Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Kosovo

Macedonia recognised Kosovo yesterday, so did Kosovo the same with the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Njohjet/tabid/93/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kosovo be under "Former Yugoslav Republics" in the ROM/FYROM columns?Hrcolyer (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Add similar homonymous states and regions in the world refference

examples:

Luxembourg (Belgium)region and Luxembourg state
Moldavia the region part of the states Romania and the homonymous state Moldova
Azerbaijan (Iran) and the Republic Azerbaijan

Alex Makedon (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's not really anywhere to add them, since it's basically WP:OR. Unless someone has made such parallels, there's no reason for them to be included. Balkan Fever 10:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedic information refference on identical issues, namely homonymous states and regions. They could be added as a "See Also" refference. Than im pretty sure there was an EU politician that made the paralell between Luxembourg and Macedonia. I'll get the quote.Alex Makedon (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. See also sounds good. Balkan Fever 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the addition provided examples of any nations that were forced to change their name are also added to show there are precedents for that too. (e.g. the most famous 20th century example being Austria)--Crossthets (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah! That "see also" list would have to be expanded to include New Caledonia vs Caledonia, New Mexico vs Mexico, North vs South Korea, New Zealand vs Zealand, New York vs York, Baja California vs California... (the list is huge). I say we scrap it all together and let people think on their own (but if you prefer...) Niko Silver 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

the list is not that long Niko its just the link List of homonymous states and regions. Crossthets if you want to add a link to a page of nations that were "forced" to change their name feel free to do so.Alex Makedon (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To what exactly are you answering with your first sentence ? The list you've created needs expansion to be considered an encyclopedic reference to "identical" cases. Right now it contains a limited selection, the fact that it's just a see also link does not solve the issue of intoducing a POV with no sources linking only these cherry-picked cases with the one that's handled here. --Zakronian (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not that Wikipedia can be shaped at personal will, just cuz by your POV the links "should not be there" it doesn't mean that you can actually go and revert something approved by the community and by admins. let me just quote some of the community opinion on the matter: "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples, Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF", if you find that the article List of homonymous states and regions is uncompleate do edit it, still it has nothing to do with your POV reverts. Dont be silly with this lame reverts, there is not a "conspiracy" behind the adding List of homonymous states and regions under see also and this doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. Republic of Macedonia shares the name with the region, so it defacto is on the List of homonymous states and regions, things are crystal clear there is nothing to debate over. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The link already exists at Macedonia and Macedonia (region), why does it need to be here too other than to push a particular agenda? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "push a particular agenda" thats unresonable, it doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. The article is about a naming dispute over a homonymous state and region and thereby is important to submit a link to similar homonymous states and regions cases in the word, its an information on related matters and its important for the wikipedia readers. Alex Makedon (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. The reason you're so keen to have it in the article is to be able to say See? If Belgium, Iran and Roumania can accept an independent Luxembourg, Azerbaijan and Moldova on their borders, then Greece should accept an independent "Macedonia" too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In the bottom line the link to List of homonymous states and regions states nothing more and nothing less than a basic encyclopedic information on related subjects, mainly homonymous states and regions. There is no "see if X homonymous state and region exists than the Macedonia name disputes are senseless" since there is no information that the X state did not have any name disputes (which most probably occurred) so Macedonia is the only exception in this kind of debates. And when talking about "pushing personal agendas" can you explain why you insist on hiding this encyclopedic information? Alex Makedon (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do then would be to link to other naming disputes, not other regions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As i have sad before if you want to add a link feel free to do so, we will discuss if its appropriate or not afterwards. The List of homonymous states and regions is related to the Macedonia naming dispute since the homonymous state and region is the core of the naming dispute, so the link should be present. It is not just mine opinion but of many editors and admins. Quit with the lame useless obstruction. Alex Makedon (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"It is not just mine [sic] opinion but of many editors and admins." Name one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples... Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF" do you read before debating or your debates are just disruption oriented? What is the argument about not keeping the link on the page? A lot of bla-bla-bla and not a single significant contaargument Alex Makedon (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

After initially rejecting the idea as OR, BF now doesn't care either way, and Cross rejects your list in its current form. On the other end, you have at least three editors, including yours truly. Where is the consensus? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three greek only reverteditors with NO-arguments like:

"did you bother to check it again yourself",
"POINTish article", and your childish disputing the obvious *
"Even BF's against you"

that try to shape the article by their POV and on the other hand we have

"sounds good" by BalkanFever "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever" (that is far from i dont care and even further from "BF's against you")
"I am not opposed" by Crossthets thats a strange way to reject something, there is the "given that" part, but hey add whatever link you like
"I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also" by Balcan Fever that is an OK not an "i dont care"

I hope you realize your desperate attempts to manipulate the facts are just ridiculous. Try to state some valid contaarguments or the link will be on the page despite your pov on the matter. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Αυτό θα το βρει η υπηρεσία. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

revokes recognition as ROM and will use FYROM

'Meanwhile Serbia, as expected, has taken revenge on Macedonia and from today will refer to their neighbor under the UN acronym.

Serbian Minister of Interior, Ivica Dacic, stated that Belgrade will use the UN reference from Monday, October 13th." according to MINA news agency [1]

If the link doesn't open look under the tile "Macedonia betters realtions with Kosovo worsens with Serbia

--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is the 14th and there is no such use. Balkan Fever 10:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, according to today's Eleftherotipia there was no such decision taken; they are still presenting it as something that was only considered by some government ministers. [2]. The sourcing of that "macedoniaonline.eu" article seems sketchy. Unlike other factbites given in the piece, the one about the alleged change of name from Monday is not attributed to any particular channel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic of North Macedonia or Republic of Northern Macedonia?

As I have red, Macedonian media used Republic of North Macedonia, but Greek media translated it Republic of Northern Macedonia.. what is the correct name used in Mr. Nimetz' proposal? Cukiger (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For Mexico Macedonia is Macedonia

Despite the disinformation by the Greek media about Mexico, same as the Panama case from July 2008, attributed to use the FYROM reference, an information denied both by official Macedonian and Panama sources, Maxico continues to use the Macedonian constitutional name. On the official Mexican site http://www.sre.gob.mx/delviajero/europa/mcd.htm it is stated: Nombre Oficial: Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia (Official Name: former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) still the page and all the content is simply named Macedonia. So the place of Mexico is not in the "List of countries/entities using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes".Alex Makedon (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what you allege happened with Panama but I fail to see what it has to do with this case. The page you list clearly lists Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia. It uses the short form for all nations... not only FYROM. However, to satisfy your worries of inaccurate reporting I will wait a little longer to confirm from FYROM sources (since they've asked for official confirmation of Mexico's position I believe).

Now that we are on the matter though... why is the US listed in the recognized category when it continues to use both? Congress just referred to it as FYROM last week. --Crossthets (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has clearly stated that it recognises the country by its constitutional name. Balkan Fever 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Only by the executive (i.e. Bush). The legisilative branch (congress) still intermittently uses FYROM. Don't worry. I won't try to change it for now because it does make note of the issue in the current article. However if Obama wins the election and follows through with Res. 356 and 300... it will likely come up as a topic for debate again. --Crossthets (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to Mexico here. You clearly fail to understand that "Macedonia" is not the constitutional name. The constitutional name is "Republic of Macedonia". So the only acceptable proof that a country uses the constitutional over the international name are documents referring to the country as "Republic of" instead of "former Yugoslav Republic of". Plain Macedonia is a short form and does not qualify.--Avg (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though Greece's problem is with the short form. Balkan Fever 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece's problem is with all forms that mention "Macedonia" without a qualifier, so both. This is completely irrelevant to the fact that many countries using the short form "Macedonia" for convenience does not imply that they have any sort of preference for ROM instead of FYROM.--Avg (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

take a look at this article: Greece caught lying, again [3]Alex Makedon (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in your link that suggest that. All it says is "Macedonia" was used not "Republic of Macedonia". If anything the lack of specifics make it seem the Mina news service is the one jumping the gun. (What a surprise from such a balanced news service whose focus is anti-Greek rants and whose comment section has become more racist than a Klan meeting) Official confirmation is supposed to come on Friday. I reserve judgment on the issue until then (and would note willing removed Mexico from the list until that confirmation) --Crossthets (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Mexico to the list of inconsistent countries. The notion that it belongs to the "Republic of Macedonia" amen corner, when it has the words Nombre Oficial right before Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia on the official website of its foreign ministry, is patently pathetic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=57958501&lId=2 Cukiger (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no more news sites, please. Official and verifiable sources only. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sre.gob.mx/acerca/directorio/embajadas/serbia.htm "Concurrencias: República de Bosnia y Herzegovina, Republica de Macedonia, y Montenegro"Alex Makedon (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is misspelled (it should be República) indicates that it was probably strung together rather hastily, and in any case should not be treated on a par with the page dedicated specifically to Skopje, which clearly cites Antígua República Yugoslava de Macedonia as the official name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Scandal coming up

It was yesterday revealed by the "Ethnos" newspaper in Greece, that Nimetz proposal was not Nimetz's after all. The US government had secret discussions with FYROM government via the US embassy in Skopje informing of possible proposals and ways to pass FYROM positions through "in a discrete way". Sources for this will be coming up the next few days and I think it should be included here. We already have (in Greek): [4],[5],[6].--Michael X the White (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And we all know the Greek media to report verified and most of all objective information right? [7][8][9]Alex Makedon (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty soon they'll report that Macedonia changed it's name to "Northern Republic of Northern Macedonia of the Northern North" and we'll have Dora herself filing a requested move. Balkan Fever 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you use that nationalistic pit of junk for a RS... to justify things you can't accept! Anyway, you are justified for a number of reasons. Here, one of them is that I haven't yet provided this in English.But you'll soon have that as well.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

124 countries in the world and 4 out of the 5 permanent UN security council members have recognized Republic of Macedonia as such, not paying attention on the idiotic disputes Greece is making, try to accept that.Alex Makedon (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So why do you keep bringing this issue up then? ;-) Niko Silver 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not =) Alex Makedon (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nationalist pit of junk" quite adequately describes the entire Greek media. Balkan Fever 05:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as opposed to such bastions of free and rigorous journalism as Nova Makedonija, A1 and MINA. Why not just say the entire Greek people? You know you want to. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not their fault they're being brainwashed. Balkan Fever 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Μην κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Гѹмарлу ту гѹмараггаѳи шгреклѹ ту грѵдинъ ѯѣнъ. Balkan Fever 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What's that supposed to be? Ancient Macedonian? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go with that. Balkan Fever 07:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a direct quote from the Rosetta Stone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it says "nationalist pit of junk". Balkan Fever 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Demotic Egyptian, дѹпка моꙗ. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alal da ti e be čoek. Balkan Fever 08:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise. Reporters sans frontières doesn't quite share BF's bitchy characterization of the "entire" Greek media as a "nationalist pit of junk". In fact, they even describe the situation regarding freedom of the press as "good". Greece also happens to be the only white patch on the map in the entire region. That's if you really want to compare endowments. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But, following up in the same spirit, the RSF is only talking about freedom, not quality. Greek media could very well be an entirely free nationalist pile of junk. (Just like Wikipedia, the free nationalist pile of junk that anybody can pile on on?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's free, then what does it matter? As for quality, that's entirely subjective, nein? BF's beef could simply be that the Greek media are a perennial thorn in his team's side, exposing their surreptitious summer love-ins with Dominatrix Condoleezza, for example. The "quality" of the Greek media might skyrocket for Condi's gimps if they came out in unison tomorrow and demanded that Greece "pity" its "poor" northern neighbour and hand over Macedonia to its "rightful owners". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Whenever Kekrops starts flavouring his postings with expressions in German, it's a sign it might be about time to end a discussion ... ;) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you weren't the intended audience of my initial RSF post anyway. Τι φταίω εγώ αν σου αρέσει να πετάγεσαι σαν την πορδή; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for use of "FYROM", specifically in bilateral relations

Sorry, but Greek press releases do not count as reliable sources for Macedonian-whoever relations. If a country starts using "FYROM" in bilateral relations, it will obviously tell that to the Macedonian MFA. What it tells Greece (or to reflect reality, what Greek media interprets) is irrelevant as Greece has no business in the bilateral relations of two other countries. Balkan Fever 09:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added two official press releases for Mexico and Congo that decided to use the term "FYROM" instead of "Macedonia" as they were using until now. What evidence more you need?-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about confirmation from Mexico and Congo? How about confirmation from the Republic of Macedonia? Balkan Fever 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Macedonia" is part of the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".. even if a lot of people wished that the "M" would be another term.. Cukiger (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think we ought to expect confirmation from the Macedonian side in such cases. If a Mexican government official has a a statement of intent published through such a joint press release on a Greek government site, that's a reliable source for just that, an official statement of intent. I think I've said it before, recognising or not recognising a name isn't something there's any particular formal protocol for. The Mexican government is under no obligation to publish its decision or communicate it to the Macedonian side in any particular way (and if they did, the Macedonians would hardly re-publish it, would they?) They'll just start using this or that term the next time they have to address them in some context. Or they won't.

Of course, we need to read the fine print carefully - like the other day with the Panama case, where they made what sounded like a promise to the Greek side but then turned out to have been quite vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, if Greek government press releases aren't good enough for BF, I trust that statements such as this aren't either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you missed BF's point. The question was whether government press releases are good sources about countries other than their own. I would certainly consider a RoM government press release a reliable source about their own bilateral affairs with country X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The name under which Mexico chooses to recognize Skopje falls within the realm of Greek-Mexican bilateral affairs, I dare say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Greek government press releases aren't good enough? Sourcing will continue as it was until now. If there are sources for a country using "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" it will be put under list of countries to be sorted. if there are sources for this and that, too. if there is only one source confirming the use of one name (as it is the case with chile) it's going to the ROM or FYROM-list respectively. Panama and Chile are sourced and will go to ROM. Mexico is probably disputed, so it shall be listed under 'countries to be sorted'. Cukiger (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Congo case, another fabrication by our southern neighbor. "Taking into account previous experiences with Panama and Mexico, the Ministry expects this case to be another fabrication by our southern neighbor and an attempt to manipulate the Greek public, especially after Macedonia's recognition by Chile." [10] Alex Makedon (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a Greek misinformation conspiracy... says Alexander of Macedon. Uhmmm, if either Mexico or Panama intended to recognize FYRoM as RoM rather than FYRoM... it's something completely out of Greece's hands. There is absolutely no motive for Greece to intentionally claim otherwise about something so easily evident a short time later.

The far more interesting question is where do these documents come from? Leaked documents don't really mean anything without more details. Perhaps they are from the US and intentionally leaked by Bush. He does seem to be on the side of FYROM nationals at the expense of a longtime Nato ally and I believe FYROM is one of few nations in the world that supports McCain. On the other hand perhaps they are from other sources trying to create a wedge between allies by breeding anti-American sentiment in Greece (prior to the US elections where a philhellene politician may win - Obama). Personally I reserve judgment on the issue until more is known about the source of the leak. Does anyone have anything with substance to contribute on the issue? --Crossthets (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Macedonian MFA followed up these Greek claims, and they got answers from Mexico and Panama. They will soon get an answer from the Congo. FP, you are probably right about confirmation, but what we have is confirmation from Macedonia about the exact opposite of what Greece says. Kekrops, I don't care about your thoughts on how retarded the Greek MFA is (they need to learn what "bilateral" means) but that nationalist pit of junk is not going to be used in light of much better sourcing. We trust Armenia over Azerbaijan in regards to Armenian-Mexican relations, and Azerbaijan over Armenia for Azeri-Panamanian relations. Balkan Fever 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When Antonijo gets round to translating his bitchy rant into a language we can all understand, perhaps we can consider moving them to the "to be sorted" list. Until then, pull up. And, as far as I'm concerned, there can be no greater "nationalist pit of junk" than a ministry serving a government headed by your beloved Nikola. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please... be more civil... most editors are not interested on what nationalists from X think about nationalists from Y... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as you're concerned. Good thing nobody gives a shit about what you think, then. Balkan Fever 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why should someone give one to you? Kapnisma ? 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the stench surrounding you is palpable. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not me, common sense. They don't have that in Athens do they? Balkan Fever 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, BF, your anti-Greek obsession may be typical of the descendants of de-Hellenized Vlachs, I know, but this really isn't the place to vent all that pent up self-loathing frustration. We have two announcements from the respective foreign ministries, and the one in English takes precedence here. Perhaps you should stop sulking and start calling Skopje to tell them they need to improve their linguistic skills if they want whatever they say to bear any weight whatsoever in the world around them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, other quality issues aside, but it being in English or not plays no role whatsoever. If there's a source you can't read, just ask somebody what it says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what does it say, then, and why should we take Skopje's word over that of Athens regarding precisely the same matter? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

same as above --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Still pissy about your "impure" origins I see. Balkan Fever 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Impure"? In my experience, it's your lot who are obsessed with touting themselves as the "pure" descendants of Alexander the Great, airport and all, and denouncing us as the inferior sub-Saharan/Christian Turk/gypsy savages. I'm a bastard and I love it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that makes one of you. Balkan Fever 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Learn English, Kapnisma. Balkan Fever 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you got the message, I am sure... Kapnisma ? 10:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Learn to indent too. Balkan Fever 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, I know it's difficult for you to understand Greek, so....[11] Kapnisma ? 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No need, Kapnisma. Our lot actually do know English. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. There's a nice piece of misinformation. Touting the following Panamaian declaration: "the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name", as if it proved anything. The fun bit is, there is no UN resolution asking countries to use FYROM bilaterally. Panama can easily "abide by" the UN and still continue to use RoM. Which is what they seem to be doing. The other two, however, seem to contain an actual promise to use FYROM. So in the case of Mexico, we have one reliable source saying they promised to do X, and another equally reliable source that they are actually doing ¬X. Correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to be disingenuous, FP. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted reads as follows: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama is honoured to announce to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic that, following a series of discussions regarding the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia..." (emphasis mine). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? They are of course perfectly free to use FYROM when talking to the Greeks. The question is what they do in bilateral contact with the RoM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please. "...we would like to assure you that the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name, for international and bilateral purposes". Not "bilateral purposes vis-à-vis Greece"; "bilateral purposes" period. Why would they feel the need to make such an announcement at all, if not to say "we'll be using FYROM from now on"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I just pointed out, "abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions" doesn't entail using FYROM. There is no resolution demanding that. Why they would make such a statement when it's vacuous? Because they are craftier diplomats than the Mexicans, perhaps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to spin this into something it's not. Perhaps your German precision is having difficulty with the flexibility of the word "abide", which doesn't necessarily mean "obey"; according to my word processor, it can also mean "follow", "keep to", "conform to", "stick to" or "accept". There doesn't need to be a UN resolution demanding anything; they're simply saying that they will follow the nomenclature of the relevant UN resolutions, and they explicitly state that as meaning the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not thinking like a German, it's thinking like a diplomat. When diplomats say "abide by", they mean "abide by" (unless of course it suits their interests to mean something else, which in this case it doesn't). "Abide by" means: do what the text demands, and not a iota more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but that smacks of pure OR. The Panamanians have unambiguously said that they'll use FYROM for "international and bilateral purposes", and there's nothing further that can be read into it, no matter how hard you twist. Skopje's denial doesn't change the Panamanian statement one iota, if we really want to talk about who has the right to talk about whom. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading/interpretation is no more OR than yours. Plus it has the added advantage of being closer to the literal meaning of the text (it is you who is having to twist the words around, not me), and of not being in need of calling the other side a liar with no evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah alright, mine's bigger than yours too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) but, speaking of OR: has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole exercise of ours is pretty OR-ish? Perhaps we ought to scrap the whole table and just report the total numbers (hedged by "... according to X government....", of course), and quote only a few of the better-documented cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly save us the endless agony of having to interpret ambiguous Latin American pronouncements. Que vaya toda al diablo, ποσώς με ενδιαφέρει. Go on, do something that'll make everyone despise you again. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have another reliable source saying that Mexico refuted the Greek MFA in a note to the Macedonian delegation, using the constitutional name throughout the note, and saying that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name). Balkan Fever 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Can we see the original Mexican document, please? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, another detail: somebody cited the Mexican government website the other day where it lists "FYROM" as the "official name". The trouble is only, that page was last updated in 2004. So it can impossibly be a document of a recent change in policies. But everybody seems to agree that Mexico in fact did previously recognise RoM, otherwise the alleged change wouldn't be news. So, at best, we have Mexico continue to be among the inconsistent ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is either under "to be sorted" or "RoM". Balkan Fever 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure everybody does agree that Mexico used "RoM" until now. That's not what the joint press statement says; it could simply be the reiteration of an existing policy. Before last week, we had an Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia and a misspelled Republica [sic] de Macedonia. And my Spanish teacher always placed great emphasis on correct accentuation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally the official Mexico note unveils the Greek Goverment desperate lies: - The Permanent Mission of Mexico has the honor to convey the deep appreciation of the Government of Mexico to the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for the valuable support it will render to the above mentioned candidature. This support constitutes a very important testimony that confirms the excellent relations existing between our two countries, reads the Note No. 61/21 dated Oct. 15 sent by Mexico's UN Permanent Mission to the Macedonian Permanent Mission to the Organisation. from the Macedonian News Agency [12] and from other international news sources [13] Alex Makedon (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Can we have it from a non-Greek-hating source now? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, nowhere in the alleged thank-you note do the Mexicans say "that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name)", as BF claims. Also, the note is dated 15 October, while the Greek-Mexican joint press statement followed a whole two days later, i.e. after Valinakis's lobbying. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At least this note, from 15 October, is two days earlier than the joint declaration with Greece. I grant you there is at least a theoretical possibility they actually changed their mind during those two days. Although I find it entirely more likely they simply wiggle around to try to make everybody happy and will continue to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

lol "greek-hating sources", this is a new one, it does seems relevant information for wikipedia: the distinction between Greek-hating and Greek-non hating sources, you should write a new article on The Greek-hating-Sources and provide a full list, so the rest of us knows what sources are the "bad" ones. This desperate cheap lies by the Greek Goverment in attempt to manipulate the Greek public (dont even think it will be able to manipulate any other public), is getting more comic by the minute. Alex Makedon (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How about citing a source that doesn't involve the words "Makedonija", "MIA", "MINA", "A1" or "Turkish", for starters? The supposed Mexican gracias doesn't even say what you claim it does, and, given that it came before the Greek-Mexican statement on the issue, I don't know why you're even bothering. Drop the dead donkey, mate. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Having mentioned the general criteria problem myself in the Thailand section i agree with FP that we should discuss limiting the section. I was really troubled from the start how can we be conclusive with most sources. Say, how can the source i used to add Micronesia be a clear proof of the name this country uses in bilateral relations ? It can't, but i followed the established practice from other users. The constitutional name often has an intuitive "priority" when intepreting a questionable source, i can understand it. But do we really have to engage in something like that every now and then ? As the section is getting bigger it's not only an issue of OR but of undue weight as well.--Zakronian (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexico Sucks??

Why saying such an awful thing as that, especially an administrator? Administrators are not here to judge a nation's position, but simply record it here.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you are taking things way too seriously. If any Mexican comes here to protest I will whole-heartedly confirm that they don't suck at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we finally have Mexican government confirmation, dated 17 October 2008, so maybe we're the ones who suck for not looking hard enough all this time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect will probably have you explaining the meaning of the statement word by word and then the meaning in the context and then the meaning whithin the syntax and then the meaning in the diplomatic language and then the............................................... but in a mysterious way, only for the right list of the countries.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. He's already accepted the validity of the Greek press release, but until now it was our word against Skopje's. Now we have it straight from the horse's mouth, ergo game over. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Mexico is hereby officially de-sucked. It seems the Greek diplomats have wisened up and are now insisting on less ambiguous wording, after being pwned so badly by the Panamaians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know if that press release has been sitting there since the 17^th? Strangely, I only started looking for it after someone posted this earlier today. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chile, Mexico, Panama

Hi everyone, I am not a member of WP, but I read the discussion of the Mexico issue, and some portions of the Mexico government do say "Republic of Macedonia" while others say "FYR. Macedonia" so I don't think Mexico should be under the "FYROM" portion of the name recognitions. If a nation calls the RoM under its consitutional name, it will use it on its governmental website.

The same case is true for Chile, the Chile government website stats RoM therefore they have recognized it. In the case of Panama, their government website should also be used, instead of simply a Greek source. [Special:Contributions/141.217.95.147|141.217.95.147]] (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chile is under "recognition' and "to be sorted" 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panama: I looked on google for a few minutes for its ministry of foreign affairs and I found this, it says "macedonia" but ill keep looking [scm.oas.org/doc_public/SPANISH/HIST_07/AG03410S07.doc] 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is panamas ministry... [14] 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the post. I think that would be a good idea. I looked at the website you showed, but I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't get to the appropriate sight. I'll keep trying. Mactruth (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think governmental websites should be used. Mexico's uses both RoM and FYROM, while both Panama and Chile only use RoM as far as I can tell. 141.217.95.147 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panamá, de nuevo

Would this be enough to sort Panama accordingly? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguably, that illustrates "usage within the UN", which, unlike usage in bilateral contexts, could be construed as actually mandated by the UN resolutions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we know for certain that that's what actually goes on? I find it hard to imagine the representative of the US, for example, with its rabidly anti-Greek stance on this issue, referring to the country as anything but "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly before whatever it was that happened in July and which Greek media touted [15] as a significant "change of stance" by Panama, noting that Panama had "been using the neighbouring country's constitutional name since 2002". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That still isn't an official source, I'm afraid. In fact, as far as reliable sources go, we have only the conflicting statements of Athens and Skopje. It will all remain a bit murky until we find a Panamanian statement analogous to the Mexican one. And that UN transcript was all I could find on their MFA's website. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, what? But we have Panama's official statement, quoted verbatim by the Greek government. It's exactly the text we were discussing yesterday. Plus, we have the statement of Panama's foreign minister, quoted in Macedonian government statements, explaining that the text didn't mean what the Greek side thought it meant. No contradiction there, no sourcing problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? That Panama should be in the "RoM" list? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would probably put it there, if anywhere. I've lost sight of it, where is it currently? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? We have a Panamanian declaration interpreted by Athens as supporting its side of the argument, and Skopje's interpretation of what it claims was a Panamanian denial. We have no direct quote of said denial. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ι believe this was before Serbia's actions towards the EU. Fut. Perf. will probably say the fYROM name was used within the UN context. Nonetheless, some countries should be exemplefied by their neighbours' developement and wishing for well being. Croatia, Romania, Boulgaria and Serbia march towards being the next European superpowers, whereas Greece's northern neighbour is stuck into their stubborness and lose the essence and I'm talking about political poorness that will be stigmatized by the state's people after witnessing the surrounding developement, even Albania's I dare to say. Not to mention the USA derision during the last presidential incumbency. It's rather sad....--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any further information on the official Panamanian stance to offer? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but I believe this document is not good enough. The USA's partiality is known, but using the fYROM and Macedonia names incosistently does not say anything about Panama's position, especially within the UN context. It's up to the greek officials and Panama itself.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

I propose a map to be included in the article in which the countries using RoM and the countries using FYROM in bilateral relations shall be depicted (similar to the map of the 'countries recognizing Kosovo') [only those where it is 100% sure]. Neutralista (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, you know. FP? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth it – see my OR concerns expressed above. Also, given the small size of the countries in this corner of the world, the interesting parts of such a map would be hardly readable. I mean, if you want to try your hand, I'm sure you know where to find the templates, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know where to start. In all my time here, I haven't even figured out how to upload an image, let alone create one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BlankMap-World6, compact.svg. Download the SVG file, open it in a plain text editor , and follow the commented instructions at the beginning of the file on how to edit the internal stylesheet to change colors for each country. Or edit it in Inkscape if you have it installed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a png [16] and the svg version [17] based on the list from the main article as of 2008-10-23. I'll add it to the main article with a legend. --89.205.5.62 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ι don't think it's worth it. Countries change their stance all the time on such an ongoing matter. There will probably will be fighting on changing the map all the time!--Dimorsitanos (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is a bad idea. And I don't think there will be so much edit-warring on the map, certainly less than it is now (with the list). Neutralista, are you or anybody else here familiar with construct such an image? Cukiger (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's new, talking to oneself. I oughta try it sometime.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, you should.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

very good idea Alex Makedon (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand recognizes the country as FYROM, according to the Hellenic MFA. Note that Ireland, Thailand and Vietnam were confirmed as belonging to the "RoM" list using the same source. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

DR CONGO still refers to Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia"

According to MIA and BALKAN insight and the Macedonian foreign affairs, DR Congo rebuffed Greece's claims that it changed its stance to "FYROM" and still refers to Macedonia as "ROM" Mactruth (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please update the world map to reflect this. Mactruth (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Other nations on the world map also need to be updated, such as Ireland. Mactruth (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To recent reverters, especially Dimorsitanos and 98.*: It would be far easier to follow the issue in cases such as Congo if you would please not erase the other side's sources. Please, in whatever category you place the state, leave in a footnote referencing both conflicting reports. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But cheap macedonian news agencies such as that MIA or whatever, which do not even translate the news in english cannot stand in wikipedia as references, is it such a surprise to you? --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

+ 2 comments. I've read the article in balkan insight, but to my surprise the document it depicts is too small for my eyes to read. And I also noticed that although you urge editors to mention both (official) references, you forgot to add the greek ministry of affairs notice. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you there whould be fighting over the map. It was a stupid idea in the first place.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cheap macedonian [sic] news agencies such as that MIA"? I believe it is the country's official news agency, akin to Greece's Athens News Agency. That's my reading of "Established on February 14 1992 by The Macedonian Parliament", anyway. In any case, I would much prefer to see the actual Congolese document itself. Does anyone have a copy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such a well established news agency that though established over a decade ago, the webside is still on a trial version. Not to mention the flag accompanying the article instead of the congolese document. Nice... --Dimorsitanos (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Each according to his means, I suppose. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for pasting in the wrong source link. Fixed now. Of course I meant to use the Greek MFA one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The copy of the Congolese permanent UN mission Document dating 23/10/2008 referring to Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name Greek Government caught lying to their public, again there isn't any doubt as we have both Congolese and Republic of Macedonia official sources that DR Congo doesn’t change position on using Macedonia’s constitutional name. Alex Makedon (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, if this document is true, then some countries want to have the entire pie available and the dog full, as a greek saying states. If a state assures to use the name FYROM for all international purposes and remain within the UN principles, then it may not use the name Republic of Macedonia for bilateral reasons. Let's wait and see what happens.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DR Congo can be waited on until the official government website has "Macedonia" or "FYROM" on it, but I donno if they will even discuss the issue on their website. The map also needs to be updated. nations that recognize Macedonia like UK and Ireland are not shown. There are many more... Mactruth (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

With this [18] and this [19] the DR Congo case is closed and its place is clearly on the List of countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" in bilateral diplomatic relations. Alex Makedon (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. We have two declarations from Congo, both equally reliably sourced, both within the span of a few days, both unambiguous, both worded as if meant to be binding. They are in downright contradiction to each other. One of them is licking up to the Greeks and the other to the Macedonians. There's no evidence the Congolese have any real interest in sticking to either, or that they care either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And why the fuck should they, with the Battle of Goma still raging? Let's just put the Congolese in the "too hard" basket and leave them be, shall we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

US Congress resolutions

My apologies if this has been raised before, but shouldn't this and this be treated in this article somehow? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussed in August. Last archive page, heading "US Senate". Last article edit related to it that I remember was this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I guess the most tantalizing aspect of it all is Obama's co-sponsoring of the Senate resolution, which could explain why Skopje is one of only a handful of countries not rooting for him. Shall we wait until he wins the presidential election in the coming days to deem it sufficiently noteworthy? He is still only a junior senator from Illinois, after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be relevant on the matter , let me quote something: Congressman Pomeroy says: 'The US has recognized the Republic of Macedonia. This is and will be the US position'. After all USA is a serious state and cannot be "bought" with lets say 100 tanks, sounds familiar? Alex Makedon (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

USA is a serious state? No, it isn't; especially in October of years divisible by four. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so chirpy if I were you. Who is Congressman Pomeroy? Never heard of him. Certainly not the man who will be president in under three months' time. Yes, it is the US position, but for how much longer? Have you even read the text of Senate Res. 300, co-sponsored by and submitted on behalf of Sen. Barack Obama? It reads almost like a ΛΑΟΣ press release. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully in three months' time the man who is president will be the only man fit to be president. And if Barack Obama does become president (God forbid) he's got more important things to worry about than this dispute. --Local hero 04:21, 26 October (UTC)

Fit to be president? The man can barely walk. You don't really want Miss Congeniality running the planet, do you? If only the election were held in Skopje, the other Georgia or Namibia, McCain might even be in with a chance. As for having more important things to worry about, clearly. But that hasn't stopped Dominatrix Condoleezza sticking her nose in, has it? There's no reason to believe the next administration will take any less interest in the matter. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I don't really like John McCain, I just dislike Barack Obama (not just because of the dispute, if you were wondering). This is the way I see it: If I had to get a life-saving surgery, I would rather have it done by the guy who's been around the block a few times than the guy who just graduated. Either way, I don't think we will have to worry about America shifting its postition any time at least within the next year. --Local hero 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I, thankfully, live in a country where universal health care is taken for granted. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Touché. --Local hero 6:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note when I added into the article... it was slowly erased with "neutral" Futper delivering the final blow of erasure. Apparently 120 US congressmen and the probable future President of the United States condemning FYRoM government for propaganda and hostility towards Greeks... wasn't deemed newsworthy enough for Furper. As as I was a newb just trying to simply survive the constant threats/blocks by FP I didn't pursue the matter... but I still firmly believe it should be included in the article. --Crossthets (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that the foreign policy of the United States is created by the Executive Branch of the Government, and President Obama, at the NATO summit referred to Macedonia under its constitutional name. The constitutional name is used in all official documents between the United States and Macedonia. On the issue about the resolution, that resolution if passed will NOT change how the United States call Macedonia, because it is "Expressing the sense". The decision on how will the United States call Macedonia is based only on the decision made by the President. --User:Tivki —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Ottoman Census shows no references to "Macedonians

Here is | Ottoman census data from from 1911. Anyone notice anything missing? I believe there is another Ottoman census of Thessaloníki region (under the turkish name) from 1903 and another one from the 1890s, Does anyone have any links to sources so the references can be added? --Crossthets (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Old news, mate Hxseek (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you acknowledge the point or deny it? If you deny it.. please lay out your reasons here. If you acknowledge the point then I don't see why Cukiger (seemingly a FYRoM national) is removing my comment by justifying it as...

the roots of Macedonism ie. date back to the time of Ottoman rule. such claims shall only be listed in the article with a source

His reasoning for doing the revert is a logical fallacy. The onus is on FYRoM nationals (or someone else) to produce official verifiable Ottoman census data demonstrating the existence of an Macedonian ethnic group (and one that distinguishes them as FYRoM nationals as opposed to regional Greek Macedonians)... not to disprove the non-existence of something that doesn't seem to exist. (and I would note the FYRoM government has been working closely with the Turkish government to uncover such records for quite awhile....to seemingly no avail). I also believe the League of Nations has official census data of the region that makes no mention of "ethnic Macedonians". Please feel free to add any official references pro-con census information here so that we can document the first verifiable examples of "Macedonians" (that relate to FYRoM)... thus pinpoint the date of their creation. (both from within the communist block and from outside of it)

One other pertinent related item I'd like to see added to the article in a visible location is the US government denied the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity as late as 1944 and viewed it as communist demagoguery against Greece.

The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

(U.S. State Department, E.Stettinius Secretary of State :Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note, FP reverted another Greek editor trying to add the comment back in about lack of Ottoman census data. His claim for doing so...

no, this is not a central part of the Greek argument.

FP has now gone against two Greek contributers who most certainly do consider it part of the Greek position (seeing as Greece argues communist propaganda is mostly responsible for the FYRoM identity... which the article does already mentions referencing Tito). I therefore recommend Greek contributers input to be added here and it be compared against FP who now claims to be representing the Greek POV. --Crossthets (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Ottomans or the USA are a good source? Turks recorded the population under religioous aspects (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian Orthodox,.. so because there was no Macedonian Orthodox Church their ethnicity was considered to be the same as the church they were part of) Greece and Bulgaria even today, in 2008 (!), claim there are no Macedonians living in therir countries.. so, you can't even use today's sources for such claims..

I'd like to document that both a FYRoM national and then Futper once again are dictating what the "Greek POV" on Ottoman census data and US denials of existence of Macedonian nationality.....in a section called "Greek position" specifically dedicated to describing the Greek POV... reverting two Greek contributers views on it... with references provided. The points are extremely relevant to the Greek position and have been mentioned many times by Greek politicians and media.

This time FP stated...rv, obsessive POV edits rather than his prior not a central part of the Greek argument' (Well which story is it FP?)

I wholehearted protest the removal of the edit and see it as anti-Greek POV pushing by FYRoM nationals and an admin in a COI (who only quite recently has made any effort to make balance edits... after I had made a complaint to another admin). --Crossthets (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman census is not divided by ethnicity; it's divided by religious faith (see Millet) - hence the inclusion of Catholic. The Republic of Macedonia is not a confessional community. Therefore this proves nothing on the questions now at issue, for either side. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first question arises... so why did they recognize themselves as Bulgarians instead of the Macedonian church (assuming such a thing existed)? The second question arises... why didn't the league of nations not recognize them either? The third question arises why did the US government claim they didn't exist and that it was a commnist attempt to attack Greece? (Not to mention there are a zillion other points to add about the lack of any signficant "Macedonian" literature from that period). The points are still relevant evidence... and they do represent the Greek POV... in a section called "Greek Postion"... not FYROM national position. --Crossthets (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no Macedonian church. (The present Macedonian Orthodox Church split from the Serbian Orthodox Church under Tito.) The ancestors of those who now consider themselves the Macedonian people were divided among the Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox churches - and these are what the Ottoman census-takers counted.
The League of Nations only recognized states.
Why did Edward Stettinius say anything? Because it was politically and diplomatically convenient. He was a diplomat, "an honest man sent to lie abroad for his country." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well why wasn't there church? On the one side FYRoM government claims millions of "Macedonians" were displaced... on the other they seem to suggest that they didn't have the numbers and influence to have their own church?

You claim that league of nations only recognized states for census data. Please back that up with references (related to the specific census in question).

You can spin Stettinius comments and motives how ever you like... they were still the official documented US position. Since the US denied the existence of a "Macedonian nation"... and you say it existed... you appear to be accusing the US of participating in ethnic cleansing on some level. --Crossthets (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the reference you refer to is already known. The censi only referred to greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, no "Macedonians". Crossthets, your attitude and tone is not in the spirit of wikipedia. You are obviously an angry individual. you are a new editor and have just intruded and ignited nationalistic debates all over again. i really think your we can do without your 'contributions' here. There are other sites for hot-headed, semi-educated nationalists out there Hxseek (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, don't say that. Everyone is welcome to contribute in wikipedia and the contribution history does not ablate from someone the right to express his/her opinion in a talk page. Without communication and disagreement, how else whould these articles get neutral and better ?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Andthe opinion of the US secreatary of state of 1944 is hardly worthwhile as an acaedminc reference. Americans don;t even know where Mexico is, let alone the complex history and ethnogenetic processes in a melting pot like Macedonia ! ! Hxseek (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"the greek position" is the position of the greek government or of notable greek scholars. The position of greek editors on wikipedia is only the personal opinion of those editors.... The point is: "has the greek government/scholars ever used the ottoman census or the US 1944 declarations as a relevant part of its arguments?". If they haven't, then they don't belong there. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I will dig up some comments to try and deal with your concerns Enric. I'd like to point out to the FYRoM nationals trying to hide this evidence from WP readers (to give them a chance to make their own choices based on relevant evidence sources by third parties)... communist Tito is constantly blamed by the Greek government for the creation of a distinct Macedonian ethnic group. Census data and comments by third party (non-communist) nations on the issue of their existence prior to that date... is implicitly extremely relevant to the article. A handful of works and small groups like IMRO... that acknowledged their Bulgarian connection.. makes not an ancient ethnic group. Census data and official positions by reputable third party countries during that period is extremely important.

When one throws in that the US government denied the existence of a distinct "Macedonian ethnicity" as late as 1944 (calling such talk communist demagoguery against Greece) ... that the League of Nations also did not note their existence... that their "Macedonian" church didn't seem to attempt to get Autocephaly "coincidentally" until 1944... the point that the "Macedonian ethnic identity" simply DID not exist prior to this point becomes more evident (at least as a distinct ethnic group in any notable numbers) However, reading WP articles on Macedonia at the moment... one would think they date back centuries??? (with constant use of unverified images supplied from FYRoM government showing "ethnic Macedonians" from the period)

Most of the dates of "Macedonian ethnicity" appear to revolve around communist Tito's renaming of Vardar Baninova region of Yugoslavia into the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". This fact is constantly obfuscated by FYRoM nationals (and tenaciousness FP edits) Even Kiro Gligorov (FYRoM's first President) admitted they aren't related to ancient Macedonians by stating We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians (who was shortly thereafter a target of an assassination attempt).

And is Obama, probably the next US President, cosponsoring a bill condemning FYRoM government for hostility and propaganda against Greece (plus another 120 Congressman) everyone's imagination too? Meanwhile... FYRoM nationals on WP constantly accuse Greeks of trying to wipe out the "Macedonian" identity... as if that identity didn't already exist in Greece.--Crossthets (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, please, I mean that you need to find a declaration from the Greek Government saying "There are not macedonians on Greece/ There is no Macedonia country because the Otoman census didn't list them". Just find a source, then we can evaluate its quality to see if we can add it. For example, a scale of quality would be, a declaration signed by the senate > an official governamental declaration reproduced on a newspaper > a declaration of the prime minister / the foreign matters minister on an interview > a declaration by any other minister on an interview > off-hand remark on a discussion. Seriously, look at past Greek declarations about Macedonia and see if you can find something mentioning Otomans. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on it (juggling several things so it might take me a few more days). I'd just like to mention there were two parts to my edit (so I'm assuming you'd like two references). One deals with Ottoman census data... the other with the comments by US government considering talk of a Macedonian nation demagoguery and aggression against Greece.

To deal with the secondary issue for now... I've found a reference by the Pan-Macedonian Association of American that met with Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried recently to discuss the matter and gave him an official letter. Full details here Will that meet your needs for the second part Enric?

btw Enric. Just reread your post and thought I might clarify something (just in case this isn't clear). Greeks (today) acknowledge Macedonians... ones that live (or recently lived) in Macedonia Greece and consider themselves regional Greeks (sort of like saying a Californian). In the larger historical sense... all ethnic Greeks feel ancient Macedon is part of their shared history (same as Sparta, Athens, Corinth, etc.) Greece also acknowledge there is a small group that relates to FYROM living within Macedonia Greece (based on Rainbow Party results roughly 0.2% of pop.). What Greece doesn't recognize is the name "Macedonians" being applied to people that relate to FYRoM (be they in Greece or FYRoM). (at least not without a qualifier to distinguish between our own distinct Macedonian heritage which they appear to be trying to eliminate... thus the name dispute) --Crossthets (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this is all about the reclamations of macedonian population on Greece, and not about the naming dispute itself. So it's a side issue on how these reclamations make the dispute more difficult. Also, it's still not about the Greek Government position (see next paragraph)

Most of the source is the position of The Pan-Macedonian Association USA, listed here, which doesn't seem to be notable. There is a small part of the source that is the position of Daniel Fried, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs: "displeasure with FYROM’s latest claims against Greece regarding the “refugee children,” the nonexistent “Macedonian” minority in Greece and the compensations of abandoned properties of communists who fled from Greece to iron curtain countries, after the civil war 1944-49". This last part could go on a section about the US position, together with statement from 1944, but there is no such section currently on the article, and the article is already 148 KB long, so I'm not sure adding new sections (if it was shorter I would add a UN section with the positions of each one of the five members of the UN Security Council, as they are the ones deciding the inclusion on the UN). Also, of course, it should say how since 1944 the US has accepted the creation of the country, even if it still despises the macedonian claims on population inside Greece. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Daniel Fried is a guy who says that Macedonians and the Macedonian language exist, and that Macedonia doesn't have any territorial claims. Balkan Fever 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Fried, the guy behind the secret deal between Condoleezza and Skopje in July, a closet member of the Epsilon Team? Who woulda thought? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we talk about something more recent and more objective than the Ottoman census from 1911, lets say about the fact that a "Regional Greek Macedonian Identity" or simply "Greek Macedonians" have not been reported by a single census by any state in the world in any point of the history, up till present day there has not been a single ID document that states this fantomatic identity. Talking about making up identities... Alex Makedon (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AlexMakedon thinks he has got a point.I ll try to reply, but I fear that as long as you keep the flag of ancient macedon on your profile you won' get it... No such identity (greek macedonian) was ever recorded because we (macedonians that live in greece) are greeks. Similarly, spartans will answer they are greeks (not lakedemonians).But if fYROM tries to call itself Lacedemonia, then spartans will like greek macedonians, fly the flag of lacedemonia... The greek reaction was caused by fYROM naming itself macedonia.If that had not been the case, modern greeks living in macedonia would have forgotten just how "macedonians they are". Videos like these is what motivates the greek reaction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKl26LWsoxg AlexMakedon will never understand as long as he keeps that flag of ancient macedon on his profile. This video is what triggers the greek objections.This naming dispute is fueled by emotions, not "irredentist fears"... The claim of "irredentist fears" expressed by the greek goverment is just diplomacy... You "neutrals" should be able to understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.165.200.231 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just fail to see the Greeks' position, on many grounds. Greek Macedonians are such because it refers to their regional inhabitation, just like their northern neighbours. Just because ancient Macedonia was Hellenized, it does not mean that modern Greek Macedonians are their direct descendents, or rightful 'cultural heirs' . Whether ancient Macedonia was Hellenic or not is a different thing to the concept of being modern Greek national. They are politically, culturally , religiously totally different entities. For 2 millenia, Macedonia was just a geographic term, until 1944 and, more so, 1991, when the Republic was declared. Although i see that Greek Macedonian's may feel as if they might be forgotten as also being Macedonians, the claims that the Republic of Macedonia is "stealing Greek identity" is just fallicy. The only people that can rightullly object are ancient Macedonians. However, they no longer exist. An analogy is that Welsh and Irish are the last remaining Celts. Because Gaelic is probably the nearest living relative to ancient continental Celtic, then the Irish should feel robbed of their Celtic heritage because modern Bohemians are "Slav invaders" who have appropriated the celtic Boii name. If ancient Macedonia = Hellenic, this does not mean that modern Mcaedonia = modern Greek Hxseek (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of the above is relevant to the improvement of this article. But your obsession with genetics and concomitant outbursts of anti-Greek racism make it exceedingly clear where you're coming from. Though you later tried to hide the evidence, the damage has been done, Mr Aryan. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please illustrate where this alleged "anti-Greek racist outburst" of mine is? It is very easy to sit there, be self-righteous and point fingers. Does it anger you that I see things so clearly and transparently ? Are you too uptight to allow a bit of banter between gentlemen? Or are you just angry that I argue so deeply, let simply ? As for my "obsession" with genetics, as you claim, I see it as clues for past migrations and colonizations, not eugenics. If you don't care for it, that's great for you, but it's the future. As for my light hearted responce to the troll who abused me on my own talk page, why does it intimidate you. Don't worry, you're special too. Everyone is, deep down. Hxseek (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your your "deep and simple" arguments rather laughable, actually, but the racist outburst is unambiguous and there for all to see. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No racist remarks anywhere, but i suppose you can you me a 'phenotypist'. Anyway, i take solace in the fact that my arguements at least entertain you, if they don't open your eyes. Hxseek (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say your "short, dark-skinned, hairy stooge" remark wasn't a racist generalization against Greeks? You must've deleted it for some other reason, then. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It was a reply to the anonynous troll who attacked me on my personal page. I don;t know where he's from, nor do I care. I only removed it because I didn't want to give that idiot any more of my time. I'm sorry if it hit a nerve with you. But its good you're so vigilant and on the hunt for justice. I don't suppose you even had anything to do with it, since you were so quick to point fingers and distort things out of context. I hope you land softly from your high-horse Hxseek (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how or where you were "attacked", but whatever. The fact that you didn't know who he was or where he was from proves that it was a clear-cut declaration of racial supremacy over your opponent, who was obviously Greek. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about your racist biases—I'm neither dark nor hairy, though I guess the "stooge" bit is debatable—but I do think they should be duly noted when judging the usefulness of your edits. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Man . Please see I.C., becaue you zero, nil, NO proof to back your accusations. You do not know what was in my mind when I said that . Why do you think I am making a blanket statement about any race or coutnry ? I think you need to check your prejudices, not mine.

This is a blatant attempt by you to 'defame' me. But , hey. I am not bitter. In fact, I feel honoured, somehwat, they you find me such a stern obstacle to your little agendas that you have to resort to such downright shameful behaviour. Like I said, I have no political or racist biases to anyone. Let alone Greeks, who I have great admiration for. I just am trying clarify some of the misconceptions, from a historical POV , on this matter (the naming dispute). I couldn;t even care much about the whole politics of it- and that's all this whole affair is - politics. Everyone know it. It just unfortunate that people like you seem intent on propagating it rather than seeing it for what it is.

You need to lighten up. I think the whole situation is affecting your chi. Go out have a beer or few Hxseek (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, but I don't drink beer. That's how racially inferior I am. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's politics. Life itself is politics. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Please remove Mexico from the list of contries that use fYROM! You Greeks look ridicilus with that propaganda. Dig a little and you'll find out that nothing has changed between Macedonia and Mexico. 212.120.7.4 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See above, section "Mexico sucks??". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor editing

I have to notice, that multi-editing in such cases and contents such as this:

"It must be noted (by whom?) that the alleged territorial concerns held by the Greek government are unrealistic (says who?) . By using allusions to the Greek civial war and the "Communist threat", it is intentionally conjuring strongly emotive and nationalistic responces from its citizens. Realistically, the the Republic of Macedonia relies on Greece for infratsracture investment and and defensive cooperation. That Macedonia will invade Greece is simply an act of political scare-mongering. The idea of a "united Macedonia" is, for the large majority of Macedonians, an idealistic thought. (says who?) "

...are the cornerstone of POV.

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's from the passage recently proposed by Hxseek, right? [20] Yes, that is certainly not acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

accepted. Hxseek (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Congo vs Mexico

The cases are very similar. For both of them we have diametrically opposed MoFa press releases:

Congo doesn’t change position (Macedonian MoFA) [21] Congo changes position (Greek MoFa) [22]

Mexico doesn’t change position (Macedonian MoFA) [23] Mexico changes position (Greek MoFa) [24]

In addition we have an official DR Congo document where is stated that Congo will continue to use the | constitutional | name and an official Mexico document where they announce that Mexico will use the provisory reference

My question is how come we have double standards and we keep Mexico on the "List of countries/entities using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes", despite there is a Macedonian MoFa claming the different and we keep DR Congo on the "to be sorted List" with the excuse that the greek MoFa alone calmes something different than official Republic of Macedonia and DR Congo? They either should be both on the "to be sorted List" or should be both on the corresponding lists. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference as I see it is that with Congo we have two equally official declarations by Congo itself, both of which are worded as binding commitments, whereas with Mexico the pro-R.o.M. document did not involve an explicit promise with respect to the name but was merely an instance where Mexicans were using the name in practice, days before the reported change took place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the obvious fact that the Mexican document comes directly from a Mexican government website, while the alleged Congolese document appears on arguably the most unreliable "news" site in the Balkans. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you link the second official declaration by Congo (where it is stated that it will start using the the provisory reference), since i dont manage to find any such document posted yet. Kek in addition to the The Greek-hating-Sources there is a necessity to write also The Macedonian unreliable news article we will all benefit from relevant objective information like that. Alex Makedon (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the link you gave yourself, from the Greek MFA. It's a joint press release by the Greek and the Congolese side. The language in it is very clear. We can certainly assume that one of the governments involved might occasionally misinterpret what another has said, but to assume they'd literally fake such a declaration is a bit over the top. That text counts for an authentic declaration of the Congolese diplomats, in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Greek MoFa press release and the Macedonian MoFA press release, why one should be considered official "truth" and the other not, on what criteria we can assume this? How come the Greek MoFa press release (dated 18/10/08) about things that Mr. Mbusa Nyamwisi "assured", that assign to the Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93 an inexistant mandatory use of the provisory reference in bilateral purposes, is considered an official DR Congo statement, and the Macedonian MoFa press release over an official DR Congo note (successive to the press release dated 23/10/08) confirming that their position regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia remains unchanged, unreilable? Alex Makedon. If we can't assume that the Greek Goverment would fake a declaration, on what basis we assume that Macedonian MoFA would fake an official DR Congo note? Alex Makedon (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One or other side "faking it" isn't the only possible scenario. One side could simply have misinterpreted the Congolese diplomatic representations. If we accept the authenticity of the document posted on MINA, it simply reiterates the validity of the agreement on the establishment of diplomatic relations, but doesn't explicitly mention the naming dispute, unlike the statement quoted verbatim on the Greek MFA website. On the other hand, it does use "Republic of Macedonia", which complicates the matter. One must wonder, however, why the MFA in Skopje hasn't yet provided direct quotes of the Panamanian and Congolese "denials". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless of course the capitalisation in the phrase "THE [sic] Republic of Macedonia" is an abbreviation for "The fHormer Eugoslav". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be a lightly hearted stance of Congo on the matter, while getting pressured by both sides? As far as I know, Congo has more serious things to worry about right now.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, users should wait at least another week before editing the congo's stance on ROM/FYROM. Maybe more sources will arise, give it some time and leave it at that.PMK1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt about that. Congo has currently more important issues to deal with. (Unless a US-brokered agreement will require Congo's recognition of FYROM as "Macedonia". I do not know about that; maybe some do...). --Hectorian (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"One side could simply have misinterpreted the Congolese diplomatic representations." Correct, and we have:

Greek MoFa press release (dated 18/10/08) about things that Mr. Mbusa Nyamwisi "assured", that assign to the Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93 an inexistant mandatory use of the provisory reference in bilateral purposes. An interpretation of a joint press release.
A DR Congo UN document (dated 23/10/08) clearly confirming that their position regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia remains unchanged.

what more evidence are we looking for? Alex Makedon (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The press release provided by the Greek MFA was a joint press release. It was not just the Greek side unilaterally reporting and interpreting what the Congolese side had said in the talks. The text of the summary itself was signed jointly by the Congolese diplomats. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that we dont have a copy of the original joint press release document signed by the Congolese diplomats, correct me wrong but I see just a Greek interpretation of the joint press release with no direct quotations from the Congolese diplomats, stated on a Greek MFA site. Alex Makedon (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to insist on seeing an actual facsimile of the signature? That text published on the MFA website is the joint press release, it's not a Greek interpretation of it, it's the original text itself. Unless the Greek diplomats are outright forgers. As I said earlier, official MFA publications are reliable sources; we can assume that they sometimes interpret things mistakenly, but we shouldn't assume they would host downright forgeries of official documents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets examine some facts:

The press release was on the sidelines of the 12th summit meeting of “La Francophonie” Organisation. (bilateral relations with Republic of Macedonia was not the main issue of this summit).
"Democratic Republic of Congo shall refer to our neighbouring country... ....in accordance with Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93 of the UN Security Council" the UN resolutions are not mandatory over the use of the provisory reference in bilateral purposes, so Congo can still use the constitutional name and be in accordance with the UN Resolutions.(an ambiguous statement that can be easily misinterpreted)
the press release (dated 18/10/08) is prior to the UN official note (dated 23/10/08), so even if correct there is the possibility that they actually changed their mind once more on the matter. (as happened before for Mexico)
the summary of the press release written on the Greek MFA site has at most the same value of the Macedonian MFA press release over the official DR Congo note. Assuming good faith, the Greek joint press releace summary could be a misinterpretation, while the official DR Congo note cannot absolutely be subjected to misinterpretation since it is the actual Congo document and not a Macedonian interpretation of it.

Given the evidence DR Congo should be placed on the list of "countries using "Republic of Macedonia" in bilateral diplomatic relations", at least till there is evidence that Congo used the the provisory reference after 23/10/08. Alex Makedon (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not getting it. It isn't a summary. It is the joint press release. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if we take the press release published on the Greek MFA for a valid DR Congo document (...), what about the chronological order of the evidence we have? There is an official UN Congo document dated 23/10 confirming that their position remains unchanged and a letter sent from Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki on 23/10 to his Congolese counterpart in which he expressed gratitude to the Government of Congo for using the constitutional name of Macedonia. It seems that the matters have evolved since the 18/10 press release, what other evidence we need? Alex Makedon (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Double standards

Macedonia stated Congo did not change position in both MIA, the official Macedonia government news, and BalkanInsight. Greece stated Congo changed in its MFA The result: "To be sorted"

Macedonia stated Mexico doesn’t change position in MIA. Greece says Mexico did in its MFA. The result: "Mexico uses FYROM"

The double standards are in view of us, yet it is allowed. Wikipedia = fair? Also, countries that use Republic of Macedonia are NOT seen on the map, such as the UK and Ireland. Mactruth (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed in the section right above. Repeating the same fallacious argument over and over again does not make it more convincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, the UK and Ireland have been updated. So has the Congo and Panama (to be sorted) but Mexico is still the issue. Mactruth (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Italy

I added Italy some days ago to the ROM-list with an official Macedonian MFA source, but probably some users do not like Italy or are afraid of that country. What's the problem? Macedonian Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Milososki clearly said "our constitutional name is not problematic for Ljubljana, Rome, Moscow, Warsaw, Washington". Do not run away from the truth.

voila, the source: http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=319&id=317 Cukiger (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As the other source links that have been used for Italy clearly show, the Italian MFA website is full of documents that used FYROM, among them (if I remember correctly) bilateral agreements using FYROm as recently as 2007. You'd need a much more concrete source about when and how the Italian stance has recently changed if you wanted to discount those documents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Simple. We have the Italian foreign ministry using FYROM. And, when it comes to reporting the Italian position, the Italian MFA overrides anything Antonio might say in an interview to Dnevnik. Moreover, he doesn't explicitly say that Italy recognizes the constitutional name, merely that it is "not problematic for Ljubljana, Rome... or any other country in the world". If this is a good enough source for Italy, why not any other country? My interpretation of his remarks is that he's simply denouncing Greece in his rather typical fashion for being the "only" country that objects to the appropriation of Greek history. No shit. Why would anyone else give a fuck? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.esteri.it/MAE/doc_concorsi_gare/macedonia_gara.pdf Cukiger (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Politica_Estera/Aree_Geografiche/Europa/Balcani/, http://www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Politica_Europea/AffariGen_RelazEst/UE_allargamento/paesicandidati/Ex_Rep_Jugosl_di_Macedonia.htm ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

hahaha, everybody in here thinks that if a country uses "RoM" or "FYROM" on its page that represents the country's official position. :) don't be funny. Greek MFA says Ireland uses "RoM" in bil. relations, but the irish MFA page still has the reference on its page. http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=285 Cukiger (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to dig them out now, as I am beginning to find your insistance annoyingly obsessive, but what I meant was not informal usage on web pages, but usage of FYROM in the official texts of bilateral agreements between MK and Italy (and which can be found on the Italian MFA website.) That's what all our issues about "official use in bilateral relations" is about, isn't it? Those official bilateral texts had FYROM at least until 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But whatever. If this discssion goes on much longer, I'll insist on removal of the whole section. If we can't agree on what counts as evidence, without these ridiculously protracted discussions about how binding and how official this or that document is, it's getting too OR'y. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Does sound like original synthesis of evidence from primary sources, doesn't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason in creating this section in the first place??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Political Macedonia" Map

My only objection in this is the following: while it seems that the map shows the political division of the geographical region of Macedonia, we have Macedonia-part of Greece and Macedonia-Republic of Macedonia. Wouldn't it be right if it was "part of the Republic of Macedonia"? Or instead of part of Greece, there could be "periphery of Greece" (if that is indeed the interpretation that this tries to give).--Michael X the White (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Do you know what "part of" means? The red blob in that map is not "part of" the RoM, it is the whole of the RoM. And Greek Macedonia isn't a periphery either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. When I say "Part of RoM", part is not referring to RoM but to Macedonia as "Part of Macedonia that belongs to RoM"=>"Part of RoM" and "part of Macedonia that belongs to Greece"=>"part of Greece". Clear enough?? But I've got something even shorter. Instead of "part of Greece" say "Greece" as "Macedonia in RoM"=>"RoM", "Macedonia in Greece"=>Greece. What is there now actually means "RoM=Macedonia, but Greece happens to have a part of the region".--Michael X the White (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Learn English. "Part of" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Start thinking. We should be speculating about all possible interpretations that a reader may give to this to find the most neutral of all and avoid POV expressed through Wikipedia.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia written both by and for intelligent people who know English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That is strange. I thought it to be "Wikipedia, where anyone can edit" and I also think it is online for everyone to read freely! As much as I know,the readers are left themselves to check the truthfulness of what appears in the articles and to make their own interpretations. And that is why we should make it as neutral as possible (our goal is neutrality,remember??).--Michael X the White (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, the problem isn't caused by the caption, it's caused by the name of the country itself, and the implicit claim on the whole of Macedonia that it represents. Not much can be done about that, I'm afraid. Sigh. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've tweaked "part of Greece" to "Greek Macedonia". Is that acceptable to you boys? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's definately better.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. And FP, you know better than to put people down for their poor English. Isn't there a policy against that somewhere? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you saying that, of all people :-) -- Rest assured, I have no problem with people who write less than perfect English. I do have a problem with people who aggressively insist that their poor English is correct, or that Wikipedia should be dumbed down to their level. By the way, I'm not seeing the change you spoke of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Η πουτάνα, και να θέλει να κρυφτεί, η χαρά δεν την αφήνει... ;)

Have you tried clearing your cache? It's working on my end. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, didn't notice it was in a template, not the article itself. I've simplified it further. No need having "Macedonia" five times in that one box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, just in case we didn't get it the first time round, ε? Who knows what else Nikos was busy doing at the time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot better than before,isn't it?--Michael X the White (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the last thing we need from you now is the told you so dance. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Heeeeyyyyyy! That's unfair! That was not my intention!--Michael X the White (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek official sacked for having positive views on the Rep of Macedonia

The Greek leading left-wing opposition party PASOK sacked its political communications adviser after he publicly said that Skopje has every right to be called Macedonia and that a Macedonian minority does exist in Greece. Source:Balkan Insight 11/11/08 I think this should defiantly be included to the article as it is important encyclopedic information. Not to mention a Greek official was sacked for practicing his basic human right of freedom of speech. Ijanderson (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, PASOK is not a left-wing party; none in Greece considers it such, nor does it consider's itself as such. Secondly, he is not a Greek official. He was an employee of PASOK. According to PASOK's statement on the issue After the recent statements of Grigoris Valianatos, with which he expressed his personal political positions on foreign affairs, deontological reasons compel the interruption of his professional relation with PASOK.[25] I wouldn't call that an important encyclopedic information. And, btw, balkaninsight.com seems to be rather pro-FYROM to be taken seriously in Wikipedia. Though it advertises self as a "Journalist site of Southeast Europe", it is rather "sensitive" on specific countries and territories to be considered neutral. --Hectorian (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, why then it is a member of the Party of European Socialists? Cukiger (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a socialist party; unless you believe that the UK currently has a leftist government and that Gordon Brown is a leftist leader as well. --Hectorian (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

social-democratic and socialist parties are left-wing parties, so are PASOK and the Labour Party. Whatever, the discussion should be about "Greek official sacked for having positive views on the Rep of Macedonia" ;) Cukiger (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Labour Party is not a left-wing party. Claiming so, may cause Marx's and Lenin's return for revenge! Whatever the point, I have commented on the matter in length, but you chose to commented on the just one line for PASOK's ideology and perception by the people:) --Hectorian (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vallianatos is not a Greek "official"; he was a professional media consultant who was sacked for expressing views which could embarrass his employer, whose PR he'd been hired to enhance, not send to the gutter. Perspective, people. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the many cases of spinning an event to fit with RoM's agenda. A PR consultant becomes an "official", even when PASOK is the opposition party. And most importantly, the reason that he was sacked was NOT his views alone. The reason he was sacked is because in his interview he gave the impression that he was not only a PR advisor, but that he also advised George Papandreou on foreign policy! The shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs of PASOK Andreas Loverdos was forced to state later that Vallianatos has never attended a single meeting of the PASOK foreign policy committee and that no member of the committee has ever expressed such an opinion.--Avg (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if PASOK is left wing or not, thats going off at a tangent and Balkan Insight is a reliable source, so this info should be included to the article Ijanderson (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor incident of no lasting significance and no political value. We are not a news site. Also, I agree the apparent impetus of giving this a spin as if it was a suppression-of-free-speech civil rights scandal is just patently absurd. Much as I personally agree with his views, he was employed by a political party, and in most jurisdictions I know of, political parties are perfectly within their rights in demanding that their employees should publicly uphold their party line. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vallianatos had his chance to transcend his caricature status, and make a positive difference for his community and other disadvantaged minorities in a serious way, and he blew it. Tough tits. Next. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ι think he feels so suppressed on account of the reluctance of Greece to accept equal rights for homosexual people, that he could just say anything to the edge to draw attention around him. He has been doing that for a long time concerning gay issues. This wasn't a surprise for anyone (except for the party that employed him to consult). --Dimorsitanos (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he of all people feels "suppressed" in the slightest. Perfecting the art of provocation is what propelled him to his status as a national celebrity, but this time it backfired on him. Boo hoo. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And something else. Mr Vallianatos didn't really state, on account of PASOK, that such a minority exists. He actually stated that such a statement has been circulating around Europe and that's true. That's what FYROM has been accused of many times, of the propaganda.... and then, he also added that he personally agrees with this statement (to draw attention once again). I saw that interview that night on Extra 3, and the next night. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who lives in Greece knows very well that Valianatos loves media attention. His dispute (for totally different reasons) with a well known lawyer became headline for the Greek media and main subject in the satirical shows for months. The media had stop referring to him for long now, and that's why, I suppose, he made his last statements. But this time he found himself in conflict with the vast majority of the Greeks. I personally believe that he will answer back, but none will give him any attention, apart from our neighbours in the north (for their own reasons). --Hectorian (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia is taking Greece to the World Court

Balkan Insight Source 17/11/08 easybourse.com Source Macedonia is taking Greece to the World Court for Vetoing its NATO membership. This is because Greece has violated the United Nations Interim Accord in 1995 and therefore Greece has broken international law. This should defiantly be added to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the International Court of Justice doesn't take any cases unless it's jointly asked to do so by both parties. The ICJ can't force a country to submit to its judgment, and you can't unilaterally drag another country before it. So, I'd say either (a) this report is false; (b) the motion is just a desperate publicity stunt; or (c) the Macedonian government is terminally clueless; unless (d) this case belongs to some special category of situations I'm not aware of, where the ICJ can act against a country on its own initiative. Any further info? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is video footage ruling out (a) and (d) seems exceedingly unlikely, it could well be a combination of (b) and (c). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on researching a bit further, (d) might not be so totally out yet. Greece is in fact on a list of countries that have signed a blanket statement that they will always accept jurisdiction of the court, so in theory, another country could drag them into it. But that rule works on the principle of reciprocity, apparently, and I can't find Macedonia on the same list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. A first reading of the Greek reaction indicates that Athens may even be glad this has happened, as it will provide an opportunity to voice its own grievances regarding Skopje's "violations" of the Interim Accord. This should prove very interesting indeed, though I'm still not certain the Court will take the case on given your initial post. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of that seems like WP:OR and that is disallowed. Ijanderson (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Language bit

It's part of the naming dispute. There's even a main article for it (forked out from the main language article by Francis earlier on to "purify" it...). I think it is an integral part of the article, and too much effort and discussion had been done in the past with various editors to make it as neutral as possible. It's just a small summary. (BTW, I'm not opposed in shrinking this huge article here, but I think the particular section creates the least problem of all.) Niko Silver 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was never a veto

It is inaccurately claimed throughout the article that there has been a veto from Greece in the Bucharest Summit. However Athens (possibly to avoid such litigation as the one currently in place by Skopje) never put a veto, but was always following the "non-invitation" line as forged by member consensus. The Czech representative in Nato Štefan Füle affirmed this has been the case in a conference in Skopje. Here's the report from MIA: [26]. Can't help to comment on how the whole story is spinned in the article. The RoM representative Ismet Ramadani claims there has been a veto and immediately afterwards Füle corrects him and says that there has never been a veto and that the issue is good neighbourly relations with Greece. Although this has been a tremendous blow to the whole RoM position going to the World Court, the article simply says "Czech Republic keeps supporting Macedonia's accession to NATO". Greek media have also reported this, and Skai TV, mentioned that Füle advised RoM journalists to avoid writing there has been a veto in Bucharest since this is not what really happened [27] (machine translation: here). -Avg (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ERASED COMMENT

I posted here just yesterday, yet i am unable to locate my comment. Can anyone provide information on what has occurred? It wasn't insulting in any way, so i cannot believe it has been erased, or Wikipedia's standards are totally different from what it proclaims they are.83.212.25.113 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

alfadog7777 is the name of the editor of the previous comment.Alfadog777 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed that comment (and I'm removing it again now) because it is unrelated to the purpose of this page. This page is only for discussing editorial work on the article. It is not for a general exchange of ideas or opinions about Macedonia, which is what your posting was. (To others: no need to be nasty about it though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem rather erase-happy, considering all the personal views and conversations on the rest of the page, though.Alfadog777 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

They are most (if not all) done while discussing editorial stuff. I looked at your comment and I just saw a personal comment with nothing that could be applied to improving the page, so I would have done the same as Future Perfect. In particular, notice the difference between "the subject of the article is X" (your comment) and "the article does not cover the subject of the article correctly because of X and needs to be improved doing changes Y and Z" (a comment that actually makes editorial suggestions, and that I wouldn't remove unless it was a total nationalistic rant, was very unreasonable, was proposing very bad or biased sources, or had already been discussed and rejected a lot of times). Comments gets extra points if they also add "because of what reliable sources R, S and T say" and the sources are well used --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing in the article

"whatever original Macedonian people and culture remained and the new Slavic tribes, who arrived in the Balkans long after ancient Macedonia had ceased to exist as a political entity and been absorbed into the common Greek culture of the Hellenistic era."

"It should be noted, however, that the Slavs inhabited Macedonia for more than a millennium before the name "Macedonians" was first used to distinguish a specific Slavic ethnic group by a small number of intellectuals towards the end of the nineteenth century."

Why is it that this statement of "Slavs invaded after Alexander" repeat over and over again? Is that not POV pushing?

If we state that again and again, why not state "It should be noted that half the inhabitants of Macedonia (Greece) originate from Asia Minor and have lived in Macedonia for less then 100 years, and today call themselves Greek Macedonians?" Why isn't that repeated to a propaganda extend or even stated once? Mactruth (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First of, the two passages have a different meaning. Both are plain facts added to have a balanced context. The fisrt is to denote the gap between the last documented distinctiveness of the ancient Macedonians and the Slav arrival. The second is to say that the name and whatever claims went with it was first used by Slavs more than a millenium after the first settlements. I don't see how the refugee settlement in Macedonia can serve the same purpose in the Greek position section. If you have a source connecting it with the ethnic Macedonian position you may discuss its addition there, but that's another issue i guess.--Zakronian (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I included what Mactruth wrote in the Macedonian historical perspective long ago, to demonstrate the "irony" - shall we say, but it keeps being removed. It deserves inclusion becuase it is undisputable, and is a direct counterpoint to the Greek historical concerns. The purpose of the article is to present facts, as presented by both side - and both ysides have valid points- and leave it to the reader to decide for themselves Hxseek (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Macedonians of refugee origins don't represent the entirety of the Greek population of Macedonia, nor do they claim to be indigenous to Macedonia. They are Macedonians by geography and Greeks by ethnicity. Where's the irony? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, those of them with a brain, they acknowledge that there are other types of Macedonians around, and they accept to be disambiguated in whichever convenient way (such as Greek Macedonians). There are, of course, those without a brain too (in both sides of the border)... Niko Silver 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, there had been a constant presence of Greeks in Macedonia. But seeing that many are actually originally non-Macedonians is an interesting fact given that one of Greece's major arguements against RoM is that the Slavs "arrived from Russia only in 600AD" - which, by the way, is simplistic (as I have already pointed out previously Hxseek (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the Greeks have been there longer than anyone else, and Macedonia's ancient name and history are part of the Greek national heritage. I guess you can blame the Macedonians for spearheading the common Greek identity. Besides, your lot would still call the indigenous Greeks simply "Greeks", not Macedonians, if they acknowledged their existence at all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Greeks have not been there longer than anyone else. Hellenes arrived there 700 BC (if one takes the view that Macedonians were a distant, but Hellenic tribes, or 400 BC, if one takes they view that Macedons were 'Helenized barbarians'. Other non-Greek inhabitants lived there also, and continued to do so, despite the extensive Hellenization of Macedonia. Yes, the Slavic element was latest of all, but the Greek position that Macedonia's name and history are exclusively part of (modern) Greek national heritage is where the flaw lays, given that there have been so many layers and varied cultural elements in the history of what we refer to as the "Region of Macedonia".

As for "our lot", I am not sure what the government at Skopje's position is, frankly the modern politics of it dont interest me. Not that it matters, but personally I think that even the descendents of the Hellenized Syrians, Anatolians and Armeneians that now constitute half of "Greek" macedonia have a right to be called as such :) Hxseek (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Longer than any other modern people, obviously. And I'm talking about a documented presence, not speculation based on dubious genetics. Of course there were other inhabitants in what for the past century or so has been defined as the wider region of Macedonia, but they were Thracians, Paionians, Dardanians, or Illyrians, all of whom have since died out, not Macedonians. You accuse Greece of claiming exclusivity, but by refusing to call yourselves anything but "Macedonians" you are doing precisely that. If, like us, you accepted the distinction between ethnicity and geography, we could all be Macedonians in a strictly geographic sense and there would be no problem. Put simply, Macedonia is inhabited by Greeks in the south and Slavs in the north, not "Greeks" and "Macedonians". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Those Slavs of the north are split into two ethnic groups: Macedonians and Bulgarians. Balkan Fever 07:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Six, actually, if you include the Serbs, Bosniaks, Gorani and Torbeši. So the non-Bulgarian (or Serb, or Muslim) Slavs of Macedonia can't be the Macedonians, except alongside the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians and the rest. The point being, of course, that everyone else has a name that distinguishes their ethnicity from their geography. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek, what are you talking about ? you have mixed you thighs again writing about hellenized people, the truth is clear: When the Greek element was diminishing in present day Crimea and surrounding territories, Slavs and Bulgars were competing for the best souvlaki recipe (the closest to the Greek preparation procedure, the one first introduced into the area). The Slavs having a disadvantage in knowledge about this ancient tradition sent some groups to learn from the masters in the Greek mainland. The Bulgars seeing their dreams of world domination via a Greek souvlaki monopoly were endangered also fought their way down to the Balkans hoping to enhance their technique and prevent the Slavs from learning any more secrets. At this point it must be noted that the Slavs also came down for another reason, due to the aforementioned rivalry the Bulgars had created a major shortage of olive oil, traded by Greek merchants for ages there, which was very usefull as a sexual lubricant in various rituals (to the Slavs it was of even more importance as Slavic girls of that period suffered from dryness). By the time they came here (and searched all over the place) souvlaki had lost it's significance as a cultural weapon, mostly due to the spread of Christianity. The Slavs had a lot of fun with the olive oil though, which was abundant, spreading their genes all over. Bottom line is, whoever your ancestors may be (Greeks, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, etc) they have eaten so much souvlaki that you are connected with the Greeks by tons of flesh, and blood (we'll talk about the Greek origins of the French cuisine some other time).--Zakronian (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense now. Hxseek (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is we are all Macedonians. What we need is a way to call each other. It's the silliest dispute the world has faced for millenia... Niko Silver 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and not. How come two people from different cultural, historical, linguistic -and I don't know what else- backgrounds can share the same identity?? Say that me, supposedly a Chinese, born and live in Australia. I am therefore an Australian; but does that makes me an Aboriginal? Sure not. The same in the UStates, because I am an American, am I also a Native American? Sure not! The Europeans occupied Australia and Americas but never claimed they are Aboriginals or Natives! Anglo-Saxons occupied Britain, the land of the Celts, but never claimed they are Celts. Instead they gave their name to the region they mainly inhabit, therefore England. I could mention hundreds of such examples. So if I start to claim that I am an Aboriginal just cause I live in Australia or an American Native just cause I live in the States or a Celt just cause I live in Celtic land and that is justified, then let it be! Let also be justified that although I am a Slav by origin but because I live in a region with the geographical name "Macedonia" then I am a Macedonian too, having equal cultural, historical, linguistic etc. heritage with the rest, actual Macedonians who were there before my arrival! Moreover, I can start monopolizing the term Macedonia and everything around it, why not?? So, you understand, that is silliest. That's why we need clarification to avoid confusion between Macedonians that have a direct at least historical and linguistic connection with the actual ancient people after whom the region of Macedonia was named, and the Slavs - or Chinese, Eskimos, Maoris etc. - who occupied and live in the very same region. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty shit analogy. Firstly, the term "Macedonia" doesn't have any implied aboriginality. Secondly there is a huge difference between a Chinese migrant to Australia in 1970s, say, than to the Macedonian people who have blood-lines in the region since the Palaeolithic and cultural links from the various previous inhabitants. After living in a region for 1, 400 years they are aboriginal to Macedonia, even if you take the simplistic view that they arrived in Macedonia in 600 AD from Ukraine. Just becuase modern Greeks speak the closest living relative language of macedonian, possibly, it doesn't mean that you have the same "cultural, historical, linguistic heritage" as you put it, either. The Greek nation was created in the modern era. You cannot transpose your idea of a common Greek identity based on linguistic lines back to 2,500 years ago

Hxseek (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But you can transpose your idea of a "Macedonian" identity based on purely speculative genetic lines going back a lot more than 2,500 years. Right. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No more speculative than any other theory, archaeological or otherwise Hxseek (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Theories are fine and dandy, but the 6,000 inscriptions unearthed in Macedonia are not theories. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It definitely speaks of strong Hellenic cultural domination in the area, and poses a strong case for Hellenic origins of ancient Macedonians. However, you know that many scholars treat Macedonians somewhat seperate to the rest of Greece. Clearly, there was something different to these people. Anyway, we can chase each others tails till the goats come home. I think we have already settled the issue at the appropriate talk page, no need to go on. My point was that CandO's analogy was poor. Hxseek (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you didn't completely understand me. Sure you don't mean that a Chinese who might be an "aboriginal" to Australia can also be an Aboriginal! To conclude:

• ROM, a very new -since 1991- state in the Balkans with citizens mainly of Slavic and Albanian origin decides to use and monopolize the Greek terms Macedonia and Macedonians which was given to them by Tito in 1944, despite the fact that those terms are used for 2800 years to describe Macedonia, a Greek land and Macedonians, a Greek people!!! • The citizens of ROM would have every right to identify themselves as "Macedonians", only in case they were of Greek origin, which they are not, or in case the term had just a geographical meaning (even if that geographical meaning is very recent, since late Ottoman era...) like as if a man of Italian origin who was born and lives in the USA is an American or a man of English origin who was born and lives in Australia is an Australian. But because the terms Macedonia and Macedonians are used since ancient times to describe Greek land and Greek people, the citizens of ROM cannot and should not identify themselves as just "Macedonians" because they simply are not just "Macedonians", like as if an Italian who lives in the USA might be an American, but by no means is a Native American or an English who lives in Australia might be an Australian but by no means is an Aboriginal!!!

• ROM only occupies less that 10% of the actual Macedon. The middle and northern parts of ROM (with the capital, Scopje) did never belong to the Macedon, prior to the expansions that is. It belonged to ancient Paeonia and the ancient Paeonians were enemies of the ancient Macedonians. Furthermore, modern citizens of ROM are mainly of Slavic and Albanian origin. Then do they want to call their country “Macedonia” when more than 90% of Macedon is outside their border??? Why they want to identify themselves and their land with a Greek name, -especially when both of these terms, Macedonia and Macedonian are used since antiquity to describe Greek people and Greek land and only recently the person that lives in geographic Macedonia- while at the same time they attempt to monopolize that name, despite the fact that it is already in proper use by Greece and Greeks -despite the resent "creation" of the modern Greek state. as you mentioned- since ancient times? What kind of international surrealistic law justifies that?

• I am Greek. I live in Florina, Macedonia, Greece. If ROM is named as "Macedonia" then how will I describe my origin and culture and everything around them, when at the same time if I say that I am Macedonian, a second person will probably understand that I have something to do with ROM, which isn't true? That is how confusion is created!

• If there is a nationality in ROM, then it cannot be named as just "Macedonian", because that name has already been used to describe the ancient Greek tribe of the Macedonians, which has nothing to do with the modern citizens of ROM. The history of the ancient Macedonians is a large part of the Greek history, as well as the history of the ancient Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, Thebians, etc. Greece naturally isn't willing to recognize a non-Greek nation and a non-Greek land with the same name with an ancient Greek tribe and a current Greek land.

• Greece has no territorial claims on ROM. On the contrary, with the use of the name ‘Macedonia’, the ROM's falsification of the Greek (and Balkan) history will be continued. In that way, in the ROM's schools, children will propagandistically be taught -as they already do- of a fictionary enslaved "Macedonian" nationality in Greece and elsewhere!!! That means the creation of extremists and continuous trouble in the Balkans, a situation that actually serves the benefits of other people out of the Balkans, definitely not Slav-Macedonians or Greeks... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

of a fictionary enslaved "Macedonian" nationality in Greece and elsewhere.

So do you deny the forced migration or Hellenization of Slavs in northern Greece, in an attempt to Hellenize Greek Macedonia, which even until recent times had a considerable, and further back, majority Slav-speaking population. has this not been the tool of the Greek territorial ambitions ? Hxseek (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you must have in mind that book by psychologist John Shea again... You obviously forget the Greek conflicts with the Bulgarians from 1904 to 1908, the Balkan wars and the inter-war period, the beginning of Comintern's involvement in the Macedonian Question, etc. So you claim that ROM's present and actual territorial claims on Greece are justified because of the "forced migration or Hellenization of Slavs in northern Greece"?? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Slavophone bits of Greek Macedonia were "Hellenized", or re-Hellenized to be precise. But what about the inhabitants of what is now the "Republic of Macedonia"? Were they not systematically "Macedonized" after 1944? Why is the former reprehensible but the latter perfectly natural and desirable? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the Slavisation of the inhabitants of Macedonia in the 5th and 6th century AD:

"That same year, being the third after the death of king Justin, was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called Slavonians, who overran the whole of Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians, and all Thrace, and captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it by main force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear. And four years have now elapsed, and still, because the king is engaged in the war with the Persians, and has sent all his forces to the East, they live at their ease in the land, and dwell in it, and spread themselves far and wide as far as God permits them, and ravage and burn and take captive. And to such an extent do they carry their ravages, that they have even ridden up to the outer wall of the city, and driven away all the king's herds of horses, many thousands in number, and whatever else they could find. And even to this day, being the year 895 (A. D. 584), they still encamp and dwell there, and live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captive and slay and burn..." (John of Ephesus, "Ecclesiastical History", VI. 25). The Cat and the Owl (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I well acquainted with that work. I don't think one act justifies another, especially since the Slavonication of Macedonia was just as peaceful as it was hostile, and was a bi-directional process of amalgamation over the span of 2 centuries; the latter was a systematic, organized mass oppression. I severely doubt how Greece can truly beleive that Macedonia intends on claiming Greek territory. At best, such ambitions represent the nostalgic ideals of a few who wish for a united Macedonia, based on early 20h century idea of a greater macedonian country, incoporating all different linguistic elements. Macedonia has its own troubles internally, with the 35% or so minority that cause un-ending troubles. I really don;t think that it is making a secret plan to invade its larger, richer neighbour. Hxseek (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make myself very clear to all the Northern Greeks reading this material. ethnic Macedonians are a mix of ancient Macedonians and Slavics, we love our identity and will never "compromise" it. If you look at MOST maps, they showed most ethnic Macedonians living in what is today GREEK MACEDONIA + Southern/Central ROM, but they migrated to the north due to emigration... hence the argument that since Northern Greeks live on that land today, they must be related to the ancients is FALSE... since is was the ethnic Macedonians who lived there but were kicked out! Second, Greeks constantly IGNORE the population exchanges and LIE to the world regarding the Hellenization of Slavs saying its "re Hellenization." Peaceful Hellenization DOES NOT include pouring oil down the throats of those who spoke Bulgar or Macedonian. Yet, all these Hellenized Slavs, Pontic Greeks, and Hellenized Vlachs claim that we cannot call ourselves ethnic Macedonians... and use numbers on Wikipedia to create a new history, hide information, and LIE to the world that they deserve the ancient identity. You claim the refugees (they have a name - Pontic Greek - and they have a history much more GLORIOUS then you, so I don't think calling them refugee is fair) don't call themselves Greek Macedonian, that they don't state they are aires to the ancient Macedonian, yet your Prime Minister stated that all the Greeks in the region of Macedonia are MACEDONIAN. Mactruth (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"I am going to make myself very clear to all the Northern Greeks"

And we are going to make ourselves very clear to you. We are not "northern Greeks". We are MACEDONIAN Greeks.

There is no way to acknowledge your regional slavic identity for as long as you continue to disrespect our distinct Greek Macedonian identity. Read for yourself what the US Secretary of State said about your alleged ethnic identity in 1944. (Or are you now going to accuse America of ethnic cleansing you too?)

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l151/pavlaki/stettimuscirculards6.jpg

Or how about the first president of FYRoM, Kiro Gligorov, was he part of the Greek conspiracy against you when he stated...

"We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Or how about all the statistics from the 19th century that show no evidence of the existence of a non-Greek Macedonian identity last century. (Fortunately for Italians Tito didn't decide to call you Romans)

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

Try and find a pretext to distort (or censor) the facts as much as you like on Wikipedia but those facts aren't going away no matter how long you delay resolution of your true ethnic identity...a hybrid of Bulgarian and Yugoslavian culture.

Greeks generally don't hate you. We understand you are victims of communism (and we don't want our ancient lands back) but we can't be expected to sit passively by forever as we are constantly openly demonized by FYROM nationals like yourself. Learn to accept there is another Macedonian identity that is distinct to your own. Learn to co-exist in peace with your neighbors. (including Bulgarians, Serbians and Albanians who you also accuse of various unfounded genocides). Stop hating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.238.74 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gligorov did announce that (but you know that he was a communist),but give me one Greek politician/historian who will aknodledge the fact that Slavs settled in almost all Greece (including Crete and Peloponez).Greeks have even less claims to favour Ancient Macedonians as Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.104.25 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

MAP PROBLEMS

The map which illustrates which countries recognise Macedonia under its provisional and constitutional name needs updating. For example some British and French over seas territories are not coloured in. Also the British Crown colonies are not coloured in either. Mann's, Jersey's and Guernsey's interests are represented by the UK, therefore they will recognise whatever the UK recognises so they needed to be coloured in accordingly. Also Kosovo is not on the map either and Macedonia recognises Kosovo, so this needs to be added too. I can not edit SVG images, so would someone please do that. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The false greatness of the small nations living in the Balkans

In my opinion, the frustrations like the one which exist between Hellenic Republic and Republic of Macedonia could be explained as a result of a false greatness which is typical for the countries on the Balkan Peninsula.

All of them are today small and unimportant. Since the times of dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the great powers of Europe have tried their best to avoid formation of the dominant regional power in the Balkans, while at the same time in all of the countries in the region the ideas for formation of greater countries (Greater Macedonia, Greater Bulgaria, Greater Serbia, Greater Albania, Greater Croatia and the Megali Idea which was a Greek concept) were never suppressed.

The situation was similar in the Middle Ages when the big player in the region was the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).

It is not easy to be manipulated. I understand that.

These false greatnesses together with the conservatism which dominates the mentality of the people in the region are some of the factors that are helping in maintaining of the unresolved issues (like the naming dispute) between all the countries in the region. These unresolved issues and especially the nonexistence of the good will to solve them could be used as an excuse for some future conflicts.

The wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the problems with the full implementation of the human rights for the minorities that all the countries in the region have (EU members from the region are not exception), the recent protest in Hellenic Republic are a good example of the lack of capacities of the local governments to solve the real problems of their people. Instead, the nationalism, the (false) greatness, the hatred for the similar cultures/nations are used as a substitute for the lack of abilities of the local governments to give a better life to their voters.

The only exception of this is Slovenia. This country compared to its neighbors (Austria, Italy and Hungary), which are historical giants (compared to Slovenia), has found its real place in its liberalism and the embraced politic of the EU for tolerance of the smaller nations.

As I said earlier the false greatness, the living in the past instead of living the present time with the hope for the better future is what still keeps the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages.

Igor 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.28.67 (talk)

Yeah, except for Slovenia's Izbrisani, its dispute with Italy in the 1990s over the Istrian exiles and its perennial spats with Croatia over territorial waters and the like. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I agree with what you just add in your message... but it does not make the rest of the Balkan better place for living!

Additionally if someone else is as primitive as we are it does not make me feel better. ;-) Igor 77.28.13.115 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Greece comfortably outranks Slovenia in terms of the Human Development Index, Democracy Index, Quality-of-Life Index, etc. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Having this conversation with you my impression was that the only problem the Hellenic Republic has was Slovenia. Now I know that it is not true. Regards, Igor 77.28.10.147 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hellenic Republic has no problem with the Republic of Slovenia other than the lack of neutrality on the part of the latter vis-à-vis the subject of this article. Bratstvo in enotnost, indeed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...but still Hellenic Republic has unresolved issues with its neighbors. That was my first comment about! Not about how Hellenic Republic is better or worse than other losers in the region. Anyway, even the being best among the losers you are still loser. Have a nice life. 222.184.56.3 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Touché. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear friends and good neighbours.... Good to read your messages, but THIS IS not A BLOG SITE Politis (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy See (Vatican)

Vatican was listed under the countries that address Republic of Macedonia with "the former Yugoslav" prefix. An older reference from 2001 was given. I moved Vatican (Holy See) to the list of countries that use "Republic of Macedonia" and citing two more recent articles, from 2004 and 2008. Our President is currently visiting Vatican, let's see how they address him, OK?

And chill out a little bit, don't play victims here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.209.54 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit I removed was "removal of content with no explanation". You removed a country from the list without providing any edit summary. Please create an account and use the edit summary to explain you actions. Moreover, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Under its constitutional name" is pov

This is because it advances the idea through covert means that this is a "constitutional" matter, something that strikes clueless people into believing this is something major that must be paid attention to. Well, guess what, Greece's "constitutional" name is not Greece. Did you know that? It's "Hellas" but nobody wants to use it. Greece would want everyone to use it cause it's constitutional and that would be an argument. So, using "by its constitutional" is actually the pov of the party in favor of using something which is "constitutional". I do ask all of you that at least try to be neutral in this to check which people use "consitutional" in a spamming fashion all over wikipedia when it comes to Slavic Macedonia matters. It's predominately sympathizers of the pro-.."constitutional" name idea. This is extremist nationalists we have to deal here folks. Start banning people from Greece and FYROM from editing these articles or at least keep them highly at checks because we're dealing with extremist nationalists that do actively try to inflict propaganda on the masses through wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the soapbox of any nationalist extremist, it's supposed to give information, not feelings of the POV of some extremist little man. Leladax (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you already try this "constitutional" thing a while ago? Balkan Fever 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is constitutional name a redlink :(

"constitutional name" is used by reliable sources. A short search finds a Princeton University Press book by Loring Danforth [28], working papers of the Council of Europe [29], and a book from the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia [30]. Also news services like BBC[31], xinhuanet [32]. And, of course, the UN [33]. So, no, it's not a POV term. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians caught redhanded manipulating historical facts?

Don't know if this relevent to the article (or how acurate the story is) but it seems like some Macedonians are digging up the graves of bulgarian soldiers and rechristening them "macedonians".

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=101569 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.243.234 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Skopje" and "Athens"

My objection to the wording "Skopje referred Athens..." in that lead paragraph:

Using the capital-for-government metonymy makes sense only where the whole political leadership of a country is conceptualised as a single, uniform entity. Not suitable in this context, where, in the next half-sentence, we have to clarify that we're only talking of one half of "Skopje", the government, in explicit opposition to other parts of its leadership.
Using the capital-for-government metonymy makes sense only where the names of the capitals are universally well-known and contextually given. At that point early on in the text, we cannot assume the reader even knows that Skopje is the capital of the R.o.M.
Linking to the cities doesn't help, and is even counter-productive. Linking a city name makes only sense where the city itself is being talked about, and where it is new information. Either we assume everybody knows what Skopje is (then we don't need a link), or we don't assume it (then we can't use it as a metonymy). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the president himself not part of the "government", at least in terms of the separation of powers? I guess the links could be removed to avoid confusion if they must, but I disagree that "we cannot assume the reader even knows that Skopje is the capital of the R.o.M.". It is "contextually given", by the name of the article itself, by the lead sentence describing the dispute as being between the two countries, and by the presence of the very familiar word Athens two words down. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the head of state is counted as part of the "executive branch" may be open to definition, but he is certainly not part of the "government", in countries that have a separate office of prime minister (= head of government). But in any case, the president is part of what "Skopje" would refer to. By the way, what's wrong with my wording? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The "executive branch" of what? The "executive branch", full stop? Anywho, I've changed the disgusting and offensive Greek chauvinist designation "Skopje" to "the government of Nikola Gruevski". That was always your real beef, wasn't it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Obviously, "the government of Nikola Gruevski" is even worse. Who or what is Nikola Gruevski? And no, my real beef is not to avoid "Skopje". I have absolutely no objections against using the metonymy elsewhere. It can be an elegant device in the right contexts. Just not here. My objections are really precisely just those I outlined above. I'm an esthete, don't forget that. But, speaking of beef, what's yours? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Gruevski doesn't exist. Geez, go learn something. Balkan Fever 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If only. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He must be from Bielefeld, then? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Achlada, actually. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Крушоради is a corruption of the original Биљфелд. Balkan Fever 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I always suspected those Bulgarian dialects were badly mixed up, but this bad? Shudder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ридополе didn't sound very interesting so we tried something else. Balkan Fever 13:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And your real beef is use of the phrase "Macedonian government" which I have now linked just in case you throw another tantrum over ambiguity. Balkan Fever 12:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering this article is about the dispute, we must err on the side of caution when using the terminology that is disputed, не? Besides, the Sobranie ≠ the government of Mr Grouios. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

*Нели* Balkan Fever 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Jodie Foster shines in dramatic roles. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be Нел. Orthography's a bitch, innit? Balkan Fever 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not Нелл? You're quite right, but that's the first thing I thought of. Go with it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As always, I'm strongly against "erring" so far on the side of "caution" as to cripple our stylistic flexibility in using natural English. Your considerable skill in tweaking wordings notwithstanding, fact is that the adjective "Macedonian" is universally used in English, and is far and away the most natural way of referring to institutions of that state. It is quite often also by writers who otherwise use "former Yugoslav". WP:USEENGLISH. I know of no serious English-language publication that would take political correctness to such an absurd degree as to systematically avoid the adjective. There is no reason we should do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And, as always, I expected nothing less of you. I don't see how using the name of the actual institution that voted for that decision is "crippling our stylistic flexibility" in any way. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Three word stresses instead of two. Ugly. Nobody talks like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire last sentence of the lead is ugly, but it doesn't seem to bother you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Incidental stylistic ugliness created by imperfect writing skills or hasty editing is sad but unavoidable. Intentional ugliness created by reckless POV-driven political correctness does bother me a lot more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that your version is anything but an improvement, bad syntax aside. Your arguments against "Skopje" are tenuous at best, and disingenuous at worst. The idea that a poor, hapless reader might suffer a brain haemorrhage trying to figure it out, especially when it is almost immediately followed by "Athens", is nothing short of preposterous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll remind you of our readers' low propensity for brain haemorrhages the next time you argue that some use of "Macedonia" is ambiguous because it could be confused with the other one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You do that, luv. Except that Macedonia is ambiguous, and Skopje isn't. So back to Skopje it is, then? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. My initial points still stand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You have accepted that your second point is invalid, have you not? As for the first, you have yet to answer my question. Executive branch of what? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No, I have not accepted the second point was invalid. Yes, sure, a reader will ultimately be able figure it out. But the whole point of using rhetorical devices like that is they should only be used where understanding them is effortless. Using them where they could lead even to the slightest pause in reading is simply bad style. As for your other question, I have honestly no idea what you are driving at. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who compared your argument to one which you have always rejected. You did that yourself. Regarding my other point, the president is still part of the executive branch of government, and as such cannot be meaningfully detached from the net effect of its actions, especially in an international context. Crvenkovski's criticisms aside, it was the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, not Gruevski or Milošoski, that took Greece to court. In other words, this is a lawsuit between states, if you prefer, and capital-for-state metonymy is also a perfectly acceptable stylistic device. Your objection would only hold water if the president had a veto over the government's outbursts, which he doesn't. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be true in legal terms, but the point remains that the sentence is referring to a political contrast between some agency that did X, and another agency that opposed X, within the political leadership of the country, and using a term that implies a single uniform agent is counter to that idea. The objection would become moot if we agreed that the president's objections are not sufficiently important to go in the lead. (I'd personally have no objections to omitting it altogether; no strong opinions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They would only be sufficiently important if he could hinder the lawsuit in any meaningful sense. As things stand now, the two countries are going to court, and there's nothing Branko can do about it. I wonder what his counterpart, who signed the offending document on Greece's behalf as foreign minister back in 1995, would make of all this? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In which case, we could also again use "the Republic", which we are already doing in the immediately preceding sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But the whole point of using Skopje and Athens in the first place, as I recall, was to avoid precisely that kind of repetition, and to stress that this was a lawsuit between states, not nations or peoples. It was aimed at taking the focus off the nationalist dimension of the dispute, to use your terminology. Besides, Greece is also a republic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but then it's better to name the actual political agent, rather than hide behind metonymies. Also, note that the situation is somewhat asymetrical: we may well wish to stress that the subject that took the political initiative of going to court was not the country as a whole but a certain agency within its leadership. But the legal entities that will appear before the court, according to the theory of the law, are indeed the two countries. So it's either "the Republic of Macedonia took Greece to court", or: "the Macedonian government decided to take Greece to court". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're being legalistic, the Court recognizes only the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice a lot of the editors of this family of articles are strong sympathizers of 1 side

Wikipedians, this is embarrassing. Please petition a few administrators of wikipedia to ban the constant occupation of these articles by a select few of pro-Greek or pro-Republic of Macedonia stance or at least keep them at clear checks. This will go nowhere with this constant flamewar in all articles with 2-3 people from one side fighting with 2-3 people on the other side. --AaThinker (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is nowhere close to Good Article status. It's poorly structured, overly wordy, a perennial POV magnet, the whole "Greek position" and "Ethnic Macedonian position" sections are a tendentious POV/OR/ POV-fork nightmare, and the "List of Countries" section has massive and continuous OR and sourcing issues, with frequent edit wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who initiated this review? And what is exactly this comment of yours here? Are you going to GA review this article? I am not sure if you are the right person to do that, but, let's say you are, these two sentences of you is no proper review at all! You should go the GA criteria one by one, and elaborate.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have never reviewed "GA"s, have no idea about the process, have no intention of doing so, and most certainly not here. Somebody posted the tag on the article talk page inviting a review, so I entered my concerns here, as a simple talk page contribution. I would consider "promoting" this article an extremely ill-judged move, in its present state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was nominated by User:Oneiros, a German guy as I can see, who is not one of the article's main editors. Anyway ... The nomination seems ill-suited to have any future, but, in GAC page there are concrete instructions about an article's GAC review. So, let's wait this review to come (actually you opened it before its time!), and contribute your comments there. As a matter of fact, I could provide a thorough review, but I am afraid that nobody will be interested in implementing what I'll propose. So, I probably won't!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article had to go for a peer review first. The list of countries is weak. The references in this section are terrible and sometimes not NPOV. I wonder why the article ended here, there is no way to establish "stability" until we have some good references from third-party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

Ok. I'm going to have a read over this and let you know what I think. It's a decent sized article, so it may be one or two days. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the article, and I would have to agree with Future Perfect's comments above. Reading the article I came across frequent concerns, far too many to raise here. Since you've expressed your wish for a list of how it fails the criteria, I made the following.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Frequent prose and flow issues. GA doesn't require professional writing, but I frequently found myself having to go back over sentences, to stop and try and parse what some sections were saying. Prose usually suffers when there is frequent editing disputes, so when you get the article to a somewhat stable version, get one or two experienced copyeditors to do their thing. I didn't look so much at MoS, but getting someone to do a MoS audit would be a good idea.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I do not know Greek, so I cannot comment on how reliable your Greek sources are. There are many OR concerns, as Fut. Perf. pointed out above, in the Macedonian and Greek viewpoints section. You all know what OR is so going through those sections again looking for it will be beneficial. There are many large sections that simply do not have sources - the first four paragraphs of the 'Controversy and conflict' section for example. Please make a concerted effort to reference sections like those.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think the article does a good job of covering all aspects, unless I've missed something
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
An article on such a... contentious subject is likely to suffer edit warring. It doesn't appear to have been too bad over the last couple of days, but there are many many POV issues in the text, and I don't have to go back too far to see the instability.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
After a cursory glance at the images, everything seems ok.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
In a nutshell, go through the article, and go crazy with the referencing. Cite anything and everything - that'll reveal OR and other unverifiable information while helping with the referencing issues. Get experienced copyeditor(s) to run through the article for prose issues. The article desperately needs stability also, so try to do your best to resolve all the disputes before the next GA Review. If you have any further issues, don't hesitate to contact me. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What i mean with my last reversion

I think we have to avoid using expressions like "Greek nationalists’ claims over Macedonia" and "Greek nationalist mythology". I am sure that the section "Historical perspective" needs rewriting in order to establish balance but this edits, without even one proper edit summary, don't help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I find that the whole section, and I mean everything: from "Greek position" to "Ethnic Macedonian position" inclusive, is a huge big mess. The whole structure of that part of the article invites this kind of POV-pushing and makes neutral writing almost entirely impossible. I was close to just blanking the whole lot right now. This will never become a decent piece of writing, unless someone scraps it and rewrites it as a single section explaining the ideological background from a unified neutral perspective, and with maximally one fifth of the current volume. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole thing thoroughly. It's really confusing. It would better probably to reconstruct everything and have something like "Historical perspective" and present what both sides claim, outside of the terrible "Greek position" / "Ethnic Macedonian position" sections. Still, I wouldn't be completely happy with the result. We need to reference every single sentence to be accurate and still some people would find a away to push a specific POV. PS The same goes for "Lists of countries and organisations". I don't think most the references right now are 100% accurate. It's like both sides are hunting every small reference in documents to prove themselves right. In many cases is almost original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My quotation of 'Greek nationalist' claims was not a personal attack against Greece, but how it was presented in the source. Clearly all the sides Bulgarian/Macedonian/Greek have 'nationalistic' claims. This was not treating Greece in isolation. But, I'd agree that the article would be improved if it were summarized with a common historical perspective, using source material when an issue that needs debating comes up. Hxseek (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary box not enough: Page 18 of the source you used gives a different explanation about the usage of the Vergina Sun. It says is was a strategy of peeking an ancient symbol to transcend the current ethnic divisions in the country. Please provide the passage in page 125 as it's not available in google books.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting: "Selecting a symbol from the ancient past which preceded the ethnic division of the present and thus transcended it was, indeed, a brilliant unifying strategy..."--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral solution for "List of countries" section

Hello, everybody.

I've followed since late 2008 the debates regarding the naming of RoM because I'm the main editor of the spanish article Disputa sobre el nombre de Macedonia based on a translation from this article. Evidently, is quite neutral, shorter and organised. I know this article is a target from Greek and Macedonian nationalists who many times ignore the neutral POV when edit.

The disputed list of countries from this article is ~~a disaster~~ really problematic and unverifiable because it lacks essential references for confirming the countries' support/opposition stances. How can be possible this footnote prove that Algeria recognize Macedonia by its constitutional name? I recommend this list is limited to those countries with references that explicitly check their stance, as in my translation with just forty-nine countries. This one has one hundred four countries with dubious references.

If someone here understand spanish, I invite you to read and compare both articles. In fact, my translation for the moment is a FA candidate. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, only refs containing for example "recognizes constitutional name" or "established bilateral relations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are verifiable, like the following

http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=58069371&lId=2&pmId=501 India uses constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia in bilateral communication
http://www.ypex.gov.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Asia+-+Oceania/Bilateral+Relations/Singapore On 8 May 1995 Singapore established diplomatic relations with FYROM under its constitutional name

refs with lists of countries where "R Macedonia" or "FYR Macedonia" is written do not reflect the country's position on the name.93.219.253.44 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this. This will clear the list a lot. Of course, we will still have entries written in the two sides in a different way, but it's much better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Being bold, I could drop more than ten countries with OR and unverifiable references in the "List of countries using RoM constitutional name" I'll do the same in the section "List of countries using FYROM" and possibly I should remove the whole "List of countries/entities to be sorted" because the references just mention both RoM and FYROM in government sites from one country who allegedly is undecided. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's make a list here first of what countries' positions are based on OR. As I noticed last effort was reverted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the list of countries using RoM with unrelated or poor references, all of them mention the name Macedonia, RoM and so on; but these ones don't verify the country's stance:

Algeria 1
Austria 2, 3
Azerbaijan 4
Bolivia 5
Brunei 6
Costa Rica 7
Czech Republic 8
Ecuador 9
El Salvador 10
Estonia 11 and 12
Honduras 13

Iceland 14
Kazakhstan 15
Kyrgyzstan 16
Liechtenstein 17
Lithuania 18, 19, 20, book p.315,316
Malaysia 21, 22
Maldives 23
Mongolia 24
Morocco 24
Nauru 25
Nepal 26

Oman 27
Qatar 28
Saint Kitts and Nevis 29
Saint Lucia 30
Saudi Arabia 31, 32
Slovakia 33
Sovereign Order of Malta 34
Sri Lanka 35
Sweden 36
Switzerland 37
Uzbekistan 38

Other countries like Bulgaria (39) or Romania (40) have dubious references too, whereby I improved its sources. So, can I restore my last changes? Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As you may have seen I did 4 in which restored already a small part which I verified as valid. I also checked a large part of the above and I think you are right. Can you please as a first edit improve the edits of Bulgaria and Romania? So if there are disagreements on the changes that we don't lose everything with a single revert. Let's wait that more editors confirm the rest and we go on. Viele Dank. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Und jetzt? I have already replaced some poor sources for related ones. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with phase 2 of changes as well. I think you can go ahead and if someone disagrees can use the talk page to express any concerns. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. why is Brunei in the list above? It says "establishment of diplomatic relations" with "Republic of Macedonia". Plus I hope everything will be done neutral and is not focusing only on the ROM-list.. because if only clear references should stay, the dubious once in the FYROM list shall also vanish. I miss countries like Luxembourg, Micronesia and Latvia in the list above.. 93.219.221.169 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the other list will be cleanup as well. This is not a one-sided cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Here's the list of countries using FYROM, FYR Macedonia and so on; with its respective unrelated sources:

Bahrain 1
Belize 2
Belgium 3

Luxembourg 4
Micronesia 5
Monaco 6

Spain 7, 8, 9
The Holy See 10

This is a proposal of general cleanup, by the way. Regarding the "list of countries to be sorted" and "list of countries using both appelations" must be removed completely, in my opinion because these sections don't have any kind of related sources, just random documents. The exception could be Brazil which recognize RoM by its name (11) and the Netherlands which accept the UN appelation (12). Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you proceed with the cleanup, please? I would prefer if it was done not at once but in 3 stages: RoM, FYROM, to be sorted. You can choose the order. I just want to minimise the possibility that someone who disagrees only with one of the changes to revert the whole thing. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The world map is certainly out-of-date and probably confusing. An editor added Brazil and Sudan (the latter was never added in the list!). OR we update the map or we remove it, at least until we establish some agreement about the situation. What do you people say about that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I hope this effort to cleanup this sections don't suffer any revert. Regarding the world map, I support its removal until we finish the cleanup the list of countries. Sudan's and Brazil's stance can be checked in this document. This Macedonian oficial press also mention Brazil as a country which recognise Macedonia's constitutional name. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the sourcing in this section is, frankly, original research by synthesis - editors appear to be trying to infer usage from passing references in documents that make no mention of the country's official position on the naming issue. Following Der Auslander's commendable lead, I've been trawling the news database Factiva for information on which countries use the constitutional name. The criteria I'm using are very strict: the cited articles must state explicitly that "country X recognises Macedonia by its constitutional name", or words to that effect. I'm citing only sources that specifically state that - passing references are excluded. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is "country Morocco recognises Macedonia by its constitutional name" written in the "Macedonian president receives newly appointed Moroccan ambassador" article? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Trajkovski expressed his gratitude to Morocco, because one of the biggest Arab countries established diplomatic relations with Macedonia under its constitutional name." This is a good example of the sourcing I'm looking for - sources that state explicitly what a particular country's position is. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Some days ago I asked why Brunei was removed from the ROM-list, but I did not get an answer. the site of the country's ministry of foreign affairs & trade talks about "establishing diplomatic relations" with the "Republic of Macedonia". I do not think that this was to be removed..

http://www.mfa.gov.bn/overseas_missions/20070804a.htm

93.219.251.236 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to "spoil the party" here but I have a slightly different opinion :-) While the thesis that we should find sources that have the wording that ChrisO mentioned is correct, there are other things to consider. Being a political dispute might give a motive to one side to misquote a source. The recent example of the Panama position attests to that. Therefore we should also seek outside sources (not from RoM/Greece). Of course in the case that e.g. the Greek source cites the opposite of its position it would not make sense that they misquoted that. Then again there is the notion of exclusivity. I don't understand how the official website of a country could be less authoritative than a journalistic source; especially those who fail to provide a rational explanation or a quotation. The quality of the quote must also be subject to scrutiny.

I propose to have distinct lists, one for countries with official or outside independently verified recognition (the strongly proven list) and one for those with recognition infered by reports or official uses in documents/official websites (the weakly proven list) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this example of a news source from BalkanInsight. Althought the source says that India has "recognized the constitutional name" the source itself infers that from the actual name that the embassy of the country has managed to register. Therefore how can the above source be valid about that and the very foreign ministry of a country is not be valid?

Furthermore the above news source gives a fact about Mexico[34] and about Panama and Congo using FYROM but attributes that to "Greek media". In the same way how can we not say that about that media itself? How about media in RoM? By me the above source gives a weak verification for all three assertions "India uses Republic of M", "Mexico uses FYROM", "Panama uses FYROM", although it uses the wording "has recognized" for all of them. A better source would be the actual ministries and their listings of embassies. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To Shadowmorph: Nein, a mention to RoM or FYROM in a list of embassies don't prove any country's stance. Nevertheless, a foreign ministry source could be as reliable as a news agency if the first one cites the RoM's constitutional name recognition. In some controversial cases like Mexico, Congo or Panama, the solution is to find third-party related sources as you said. By the way, it would not be irrelevant to make a long list about the countries which have used RoM or FYROM? It doesn't make sense that all the countries of the world be listed there.
To 93.219.251.236: The link doesn't say "Brunei have established bilateral relations with RoM by its constitutional name" or something like that.
To ChrisO:I'm really pleased you have compromised searching new sources, but, how can I read the references you found? Just logging in at Factiva news site?
Thanks for your participation, Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been able to help improve the sourcing - thanks for your own efforts on this. The references are all on Factiva, yes, but I'll try to add quotes from the articles for verification purposes. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found recently a press release from the Macedonian newspaper Večer (1) and an article from Kanal 77 (2) Those sources prove that some countries recognize RoM by its name as Estonia, ~~Latvia~~, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. In this case, Romania in this case is not to be sorted, but a country that recognize the RoM's constitutional name as the others.

As these sources are written in Macedonian, I requested a short translation to the users in the Macedonian Wikipedia in its village pump to verify the content provided from Večer and Kanal 77. I know is preferable to look third-party sources, but these ones did not exist yet. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you've made some more changes to the list. I agree with all of the removals - they were clearly attempts to infer the countries' positions from sources that didn't make any statement about the country's position on the naming dispute, which is original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Top Map

The top map depicting Ancient Macedon over modern geographic Macedonia is very nice, but from when is it ? The kingdom of Macedonia's territory fluctuated. Has someone argued that that is the defined geographic extent of the kingdom ? I would think not. It would need something like "Kingdom of Macedonia during (?) Phillips reign", and some sources too Hxseek (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have good sources at hand for what was basically just a quick draft at the time, and was just more or less copying from various on-wiki maps of very mixed quality. Anybody got a more reliable map that could serve as a source? I agree it would be better if it could be dated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to correspond, according to Shepherd's, to c. 430 BC [35] Hxseek (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that that map shows most of Chalcidice as Athenian and ours doesn't. It's a nice idea, but any date will produce a disputable map. Under strong kings, Macedon ruled Paeonia, and therefore included the present Republic; under weak kings, Macedon was leagues short of the present frontier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the UK fully recognised the name 'Republic of Macedonia'?

The UK is listed under this heading: List of countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes The article claims the UK uses Republic of Macedonia for 'all official purposes' but I believe the UK has only half recognised the name using the name Republic of Macedonia at certain times like bilateral meetings and at others - within the UN and EU, FYROM, unlike the USA who uses Republic of Macedonia in every situation including the UN.

From the UK GOVT site:

Republic of Macedonia is the constitutional name, used by the UK since 1999 for bilateral and internal purposes. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is used in multilateral forums such as the EU or UN.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Macedonia's Relations with Neighbours

Greece and the Name issue

International recognition of Macedonia's split from Yugoslavia in 1991 was held up by Greek fears that the country's constitutional name implied territorial ambitions on the northern Greek region of Macedonia. In September 1995, following three years of difficult relations, Greece and Macedonia signed an Interim Accord facilitating the normalisation of relations and Greece recognised Macedonia under the designation 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (fYROM). Macedonians do not use the acronym 'fYROM' and they dislike its use by others. The UK uses ‘Republic of Macedonia’ in bilateral relations but in certain international fora uses the designation ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. Some countries however have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name, including the US in 2004. Negotiations are continuing under UN auspices to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Greece remains the largest investor in Macedonia.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/europe/macedonia/?profile=intRelations&pg=4

Reaper7 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is no different to any other country that recognises Macedonia under its constitutional name. The terminology used in multilateral forums is a collective decision of the forums involved, not an individual choice by individual countries. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians

The entire article uses "ethnic Macedonians" to describe the modern Slavic-speaking group. Introducing a new term 3/4 of the way down the page ("Macedonian Slavs") is not a good idea. It will only lead readers to ask, "Are these the same people we've been reading about all the way down the page?" There's no possible confusion in the first sentence of the Historical Perspective section between "ethnic Macedonians" and "ancient Greeks and Macedonians". (Taivo (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Term already explained in the article (not only in the definition box). I'm not going to argue about this, i've changed it to "scholars in the RoM", that solves it. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia recently became member of CERN under constitutional name

Since I have been reverted 2 times I am taking this to the discussion page to see others opinions. The following references say that the country signed the agreement under the constitutional name, despite strong lobbying by Greece.

Macedonian Information Agency
Government of the Republic of Macedonia (same text, only in Mac.)

On the CERN site the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is used, but this is certainly done because it's the internationally accepted name and does not mean that the agreement was not signed under the constitutional name.93.219.254.211 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The country did not become a member from what i can understand, it's a cooperation agreement. "Republic of Macedonia" is an official name too, i had the impression that government officials do not sign (or at least avoid signing) any papers with the provisional name, even in the UN, i've read they even change the signposts in meetings. Anyway, i suggest we wait and see if there's an update in CERN's pages and public documents, that's what "use" is all about. The "MIA" source already gives a "membership" interpretation to the agreement (which is most probably wrong), whether signing under the constitutional name or not is correct and the importance of that fact should be judged using a neutral source. I still doubt whether entities like FIFA or CERN worth a mention in general by the way.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For me the whole CERN thing should not be included in the article. The name a scientific organisation uses for any country add nothing to the case. I think it add undue WP:WEIGHT. This is the same for FIFA, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your opinions. perhaps we can get some more. 93.219.251.180 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one here that will say simply that MIA, was wrong and misinformative. Here is from official CERN. Note at the bottom that the page was modified in January 2009. No change in the name.

I agree however that it is not needed at all, since we couldn't possibly include all the organizations of the world here. In my opinion the list of countries is already too much. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1174253/export/hm lists the official CERN April 2009 document addressing the president of FYROM by that term.

27th April 2009 - President of the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia N. Gruevski welcomed by CERN Director General R. Heuer, Research and Comnputing Director S. Bertolucci, Accelerators and Technology Director S. Myers, Coordinator for External Relations F. Pauss, Non-Member States Relations Advisers J. Ellis and T. Kurtyka, and VIP and Protocol Office S. Molinari (HI-090405701-09) 001174253 269__ $$c
— CERN, 27 Apr 2009

. I don't think any more is needed on the subject Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Map quality

The map showing the borders of the various regions called Macedonia seems a little vague. For instance, it is not clear from the map why the outline of "geographical Macedonia" includes territory that does not belong to the two regions labeled Macedonia. Further, the borders of the ancient Macedonian kingdom should be labeled to reflect the period they represent since the empire expanded and contracted dramatically throughout antiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boourns75 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A comment I made on the Macedonia (disambiquation) talk page where opinions about the map were sought: As long as the map has no inscription identifying Bulgarian Macedonia it would remain essentially crippled. Apcbg (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you have a clearly visible overlap between an area labelled as Bulgaria and an area labelled as (geographical) Macedonia, then that overlap represents just that: the Bulgarian part of Macedonia. Why would you need a label for that? Since that part does not, in and by itself, carry the name of Macedonia alone (as Bulgarian editors have never tired telling us, it's actually called "Blagoevgrad Province", not Macedonia), such a label is irrelevant for the disambiguation page you mention; and since Bulgaria is not a party to the political naming dispute, it is also irrelevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While this article is on the disputed name of the independent state proper, it also refers to several related controversies involving the use of the name ‘Macedonia’ respectively ‘Macedonian’, such as the disambiguation between ethnic and regional identities, languages and dialects etc. Bulgaria is a party to some of these disputes. Furthermore, Wikipedia ought to be user-friendly so rather than rely on user inference it would be better to have a name on the map. (More so that this or similar map is likely to be placed in other related articles too.) Apcbg (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the dispute over the name of the state, nothing more. All the other stuff that gets mentioned in the "historical concerns" section and all that is just a heap of POV writing that never belonged in this article in the first place. Bulgaria has recognised the name and the existence of its part of Macedonia has nothing to do with the conflict. BTW, did you find this more informative? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That the present map is better doesn't mean it couldn't be improved; disambiguation of ethnic and regional identities and languages and dialects are very much present day controversies not historical concerns at all. Apcbg (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perf. Sure, we could label it, but does it add anything to this article ? No, especialy given the label 'Bulgarian Macedonia' is not even used widely. In fact, it would worsen the map by cluttering it up with unneccessary extra labels Hxseek (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

I looked into the MFA of Kazakhstan and our country is stated byour constitutional name Republic of Macedonia: http://portal.mfa.kz/portal/page/portal/mfa/en/content/news/nws2008aaa/2008-10-172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk • contribs)

The Kazakhstan's MFA web page says that Marat Tazhin signed a treatment on October 17 of the last year with their Macedonian (A.Milošoski) and Montenegrin counterparts (Milan Roćen). This link doesn't prove the best country of the world;) had recognised any constitutional name yet. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a new link:

Look this one:http://portal.mfa.kz/portal/page/portal/mfa/en/content/policy/legal_basis/listcountries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also with Uzbekistan:

That is available here: http://mfa.uz/eng/inter_cooper/uzbekistan_countries/countries_eu/uzb_macedonia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Academics Write to Obama

I moved the reference to the academics' letter to Pres. Obama to the footnote discussing US policy. This letter is not about the historical concerns of Greece, but about the US policy concerning the name of Macedonia. As such, it doesn't belong in the discussion of historical concerns (to which it adds nothing new), but in the footnote about US policy toward the name of Macedonia. It's a US policy issue relevant to where the US falls in the chart of who uses what name, but is not relevant to the issue of Greece's historical concerns over the name. (Taivo (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

{I have added two secondary sources and changed wording so as to indicate that it is a Greek lobby effort. It is irrelevant to official US policy about the name. It is relevant as an expression of the historical concerns of Greeks and I attributed it accordingly.}Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Shadowmorph, you improved the wording, but it's still just an issue of US foreign policy. As far as the content of the letter, it is a tertiary source for the historical concerns themselves. You can summarize the concerns and use the letter as a reference for including those concerns, but the "200 academics write to Obama" is not relevant for a summary of the historical concerns (it is somewhat relevant to the US foreign policy footnote--although not in any major way). I hope I'm expressing the subtle difference clearly. The content of the letter is relevant to the historical issue and the letter can be referenced as such (even though it is a tertiary source), but the fact and provenance of the letter are only relevant to US foreign policy. (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Now I am confused.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

~~So where can we use those BalkanInsight and Athens News Agency secondary sources that cover that new event? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Seems Ok as you added it. Only you assume that its lobbying towards world leaders while as of now only towards Obama. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec+ec) I probably am, as well :) There are three things about the letter that are important here (based on your concerns and mine). First, the letter represents a lobbying effort (your point). Second, the letter contains a tertiary description of the history of the region and the historical name. Third, the letter represents an effort to change US foreign policy (my point). The third is very minor since it has not changed US foreign policy (so you deleted it as such). The second point is better sourced in other places (so it shouldn't be a reference to the actual history). The first point is the only one still relevant (you convinced me). But it is surely not the only such lobbying effort, so a more general comment about lobbying is relevant, but not all the particular details about this particular letter (so that's what I put in the section). (Taivo (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

(ec) The news sources are still in the footnotes to the mention of the lobbying effort. But, in general, just because we have two media references to something doesn't mean we have to use them if the thing they report isn't so important. Remember WP:UNDUE. Just because I own a Bowie knife doesn't mean I have to stab you with it ;) In this case, the existence of the lobbying effort is referenced by the two news media sources. The details of who they lobbied and what they said is not as important as the fact that they did it. But, in any event, it is a very minor incident and barely deserves a mention here. It's not going to change the course of the dispute. (Taivo (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm. Mentioning Obama specifically makes it sound even more marginal than it already is. (Taivo (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Oh, come on people! What "Greek lobby"?? Can you prove it? Or you use that expression because RoM side naturally tries to make it look this way?? And why "Greek and others"?? That's misleading, since "others" are far more than Greeks in this case! You may count nationalities of scholars and see for yourself! Let's see it as it actually is: International scholarship speak for historical truth on the issue! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, I changed "world leaders" to "politically" to leave it a bit vague at this point. We don't know if other efforts have been organized and undertaken with other world leaders, so we don't want to restrict it to just Obama. (Taivo (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Cat, the section is labelled "Greek Position". The whole discussion is about Greek responses to the naming dispute--historical, territorial, etc. (Taivo (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

It is true that "lobbyist" was a characterization only found in the BalkanInsight site (that is traditionally not pro-Greek). Maybe we should cut down on that language for NPOV sake, because ANA doesn't quote it as lobbying... hmm... technically it is lobbying if you ask me. Right now and until a better secondary source is found (that is more an outsider than those two) we can keep Taivo's version which seems ok.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed misleading "lobbying" part and added primal source with signatures of the scholars that support the letter. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Any time that you write a letter to an elected leader that seeks to influence his or her position on an issue, that is "lobbying". It is not a negative word, it is the correct word in this situation. The letter is an instance of scholars lobbying. It is not more than a trivial moment in the overall issue of the Macedonia naming dispute and needs to be given minimal weight. It will have zero effect on the overall resolution of the problem. Mentioning it as an example (as the footnote reference does) of lobbying efforts is appropriate to indicating that Greek and other scholars are lobbying, but it is not more important than a brief inclusion as evidence of lobbying efforts. (Taivo (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

After more consideration, the reference shouldn't be downplayed so much. Including two renowned historians to indicate proper weight. And it is directed towards US policy, let's not be vague. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This reference is trivial. It's just a lobbying letter, for pete's sake, not a final resolution or even a movement toward a final resolution--it offers no final solution, just a change in US policy. If it concerns US policy, then it needs to be in the footnote that discusses US policy. And did you pick those two names at random? I happen to know who Elizabeth Banks is, but that doesn't mean that we should mention the names. It's just a lobbying letter. I'm going to simplify this way, way down again. (Taivo (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Cleanup

"Macedonia naming dispute" involves only the name of the state (UN resolution 817 from 1993). If this dispute was later expanded to bring into question the name of the nation and language, it should be backed up by sources and explained in the article (it's a big change and it should be documented well by both sides). If nobody can present such a document (source), we can remove every section that refers to the differences for the nation and language. I think this would really help clean up the article. --99.231.32.198 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is a bit more complicated. The Macedonian government affirms that since the Greek government does not recognise the existence of a Macedonian nation or language (even though they are in no position to dispute or "recognise" such things), it is a non-negotiable area of the dispute. I don't know how directly that can be sourced; but there are various sources, some of which I believe are used in the article, that state that the Macedonian government will make sure that the name of nation and language stay, or something similar. The view is also that Greece disputes the name specifically because it disputes the nation. Basically, if Macedonia were to adopt a new name, say "North Macedonia", Greece would push for, or state as fact to those less informed, that the nation are "North Macedonians" and the language is "North Macedonian", much like it tries to do with "FYRO" now, and this is vehemently opposed by Macedonia. That being said, the article could do with some cutting down. Balkan Fever 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the dispute. But it seems that (from your explanation) you only take the position of one side (or should I say the the party of the second part?). What is the stance of the party of the first part? Do they hold the same position? And more importantly is it documented? If the party of the first part doesn't dispute the language and nation (officially) that would be grounds for removing those sections from the article (quoting famous DB statement "it takes two to tango"). If it is (disputes name of language and nation), then unfortinately you can't cleanup the article (this way) but we should state clearly that the position of the party of the first part changed. For example in the first paragraph we have that the party of the first part does object the name of the nation and language. But later on in the "Controversy and conflict" section we have the following "Greece opposed the international community recognising the Republic due to a number of objections concerning the country's name, flag and constitution". These two are contradicting statements unless it's explained that the party of the first part changed it's position. --99.231.32.198 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia

http://www.mfat.gov.mn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Korea as well: http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/europe/20070823/1_1299.jsp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonian Issue" book unveiled

Note on a new scholarly resource that should be consulted for this article:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis presented a timely book entitled "The Macedonian Issue and Bulgaria - Classified Documents 1950-1967", jointly published by the Thessaloniki-based Macedonian Studies Society and the State Archives of Bulgaria, during an event at the War Museum in Athens.

The new publication employed up until recently classified Bulgarian state documents detailing the decisions and framework by which the "Macedonian Issue" arose in the immediate wake the Second World War, with its cover featuring a well-known photograph of the then Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders, Josip Broz Tito and Georgi Dimitrov, respectively.

With the publication of this book the predictable reaction of the Pseudomacedonian irredentists was that "Athens and Sofia team up against Skopje". ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic is sensitive enough without your flame-baiting, Iskhsnika. Your post was totally appropriate until the last sentence. (Taivo (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Is this about using "Pseudomacedonian" ? If you knew anything about its use and still thought it's worth a comment you'd start by applying WP:AGF first. Remote ignorance might be usefull here, but only when it works the same in both directions, try to remember that.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh really?How would you feel if I call the Greek people Gayreeks?Cmon,I agree that there are many unresolved questions between our countries,but lets be civilized please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Nice job! I write it as B-Class, because it has not yet gone through a GA review.--Yannismarou 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a Summarizing of Content After reading the article I am still confused about

Current Macedonia is Geographically Accurate Macedon (Not Entirety) but Inhabited by SlavicItalic text People ?

Last edited at 03:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)