Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Republic of Macedonia/Archive 7 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

1 Vandalism warning
2 Archives
3 ChrisO blocked me out from editting this site
4 Poorest republic?
- 4.1 MACEDONIA IS NOT GREEK AND NOR SLAVIC!
5 FYROM is Republic of Bulgaristan !Not "Macedonia"
- 5.1 Rival statistical data
- 5.2 Sample statistical data from neutral sources
- 5.3 Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:We are Bulgarians!
- 5.4 Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgars in Skopje!
- 5.5 Macedonian Slavs as a nationality has never existed
- 5.6 IMRO:We will fight for a free, autonomous, united Macedonia
6 Vandalism warning
7 Provisional UN Name, "was" vs "is"
8 Page protected from moves
9 Constitutional name / official name
10 FYROM and Britannica
11 Macedonia and Bulgaria
12 EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"
13 Change of FYROM to "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
14 What is FYROM?
15 Reasons why Greece is acting like this
16 Pro-Greek Statements constantly get blocked and deleted - WHY?
17 Appeal to all editors of this article
18 My removal
19 "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
20 is Aromanian official language?
21 Answers to Nikolas assertions
22 Who were ancient Macedonians?
23 The note
24 I'm Greek and I'll tell you another story
25 New proposal about the design of the article
26 Stop!
27 FYROM
28 Who were ancient Macedonians (again)
29 Top note
30 Pictures
31 International Organizations

Vandalism warning

Due to repeated vandalism of this article's info box by anonymous editors, I've added a warning in the article source:

"NOTE TO EDITORS: DO NOT MODIFY THE COUNTRY NAMES USED IN THE INFO BOX BELOW WITHOUT FIRST DISCUSSING YOUR CHANGES ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR EDITING PRIVILEGES BEING BLOCKED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT FURTHER WARNINGS."

The names used in the info box are as specified by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I don't think there's any valid reason to change them, and certainly not to nonsense like "Republic of Vardar" or "Republic of Skopje" as our vandals have been trying to do. Changes of that significance should discussed on the talk page anyway, considering how controversial the article is. From now on, further vandalism of this nature will attract an immediate block. -- ChrisO 09:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes!!!!

That is a censorship article.

Vergina 09:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. A fully pro-slavo-macedonian controlled censorship article. Nestore 16:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

International recognition of ROM (FYROM) (change required)

The following factual correction is necessary; the correction is proposed on the fact that the term 'most' refers to over 50% and this UN member state has not been recognised by 'most' countries under its chosen constitutional name of ROM. Therefore: The text which reads: "International organisations and some countries still use that designation, abbreviated to FYROM, but most countries now recognise it under its official name". Needs to be corrected to: "International organisations and many countries still use that designation, abbreviated to FYROM, but a number of countries now recognise it under its official name"

The majority of countries--more than half--do use the official name. CDThieme 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not correct: some countries in particilar : USA, Russia, China and Turkey use the unofficial name. what is official? official is something that is accepted by everybody. so you can compare the whole issue like branding-copyright. who had the name first. indisputable the greeks. so if greece allows the r.o.m. to use the name it is official! e.g. nike allows to a no-name manufactor to use its logo or name-can you imagine that? off course not. but in this case we are talking about a country´s name with people etc. it is a very delicate topic and understandable because of the very fragile situation in r.o.m. , many ethicities, albanians hoping for autonomy etc. so the use of the name macedonia makes a compromise for all ethnicities there, it has a glory history etc. but nobody of its inhabitants whether albanians, bulgarians, turks, romas etc. neither the slawo-macedonians can be connected with the macedonian civilisation or culture. therefor the use is illegal but understandable. the r.o.m. people should understand this, it is no provocation by the greeks for the individual person but the greeks feel theft about the use of the name. so greece has to decide in negotiations with the r.o.m. about solutions fot the future. in the past the area was called vardarska banovina. what is so wrong with this name? the river of vardar is located there- no greek would dispute this name. why provoking the greeks on purpose? remember that the glory history of greece showed that they never took wrong positions (e.g. II world war etc.) and this will show also in the future that greece has a reason to not accept this name. imagine a part of mexico will gain independancy and they proclaim the name republic of texas or republic of california(there is allready a part in mexico which uses the name california- but this is not a country only a state in mexico) Nestore 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Officiality of a nation's name is not a matter of how many bodies refer to it as a single name. It is a matter of what the nation itself calls itself in its constitution, and in Macedonia's case that is the Republic of Macedonia, and the officiality and validity of that name cannot be logically disputed.

In other articles official would be the name used by UNO, IMF, Hague etc. RoM is the country's constitutional name. +MATIA ☎ 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is a Pseudonym of the state!

Vergina 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well,Chris,do u know anything about real valdalism and who is doing it?this article have changed many times...and everytime that the greek point of view was added,it was immediately changed and'protected'.i do not know why it is so hard for people in wikipedia to understand that the country's name is 'FYROM' at the moment!wheather u like it or not,this is the internationally recognised name... Furthermore,in the demographics section,there is neither official estimate for the greek minority,nor unofficial estimates for the vlach and greek minorities...whereas in the section of the demographics of greece there is an 'unofficial estimate' for supposedly 'macedonian' minority-an overestimation,i have to say.this happens also in the section about 'Macedonians'.everything that u claim as 'protected' is just anti-hellenic.i can't get it...it is simply not fair!anyways,i have been sick with all the word usage of the name Macedonia,from people who have not a single knowledge of history...if u had made a bit searching and studying in history facts,u would be the one who would change this article(or at least let the others to do so).at least be wise and allow the opinions of both sides(till the dispute is solved)...but i guess your pro-skopjian feelings will not allow u to do so... what can i say?just letting u make some company with your ahistorical and antiscientific thoughts... if i have misunderstoond u,i will take what i say back,but i guess i haven't...

ChrisO blocked me out from editting this site

because I'm Macedonian and he is pro-Greek. Fortunately he only blocked my friends' ip and not mine, I have dynamic. MACEDONIA IS SLAVIC AND ONE DAY ALL MACEDONIAN AREAS WILL BE LIBERATED Arnegjor2 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And they blocked me again for being a Macedonian! Is this freedom of speech? Arnegjor3 19:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can speak again, who knows for how long.. It seems that community based projects can lead to equal missuse of power from "regulators", reminds liberties in communist countries. Arnegjor 12:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be doing arbitrary edits which are commonly considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Nobody is denying your freedom of speech, and stop making ridicilious accusations. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet forum where you can put anything you want, including capslocked claims such as the "liberated Macedonia" statement. "And they blocked me again for being a Macedonian!". No, they didn't do that, and you better get rid of that "poor little Macedonian" victim mentality, as soon as possible. I'm a Macedonian myself, and nobody blocked me so far. As a Wikipedian, and as a Macedonian, my advice is - read Wikipedia policies well, articulate your views, and participate into discussion with sources, be tolerant to others (even if they have different points of view), and do not make personal attacks. I hope you'll accept my advice. Best regards. --FlavrSavr 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NO you can't be Macedonian and talking about "poor little Macedonians". I'm sorry for my capslocked claims which were under my anger, but I find your "stop making ridicilious accusations."

a personal attack against me, why nobody sends you a warning about that? Is that because you want Macedonians to have a fake and "calmed down" perspective of our recognision problems and I fall out of this standards? Am I doing bad for our country just because I'm honest and so have to be kicked out of wikipedia? Is this the purpose of wikipedia? Arnegjor 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think that I have made a personal attack against you, you can report me here. I can assure you, that I have made spent hours and days proving and arguing in defense of some Macedonian positions. My reaction to the English Wikipedia admins which was written in protest why it had referred to our nation as "Macedonian Slavs", lead to a series of actions, that, although after a long period, finally resulted in the change of naming - now we are referred to as Macedonians. ChrisO also played a significant role in this change - so accusing him of being pro-Greek is the accusation that I consider ridicilous. He is the most neutral editor I have encountered here, and he is has the courage to engage in sensitive issues, just for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality.--FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I also must inform you, that I'm an administrator of the Macedonian Wikipedia, and I am one of the biggest contributors there - I have translated much of the interface in Macedonian, I have created hundreds of articles, I have made efforts in promoting it etc. Now, I hope "NO you can't be Macedonian" sounds as a unfounded accusation, as well.--FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As for what Wikipedia stands for, you should read the NPOV policy. In this case, I'm acting in good faith - but, I leave it to you to choose whether you'll accept my advice or consider me a traitor (or whatever). --FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you Macedonians (nation) are are so stuck with this name. Can't you see that this is the root for all your problems? You are a new country and you want to put yourself in a lifetime situation of:

1) having always to explain the differences between Macedonia(nation), Macedonia (ancient state), Macedonia (state) and Macedonia (region) This weakens how your national identity and how you want to define yourself.

2) You will always have a 30% of Albanian Macedonians (region and state) who will never become Macedonians (nation). Big percentage that will always remain a minority.

3) bad relationships with Greece (Macedonian name issue), Albania over the Albanian minority of non-Macedonian (nation) Macedonians (region) and possibly with Bulgaria. Don't expect that Greeks will ever stop claiming that you shouldn't be monopolising the name Macedonia and create confusion over what they claim to be their Macedonia (ancient state) and their Macedonian (region) Greeks and Macedonian (nation) minority in Greece that they don't want to accept that they have. The only way to solve this problem is start a war and try to achieve Macedonia (state) overlaping Macedonia (region).

4) By revamping an ancient state (don't make me wrong, you are trying to use the same name and the same flag, you will always be a country like Greece, with a golden age in the past and a boring present and future ahead. History has proved that every nation has only one pick.

You have a new country with all your future ahead. You've proved to the world how good you are with politics. Why do you let stupid nationalism be the root for all your problems? You have suffered enough for having to fight for ever with Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians over the name Macedonia which in my opinion refers to one of the most barbaric civilazions of the ancient world; Alexander is only famous for his great army, an ancient Hitler who just managed to succed with a civilization and culture so weak that the historians are still debating over his (Hellenic/Illyrian?) nationality and language.

Why don't you just create a new country with a name that really means something in your Macedonian (nation) language, create a new Macedonian (region) nation who respects the non Macedonians (nation) Macedonians (state) in your country and have no minorities, respect Macedonians (region) in other countries (Bulgaria), Greece and Albania who still want to be called Macedonians (region) and won't feel that you try to refuse their Macedonian (region) identity? Is the dream for the future of your country just people liek Greeks, selling copies of Alexander's statues to tourists, or is it to become a contemporary state that culturely "conquers" the world with its contemporary thinking? Greeks have been doing the first for centuries, and their Macedonia (region) is the poorest, while after being for so many years a member of E.U. the only thing they are really good at doing is speaking about their (rewritten?) history. They only started being proud of the Macedonian ancient state after 1993 and a proof for that is that they called the Univeristy of Thessaloniki in Macedonia (region) "Aristottle", an Athenian name while now they are calling Athenian universities with Macedonian (ancient state) names. How many hours do Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (region) and other nationalists spend here in this website and how many total hours will be spent over the years, from all, trying to solve this dispute that has no solution? Neither teh U.N. or E.U. and nor N.A.T.O will stop Macedonians (nation) from calling themselves Macedonians and Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians (region) using the same name. For how many years will the Wikipedia page of Macedonia lead to a (disambiguation) page? LETS BREAK THE ROPE AS ALEXANDER DID! THE WORLD WILL BE PROUD OF YOU! YOU CAN BE A MCONTEMPORARY COUNTRY, MODEL FOR ITS RESPECT FOR OTHER NATIONS AND MODERN THINKING, WHY DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A WEAK IDENTITY AND HAVE PROBLEMS WITH NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES AND MINORITIES WITHIN YOUR STATE? JUST TO FEED A STUPID NATIONALISM, A FETISH FOR SHARING SAME SYMBOLS AND NAME WITH A BARBARIC ANCIENT THAT THE ONLY THING IT EVER DID WAS TO KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND CONTROL THE WORLD FOR SOME YEARS? Svetlyo 18:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Poorest republic?

MACEDONIA IS NOT GREEK AND NOR SLAVIC!

ITS BULGARIAN! CHECK: http://www.macedoniainfo.com/10_Lies_Macedonism.htm

And you check this: http://www.makedonika.org/Bojdimi1.htm Who are you? don't you have a nickname? Arne

According to the CIA World Factbook, Macedonia was the poorest republic of Yugoslavia; Bosnia was the next poorest:

"At independence in September 1991, Macedonia was the least developed of the Yugoslav republics, producing a mere 5% of the total federal output of goods and services" [1]

"Bosnia and Herzegovina ranked next to Macedonia as the poorest republic in the old Yugoslav federation." [2]

-- ChrisO 11:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should make difference between least developed and poorest. Macedonia was Yugoslavia's 3rd producer of food (after Serbia and Croatia) and the 2nd most developed agriculture area. Anyway, it is a fact that our indurstry was poorer than the one of most of the other republics.

I also completely disagree with ranking Bosnia as 2nd poorest. Bosnia had quite good industry.

On the other hand, Montenegro had very little industry.

Anyway, it is not so important will Macedonia be ranked as poorest or 2nd poorest in ex-Yugoslavia. It is much better to be poorest in quite well developed country than richest in a quite poor region.

What I am saying is that the economy of Macedonia in that time was much better than now. People had jobs, good payments... they lived good life. Since than, it only got worse.

That is our real problem, not something that was 15 years ago. Macedonian^(talk)

00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you consider the period Macedonia was in before Yugoslavia (a very hard one, with struggles who to take it first etc.), yes, it was one of the poorest. But, I don't know about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although, I think that this is irrelevant according this article. Regards. Bomac 13:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As the Factbook tends to make mistakes, let's not overtrust ourselves to it. But let's look at some other sources: A Macedonian one (Macnews), MSN Encarta (least developed economically), the UN, etc. I know User:Macedonian tends to see things the way he wants to but that conduct is counterproductive as far as I am concerned. VMORO 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The first link is not OK. Please fix it, so we can see what is it about.

About the MSN Encarta link... it clearly says: "Of the six republics of the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia was one of the least developed economically". So, one of the least developed. Not the least developed. Actually, with that link you proove my point, not yours.

About the 3rd link, the UN... yes, it says poorest... but it does not talk about the period of time. In my oppinion, there are bigger chanses Macedonia to be the poorest of all 6 ex-Yu republics nowdays than 15 years ago. Actually, untill 1994th, Macedonia was handling quite well. Macedonian^(talk)

00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you search the press of Greece and RoM during the last years, you 'll find that about 800,000 people in RoM (35%?) live below the "poverty level" and almost 2,000,000 people in Greece (18%?) the same. I'm sorry but I don't remember if the sources for the statistics were related with each local goverment's census or not, but a search of recent (2-3 years) newspapers will probably verify the above. +MATIA ☎ 17:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the 35% estimate. I think that is also close to the rate of unemployment nowdays in Republic of Macedonia. Macedonian^(talk)

00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FYROM is Republic of Bulgaristan !Not "Macedonia"

1911:Population by Vilayet Thessaloniki(Selanik) Muslim :605.000,Greek:398.000,Bulgarian:271.000

1911:Population by Vilayet Monastir(Bitola) Muslim:456.000,Greek:350.000,Bulgarian:246.000

1911:Population by Vilayet Kosovo(capital city Uskub) Muslim:959.000, Greek: 93.000,Bulgarian:531.000

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolaz-ottomana1911.jpg

According to a Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904: VILAYET OF THESSALONIKI: GREEKS :373.227 BULGARIANS:207.317

VILAYET OF MONASTIR(Bitola): GREEKS :373.261.283 BULGARIANS:178.412

SANTZAK OF USKUB (Skopje) GREEKS : 13.452 BULGARIANS:172.735

Rival statistical data

Name	Nationality	Greeks	Bulgarians	Serbs	Remarks
1. Spiridon Goptchevitch	Serbia	201,140	57,600	2,048,320	Refers to Macedonia and Old Serbia (Kosovo and Sanjak)
2. Cleanthes Nicolaides	Greece	454,700	656,300	576,600	---
3. Vasil Kantchoff	Bulgaria	225,152	1,184,036	700	---
4. M. Brancoff	Bulgaria	190,047	1,172,136	---	---

Sample statistical data from neutral sources

Name	Nationality	Population total	Bulgarians	Greeks	Turks	Albanians	Remarks
1. Prof. G. Wiegland - Die Nationalen Bestrebungen der Balkansvölker. Leipzig 1898	Germany	2,275,000	1,200,000	220,000	695,000	---	All Muslims incl. Albanians under Turks
2. Official Turkish Statistic Ethnicity of Macedonia Philippopoli 1881	Turkey	754,353	500,554	22,892	185,535	---	All Muslims incl. Albanians under Turks
3. Journal "Le Temps" Paris 1905	France	2,782,000	1,200,000	270,000	410,000	600,000	Refers to Macedonia and Old Serbia (Kosovo and Sanjak)
4. Robert Pelletier - La verite sur la Bulgarie. Paris 1913	France	1,437,000	1,172,000	190,000	---	3,036	only Christian population
5. Leon Dominian - The frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe. New York 1917	USA	1,438,084	1,172,136	190,047	---	---	Only Christian population
6. Richard von Mach - Der Machtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in der Türkei. Leipzig - Neuchatel, 1906	Germany	1,334,827	1,166,070	95,005	---	6,036	Only Christian population
7. Prince Tcherkasky 1877	Russia	1,771,220	872,700	124,250	516,220	---	All Muslims incl. Albanians under Turks
8. Stepan Verkovitch 1889	Serbia	1,949,043	1,317,131	222,740	240,264	78,790	---
9. Von der Golts - "Balkanwirren und ihre grunde" (1904)	Germany	---	266,000	580,000	730,000	---	All Muslims incl. Albanians under Turks
10. Amadore Virgilli "La questiona roma rumeliota" (1907)	Italy	---	341,000	642,000	646,000	---	All Muslims incl. Albanians under Turks; Refers only to the vilyets of Thessaloniki and Monastir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Macedonia

Fotos Monastir or Bitola 1941:

See German and Bulgarian Flags!!! http://makedonija.150m.com/makedonija/bulgarianfascisticoccupiermacedonian.htm

Where are the People of FYROM as Macedonians??

Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:We are Bulgarians!

"Sofia, 01.05.1899, Kolyo, ... May the dissents and cleavages not frighten you. It is really a pity, but what can we possibly do when we ourselves are Bulgarians and all suffer from the same disease! If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans..." http://img39.exs.cx/img39/3769/goce.jpg

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

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7216/Invitation1893.jpg

Macedonian Slavs as a nationality has never existed

"what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history."-Misirkov Krste

Vergina 23:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How funny, did you notice the 16-rey Macedonian sun of Kutlesh at the four angles of the picture you are providing? That sun was used as a official flag of the Republic of Macedonia from 1991-1995:[3]. Just to remind you, Kutlesh is the Macedonian name for the place in Aegean Macedonia - Greece that is now officialy called Vergina, as your user name. Did you notice the date of the invitation on the picture? (1893). That itself is a proof that Macedonians have been using that symbol for 113 years (and longer), not like Greeks who discovered that Macedonian symbol in 1978 during the excavation of the tomb of King Philip II. Bitola 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks more like a decorative sun symbol that can be found on many Greek Orthodox churches than the Vergina Sun... but one sees what one wants... talk to +MATIA 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the girl presented on the picture holds two symbols, the one is the lion (also Macedonian symbol) and the second as I can see is a sun. Bitola 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange, after I discussed the presence of the Macedonian sun at the picture presenting a proclamation of IMRO in 1893, the image inexplicably disappeared (it cannot be accessed anymore from the link provided by Vergina). Fortunately, I have a copy of the picture, so I uploaded it again and it can be found at the following location: [4] Bitola 10:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IMRO:We will fight for a free, autonomous, united Macedonia

IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutional Organization, founded in 1893, leaded by Goce Delcev) will fight for a free, autonomous, united Macedonia within the framework of the future European confederation, based on the ideals of Ilinden . . . [for] the spiritual, political and economic union of the . . . divided Macedonian people and state, within the framework of a future Balkan union and a united Europe. (Extract from the IMRO Charter)

Letter from Nikola Karev to Goce Delchev

Dear G(otze) ... In Krushevo and Bitola the night blocades appear almost every day, and a lot of affairs throw people in jail. We shouldn't wait anymore, Goce. It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from Greeks, neither from Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia, ... As i am concerned, nobody can take away my courage and my patriotism. I am proud to report to you, that all our men are prepared to fight, with guns in their hands. N(ikola)

Bitola 11:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Vergina, but Republic of Macedonia nowadays is a pure f.a.c.t. Cheers, Vergina, writing from the R. of Macedonia, yours, Bomac 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Will some of the administrators react on this kind of nationalistic topic? How long will people like this be allowed to terrorise Wikipedia? Macedonian^(talk) 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Calm down - Vergina is our resident crank, but he's pretty harmless. At least he's not vandalising the article... -- ChrisO 09:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Vergina, if you have any sence of analitics, you would clearly see that all the censuses from that period are trying to proove the Bulgarian, Serb or Greek character of the region. Therefore, the Macedonians living in the region were presented as Bulgarian, Serb or Greek, depending on the source of the census.

Using the bad situation of the Macedonians, who were still under the Ottoman rule, the neighbouring nations were addopting the number of Macedonians and adding it to their number, so they would "proove" their ownership of the region. Anyway, Ilinded and latter the WW2 prooved how wrong they were. Macedonian^(talk)

01:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Due to repeated vandalism of this article's info box by anonymous editors, I've added a warning in the article source:

Yes!!!!

That is a censorship article.

Vergina 09:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

International recognition of ROM (FYROM) (change required)

The majority of countries--more than half--do use the official name. CDThieme 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In other articles official would be the name used by UNO, IMF, Hague etc. RoM is the country's constitutional name. +MATIA ☎ 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is a Pseudonym of the state!

Vergina 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Provisional UN Name, "was" vs "is"

I made an edit to the first paragraph of the article while I wasn't logged in(IP:220.245.178.137) in which I changed the wording to make note of the fact that the name used by international oranisations such as the UN is being used provisionally ie. temporary until the dispute is resolved. It was edited by Macedonian citing propaganda, and I assume he feels it was POV in some way, which I see as unlikely as I am a Macedonian, and I hope growing up in Australia means I am relatively NPOV. Either way, RoM is in fact referred to by the UN as FYROM provisionally, in fact I believe the declaration welcoming RoM into the UN even states that.

Also something that has been edited two times recently is the word 'was' in the following sentence:

"Due to the naming dispute between the Government of the Republic and the Government of Greece (one of Greece's northern regions is also called Macedonia), the country was referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in its admission to the United Nations."

My edit changed the 'was' to 'is', which is factually correct as far as I can tell, seeing as Macedonia is still referred to by international organisations as FYROM.

I wouldn't mind some feedback here before I change this again, so that it isn't edited more times. --Gorast 05:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that I might have reverted that as ungrammatical; the country's admittance to the UN is in the past. Jkelly 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In hindsight it is actually grammaticaly correct. Scrap that bit then, I guess all that's left is to see whether my other edit was NPOV, which, in another bout of hindsight, probably should be on Macedonian's talk page.*embarassed* Gorast 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the "was" should be "is" as ut is misleading. was meansn that the U.N. don't refer to Macedonia as F.Y.R.O.M but as something else that is not stated here, so... R.O.M. Sorry for changing before I see this discussion. Steve

The editors who are in favour of "was" instead of "is" are aware of an international treaty about the name dispute between RoM and Greece? I am not. +MATIA ☎ 17:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The admission to the U.N. is an event which occured in the past. Hence "was" is the correct verb; "is" is simply not ideomatic and sounds very odd in the context of that sentence to this native speaker of English. The article has info later about the continuing dispute where the present tense is used, so there is no need to stand gramatical use on its head in this sentence. Jonathunder 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It still looks (to this en:2 editor) like a dejavu of the UN-is-not-official edit-war (or content dispute if you prefer) that took place two months ago. +MATIA ☎ 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. This is so petty. I've rewritten that sentence to take out was/is altogether. -- ChrisO 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protected from moves

I've protected the article from moves following the latest outbreak of anonymous vandalism (the vandal has been blocked, btw). -- ChrisO 08:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional name / official name

Matia's wording is more accurate - countries "now recognise it under its constitutional name for bilateral diplomatic relations" rather than "now recognise it under its official name". FYROM is an official name too; it's mostly used in multilateral contexts, where Greek delegations need to be kept happy, rather than bilateral relations, where they don't. -- ChrisO 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the Greeks happy? They have a name of their country that no-one denies. R.o. Macedonia name is disputed by Greece. What about the Macedonians? They are surely not happy when someone is putting-on the ethiquette "FYROM" as a name of the country. Bomac 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Boyan, ChrisO is representing a real situation in international law. And unfortunately, international law is pretty much real politik - which means that if Greeks are more powerful and/or have more powerful allies than Macedonians they have the greater right to be feel happy. I'm satisfied with the current state of the opening paragraph, and I don't see any problems in it. The official name of the agreement with Greece, includes the FYROM designation. Our politicians signed that agreement. Me and you, may not like that, but that won't change the fact. --FlavrSavr 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. +MATIA ☎ 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"FYROM" isn't a name at all. It is a way of avoiding the name. Most countries recognize the obvious. CDThieme 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a name. There's nothing in international law that says that a country may only be recognised by its constitutional name. The UN could recognise Greece as the "former Ottoman Province of Hellas" if it really wanted to. Reality isn't necessarily a factor in international politics. Don't forget that for decades the UN recognised a small island in the South China Sea as "China" and ignored the existence of a much bigger state next door... -- ChrisO 00:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And will you tell me what if it ISN'T WANTED TO?!? Bomac 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No need for emotions here. Chris, it is true that nothing specific in international law says that a country may only be recognised by its constitutional name, but, there are related principles that can apply here (self-determination, etc.). Boyan, Chris does not necessarily agree with the ways of international law. Keep in mind that we are primarily here to discuss topics in light of their relevance to the article, and not to solve real world issues. --FlavrSavr 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the actual resolution that admitted the country. It goes to great pains to avoid naming it. It obliquely calls it the country in the application, which is being referred to as "the former..." CDThieme 00:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this obvious? +MATIA ☎ 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

FYROM and Britannica

User:Miskin wants to replace this:

Due to a dispute between the governments of the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, the United Nations recognized the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) when it became a member state in 1993.

with this, based on a Britannica entry:

In deference to Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, the country adopted as its formal title "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and normalized relations with Greece in 1995.

This just goes to show that you shouldn't blindly trust Britannica - it's wrong. The FYROM name was adopted by the UN General Assembly, not by the Republic of Macedonia. See UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, which is where the name comes from. As I understand it, the FYROM name is always used by foreigners to refer to the RoM, not by the RoM to refer to itself. Perhaps our Macedonian friends can confirm my understanding of this? -- ChrisO 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica article means that the Macedonian Slavs accepted it and eventually signed the papers to accept its official use. It doesn't imply that they suggested it nor that they ever supported it. Miskin 18:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica also says this. Rex^(talk)

18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Albanians shouldn't be talking here, thats between Macedonians and Greeks. Arne

When you say Macedonians, do you mean the Slavs? I'm Macedonian and I'm neither Slav or Greek! Svetlyo 01:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Svetlyo

Yeah, aaaand...? Miskin 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that your wording is very misleading. You say that "the country adopted as its formal title..." Not so; its formal title is its constitutional name. The FYROM name is, as you know very well, only used in international and some bilateral settings. The RoM applied for recognition by the UN, which Greece objected to because of the name; the UN brokered a compromise (the FYROM name) which the RoM and Greece both reluctantly accepted. From what I recall, a lot of pressure was put on the Greek government at that time, as a lot of Greek politicians opposed any form of words that included the word "Macedonia". The RoM government didn't like the name but consented to it because it wanted recognition; the Greek government didn't like it either but also agreed to it, after coming under a lot of pressure from other EU and NATO states as well as the US. Your suggested version makes it sound like the RoM volunteered to be called FYROM in all settings, which clearly wasn't the case. -- ChrisO 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are quite right that it was imposed on Republic of Macedonia for sure. Furthermore, the Macedonian government does not sign any document that refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The usual way of dealing with UN and its agencies is to sign two different copies of the document. The difference is in one thing - the usage of our constitutional name or UN provisional reference. Both sides sign its own copy of the document, exchange copies and shake hands. Regarding the foreigners, I might say that only Italians and Greeks in EU institutions use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Even Tony Blair announced that "We hope to see a Europe reunited in all its aspects. Obviously, Macedonia is an important part of that vision,". Kirev 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest a head which came from a neutral source, but I don't insist on it. The "yeah, and" was referring to REX's bizarre remark. Miskin 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia and Bulgaria

I suggest that Bulgarians should stop editting Macedonian sites as YOU ARE NOT MACEDONIANS! - Arne

Macedonia is Bulgarian and the proof is that what you want to call "Macedonian" language derives from the Bulgarian Language, Both Greeks and Slavs rewrite the HISTORY, check this : http://www.macedoniainfo.com/10_Lies_Macedonism.htm Svetlyo 01:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU READ THIS PAGE, ITS FROM CANADIAN SOURCES http://www.unitedmacedonians.org/macedonia/stefov1.html -Arne

I suggest that Bulgarians and Skopjans stop editing Makedonian sites as NEITHER OF YOU ARE GREEK, SO NEITHER OF YOU CAN BE MAKEDONIAN! Its as simple as that. Since you have no history of your own, that doesn't mean you have to steal you're neighbors!

EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"

EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"

Vergina 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. It's not "RoM" only when are discussed billateral issues between Macedonia and Greece. Bomac 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON WESTERN BALKANS At the same time, it voted down the amendments urging the Council to recognize FYROM under its constitutional name (139 in favor, 398 against and 26 abstentions). http://www.mpa.gr/article.html?doc_id=522728

Government: conventional long form: Republic of Macedonia conventional short form: Macedonia; note - the provisional designation used by the UN, EU, and NATO is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) local long form: Republika Makedonija local short form: Makedonija former: People's Republic of Macedonia, Socialist Republic of Macedonia https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mk.html

Vergina 19:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Can either of you provide some evidence? Izehar (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, I'm afraid you're wrong. Officially, (in international documents) the EU refers to our country as FYROM, although, unofficially, they use the plain name Macedonia. I don't know how Tony Blair's statement would be classified - he was the first at the summit to confirm the Macedonian EU candidacy and he used the term Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, according to this policy Wikipedia should refer to this country as Republic of Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My proposal for this sentence is to avoid both terms, by adding "the country". We needn't get into banal disputes. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FlavrSavr. Sorry, but from this endless dispute and POV pushings, all the good ideas are spinning around like the Earth round the Sun... Bomac 19:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is member of United Nations and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe . Vergina 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. The country is simply referred to as FYROM for the duration of the dispute between it and Greece. The UN and other nations have never stated that FYROM is the name of the country, just a provisional name, ie. temporary.--Gorast 13:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a small change. +MATIA ☎ 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a damn fine small change. :) --FlavrSavr 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that MATIA neutralised the article, so there is no need of the POV-tag. Bomac 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Change of FYROM to "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

To keep the record straight - UN does not refer to Macedonia as FYROM but only as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Both long and short names in use in UN are the same - "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Check these link:

UN site search for "former yugoslav republic of macedonia" - 17500 results and UN site search for FYROM - 606 results

I consider that usage of FYROM is just an error - Macedonia and Greece agreed on use of "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" not FYROM. Also, ISO defines this ISO 3166-1 record:

"Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of (MK, MKD, 807)"

We can see this at UN member states

By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.

Considering the fact that more than 100 countries and 3 permenent members (out of 5) comprising more than 90% of Earth population recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name I suggest that we directly omit using "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" at all, but only the constitutional name. As Wikipedia does for every other country in the world.

Not an option. Other countries do not have disputes over their name. This one does. And no they don't recognise it under "its constitutional name" - FYROM is not its constitutional name. They specifically refuse to recognise it under its constitutional name. FYROM is an interim name used for it in all cases at the UN.

PS: stop being pedantic about FYROM. That is an acronym of the full name, used to avoid using the full length name all the time. Ditto with UK for United Kingdom. (and please sign your name)FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 00:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom? Is it Éire, Ireland, or ROI? If you are so pedantic, you should just use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and not FYROM. If you like acronyms, use ISO country codes - MK and MKD. FYROM is not an option - it has not been agreed with Greece and it is highly offensive. Somehow, if you check the paragraph about international relations, you would understand that, yes - the Greek friends on this matter are getting close to zero as time passes by... Kirev 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no dispute about when to use RoI and Ireland, and clear rules about when not to use Éire. There is no comparison with the FYROM dispute. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the reference. This is the document that you should find to see that there's no short form in the UN:

TITLE: Country Names
SERIES: Terminology Bulletin
No.: No.347/REV.1
LANGUAGE: M.
SALES #: 97.I.19
ISBN: 9210020685
SYMBOL: ST/CS/SER.F/347/REV.1/CORR.1
PAGES: 84pp.
PRICE: $20.00
DESCRIPTION: Compendium of country names in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish listed in English alphabetical order. It includes names of the United Nations Member States and members of specialized agencies such as the International Court of Justice.

Therefore, I will remove all occurences of FYROM from the article.

Kirev 01:16, 21 December 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--Makedonas 12:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1. "a lot of people are 'Albanians'", not true, there are more 'Albanians' in Greece.

2. "where they speak a bulgarian dialekt" not true, beter see: "Cyrillic alphabet" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic) and "Early Cyrillic alphabet" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Cyrillic_alphabet)

question: the root of Cyrilic Letter is at?

3. "they want to have a greek name", and again, not true. It will be very very helpfull if anyone from Greece can write down Greek name for: Filip, Aleksandar, Elena, Gjorgji etc. ... then you will see the main difference between Macedonians and Greeks, and how can Filip or Alexandar be Greeks when Greeks don't have such names in their culture ... Exapmple 1: Filip = Filipos (or something like this) Exapmple 2: Alexander = Aleksandros (or something like this)

and at the end = FYROM = Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, FY are just "markers" to distinct (by greek belives) Macedonia from their Macedonia, and the backend of this is that the greek are affraid that Macedonians will ask for peace of land which was taken by Greeks, anyway as they say "Former Yugoslavian", it can be said for them to: "Former Otoman Empire Of Greece" ...

Truth 1.25% of the population of FYROM is Albanians - in Greece the Albanians are economic emigrants!

Truth 2.in FYROM speak a bulgarian dialect - I speak bulgarian and I speak FYROM's dialect and I know the difference! It is very funny to say that it is another language. How can you think that you can make a new language by changing 2 letters in the alphabet and 10 words in the vocabulary? The Greek dialect we speak in my village in Greece has much more differences with Greek than your dialect with Bulgarian.

Truth 3.Macedonia is a greek name - see the etymology of the word!About the names Alexandros/Αλέξανδρος or Filippos/Φίλιππος see how ancient Macedonians and Greeks was writting them, and you will understand that Aleksandar and Filip are just the slavic translation.

Truth 4.FYROM is Tito's invention - what can I say about it? The history of this absurdity started last century and of course the FYROMians try with every way to convince that they have right. But the nations which don't have history or forget their history, don't have futur!--Makedonas 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Names and Alphabet

Names: Alexander, or Alekasandar, Philip of Filip, etc. These names are compound Greek words. Αλέξανδρος (Αλέξ and ανδρος) = He who repels/pushes men away. Many compound Greek words bear the same first bit (i.e. the words for waterproof raincoats, umbrellas, bullet-proof vests, etc because they are things that repel something, i.e. rain, bullets, etc). Φίλιππος (Φίλος and ίππος) = friendly to horses (i.e. horse admirer, tamer, etc).

Cyrilic Alphabet: Two Greek Orthodox monks Cyrilous and Methodius (Κυριλος and Μεθόδιος) from Thessaloniki (second largest city of Greece) went to Slavic countries (especially Bulgaria), studied the languages and dialects spoken and created an alphabet to incorporate all. The alphabet is refered to as Cyrilic. A lot of the letters come from the Greek alphabet. A great number of words are of Greek origin.

Without trying to be insulting here, i thing it is a wise idea to know hard facts prior to making any claims. The claim that the above names do not belong in the Greek vocabulary when they are actually Greek compound words that are used on an every day basis, is absurd. Furthermore, it would be a good idea not to write anything when not certain. In this way, phrases like "or something like this" (see above) will be avoided. --TheVirus 01:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth 1: In FOPOG (Former Ottoman Province of Greece) are between 800 000 – 1000 000 Albanians (many of them are from Cameria, a region in FOPOG annexed in 1912 inhabited with Albanians many centuries before).

Truth 2: Macedonian language is one of the six natural Slavic languages: Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian and you can check this here: [5]. Probably you have no much connections with the real world in your village, so that is why you come with such a funny statements.

Truth 3: Ancient Macedonians are completely different from Ancient Greeks. Every historians knows that, only you are blinded by your propaganda.

Truth 4: Macedonia is Macedonian invention: nobody can create a country if the citizens (Macedonians) don’t want that!! The theory that Macedonia is Tito’s invention comes mainly from imbecilic nationalists from FOPOG and other countries. FOPOG wants to steel Macedonian history, but you will not succeed in that, be sure! Makedonec 11:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a blind propaganda because you cannot proof nothing of what you say-that's why you are anonymus!!!--Makedonas 10:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why Greece is acting like this

One of the main rights of humans, as well as countries is the right to freely choose its name. One of the biggest insults for me is when somebody is trying to change the name of another one. This time I will not respond to the insults posted by User:Makedonas, User:Nestore and User:Vergina because the language they are using is unacceptable for a serious site like Wikipedia (Just to quote the last comment by User:Makedonas: 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)!!!???. For me it is very difficult to understand the offensive position of Greeks trying to change the name of its neighboring country, so I will try to dig in the history and in the recent events in order to find an answer why Greece is doing this.

History: Undisputable fact is that modern Greeks have very little common with the ancient Macedonians, even with the ancient Greeks! Actually, all modern nations living in the Balkan Peninsula are modern nations created with mixing the old nations like ancient Greeks, ancient Macedonians, Ilirs etc with the modern Greeks, Slavic population etc. For example, the most dominant opinion in our country is that the modern Macedonian nation is created as mixture of ancient Macedonians and Slavic population. Probably the Modern Greek nation has origin from the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians, but that doesn’t give him a right to claim ownership of the name Macedonia.
Another interesting fact is that the name Macedonia was virtually forbidden for use in Greece before seventies in the last century. Actually, the northern part of Greece was called “Northern Greece”. Meantime, Greeks realized that they can benefit more if they adopt the name of Macedonia. Starting from that point, the northern part of Greece was renamed to Macedonia and many shops, airports, streets etc got the Macedonian name. So, Greece is using the name Macedonia for its northern part for 30 years, but Republic of Macedonia is using its name officially from 1945 (that is 60 years)!

The name Makedonia (Μακεδονία) has always been used for Greek Macedonia, it is one of the διαμερίσματα of Greece that, together with 'Ήπειρος' and 'Θράκη' form Northern Greece. For example, the Newspaper ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ was founded in 1911 : [6]. Andreas 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the newspapers, it is a fact that Greece renamed its northern part from "Northern Greece" to "Macedonia" in august 1988. I will make two quotes, the first one taken from the Diplomatic Observer site [7] and the second one from the UK Guardian newspaper article written by the correspondent Fiachra Gibbons :[8]:

This very modern ethnic turf war is being fought with tortuously argued historical blogs about which Macedonia Alexander conquered the known world for - a tiny new Balkan republic that has only recently come to see itself as the keeper of his flame, or a province that was officially known as "Northern Greece" until the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia declared itself independent and bagged the name ... You cannot walk more than a few hundred metres in any town in northern Greece without tripping over a new statue, bust or monument to Alexander, who extended the Hellenic world as far as India in the fourth century BC with such slaughter that even today in Iran and central Asia his name is used to scare unruly children. You will find the most pointed statue of all at the border with Macedonia at Niki - named after the Greek god of victory - where a giant Alexander angrily brandishes a javelin at the upstart state across the frontier. All over Greek Macedonia, streets, schools and airports have been hastily renamed, while archaeologists, having all but ignored ancient Macedonia until relatively recently, are digging furiously for its traces. The spectacular tomb of Alexander's father, Phillip, at Vergina near Thessaloniki, and the city's revamped museum, hammer home the kingdom's Greekness. Bitola 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest fears of Greece is its Macedonian minority. It is known that a large population of Greece claim Macedonian ethnicity. Actually, during the Civil war in Greece from 1945-1949 a real genocide of the Macedonian population took place there. Many of the Macedonian people were tortured and expelled from their homes. Nowadays Greece doesn’t recognize the Macedonian minority and forbids the use of Macedonian language, culture, education etc.
Very interesting fact is the following: Luxembourg and Belgium are neighboring countries. Belgium has a province which is called LUXEMBOURG! So far, Belgium never disputed that. In our situation, Greece has a province called Macedonia, but aggressively disputes the right of our country to use its name.
Greece claims that Macedonia has pretensions over Greek territories. Even if that is true, Greece is several times stronger than Macedonia economically, politically, military etc, so it is really hard to believe that Macedonia can harm Greece, especially by using the name Macedonia.

--Bitola 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

And which part of this sentence is not correct? Miskin 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Usually I’m not answering questions like this (because the answer it too obvious), but I’ll make an exception:Majority of the people in Macedonia are Macedonians, we are not speaking Bulgarian dialect, instead we are speaking Macedonian language and the Macedonia name is not a Greek property. --Bitola 15:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a Bulgarian dialect in a sociopolitical context, but what about a purely linguistic one? You get the point. "Makedonia" is truly a Greek word, even the wikipedia article or any dictionary can verify that, so I don't know with what kind of nationalist myths you deny it. Finally the Vardar valey (modern FYROM) was indeed part of Yugoslavia, and I don't think that I need to elaborate any further on that. In other words, I don't see how the fact that you're annoyed by the truth can forbid someone to speak it out, or even change it from being true in the first place. Miskin 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the first place I'm absolutely not annoyed, I'm just describing the my opinion in the same manner as you are describing yours. The sentence you are defending has only one fact that is relevant: Macedonia really was a part of former Yugoslavia. Everything else is mistaken and I'll tell you why:

I'm not denying the fact that Macedonian language in linguistic terms is close to the Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian and any other Slavic language. In fact, Serbian and Croatian languages are more similar then the Macedonian from Bulgarian, yet nobody is claiming that one is a dialect of the other. I'm sure you are getting the point as well.
About the origin of the word Makedonia, I already discussed in my previous post that the word is closely related to the ancient Macedonians and I also explained why modern Greece shouldn't claim ownership over that word. Just to remind you that the word Europe has Greek origin. So, you are going to ban the European union to use that word because it has Greek origin? Not to mention how many other Greek words are used throughout the world.
Why you avoid discussing about the following claim in the sentence you are defending: a lot of people in Macedonia are Albanians. Albanians are not more than 25% of the total population, but when somebody reads the whole sentence it looks like the majority of the people are Albanians, because the Macedonians are not mentioned at all.
The whole sentence was written in insulting manner and you must understand that it hurts when somebody is insulting your nation, language, history etc. Take a look at the following sentence:Greece is a country which was part of the Ottoman Empire, where a lot of people are Turks, where they speak some dialect and they want to have the Macedonian name. Probably you would agree that the sentence is stupid, but I’m thinking the same for the sentence you are defending.

--Bitola 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian Minority or Majority? "Several other minorities also exist, including Vlachs, Bosniaks, Macedonian Muslims, Croats, Egyptians, Bulgarians, Greeks and several others, but they account for less than 3% of the population of the country."--Vladko 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the following sentence:Greece is a country which was part of the Ottoman Empire, where a lot of people are Turks, where they speak some dialect and they want to have the Macedonian name. Probably you would agree that the sentence is stupid, but I’m thinking the same for the sentence you are defending. This sentence is stupid because its only purpose is to deliver a personal insult to a person of Greek nationality. If for no other reason, it's stupid because it comes from a "Macedonian Slav" whose ethnic group was ironically for some 1000 years under Greek occupation, then some 600 under Ottoman and finally some 100 under Serbian. So seeing an ethnic "Macedonian Slav" making such derogatory insults towards any other nationality whatsoever, is just laughable. However the sentence that you initially regarded as a racial slur has no fallacy in it, Macedonia is a Greek word, FYROM was part of Yugoslavia, and its only arguable point is on the language/dialect status between Macedonian Slavic and Bulgarian. I think the parallel you brought up with Serbian and Croatian has the opposite effect from the ones you desired as it backs up my point rather than refusing it. Croatian is regarded as a separate language for purely sociopolitical reasons. Miskin 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To give you an example what "stupid" means, I'll be quoting from your own edits: "History: Undisputable fact is that modern Greeks have very little common with the ancient Macedonians, even with the ancient Greeks! Actually, all modern nations living in the Balkan Peninsula are modern nations created with mixing the old nations like ancient Greeks, ancient Macedonians, Ilirs etc with the modern Greeks, Slavic population etc. For example, the most dominant opinion in our country is that the modern Macedonian nation is created as mixture of ancient Macedonians and Slavic population. Probably the Modern Greek nation has origin from the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians, but that doesn’t give him a right to claim ownership of the name Macedonia.

How do you expect to be taken seriously after coming up with such imbecilic statements? I bet you copy/pasted that from a Macedonian Slav nationalist site and brought it here as some kind of revolutionary evidence. Honestly, stop hating people and get a life man. Miskin 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are totally missing the point. The purpose of my sentence was not to deliver personal insults to a person of Greek nationality, rather it was paraphrase of the sentence you are defending in order to show you how it hurts when you insult a person of another nationality. I’m going to stop wasting my time discussing with you because you are losing your temper and starting personal attacks on me (calling me Macedonian Slav that spent 1000 years under Greek occupation and still dare to say something in self-defense,especially I will not discuss your last comments). That shows the level of your culture and the ability to reasonably discuss this issue.--Bitola 18:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a country which was a part of Jugoslavia,where a lot of people are Albanians,where they speak a bulgarian dialect,and they want to have a greek name(makos in ancient greek means tall). This is a discussion page,and this is my opinion about fyrom.These are facts,so I don't think I insult anybody.About the subject of 'language' or 'dialect' I can say that I speak the bulgarian language and the bulgarian dialect of fyrom and I know that the greek language and the greek cypriot dialect have much more differences than the two first.If you read well this simple sentence you can understand many things.user talk:makedonas--Makedonas 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Greece is a country which was part of the Ottoman Empire, where a lot of people are Turks, where they speak some dialect and they want to have the Macedonian name. This is my opinion about your country and these are also facts. You once were part of the Ottoman Empire, you have big Turkish minority in the eastern part of the country, every part of Greece uses some specific dialect of the greek language and you are claiming the ownership of the name Macedonia. About the Macedonian language: this language is recognized as official in our country and it is different from any other language in the world. That fact is recognized by many relevant international linguistic institutions. I can assure you that I have many friends in Macedonia that simply don't understand Bulgarian at all. Simply, Macedonian language is not a dialect of Bulgarian no matter how much you are trying to repeat your claim hoping that it will become true.--Bitola 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why Balkan countries like FYROM or Albania try to insult the Greeks by bringing up the Ottoman occupation, as if they're completely forgetting that they were subjects of the Sultan for twice as much. Actually according to Eric Hobsbawm, if it weren't for the Greek war of independence, all those other little nations who under Ottoman occupation would be still regions of Turkey as we speak. Plus they were under Ottoman occupation for much longer than the Greeks. At least the Greeks had some power within the Empire and did all the intellectual work. The Macedonians Slavs were like... Oops, I forgot, they didn't exist at the time, they were still called Bulgarians. Miskin 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway your sentence is also correct, there are still Turks in Thrace and Demotic Greek is a dialect (of Greek). The only really stupid part is the 'they want to have a Macedonian name' bit. That's talking out of someone's behind, which proves that your only intention is to deliver a personal ethnic or racial insult. Miskin 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Greece is a country which was part of the Ottoman Empire, where a lot of people are Turks, where they speak some dialect and they want to have the Macedonian name. ok this is an opinion but you are trying to copy my opinion for making impression without any search.I lived some years in Bulgaria,and I came many times in Bitola because I have friends there and I say what I saw and I heard there.About your opinion I know that all Balkans were under Ottomas,that the muslim minority in Thrace are no more than 100,000,that we speak some greek dialects in Greece,and that Macedonia has about 3000 years greek history(Εστίν ούν Ελλας και η Μακεδονία(=Macedonia is also Greece)Stravon-geographer 1st century B.C.) user talk:makedonas--Makedonas 20:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish part of Thrace is quite nice actually. It has Ottoman inscriptions and monuments that reveal the presence of a strong historical past (you know of the kind that goes back before 1991). Miskin 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Makedonas, I also didn’t intend to insult nobody. I like Greece; actually, I have many friends there, even in Crete, but don’t like the attitude of some Greeks about my country. Also, to be honest, I don’t like two sentences we are arguing about (the first one about Macedonia and the second one for Greece, which was a paraphrase of your sentence just to show you that it is not correctly to describe somebody that way). It is a fact that I’m feeling insulted by your sentence. Not just for the historical facts as you are saying, simply, you shouldn’t describe something using that voice. You could describe Macedonia with something like this: Macedonia is a country which is our neighbor, its capital is Skopje, it has beautiful lakes and mountains etc… as I can describe Greece like this: Greece is a country which is our neighbor, its capital is Athens, it has beautiful see and historical monuments etc. I hope you are getting the point. I’m waiting for the day when this dispute will be solved as many European countries solved their problems in civilized manner.--Bitola 12:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I still insist that the first sentence has no fallacy in it, and I don't know what you mean by "that voice". The second one does, that makes some difference. As I said before, the fact that you're insulted by it, doesn't mean that it is not true, nor it removes someone's right to say it. Greeks are insulted by the very fact that you call yourselves 'Macedonians', but you never think of equal terms now do you? The problem is that you're trying to monopolize this name, not just borrow it. Miskin 12:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Equal terms"? Noone is trying to monopolize the Bible name of Macedonia. For e.g., I (and all other Macedonians) can't imagine to be called smth. else rather than "Macedonians", just as you can't imagine not to be called Greek. Bomac 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What about non- Macedonians (nation) Macedonians (region) whp still want to remain Macedonians (region). Do they have to stop calling themselves Macedonians (region) or do they have to rename the region where they leave? Move to Macedonia (state) from Macedonia (region)? How many years do you Macedonian region) Greeks, Bulgarian Macedonians (region) and Macedonians (nation) want to spend over this problem that has no solution? Lets break the rope with a knife like Alexander did, You need better politisians you Macedonians (region) and Macedonians (nation) Svetlyo 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to call him/herself whatever he/she wants (even: Marsians, or Plutonians etc.). As I've stated in many of my talks, I don't mind someone to call himself Macedonian even if he is from Greece, Bulgaria etcetra, no matter is it in ethnical sence or regional sence. But, I also don't wanna someone to tell me which name I am "allowed" to use, and which don't and someone to tell me (Macedonian) am I Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, Marsian.... Just look at the example with Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). Those people are not in this kind of dispute, aren't they? Cheers, Bomac 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone has the right to call him/herself whatever he/she wants (even: Marsians, or Plutonians etc.)" - Well at least you found a good equivalent scenario to compare "Macedonian Slavs" with. Miskin

Miskin, you are such a "bordered" person. BTW, can you define what nationality is? Regards, Bomac 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

i didn't say that you don't have the right to call yourself Macedonian, I just say that this creates lifetime problems with the non- Macedonian (nation) Macedonians (state) populations within your country and causes them to be called minorities and causes problems with Macedonian (region) Greeks who also are taught in their (rewritten?) history that are Macedonians (ancient nation), just because they are speaking the same language (I'm not sure about that, but if we still don't know the language of Alexander then it is very dangarous to fight over whether the name of his nation, at least Hitler we know that was German). Don't you understand that you will always have an enemy (Greece) and one inside your country (non Macedonian nation minorities) and all the consiquenses of that for a new country? Why don't you chose a non-nation name for your state and keep the Macedonian nationality. Is nationalism the flag for your new country? GO and make HISTORY MACEDONIANS you have all your future ahead, show to all stupid nationalist Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians what a conemporary county is and how much you have learned from your recent past about how old-fashioned and stupid nationalism is. Conquer the world culturaly and wellcome whoever wants to join you. Be a prototype for the world, havbev your golden era ahead and forthcoming instead of 2000 years ago, take the example of Italy (no reference to Romans) and Greece (reference to Hellens), most people would love to move to advanced Italy , none to corrupted and underdeveloped Greece. Svetlyo 19:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"most people would love to move to advanced Italy , none to corrupted and underdeveloped Greece"

Did you ever read about the Greco-Italian War? Miskin

How come such racist, backwards, and imbecilic statements just go unnoticed anyway? Miskin

Oh, but it's true. Greece is nothing without EU, and in EU, Greece is one of the most poorest countries. BTW, Greece entered EU instead Yugoslavia. It was not Greece's turn then (if Yugoslavia entered in the EU in the first place). Bomac 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, this is why FYROM should offer some economic aid to the Greeks. Maybe even some military aid against the Turks. What do you think? Miskin 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia is not in the EU, you know. My personal opinion is that Greece is nothing (in agricultural sense) without "Makedonia" region as well. It is the region from where whole Greece is fed. BTW, everyone in the former yugoslavian republics will tell you that in that time, Yugoslavia (including Macedonia) was America for Greece. I can't see and feel that Greece is America for Macedonia now. Cheers, Bomac 20:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was like America? That's an interesting point of view... So how come I've always had the impression that Yugoslavia refers mainly to Serbia, in the same way that the British Empire refers mainly to England? FYROM was indirectly under Serbian rule, so I really don't see where does this pride come from. As for FYROM entering the EU... hmm I don't know... 40% of the people have no jobs, some 50% is below poverty level, and there will almost certainly be a veto from Cyprus and Greece... hmm, could be tough. Well at least FYROM is a superpower (in agricultural sense), right? Miskin 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Greek Statements constantly get blocked and deleted - WHY?

WhY do people have the right to block users, if they edit a pro-greek comment? do you only support the slawo-macedonian attitude? this shares not the free mind of the free encyclopedia wikipedia, both sides should be heard, so that neutral readers can make their own conclusions.such editors who block the truth-loving edits should be blocked and reported to wikipedia. whith your current version the article is not neutral, absolutely pro-slawo-macedonian. let people freely edit the article and after time the slawo-makedonian arguments will quickly vanish. Nestore 16:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Nestore, i don't know if you (or other Greek) have been blocked, but please put your comments at the end of the document, not at the beginning! Of course, nobody should be blocked for expressing its opinion, unless he is posting clearly nonsense or insulting comments. Also, I’m also sure that after time the arguments that are not relevant and based on the truth (no matter whether they are Greek or Macedonian) will vanish.However, you should ask yourself why the edits like your last one are constantly reverted by the Wikipedia users--Bitola 17:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people need to realise, this page isn't about the naming dispute, its purpose is to give information about the nation. There is already an article dedicated to the dispute, and a large majority of edits made by Greeks to this page should be directed there, where they would still be deleted anyway as it is mainly nonsensical rubbish.--Gorast 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to all editors of this article

I would like to appeal to all editors of this very sensitive page. Please, don’t add info in large amounts that are changing completely the look of the article. I know that everyone wants to explain the history the best he can, but regarding the sensitivity of the article, make just minor corrections. Any bigger changes to the article should be previously discussed in the TALK page! I also want to ask the editors to stop adding info to the page that can be viewed as insulting to the readers from the other side. I noticed that, unfortunately, this behavior is commonly practiced in this page. --Bitola 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, you can't say that, demand that, or request that. It goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Yes, no one should or has the right to add point of view text, but anyone has the right to add as much factual and relevant information to any article as he or she desires. After all, our motto is Be Bold!--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My removal

Okay, before someone goes off on the note, I'll make this clear once: There was a template which basically said and did the same thing a few months ago. It was deleted by community consensus because it was a tautology--the statement is true of its own logic-- that Wikipedia does not endorse either side. That is our policy. It doesn't need to be stated in any article to appease any editors, be they Greek or otherwise.--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

It is only disputed by a very vocal few who are blinded by nationalist teachings, mainly Greeks, but also some Macedonians. In that respect, the neutrality of the people who claim the article does not comply to the NPOV policy is easily non-existant on this subject. In the article's current form it clearly does not take any sides, and the tag should be removed as it serves only to mislead those not familiar with the subject.--Gorast 04:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We all agree (I think) that "Macedonia" refers to a wider geographic region. This wider geographic region includes the FYROM, a huge part of Northern Greece (actually more heavily populated than the whole of FYROM) and part of Bulgaria. Hell, in anchient times it included part of India as well!

Keeping this in mind, isn't it a bit selfish for a nation to want to monopolise this name? Imagine for example that it wanted to call itself "Balkania". Wouldn't that be immediately offensive towards the other countries of the Balkan Peninsula? How about calling itself "Europe"! Wouldn't the rest Europeans object to that?

To give another example, imagine Portugal, wanting to change its name to "Iberia" (from the Iberian Peninsula). Wouldn't Spaniards object? What about Sweden change its name to "Scandinavia". You think Norwegians or Fins would be OK? Or even the mighty, huge and most populated country in the world: China, wanting to change its name to "Asia". Wouldn't that offend all other Asian countries?

I think the countries of the world should stop and think a little bit, before recognising this state with the name its leaders want it to be recognised. I think that nation itself should think about what Pandora's box is about to be openned if anybody in the world claims any name they want for their country to be called. -Nikolas

Nikolas, you are wrong. We (Macedonians) have no intention to monopolize the name Macedonia. Republic of Macedonia never disputed the right of Greece to use that name for its northern part. Greece is the one that want to monopolize the name only for its northern part and denies our right to use the same name. Actually, Greece is using the name Macedonia for its northern part only 30 years (before that period the name Macedonia was forbidden in Greece and the northern part of Greece was called “Northern Greece”). But, the Republic of Macedonia is officially using the name Macedonia from 1945 (that is 60 years)! Consider the following example: Belgium has province called Luxembourg (in the same way as Greece has the province called Macedonia). Belgium has the neighboring country called Luxemburg (with the same name as its province) in the same way as you have neighboring country called Macedonia (with the same name as the northern province of Greece). So far, Belgium never disputed the right of Luxembourg to be called with its name, as Greece is disputing the right of our country to be called Macedonia. So, think twice who is monopolizing the name Macedonia. And also, Happy New Year to all people who love my small, but proud and beautiful country - Macedonia!!--Bitola 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bitola, Happy New Year to you too, even in the case you do not love my country. I gave you 4 examples of how it can be offensive for others to monopolise a name of a region (I can give you a few... hundred more -like Australia to "Oceania", South Africa to just Africa, Thailand to Polynesia etc etc) and you only came up with Luxembourg. If you read about Luxembourg and Belgium (why not in Wikipedia), you'll see that these two nations were founded at the same time around 1830 after splitting from The Netherlands.

As for Greece using to call "Northern Greece" our Macedonia, I must say that this whole story doesn't fit. Do you have a fact proving this? Or you just say it because you heard it from someone from your people? My father (65) was taught of the Macedonia district in his elementary school in 1947. Nobody has ever heard of... forbidding the word Macedonia (!!!). Greek Macedonia was liberated from the Turks in the First World War. After that, the Second World War followed, and after that Greece was in civil war (Democrats vs Communists). But, suppose for a moment you are right: Suppose, Greeks didn't want to call it Macedonia for a period of 3 to 5 decades. Does that mean that any neighbor can utilise and monopolise a name and a history behind it that lasts for 3 to 5 MILLENIA and it is all Greek?

Unless ofcourse you doubt that this history is Greek! The very name of Filippos (Filos=friend and ippos=horse) and Alexandros (Alex=proof like in bullet-proof and Andras=Man, meaning the guy was man-proof or invincible by men). Did you know that? Why wasn't he called "Maz^obran" (like your word "gromobran" for lightning arrestor)?

Because the example you gave is a slavic name, and the slavs only started exerting their influence on the Balkans a few centuries after Alexander's death, so of course he would not have had a slav name.

-Nikolas

is Aromanian official language?

Romani and Aromanian in Macedonia, where both languages were recognized as official in the Macedonian constitution of 1991. Is this true? The other languages were Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish, and Serbian. Bonaparte talk 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Aromanians are officially recognized as a national minority in the Republic of Macedonia. They have radio and TV programs on the Macedonian Radio Television, as well as facultative education of their language in the primary schools. Aromanian language can be used as official in the communities where Aromanians are more than 20% of the total population.--Bitola 14:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But do you have the article from constitution to show me exactly? Bonaparte talk 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And how many aromanians (vlachs) there are? Bonaparte talk 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You welcome.In the Republic of Macedonia officially declared as Aromanians (Vlachs) are approximately 8000 citizens. Aromanians (Vlachs) are mentioned in the first sentence of the Macedonian constitution: The citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people, as well as citizens living within its borders who are part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Romany people, the Bosniac people and others taking responsibility for the present and future of their fatherland, aware of and grateful to their predecessors for their sacrifice and dedication in their endeavours and struggle to create an independent and sovereign state of Macedonia, and responsible to future generations to preserve and develop everything that is valuable from the rich cultural inheritance and coexistence within Macedonia, equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - the Republic of Macedonia….They are also mentioned in the following constitution article:The Assembly shall establish a Committee for Inter-Community Relations. The Committee consists of 19 members of whom 7 members each are from the ranks of the Macedonians and Albanians within the Assembly, and a member each from among the Turks, Vlachs, Romas, Serbs and Bosniaks.

--Bitola 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bitola. Can you tell me in percentage how much vlachs they are? I've heard some % but I want to know your opinion. Bonaparte talk 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the official data, the Aromanians are representing 0.4% of the total population. However, they are fully integrated in the Macedonian society and many of them are declaring as a Macedonians, so maybe the real number is 1 or 2 % of the total population.Bitola 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked two different people from Macedonia and they told me 7%. They are macedonians. Not vlachs. What do you say about this percentage? Bonaparte talk 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I already told you everything I know about this issue. Cheers Bitola 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Answers to Nikolas assertions

Nikolas, I think it would be better if you can create a user profile on Wikipedia if you already don’t have one and to sign properly after your edits on the discussion page. About the discussion, you have several assertions and I will try to provide the answers:

1 assertion: Keeping this in mind, isn't it a bit selfish for a nation to want to monopolise this name? Imagine for example that it wanted to call itself "Balkania". Wouldn't that be immediately offensive towards the other countries of the Balkan Peninsula?

My answer: What about United States of America? Isn’t America the name of a whole continent? Following your logic, USA is monopolizing the name of a continent. Moreover, if we follow your logic, then Greece shouldn’t use the name Macedonia at all, because it is also a monopolization of the name. I’m sorry to repeat again that the Republic of Macedonia never disputed the right of Greece to use the term Macedonia for its northern part, Greece is the one that tries to deny our right to use that name.

2 assertion: As for Greece using to call "Northern Greece" our Macedonia, I must say that this whole story doesn't fit. Do you have a fact proving this? Or you just say it because you heard it from someone from your people? My father (65) was taught of the Macedonia district in his elementary school in 1947

My answer: Yes, I have facts and I will provide 2 of them:

In the article [9] written by John Shea in 1997 you can find this:

Peter Hill, professor of Slavonic studies at the University of Hamburg in Germany, makes a similar point: Funnily enough, northern Greece was for many years called just that, "Northern Greece"... and the name Macedonia was considered somehow suspect.... But three years ago that all changed. Now that name, Macedonia, is at the heart of it dispute that has paralyzed the foreign policy of the European Community and brought thousands of people on to the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brussels.

In the article from the Diplomatic observer site [10] you can find this:

Between 1912-13 and 1988, Macedonia of Aegean is officially called North Greece and “the North Greece Ministry was founded for the area, all these shows that Greece itself hasn’t mentioned this area as “Macedonia” for 75 years. Indeed Macedonia of Aegean was called “Northern Greece” until 1988 and after then it began to be called “Macedonia” Macedonia-Thrace” with a code of law. These lands have been called Macedonia for at least 1500 years by the Slavic and Macedonian residents as well as by the Albanian and the Ulahs peoples. On the other hand, not only the Hellenism of Macedonia but the Greece’s historical continuity which is taken back to 4000 years ago is imagination of Greek education policy and its historical perceptions.

3 assertion: Does that mean that any neighbor can utilise and monopolise a name and a history behind it that lasts for 3 to 5 MILLENIA and it is all Greek? Unless ofcourse you doubt that this history is Greek!

My answer:In the same article written by John Shea [11] you can find this:

The name Macedonia was not used until the second century B.C., and it was applied to the country by the Macedonian king, not by a Greek. The term "Macedon' and the expression "land of the Macedons" were used long before that time, though there is debate about the origins of the word "Macedon." Philologists are not certain of its derivation, though Greeks prefer to think that the word comes from Greek. In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek; thus the name the Macedonians used for their land must surely belong to them alone.

While it is true to say that the name Macedonia has been applied to Aegean Macedonia for a long time, "more than 3000 years" is pushing things just a little. Twenty-three hundred to twenty-six hundred years would be closer to the mark. However, most of the territory of the present Republic of Macedonia has also had that name for the same period of time. Although the boundaries of that land called Macedonia have changed from time to time under the rule of the Romans (this includes the period of Byzantium), the Bulgarians, the Serbians, the Turks and the Greeks, all historical analyses, even those emanating from Greeks, show certain territories to have been part of Macedonia since the time of Alexander the Great. Included in these territories are Skopje, Stobi, and Herakleia. (later Monastir/Bitola). These towns come close to the northern and western boundaries of the present Republic of Macedonia. They have been Macedonian since before the great empire. The territory that is now northern Greece has also been an important part of Macedonia since ancient times, though most of this territory was not a part of the first Macedonian kingdom, but was gradually incorporated into that kingdom as Macedonian power grew.

It is fine to say that Macedonia, meaning the history of ancient Macedonia, is an indispensable part of Greece's heritage. Given that the Greeks occupy a major part of ancient Macedonian territory, this seems fair enough. The fact that the ancient Macedonians and Greeks despised each other, and that the Macedonians conquered the Greeks, need not be relevant to this aspect of modern political life. However, it does seem quite paradoxical for Greeks to choose as a national symbol a recently discovered emblem used by the hated overlords of ancient times (the Macedonians). The implication that there is a coherent ethnic group existing today, living only in northern Greece, that we could recognize as "Macedonian"- people who have a strong line of descent from the ancient Macedonians - simply cannot be substantiated.

Nikolas, I’m asking you and other Greek contributors to this article to read more independent articles about the history written by neutral journalist and historians, because it is not correct to supply only Greek point of view on the issue. --Bitola 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There are Greek Macedonian songs that date back to 1913. They celebrate Macedonia's liberation from the Turkish and Slavic threat. This fact alone makes your claims moot. By the way, your "independent articles" are linked to a FYROM propagandist website. It also claims that the Bulgarian Empire of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria was in fact a "Macedonian". Do you see the irony? Miskin 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bitola,

Let's keep our answers short.

1. Thanks for the USA example. USA is NOT monopolising the name. That's why it has US before A. If you had North or Slavic or whatever you feel describes your un-homogenious population BEFORE Macedonia, I would be of those Greeks that would say OK. What I -personally- don't understand is ONLY Macedonia. The strict policy of Greece for NO Macedonia in the title is a diplomatic result of your stubborn foreign policy to be called Macedonia -period. And to avoid any misunderstanding, I would say OK, ONLY if it was absolutely clear from your part that the name has to do ONLY with geography. NOT with ethnicity, NOT with history, NOT with Megas Alexandros, NOT with Vergina and its sun, NOT with absolutely anything else. We understand that you as a multi-ethnicity nation need something in common to keep you united, but you cannot use Greek history to do so, because you are not Greek.

2. I don't need "independent" (???) historians to tell me how my father, his friends and his whole generation were taught Macedonia (within Greek borders) was called. I would make my answer too lengthy if I included texts from other independent historians that say the opposite from yours. Why does it have to be someone else from outside that tells me how he THINKS it was told when my parents and their friends will tell me what their OWN EARS HEARD?

3. Before 1988 when... the ministry was renamed, tell your "independent" guy that I was finishing school. I still have my ATLAS from first grade (1976). Guess what? MACEDONIA with big letters on it (published 1969 and unchanged since). By the way, Northern Greece has TWO DISTRICTS: Macedonia and THRACE. The ministry was renamed to what Northern Greece is COMPOSED OF. We also have STEREA HELLAS, PELOPONISSOS, THESSALIA and IPIROS on the mainland plus Dodekanese, Cyclades, North Aegean Islands and Heptanese. These all are DISTRICTS of the Greek nation.

4. It is as stupid to say that Anchient Macedonians were not Greek because they were the enemies of Anchient Greeks as it is to say that Anchient Spartans or Anchient Thevans were not Greek because they were the enemies of Anchient Athenians. They were ALL Greek, they all spoke Greek and they were fighting each other all the time. They would stop war to participate in the Olympics though, (as all Greeks and ONLY Greeks would) and they would unite to fight some bigger enemy, such as the Persians. My congratulations to the "independent" historian whose text you quote!!! Kindly tell him to take the time to read some Anchient Greek historians (unless ofcourse you think they were biased too because they... anticipated you would come some thousands of years later to claim a Greek name!!!)

5. Philologists are ABSOLUTELY certain that the name Macedonia IS Greek, like they are certain that the names Sparta, Athena, Thiva, Thrace, Ipiros, Lakedemonia etc etc etc are Greek. On top of that, the word MAKEDNOS means long-bodied in Anchient Greek, as first written by Homer in Odyssey, when he was describing a tall tree thousands of years even before the time of Megas Alexandros (was Homer biased too???).

-Nikolas (still not with a user profile, but not for long)

Dear Nikolas,

Greeks are famous by their myths and I understand your fascination with the myth that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Even if that is true, it doesn’t give you a right to tell me who I am. Forgive me, but your intention to tell me who I am, what is my name, my nation, my language, my history are ridiculous for me. You would say OK for me and my country to use the name Macedonia if it has nothing with our ethnicity, history, Great Alexander, Vergina etc. I would say the opposite, Macedonia is our fatherland, we have Macedonian ethnicity, we have Macedonian history, Macedonian language etc. You are talking about your grandfather, parents and their feelings. I will tell you that I’m feeling as a Macedonian, my parents and their friends are feeling as Macedonians, my grandfather and my grandmother are also feeling as Macedonians, they told me that their parents and grandparents were also Macedonians etc. You know what, I have also an atlas from my primary school and, guess what, my country is also called MACEDONIA with big letters. Since I was born, I’m filling as a Macedonian and you can stand on your head, but that will no change my opinion and my identity at all. --Bitola 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Greeks are famous by their myths and I understand your fascination with the myth that ancient Macedonians were Greeks

I heard many times from slavians in fyrom that Macedonians weren't Greeks.However nobody gave me any proof for this.Why should I believe you?Why someone should believe you?The greek users say that Macedonia has 3000 years greek history, based on thousad ancient and recent historical texts,facts,symbols,language etc etc...And the answer from the other side is that all these,are greek myths(!)...and what is your opinion,which hasn't any base??? The only thing that we can't do,is to bring you live Great Alexander to proove that he was Greek.But I am sure that even if that will happened the slavians would say that Alexander is drunk,without-of course searching for alcohol in his blond.

It is very simply to say something-the difficult is to proove it,and Greeks proove every word they say!..The other side just say that this is only a myth(!)So is this a myth,that ancient Macedonians spoke greek?Is this a myth,that ancient Macedonians believed in greek Gods?Is this a myth,that Alaxander united all greeks against Persians?Is this a myth,that only Macedonians could take part in the olympic games,where only greeks could take part?Is this a myth,that the words Makedonia,Alexandros etc. has greek origin?Is this a myth,that slavians came in the region on 6th cent. AD?Is this a myth,that it was Tito's idea to rename the south part of Yugoslavia from Vardarska Bavodina to "Macedonia"?

I think that the fyromians,without any proofs for what they say,live their own myth and I don't understand why they are trying to convice,that they are right!They just say that the "bad" Greeks don't let them use the name they choosed to call themselves.

Maybe after many thousands years,the people will say a myth(like those of Aesopus) that some people in the center of a penislula tried to make a nation,by stealing something from each of their neighbours,but they didn't know that the nations which have no history,have no futur.Any similarity with anything in the story is just coincidense.

Except from the name dispute (I think that the solution now,should be something like "Република на Вардарска Македониja" only for separating greeks and slavians) I think that the two countries have many common thinks and the solution will be good for the two sides.--Makedonas 17:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who were ancient Macedonians?

Of course that you have an illusion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Can’t you see that only Greeks have that opinion and nobody other is supporting your position? You never believe in the independent historians that are telling opposite meaning than yours. Let’s for example look at the following writings presented by the Eugene Borza. If you don’t know who is Eugene Borza, take a look at the following site: [12]. I will present some text from his article presented at the Annual meeting of the American Philological Association [13]:

What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive. On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks.
Self-identity: what did the Macedonians say or think about themselves? Virtually nothing has survived from the Macedonians themselves (they are among the silent peoples of antiquity), and very little remains in the Classical and Hellenistic non-Macedonian sources about Macedonian attitudes.
What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.
What is the nature of cultural expressions as revealed by archaeology? As above we are blessed with an increasing amount of physical evidence revealing information about Macedonian tastes in art and decoration, religion, political and economic institutions, architecture and settlement patterns. Clearly the Macedonians were in many respects Hellenized, especially on the upper levels of their society, as demonstrated by the excavations of Greek archaeologists over the past two decades. Yet there is much that is different, e. g., their political institutions, burial practices, and religious monuments.

I’m little tired arguing with you (Miskin, Makedonas, Nikolas etc) because you don’t want to hear nothing different from you narrow-minded view on the problem and I’m planning to quit for a while this meaningless discussion with you. --Bitola 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bitola,

You seem to like quotes. Get a hold of this:

"For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably." (Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know." (Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 99,3 (Loeb, C F Smith)

"But Alexander (I), proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek; so he contended in the furlong race and ran a dead heat for first place."(Herod. V, 22, 2)

"The Macedonian people and their kings were of Greek stock, as their traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify."(John Bagnell Bury, "A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great", 2nd ed.(1913)

"Clearly, the language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek" (Prof. John C. Roumans Professor Emeritus of Classics Wisconsin University}

"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks."(Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author" In Interview with newspaper TO BHMA)

The speech of Alexander I, when he was admitted to the Olympic games "Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Hellas I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Hellene by descent, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Hellenic cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."(Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45)

It is common for people who live in a lie to think that everybody else is wrong. I am not afraid that you may convince anybody, I am only afraid that you have convinced yourselves. Keep in mind though, the more you hold to this unhistorical and surreal propaganda, the more people will mock you and the more ridicule of yourselves you become!

I created a user account. Now, instead of Nikolas, I am NikoSilver 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is this discussion doing here? If you want to learn about ancient Macedonians have a look at Macedon and its Talk:page. Even if the ancient Macedonians weren't Greek (doubtful), I still wouldn't see the the link with modern Macedonian Slavs. The Slavs came to the region some time in the 6th century AD, where Macedonians were already assimilated with the Byzantine Greeks. Anyway I'm not really willing to waste my time with people who quote FYROM websites. I know the story already, the infamous First Bulgarian Empire was actually a Macedonian one, etc, etc. You need to come up with new material, that stuff is getting boring. Miskin 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The note

Quite frankly, this is a joke. Wikipedia is NPOV without question. No, of course we do not take a position on the naming issue. I don't care if you are Greek or Macedonian or Mongolian, there's something blatantly wrong about it. It doesn't matter if consensus was supposedly established "2 years" ago. The deletion of the template confirms that the community by and large does not want this type of note, nor does it condone it. And, of course, the UN's decisions and resolutions have no basis or power here, we do not abide by them, and they are not in any way in authority over this project, but the inclusion in that location of the statment suggests otherwise. It's fine to include the note in the article that the UN uses the name FYROM; I'm not in any way disputing that, but it should be part of the article, not a note which suggests we blindly follow UN decisions (which are POV in and of themselves).

This article suffers from a lack of mature editors. It represents the way Wikipedia's system of compromise can fail when this page turns into a soapbox for Greeks and Macedonians to yell at each other about supposed ancient ethnic groups and language relations, subjects at which any of us, including me, are hardly experts. By clinging to childish notions of who owns a name and attempting to boss others around against their will makes Wikipedia look bad. The final say in the matter ought to have been long ago that the common name by an overwhelming majority in English is the use Macedonia, which nothing will ever change, hence my comment, "get a grip" (as in of reality!). However, if every controversial article on Wikipedia doesn't need such a note, then why does this one? There really is nothing special about this controversy. We should work together, not tear each other apart. It's time for some of us to be big, let go of our pride, and work to make Wikipedia better, which is simply the obligation of each and every editor here. Therefore, the note does not belong on this article and the Wikipedia community as a whole will never condone such things. Quite simply, it just makes us look bad. Again, no problem with including the UN's resolution or the fact that there's a naming dispute or a link to the article; but, lets be mature, do the right and honorable thing, and put the facts where they belong: in NPOV text which strengthens the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. (I couldn't help it. The above comment summarizes all of my previous thoughts about this problem, given at various talk pages.). Also, there is a specific policy about naming conflicts - Wikipedia:Naming conflict. --FlavrSavr 03:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. Bitola 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since I've gotten little comment (except one support!), the note will be removed 24 hours from now if the situation has not changed.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Greek and I'll tell you another story

"New Democracy", a center-right wing party that was in power in the early nineties - and it again is now -, used the situation to gain acceptance. "We'll solve the macedonia naming problem soon" or sth they said. They didn't solve or changed anything whatsoever. "Pasok" the center-left wing party used that result for it's own propaganda about how horribly New Democracy failed and stuff. There were tv spots about it 24/7. Greeks here that remember 1993 know what I'm talking about. I suspect that the naming issue would be much less important in Greece if those two parties weren't fighting for votes.

ps. I've posted this story to the proper foreign relations of the republic discussion page as well but it seems lots of people like to make a mess about the naming issue all over the place, forgive me if I contribute to the mess, but at least here I sign it properly --Fs 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New proposal about the design of the article

I’m admitting a new proposal about the look of the article that I believe can chill out the edit war that is occurring for months here. Namely, I’m deeply convinced (I believe other editors have noticed that as well) that this edit war is triggered by the naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. That causes different editors to make different changes on the same sentences that are related with the naming dispute and it causes the recent look of the article that, we must confess, is really bad written.

For example, we have the naming issue in the first section:

The Republic of Macedonia¤(Macedonian: Република Македонија) is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. It is commonly referred to as Macedonia, but this can cause confusion with the wider geographical region of Macedonia. Due to a dispute between the governments of the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, the United Nations refer to the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ)) since it has become a member state in 1993. The UN, the European Union and other international organisations as well as individual countries use that designation. Other countries now recognise the Republic under its constitutional name for bilateral diplomatic relations.However, since then the country has been embroiled in a prolonged political dispute with Greece concerning its use of the name "Macedonia". Nonetheless, this situation has not prevented the two countries engaging in military and security co-operation, cross-border investments and cultural exchanges.

Also in the International relations section:

The Republic of Macedonia (with the provisional reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") is…

The Republic of Macedonia, since its independence in 1991, has been embroiled in a dispute with Greece and Bulgaria over the country's official name, national symbols, and constitution. One of Greece's northern regions and Bulgaria's western regions areas also called Macedonia; overall, many Greeks object to the Republic using the name "Macedonia" for its constitutional name, and many Bulgarians object to its using the term "Macedonian" in reference to its language because they view it as a Bulgarian dialect.The dispute over the Republic's national symbols and constitution was resolved in an agreement reached between the Republic and Greece in 1995, but no solution has yet been reached on the naming issue. Athens has also accepted for the Republic to include the term "Macedonia / Makedonja" but only if it is accompanied by a qualitative that distinguishes it from the Greek province of Macedonia.

Also in the Ethnicities section:

The Republic of Macedonia is an ethnically diverse country. About 64% of its population - some 1.3 million people - belong to people how call themselves Macedonians, people of dominantly Slavic origin; their ethnic identity is disputed in name by Greece and in affiliation by Bulgaria.

I deeply believe that it is not correct to mention the naming dispute in every section of the article and for that reason I created a new section called “Naming dispute” and put everything related to the dispute there (and removed it from the other sections). I hope that this will be accepted by Macedonians and Greeks and it will introduce a good starting point for future improvements of the article. --Bitola 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Asteraki, please do not introduce again the naming dispute in the sections other than the section called "Naming dispute". As I can see, you are returning back the disputed content in the first section [14].I deliberately created the "Naming dispute" section because the mentioning of the dispute problem in the other sections caused the edit war that is going on for the past several months. Otherwise I will assume that you are doing that deliberately in order to start again the edit war around this article. Bitola 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I am new in this discusion. All I want to say is this. Wikipedia is NOT the place where you can promote your propaganda Wikipedia is NOT the place where you deal affairs between countries. The northern neighboor country of Greece (selfnamed Macedonia, Rebublic of Macedonia) with the international name F.Y.R.O.M. should be written in the English version of Wikipedia with the name that is accepted from both sides and from International organizations. The name FYROM means what it means and it doesn't satiafy Athens and Skopje but it is the least painful solution for both, up to this time at least. We are not here to solve who is wrong and who is right. It's side believes is right. I suggest to leave the politicians find the solution, when they will find it. From now on when I refer to we, I will mean all the users who don't like what is written to this site. We should agree that the name that should be shown in the english (international) version of wikipedia should be the international name of the country. In individual language related sites we should follow the behavior of the countries that have this language as official. As I said before, we are NOT diplomats and Wikipedia is NOT the place where you deal affairs between countries. If we don't do these thinks every user that will come around this site will edit it accourding to his beliefs and we will end in a neverending story. Language related issue: The people of FYROM name the language of their country as Macedonian. This is also sth that insults Greeks but as long as there is no alternative proposal (officially), I suggest to leave it as it is. This is my suggestion, up to the day, whenever this comes, where diplomats will come to an agreement. Panos78 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

F.Y.R.O.M is not the official, internacional name of the country. It is used in several international organizations, including UN and EU, but the Republic of Macedonia is the official and constitutional name of the country and therefore it is used in the article. The Republic of Macedonia accepted to be named as F.Y.R.O.M in the mentioned international organizations under pressure of Greece, but the country never changed its constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia). The reference FYROM also insults the Macedonians, but it is still present in the article. Most countries in the world are using the country's official, constitutional name in the bilateral communication with Macedonia, including the United States, China, Russia, several members of the EU and all neigboring countries of Macedonia except Greece: Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria and Albania. Wikipedia does not represent the UN or EU and there is no need here to use the insulting F.Y.R.O.M reference for your neigboring country. Goran

Maybe we should define what international name means! For me international name of a country is the name that this country is recognized by international organizations. As you said "Rebublic of Macedonia" is your constitutional name. But it is not the international name of the country because: 1. It is not the name that United Nations is using 2. It in not the name that European Council is using 3. It in not the name that European Union is using 4. Your country accepted the name FYROM for international affairs with the agreement in 1995. Even if 100 sth countries has recognized your constitutional name, this doesn't mean that your constitutional name is your international name.

The hole problem has to do with violation of copyright of the name Macedonia. It's side claims that has the copyright of the name. When this problem will be solved from diplomacy it will be pointless to discuss about it. But now that this is under negotiation, we should write to this article what is already been agreed.

It is very hard to realize and to be totally convinced what represents the official name of a country. The FYROM is a temporary reference used in the UN, EU and other international organizations, but that cannot represent a proof that it is the official name of the country. For example, the US Department of State recognizes Republic of Macedonia as official name and it can be checked on their site:[15] The decision made by USA to support that name as official was presented by many media organizations, for example, ABC News: [16]

Also, many online encyclopedias use informal names in the articles about some country. For example, our neighboring country Greece is called under that name in the English speaking countries. The official name of the country is Hellenic Republic, but the Wikipedia article about this country uses the informal name: Greece.Another example is Encyclopedia Britannica online (http://www.britannica.com). If you enter Hellenic Republic in their search box you will find their article about Greece that again uses the informal name, not the country official name. [17] Encyclopedia Britannica also don’t use the reference FYROM for the Greek northern neighbor. If you enter the word Macedonia in the Encyclopedia Britannica you will see that first ten results are about the country named Macedonia. You can check their article about the Republic of Macedonia:[18]. Bitola 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bitola you are wrong again. Most anchient people have many names, simply because every other used to adapt their name in their own language. For Example:

1.Deutsch (themselves), 2.Tedesco (by Italians), 3.Allemagne (by French), 4.German (by English) 1.Hebrew, 2.Israeli, 3.Jews 1.French, 2.Gaulle 1.Hellas, 2.Greece, 3.Yunan (by Turks and Arabs), 4.Helip (by Chinese) NikoSilver 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop!

This bickering is pointless. Please, control yourselves! You are acting like children. Wikipedia isn't here to settle any naming dispute. Panos is right, Wikipedia is no place to introduce your own point of view. However, let's be honest with ourselves people. No one in the English language calls it the FYROM. No one calls it the RoM. We call it Macedonia, plain and simple. Wikipedia's policy is to go with the most widespread name in use. The decisions of international organizations or any government have little bearing here (although I'm personally willing to stay at Republic of Macedonia just for stability's sake). We operate according to our own policies. Personally, I agree with Bitola that the Naming dispute, since it is so central to all things concerning Macedonia, should get its own section. It shouldn't be mentioned without an important reason again. And for goodness' sake, the note has to go. This has gone on long enough. It's time for us all to act like mature and responsible people.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Greek reader, I'd like to suggest to fellow greeks to respect the fact this is not a forum or a newsgroups flamewar and there is a "foreign relations" own article and a small section in this article that can have information on the dispute. I'd like also to remind you that this Republic is not the only non-Greek place to have the name Macedonia, look at the disambiguation page for the word. In addition, don't forget that "New Democracy"'s and "Pasok"'s (these are parties) fight over this in the early nineties, as elections were too frequent at that time and vote haunting seemed to be their main occupation. If for whatever reason this matter affects our National security or whatever, at least keep it civilized. The rest of us don't want to look like you because of you. -- some guy

I've come in completely from the outside, and after a scan of this page (and a nod in approval of naryathegreat's opinion), I have had a go at rewriting the first paragraph to cover all the naming eventualities. Hope I haven't offended anyone. Erath 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The naming dispute with Greece already has a long section of its own. There is no reason to have it dominate the lead paragraph as well. The lead of any lengthy article should not focus on a single section or single controversy when the article is about many other things as well. Jonathunder 20:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathunder, no one controversy should dominate the intro. In fact, info about Macedonia is what should dictate content in this article. I believe that basically, the naming dispute is really only a very small part of the topic of Macedonia.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like again to remind that I created the "Naming dispute" section because it is not correct to mention this dispute in every section of the article. The purpose of the article about the Republic of Macedonia is to describe all aspects of the country in the same manner as other countries are described on Wikipedia. The article is NOT intended to focus on the naming dispute. Now there is a whole section about that and therefore I ask again all editors to put everything related to the naming dispute in that section and NOT in the other sections, including the overview.Bitola 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I suggest that all editors honor the request, myself included.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Given that the introduction does elaborate about the various names assigned to the country throughout its many lives, I thought it slightly biased that it did not include FYROM upfront (given its prominence/usage in the international community and in references) and made mild edits to reflect that. (I'm also well aware of the discussions herein.) However, appropriate mentions needn't usurp other topics/mentions in this overview article and agree that we shouldn't elaborate about it in this article ad nauseum: there are subarticles and sections for that.

That being said (and after discussion with another editor who had concerns), I've since made minor editions that dually embrace these concerns. Namely, I've included a ^{piped/wikified superscript note (*)} to the initial sentence/reference – this is slight, yet evident and germane – and refined the hatnotes in the appropriate politics section. Any other mentions regarding the naming issue should be edited out unless they are germane. And yes: let's stop the 'bickering.' E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

FYROM

I remove this content [19][20] Why, ( Bomac - Can't sleep, clown will eat me )

In July 1995, Greece lodged a request with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for exclusive intellectual property rights to the Vergina Sun [21] [22] [23], [24].
And i`m from Greek Macedonia , i´m Greek Macedonians (Μακεδόνας Makedónas) and i know what is truth und what ist propaganda...!
What is your problem?
Wiki isn´t propaganda platform!!!--Asteraki 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I appreciate your knowledge. But the Vergina sun flag is a part of the Macedonian history, too (as it was the national

flag of the independent republic, and not to mention Ancient Macedonia, which many Greeks also claim that have so-called exclusive rights over it). Greece can lodge a request for exclusive property rights over Europe, but that is not a barrier not to put the Vergina sun flag here, as a vital part of the Macedonian history. Let me remind you (as you said before): Wiki isn't propaganda platform, but it's a platform for facts. Only with that you write "FYROM", you are spreading propaganda, caus', nevertheless, FYROM still contains the word "Macedonia". Regards, Bomac 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See you http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/articles/?p=2

When independence was obtained in 1992, the flag of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia was retained until it was replaced with the flag with the so-called sun of Vergina.

The Vergina Sun was found on a gold larnax in the main burial chamber of Philip, located at Vergina, Imathia, Greece. The larnax (gold casket) which Andronikos identified as containing the remains of Philip II has a symbol of a sun or star on its lid, and this Vergina Sun has been adopted as a symbol of Greek Macedonia.[[25]]

The Vergina Tombs - (The Hellenic Ministry of Culture) Museum in Greece [[26]]

The Present Flag adopted was adopted in 5 October 1995 and has been in use until now.

Meaning of the Flags - A Political Glimpse

The evolution of the FYROM flags stems from polical movements in the region. This is based chiefly on events that occurred in the 1940’s. As is evident, the idea of a “Macedonia” to these Slavic people came quite late, and most of us were alive when this occurred. This is quite obviously not the same people that fought with Alexander the Great. Those people lie South, in Macedonia Greece.

How the Idea Began: STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION (G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, T. Kostov) The Kremlin, 7 June 1946 Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Belarus either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that Belarusian people did in fact exist. …

Thank you! --Asteraki 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the Macedonian flags is certainly not a Political Glimpse (It is only in the pro-Greek propaganda reports, compositions etc.). As you can see, these flags are dominated by the red and the yellow colour. The red symbolises the blood Macedonian freedom fighters gave strugling for independent Macedonia. The yellow Sun symbolises the freedom of today's Republic of Macedonia. Yes, the Vergina Sun symbol was founded on the tomb of Philip, but what makes you think that Vergina was a Greek town? Is that the "studies" of greek historians? Or should I say Evangelos Kofos? Bomac 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Bomac:

Yea! You are right! Maz^obran's father, Ljubovkonj, was an ancestor of the Slavs who came in the area around 600 AD.

Note for those who don't speak slavobulgaronic: "Maz^-obran" is "Αλεξ-ανδρος" ("Alex-andros" or "Man-proof") and "Ljubov-konj" is "Φιλ-ιππος" ("Fil-ippos" or "Horse-friend")

And what do you say about the surname Miller in My Big Fat Greek Wedding? :-))) Bomac 10:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I say that it is a very nice joke that exaggerates the FACT that 25.6% of the English vocabulary originates from Greek (apart from the scientific and medical terms which are 100% Greek). Your point?NikoSilver 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Slavs were an exception to the fact that only Greeks would participate in the Olympic games, so Megas Alexandros and his athletes did participate and made a speech too. It is a detail, ofcourse, that in his speech he greeted his co-patriot Greeks and tried to assemble them against the common Persian enemy.

"Megas Alexandros" at first was called "Filhellen". It is a term Ancient Greeks gave to a foreigner. So, what's the problem? Bomac 10:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please present your source stating that he was called "Filhellen" (which anyway means Greek-Friend and is not necessarily given to foreigners). I, therefore, suggest, that if you don't know Greek, don't use it as an arguement.NikoSilver 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly know what that means. It means that he is "friend of the Greeks". It doesn't mean that he is actually a Greek. Bomac 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Anchient Macedonian language was not Anchient Greek, like Cretan or Cypriotic or Pontiac (nowdays) is not Greek due to pronounciation and vocabulary differencies, and Spartan, or Thevan or Corinthian etc was not Anchient Greek because they had pronounciation and vocabulary differencies from the nowdays official version of Anchient Greek which is how they spoke it in Athens (Attic Dialect).

Dear naryathegreat, Erath and Jonathunder. You can see now clearly, from what Bomac wrote, that these people want much more than the name. They want the history, the heroes and the whole glory behind them. How would you like it if some people claimed that Shakespeare, King Arthur or the Duke of Wellington were e.g. Argentinians? Because, you know, it is that obvious what a lie that is. NikoSilver 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, people, we were talking now about the flag which is settled on this article. Don't try overload this issue. And please, emotions away, facts here. Bomac 10:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is right. We are talking about the flag, so the fact that Megas Alexandros was Greek means that the Vergina Sun is Greek which in turn means that you have no more right than e.g. the Mexicans to use or reproduce it. Sorry for the over-simplified analysis but your brain seems unable to take 3 logical steps.NikoSilver 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather say the opposite - your hardcored nationalistic brain blinds you, and you are desperate to search facts in the Greek mythologised history. Bomac 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, to make the long story short, listen to your own people:

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians." Quote from FYROM'S President Mr.Kiro Gligorov.(from the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35.)

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)."Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.(from the Toronto Star newspaper, March 15, 1992)

22 January 1999: FYROM'S Ambassador in Washington, Mrs. Ljubica Acevshka, gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. At the end of her speech answering questions Mrs. Acevshka said: "We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great." "Greece is FYROM'S second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language."

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

And if this is not enough for you:

"For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably." (Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know." (Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 99,3 (Loeb, C F Smith)

"But Alexander (I), proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek; so he contended in the furlong race and ran a dead heat for first place."(Herod. V, 22, 2)

"Clearly, the language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek" (Prof. John C. Roumans Professor Emeritus of Classics Wisconsin University}

"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks."(Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author" In Interview with newspaper TO BHMA)

Please stop ridiculing yourselves by supporting such monstrous LIES. NikoSilver 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to read "The Macedonian knot". It is a book from a german expert, not Macedonian. There you can clearly look-on the dirty games your "historians" play, which result with mythologised history of Greece (like Kofos). Bomac 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect,Bomac,all u are doing is simply reproducting propaganda.NikoSilver has provided far enough proof that Ancient Macedonians and Alexander were Greek,and all u say is that the greeks historians play a 'dirty game'.I wonder if u think the same for the ancient greek historians too:was Herodotus and the others forced to say that macedonians are greek?!instead of mentioning a modern historian(whose apparently u do not mention the name)-i am talking about the writer of "The Macedonian knot"-use the ethnographic and linguistic material that was gathered by the ancient historians.everyone will agree that they new better!--Hectorian 13:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who were ancient Macedonians (again)

1. It is obvious that many editors are taking the Macedonia dispute emotionally. I understand the fascination by the ancient Macedonians, but, I think that it is not correct to see the history just from the one side. For example, NikoSilver presents "history" facts that are completely taken from the one of the leading Greek nationalist sites.

I once said that I would not involve in the pointless discussions about who were ancient Macedonians and that this issue should be left to the historians, but regarding the repeated attempts to force the Greek view on the history, I will again provide several sentences taken from the sites that are neutral by my opinion.

The website is called Livius and it provides articles about the ancient history. It is maintained by the Holland historian Jona Lendering (more info about the author is present on the first page of the website). There is a lengthy article about Ancient Macedonia: [27] and I think it provides an excellent, neutral description. I will present just a few sentences:

2. ...There are also Macedonian names that have no Greek parallel (Arridaeus or Sabattaras)… In many semi-literate societies, there is a difference between the spoken and the written language. It would not be without parallel if a Macedonian, when he wanted to make an official statement (or curse someone really profoundly), preferred decent Greek instead of his native tongue. Thirdly, almost all our sources are written in Greek, and it was a common practice in the Greek world to hellenize foreign names….The fact that Greek sources use Greek names for Macedonian people and deities does not prove very much about the Macedonian language … For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian". The Macedonian king Alexander the Great was not understood by the Greeks when he shouted an order in his native tongue and the Greek commander Eumenes needed a translator to address the soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

3. The Macedonians did not speak a Slavic language, which belongs to an altogether different branch of Indo-European, called Balto-Slavo-Germanic. Macedonian and Greek were related but different languages. .. Finally, it must be stressed that, unlike modern politicians and some modern scholars argue, language says not much about ethnicity. (People can speak Frisian and have a Dutch passport, whereas people speaking Dutch can live in Belgium and Surinam and feel offended when they are called Dutch.)

4 …These years were decisive for the development of the Greek and Macedonian self-image. Until then, they had probably seen each other as different but related nations; after 479, relations worsened and two new cultural and ethnic identities started to grow. Darius and Xerxes had grouped the Macedonians of the plain into one political unit with the mountain tribes, and Alexander kept it this way. At the same time, the Greeks, who had only been united by religion, their legendary cooperation during the Trojan War, and their language, started to recognize that they also shared their cooperation in the Persian War. As former allies of Xerxes, the Macedonians could not be Greeks.

5. Of course, the separate development of Macedonia and the Greek cities did not prevent close ties. Greece needed the timber and cereals that Macedonia exported and Alexander needed support to control the mountain tribes. He tried to deny the increasing differences by calling himself philhellenos ("friend of the Greeks"), and claimed that his family descended from the Greek city of Argos (text), a claim that was recognized by the authorities at the Olympic Games. Still it must be noted that the title philhellenos itself implies that the nation that Alexander represented was not Greek (no Greek king needed to call himself "friend of the Greeks"). Alexander also claimed that he had never been fully loyal to his Persian overlord, but this is contradicted by his behavior during the war, by the marriage alliance, and -as late as the 460's- by his support of Themistocles, who had been exiled by the Athenians and was on the run to Persia.

6. Men like Alexander and his successors, who had received a Greek education and sometimes claimed to descend from legendary Greek heroes, were responsible for the expansion of Greek culture to the east. They accepted the Greeks as partners in rule. At the same time, the Greeks accepted the Macedonians as one of the Greek nations. What in fact happened was the creation of a new type of Greekness. One was not only born as Greek, but could also become a Greek by accepting a Greek education. The Macedonians were the first ones to be assimilated, but Egyptians, Jews, and Babylonians followed, and later, Romans and Gauls were also accepted as "culture Greeks". Bitola 13:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1. And since when is it a crime to produce quotes by whatever kind of site IF THE QUOTES ARE ACCURATE? -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Why didn't you include the rest of the text from your site? Here it is:

"Now this happens in polemical contexts and is certainly exaggerated, but the statements need to refer to some kind of linguistic reality. So, there is a problem." -NikoSilver 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Arridaeus: [28] check the letters on the coin with his name. -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabattaras: [29] analysis by a neutral site.-NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

3. If they did not speak a Slavic language but a "related" to Greek language then WHY ON EARTH DO YOU USE ANCHIENT MACEDONIAN SYMBOLS, SUCH AS THE VERGINA SUN? WHY DO YOU CLAIM ALEXANDER'S ETHNICITY? Don't you know that you weren't even around in the area until more than 1.000 years later in 600AD? Since when is it your business to prove if Alexander was a Greek brother or a Greek cusin? What is YOUR profit out of proving that Alexander wasn't Greek? -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4. UNTRUE Since there were other Greek allies to Xerxes too. Like the Thevans for example. The Spartans were fighting Xerxes, while the Athenians were fighting the Greek allies of Xerxes. Do you suppose that Thiva city (80Km from Athens) was not Greek too? Check it out: [30] -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

5. See how serious these arguements are: Megas Alexandros conquerred the whole known world and... he needed help by the other Greeks "to control the mountain tribes"! -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Again: "Philhellen" (Φιλέλλην) in Anchient Greek means Greek-Friend. Megas Alexandros was called Philhellen by the Thevan poet Pindaros (only written encounter of the "Philhellen" characterisation for Alexandros). Pindaros, also called Philhellens: Jason of Feron (Ιάσων των Φερών) and Evagoras of Cyprus (Ευαγόρας της Κύπρου). Therefore "Philhellen" in Anchient Greek (as in Modern) means Philopatris (Φιλόπατρις) or simply Patriot.-NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Finally: If you don't know Greek history, DON'T use it. Or simply STOP USING BOOMERANGS! You only need to read the END of the site that you quote to get an idea. Do so: [31] -NikoSilver 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to provide you neutral views on the history by eminent historians, but, of course, you will say that they are all liars. Even if somehow Alexander the Great itself tells you that he was not Greek, you will not believe that. I really don’t know why I waste my time discussing with someone who doesn’t want to listen and repeats again and again the same old mistaken and boring story. Bitola 08:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bitola, ofcourse I didn't expect a decent answer from you. Just don't edit back my responses all together so as to create confusion. Keep them on a subject by subject basis. And if you find the courage, edit your answers just below them. ---NikoSilver 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I kindly asked you not to put your “wisdom” between my comments and you could show a little culture and respect my right to edit my own text as I want. I put numbers before my paragraphs and your responses so everyone can see the relation between my text and your responses. Bitola 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think numbering is better than what your friend Bomac did in my notes in the article right above. That is how I decided to do the same in yours. Now for the point of this discussion, is there anything you can say -or- will we continue the "way of editing" talk? --NikoSilver 11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that everyone can see my (and your) view on the Ancient Macedonians origin from what I (and you) posted so far, so for now I would prefer not to continue the bickering.Bitola 12:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No bickering whatsoever. Kindly respond to my question in note #3 though. Also, read the neutral views by the eminent historian at the end of site you quoted as I suggest in note #6. -NikoSilver 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you are pointing that I have no further arguments and that is why I don’t answer to your responses. The real reason is that I don’t want to end up in an endless discussion with you. But, because you are so pushy, here are my responses to your responses… This time I would use several sentences written by Ernst Badian (Department of History, Harvard University). His article about Greeks and Macedonians is too lengthy: [32] and I will use just a little from it.

1 I’m trying to provide evidence by neutral authors from non-Macedonian sources. I object your evidence, regardless true or not, because it is completely taken from Greek sites that are trying to proof the Greek origin of Ancient Macedonians.

2. I didn’t include the rest of the article I used because it is too lengthy. However, I provided a link to the site and suggested to all to read it as a whole([33]). About your comment: check the letters on the coin with his name (you are suggesting that use of Greek alphabet is a proof of nationality), I would use following Badian’s comment: In this case, unfortunately, as every treatment of the problem nowadays seems to show, discussion has become bedevilled by politics and modern linguistic nationalism: the idea that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that, conversely, a common language means a common nationhood--which is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The Kultursprache of ancient Macedonians, as soon as they felt the need for one, was inevitably Greek, as it was in the case of various other ancient peoples. There was no feasible alternative…

"When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ..., he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, biding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions”. …Now, Xennias' name at once shows him to be a Macedonian. Since he was in Ambiance' entourage, he was presumably a Macedonian of superior status, who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. He was the man who could be trusted to transmit Ambiance' message. This clearly shows that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian, if one wanted to be sure (as Ambiance certainly did) that they would understand. And--almost equally interesting-- he did not address them himself, as he and other commanders normally addressed soldiers who understood them, nor did he send a Greek. The suggestion is surely that Macedonian was the language of the infantry and that Greek was a difficult, indeed a foreign, tongue to them. We may thus take it as certain that, when Alexander used Macedonian in addressing his guards, that too was because it was their normal language, and because (like Ambiance) he had to be sure he would be understood…

3. You are asking what is my benefit of proving that Alexander wasn’t Greek. I will tell you that what I like the most is truth, the real truth, not the nationalistic one that causes one country to force another, neighbouring country to change its name for something happened several thousands years ago.

4. This claim was not mine, it is a fact provided by a historian. E. Badian also says this: There is no evidence whatsoever of any Macedonian claim to a Greek connection before the Persian War of 480-479 B.C… As we have seen, no Macedonian (king,baron,or commoner) appears in the Olympic victor lists. Nor do we find the Macedonian people ever regarded as a political entity, transacting business with Greek states.… The Macedonians as such do not appear, any more than, for example, the Persians or the Thracians do. We have to wait until the time of Antigonus Doson, it seems, before the Macedonians are attested as a people in the political sense. This in itself, of course, may not be relevant to the issue of their presumed "Hellenism," any more than the king's presence at a congress was to his. For obvious reasons, congresses were political meetings, and attendance at them would be ruled by political needs and convenience. The king of Macedon would be asked to send representatives, just as the king of Persia did, when the Greek states though this desirable or even when he himself did. There is no record of tests by Hellanodikai at such meetings. It does, however, show that for political purposes no difference was seen between Macedonians and (say) Thracians and Persians, i.e., other nations under monarchical rule. This may have been a contributing factor in unwillingness to recognize Macedonians as Greek.

5. E.Badian: We find him described in the lexicographers, who go back to fourth-century sources, as Philhellen--surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek. No king recognized as Greek, to my knowledge, was ever referred to by that epithet.. Characteristically for Alexander despite his thorough Greek education and obviously genuine interest in Greek literature, was nevertheless a Macedonian king... The Demosthenes in its Third Philippic (9.30 f.) claims that suffering inflicted on Greeks by Greeks is at least easier to bear than that now inflicted by Philip, who is not only not a Greek and has nothing to do with Greeks, but is not even a barbarian from a place it would be honorable to name--a cursed Macedonian, who comes from where it used to be impossible even to buy a decent slave.. In these tirades we find not only the Hellenic descent of the Macedonain people (which few seriously accepted) totally denied, but even that of the king. It is not even mentioned merely in order to be rejected: the rejection is taken as a matter of course…As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, there was (as far as we can see) no division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the various myths that had at various times issued from the court and its Greek adherents, perhaps ever since the time of Alexander I, and demonstrably ever since the time of Perdiccas II.

6. As I said before: read the whole article, not just the end of the article.

NikoSilver, I really don’t intend to continue this endless session. The article is already 145 kb long (Wikipedia suggests the size smaller than 50 kb) and If we continue this way, we could block the Wikipedia server. Why don’t you just simply accept the fact that there are many modern historians (Eugene Borza, Peter Green, Werner Jaeger, Ulrich Wilcken, N.G.L.Hammond, A.B.Bosworth etc) considering the Ancient Macedonians as a distinct nation from Ancient Greeks? Bitola 13:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that whoever the Ancient Macedonians were, they have nothing to do with the modern ethnic Macedonians. Or, as the ethnic Macedonian president Kiro Gligorov eloquently put it on 26 February 1992 at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe: We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. :-)))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kiro Gligorov should not be taken as a reliable source, science can tell everything. Regards and... LOL... Bomac 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Missed me? I am NikoSilver 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) and I think you need a few answers. The numbering system continues:

1. It is obvious that you are obsessed. You say and I quote: I object your evidence, regardless true or not. I think you just object whatever suits your ill-minded cause, whatever the excuse. Speak TO THE POINT. You may answer to the quotes but I need not excuse myself for the site where I got them. However, I think you have simply NOTHING TO SAY. I think the readers of this page have definitely figured you out. I expect their comments on that.

2a. You did not include the rest of the article because it didn't suit you. YOU ACTUALLY DELETED THE LAST SENTENCE, while you included all the rest. You can do the same with the following text to understand what I mean: You are a liar! That would be an insult, if it wasn't exaggerated. You say you urged everybody to read the link you provided, just as an excuse, because you really know that nobody is going to do it.

2b. Badian's quotes are supporting the fact that Greek is a huge language with a great many deal of dialects. Even today, most Athenians do not understand other Greeks when they speak their traditional homeland Greek in their traditional accents. The examples are endless: Greek-Cypriotic, Greek-Pontiak, Greek-Cretan and so on. I myself had a Cretan commander in the army and I could not understand him all the time. Furthermore, the particular commands that Alexander gave, were just strange as they were perceived by those who heard them. You know there are some hundreds of other quotes (such as the ones you... object because I took them from a nationalistic -as you put it- site). So, whatever serves you, no matter how small and insignificant it is -particularily after you have to twist it too- you call it impartial and NEUTRAL, while whatever is huge and important -particularily if it has been quoted directly by Megas Alexandros or others who wrote it at that time- you call it nationalistic and a myth. I think the readers can understand how tight your position is. I expect their comments for that too.

3. You don't answer what your benefit is out of proving Megas Alexandros not being Greek. Your logic is simple and I will answer for you, so that the readers can understand:

PHASE 1. You call yourselves Macedonian

PHASE 2. You try to prove anchient Macedonians were not Greeks

PHASE 3. Who's gonna know the difference from you people and the true Macedonians?

PHASE 4. You inherit a different people's glorious history, despite the fact that you came 1.000 years later than when this history actually happened. Again, I would like to know what the other readers think.

4. Your answer is beside the point, to deflect the conversation. The point was that THERE WERE OTHER GREEK ALLIES TO XERXES TOO apart from the early Macedonians (who actually were neutral, which is far from ally). Badian, as well as you, try to support that being "ally" to Xerxes makes you non-Greek. Well, you are both simply wrong, since Greeks were fighting each-other all the time. Once more, I would love to read other reader's comments on that matter too.

5. Again, your answer is beside the point, to deflect the conversation. Your point was that if someone is a Phil-Hellen (Greek-friend) he cannot be Greek. My answer was that there were also others, 100% Greeks that were called Philhellens at the time by the same poet who called Megas Alexandros as such. To answer me, instead, you provide a comment by Badian, who in turn provides a quote by Dimosthenes. I would think that if the quote is true, Dimosthenes just wanted to degrade and insult Megas Alexandros at the time. Furthermore, by including this quote, you accept that Megas Alexandros was so eager of being Greek, that he made a whole plot to change his ancestry. Well, I think this is really rubbish. I think that the readers may have something to say about that too.

6. I asked you to read the end of the article. I have received no comments, therefore I will include it, for others to know what your neutral guy thinks about you (pardon me for including only the sentences I like, but you were the teacher of that, weren't you?) Ah, for those who want the whole article, the link is here:[34]:

...After the Second World War, Serbia was the most powerful state in the Yugoslav federation, and the Yugoslav leader Tito tried to counterbalance Serbia's hegemony by giving Macedonia some autonomy, arguing that the Macedonians were an ancient nation and were no Serbs. (In other words, Tito recognized that the earlier policy of forced Serbianization had failed.) Another motive was Tito's hope to incite a revolt in Greek Macedonia, which might result in the annexation of Thessalonica as Yugoslavia's southern port...

During the Cold War, Yugoslavia tried to remain out of the conflict between East and West. Bulgaria, however, was part of the Soviet Alliance, and every time the relations between Sofia and Belgrade deteriorated, anti-Yugoslav propaganda was directed at the Yugoslav republic of Macedonia by the Bulgarians. They also stressed that the inhabitants were no Serbs. As a result of all this, nationalist ideas that had existed among some early twentieth-century Slavs living in Macedonia, were kept alive.

Like all nationalists of all nations in the world, those in Macedonia had thought about the origin of their nation. Of course they had a Slavic heritage, which meant that they were related to the Bulgarians and Serbs, and had -according to most scholars- settled on the Balkan peninsula in the Early Middle Ages. However, the Macedonian nationalists claimed that the Slavs had always lived on the southern Balkans, and they sought arguments to prove that the language spoken by the ancient Macedonians was in fact an early form of Slavic. These ideas were -to put it mildly- highly controversial, and were disputed by historians from modern Greece, who claimed that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek (cf. our discussion above).

After the end of the Cold War, Yugoslavia disintegrated and in 1991, its southernmost republic became independent. This would not have caused great problems, but the new state demanded an outlet to the sea and already printed banknotes with the White Tower of Thessalonica. These territorial claims were not appreciated in Greece, and a major diplomatic crisis started, in which the Greeks claimed that Macedonia had been Greek for the past 3,000 years. At the moment, the crisis has cooled down.

Summing up: there are nationalists in the former Yugoslav republic who claim that their ancient ancestors spoke some sort of Slavic, and conclude that therefore, modern Macedonia can lay territorial claims to all parts of ancient Macedonia; and there are Greeks who say that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek. Greece has not made territorial claims.

I would very much like to see what the views of the readers are on these quotes.

7. Your epilogue contains two comments:

7a. That our conversation is lengthy and the page is big in Kb: Well, your contribution to that is MUCH bigger than anybody else's. If you think that this THREAT of lengthening the page will stop me from expressing my opinion, then you are wrong. I suggest we remove from the page some of your rubbish in order to make it smaller. Again, I expect everybody else's comment on that, to make the page even longer.

7b. You say that there are many modern historians that support that Megas Alexandros was not Greek. Well, what these FEW EXCEPTIONS to the global intellectual community actually say, is that he MAY not have been Greek. I think that everybody understands that these SIX historians you include are a tiny sample of the historians in the world. They are used by you as a lame excuse for the manifestation of your ridiculus claims for my country and my country's history.

And, not to forget, everybody is invited to include his/her comments on that too. After all, that is what wikipedia talk pages are about. NikoSilver 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion has indeed been going on for too long. I just want to make a small comment here: Has it ever occured on anyone that the ancient culture of Greeks, Cretans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Gauls, Romans etc actually belongs to every cultured man on Earth?? Does it really matter what their ethnic alignment really was?? Our northern neighbors indeed have the right to claim heritage from Alexander, as every civilized man has, from Chile to Japan. The values of antiquity are not copyrighted. They are universal! It seems there is a claim that ancient Macedonians were not Greek tongued. Many would disagree, but is it again that any kind of important claim?? It has been like 3000 years since, peoples hove come and gone, cultures have mixed and mingled and fused. Why is hellenization, the process of adoption of the Greek cultural heritage demonized? Was indeed Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher Roman Emperor any less Greek than, say Sophocles? Or was Ioannis of Damascus, a prominent byzantine theologian any less Greek?? Greekness was and IMHO still is a matter of culture. Please try not to view ethnicity as the black and white thing we have today. It has always been a grey, if not fuzzy thing in the past. The concept of nations as we have today is a relatively new idea, dating back to the Enlightment. Prior to that the very concept of ethnicity was very much different from what it is today. If we were having this discussion in say 1000AD we would be doing so sharing a common identity both Greek and Makedonski speakers as Romans, as subjects of the Roman Emperor of Constantinople. Only after the advent of the concept of Nationalism (try to understand that without negative connotations, as a concept) did the people start to draw lines. I will get off of the soapbox now. -- Michalis Famelis 08:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border? Pablo Casals

I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world. Diogenes

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

P.S. Thanks to Michalis Famelis for the excellent comment. Bitola 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I love our northern neighbours too, but I also love history and facts. So let's stick to the facts and write an encyclopedia. talk to +MATIA 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Top note

The beginning of the article states that this is about the country and that other uses may be found at Macedonia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone will be at Republic of Macedonia if they were looking for the geographical region or the Greek state known as Macedonia. Usually such notes are used only if the article and the mistake have the same or almost exactly the same title, such as at photon. But here this isn't the case. Is the note really necessary? If you type in Macedonia, you can't have come here without having been there, so what's the point?--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of places throughout Wikipedia in which the word "Macedonia" is piped to this article, potentially confusing readers. There are also a number of redirects to this article that contain the word Macedonia. Perhaps a better solution would be to clean up the piping and examine some of the redirects. Jkelly 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, the reason those links pipe to this article is because they specifically refer to the article in the use of its name as a country, which makes sense. However, it makes very little sense to suggest that anybody would really arrive here when they meant to be at Macedonia (region), etc.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Try this experiment: type the single word "Macedonia" in a google search window and click on "I'm feeling lucky". Jonathunder 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A good point, but better used to argue for the use of Macedonia as the word (which, contrary to popular belief, would cause almost no confusion at all). However, for the sake of my sanity and that of anyone who edits this article (and to prevent stupid and pointless edit wars), the article is at Republic of Macedonia for the time being.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You may try another experiment as well: go to a library. One can find wonderful things there. talk to +MATIA 13:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I think that there are now too many pictures in the article. And, for sure, some of them must be placed on the opposite side. But I can do that without mentioning it; I just want to gain consensus that this many pictures can't be on an article of this size.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I share your opinion, there must be some limit for the number of pictures in the article. I made some corrections on the pictures and the other editors can also contribute in order to improve the visual look of the article. Bitola 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures look nice, but I'm quite concerned about the copyright status of many of them. The ones Bitola took himself are fine, and he deserves our thanks, but most of the others appear to be copied from websites, I'm afraid, even though marked as GFDL. (One has a watermark across it, even though it's on Commons.) If we were rigorous about removing the ones with dubious copyright status, I don't think we would have the problem of too many images. Jonathunder 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the following images from the article because they appear to be copied from websites and the copyright status is questionable. Jonathunder 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:The_Stone_Bridge_in_Skopje.jpg|The Stone bridge in Skopje

Image:Ohrid2.jpg|Ohrid - Old Macedonian architecture

Image:Monastery_of_the_Holy_Archangel_Michael.jpg|Monastery of Archangel Michael in Prilep

Image:ascension of christ.JPG|Ascension of Christ –Church of St. Sophia, Ohrid

Image:Archangel_Gabriel_.JPG|Fresco – Archangel Garbiel

Image:Church_of_Sveti_Jovan_Bogoslov.jpg|Church of St. John in Ohrid

I'm Ok with that Bitola 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for your time!--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

International Organizations

People who have a tendency for reverts should stop for a while and think what is meant with the term International Organizations. The paragraph Republic_of_Macedonia#International_relations can be helpful to distinguish the difference between country and associations or organizations of that country... talk to +MATIA 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Vandalism warning

Archives

ChrisO blocked me out from editting this site

Poorest republic?

MACEDONIA IS NOT GREEK AND NOR SLAVIC!

FYROM is Republic of Bulgaristan !Not "Macedonia"

Rival statistical data

Sample statistical data from neutral sources

Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:We are Bulgarians!

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

Macedonian Slavs as a nationality has never existed

IMRO:We will fight for a free, autonomous, united Macedonia

Vandalism warning

Provisional UN Name, "was" vs "is"

Page protected from moves

Constitutional name / official name

FYROM and Britannica

Macedonia and Bulgaria

EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"

Change of FYROM to "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

What is FYROM?

Reasons why Greece is acting like this

Pro-Greek Statements constantly get blocked and deleted - WHY?

Appeal to all editors of this article

My removal

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

is Aromanian official language?

Answers to Nikolas assertions

Who were ancient Macedonians?

The note

I'm Greek and I'll tell you another story

New proposal about the design of the article

Stop!

FYROM

Who were ancient Macedonians (again)

Top note

Pictures

International Organizations

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search