Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:North Macedonia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MSGJ (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 13 February 2019 (MSGJ moved page Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 12 to Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 12: overwhelming consensus that article should be moved now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Pristina is in Serbia or Kosovo?

We are all aware that Pristina is still within Serbia, officially speaking, however I think the section listing the Macedonian embassies should have Pristina within Kosovo because being within Kosovo does not exclude it from being in Serbia at the same time it very well emphasizes that there is an embassy in Kovoso too. mentarm

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include the Republic of Macedonia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FYROM 'Generally has good relations with Greece.' ???

Surely this line is FYROM propaganda, but everytime someone tries to alter the line it is reverted, LOL.

Here is the latest general good relations - the same as before - from ERT News today!

Greece accuses FYROM of 'falsifying' history in Alexander the Great row


ATHENS: Greece on Thursday reacted angrily to a decision by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to rename its capital's main airport after Alexander the Great, the famed warrior-king of antiquity that Greece considers an integral part of its own cultural heritage.

"History cannot change, or be falsified, 2,000 years on," Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis said in a statement. Bakoyannis was responding to an announcement by her FYROM counterpart Antonio Milososki that the Skopje international airport is to be renamed 'Alexander of Macedon', the foreign ministry said.

"With its announcement today, (FYROM) once again seeks false supports in the past," the Greek foreign minister said. "Alexander the Great is a leading figure of global appeal...(a) Greek conqueror who established himself in history by spreading Greek culture across the entire known world," Bakoyannis added.

Greece is also at loggerheads with its tiny northern neighbour over its name, blocking the former Yugoslav province's efforts to gain international recognition as "Macedonia" after breaking away from Belgrade in 1991. Skopje wants the name Republic of Macedonia, as laid down in its constitution, to be used globally.

But Macedonia is also the name of a northern Greek region which was the seat of power of Alexander the Great, remembered for his conquest of Asia as far as modern-day India in the fourth century BC.

Athens threatens to block FYROM's ambitions to join the European Union and NATO unless it agrees to a compromise in a dispute over its name. "This behaviour is incompatible with (FYROM's) obligations for good neighbourly relations..and its pledges to the EU, and does not further its Euro-Atlantic aspirations," Bakoyannis said on Thursday.

In 1994, Athens imposed an embargo over the issue that cost FYROM some 2.2 billion dollars, according to Skopje's estimates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reaper7 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Reaper7, you are right about the accrimony over the name and the (mis)appropriation of Greek cultural heritage. But in terms of trade, defence policy, anti-terrorism and even over many cultural matters, the two countries get on very well. They are even engaged in joint archaeological co-operation on their border. If you have evidence to the contrary (other than cultural heritage) please make it known. Politis 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


The example of not generally good trade is a line above your comment remember - the two year blockade?, not being allowed in EU in the future unless they alter their name is also not generally good relations, Greece having made sure they change their name before aswell, - is all not good relations, and all this and the country has only been around less than 2 decades. Nothing is generally good. England and Turkey's relationship is generally good - Greece and Fyrom? Not.Reaper7 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The blocade was 14 years ago. I just think that bilateral relations between 2 countries take place across many different sectors. Some exchanges work very well, others do not. So it is our responsibility to locate those areas, give a clear picture and avoid generalising. For bad relations across most sectors look at the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, or Azerbaidjan and Armenia, North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, etc... But Athens and Skopje share many common interests. Politis 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes they have good relations and this is the way it should be. The name is the only difference between them. It is of prime strategic importance for Greece that FYROM survives and becomes a healthy state ready to be integrated into the EU.--   Avg    20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Ability of Greece to block FYROM's entry to EU

A few days ago while reading about the naming issue I noticed a quote of the agreement signed by the two countries which allowed Macedonia to join the UN as FYROM which stated that Greece could not block Macedonia's entry to any international organisation under the FYROM name. Unfortunately I didn't save the link to the site or the quote, so would anyone with a better knowledge of the agreement or a link to the agreement be able to confirm this? Trampoline Man 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard it before. Actually, I added the complete opposite quote from GR MFA Bakoyannis (that "the name issue" must be "resolved beforehand"). Check also Accession of FYROM to EU. NikoSilver 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Under current EU law, every single member state (including now Bulgaria and Romania) has the right to veto the accession of new members. Presently Greece is facilitating the disposition of EU funds towards Fyrom/Rom, especially with regard to cross border facilities (archaeology, border post facilities, etc). Politis 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You write "Greece could not block Macedonia's entry to any international organisation under the FYROM name". Stating the obvious, since Greece supported entry of the Republic with this name. --   Avg    23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You all seem to have missed my comment, so I'll spell it out for you:
Greek foreign minister, Ms.Dora Bakoyannis, affirmed that "...the Hellenic Parliament, under any composition, will not ratify the accession of the neighbouring country to the EU and NATO if the name issue is not resolved beforehand."
  1. "Embassy of Greece - Washington, DC". Answer of FM Ms. D. Bakoyannis regarding the FYROM name issue. Retrieved September 11, 2006.
  2. "United Macedonian Diaspora". Interview with Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis. Retrieved November 2, 2006.
I seriously doubt there would be such an agreement that would force Greece to not veto, otherwise why would the parliament need to "ratify"? NikoSilver 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's a matter of EU policy that every member's parliament must individually accept a candidate's accession. I managed to find the agreement [1]. It states:
C. INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the First Part(Greece) agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part("FYROM") in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
Now I could be misinterpreting the text, but does that not mean Greece could not reject Macedonia's accession if the naming dispute were not resolved? Trampoline Man 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It says that Greece will not object in any application of FYROM to be accepted with the name FYROM. It does reserve the right to object to any application of FYROM with another name (e.g. ROM). So if FYROM applies as FYROM, yes Greece will not veto the accession. But you're missing the point. Greece doesn't have a problem with this, on the contrary, the faster FYROM enters the EU the better. It's FYROM that has a problem. --   Avg    21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll quote the Greek Foreign minister as it's stated in the article:
""...the Hellenic Parliament, under any composition, will not ratify the accession of the neighbouring country to the EU and NATO if the name issue is not resolved beforehand.""
With that wording, it indicates quite simply that the Greek government will not allow Macedonia's accession if the naming dispute is still ongoing, but if Macedonia decides to just use the FYROM name then Greece would be in violation of the treaty if it uses the naming dispute as a reason for blocking accession Trampoline Man 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link. Thanks Trampoline Man! See this nice article that applies to some recent developments:

Article 7
1. Each Party shall promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by State-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility against each other.[1]
2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.[2]
3. If either Party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other Party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other Party, and the other Party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary to do so.[3]

...comments yours... NikoSilver 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge the Republic has not recently violated any of those points, but I assume you think otherwise? Anyway, it seems you're just trying to spark a nationalist response, which isn't what I want to see anywhere, let alone here. Trampoline Man 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, please, your comment above may well be taken as complete lack of WP:AGF and possibly WP:NPA from your part; which I definitely don't deserve having been the major editor of the (only) featured article for the region: Macedonia (terminology). I have already cited above what the Greek government perceives as a violation of all these articles, as clearly officially stated here ("deep displeasure" and "taking backward steps and insisting on distorting the past") and also criticized here by the mediator himself (Mathew Nimetz: "Οι προσπάθειες διαμεσολάβησης για το ζήτημα της ονομασίας των Σκοπίων επηρεάζονται, και μάλιστα όχι θετικά, από την απόφαση της ΠΓΔΜ να μετονομάσει το αεροδρόμιό της σε Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας"/"The effort to mediation on the name issue of Skopje [RoM] are affected, not positively of course, by the decision of FYROM to rename its airport to Alexander the Great"). Feel free to study all that. NikoSilver 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can't have expected me to react in any other way, given you made no real point for me to counter and all I could gather from your previous comment was what you could have implied, and had no idea what exactly I was meant to comment on.
I did suspect you may have been referring to the Airport issue, I myself do not agree with the accusations of the Greek government, the naming of an airport indicates nothing more than a desire to honour a significant person in the region's history, and naming the airport of the capital city after the most important person to gave come from the region seems quite acceptable to me. Trampoline Man 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For the first part, you're right, though it was unintentional, as I presumed you'd notice the third citation. However, when in doubt, please don't take the wrong path of insinuating nationalist response spakings and the like.

For the second part, my and your opinion count zilt; it's what we can come down with sources that matters. (like my "unhelpful" Nimetz source above). If you do want my personal opinion, then <initiating nationalistic rant> I think that the whole country is built on the notion of being the rightful heir and descendant to Alexander the Great (some users here know I have extensive experience on the issue; but that is all WP:OR of course). Fortunately the facts state otherwise:

Now, as I don't see France claiming Leonardo Da Vinci, Julius Caesar, the Leaning tower of Pisa and the Colosseum; I expect the same from my neighbors. Had those "desires to honour a significant person in the region's history" (which is fallacious because the region is Macedon) been so frequent; I can't imagine what the names of the airports would be across the world! </end nationalistic rant> :-) NikoSilver 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But Alexander was not "from the region" at all; his association with what is now the FYROM is a much later projection. Skopje lies in what was the ancient region of Dardania, roughly corresponding to modern-day Kosovo. Dardania and Macedon were separated by the ancient kingdom of Paionia, roughly corresponding to the rest of what is now the FYROM. In other words, Alexander's homeland lay a full two countries away. If the Skopjan authorities insist on using a name from classical antiquity, that of an illustrious Dardanian would be much more appropriate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling we're moving off the original topic here. I did not make my original statement simply as a point of discussion on this page, I made it for the purpose of being able to create a NPOV addition to the article which would point out that the Greek Foreign Minister's threats of blocking RoM's accession to the EU were against the treaty which the two countries signed. NikoSilver, I still do not understand what purpose quoting a section of the treaty which had nothing to do with the specific subject matter I brought up would have other than a provocative one, my apologies if not true, but please lets stay on topic. Trampoline Man 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read your source fully. Article 7 that I quoted has been violated, so theoretically Greece can do whatever she deems necessary (and that's why I quoted it).

Furthermore, the 7 year period for which Athens was forced by that treaty to not deny on the name issue alone has expired and only needs a 12 month notice, which is too short for either EU or NATO accession (art.23-2). NikoSilver 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is completely up to interpretation whether or not RoM is in violation of the treaty with the airport renaming, as from one side it is "stealing" another country's history while on the other it is simply giving an airport a more mainstream name for commercial reasons.
Furthermore, as to my knowledge neither country has withdrawn from the treaty, they are still bound by its terms and as such Greece's threats of blocking accession to the EU are invalid, which I think should be made clear in this article. I do believe it is irrelevant to discussion, but if you wish to make mention of the supposed violation in the article, then feel free to make a new topic here to discuss it. Trampoline Man 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of what Greece considers a violation of the treaty, while there is no explicit definition within the treaty as per what constitutes a violation of art.7. We can freely suppose that Greece can stall or even deny the accession on what Greece defines as a violation of the treaty. Moreover, nothing prevents Greece from withdrawing from the treaty with a 12 month notice (art.23.2); while we know very well that accession to either organization takes significantly longer than that. Given these, I'm afraid that saying that "Greece's threats are invalid since she will be violating the treaty if she blocks FYROM accession", is just as WP:OR of an interpretation as it would be to say that "FYROM has violated article 7 numerous times". To quote you, they are both "completely up to interpretation".

If you feel appropriate that all this legal analysis helps the article, then we can include it. My view, however, is that all this belongs to the talk-page, since it constitutes a WP:OR interpretation of both treaty violations. Things would change significantly if you had a WP:INDY source that calls those threats moot, or if I had a source that calls Skopje Airport renaming and other attempts as violations. For now, all we have is Nimetz's quote that it "affected [the mediation attempt] and not in a positive way"...[2]

On a personal note, I find it really funny you think that FYROM "is simply giving an airport a more mainstream name for commercial reasons". The precedent of Skopje Airport being renamed to International Airport "Alexander the Great" (<-mouseover that one) would be equivalent to the following "cultural exchanges" of the sort:

All I can say is LOL :-) NikoSilver 11:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it funny, but the "commercial reasons" statement was not my own. I was pointing out the two stated opinions of both governments, not my own opinion.

"I was informed that this is a commercial decision -- that the renaming had more of a commercial goal," Nimetz added.

[3]

To my knowledge Greece has made no motions towards leaving the treaty, and as such is bound by its terms. For now, and in the forseeable future, they are members of the treaty, and as blocking EU accession based on the non-conclusion of the naming dispute would be in violation of the treaty, it is very relevant to point out that Greece does not have a legal basis for the threat that it made.

As has already been stated, determining a violation of Article 7 is difficult and again, as already stated, I have no interest in debating it. However, determining a violation of Article 11 is very black and white. There is simply no way Greece can use the ongoing name dispute as the basis of blocking RoM's EU accession without being in violation of the treaty.

I do not see how this can be seen as original research. The following counts as original research:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.


What I'm talking about does none of that. My source for my claims is the treaty itself, which I believe is enough? Trampoline Man 13:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry TM, but it's not enough. As I said above, there has to be somebody who points out that it would be a violation (especially given that there is a case for not being one because of [aleged] violation of art.7). I've highlighted the 2 parts where this analysis comes in direct confrontation. Please read the examples stated there in the policy itself. (sorry for tweaking your comment) NikoSilver 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also for Nimetz, both his comments don't take sides, they just express facts. In the first comment he notes that renaming badly affected (he doesn't say rightfully or wrongly). Same, in the second case, he says they say it was for commercial reasons (again he doesn't say justifiably or unjustifiably). Your comment, on the other hand, uses the diminutive descriptor "simply", which describes the personal opinion of acceptance of these "commercial reasons" as a valid excuse. Hence, my reply and my personal opinion why I don't think so (and still LOL). Both of these opinions have no place in any article, of course. NikoSilver 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, "commercial reasons". So let the evil capitalist speak. Suppose the Republic asks Greece for a licence (remember the copyright) to use the Vergina Sun. I mean, completely as it wishes - on flags, on books, on national teams, in and out of the country, everywhere. How much should Greece ask for? $1bn/year? How much do you think the Republic will be willing to pay?   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure FYROM used to put Salonika on its money for 'commercial reasons' aswell. Greece will block FYROM from the EU despite what the PM of FYROM is saying recently to calm his people and not scare them with the reality that his policies will end in no EU. [4]Reaper7 10:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For "commercial reasons", see Macedonia naming dispute § Historical concerns.
For "money", see Macedonia naming dispute § Territorial concerns.
For more "unsubstantiated" threats, see http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/11/09/feature-03 PM's notes.
:-) NikoSilver 13:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but is it actually a treaty? I've only ever encountered references to an "interim agreement". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, in typical FYROM fashion, Greece is bound by the agreement but itself is not, since it has now expired. --   Avg    21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article's title

This article's title is inaccurate. The official name of this country used internationally is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia according to the agreement they signed in 1995. Because Wikipedia is a international setting the international name should be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LieutenantBoom (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

No, FYROM is the officially recognised name, and even that is only so in certain quarters. The constitutional name is the Republic of Macedonia and it is recognised as being such by many strategically important states: namely all five other former Yugoslav republics; all countries which were previously a part of the Warsaw Pact including new states created since the end (eg. Slovakia, Belarus etc), and also Albania plus Bulgaria both of whom have had some form of dispute with the country, particularly Bulgaria over the name; and three of the five permanent members of the security council, the USA, China and Russia. The only significant states not to recognise the name are Greece, the UK, France and the rest of the pre-2004 EU countries including Cyprus and Malta. Even so, Macedonia is widely accepted as being the short form however the long form is; asides Greece, when the country was making headlines in 2001 during the war with Albanian rebels, all reporters and presenters spoke only of Macedonia.
en.wikipedia on the other hand is dedicated to the language and not just the UK. As such, one is free to use American, Australian, or any form of English they choose, and in turn, it serves all English speaking communities. So on the whole, the constitutional name is less harmful than the name which will in time be forgotten by everyone. Only Greece and Cyprus are likely to refer to the FYROM. Evlekis 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr, sorry for burging in, but neither Greece nor Cyprus nor whoever else consider the appellation "FYROM" as a target per se. "FYROM" is just a "provisional reference", not a name. As far as the international organizations are concerned, the country has technically no name, until the Macedonia naming dispute is solved. Nobody (including Greece) wants to keep calling the state "FYROM", and everybody (except the state itself probably, because they violate that treaty by refusing anything else than the constitutional name -(accord here)) wants the name issue resolved.
On a lesser note, US has explicitly made clear that it supports the UN intervention in solving the name issue, plus they have said that they will adopt whichever name results from negotiations of the two countries (here). Also, Albania's MFA, strikes me as odd, because it has both appellations: here and here. NikoSilver 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know it is all temporary Niko, I never said it wasn't. Our newcomer from Athens has queried why do we call it by its constitutional name here and as I explained, originally nobody did and now more and more are slowly beginning to do so. I agree with you, this is between the FYROM and Greece, why should Canada care? Why should the Republic of Taiwan or the Palestinian Authority care? My point simply was, as those who don't care slowly accept the simpler "Republic of..." (I admit, they don't know the history and don't care either), Greece and Cyprus will never accept the name, even if they are the last states not to, and fair play to them. If I might make a political statement, I naturally hate the goings on in Iraq and the war, but in 2004, I was glad that Bush defeated Kerry because I will never forgive Kerry's old friend Clinton for the part he played in the dissolution of Yugoslavia, that's my own sentiment; and Kerry said in his manifesto (that's what we call it in English), that yes, he opposed the Iraq conflict but one agendum would have been to "end the issue" over the Macedonia debate (ie. forget Iraq but stick the Democrat's snout back in the Balkans where it is not wanted by anyone, I mean, anyone). The US atlases now say Republic of Macedonia, and Greek and UK atlases continue to use FYROM - that was all I meant! But if I were a Greek, I'd no more recognise the Republic of Macedonia than as being who I am, will recognise "Kosova". Evlekis 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be the Greece to not recognise their sef appointed name, you can also still be Nato, EU, or the UN ect who still call the country FYROM and are not taken into account either with the naming of this article, I spose what really counts is what the US says, and since FYROM kindly gave some troops for Iraq and Greece didn't the US said they can have the name Macedonia, and to be honest, only the USA counts. Reaper7 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The views of the USA or any third country are not important in this. Even if all countries in the world except Greece recognize the self-decided name, the name dispute is something that is not going to go away. This is because of Greek control over their Euro-Atlantic aspirations. No one can force Greece to allow them in under their self-decided name and frankly I don't think any third country really cares. User:LieutenantBoom

I think it is ridiculous of wikipedia to refer to FYROM as "Macedonia", since the UN has recognize it as FYROM. No country has the right to monopolize a name of a region that belongs to more than one countries. There is Slavic Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and even Bulgarian Macedonia. They do have the right of having as part of their name the term "Macedonia" but they do not have the right to monopolize it. Historically, they have never been self-identified as "Macedonians" before the 19nth century. They only did so in order to stress their separation from neighbour nations as Albanians, Bulgarians and Grecomacedonians. Let me give you an example. If Portugal was separated in two countries like former Yugoslavia did, would the northern of it have the right to be called "Galicia"? No, because there already would exist a region of a neighbour country with that name. So, dear citizens of FYROM and dear editors of wikipedia, change this country's name on this site. My suggestions are: either refer to it as FYROM and to its citizens as FYR Macedonians or refer to it as Slavomacedonia and Slavomacedonians. This is the fairest choice, although you could also use Northern Macedonia and Northern Macedonians. These sollutions would be fair to both sides Greek Macedonian and Slavomacedonian and they would also be justified in historical, political and other terms. You always care about FYROM's right to self-identification, what about the right of 2,5 millions of Greek Macedonians to identify themselves as Macedonians as they have so for thousands of years and they did not just "remember" they were "Macedonians" during the last few decades like the Slavomacedonians did. (Dionysios 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

From my point of view, it is acceptable to create new article named "FYROM" where will be explained why this term exist. Because Hellenic Republic insist, and why nationalist from other countries (Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia) like to use this term. Then it will be clear distinction between terms "Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM" and the positions of nationalist will be exposed.--Brest 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brest (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

There is nothing in international precedent or current concepts of international law that would prevent portugal or any portion of portugal or any other country from naming itself "galicia". The only names that are not allowed for a state to apply to itself are those names already in use to refer another sovereign country. A state could name itself, "athens" or "Byzantine Empire" and this would be odd but not contrary to any currently recognized international "rules" such as they are.Zebulin 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Macedonia exactly refers to present country in Europe, which is different then wider term Macedonia, which includes beside Republic of Macedonia also Aegian Macedonia (part of today Helenic Republic) and Pirin Macedonina (part of today Republic of Bulgaria) and also smaller parts of Republic of Albania and Republic of Serbia and part of Province Kosovo in Republic of Serbia. The term FYROM was produced as a result of Greek fear about the Aegian Macedonia. --Brest 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it was introduced because of the inherently irredentist nature of the name and state symbols.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Turks in Macedonia

Editors of this page may be interested in the Turks in Macedonia article, created 10 days ago. Best regards, Evv 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto

Does the country have a motto? If so, it needs to be included. Politis 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[[5]]--   Avg    01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavic language (Greece)

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Slavic language (Greece) and Talk:Macedonian language about this controversial article with a controversial heading. Please take a look. --Michkalas 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:35 (UTC)

South Serbia

In my opinion, 'South Serbia' should not redirect here. What is now the country called 'Macedonia', was known as 'South Serbia' between the world wars, at the same time as its poulation was subjected to a campaign of Serbianisation. The term 'South Serbia' now is more often used to refer to Kosovo and the areas around it, or (particularly in the Serbian press) to the Albanian-inhabited municipalities of Preševo, Bujanovac and Medveđa, discussed in Wikipedia under Preševo Valley. Mattwhiteski 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't change history retroactively. South Serbia is a historic name of the FYR, and the redirect is appropriate. sys < in 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Division during Ottoman rule

During the Ottoman rule, the territory of the contemporary Republic of Macedonia was divided into two administrative regions, the Villayet of Bitola comprising the southern part of the country and the Villayet of Prizren comprising the northern part of the country as well as Kosovo. Therefore, there was no Macedonia as an single administrative unit in the Ottoman Empire and there was no partition between the four neighbouring countries.--SOLEMN 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of constitutional name by other countries

"however it should be noted that the name "Republic of Macedonia" is not used in any international relations to which Greece or any other country not recognizing that name is a party." A few checks of embassy web sites appears to show that the quoted statement is not entirely accurrate. Officially the EU countries do not yet recognize Macedonia under it's constitutional name. However the following embassy websites of various EU countries show them referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name.

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1047661274821 (refers to country as "Macedonia")

http://www.nlembassy.org.mk/ (refers to country as "Macedonia")

http://www.swedenabroad.com/pages/start____48938.asp (refers to location as in "Macedonia")

http://www.ambafrance-mk.org/ (French, refers to embassy as "Ambassade de France en Macédoine")

On none of these embassy web sites could I see the term "FYROM" or any variation of it. In fact I gave up looking for an example when it appeared that the greek embassy in Skopje didn't have a presence on the web.

If the quoted statement from the article:

"however it should be noted that the name "Republic of Macedonia" is not used in any international relations to which Greece or any other country not recognizing that name is a party."

Were true I would expect these countries to use FYROM since they do not yet recognize Macedonia by it's constitutional name. They do not. Therefore I mean to change the sentence to reflect the fact that currently "FYROM" is only used where Greece is a party to the discussion or where Greece is a member of the forum in which discussion would take place.Zebulin 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Embasies MFAs and such are highly inconsistent with the claims I see around. For example check the following governmental sites:
  1. New Zealand [6]
  2. Armenia [7]
  3. Indonesia [8]
  4. Pakistan [9]
  5. Angola [10]
  6. Germany [11]
  7. Denmark [12]
  8. Italy [13]
  9. France [14]
  10. Iceland [15]
  11. Poland [16] [17]
  12. Belgium [18]
  13. Czech Republic [19]
  14. Slovakia [20]
  15. Spain [21]
  16. Luxembourg [22]
  17. Portugal [23]
  18. Ireland [24]
  19. Holy See (Vatican) [25]
  20. India [26]
  21. Ukraine [27]
  22. Lithuania [28]
  23. Australia [29]
  24. Israel [30]
  25. Tajikistan [31]
  26. Belize [32]
  27. Ghana [33]
  28. Letonia [34]
  29. Bangladesh [35] [36]
  30. Nicaragua [37]
  31. Rwanda [38]
  32. Honduras [39]
  33. Sudan [40]
  34. Canada [41]
  35. Afghanistan [42]
  36. Bahrain [43]
  37. Dominica [44]
  38. El Salvador [45]
  39. Cambodia [46]
  40. Tanzania [47]
  41. Mozambique [48]
  42. Djibouti [49]
  43. Republic of Zambia [50]
  44. Republic of Siera Leone [51]
  45. The Kingdom of Lesotho [52]
  46. The Republic of The Gambia [53]
  47. The Republic of Yemen [54]
  48. Democratic Republic of Congo [55]
  49. Republic of Chad [56]
  50. Burundi [57]
  51. Cuba [58]
  52. Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros [59]
  53. Republic of Guinea-Bissau [60]
  54. Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe [61] [62]
  55. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia [63]
  56. Republic of Uganda [64]
  57. State of Eritrea [65]
  58. Republic of Cote d’Ivoire [66] [67]
  59. Gabonese Republic [68]
  60. Republic of the Niger [69]
  61. Republic of Seychelles [70] [71]
  62. Republic of Mauritius [72]
  63. Republic of Congo [73]
  64. Mexico [74]
  65. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [75]
  66. Kingdom of Morocco [76]
  67. Republic of Senegal [77]
  68. Timor-Leste [78]
  69. Federal Republic of Nigeria [79]
  70. Federated States of Micronesia [80]
  71. Guinea [81]
  72. The Federative Republic of Brazil [82]
  73. Albania [83] [84]
I think we better find better excuses than slips of the tongue or slips of the pen. Most evidently countries involved have no clue whatsoever and use the terms interchangeably regardless of their "cited" positions! NikoSilver 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Precisely! so the quoted text from the article which says that all countries not recognizing Macedonia by it's constitutional name all use FYROM in all discussions or in all international relations is incorrect. Perhaps this ambiguity should be emphasized in the relevant portion of the article.Zebulin 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hem. In that case, you should also add that countries who do recognize the constitutional name, sometimes call it FYROM too. (see the links above, e.g. Albanian MFA and Brazilian visas...) NikoSilver 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record how was the list of links identified?Zebulin 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy of the Epsilon Team. No, seriously, I had just searched for official sites once to make a list, but found out they were ...more dizzy than me reading them. Albania is a prime example I think. NikoSilver 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to stray off of this talk pages topic but for another (unrelated) article I am attempting to find official sites via Google and it has been slow going. What means of filtering did you use to make the list or better yet, what sort of search string? I suspect I'm just overlooking an obvious winnowing approach.Zebulin 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing, just searching all governmental sites one by one. The original list was in RoM/FYROM MfA (here), and I searched first for lists of MfAs and then followed the address to search within them with strings like "Macedonia OR Macedoine OR fyrom site:.whichever.gov.etc". I copied those in a file, but never finished it because I realized they were nuts. It seems that everyone else in the world scratches their [insert euphemism here] about the dispute. There's absolutely no consistency. Makes us all wonder how serious the dispute has come to be...
For your question, I suppose there are people who can make scripts and all that, but I'm not the guy. NikoSilver 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_12&oldid=883102962"