Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.252.6.62 (talk) at 09:42, 24 March 2013 (→‎RE: Skopia and other names.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

Edit request on 12 December 2012

Please change Republic of Macedonia to FYROM because FYROM is what is used by international organisations and states which do not recognise translations of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија, Republika Makedonija). Nigwisht (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MOSMAC. No change. --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially?"

I have an objection about the word "officially" at the begining of the article. The country's name, officially, is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not Republic of Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedes19 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the official title used by the people living in the country: Republika Makedonija. The Former Yugoslav/FYROM is nonsense/a nonsense acronym.
I think "Constitutionally known as the Republic of Macedonia" would solve the dispute. Philly boy92 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for "constitutionally". That term implies that Macedonia uses something else besides what is written in their constitution. By the word "officially" we mean the name that the country uses for itself in official matters. It doesn't matter one bit what other countries (Greece particularly) think of it, "officially" means the name that the country officially uses for itself. "Myanmar" is the official name of Burma, whether anyone else uses that name or not. "Republic of Macedonia" is the official name of Macedonia whether the Greeks like it or not. "FYROM" is not an official name. The UN considers "FYROM" to be the "term of reference" until the Greeks and Macedonians agree to an official name to replace "Republic of Macedonia". But until then, "Republic of Macedonia" is the official name. --Taivo (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabour the point too much with you, Taivo, but doesn't that nudge the POV that this name is uniformly accepted? If it were "officially" known as that, there wouldn't be a point to all the discussion in the UN and bilaterally between the two countries, would there? Perhaps some wording is in order that doesn't suggest this name is anywhere near universally accepted?86.148.132.223 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "It became a member of the United Nations in 1993 but, as a result of a dispute with Greece over its name, it was admitted under the provisional reference of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, sometimes abbreviated as FYROM"? Bagunceiro (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Officially" refers to the official name by which the country refers to itself. That is standard Wikipedia usage and the standard meaning of the word "officially" in English. It doesn't matter one bit what the UN does or does not do. "Officially" means the official name by which the country refers to itself in all official documents. The official name of Macedonia is Republic of Macedonia. Your characterization that "Macedonia" is "nowhere near universally accepted" is completely wrong. See Macedonia naming dispute to see that a large part of the world does, indeed, use "Macedonia". And that still doesn't matter at all. "Official" means what the country calls itself in official documents. Even if no other country in the world used that name, it would still be the "official" name. And Bagunceiro, we already discuss the UN reference later in the lead and the article. It's not appropriate in the first sentence because that is an exonym, not the name by which they refer to themselves. The common English name for Macedonia is, well, Macedonia. That is the name you will find most commonly in the major English language media, in major English language atlases, etc. Read WP:MOSMAC. --Taivo (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I agree with you. I was trying to make that point (probably a bit obtusely) that the article already covers anon's concern by quoting that part of the lead. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. I misunderstood your point, Bagunceiro. --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support clarifying the meaning of using "officially", because the name "Republic of Macedonia" is not internationally accepted. This is a rarity and must be accounted for in the naming. I propose either replacing "officially" with "or", or specifying with respect to what (the country's constitution) is the name official. Kupraios (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kupraios, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the usage of "officially". International acceptance has absolutely nothing to do with a country's official name. None. The official name is the name by which the country refers to itself in official documents. That's the end of it. That is precisely the meaning of "official". We already discuss in the lead the nature of the international usage of this official name, Greece's objections to it, and the international naming quagmire that Greece has caused for Macedonia. The official name of Macedonia is Republic of Macedonia. There is no other official name. There are other terms that other countries and international organizations use to refer to Macedonia (and these are already appropriately referenced in the lead), but Macedonia's official name is Republic of Macedonia no matter what other countries wish to call it. "Official" is entirely internal, not external. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is problematic. Because before I clicked here I knew the country as the former Yugoslav... Macedonia is therefore used as a short hand in the English Language and nowhere have I heard republic of Macedonia being just used. GAtechnical (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the way the article is now, as it follows the convention used on most articles about countries, namely, opening the article with the name most commonly used for the country in English, then mentioning the official name (which for literally every other country article, is the (translated) constitutional name of the country for itself). As examples, see the lead sentences of Russia, Brazil, India, Germany, Venezuela, Greece, South Africa, Mexico, and many many other articles. There is no reason why this article should be any different. J.delanoygabsadds 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Taivo's predilection for snappy, admonishing sentences and unhelpful oversimplification of the term 'officially', I do not see any problem with its usage here. Indeed, it is even included in the opening paragraph of the internationally unrecognised 'TRNC' and J.delanoy helpfully gives various other examples. However, Tavoi, it is not standard usage in Wikipedia, while in the world of international politics the terms 'official' and 'officially' are often debatable. Politis (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No "oversimplification" about it "Pliotis" and the only time that "official" and "officially" are not the internally official, constitutional names is when the specific context is otherwise. If we were talking about the UN specifically, then it would have the UN meaning, but in general, without any specific context such as here it is the internally official name. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

146nd, 6 Feb 2013

Minor Grammar

In the table on the right at the top of the page. The population is listed as "146nd" instead of "146th".

I like to correct grammar mistakes like that, but this article was locked.

75.4.21.22 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)6 Feb 2013, 03:24 PST[reply]

Done, thanks a lot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Please add a small section on Macedonia's small contribution in the Balkan Wars. Here is a link to sufficient information on it: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/PartitionedMacedonia/BalkanWars.html

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poubavo Devojche (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentist, unreliable, and highly biased websites are not welcome as sources, sorry. --Laveol T 10:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contribution by which Macedonia, I guess not by the RoM? The Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks and Albanians of Macedonia (region) contributed in rather different ways to those wars, indeed. Apcbg (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Skopia and other names.

There definitely should be a section about the different names of this country, locked entry or not. The dispute's alternate names are just as valid and are more legitimate. Fair treatment would be to include the Greek case that proves that all Macedonian cultural references and names are in fact Greek. Let outsiders decide for themselves instead of reinforcing the confrontational rhetoric of a country that was repeated at war over the last twenty years.

Skopia is a historical name of FYROM and there are other historical names like Bovonia.

It is amazing how people can impose their will like fascism in the face of the overwhelming contradiction of history. Yes, anyone can write their own history but what is the goal of making up a history that is imaginary and a fraud. Everyone knows that this area was occupied by the Ottomans. So isn't FYROM still split half and half with different races of people? There really isn't a clear majority in former Yugoslavians states. So, just like 'Ellas' aren't there more important issues to deal with in FYROM other than pretending to be Ancient Greeks from the north? Especially when the first Macedonian king migrated to northern Greece from the south. Someone ought to donate books to Yugoslavia in mass. There must have been a lot of idiotic brainwashing occurring over the last 90 years. Some Greeks have recently shown themselves to be naive or unsophisticated, but the peoples of the Yugoslavia and Albania have been doing one worse. All must look like fools to the outside world.

Considering the lack of proper education under communist rule for many decades and a propagandist articulation of an alternate telling of history which was internally generated; it is unbelievable that the Yugoslavians having split apart don't want an accurate identity for themselves. No one who has survived these terrible wars should buy into a system and culture that remains warlike, envious and socially dishonest.

Yes it is true that anyone can call themselves anything that they wish to, but the "Macedonian Frontier" will always be part of the Hellenic World and anytime the oldest relics are dug up on that land they will always be from the indigenous Hellenic settlements. So instead of progress those people will always look back and not even to their own ancestors.

This may seem to be intended as malicious but it is not, it is what a frustrated true friend would say. Without morality and ethics in the telling of history, society has nothing.64.252.6.62 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&oldid=546704326"