Talk:North Macedonia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:22, 1 April 2008 editAleenf1 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,615 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 77.29.212.82 identified as vandalism to last revision by ChrisO. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:30, 1 April 2008 edit undo213.97.51.67 (talk) →Adding facts to the article: new sectionNext edit →
Line 325:		Line 325:

	:What's going on with its NATO bid has no bearing on what the article is presently called. It ''might'' have a bearing ''if'' the name changes, but until and unless that happens it's just background noise. -- ] (]) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)		:What's going on with its NATO bid has no bearing on what the article is presently called. It ''might'' have a bearing ''if'' the name changes, but until and unless that happens it's just background noise. -- ] (]) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Adding facts to the article ==

			Source: http://web.mit.edu/hellenic/www/macedonia.html

			------------------------------------------------------

			THE MACEDONIAN ISSUE

			This new republic, with capital the city of Skopje, emerged as the successor to the former ``Yugoslav Federative Republic of Macedonia'', after the collapse of former Yugoslavia, and applied for admission to the United Nations with the name ``Republic of Macedonia''. Greece strongly opposes the use of the term Macedonia, which is the name of its northern region.

			Greece believes that the use of this name along with the continuing use of irredentist actions and symbols by this new republic against Greece, clearly imply a claim to Greek territory. It is important to point out that the authorities of this new republic affixed on the new flag of the republic the emblem of the ancient Greek Macedonian dynasty that was found in Greece in the tomb of King Philip II (the father of Alexander the Great). Moreover, in the constitution of this new republic there are references to the possibility of changing the current borders in order to create a ``Greater Macedonia'' that will include the northern province of Greece ! Maps of this ``Greater Macedonia'' have already been issued and circulated by the authorities in Skopje.

			The United Nations acknowledging the Greek position admitted this new republic with the temporary name ``Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M)'' and currently negotiations are taking place in order to settle this issue.

			Recently, the Clinton administration has issued a directive to use the name ``Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M)'' when referring to this new republic.

			MACEDONIA FAQ

			(This is a FAQ about the Greek main positions.)

			In 1994, Greece imposed an embargo on products from FYROM (except for food, medicine and humanitarian assistance), on claims that the adoption of a Greek name ("Macedonia") for the country, a Greek symbol (the Vergina Sun/Star) for its flag and certain articles in its constitution, hide irredentist designs against Greece. For the embargo to end, the flag, certain articles in its constitution, and the hostile propaganda have to be changed ("small package"), while the name can be decided in later negotiations.

			1) Why does Greece dictate to FYROM its name, symbols and constitution?

			Greece does not dictate to FYROM what name or flag to adopt, just to choose any of the million possibilities that are not Greek or offensive to Greeks. Countries have to choose their national symbols based on International norms. (i.e. Can Syria employ the Nazi cross as their flag, if they choose so? Can Cuba change its name to Florida, employ the statue of Liberty as its flag and start propaganda that the Florida state in the USA belongs to Cuba, by virtue of so many Cubans living there?)

			Naming a country after a neighboring region is a de facto irredentist strategy aimed at destabilizing the region, and hoping that the country, will absorb the neighboring region.

			2) Why does Greece object to the use of the `Vergina Sun' on the FYROM flag?

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

			3) Why did Greece impose the embargo?

			After talking with the FYROMian Government fruitlessly for 2 years and going nowhere, then and only then did the Greek state implement the partial embargo as last resort to advance the issue.

			4) Why do you claim exclusive rights to the symbols of the ancient Macedonians?

			We have linguistic, cultural, genealogical, and geographic ties to the ancient Greeks and Macedons. They (FYROM) are mostly Slavs who descended after 600 CE in the region, and have no ties whatsoever (ancient Makedonia was within modern Greece since its inception).

			Even after the great expansion by Philip the II and Alexander the Great in the 400s BCE, perhaps even less than 10% of the FYROMian land was part of the `enlarged kingdom'. The reader should realize that the punitive expeditions of the Macedonians in the north, as well as their imperial acquisitions in the Balkans and Asia did not necessarily produce a `wider concept of Macedonia' - a country with boarders extending to India. That would be most simplistic! Pella, the capital of the ancient Makedones, is well within modern Greek borders.

			5) What proof do you have that the ancient Macedonians were Greek?

			The vast majority of major historians believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Those who still remain skeptical, say that they need more evidence before proclaiming the ancient Macedonians as Greek. But no one says that ancient Macedonians were not Greek.

			Recent excavations close to their ancient capital, Aigai, including the discovery of the `tomb of Philip the II', reinforce the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians categorically.

			In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans.

			6) How can appropriating Greece's history, be irredentist?

			History is the means for laying claims on foreign lands. The Macedonian argument was promoted by the 3rd Commintern (USSR) and their allies in the region just prior to WWII, to create an independent greater Macedonia for social experimentation. Bulgarians have said that Alexander the Great was a Bulgarian while occupying Macedonia (Greek) on behalf of the Germans in WWII.

			Tito sent 5,000 Yugoslavs and "Slav-Macedonians" to Greece after WWII to work with their allies in the region to annex Makedonia (Greek) while we were too busy fighting a civil war. These were the same people that now live in FYROM. 3 times in the recent past the same propaganda has been used as justification by different interests (Commintern, Bulgaria, (S)NOF-Yugoslavia) to invade (or try to) Greece. Even today, just when the name and flag were been adopted in independent FYROM, VMRO and Gligorof were talking about reclaiming "their" lands in Greece and Bulgaria.

			7) Who populated the lands of modern FYROM in the past?

			The ancient people inhabiting the area around Skopje, at the time of the ancient Macedonians, were the Dardanians, and their land was called Dardania. Throughout their modern history, the region now occupied by FYROM was populated mostly by Bulgarians.

			The creation of "Macedonia" (FYROM, SROM) was artificial. Ex-Yugoslavs will attest to that. FYROM is comprised of Albanians, Serbs, and Bulgarians and their language is a Bulgarian dialect with a few Serbo-croatian words. Bulgarians will attest to that and understand/speak "Macedonian".

			8) What about their claim of a large minority in Greece?

			After usurping the name and the flag, surprise! They start claiming that Greeks in Macedonia (Greek) are a FYROM minority. After all we all identify as Macedonians. Thus, we must be the same...

			Some people in the Net claim 1 mill minority in Macedonia (Greek). The population of Macedonia (Greek) is 2 mill. I am a Macedonian (Greek) same with other Greeks on this group. We don't want anything to have with FYROM. We are Greek. Finally the recent Euro-Elections revealed only with their cause (therefore propably a FYROM minority) 10,000! Not fantasies of 1 million!

			9) Why doesn't the Greek government recognize the "Macedonian" minority?

			Greek parents have been sending their children to Macedonian schools for years, expecting them to learn Greek, not Bulgarian. Macedonian people (Greeks) are already a majority in Greece, with Macedonian churches, schools and cultural centers teaching Greek and regional dances and songs.

			The Greek government can neither recognize a minority with the same name, as the majority, nor build non-Greek schools and churches with the same name. Greek courts have offered to open cultural centers for their minority, under a different name (than Macedonian). They have refused.

			As long as they use the term "Macedonian" to describe their nationality, their minorities in Greece and Bulgaria cannot be recognized.

			10) What are Greece's objections with FYROM's constitution?

			There are two points of concern:

			In their preamble, they define their FYROM state as a departure from the " ...historic decisions of the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the People's Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM)... ". The problem is that ASNOM had called for the "Macedonians" in Bulgaria and other countries to unite under Tito's rule.

			Their language in article 49 is also problematic (too extensive to go into here).

			At Greece's request they have added 2 amendements stating that they have no claims on neighbouring countries. Still, that is in contradiction with their preample, and it is to their benefit to rewrite those articles to avoid contradictions and vagueries in their Constitution.

			11) Does Greece have any territorial or other claims on FYROM?

			In 1993, Serbia's President Milocevic, invited Greece to invade FYROM. Greece declined it.

			FYROM is surrounded by claims of Greater Albania, Greater Bulgaria and Greater Serbia. Greece is the only one not interested in FYROM.

			It is a poor, barren place with no Hellenic ties or history. Greece has the beach-front property (Aegean), and the economy differential between the two countries would only create problems for the richer one (Greece).

			12) Is Greece really afraid of FYROM?

			Presently FYROM is too weak to threaten Greece militarily or otherwise. However, considering that:

			a) A general draft can raise an army of 700,000 in FYROM;

			b) Greece has had to fight several times against similar claims in this century to secure and defend its northern region (Macedonia);

			c) the Balkans are currently in a map-changing mode;

			d) shifting alliances may change the balance of power in the near future;

			The Greek state feels that the "inexplicable" adoption of an irredentist name and flag by FYROM are hostile and provocative acts designed to establish future claims on Greek Macedonia.

			These are the main points and we can support them with facts and evidence.

			Copyright: Please feel free to redistribute, but do not alter any portion(s) of this document, without permission from the authors:

			"Makedovomaxoi of alt.news.macedonia", 1994.

			BACK

Revision as of 13:30, 1 April 2008

Skip to table of contents

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, and changes to the name without discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name will be reverted. Discussion of the naming issue should be posted to the subpage Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name.

Important notice: Misplaced Pages's naming conventions for entities called "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" are set out at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). These conventions represent the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion regarding naming, please read the naming conventions first.

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Infobox locator map

I notice that there are several locator maps used for European countries. Macedonia's is Mercator, and extends far north and west, leaving the country looking tiny (if it weren't already quite small). Compare at the map used for Italy, which seems to be far more suitable for showing countries on the European mainland, especially towards the south. Can the other base map be adapted for use here? Jd2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the originator of the PNG locator maps as used in Italy and various other European countries, which are consistent with maps used for most other countries. Surprisingly, there was a prior edit war regarding these maps, with some arguing that the ~~horrid~~ orange Mercator maps should remain without there really being a prior consensus to keep them. Anyhow, it is my intent to produce SVG maps for all European countries when able, but I have been delayed in doing so. This is still on my to-do list, so stay tuned! Quizimodo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References to ancient Macedon in the History section

"Over the centuries the territory which today forms the Republic of Macedonia was ruled by a number of different states and former empires, but Macedonian blood has always run in the genes of the Macedonians living in this region."

Could someone clarify this statement for me? How is "Macedonian blood" defined encyclopedically? Should Misplaced Pages rely on a nationalist, gene/blood-related definition of ethnicity (see Blood and soil)? If Misplaced Pages were to rely on such a definition, then this statement would definitely need to cite a credible peer-reviewed source (preferably one including comparative DNA tests performed on the remains of people living in the region during the past 2816 years).

Of course it could be the case that the author intended a different meaning whereby, at any point in time, the people living in the region called themselves Macedonians. So, in that case, the Greek inhabitants of ancient Macedon called themselves Macedonians in ancient times; while, in our times, the predominantly Slavic inhabitants also call themselves Macedonians. If that is the case, then the whole statement should be removed on the grounds of relying on circular reasoning, as this ambiguity would confuse many of the readers (particularly when viewed in the context of the Macedonia naming dispute - i.e. in what context is the word "Macedonian" used and in what context is the word "Macedonians" used in this statement).

Moreover, the part that refers to the "Ancient Period" contains numerous ambiguities with regards to its references to ancient Macedon. While it mentions early on that "The kingdom of Macedon took over Paionia", it then goes on to refer to Alexander the Great as "Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), the King of Macedonia" and "Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia". This begs the question of whether the word "Macedonia" here refers to ancient Macedon or to the former Yugoslav Republic. I am not trying to flame anyone here; all I am trying to say is that you people should pick a naming convention and then stick to it... you can't use the words Macedon and Macedonia interchangeably, in this article, for fear of confusion! This is an encyclopedic article; we can't assume any knowledge of history on behalf of the reader, so it is essential to avoid such situations. As a final remark, I should note that since this is not part of the history of the "Republic of Macedonia" per se, but of the history of the "Region of Macedonia", this should not be a part of this article for fear of confusion.

--Radjenef (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to transmit knowledge, let's make sure people are not getting "technically" correct but ultimately misleading information. You seem to imply that the blurb on ancient history is sloppily written; however, I think it is intentionally hazy. It is perfectly accurate, yet can lead an unknowing reader to the impression that the Republic of Macedonia has some sort of cultural continuity with ancient Macedon. I conquer, Radjenef, that that whole section should either be clarified or moved to a different article. This also goes for some of those photos appearing in the margin (i.e. readers could be confused into thinking that the emperor Justinian was an "ethnic Macedonian").

Anyway, I find it sadly ironic that in this same article, we learn that:

"The Macedonian State Religion Commission denies the group (the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric) to be registered as a religious group saying that only one group may be registered for each confession and that the name was not sufficiently distinct from that of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."

The government of the Republic of Macedonia seems capable of recognizing the obvious problems in the overlap of religious groups' names, but not in the overlap of the names of countries and cultures.... But perhaps I am delving too far into politics here! Nojamus (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Justinian pic needs to go. He was actually born in Leskovac, Central Serbia, which is quite far from the border with FYROM, he was certainly not a Slavic Macedonian, nor is that mosaic of him located on the territory of FYROM. Therefore there is not a single valid reason why that pic should be included in this article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, add him to the page about Greece or Greek history. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The map of Kosovo is missing. Kosovo should be reflected on the map because it is now a Republic --Arber (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still not a republic. Self-declaring something is not encyclopedic fact. It's just news. The same thing is with Skopje. Self-declaring a name doesn't mean that is fact/closed case. We should wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.155.16 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very biased to describe the Republic of Kosovo as a Serbian Province. We should adopt the neutral sounding "Kosovo" rather than "breakaway province of Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo".

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shortky find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're way off base. First of all, Canada has not recognized Kosovo's independence but, judging from its very pro-US government right now, it really is only a matter of days or weeks before it does so. Secondly, there are examples of countries with territorial disputes that HAVE recognized its independence. Have you forgotten the UK and that pesky trouble in Northern Ireland, for example? The point is this: it is impossible to draw many general conclusions about who is supporting and who isn't supporting Kosovo's independence. The only pertinent one I see is that the West generally is, and the East generally isn't, supporting it. This has more to do with who gets to benefit from small, weak, dependent states than it does with whether a country has its own territorial squabbles. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? Nojamus (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation that the UK should have a vested interest because of Northern Ireland is completely nonsensical; Northern Ireland has historically been a problem and the territory is hardly cherished. If you would like to provide a source to show that the current government of the UK is desperate to retain the province, then I'll be happy to accept your point. The Unionists, naturally, would have a vested interest in preventing independence, but the Government of Serbia does not run from Kosovo, so the two situations are not comparable. Your citing of 1 relevant country with a bias in its political dealings does not validate your flippant dismissal of 2007apm's recognition of the undeniable correlation between states failing to recognize Kosovan independence and their own potential breakaway provinces. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? That would be because of the conspicuously over-wordy phrasing "and its partially recognized breakaway province" before "Kosovo" in the introduction. I think either simply "Kosovo" with an inconspicuous link to the list of countries which recognize her, or "(and Kosovo)" after the mention of Serbia- would be most acceptable. LaFoiblesse (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (GMT)

MAp

Someone remove the redundant weasel tactic monastery pic and restore the map with the Thracians pertaining to the antiquity to its proper position and size .Megistias (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Put it back polybiush diff Megistias (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivism

"In the Republic of Macedonia the past meets the present," what is this, an advert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.203 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah,it sounds like some kind of an advertisement,doesn't it?
     I think it should be removed.Silvery Swirls (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please rename to FYROM or mark that the neutrality of this article is disputed

The fact that an illegal name is being used instead of the legal FYROM one, as has been seen all along through all these discussions, makes it clear that this article has to be tagged as such. Not following the United Nations is already an insult, but making illegal names as if they were worthy is completely unacceptable. Either you rename the article as FYROM or you tag the whole article as 'neutrality disputed'. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding that FYROM does not claim Greek history and territory

I think that in order to calm down things a little bit, it would be wise to add to the article the declarations of the Skopjan President and his ministers, stating that:

1) They do not want to claim any ancient Greek history related to the ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great.

2) They do not have any territorial claims on Greece and that their constitution clearly forbids it.

3) That they know they are slavs that have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonia and have made clear that everything that was attacking Greek history or territory was spread by propagandistic irredentists who have no official nor legal power to do so.

NOTE: I'm trying to be productive here. If you find any other text that could be added so that fellow Greek users will calm down, go ahead. Goodwill is always welcome.
87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the nationalist/not-so-calm Greek IP users actually read anything other than the title? Balkan Fever 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Irony and sarcasm are an unnecessary provocation. Yes, I have read the article, but no, I still do not agree the way it is redacted. Sorry for expressing my humble opinion. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually being serious. I wasn't referring to you (although your original contributions weren't helpful...) but other nationalists who just complain about moving the page and attack everyone for being "Anti-Greek". Balkan Fever 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Considering that the topic is hot, I would try to persuade them with good manners. Calming the situation is the priority. Anyhow, about the three points I wrote in the beginning, which do you think would be applicable (in a better resentenced way, of course). 87.219.85.149 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on how to reword it. Balkan Fever 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to reword any of it because none of it is true. --Justmakingonearcticle 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, and I'd wish it was the other way round. Really. But please check the official sources listed in United Macedonia, where it is evident that the reality is totally different. Sadly, the state declares that they do not, but in many side ways they officially do. They do it in the schoolbooks, and they do it inn governmental publications. Repeatedly too. I would accept a wording that brings the whole aspect to the reader's attention, but simple aphorisms of officials that "we do not claim anything", while in reality they do is unacceptable. BTW, if it were my country doing that to someone else, I'd be the first to out them, so that they fix their mistakes. I hope you do the same. Niko Silver 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed upon motto

I see that the motto is exactly the same as the Greek one. Apart from that, there are no references. Are we sure that this is the real motto and was not invented by anyone? It's simply a very strange coincidence. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not strange, but yes, it is the same. Many countries have a motto based on "freedom or death". I think some American guy said it first... Balkan Fever 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You make sense on that. But the citation is still missing, I'm afraid. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The incorrect use of "FYROM"

After attempting to edit a few Misplaced Pages articles regarding the Republic of Macedonia and specifically the mention of the reference used in international organizations (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) I came to the realization that I am unable to edit either that specific part of the article or the article itself. The problem in question is regarding the reference. I repeatedly see the word “FYROM” used as an abbreviation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the manual for Macedonia related articles YOUR rules specify the correct use of the reference which is, again, “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM. Using FYROM to abbreviate the inconveniently long reference is not a correct way of doing so and it is offensive. In many instances you also seem to put FYROM in parentheses after displaying the full reference. I cannot see the point in doing so since you do not use the same principle in articles regarding Greece (the Hellenic Republic (HR)) or Germany (Federal Republic of Germany(FRG)). The UN resolution states that the Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the UN and not FYROM or F.Y.R.O.M. (note the use of the lower case letters for “the” and “former”). This information is linked from Misplaced Pages to the following: Another important thing to mention is that whenever the Republic of Macedonia is mentioned in NATO, the full reference is used and a footnote is present referring to the countries that recognize the country by its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia. In footnote #3 in the article about the Republic of Macedonia you claim the reference used in international organizations such as the EU, NATO and the WTO is FYROM. This is not correct as the resolution clearly states that the full reference is to be used. If your intentions, as an information portal, are to be politically correct I ask you not to be subjective in your intentions and please correct the unintentional mistake on your part. Our objection is that when you are using the reference, you use it as intended without modifying or abbreviating it, meaning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me if used everywhere, that is so long as it is used as well to replace 'Republic of Macedonia'. Otherwise, a double bias is fine as it is. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not a double bias. It's incorrect.

FACT: The country's name is Republic of Macedonia (as 130 other countries that recognized it)

FACT: The country was addmited in the UN by the reference :the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

So, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" is actually a incorrect.Noompsy (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The point that Noompsy is trying to make is that the abbreviation "FYROM" is incorrect because that is not the proper reference to be used. Using "FYROM" when using the reference assigned to the country in question by the UN resolution is incorrect. The reason why it is biased is because it satisfies the Greek intention that the name "Macedonia" is not mentioned or non-existent in the name of the country when pronouncing "the reference" ("FYROM") as a word by itself rather than use it as intended - "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Using the word "FYROM" constitutes a word by itself, which is fairly easy to pronounce and might mislead users who want to get objective information regarding the name of the country that this word is in fact the politically correct way of referring to the country, when it is in fact NOT. Another important thing to mention is that this is the article about the country, a country which is recognized by more than 130 nations by its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia". A simple mention that there is a naming dispute going on with a reference to the wiki article that deals with that dispute would suffice and both points of view can be expressed in that section. The current reality is that the country's official name is "Republic of Macedonia", but because of Greek opposition, that is being disputed and a reference is in place for use in international organizations such as the UN. The proper reference is not "FYROM" nor "Fyrom" nor "FYR Macedonia" but rather "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, if you replace all references with that, everyone will be happy. But if you happen to keep any single 'Republic of Macedonia' around, a flamefest will probably start over again, and we do not want that. And about the opposition of Greece, I think most of us know that this is no child's play, but that there are indeed historical and territorial issues behind all this, which have led to this situation. Still, I do not agree with you that FYROM is incorrect by any ways, it is the abreviation of the legal name given temporarily by the United Nations, but again, if you want to replace all and any of the references, everyone will be more than happy about that, and with all I mean from Fyrom, FYROM, fYROM, Rom, Republic of Macedonia, and so on. As you might well understand, using a self-claimed name that denotes historical and territorial claims, will cause unnecessary anger and wrath, which as I said before, is to be avoided. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm always surprised by the anonymous 87.xxx IPs who talk about the "legal" name. (And less surprised by their constant blackmailing "if you do as I say, everything will be fine") It happens so often that I almost tend to think that they believe what they are writing. So for their information, FYROM is not the legal name. The United Nations do not provide legal names for any country, nor do they even claim to do so. The only name that is "legal" in any sense is the one that the country's constitution uses, and that is Republic of Macedonia. Needless to say, that is not binding for any of us, as neither Macedonian nor Greek laws have any authority over Misplaced Pages. As I've said often before, compare with Luxembourg for an identical situation, only that anonymous Belgian IPs aren't edit warring over it all the time. JdeJ (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to replace most of the instances of "FYROM" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". If anyone has a valid reason that in a particular instance it should be "FYROM", then change it. The non-nationalists will understand what the previous sentence means ;-). Balkan Fever 11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On looking at it again, it seems Noompsy is not referring to this article, but other articles. Balkan Fever 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you, BalkanFever, to go ahead with your proposed change of changing "FYROM" to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and even delete the added "FYROM" in parentheses in the following line:

"It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

I have to stress again that "FYROM" is not the reference that the country was admitted under but rather "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and I stress the lower-case "f". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO". I would like this to be changed to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" until you provide a document from within the EU, NATO and WTO where the acronym "FYROM" is actually used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on this one. Many institutions and countries call it FYROM like that and pronounce it like that. Even calling the inhabitants FYROMians, and I am not refering particualary to Greece, because they use the term Skopjan. However, in countries like Spain or France it is pretty common to hear FYROM and FYROMian rather than Macedonia or Macedonian, as those refer to the Greek territory. Concluding, if we have to follow NPOV, we have to take care of all of it.

In reply to JdeJ, as I stated before, in the Balcans we have territorial issues with the Slavic people, in Belgium not. Your argument is of no point in here. Comparissons make no sense in this case. And yes, I do believe what I write, what I cannot believe is that you do the same about your writtings. There are many inconsistencies and you are always trying to defend your arguments with things that have already been discarded clearly with historic and territorial arguments. And finally, yes, if we replace it everywhere, you DO understand that everyone will calm down. If you don't, refrain from commenting on it. I think it's pretty common sense. Do you not wish peace and calm in here? 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wish for peace and calm here. And I strongly recent thugs who argue that if we just do as they want, it will be peaceful and calm. In other words, the user above agrees that it is he who causes the unrest here. JdeJ (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Many institutions MAY call the country "FYROM" BUT that does not mean it is correct. My point was that in the UN, NATO and WTO you will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER see the ACRONYM be used. If I'm wrong, please present me with an article from any or all of those institutions where the country was referred to by "FYROM" and not "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Therefore I ask you to make the change I had asked for. Instead of saying "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO" please change it to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" because THAT is the reality of the situation.

On another note, saying FYROM as a word that refers to the country AND referring to the citizens of that country as FYROMians IS offensive and not only is it incorrect, but it is done so by the countries that you mentioned in order to sympathize with the Greek POV WHICH is biased.

Lastly, JUST because you want peace and calm here does not mean that you should be biased yourself and take an approach more suitable to one side. THAT is called extortion. If that is what is going on, please specify so in the article. Bojancho (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think that this discussion is getting out of it's context. I don't care how Germans, Greeks, French, etc. refer to the country and it's inhabitants. That is a dispute that will be solved, but not by us. As I have mentioned a couple of times, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" is wrong. If there is somebody that can't see that, then that is their problem and not mine (or Wikipedias).(link:) So, if you want this article to be correct I suggest you change it.

One more thing. How and when should we use "Republic of Macedonia", "Macedonias", etc. is clearly stated in the Misplaced Pages RULES. (link:). If somebody has a problem with that, then, again, it's their problem!

BalkanFever I'm referring to all articles that use "FYROM" including this one. (on some of them, the changes were made but this one seems to fall behind) Noompsy (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated, or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia. In such cases, the first use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should always be followed by (FYROM) if the abbreviated term is to be used later in the article."

There is no other use of FYROM in the article therefore the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should not be followed by "FYROM" and I would ask you to remove it.

And I would like again to stress that the 3rd footnote is incorrect. The "FYROM" acronym is NOT officially used by international organizations. When officially referring to the country those international organizations use the full reference which is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I would also like to see this changed. Thank you. Bojancho (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes. From those references that are now gone - EU uses "fYROM", NATO uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and WTO uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in all instances. Balkan Fever 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people have a problem with the "fYRoM" acronym, but they don't say anything about the "Republic of Macedonia"... do you want to be objective? When an article says "fYRoM", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", when it's "Republic of Macedonia", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", then nobody is going to have a problem! ;-) --xvvx (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you. Balkan Fever 12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to him and to everyone. At least, to everyone with NPOV and little common sense. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait BF. You know how I feel about the acronym myself, but here you're wrong. First off, the acronym is used extensively in all int'l orgs and we all know it, so it must be there. Second, the particular intro sentence is the result of a huge previous debate (see /Archive10), by dozens of wikipedians. It could only be changed by the same procedure, and only if the change was correct (which it isn't). Also, the timing of this change is a little suspicious. Please do not revert the acronym again, unless you establish a consensus of dozens of users. Thank you. Niko Silver 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the acronym is to be anywhere, it should be here in the main country article. Saying it "isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes" isn't a valid argument either, especially when it has been systematically removed by other users in the past. Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means when reading a ref. And it does actually occur at least once further down in the article, in Misplaced Pages's own voice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I add my consent to the others, the name should be RoM and that's how it is to be called as per WP:MOSMAC but it's a fact that many organisation use the acronym and it needs to be mentioned. JdeJ (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, please don't try to represent things that are not true. ΚέκρωΨ thank you for your statement "Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means" which I tried to point out but nobody seems to agree. "FYROM" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. So yeah, please make that clear. On the other hand, the rules are clear. "FYROM" is to be used ONLY if there is "FYROM" present in the article. In this article it IS NOT. I don't care what millions of people think. (some time ago millions thought that the earth was flat also...)Those are the rules and they have to stick to them (and so do you). And also please bring back the update that was made. If you have a problem that the majority of UN members recognise the country by Republic of Macedonia then go and talk to them and not modify this article. That is a fact and it has to be clear to the reader that 51+% of the countries in this world recognise that piece of land as Republic of Macedonia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take your POV elsewhere. The acronym is present in the article (take a closer look) and its use by major international organizations has been verifiably demonstrated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kékrōps, might I point out that the Greeks on this page have been clearly expressing their POVs for a very long time now. Noompsy, it as I have told the Greeks before, we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is). I would ask both side to stop making such a big deal of it. I heard one person suggesting war as a possibility, it's just a name, please calm down. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuell, I understand as an observer you cannot comprehend why the name is so important to both sides. I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I'll tell you that for Macedonians, it is much more than a name, it is an identity, it is the thing that defines us and that is why it is so important to us.

I realize that many will start a debate because of what I said, but all I did was express what Macedonians all over feel in regards to this "name" as you call it Samuell. So, it may be just a name to you, but to many its so much more, and for that reason, we can't just calm down.

With regards to what you said, I don't quite comprehend exactly what you meant by "we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is)". Do you mean to say that you follow what the majority of countries refer to the country as? Because if that is the case, as Noompsy has pointed out, 2 thirds of UN members refer to the country by its name (Republic of Macedonia) and not the reference. Bojancho (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the Macedonians. Niko Silver 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well you can’t say that I didn’t try. Since my contributions to Misplaced Pages are not welcome, I will certainly refrain from contributing. At least I learned one thing. It’s ok to write incorrect things and not follow rules on Misplaced Pages as long as there are few influential people that want it that way. (by the way, this is my POV). I mean, I’ve heard some ridiculous opposing arguments but this, I just can’t explain.

1. This is the first time in my life that I’ve seen an article where the actual article explains what its footnotes mean. But it’s ok. I guess the concept of a footnote is a little harder to grasp than I thought.

2. “The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO” Although you provide links to these organizations where EU uses “fYROM”, NATO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and WTO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)” you somehow manage bring all these three names together into one, “FYROM”. Hahaha, genius. And the argument why that is: quoting NikoSilver “we all know it”. So what he is trying to tell me (and everybody else) here is that he(we all) knows(know) that NATO uses FYROM although on NATOs official webpage it says “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Talking about POVs). Like I said, genius.

3. Dear ΚέκρωΨ, until you provide me with some official document (and I don’t mean a document from Greece) where it says that “FYROM” can be used to refer to the country (means) Republic of Macedonia, FYROM will not mean anything. So until then, “FYROM doesn’t mean anything” is not my POV but it’s a fact.

4. For the proposed change of “although a large number of countries recognize it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia.”: I think I was quite clear why this should be changed. If ΚέκρωΨ thinks that this is my POV then somebody needs to look up either “majority” or “POV” in the dictionary. Last time I checked 118 out of 192 constitutes as a majority.

In order to have a “preferred” name (or an object) you have to have at least two or more. (I don’t think that anybody can object to this). Thus by saying that Republic of Macedonia prefers a name it basically means that it has two or more. Unfortunately this is not correct. That same country has one name “Republic of Macedonia” and has a reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The reference doesn’t constitute as a name. (example: You can refer to me as Sir but that doesn’t make it my name). But according to some people on Misplaced Pages this is my POV. Wow. Or maybe it is a really bad time to change it? Well then NikoSilver, when is a good time to change it? Please tell me, so that you can change it then!

In the end, I would like to mention that I’m sorry if I offended somebody. That was not my intention. I just wanted to point out the kind of responses and arguments I received when I wanted to contribute something and explain why my opinion of Misplaced Pages has changed. Noompsy (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These arguments are correct, which is why I made the edit. Proper sourcing is needed, or we change the wording. Balkan Fever 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're nothing of the sort. The EU uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM)", NATO uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" (check the source again - even the bloody URL is http://www.nato.int/fyrom/ for fuck's sake), and the WTO uses "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". Why not argue that the long form should be changed in the article to conform to WTO usage? In fact, the EU also uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM)" on the same page, which just goes to show how fluid and trivial such differences are. If your only argument is that the EU uses "fYROM" and not "FYROM", then with all due respect that's a rather pathetic argument. WP:MOSMAC requires us to introduce the acronym, as "FYROM" (our sincerest apologies to the EU), and that's that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Check what the fucking note says. The "FYROM" acronym is only used by those organisations in conjunction with the long form. It isn't used by itself, as is suggested. None of the sources refer to the country as "FYROM". That's it. Balkan Fever 05:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about checking what the fucking article says? Where the fuck is "FYROM" used by itself?! Fuck me dead. What you want to do is completely remove the acronym from the end of the long form, when we have sourced that they can and are used in conjunction. And that simply ain't happening, so just forget it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right fucking here: "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO” Bojancho (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't it? Has anyone claimed that it is used exclusively, as you claim the long form is or should be? Check the EU source again. The acronym (as "FYROM", which kind of demolishes the argument that the EU uses only "fYROM") occurs four times in the links on the left-hand side and at the top of the page, and another three times as "fYROM" in the main text, while the long form occurs only once as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and once as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". One could therefore argue that the EU uses "FYROM" (or a trivial variation thereof) the majority of the time. I can't believe we're having this arcane argument, to be perfectly honest. The acronym is used, we have sources that verify that it is used, and on top of that we are required to use it per the relevant Manual of Style. Just let it go. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I saw the "links down the left-hand side of the page" that you were referring to. Let me see how I can put this to you so that you can comprehend what I am trying to say to you.

1)Are you trying to tell me that a LINK and a URL is what you consider OFFICIAL? If so, then I can only comment on your state of mind and attention to redundant and trivial details and I have nothing good to say.

2)To say that the FYROM acronym is used by those organization and to imply that no use of the full reference is needed when addressed by ALL THREE of those organization is simply incorrect and subjectively generalized. Bojancho (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source even covers that possibility: "The core aim of CONCORDIA was, at the explicit request of the fYROM government, to contribute further to a stable secure environment and to allow the implementation of the August 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement." So yes, the acronym is used even on its own, but no one is saying this article has to do the same. The Greek editors are not trying to censor the long form. You, on the other hand, are trying to censor all references to the acronym, to suit your POV agenda. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

user:BalkanFever/intro. Anybody is welcome to work on it. And please, don't give me any sarcastic bullshit that you refer to as a reply. Balkan Fever 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The acronym is simply a convenient shorthand used by many countries and international organizations as an alternative to the tedious long form, but some editors are choosing to read too much into it for obvious political reasons. It is really no different from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization being shortened to "NATO", or the European Union to "EU". We don't need a source to "prove" that the country is recognized specifically as "FYROM"; we know for a fact that it already is, because an acronym can only stand for the long form that it abbreviates. In other words, "NATO" can only mean "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", "EU" can only mean "European Union", and "FYROM" can only mean "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The argument that it is "offensive" is as pathetic as the "we're not Slavs" line. Whatever, nobody cares. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care, why don't you drop it? All your replies to legitimate questions and concerns here are unconstrunctive. Nobody needs you accusing them of POV and dismissing everything as useless. Balkan Fever 06:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant that nobody cares if you are offended by the acronym, just like you keep telling Greeks that nobody cares if they are offended by "RoM". As for the "legitimate questions and concerns", that's just it. They're not. They are motivated by a desire to impose a particular opinion on the project, namely that "FYROM" should not appear anywhere, despite what the sources say. Perhaps you should you just drop the dead donkey. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"NATO" can only mean "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"

Well, not quite. NATO can also mean http://www.telemarknato.com/ or http://www.beyondtv.org/nato/ or http://www.nato-ladder.com/ Bojancho (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The current sources don't say "FYROM". Not to mention the blatantly misleading sentence saying that it was admitted under the reference "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". Perhaps you should go back to your big fat Greek life. Balkan Fever 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Polytonic ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Прости нѝ ги долговите наши, како што им ги проштаваме и ние на нашите должници. 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly interesting article that could be added to the name dispute

New York Times source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/lweb22greece.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How is a letter to the editor an article? Balkan Fever 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

update

I think the article needs a little update. For example:
"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although a large number of countries recognise it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia."
It's not really clear about the number of institutions or countries that have recognised it either way. A better way to say it is:
"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although the majority of UN members recognise it under its constitutional name the Republic of Macedonia."
It's sheds more light on the actual situation. If nobody has any objections to this, then please change it. Noompsy (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Balkan Fever 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if I was to refer to Australians as English, if i was to refer to Welsh as English, if I was to refer to Americs as English, if I was to refer to English as Germans, if I was to refer to citizens of FYROM as Greeks, if i was to refer to half of the "old world" citizens as Greeks...Where do we stop? do we go further back in the past? Achaians, Aiolians, Ionians...

Someone said that we should not let history be a problem for today, and that we should look forward? History Mrs Minister is not something that happened 200 years ago. Greece goes back in history for more than a few millenia.

so...Fyrom citizens say that they are "Macedonians", does this mean that they want to become Greek citizens?

This is a never ending cycle. A name means nothing and it also means everything. People follow symbols and a name is definately a symbol.

We should not repeat mistakes of the past, we should aim in maintaining stability and peace and the name "Macedonia" will cause more problems that those that will solve.

just because the majority of the world use the name "Macedonia" it does not mean that they are right. as someone said, some centuries ago the majority believed that the earth was flat.

there are 2 main stakeholders involved: Hellas and FYROM. why do we need referees? why do we care about the rest of the world? if I have a problem with another person i talk to him/her directly and not through a third party. Do we need to hide behind other countries? Are we afraid of the truth?

to conclude: i grew up in believing that there is only one Macedonia, and that it is Greek. I am sure that citizens of FYROM grew up in believing something else. Lets talk, without any referees and without using information operations aiming in gaining an advantage over to what the general public believes at the other side of the world. Lets start thinking for ourselves instead of accepting everything we see in the tely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykoniatis (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be spiteful, but in order for us to sit down and talk rationally you would have to show me that you have an understanding that the person who is sitting in front of you is neither Greek, nor Bulgarian, nor Serbian, nor SlavoMakedonian and let alone Skopian or FYROMian and accept that I am here, that I am a reality and I am not going anywhere. You would also have to accept that there are also a few million of us. You will also have to accept that we call ourselves Macedonian as our fathers did, and their fathers and so on. And that line doesn't stop at Tito.

Then, we would also have to agree that compromises have to be made in finding a solution. That meaning a claim that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks(ancient Greeks) and base it on the fact that Alexander the Great spoke Greek and believed in Greek gods. It is an argument that just is not sufficient to assert that claim. Just as the case would be if he spoke Slavic (I'm not saying he did) would not mean he was of Slavic origin. Continuing on that premise, he could've been a Greek who spoke the Slavic language. But I digress. I'm not saying that this proves that we are the descendants of the ancient Macedonians, but it also doesn't prove that you were either.

Then, we would also have to agree that ancient Macedonians did have a separate language that they spoke, but was not understood by the ancient Greeks however, not much of it has been salvaged to restore it substantially.

Then, we will have to agree (and this is the point that I specifically stress because I feel it is the most important one) that the concept of a nation today, cannot be applied to the "institutions" (if I dare to call them that) of that time. The concept of a nation as a country that identifies with a specific identity or people is a modern concept from the 18th and 19th century. Applying this notion onto the entity what we label as states back then, is a false premise.

I think I will stop it here even though I do have a lot more to say, but I'm afraid that it would only start a series of replies and rants from both sides. As to what you mentioned Mykonaitis, regarding the majority of the world recognizing the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. I think you misinterpreted what that means. The recognition of Macedonia by countries is not the confirmation or the recognition that Macedonia and the people are descendant from ancient Macedonia. Here is where you claim that majority doesn't equal the truth. I agree that majority belief is not necessary the truth. However, what countries are doing by recognizing the country by its own constitutional name is recognizing and allowing us to exercise the right to self-determination as a people and as a country.

I apologize upfront to whoever I may have offended by what I said. Bojancho (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "community view" on this article's name

Instead of entering into a revert war with ChrisO, let me stress once again that there is NO consensus on "Republic of Macedonia", what happens is that is has been there long enough to be considered status quo. However, this issue is now as open as ever, especially with what's going on wrt to FYROM's NATO bid. - Avg 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with its NATO bid has no bearing on what the article is presently called. It might have a bearing if the name changes, but until and unless that happens it's just background noise. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding facts to the article

Source: http://web.mit.edu/hellenic/www/macedonia.html

     THE MACEDONIAN ISSUE

     This new republic, with capital the city of Skopje, emerged as the successor to the former ``Yugoslav Federative Republic of Macedonia, after the collapse of former Yugoslavia, and applied for admission to the United Nations with the name ``Republic of Macedonia. Greece strongly opposes the use of the term Macedonia, which is the name of its northern region.

     Greece believes that the use of this name along with the continuing use of irredentist actions and symbols by this new republic against Greece, clearly imply a claim to Greek territory. It is important to point out that the authorities of this new republic affixed on the new flag of the republic the emblem of the ancient Greek Macedonian dynasty that was found in Greece in the tomb of King Philip II (the father of Alexander the Great). Moreover, in the constitution of this new republic there are references to the possibility of changing the current borders in order to create a ``Greater Macedonia that will include the northern province of Greece ! Maps of this ``Greater Macedonia have already been issued and circulated by the authorities in Skopje.

     The United Nations acknowledging the Greek position admitted this new republic with the temporary name ``Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M) and currently negotiations are taking place in order to settle this issue.

     Recently, the Clinton administration has issued a directive to use the name ``Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M) when referring to this new republic.

     MACEDONIA FAQ

     (This is a FAQ about the Greek main positions.)

     In 1994, Greece imposed an embargo on products from FYROM (except for food, medicine and humanitarian assistance), on claims that the adoption of a Greek name ("Macedonia") for the country, a Greek symbol (the Vergina Sun/Star) for its flag and certain articles in its constitution, hide irredentist designs against Greece. For the embargo to end, the flag, certain articles in its constitution, and the hostile propaganda have to be changed ("small package"), while the name can be decided in later negotiations.

     1) Why does Greece dictate to FYROM its name, symbols and constitution?

     Greece does not dictate to FYROM what name or flag to adopt, just to choose any of the million possibilities that are not Greek or offensive to Greeks. Countries have to choose their national symbols based on International norms. (i.e. Can Syria employ the Nazi cross as their flag, if they choose so? Can Cuba change its name to Florida, employ the statue of Liberty as its flag and start propaganda that the Florida state in the USA belongs to Cuba, by virtue of so many Cubans living there?)

     Naming a country after a neighboring region is a de facto irredentist strategy aimed at destabilizing the region, and hoping that the country, will absorb the neighboring region.

     2) Why does Greece object to the use of the `Vergina Sun' on the FYROM flag?

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

     3) Why did Greece impose the embargo?

     After talking with the FYROMian Government fruitlessly for 2 years and going nowhere, then and only then did the Greek state implement the partial embargo as last resort to advance the issue.

     4) Why do you claim exclusive rights to the symbols of the ancient Macedonians?

     We have linguistic, cultural, genealogical, and geographic ties to the ancient Greeks and Macedons. They (FYROM) are mostly Slavs who descended after 600 CE in the region, and have no ties whatsoever (ancient Makedonia was within modern Greece since its inception).

     Even after the great expansion by Philip the II and Alexander the Great in the 400s BCE, perhaps even less than 10% of the FYROMian land was part of the `enlarged kingdom'. The reader should realize that the punitive expeditions of the Macedonians in the north, as well as their imperial acquisitions in the Balkans and Asia did not necessarily produce a `wider concept of Macedonia' - a country with boarders extending to India. That would be most simplistic! Pella, the capital of the ancient Makedones, is well within modern Greek borders.

     5) What proof do you have that the ancient Macedonians were Greek?

     The vast majority of major historians believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Those who still remain skeptical, say that they need more evidence before proclaiming the ancient Macedonians as Greek. But no one says that ancient Macedonians were not Greek.

     Recent excavations close to their ancient capital, Aigai, including the discovery of the `tomb of Philip the II', reinforce the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians categorically.

     In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans.

     6) How can appropriating Greece's history, be irredentist?

     History is the means for laying claims on foreign lands. The Macedonian argument was promoted by the 3rd Commintern (USSR) and their allies in the region just prior to WWII, to create an independent greater Macedonia for social experimentation. Bulgarians have said that Alexander the Great was a Bulgarian while occupying Macedonia (Greek) on behalf of the Germans in WWII.

     Tito sent 5,000 Yugoslavs and "Slav-Macedonians" to Greece after WWII to work with their allies in the region to annex Makedonia (Greek) while we were too busy fighting a civil war. These were the same people that now live in FYROM. 3 times in the recent past the same propaganda has been used as justification by different interests (Commintern, Bulgaria, (S)NOF-Yugoslavia) to invade (or try to) Greece. Even today, just when the name and flag were been adopted in independent FYROM, VMRO and Gligorof were talking about reclaiming "their" lands in Greece and Bulgaria.

     7) Who populated the lands of modern FYROM in the past?

     The ancient people inhabiting the area around Skopje, at the time of the ancient Macedonians, were the Dardanians, and their land was called Dardania. Throughout their modern history, the region now occupied by FYROM was populated mostly by Bulgarians.

     The creation of "Macedonia" (FYROM, SROM) was artificial. Ex-Yugoslavs will attest to that. FYROM is comprised of Albanians, Serbs, and Bulgarians and their language is a Bulgarian dialect with a few Serbo-croatian words. Bulgarians will attest to that and understand/speak "Macedonian".

     8) What about their claim of a large minority in Greece?

     After usurping the name and the flag, surprise! They start claiming that Greeks in Macedonia (Greek) are a FYROM minority. After all we all identify as Macedonians. Thus, we must be the same...

     Some people in the Net claim 1 mill minority in Macedonia (Greek). The population of Macedonia (Greek) is 2 mill. I am a Macedonian (Greek) same with other Greeks on this group. We don't want anything to have with FYROM. We are Greek. Finally the recent Euro-Elections revealed only with their cause (therefore propably a FYROM minority) 10,000! Not fantasies of 1 million!

     9) Why doesn't the Greek government recognize the "Macedonian" minority?

     Greek parents have been sending their children to Macedonian schools for years, expecting them to learn Greek, not Bulgarian. Macedonian people (Greeks) are already a majority in Greece, with Macedonian churches, schools and cultural centers teaching Greek and regional dances and songs.

     The Greek government can neither recognize a minority with the same name, as the majority, nor build non-Greek schools and churches with the same name. Greek courts have offered to open cultural centers for their minority, under a different name (than Macedonian). They have refused.

     As long as they use the term "Macedonian" to describe their nationality, their minorities in Greece and Bulgaria cannot be recognized.

     10) What are Greece's objections with FYROM's constitution?

     There are two points of concern:

     In their preamble, they define their FYROM state as a departure from the " ...historic decisions of the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the People's Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM)... ". The problem is that ASNOM had called for the "Macedonians" in Bulgaria and other countries to unite under Tito's rule.

     Their language in article 49 is also problematic (too extensive to go into here).

     At Greece's request they have added 2 amendements stating that they have no claims on neighbouring countries. Still, that is in contradiction with their preample, and it is to their benefit to rewrite those articles to avoid contradictions and vagueries in their Constitution.

     11) Does Greece have any territorial or other claims on FYROM?

     In 1993, Serbia's President Milocevic, invited Greece to invade FYROM. Greece declined it.

     FYROM is surrounded by claims of Greater Albania, Greater Bulgaria and Greater Serbia. Greece is the only one not interested in FYROM.

     It is a poor, barren place with no Hellenic ties or history. Greece has the beach-front property (Aegean), and the economy differential between the two countries would only create problems for the richer one (Greece).

     12) Is Greece really afraid of FYROM?

     Presently FYROM is too weak to threaten Greece militarily or otherwise. However, considering that:

     a) A general draft can raise an army of 700,000 in FYROM;

     b) Greece has had to fight several times against similar claims in this century to secure and defend its northern region (Macedonia);

     c) the Balkans are currently in a map-changing mode;

     d) shifting alliances may change the balance of power in the near future;

     The Greek state feels that the "inexplicable" adoption of an irredentist name and flag by FYROM are hostile and provocative acts designed to establish future claims on Greek Macedonia.

     These are the main points and we can support them with facts and evidence.

     Copyright: Please feel free to redistribute, but do not alter any portion(s) of this document, without permission from the authors:

     "Makedovomaxoi of alt.news.macedonia", 1994.

BACK

Categories: