main problem with this is that it does not show any number of bulgarians or greeks...for anyone who knows just some things about the balkans,this would seem weird!cause there are minorities in all bordering countries e.g. greeks in bulgaria,bulgarians in greece,bulgarians in romania,romanians in bulgaria,serbs in FYROM,'macedonians'(as u refear to them) in albania,albanians in FYROM and so on...Only in the FYROM census there is no reference to greeks and bulgarians and this seems rather strange...And i wonder weather this was made so that to prevent any demand for the formal usage of the greek or bulgarian language among them...So,i do not think that FYROM protects and minority language,since it is not even appear in census!(i am also aware that even the grandchildren of Zorba the Greek live there...and i also know that they do not know greek!i does not seem to me like a european way of governing in that newly independent state)

 *and something else:the people in Greece are aware enough that modern day FYROM includes some parts of the ancient macedonian kingdom...and it is also possible that people there may have some lineage of the ancient greeks of that region-as the whole area from portugal to india and from hungary to ethiopia does-...what is unacceptable for us is to claim that ancient macedonians were not greek...That's all...and it is so simple...
Yours sincerely

is this wikispam?

Can some admins check if these are wikispam? I'm not sure if it's spam, irrelevant or just ok. MATIA 13:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[Thread completely tangental to writing the article refactored. It can be viewed in the history for anyone interested, but let's leave it off here and try to staty on topic, please.] Jonathunder 23:40, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

I think that they are just websites containing POV and propaganda. I can't be sure of course though. REX 13:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated

This article is duplicated. Fyrom should be merged here. José San Martin 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted it. I think the anonymous editor copy-pasted this wiki there. +MATIA ☎ 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming dispute

The naming dispute issue is given too much coverage, it is already mentioned in the introduction and then given its own section. The whole issue should be summarised under a separate section entitled Foreign Relations. This is the problem with Wikipedia, disputes end up being given too much attention to appease both sides at the expense of the rest of the article. --A.Garnet 13:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I'm reworking the Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia article at the moment and will move much of the naming dispute content into that article. -- ChrisO 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How many countries recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name?

The list of countries with which the Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations can be found here (on the website of the ministery for foreign affairs of Macedonia): | list. Total of 143 countires.

The information by which name those countries recognize us is not made public on this website, because the Macedonian goverment does not want that to be understood as provocation by the Greek goverment. Actually, this was the official explanation given when this information was withdrawn. Also, another reason is that the Macedonians see the use of the name "FYROM" as very offensive. Therefore, public listing the names of countries that still haven't recognized the country under its constitutional name might cause some bad feelings from the Macedonians towards those countries.

On the other hand, the number of countries that recognize Macedonia by her constitutional name is even confirmed by the Greek newspapers (the lattest was just a week ago by "To Vima"). Here are 2 links that include the number: [2], [3].

So, Poland was the 112th country that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name and 143 countries have direct diplomatic relations with Republic of Macedonia. 143-113=31 So, only 31 countries recognize Macedonia under the name FYR of Macedonia. 31 is just 16.2% of the 191 countries that are members of the United Nations. Macedonian 02:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't mention that those countries recognise your country as RoM for bilateral and not for international relations. +MATIA ☎ 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
That is how much you know about politics. But, I will explain you, don't worry. These countries will always use the name "Republic of Macedonia" in international relations with the country. But, also, when beeing a part of some international organizations, they simply can not use this name, because Macedonia was forced to accept the FYROM name when joining these organizations. That was only because Greece was already a member there and they did not allow us to be a part of any organization if using the constitutional names.
The countries that recognize the constitutional name use this name even in these international organizations, but only untill some Greek delegate reacts, after what they have to use the "Formel Yugoslav bla bla bla..." name. Actually, there are more than 1000 incidents like this caused by Greek delegates. This is actually one of the reasons for the world to start realising that your position on this dispute is senceless. I think the number talks by himself.
Just a reminder that between these countries there are many Greek allies from NATO and EU who do not want to accept the Greek blackmails. Should I also remind you that the parliaments of Germany, UK and Italy already recomended their goverments to recognize the constitutional name of the country? That is expected to happen quite soon, especially with Germany. Soon, you can expect the Spanish parlaiment to do the same.
BTW, even some UN representors acnowledge that the United Nations made mistake forcing Macedonia to use another name. Please reffer to the following link: [|Source:MIA, Macedonian Information Agency]. Just one sentence from it: "Macedonia must be compensated for the precedent that was made with the Republic of Macedonia's name in the UN, when the country was forced to accept a different name.".
Your sceletons are slowly running away from your closet. Don't you feel it? Macedonian(talk) 02:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, does Wikipedia:Naming conflict mean anything to you? Rex(talk) 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it does. Would you like links (IMF for example) that call this country fYRoM? Google it. +MATIA ☎ 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said, that is because Greece was blocking any attempt for us to join those organizations under our constitutional name. If Greece was not already member there, the truth name would be in use anywhere.
Concerning the United Nations, 3 of 5 permanent members of the Security Council support the constitutional name of the country ("Republic of Macedonia"). The parlaiment of the 4th permanent member (United Kingdom) already recomended the UK goverment to do the same. The 5th permanent (France) use the reference, but it is very neutral. Do you think that we would be forced to leave our constitutional name if we were joining UN now? Macedonian(talk) 02:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you like some links that call this country RoM? Why don't we Google Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia. And then have a poll :-) Anyway. A long time ago a consensus was reached on this page. I think it's still in force, don't you? Rex(talk) 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The current dispute

I've protected the page temporarily until the issues behind the latest revert war are cleared up.

Theathenae, CDThieme, do you have any sources for those figures that you are quoting?

Theathenae, what is your source for the assertion that "The Bulgarian and Greek minorities are not officially recognised and do not appear in the national census"? -- ChrisO 20:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

He does not have any source. That is just another of his nationalistic POVs. And this is also another of his tacktics of moving our attention away from the real problem and wasting time here. As you probably know, User:Theathenae was already banned from the Swedish Wikipedia for using this kind of tacktics for pushing his nationalistic POV.
This claim of User:Theathenae is his answer to the realistic poor (or even non-existant) human rights of the minorities in Greece, including the Macedonian minority.
Republic of Macedonia, the country where I live in, has an open field for nationality where you can put ANYTHING you want. In the last census we even had "a can" written as nationality. Also, my Mexican wife is also registered as Mexican, no matter she is the only one in the country. Theathenae clearly knows that since 2001st, Macedonia has one of the best laws in whole Europe on this issue, providing all the rights to the nationalities.
I am a co-worker of a Greek girl here in Republic of Macedonia. Her whole family (Cilimingas) is Greek and they are all registered as a Greeks. I would be glad to ask her for her comment. I am sure she will be glad to comment on this nonsence by User:Theathenae, because she alone is extremely sick of these kind of nationalistic claims.
For any case, here is a link where you can clearly see that the national censuses even since 1953rd lists even the nationalities with less than 100 "members": [| Ethnic structure of the population of Republic of Macedonia]. Even the Ruthenian with 11 people are in this table.
But, anyway, as I said, User:Theathenae would use any method he can to turn the attention away from the issue and keep hidding all the sceletons in the closets, when concerning the issue between Macedonia and Greece.
This is not the first time he uses these methods. Should I remind you that he provoked an arbitration against User:REX just because he included very deeply in the Macedonian issue on the Macedonian side (NOTE: REX is partly Greek with Albanian origin living in the UK) [| link to the arbitration]. Aldough User:Theathenae asked for this arbitration, he never contributed further. If you check the last link well, you will actually see that Theathenae received more accusations than REX, no matter this arbitration was against REX.
Anyway, Theathenae got what he wanted... REX wasted a lot of time on this arbitration and could not dedicate more time on the real issues.
Can I ask some administrators simply to check his edits and see his methods here on Wikipedia? Won't anyone ask an arbitration for this guy for this kind of tactics? Sweedish Wikipedia already gave him life-time ban. And I don't think it was because he was an "angel".
He shouldn't be allowed to make us waste time on this senceless and ridiculous claims, instead on reall issue. Macedonian(talk) 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


The "Romantic Nationalist's Guide to Greece" is Theathenae's source. I cannot find ANY indication of such minorities in the RoM. Nowhere, ot even in Ethnologue, where I found the figures for the Macedonians in Greece. Rex(talk) 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2002 Census - Where are the Bulgarians and Greeks?

The latest national census [4] specifically mentions the numbers of Albanians, Turks, Rhomas, Vlachs, Serbs and Bosniaks, but no reference is made at all to the Bulgarians or Greeks. Are we seriously to believe that the Bulgarians, Greeks, and all other ethnic groups combined amount to the mere 1% of the population classified under the Other category? The number of FYROM citizens who have applied for Bulgarian citizenship alone amounts to more than three times that figure. It is clear that the Bulgarians and Greeks have been deliberately left out for political reasons, or worse still have been recorded as ethnic "Macedonians" against their will. The fact that they are not officially recognised is reflected in the simple reality of their absence from the official census results. Unfortunately, the history of the invention of the "Macedonian" nation under Yugoslav tutelage entailed the forcible assimilation of ethnic Bulgarians and Greeks as ethnic "Macedonians". This is an historical reality that has been overlooked for far too long.--Theathenae 10:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That book is the final result from the censuses. As you can see in the text, they did not list any minorities that have only several "members". They are all registered, every single nationality by itself.
If we didn't register all nationalities, or we tried to ignore any, why there is no human rights group that criticised us? We are fighting to get a EU candidate membership. Do you think that we won't be largely criticised because of something like that?
Macedonia does not have sponsors (like you had, when you were joining EU). Every single detail can be seen as a reason for EU to refuse us. And, a thing as the one you mention will be very criticised.
Do you really expect the minorities with some 150 people to be listed in every report? They are only listed in the final results of the census, not on reports (where they are counted as "others"). By the way, the number of about 150 was told to me by Ms. Emorfija Cilimingas, my co-worker of Greek nationality. She was told that number by the Greek embassy in Skopje, when she was the last time on the yearly meeting for celebrating some Greek holliday. Just a reminder that the Macedonians in Greece are not allowed to publicaly celebrate any hollyday of Republic of Macedonia.
Also, the census was monitored by several EU commisions, also by some organizations. Here is a link that shows what they think of the census: [The European Commision's Delegation]. If you read the PDF's well, you would be able to find that they wrote: "The census gives a precise picture of the composition of the population and can be seen as a key event in the stability of the country" [[5]].
So, what else will your national-shovinistic mind invent? Macedonian(talk) 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Can you provide us with a source? Original research cannot be used in articles according to policy. If you have a reliable source with figures, please, bring it. Rex(talk) 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Rex here. When in doubt, WP:V. If Greeks and Bulgarians are discriminated against in the census for political reasons, please give an outside source showing this, and if it's contreversal, say so. Karmafist 00:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

He can not give a source of an invented thing. Also, some people beleive there are inteligent human beeings on Mars. Some people even beleive that Greece provides good human rights to its minorities. But, all sources show that is not the case. Macedonian(talk) 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[14] US draft resolution urges FYROM to stop nationalistic propaganda against Greece

WASHINGTON, 29/10/2005 (ANA/T.Ellis) A draft resolution calling on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to put an end to its negative and nationalistic propaganda against Greece and to cooperate with the United Nations and Athens to find a mutually acceptable name to the land-locked republic, was tabled on Thursday in the US House of Representatives by the co-presidents of the Congress' Hellenic Caucus group, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Michael Bilirakis. After referring to the UN General Assembly's decision to accept FYROM to the organization under the name 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' in April 1993, to the 817/1993 Security Council resolution for settling the dispute over the new state's name, so as to secure peaceful relations between the two countries and to the 1995 Interim Agreement between Athens and Skopje, the draft resolution notes that FYROM "has allowed the dissemination of negative and nationalistic propaganda through school books that teach pupils that parts of Greece - including Greek Macedonia - belong to FYROM, and through maps that show a "Great Macedonia" extending to Mount Olympus in Greece and to Mountain Pirin in Bulgaria in the east, thus consolidating, among parts of its population, enmity towards Greece." The draft resolution also calls on FYROM firstly to respect its obligations emanating from article 7 of the Interim Agreement between Greece and FYROM achieved through UN mediation, to take measures in order to stop the dissemination of negative propaganda against Greece and to delete inaccurate information contained in school books, maps and educational companion books and, secondly, to work within the framework defined by the UN procedure to settle on a mutually acceptable permanent name for the country. http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2005/05-10-29.ana.html

Vergina 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What did you link here? A draft resolution that was put in front of the senate by a another Greek nationalist. Do you maybe know what is draft resolution? Anyone can propose thar, even you can if you spend enought time in front of the office of the right person.
On the other hand, here is some news over a real resolution: [[6]].
A part of the text of the Michigan State Resolution 59, which was raised by Senator Laura M. Toy (a non-Macedonian) says:
"Resolved by the Senate, That this legislative body of the state of Michigan supports the rights of the Macedonian people all over the world to call their country of Macedonia their home; to freely and without prejudice express their own Macedonian national identity; to read, write, and speak their Macedonian language; to worship their faith in their Macedonian Orthodox churches; to practice their customs; and to have their human and civil rights protected by international law".
Enought? Macedonian(talk) 04:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on, the FACT is that US recognises Macedonia by its constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia (Macedonia), not by some putted on, imaginary, unlogical name by Greece. Plus, more than 100 other world countries do that, too. Bomac 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FYROM

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia no longer links here due to changes by Thrax. I'm not sure if this is apropro, but I thought it should be brought to attention. freestylefrappe 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Although that is not the name of the country, some people might search for the country in this way. No matter this % is prbably very little (given the lenght of the phrase), I think it should keep linking to this article. Will Wikipedia have 2 pages for the same country? Macedonian(talk) 04:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No it can't have 2 pages. It should be merged. +MATIA ☎ 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It's better redirected, actually - it doesn't say anything that isn't already in other articles. Unfortunately Thrax appears to have been on a POV-pushing exercise with this and a number of other articles. -- ChrisO 22:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, to be honest... lets think about... How many Wikipedia users will write all 5 words for that page? Especially when talking about a name which is refused by more countries than it was accepted by. Macedonian(talk) 02:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


How long are we going to wait for User:Theathenae to find any source for his senceless and POV push claims?

I would like to ask how much longer we will wait for User:Theathenae's imaginary sources? He also asked for arbitration against User:REX (again, without any source or supporting matherial) and he never contributed to it (aldough that was weeks ago). How will he contribute, when he has no sources?

How long will Wikipedia tolerate this guy (and similar like him)? Why is he allowed to take this page a hostage?

What will happen if some nationalist from the other side gets here and keeps claiming that the modern Macedonians are exacly the same people as the Antique Macedonians? Will the page be locked then to a version that supports this claim? Macedonian(talk) 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae and oyhers like him have no sources. Bomac 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Bomac I've treated you so far as a newbie. Try WP:CIV for a change. +MATIA ☎ 11:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I really don't know what is so bad in telling my opinion. Or MATIA thinks that it is forbidden?!? Bomac 13:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to "treat me as a newbie". I'm here long time ago. On the other hand, you are the last one who can treat me, someway or another. Bomac 13:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, did your nationalistic feelings (on your user page) woke up, or something else... ?!? Bomac 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
What nationalistic feelings (sic) on my user page are you talking about? +MATIA ☎ 14:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You know damn well. Bomac 16:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You can either explain yourself or apologise. +MATIA ☎ 16:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Please take this to your user talk pages or e-mail - it's not appropriate for an article discussion page. -- ChrisO 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Agee here with ChrisO. Macedonian(talk) 03:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae has had ample opportunity to provide a source for his claim, but there's no sign of him doing so. I'll unprotect the article, but if he restores the claim without providing a source it'll be removed. -- ChrisO 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't you need that the users who are not serious and promote claims and POV pushes without any source should be somehowpunished? I understand if someone is a newbie, but this user is here for very long time.
If these kind of POV push tries are not sanctioned, then many users will getting more and more relaxed and they might try to push any POV they want.
Whatwould happened if me, REX and Bomac were not here? This POV push will pass completely unnoticed and the Wikipedia users will be missinformed. Macedonian(talk) 03:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek minority in fY RoM?

The Greekness of the Slav-Speakers - result from google. +MATIA ☎ 15:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I would understand if Theathenae gave us this link, but I am suprised that you do.
Reasons:
This is a completely ultra-nationalistic text from a web page which is full of nationalistic and anti-Macedonian claims. The whole text is dedicated for denial of the existance of the Macedonian nation in a period when that assimilation was on top.
I would just remind you that I gave you a list of several documents that proof the existance of Macedonian since the 15th century (The same list can be found on my talk page: list of documents). How come these population counts mentioned in the text you linked us to does not include even 1 other nation that Greek and Bulgarian?
Do you want me to link you to Macedonian nationalistic web pages and sources? Is that the point here, or we should look for something reliable, something that actually has sence.
NOTE: Just a hint of how nationalist use Wikipedia for their POV push (this has nothing to do with you Matia, please read further). On the wiki page for the Macedonian town of Bitola (Monastir) there is an complete POV push information that this town until the Balkan wars was mostly populated with Albanians (???). I did a little search of mine. There is absolutely no source that supports this claim. I even had to call my family that live there (hence my dad is from Bitola) and ask them to check some ofthose information in their library. Again, no single source. It is a fact that there were some Albanians in Bitola since long time ago, but they were always quite few, very, very far from beeing majority. But, the information still stays on the page of Bitola. Macedonian(talk) 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Matia, I am serious. Supporting this claim of Theathenae is out of any logic. You alone know that the reality is that the minorities have enormous rights nowdays in Republic of Macedonia. Actually, they have even more rights than I have, as a Macedonian. Macedonian(talk) 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not supporting his claim (nor the opposite). But I don't like seeing him accused of various things (it has happened to me before as well). I found that link on google and I didn't support it or deny it. It's an old number and I wrote a "?" in the title. As for hri.org being ultranational* I think you are incorrect - they also have the official english translation of your country's constitution. +MATIA ☎ 10:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Matia, in general the page does not seem too much nationalistic. But it is a fact that it has many texts that are completely anti-Macedonian (ethnic group). And I am sure you are aware that this text is ment to deny the separate existance of my ethnicity. Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


1911:POPULATION BY VILAYET THESSALONIKI(Selanik)

Vergina 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1911:POPULATION BY VILAYET MONASTIR(Bitola)

Vergina 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1911:POPULATION BY VILAYET KOSOVO(capital city Uskub)

Vergina 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Good god people (Greeks)! Will you understand already? Normally that in that time you won't find "Macedonian population". That's because Macedonians were facing enormous repressions from all sides - not to call them whatever they want! Bomac 15:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
That was a time of various censuses, all supporting 3 different sides: the Serbian, the Bulgarian and the Greek. The censuses were including the Macedonians as a part of the Greeks, Bulgarians or Serbs (depending which side they needed to support), so those 3 nations would have logical reason to say that Macedonia belongs to them. That is actually why the Balkan wars started. These censuses were just a beggining of it. Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POPULATION BY YUGOSLAVIA 1921-1931

  • Population by Ethnicity:
    • Serbocroat
    • Slovene
    • Czech-Slovak
    • German
    • Magyar
    • Romanian and Vlach
    • Albanian
    • Turkish
    • Gypsy
    • Other^^
  • ^^Included Polish,Russian,Ukrainian,Italian,Yiddish,each of whom had less chan 50.000 speakers.

Not existend Slavs as "Macedonians".

Vergina 18:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
That's because of the upward mentioned repressions plus the difficult situation Macedonians were in (because of propaganda which continues even today, which we read every day, here on Wikipedia). Every older Macedonian will tell you that they were calling "Macedonians" then. My grandfather and his father were declaring themselves as Macedonians. Bomac 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
So, this is just another census that supports my text that I wrote above. The censuses were including the Macedonians as a part of the Greeks, Bulgarians or Serbs (depending which side they needed to support), so those 3 nations would have logical reason to say that Macedonia belongs to them. That is actually why the Balkan wars started. These censuses were just a beggining of it. Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Your grandfather Misirkov:
1924: "We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. The Serbian not only want to colonize Macedonia with Serbs from other part of Yugoslavia, but they wish to kill our Bulgarian consciousness. They took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians, they intrude their schools and education, so much false and Jesuit, so much as the study of St. Sava and finally they come to the idea for the special Macedonian nationality, which they discover in South Macedonia."
Krste Misirkov
Vergina 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This sentence is controversial and paradoxal by itself. I guess your greek nationalistic owen doesn't cook so good... First you are saying that "Serbians took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians" and then "they come to the idea for special Macedonian nationality". I don't get it . Macedonians were people with two nationalities? First there was a Macedonian (together with Bulgarian) nationality, and then it was created for the second time?!?!? Bomac 19:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Misirkov changed his mind several times during his life. First claiming he is of Macedonian ethnicity, then Bulgarian, then Macedonian again, then back to Bulgarian and so on. Many of the Macedonians there were seeing the Bulgarians as brothers, because they were Slavic Ortodox people whose language was closest to ours. If you, Vergina, or anyone else read something more from Misirkov (something more than the texts that can be found on nationalistic web sites), you would know that Bulgarian was (most often) seen by the Macedonians as a group of people (something similar like Slavic is), a group that is a sub-group of Slavic. A group that was puting us and the "our self-proclaimed" brothers together. But, the difference between the 2 ethincities (Macedonian and Bulgarian) was never lost. Actually, when we realised that the Bulgarians (at least in that time) are same as our other assimilators, we decided to take our own way, far away from our traitors Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Misirkov is NOT my grandfather. I'm taliking about MY relatives. Bomac 17:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe (but MAYBE) that's what Krste Misirkov said. The opinion of few people is not a proof that Macedonians are Bulgarians. I'm talking about the wider population. Bomac 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a clear fact that Misirkov was also a victim of the Bulgarian assimilation. Why else would he first proclaim himself as Macedonian and latter as Bulgarian? Has no sence. Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, personally, I don't feel like Bulgarian (I feel like Macedonian) (which most of the people will tell you). So don't develop propagandistic theories that "there weren't Macedonians due to 20-th century". Just as me, my ancestors were declaring themselves as Macedonians, and nothing else, so you can't make me believe in your pure assimilating propaganda (better said - schauvinistic lie). Bomac 17:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


I will again link to the list of documents that show a separate Macedonian ethnicity since the 15th century. Maybe you don't like that, but it is a fact that no one can deny. link on my user page, link on the talk page of Macedonians (ethnic group). Macedonian(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

OK Vergina, what's you point? You are aware I hope that the only purpose that your links can serve is to give us an estimate of the ethnic composition of that area at that time. If you are planning to infer that Ethnic Macedonians were not a seperate ethnic group from the Bulgarians since before the 20th century, you are wasting your time, as no source directly says that they weren't. If you try to reach that conclusion through those links, it won't be a valid conclusion under Wikipedia policy as those links are not confirming your position that ethnic Macedonians weren't a nation in their own right at the time. That would be original research (see WP:NOR), ie your own conclusion, while no credible publisher is confirming your views (see WP:V). Rex(talk) 17:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add (again) the link towards the list of (just a part of the) documents which are proof of separate Macedonian ethnicity since the 15th century. It has several documents in the period from the 15th till the 20th century, including even Greek sources. The same data can be found on my User page: link.
I think that this discussion is senceless, because, as REX said, there are no neutral sources that deny a separate Macedonian nation in that time. And, I just gave you a list of just few documents that show that these claims of Vergina are unrealistic. Macedonian(talk) 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

anonymous (newbie?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=27870734

link added by +MATIA ☎

I would like to reffer to the anonymous (newbie?)... maybe your grandfather did not see Macedonians because he was nationalist. It usually runs in the family, you know?
Just a reminder that your grandfather was not so educated: links to several documents that proof a separate Macedonian ethnicity, starting from the 15th century. Macedonian(talk) 07:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Virtual ethnic cleansing

I must strongly protest the persistent removal of the references to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities. Why this virtual ethnic cleansing?--Theathenae 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current text by ChrisO satisifies your thirst for justice. However I've got some amendments to it, so the current version of the text would be something like this:--FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Proposed text concerning the Bulgarian, Greek and other minorities

There is a small Bulgarian and Greek minority in the country but the numbers of each of these two groups are not given separately in the 2002 census. [7]. According to the 1994 census [8] 1682 persons have identified themselves as Bulgarians, while 368 persons have identified themselves as Greeks. These two groups, along with the other minorities such as the Egyptians, Montenegrins, Croatians, Slovenes and others are listed under the category "Other ethnicities" who constitute 1% of the population (2002 census).--FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation: The current text could insinuate that the Macedonian censuses in general put minorities in the "Others" category. That is not true, because the 1991 and 1994 census did publish figures of the Greek, Bulgarian, Egyptian, Croatian and other minorities. You can see their numbers here: [9]. I don't know why they listed these minorities as "Others" in the 2002 census, I believe that it was done for practical reasons. I'm almost positive that there is detailed report somewhere that does include the numbers of all stated ethnic affiliation (including even Germans, Italians, etc.) The census was liberal, I distinctively remember that I asked the clerk could I declare myself as Martian. She said yes. I will try to find these numbers these days, but I can't promise anything. --FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, if you doubt the motives behind this ("the government of FYROM ethnically cleansing Greeks"), please provide at least some source (Wikipedia:Cite sources):

  • Are there international organisations who dispute the number of Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia?
  • Are there Greek organisations who dispute the number of Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia?--FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also added the Egyptian, Croatian, Slovene and Montenegrin minority, they are not less important, and we don't want to pursue virtual ethnic cleansing on them, do we? It is interesting to note that there is an Association of Egyptians in the Republic of Macedonia - [10]. --FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the proposed text OK? --FlavrSavr 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(I've also corrected the number of Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia, from 409.000 to 509.000... I guess it was a typo mistake) --FlavrSavr 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you somehow misunderstood the current disputed topics. We are not discussing whether ancient Macedonians and Greeks were the same people, or something similar. What we are discussing here is the number of Greeks in the modern country that calls itself Republic of Macedonia. There were claims that the government of this country hides their number. What is needed are sources that will support that claim. As for the genetic research, I rejected that theory here Talk:Macedonia_(region)/archive#Caution:A_genetic_research. So I don't really conform to pseudo-science and nationalism, if that conforts you. Regards. --FlavrSavr 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would we mention the Bulgarian and Greek minority, when they are much smaller than several other minorities (Macedonian Muslims, Egyptians, Croatians, Montenegrians... even Yugoslavs, which are usually of mixed marriges between ex-Yu people)? From all these minorities, only the Macedonian Muslims have more than 2000 "members". Why is this reverting of the facts?
Why would the Greek and Bulgarian minority be over-priviledged? Because of nationalistic claim of one user?
Let me remind you all that he first started pushing a POV saying that the Bulgarian and Greek minorities in Republic of Macedonia are not recognized. And, without any single source.
If we put these 2 minorities in the text, we should also pu the names of at least 5 other minorities that are at least double bigger than the 2 mentioned.
Also, can someone provide me a link where a minority with less than 1% is mentioned? On the Macedonian census from 2002nd all listed as "other" together have 1% of the population. Don't you realise that this kind of reasoning is only taking our time away? A time that we can use on some other topics. Macedonian(talk) 07:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Something FYI.

Here are some external sources for the proofs that the ancient Macedonians were considered Greek, naturally. I suggest you learn HISTORY and not conform to pseudo-science (remember that Genetics paper in the journal published by some Spanish and Macedonian (sic) - slavonic nationals claiming the Macedonians as a separate ancient entity?). Well regarding such pseudo-science, the paper was published in an impact factor journal of just under 1.5 (meaning it's impact is akin to wiping one's bottom after relieving themselves). In addition, the paper is extremely flawed, considering it's implication is to say that Macedonian-slavs are different from Greeks... point taken, ofcourse they are... but purporting (by Slav nationals) that therefore the genes of the modern Macedonian(sic)-slavs means that they are the descendants of the ancient Macedonians. Where were those ancient genes obtained (Oh I know... they weren't as the researches DID NOT have access to ancient DNA from the ancient Macedonians so comparing Slavic Genes to Greek Genes is ofcourse going to be different). Ergo sum totali crappus!!! Hence, read these in ancient Hebrew... if you can and then see what the ancient Hebrews thought. Books: Daniel (chap.8, 1-22 chap.2 para.39 4-13, 26-28, 31, 38 chap. 7, 2-7) Isiaiah chap. 19, 20 chap. 19,23 Joel chap.3 v.6, Jeremy, Habacoum chap.2, v.5 and the books of the Maccabees (1st book chap. 1, v.1 & 10 chap. 6 v.2, II 8, 20 III 8). Shalom l'olam,

Sanser ha-Maqdon ha-Yewanit ve-Melekh Yewanim.

I think that you should read something else than your history book. Do you claim that the modern Greek nation is a direct descendant from the antique Greeks? Not a fact that historians would support, hence the modern nations are formed after the 15th century.
Also, do you maybe still beleive in Zeus? Or, do you still think that the gods live on Olimp? Even the culture you have today has nothing to do with Antient Greece.
I am not denying that the modern Greeks are connected with the antient Greeks, but they are not the same people.
Also, after so many mixing between the people of the region that happened during the last 25 centuries, how shallow is to claim that one modern nation have "exclusive rights" over the "Antique Macedonia"?
Sorry, but if you want to participate in these discutions, you should figure out something smarter and more reliable.
Concerning the genes... there is no research that can proof direct connection between a modern nation and antique people here on the Balkan. As I said, there were simply too many mixings. Macedonian(talk) 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


"Republic of Macedonia"? Not for the EU.

Interesting. A Skopjan website reports that Skopje will not be admitted to the European Union under any name other than "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", unless a "mutually acceptable solution" to the name issue is found.[11] Too bad for the Skopjan nationalists here, I guess. There is Wikipedia. And then there is reality. :)--Theathenae 09:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear whatever... Can you find any source or post of the so called "Skopje nationalists" that support your claims?
We are aware that we will have to use the FYROM refference when we get in EU if we do not find another solution with Greece. Greece is a member of EU, so they will again push the dispute. Same as they are doing here and everywhere else.
But, I think you should be more worried will EU recognize the constitutional name of the country till then. Despite Greece is a member of the EU, there are more than 100 EU parlaimentary members who voted for doingthis on the last voting.
Just to remind you that is more than 1000% (thoulsand per cent) more than on the first voting. And I will repeat again, Greece is a member of EU, Macedonia is still not.
Should I also remind you of the coalition of the Green parties in EU who constantly recoments to EU to recognize the constitutional name of Macedonia?
Should I also remind you that if the EU parlaiment votes for this, Greece will have to accept the dicision of EU calling us "Republic of Macedonia"?
You obviously still do not understand that the things are not great at all for Greece. Soon several things will happen on this issue, so I hope that it will become clearer to you that all the world is getting sick of nationalistic politics and denials. Macedonian(talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Length of the history section

Please don't forget that this article is supposed to be a summary. Some people are adding a load more material to this section - it should go to History of the Republic of Macedonia instead. Four paragraphs of history in this article are quite enough... -- 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


What is FYROM?

This is a country which was a part of Jugoslavia,where a lot of people are Albanians,where they speak a bulgarian dialekt,and they want to have a greek name(makos in ancient greek means tall). User talk:Makedonas

And you are anonimous (Greek or Bulgarian) ultra-nationalist that wrote this comment with one reason only: to deny the existance of a nation that is internationaly recognized under its natural name, "Macedonians". Reffer to this link, maybe it will make you realise that your history book of primary school is not the most reliable source in the world. Macedonian(talk) 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok and I can make very easy a new nation-that easy someone who dont know will recognize it-by stealing my neighbours.I m greek and i lived some years in Bulgaria and i have many skopians friends with whom of course I speak bulgarian. User talk:Makedonas

With that aditude towards our national feeling, I certainly doubt that you have any Macedonian friend. Who would like to be a friend with someone who wants to deny his national feeling and identity? Macedonian(talk) 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe in what I believe and my skopian friends too,and we respect each other's opinion.We won't resolve the probleme-the politics should do it.. User talk:Makedonas

Macedonia is Bulgarian

Arguments and facts here: www.macedoniainfo.com The poor Bulgarians in Macedonia have been terrorised by Serbians since 1913.Even now some of them are scared to say that they are Bulgarians.This year in 1 Macedonian newspaper was published a material about the Serbian terror over the Bulgarians.In 1 former police station they found human bones - Bulgarians, who refused to call themselves Macedonians/Serians and the terrorists killed them.

Many (about 1 million) Macedonians now want a Bulgarian citisenship and come to Bulgaria to receive it.

Yeap, more and more p.r.o.p.a.g.a.n.d.a. Every side you turn to - there's propaganda and chauvinism waiting for you. Bomac 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The bones you are talking about were found in Bitola's old police station. But not bones of Bulgarians. Bones of Macedonian patriots killed by the communist regime of ex Yugoslavia because of their ideas for independant Macedonia. Independant, not a part of Bulgaria.
That is what you get when you read Bulgarian newspapers.
You linked to a completely pro-Bulgarian web site. Do you even know how are the nationalistic web sites treated here on Wikipedia?
I have at least 50 Macedonians web sites of the same (nationalistic) rank that I can put here. But the point is to get some reliable source, not nationalistic propaganda.
Here is something that can brake your dreams: Documents as evidence of separate Macedonian ethnicity back to 15th century. Macedonian(talk) 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Typo in Demographics:Minorities section

In the "Minorities" section (under "Demographics") there seems to be a simple mistake: there are two almost identical paragraphs one after the other. It seems one (probably the first) was supposed to be deleted, but I haven't edited it as I can't be certain which version is correct and there is an altered statistic involved.

Protected

I'm going to protect this page for all edits, not just for moves. Please try to work this out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting all Wikipedia pages connected to Macedonia. It is very wrong to allow nationalist to spread their propaganda of denials and assimilation of the Macedonians.
Whenever this page will get to a NPOV version, there is always someone who starts editing and adding something that he read from some ultra-nationalistic web site.
Delete it and lets end this shit up forever. As a Macedonian, I would rather like not to be mentioned at all, than beeing denied. Macedonian(talk) 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
We can't just delete every article that might become POV - we'd have no article left, besides maybe things like odd number. That said, do folks feel that this article is ready to be unlocked? -- Pakaran 20:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate beeing negative, but in my oppinion: No. Maybe you have noticed that now noone writes comments about it. They do not want to disscuss about issues. POV pushing is easier, so they do not care for comparing facts and sources.
As a Wikipedian, I have to express my oppinion that Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to POV pushing and propaganda.
As a Macedonian, I would preer Wikipedia to exclude all the pages concerning my country and nationality. Why? Because only that way I will be protected rom assimilative texts that say that Tito washed my brain and I changed from Bulgarian to Macedonian. Especially because I have relatives that Tito inprisoned because they were promoting a separate Macedonian country, out o Yugoslavia, a country or the Macedonians, not Bulgarians. He was not so nice to us, actually he brought more bad than good to my people. Macedonian(talk) 14:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

MACEDONIA IS 100% GREEK !!!!!!!!!!!!!