Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

About the name of Macedonia

There are a couple of points that I would like to stretch about the Macedonia name dispute. And I m going to stretch both historical , etthnical, and linguistic points. First of all Macedonia as an area has been altered substantially through time. Initially it was the name used to designate the ancient greek kingdom of Macedon and its greek inhabitants. This area is completely encompassed within the borders of modern Greece and constitues today the greek province of Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians were one the the seven ancient greek tribes that constituted the greek nation according to the cosmogony of Isiodus. On top of it Herodotus further stretches that Macedonians were Greeks of Doric origin, who never followed the doric descent to the southern greece but remained in their original area Macedon. Macedon from the the 4 century BC were speaking Attic Greek and whatever writing findings we have before that time that signify that the ancient Macedonian Language was simply another Greek dialect closely related to the doric form of greek. So it is widely accepted that ancient macedonians were simply Greeks. Some dispute however rises from some scholars who challenge this issue. Those scholars belong to the same school of thought that initiated the theory of Black Athina simply stating that that the ancient Athenians and perhaps the ancient greeks where of African/Nubian and not of european origin . This school of thought came in existence as the result of an attempt to rewrite the history and forge a new perception of a multiroot origin of classical civilisations. All those theories of course never become dominant among the scientific community remaining isolated opinions of some scholars, but opinions and not reality nontheless. However it was this school of thought that suggested that the ancient Macedonians were not greeks in an attempt to include the slavic people into the group of people who produced classical civilisations. This exact forgery -that was never managed to be imposed universally- Tito, the communist president of the republic of Yogoslavia for decades,managed to exploit. Among Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Bosnia he created a sixth state encompassing the area of ancient Paionia, and named ir Yugoslavic republic of Macedonia. This area was inhabited by Serbians, Albanians and finally by a substatial Bulgarian minority who Tito used to built upon his irridentic claims on the whole area of the Ottoman province of Macedonia. Macedonia under the Ottomans was the name of an area much wider than the ancient Macedonia(alocated today in northern Greece). It constituted further the ancient paionia, most wisely known as Vardar Macedonia constituting the current state of the self called republic of macedonia, and Pirin Macedonia, currently the pirin mountains, the land gains of serbia and Bulgaria respectively during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. Those Bulgarian people Tito groomed to develop a totally different national identity from the rest of Bulgarians. He named their language , a dialect of bulgarian language , as macedonian, and raise a forged irredetic claim during the cold war on greek Macedonia. The years passed ,communist regimes collapsed and with them Tito s regime. Nonetheless the fragile Yogoslavia splited in parts and the little southern republic emerged to a state still using the name of macedonia and sstill raising direct or indirect claims on the region of Macedonia and the greek history of ancient hellenistic roman and byzantine Macedonia. Those people, Bulgarians by origin speaking a bulgarian dialect, are still bearers of Tito s irredentism and self determine themselves mistakenly as ethnic Macedonians. All the world concider them as a people of slavic origin with the right to self determine themselves as distinct of Bulgaria. Nonetheless it is rational for them to bear a name that will describe them distict from Bulgarians but at the same distict from the name of macedonia which describes an important part of the greek history and culture. The current description as republic of Macedonia is completely inaccurate and a huge historical mistake that will have to be corrected the soonest, and those people must finally acquire an accurate and real description of their nationality A nationality that came in existence only 60 years ago. And don t forget till today people from FYROM still acquire bulgarian passports in order to come and work in EU on the basis that they are bulgarian by origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talkcontribs) 15:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above exposed theory bears much of a political weigth that suits the greek interest, which are, denying of the macedonian cultural and ethnical identity, thus claiming the "historical" right of the region of the south Macedonia (today northern Greece) which was taken by force by the Greeks (in alliance with the other neibouring lands, Serbia (at the time Tthe Kingdom of the Serbs and Croats) and Bulgaria from Mocedonia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emahtion (talkcontribs) 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Well, let's get it off our chests everyone, shall we? :-) NikoSilver 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic identity

We should cover the fact that in northern Greece there are two groups who wish to identify as "Macedonians", and that the Greek government has historically taken a dim view of one of them. I'll see if I can add something in. - Francis Tyers · 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you taking about the Macedonians vs the Rainbow Party? //Dirak 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The Rainbow Party is a recent event. Do they take a position in the naming dispute issue? - Francis Tyers · 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)



We could probably just leave it at that :)) - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I love it :) //Dirak 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As Miskin once said, the Greeks respect the rights of the Slavomacedonians in Greece; of all three of them! NikoSilver 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the Greeks in Vardar Macedonia? The 1911 census found 200,000, the 2001 census found 400. Makes you wonder where the real forced assimilation is taking place. //Dirak 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Kindly cite and include that info somewhere in the Greek position please Dirak. NikoSilver 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. - Francis Tyers · 15:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I really can't remember where I found it all (give me time...). See here though [1], from where I copy the number of Greeks and the census year: 848 (1953) - 836 (1953) - 536 (1971) - 707 (1981) - 474 (1991) - 368 (1994). We see a steady decrease and then a sudden drop in the 90s (probably the borders with Greece opened after the fall of communism and many fled to Greece to find employment) The 2001 census isn't listed, but I remember it shows the Greeks at about 400 - the increase will likely be due to the immigration of Greek businessmen (I hear Greeks own more than half of Fyrom). //Dirak 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting and translating from "The economy of fYROM - Sumary report year 2004" (Η οικονομία της πΓΔΜ - Περιληπτική έκθεση έτους 2004), Hellenic Republic, Skopje Liaison, Financial and Commercial Cases Bureau, p.28:

C. Bilateral economic cooperation (Greece - fYROM)

2. Greek investments in fYROM

The Greek investments in fYROM are concentrated on companies dealing with energy, financial services, cement industry and tobacco, food and beverage, marble mining, ready made garments and commercial activity.
The Greek investments in fYROM increased during the period 2000-2004 and according to official data they rise to US$231.7 million (stock capital) occupying an important position among investing countries. In the 10 month period of 2004, Holland (70.9% on the total) occupies the first position among foreign investors, followed by Greece (26.6%) and in the third position by Switzerland with 5.6% on the total invested capital.
Intermingling cabal notes:
Quick math: US$231.7 mio/26.6% = US$871.05 mio total investments in the first 10 months of 2004
US$871.05 x 12 / 10 = US$1045,26 year total (estimate)
That, however, does not reflect reality because:
Intermingling cabal note: Drumroll, book cooking following (Greek recipe)...
-it concerns only deposited capital of companies and not real invested capital (which appears only in the country's Central Bank ~current accounts balance~, where there is no allocation per country.
Interminling cabal note: The ~tilded text~ is my idea of translating "ισοζυγίου τρεχουσών συναλλαγών".
-important part of the Hellenic entrepreneurial capital has entered in fYROM through companies of Greek interests, which have their seat in other countries (Holland, Luxemburg, Cyprus, Ireland)
Intermingling cabal notes:
All the good-old hide-my-name-coz-I-need-privacy countries.
Cypriot capital is supposed to be Greek anyway, isn't it?
the data does not concern buyouts and mergers (ELPE-OKTA [= Greek Oil], ETE-STOPANSKA BANKA [= National Bank of Greece], OTE-COSMOFON [= Gr Natl Telecom], TITAN-UJSE [= Gr Cement giant], 3E-PIVARA [= beverage], ALPHA BANK, KYRIAKIDIS [?], ELBISCO-ZITOLUX [= food])
Consequently, the size of Greek investments, according to invested capital is higher than that officially registered and rises to €800 mio. occupying the first position. We note that the thirty (30) largest companies of Greek interests in fYROM have invested capital of the size of €723 mio.

(Bolding above not mine). Cabal quote end. Comments yours. Quick quiz: How many times did you read fYROM in these 8 sentences? NikoSilver 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I had not noticed the pictures earlier... They are nice:). Ten FYRO"M"ians in the one, and thousands of Macedonians in the other... For a protest about a new Bulgarian Unification, I suppose the first would be uncountable... Hectorian 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I disagree with this revert [2]. What was wrong with my summary that justified copying text written by me from elsewhere? //Dirak 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys miss a good old fashioned edit war? Merry Catholic Christmas everyone!   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Grazie :) //Dirak 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Scuzi, io Orthodoxo Greco, ma uguale. Merry Christmas to you too FunkyWarrior! NikoSilver 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Could someone work [3] into the article, but mention that the figures regarding the Vilayet-i Manastir could be misleading as it included only south FYROM and parts of south Albania (around Korce). The north of FYROM was part of the Kosovo Vilayet. //Dirak 14:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see [4] for those who say that there were no Greeks left outside Greece after the Balkan Wars. //Dirak 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Do we know what is the total number of states having recognized FYROM as "Macedonia"?--Yannismarou 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

About 123 countries have recognized FYROM as 'Republic Of Macedonia'. From the EU only Greece has not. This has been perceived as a 'betrayal' of Greece from traditional allies. This post on the Macedonia naming dispute is a compact summary of the case and might be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicheader (talkcontribs) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What a blatant lie. France does not recognise it as 'Republic of Macedonia' but as 'Ancienne République yougoslave de Macédoine' which is the French of FYROM, as can be seen on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Amhantar (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No we do not, exactly. Does anybody have a source for that? We can also create a List of countries recognizing FYROM by its constitutional name. NikoSilver 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Dum! I cannot find a proper link telling me that "X countries have recognizes FYROM or Macedonia with the X or the Z name". Yes, the list is a nice idea.--Yannismarou 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The article presently implies that only the Greeks insist on FYROM. Does anybody else? Does Cyprus? That may be a simpler question to start with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Cyprus does.[5] We should look for others too. Sorry for reverting your edit, but "minimal" was Francis' wording (and we should realy say "minuscule" :-), plus all perfectures are on a drop down list to the left, so you can add up to see that the total votes in the Macedonian perfectures were indeed less than 3,000, and that e.g. Peloponnese and Crete was indeed greater! NikoSilver 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick search:


Also, Greece is not insisting on FYROM. Greece insists on dab in the name, which is evident from both the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (here) and the fact that the proposal for "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] while not accepted outright by Greece, was characterized as "a basis for constructive negotiations" (here). You will also notice that no academic has called the latter position (i.e. to keep being called "Macedonia", but with the addition of a dab) as "nationalistic" or whatever. It is simply not addressed to. (Why?) NikoSilver 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this article may shed some light to the above (rhetorical?) questions. Another thing; the photos you have provided are, most likley, from the Vevchani carnival held in ROM. There are discussions of these photos in some extreme nationalist ethnic Macedonian (mainly diaspora but not only) boards, e.g. here. Are the people of this carnival trying to mock extreme nationalists, are they playing a joke on themselves, are they trying to play a joke on Greece/Greeks, are they trying to play the rest of the world, are they trying to play "war games", are they just "playing" (add your <<play>> here)? Well ... 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An interesting introductory <<play>> would be the old time classic 'divide and rule/conquer' concept. Uh-hum let's just say/ speculate/ hypothesize/ suspect/ guess/ suppose/ theorize/ "conjectrurize"/ .../ that some 'allien force' is feeding amorus but subtle, inflaming but controllable, intense but periodical animosity just to .... 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the user who introduced the source (here) regarding the exact content.
The "crisis group" link proposal (2002) is almost identical to the last proposal by Matthew Nimetz (2005) in terms of the name issue. It takes into account a need of reassurance for the people in the country; which I fail to understand how it can be undermined by a proposal for -say- "New Macedonia/n". The latter would specifically disconnect the two cultures, while not violating the self-identification/regional-identification rights of either the people/country concerned (at least not more than it does to eg. the New Yorkers), nor of the neighboring Macedonians (either them or them or them or them and whoever else drops by).
I am afraid that neither such a proposal would be accepted by FYROM, on the grounds that it doesn't allow them to continue to falsify history and have expansionistic aspirations... But then again, I may be just losing WP:AGF due to politically WP:POINT moves like this... NikoSilver 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. Your PS crosses many people's minds, especially after this... NikoSilver 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
PS2. Please don't notify MY GOVERNMENT regarding my lenience in the name... NikoSilver 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know noone recognized "Macedonia", the very least is "Republic of Macedonia".   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
this is a little outdated, but I dont think it has changed substantially for two years.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh-hum I think that we started in the wrong foot here. Never said "Macedonia", I haven't implied any malice about the use of these photos, I haven't even implied that I do or do not agree with the proposals of the "crisis group" and certainly I haven't accused anyone for forming "juntas". Regarding the "crisis group" article, a good start might be to see where these proposals came from... 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: Nope, not misunderstood at all, don't worry (the "my government" link was a joke :-) the smiley would have helped). Funky we were wondering about the exact content of the source with the "nice" pics (you know, the one that shows people "playing" by burning the Greek flag and having maps of the United Macedonia). NikoSilver 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read it more carefully, it does not seem at all related to the pictures. The newspaper however is a mainstream one. Weird. Maybe link just the pictures?   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What does it say? Shall we remove it alltogether? Is it just a bad sense of humor or a bad excuse for it? Also, to the anon, thanks for pointing these things out, and sorry if I missed a smiley up there. The usual suspects for your PS above are all over that member list; is that your point? NikoSilver 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is about a carnival of humor and satire. Yeah, I will remove the link.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the photos, I was just trying to portray how easily one can mix-up and use-up incidents like this one to feed "popular beliefs". They are most likely from that carnival and can be used by any side just to advance a/some point/s. Satyrical and humorous as they may be, does not rule out, on the other hand, other <<plays>>. However, it's better to know where they came from, now, instead of defending imaginary "points" in the future. About the "crisis group"'s proposals and their board well let's just say that it is one (minor?) "player" which can possibly feed animosity as well as "pax (whatever-ana)." 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I bet the Greeks would be quite unable to assume good faith, given the latest developments regarding explicit history falsification by renaming the airport. For me there is no other excuse in sticking with an ambiguous name without disambiguation; but of course I am just a Greek (and one of the most moderate here, to add)... NikoSilver 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To the anon: you seem to have good intentions, so get an account! To all: I made a mistake linking the article too hastily.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if you (anon) could also comment on the (only) featured article for the region and the ambiguity there: Macedonia (terminology). And read WP:WHY too, because we need open minded people here... NikoSilver 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I do have an account, but I like, sometimes, to "troll" around bearing only my IP. It's interesting to see the way some people treat - if I may say - "informed" edits when coming from "anonymous" users... I did the same with the said article. In a nutshell, I think it was a noble effort; the end result though, lacks the simplicity required to explain something that complex, to its indented audience i.e. people which would generally know jack about 'M & M's (and many more 'Ms'). I don’t have the time to make a fully fledged review now, but I do have some very specific recommendations and ideas about it or similar articles. So, will keep in touch -- Ninio 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Albanian recognition

Albanian MFA has both appellations (here and here). Which is valid? Does anyone have an explicit source stating that Albania has decided to use RoM? (I've searched but haven't found anything). FWIW, the previous source there (which I removed) was a copy of a letter by Cervencovski himself, although I've no idea what it said, but it didn't seem something like "thank you for recognizing us as RoM". NikoSilver 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Albania has a lot on its plate. Non-compliance with FYROM demands would likely result in unfavourable repercussions for the significant Albanian community in FYROM. That pressure tool used by the FYROM authorities is what also caused the Albanian government to recognize a non-existent ethnic minority (interesting how some Albanians are now saying that there is no such minority :-) when will the government follow suit?). If Albania did recognize them as ROM, then there would probably be a mass expulsion of Albanian immigrants in Greece (not as severe as in the OMONOIA trial, but still noticeable). Perhaps Albania uses FYROM normally and only uses ROM when FYROM is around and Greece (or Cyprus or any other state which does not recognize the ROM name) are around. //Dirak 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That being said, I'm removing Albania alltogether from the list, pending explicit citation (which I seriously doubt will be presented). NikoSilver 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I see that here are discussed the different sources about Albania's recognition of Macedonia's name. As far as I understand we have this one stating explicitely "FYROM"; also this one stating only "Macedonia" that uses short forms on many of the countries in the list - that means that this one is not conclusive - it can mean both "the Republic of Macedonia" and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"; and this one stating explicitely "RoM" - this is an international agreement, signed by both states (Albania and Macedonia), in wich agreement on many place is used the phrase "the Republic of Macedonia". Thus I think that source1 and source3 are contradicting, and source2 is not decisive. Ah, and now I found this one stating explicitely "FYROM". Anyway I don't understand how the embassy can be named after FYROM and then the trade agreements to be named after RoM?? Alinor 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alinor, and thanks for your input in the article and for the additional sources. The non-explicit-position thing is unfortunately general and is not restricted to Albania. Most countries probably have no idea whatsoever (or simply don't care) for the dispute and have taken no official position for one or the other option. I had tried in the past to compile a list, but failed due to this exact inconsistency. May I also refer you to this thread (read the end after the list), which discusses the issue.
I sense that our new approach with the "lists of" may easily violate WP:OR, because we will eventually have to decide by secondary references how countries call it, based on observation (not on explicit quotes that "we call it X"). Also, the "106 countries" bit seems to be contradicted by the sources: The list in the thread above has 73 countries that call it -willingly or unwillingly- FYROM, one way or the other, in official sources (MFAs, agreements etc). Finally, I also saw that countries calling it RoM, sometimes use FYROM in international agreements, fora etc.
There are also countries that cite a mixed opinion (i.e. "we call it X sometimes, but it is called Y, so we use that also there and there"). IMO, the fairest thing would be to describe this global inconsistency, since lists would be very hard to compile and harder to maintain. I would appreciate your feedback on how to proceed. NikoSilver 11:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, interesting list. I checked 4-5 links only and I found that Micronesia uses FYROM. The other links were unhelpfull (broken, unrelated, unconclusive). Anyway, because one of the few links provided usefull info, I think that the list will help us fill the current RoM/FYROM lists (I need time to go trough it)...
About countries using FYROM in some cases and RoM in another - if the FYROM cases are such, were Greece is involved (agreements, organizations) - this is no contradiction. Anyway, the most preferable sources are the info-notes about recognition/establishing relations (between state X and Macedonia), were the full-form of both parties is used and also these notes are short enough and formal enough so that it is evident wich form of the name is used. And it is sure that this form is used on purpose and not by mistake (as in some other "lists", etc.). For example on the Montenegro's MFA site there are many such "established relations" notes - for all such countries... Maybe we should dig-out these news-notes from the Macedonia's MFA Archive (if there is such one) or simply ask the Macedonia MFA (as has suggested User_talk:Nightstallion).
About WP:OR - I don't see how compiling a list is an OR - we simply put together info from MANY sources (of course cited, etc.)... Alinor 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where would you classify Czech Republic for instance? Also, my comment about WP:OR was not on the compilation of the sources into a list (of course). It was on the fact that we are about to take a mere [set of] reference[s] (in an agreement or in a list or in an online official site or wherever) which may be accidental or otherwise inconsistent and we interpret that mere reference into an explicit name [non-/quasi-]recognition. My opinion is that unless an MFA explicitly states "we recognize this country under the name X", then we cannot list it. My examples are for Albania and Brazil (see the previous list). There are many more, and apart from the "known suspects" I've failed to cite explicit positions on the issue. Believe me, the whole world doesn't give a rat's [insert euphemism here] about the dispute, and tries to murk their "position" in order to keep both parties happy (that's what I'd do if I were FA in unrelated country X). NikoSilver 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the only thing I can think of is to send inquiring e-mails to all countries that recognise Macedonia and simply ask them whether they officially recognise it as "Republic of Macedonia" or as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". —Nightstallion (?) 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent source (I don't know how e-mails are cite-able, but...) In any case, since I've tried a lot in the past to extract this info from references in official sites, I must assure you that it is a tedious and highly uncertain procedure. Do you feel there's a chance they respond? Do you feel they will give you a clear response? I suppose it doesn't hurt to try one or two if you wish. NikoSilver 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think if we state our case, there's a chance they'll respond; the "school project" approach also often works wonders.;) At the moment, I haven't got too much time, so it wouldn't be bad if someone else tried, but if noone else can, I'd try to get to it next week or so. —Nightstallion (?) 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Czech Republic link - I think that from it it is clear that they use the name FYROM. "Macedonia" is short for both RoM/FYROM, but they put next to it the long form FYROM. Alinor 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Here are the results of the list-check:

  • FYROM :

Czech [6] Micronesia [7] Mexico [8] Morocco [9] Seychelles [10] Cuba [11] El Salvador [12] Canada [13] Honduras [14] Belize [15] Latvia [16] Israel [17] Tajikistan [18] Australia [19] Ireland [20] Vatican City (1998) [21] India (2002) [22] Ukraine [23] Portugal [24] Spain [25] Luxembourg [26] Slovakia [27] Belgium [28] Poland [29] Iceland [30] France [31] New Zealand [32] Italy [33] Denmark [34]

  • RoM

Albania Agreement of free trade between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Albania, Stability Pact for Southeast Europe, Retrieved on 2007-04-10 Poland [35]

  • General note: I think that the timing of sources is important - maybe some states have changed their stance after the date of publishment of the information in the source... Alinor 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Good News: Bravo and thanks for sorting my list out. It was a couple of months since I had compiled it (all links worked then). NikoSilver 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Bad News: Key phrase you used in all 'Czech Rep.'/'short form in both' and 'timing' comments: "I think" :-) NikoSilver 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Worse News: It's more complicated than we thought: Poland. NikoSilver 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

greek pov

i deleted this from the section on macedonian language. it looks like pov, and is irrelevant to the section in question.

Nevertheless, standard Macedonian is mutually intelligible with standard Bulgarian and until the late 1940s, all activists and leaders of the Macedonian movement, including those of the left, used standard Bulgarian in documents, press publications, correspondence and memoirs and nothing indicates they viewed it as a foreign language.[1] This is characteristic even of the members of IMRO (United) well into the 1920's and 1930's, when the idea of a distinct Macedonian nation was taking shape.[2]

Benwing 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

nikosilver's reverts

i undid your reverts.

first, whether "a million" greek macedonians protested or not, this info shouldn't be included; it's clear pov that's trying to pump up the validity of this position. note that other pages showing protests don't normally include figures, for good reasons.

second, the info claiming that modern macedonian greek is directly related to ancient macedonian is total nonsense. (i am a linguist and i have extensively studied historical linguistics, so i am in a position to know this.) ancient macedonian was a separate language from greek; it may have been a sort of greek dialect but if so it was quite distinct from the others. it's often thought that it was actually a sibling language to greek, same as thracian and phrygian and such. but regardless, it left no descendants. modern macedonian greek is derived from the byzantine koine, just like all other modern greek dialects other than tzakonian; and the byzantine koine in turn comes from attic greek.

Benwing 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hectorian, first, you put back the "million", which isn't sourced. second, you ignored my talk page comments completely. third, whether the language info is sourced or not, it's false. read the Ancient Macedonian page itself and think about whether this claim makes any sense. i suspect the sources here are highly questionable. Benwing 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i looked at the references; they look reasonable but i can't verify any of them. i suspect that they do not make the claim given here, and that someone ignorant of linguistics (but probably having a pov to push) put this claim in without understanding the reality. see this from Ancient Macedonian:

  • Eventually, Attic Greek supplanted it entirely, and Ancient Macedonian became extinct during the first few centuries of the Common Era. Exactly when its final traces disappeared is unknown and perhaps impossible to determine, since the tongue may at the end have survived only among a few individuals.

Benwing 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If u want a source to back up the 1 million protesters, I can provide one+; if u think it is unnecessary, i have no problem omitting it (after all, the photo speaks on its own). As for the Ancient Macedonian language, the fact is that the modern Greek Macedonian dialect (along with the other modern Greek variants) is the most and only related to it; not as a direct descendant of Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect, but as descendant of another ancient Greek dialect (Attic), both being dialects of Ancient Greek. The POV u are trying to push, e.g. ancient macedonian was a separate language from greek or it's often thought that it was actually a sibling language to greek, is practically a minority opinion... U say u have extensively studied historical linguistics, but u seem to (deliberately?) ignore the position of the vast majority of past and present scientists and linguists... I'd like to see indisputable sources about that; about grammar, vocabulary and syntax of Ancient Macedonian proving that it was not Greek... So far, cause I have also extensively studied historical linguistics, I never saw such proof in any professor's work... Simply cause it does not exist. I've seen only polemics and pseudo-theories that have more to do with geopolitics than linguistics. Regards Hectorian 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: Hello and excuse me, but what does anything you're saying have to do with this revert?

My version was: To the points (respective numbering):
  1. There is also a close variation of modern Greek called Macedonian and spoken by the Macedonians (Greek), (replaced underlined with dialect)
  2. that has no relation to the Slavic languages
  3. and is directly related to the ancient Macedonian language,
  4. except the fact that it belongs to the Balkan sprachbund.
  5. You also deleted the million protestants.
  • And the three citations:
  1. Ανδριώτης (Andriotis), Νικόλαος Π. (Nikolaos P.) (1995). Ιστορία της ελληνικής γλώσσας: (τέσσερις μελέτες) (History of the Greek language: four studies). Θεσσαλονίκη (Thessaloniki): Ίδρυμα Τριανταφυλλίδη. ISBN 960-231-058-8. 
  2. Vitti, Mario (2001). Storia della letteratura neogreca. Roma: Carocci. ISBN 88-430-1680-6. 
  3. Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement”, D. G. Gilbers & al. (eds.): Languages in Contact, (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 28.), Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA, 2000: Rodopi, 231–246. ISBN 90-420-1322-2.
  1. No problem, call it a dialect. The first and second source call it both. Last time I heard a Macedonian, he was intelligible (PM Costas Karamanlis for instance)
  2. It doesn't have any, and that should be noted. Last time I checked, that was apparent in the XMK article (unless vandalized again). Slavic languages belong in a completely separate branch of Indo-European than Greek, XMK etc (who have their own branch -ie. Greek, or hypothesized Proto-Greek, Proto-Greco-Macedonian, Proto-Greco-Armenian
  3. It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a (1) dialect of Greek, (2) a sibling language to Greek,(3) or an independent Indo-European language close to Greek, Thracian and Phrygian languages.ref:XMK So a folk linguist like me reads above: (1) it was a daughter of Greek, or (2) a sister of Greek, or (3) a first cousin of Greek. I suspect that this sources adequately the word related. To add, per your quote, it was absorbed within Koine Greek, which is the predecessor of modern Greek, so it's related to modern Greek for one more reason; hence directly related (in folk linguistics we'd call that incest :). If you have another way to illustrate these direct relations, I am all ears, but your bit that "claiming that modern macedonian greek is directly related to ancient macedonian is total nonsense" is (per your politeness) WP:Complete bollocks, and a historical linguist would simply say "I don't know how very much it is related" -at most.
  4. The Balkan sprachbound is a later thing that came upon us all. Cited by #3 (for Greek and by extention for its close varieties.)
  5. Million: You said: "note that other pages showing protests don't normally include figures, for good reasons." Can you please cite examples? After that, can you please cite a policy that states "we don't include number of protests in articles"? I can drop 5 citations in 10 minutes for the number, but I prefer you cite my two questions first.

I would suggest you avoid pompus introductions because some may see it as a means to intimidate other user's knowledge and scare them off.

I also warn you that I take issue with your ad hominem insinuation "i suspect that they do not make the claim given here, and that someone ignorant of linguistics (but probably having a pov to push) put this claim in without understanding the reality."

Therefore, I'm reverting you (again). I'm also adding sources for claims 3.1, 3.2 (and per my abundant WP:AGF) for 3.3. NikoSilver 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

fine, i give up. unlike you, i have no axe to grind or pov to push regarding the general greek/macedonian situation; i am not either greek or macedonian, i don't have any greek or macedonian friends, etc. etc. but i do like to see wikipedia neutral. i'm simply adding a pov tag and leaving it at that.

just a few points for you to ponder:

  1. elsewhere in this same article there's a picture of ethnic macedonian protesters with no figures by it. go look at Protest and tell me how many of the seven or eight protest images have figures by them. go look at Abortion and tell me how many of the two photos depicting protesters have figures by them. tell me why you need to mention the number of protesters, and whether it adds anything encyclopedic. i don't know if there's a policy against putting in the figures, but it seems to be npov "common sense" to me.
  2. "directly related" in historical linguistics between two languages normally implies that one is the parent of the other or that they are close siblings. if you want to put this in, you need to find a source for this. your cited sources obviously concern ancient macedonian and *ancient* greek, which is totally a different thing. "directly related" is your interpretation, and very far from consensus. linguists would normally say that modern greek (any dialect) and ancient macedonian are distantly related, much like modern english and gothic. similarly, modern macedonian and ancient macedonian are also distantly related, just at a slightly greater timescale (perhaps 5500-6000 years instead of 4000-4500 years).

Benwing 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, i see that you actually removed the "directly related" language ... but what you put in is still pov, as you are still trying to make the basic claim that modern greek is "related" to ancient macedonian and modern macedonian is "not". personally i don't think this info is terribly relevant, but if you want to state anything, state the estimated timescale rather than making claims about relatedness. the whole paragraph about ancient macedonian and its supplanting by ancient greek is really irrelevant; that's what a link to Ancient Macedonian is supposed to do. Benwing 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, I can perfectly read the Bible in the original text (you know, the one close to the language that absorbed the other language -if it existed), and Macedonian Slavs can't. The timespan you're implying relates all languages to Adam and Eve's. Please stop the insults (second warning), and get a source for your WP:OR. I'm removing your tag. NikoSilver 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
i don't understand you at all. why are you getting so angry? where did i insult you? why did you remove my pov tag? (that's a real no-no.) what does WP:OR have to do with anything? what does it matter if you can read the bible in the original text? how am i "relating all languages to Adam and Eve"? i'm using standard figures for indo-european. it is generally assumed that PIE split up about 5500-6000 years ago, and that proto-greek split up about 3500-4000 years ago; since ancient macedonian might be slightly outside of proto-greek, a figure of 4000-4500 might be reasonable (this is all off-the-cuff, though).
btw it seems you really have an axe to grind. wikipedia is not the place to do it.
i don't have time for this, so you won't see me anymore around here.

Benwing 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

btw since i do dispute the pov of certain parts of this article, i'm tagging it as pov. Benwing 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Responded in you talk. What do you dispute? NikoSilver 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose NikoSilver referred to the Bible in order to show that modern Greek is not a daughter of ancient Greek, but its continuation; and modern Greeks indeed can understand the Bible, in the original script, with minor difficulties. thus, according to most linguistics and historians, modern Greek is the continuation of Attic Greek, which in turns is the continuation of Attic-Ionic, containing many characteristics of the other ancient Greek dialects, Doric included; ancient historians and most modern linguists consider Ancient Macedonian a variation of Doric Greek; thus, here we are again in modern Greek as inheritor of ancient Greek as a whole. And if this is not enough, Tsakonian, the continuation of Doric Greek, is the most related dialect to Anc. Macedonian; Tsakonian is classified as a dialect of Greek, so, the conclusions are easy to be made. All these, of course, if we accept the opinion of the vast majority of scholars... If we accept the minority opinion (well, at present minority, in the past of non-existence-again someone can draw his/her conclusions), Anc. Mac. was a separate language, whose surviving closest relative is Greek... Here we are again... And if we go so far back in the past and begin talking about the split of the Indoeuropean languages, we should not be talking about Alemannic German as a dialect of German, but as a close relative of Germanic and a distant of Italic. Regards Hectorian 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Modern Greek is, Tsaconian in part excepted, descended from Koine; please list the Doric contrbutions to Koine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a matter for another article. The fact remains that Greek is the closest surviving language to ancient Macedonian by far, whichever way you look at it. The degree of Doric contribution to Koine is irrelevant, as Koine evolved from Attic, which like Doric was simply a dialect of ancient Greek. In other words, you cannot use the "un-Doric" nature of modern Greek as an argument against its relationship to XMK. Doric was no less (or more) Greek than Attic or Koine. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I've made some adjustments, and let the readers draw their own conlclusions. (It's so obvious anyway...) Notably, I've tweaked the wording here, and added a new header for XMK. I'll also add the citation for the recognition by Bulgaria (because I have an axe to grind). NikoSilver 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that Bulgaria was the first country to recognise the "Republic of Macedonia", as a means by which to reassert its influence there after the collapse of Yugoslavia. It has so far refused to recognise a "Macedonian" nation separate from the Bulgarian, however, and considers the name Macedonia a purely geopolitical term for what it considers an essentially Bulgarian region. Greece, on the other hand, takes issue purely with the name rather than the Skopjans' self-determination as a separate nation per se. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes for US shift in policy

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav partisan and other sources with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected State. This Government considers talk of "Macedonian Nation", "Macedonian Fatherland", or "Macedonian National Consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

Secretary of State E. Stettinius on December 26th 1944

Philhellenism 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote confirmed and had been posed to the State Department on 2005-10-12 (here). The reply was:
MR. ERELI: And your question is?
QUESTION: Let me finish.
MR. ERELI: No, no, I'm not going to let you finish. What's the question? You're taking up people's valuable time with a reference to something written in 1945. I will tell you, and I will end this here because I don't want to just go on forever on this. I told you what the U.S. policy is: We support the UN. If you want to bring in history from 50-plus years ago, you're free to do so, but let's do it at a time when you're not imposing upon others. Thank you.
I thought this would be useful for followup. As a side note, Edward Stettinius is the founder of the UN (among other 2-3 others). Read his WP article, and read why he quit his job at the UN... NikoSilver 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What Kissinger said when asked on FYROM's adoption of the name Macedonia in the annual meeting of Management Centre Europe, held in Paris in 1992:

I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history, which is not the case with most of the others, including most of the Government and administration in Washington…. The strength of the Greek case is that of history, which I must say, that Athens has not used so far with success.

Philhellenism 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is only verified by Greek sources (here), including former FA Minister N.Martis. Does anybody feel that any of the two should be included in any of the relevant articles? NikoSilver 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More renaming about to take place

Meanwhile, Balkan Insight has learned that the authorities are considering a broader campaign to rename sites and streets after classical heroes, whether or not this angers Greece. (11th paragraph)

Philhellenism 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I myself am a Macedonian

Apologies, Niko. I guess that explains EPT's different wording: an English translation of the Greek translation of the original English quote. I wasn't sure which language he said it in, as I have yet to see the actual footage. (Probably should be watching more news and less tennis!) In any case, he didn't say it during his speech to the Parliamentary Assembly, a video recording of which is available for download at It must've been during the press conference later on. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the background (which was quite limited because the camera was focusing on him) there was another guy listening with small earphones. It looked like a panel to me. The words as I typed them were the exact English words that came out of his mouth. I had time to reach for a pen, because it was pre-announced by the newscaster. ERT is indeed translating English from Greek from (the original) English that I heard. It doesn't make much of a difference anyway, but those were his exact words. (sorry for the 20067 bit). NikoSilver 12:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
About time, really. I suppose he is the first Macedonian PM since the outbreak of the whole kerfuffle, so it was only appropriate that the words should come out of the mouth of a Greek official at the highest possible level. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It is to Athens' great responsibility that the human right of self-determination of the Macedonians (G) [<-Gosh how much I hate having to do that] has not been given the attention it deserves. "It's not OK to violate their's but it's OK to violate ours", sounds double standards to me. "Doesn't violate" is simply pathetic of an excuse, unless we all sign as we feel like from now on: George Bush (without dab please -it's insulting!) 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you bother with the (G) thing. I only use the name in a specifically Greek sense, because that's what it means to me, and it's up to others to keep up. The "Macedonians" never bother to disambiguate, so why should the Macedonians? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
And neither is helpful to Wikipedia. We have a whole article on Macedonia (terminology). The mere English-speaking reader should not have to plow through it to guess what we mean here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
How about Μακεδόνες? - in English text, that's unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is my mind decaying or is this Demotic? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Perfectly ancient; plural of Μακεδών. My understanding is that Μακεδόνιος, plural Μακεδόνιοι (note: with the accent on the ο), being a derivative of Μακεδών, served more as an adjective in the ancient language (like μακεδονικός), while in modern usage it is generally reserved for the early Christian sect. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hence my (and Sept's) original confusion because it "sounds" right. FWIW, I'd go for this kind of dab on a worldwide basis (i.e. Makedónes vs Makedónci, and Makedoniká vs Makedónski - although Makedonía vs Makedónija(?) doesn't seem "fair" because the latter's sound resembles the English name more.) NikoSilver 11:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to popular Greek perception, it is actually Makedonija in Slavic, with a k sound, just like in Greek. No need to worry, Niko, I doubt accents would catch on in international usage anyway. Hence the Makedonia and Makedonija redirects here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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 20th 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 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

The UN HAS NOT recognised the term FYROM as the OFFICIAL name for the Republic of Macedonia. The UN is using this term, as an iterim name while the dispute continues. For the sake of all wikipedia readers please make sure what your are writing is accurate and true. -- 01:56, 8 February 2007
The article already makes this clear. Please see paragraph 2 of Macedonia naming dispute#Background. -- ChrisO 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I've tagged it because the article lacks a Macedonian position section but it has two very detailed section explaining the Greek and “Ethnic Macedonian” POV while the position of the macedonian republic is nowhere to be seen.So its biased towards Greece.Also the “ethnic macedonian” name per se sugest that the inhabitants of the Republic of Macedon arent ethnic macedons themselfs wich continues to be a subject to debate and controversy.I suggest creating a Macedonian or Republic of Macedonia of equal size and detail and a revision of the “ethnic macedonian” position section.--Andres rojas22 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the tag on the same grounds, and I long to see that side elaborated too.
For the rest, I don't see how the addition of "ethnic" deprives the possibility of descent from Macedon. I find "ethnic" to be a very NPOV word, and wouldn't mind seeing it added in "ethnic Greeks" (or whatever). It certainly wouldn't mean that Greeks don't descend from the Ancient ones.
As a final note, no, there is no "debate and controversy" over the descent of the modern ethnic Macedonians in academia: They do not descend from Macedon or whatever.
And to return to the tag, I myself have searched the governmental sites and haven't found any official position (well, the language doesn't help but...) I would tend to suspect that there isn't any, but you are free to add it if you find it. However, this should not mean that the article will remain a hostage of that tag in eternity. In a week or so, if nothing is found, I'll replace it with {{expand-section}} in the non-Greek section. NikoSilver 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some feedback by the other contributors for this. Do you share the opinion that the MK/SLMK section is inadequate? Does anyone have any sources? NikoSilver 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, there's been a week since the tag was placed, and adequate explanation has not been provided, not to mention that the rationale contains erroneous presumptions ("controversy over the descent of modern Macedonians from Macedon"), which -in part- is what these series of articles aim to clarify in the first place. I am removing the tag and placing {{expand-section}} where applicable. Please note that an extensive attempt has been made to expand this section with the inclusion of all applicable quotes by Danforth and with an elaboration on both Macedonia naming dispute#Self-determination and self-identification and Macedonia naming dispute#The ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece sections. More sourced information is welcome. NikoSilver 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do these countries call it?

"List of countries/entities that have not yet granted recognition as either RoM, or FYROM" Do they still call the area Yugoslavia, or something like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xhandler (talkcontribs) 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It is unknown or un-sourceable [sic]. They may call it one way or the other, or both, or not refer to it at all, or even not recognize the country. Fact is, they haven't made a statement. NikoSilver 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are there two different descriptions of these countries ("not yet granted recognition" and "no diplomatic relations")? This seems confusing and redundant. In addition, what is meant by "countries/entities to be sorted"? Bistromathic 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really nice to see a citation in the "The Macedonian (Greek) minority in the FYROM" that just so easily says "There is a Macedonian (Greek) minority in what is now the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a remnant of the formerly much larger indigenous Greek community of the wider region of Macedonia that fell within the borders of Serbia after the Balkan Wars of 1912-13." I had to read that three times to finally understand that they are talking about actual Greek people. In which case I asked myself where a source is for such a statement, in which case I presume the idiot who wrote that merely looked at a statistic from that time period where nationality was based on what Church the village or town was under. Yet in Stefan Verkovich's book "Makedonski Bugara" while mentioning that the Macedonian Slavs adopted the name 'Bugar' as a political reference rather than ethnic, he also so interestingly mentions that the Haliacmon river, or Bistrica as he called it, serves as the proper boundary between the Greek world and the Slavic one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well, regarding the number of Greek Macedonians in FYROM, be assured that there will never be any reliable statistics. People are simply too afraid to declare their Greek origin. My grandfather was born and raised in Monastiri/Bitola. Life became unbearable for Greeks after 1912 (due to Serbian persecutions) and he migrated to Greece. However, his sister stayed in Bitola forever. She had five children who grew up and still live in FYROM. They underwent all kinds of persecutions, first by the Serbs, then by the Tito regime. Even their name was changed by adding a -ofsky ending. These are scared people who have realised well that it is not to their interest to declare their true identity. I am surprised that even 400 hundred of them dares to do it in the census. [Tafi]—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Truly fascinating, thanks for sharing. One wonders how many "Macedonians" are actually Greeks or Bulgarians who were forced to convert to the new nationalist ideology of "Macedonism" after the war in order to ensure their survival in Tito's Yugoslavia. Expect a barrage of furious abuse from the usual suspects for whom even raising the issue is pure anathema. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep dreaming. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

^^Excuse you, but I, and never has the Macedonian government, EVER, expressed such views to a 'United Macedonia' which has merely been BLOWN out of proportion by the Greek side. You should be the one to continue dreaming that Greek Macedonia has always been 'Greek'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It always has been and always will be, but that's beside the point. You've just written of "the proper boundary between the Greek world and the Slavic one" lying well within Greek territory. If that isn't blatant irredentism, what is? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 

broken reference

this is a broken link, and is currently used as a citation three times. --Lo'oris 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One sided

This article , just like the rest of the MAcedonia articles, are totally Greek-sided.

It needs to be changed if this article is going to be a balanced and respectable article. That is, the Macedonian POV needs to be elaborated upon and not have a lagre quote by some random 'professor' constituing the entire arguement, which is actually pro-Greek (I am not saying that what he says is incorrect) Hxseek 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No. See WP:NPOV. --Ronz 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No to you Hxseek 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You can just tell by the lengths of the arguments. The Greek argument goes on and on, meanwhile the ethnic Macedonian argument is very short. --Tocino 04:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Greek arguments would go on and on. They're the ones who are so insecure and desperate of their Greek Macedonian region, the history and ethnic character that goes behind it. Common human psychology, like asking a child who stole some chocolate if they really did steal it, you'd usually hear a rash and urgent response after some interrogation, that it wasn't them; but a child who didn't steal the chocolate would calmly say it wasn't them. Same analogy can be applied to the Greeks and Macedonians, it's obvious who is who in this story.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You only need to watch a news broadcast from across the border to realise who the insecure lot are. My curiosity led me to do so once and I was astounded and thoroughly amused at the number of times the phrase Република Македонија was repeated like a mantra throughout the course of the bulletin. In contrast, you rarely hear the word Ελλάδα (much less Μακεδονία) mentioned on the Greek news, as Greeks don't need to be constantly "reminded" where they are or what they "should" be called. As for "stealing", don't even go there. The Greek presence in Macedonia predates Macedonia itself, as the Greeks were the first to give the region that name in the first place. Enough said. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the so called 'facts' you talk of, Mr Kekrwy, are actually theories. They are debatable. This is not the place to discuss, but you have to keep in mind that the Greekness of Macedonia, whilst a valid theory, it disputable, by many western scholars.

That is something that many people forget. Unfortunately many half-educated people try to push certain ideas as if they were biblical truthes, just because that's what they learnt in primary school. Hxseek 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the 6,000 ancient inscriptions found in Macedonia to date, every single one of which is Greek, are not a "theory" nor are they debatable. They are solid evidence. The theories on the non-Greekness of Macedonia, on the other hand, are based purely on speculation. But you're absolutely right when you say that "unfortunately many half-educated people try to push certain ideas as if they were biblical truthes [sic], just because that's what they learnt in primary school". A particularly apt description of the proponents of "Macedonism". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the "child who stole a chocolate" analogy an academic approach to an ethnic issue? I would be really interested in seeing proof of the ancient Macedonians writing in cyrilic a slavic language coprehendable by Bulgarians. That would suggest that the Macedonians have invented the time machine as well. ^^ (note that my mouth is full of chocolate) Have it crossed your mind that the one-sided profile of the issue may be because of the lack of talking point from the Slavomacedonian side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek encyclopedia

File:Greek encyclopaedia 80s SR Macedonia.jpg
Page from Greek encyclopaedia refering to Socialist Republic of Macedonia as "Macedonia".

The underlined text in Greek says: Η χορα διαιρεθηκε σε 6 ομοσπονδες δημοκρατιες (Σερβια, Κροατια, Σλοβενια, Βοσνια και Ερζεγοβινη, Μακεδονια, Μαυροβουνι).

Which translated in English means: The country is divided into 6 federative republics (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro).

So, the book refers to then Socialist Republic of Macedonia as “Macedonia”. Revizionist 02:10, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? It's merely reporting the indisputable fact that Yugoslavia called part of itself "Macedonia". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The point is they did that without any disclaimer, any sign of finding that usage problematic. Of course, the fact that Yugoslavia called part of itself "Macedonia" is just as indisputable as the fact that one of its successor states calls itself "Macedonia". The point is that back then nobody was making a fuss about it. I do find this interesting enough, don't you? Same goes for the usage with respect to the ethnicity and the language. The book isn't saying "Slavomacedonians" or "that group that calls itself falsely Macedonians". It just says "Macedonians". If a Greek schoolbook ten years later had done that, it would have been burnt and the publisher lynched. Fut.Perf. 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They did find that usage problematic and had complained about it to Yugoslavia many times; this didn't stop them using the term nonetheless. Being willing to unenthusiastically tolerate a subdivision of another state using the name is not the same as an independent state using the name. It's selective though, because there are other encyclopedias from the 80s and 70s which approach the issue in a different manner (there is one I can think of which says that the official languages of Yugoslavia were "Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Slavic")--DL1977-2 11:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To Mr. Neutron's insightful edits

Please abstain from introducing obscuring edits like calling the territory of Socialist Republic of Macedonia on the map of SFR Yugoslavia "southern portion". If you bother to check a map of SFRY you will see that the territory across which MAKEDONIA is written is the territory of the SR Macedonia. Calling it southern part of Yugoslavia is obscuring the fact that does not help wikipedia readers, not to talk that within SFRY 'southern parts' could refer to the south of Kosovo or Serbia, as well as Macedonia, and the term Macedonia is not used in Greece for neither parts of Kosovo nor Serbia.

Also please refrain from including weasel words like 'one book' insinuating that there are no others. That is a standard greek geography textbook from 1977, and by the fact of being a textbook you can conclude yourself that there are other geography textbooks from that period that say they same (textbooks are printed every year), and just because nobody here has them at home or can scan them to satisfy your nitpicking doesn't mean they don't exist. Do not erase the word standard from my sentence, as in Greece, as in most surrounding countries, as that time there have been only one set of textbooks per class per school, and thus it is 'standard' as soon as it is published as a 'textbook'.

A related piece of advice: stop with the full text searching on the name Macedonia and editing the articles to your own alleged 'better accuracy' and maybe contribute some original material to Wikipedia. It is possible that one of these days some admin will look through your contrib history and realize that ALL of your wikipedia involvement has been dubious editing of Macedonia-related articles. If I was you, I would be afraid that day. -cheers Capricornis 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insert false statements in wikipedia. About the other stuff, I have no idea what you are insinuating about. Mr. Neutron 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
refrain from vandalizing the page. there are no false information. the book is a standard geography textbook from greece, and the territory marked on the map is that of SR Macedonia, refer to SFRY for clarification and additional map. As for the last part, it is not insinuation, everyone can check your contrib history, and verify it for themselves. Capricornis 05:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Neutron, on the map the territory marked with "ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ" ("MACEDONIA") is the territory of Socialist Republic of Macedonia. The southern portion of Yugoslavia means: Kosovo, Vranje oblast in Serbia and SR Macedonia. By writing southern portion of Yugoslavia you are first distorting the facts given in the book, and second are confusing readers of Wikipedia. Cheers Revizionist 10:01, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting observation. Mr Voskopoulos, a member of Rainbow Party says

  • "Г-нин Кофос го нарекува Охрид, Ахрида. Очигледно за да асоцира на грчкиот збор Ахтида (што значи зрак). Дали може да не информира каде го најде ова име? Во која карта? Од кога? Од кој?" [36]
  • Ο κ. Κωφός ονομάζει την Οχρίδα, Αχρίδα (sic). Προφανώς για να μοιάζει στο “Αχτίδα” ώστε να “ελληνίζει” το τοπωνύμιο. Αλήθεια μπορεί να μας πει που την έχει βρει αυτή την ονομασία; Σε ποιόν χάρτη; Από πότε; Από ποίους; [37]
  • Translation of Greek: Mr Kofos calls Ohrid, Ahrida (sic). Obviously so that it looks like Greek word Ahtida so as "hellenize" the placename. Really can he tell us where he found that name? In which map? From when? By whom?

Here is the answer: in this map, one can see "L. Ahridos" (L. [Lake] of Ahrida). Good thing we have Mr Voskopoulos to find this map for us. I think the article he is attempting to refute is this one--DL1977-2 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian in the census

Unless there are secondary sources saying that in that census "Macedonian" = "Macedonian language", it's no good trying to fool people that is the case. Much better to link to the dab page where all the possible eventualities are (although I doubt in the census it referred to ancient Macedonian).---DL1977-2 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What else than Macedonian language could it possibly have referred to? People weren't listing Greek dialects. These are all non-Greek languages, explicitly marked as such. Who would have said "I speak 'Macedonian', and I don't speak 'Greek'", unless the Slavic language was what they meant? Don't take your skepticism to the point where it becomes absurdity, please.
By the way, according to the Rainbow website, the document is from the census for Trikala, obviously outside the Slavophone area, that's why there are only a handful in that category. Records from further north were apparently not kept or not published.
For the record, it's worth noting that these were apparently categories given by the informants, given to an openly worded question, so it's not clear the authorities would have been endorsing that usage. But at least they weren't censoring it out. Fut.Perf. 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As the answers were given to an open question, it could mean whatever the people in question thought it meant: a dialect of Greek, Bulgarian, Aromanian (by pro-Romanian Aromanians who called themselves Macedoromanians) or even "Macedonian language". It's OR to guess and assume.--DL1977-2 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, quite the opposite: in fact it would be OR to cast doubt on the assumption made by the people we are quoting. We are just rendering the argument of the Rainbow people, and they clearly assume it's referring to Macedonian. As long as nobody has published a refutation of their claim along the lines you suggest, we have no business messing with it. -- Anyway, I doubt the census people were just blindly noting down whatever expression the respondants used, without any checking or filtering or mapping into a set of standard categories. For instance, there's no "Arvanitika" either, or "Romaiika", for that matter; whoever answered that got their answer mapped into "Albanian" or "Greek" respectively. Etcetera. But in any case, this is moot. Fut.Perf. 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there's no "Arvanitika" or "Romaiika" because it is a record of Thessaly only. As for the argument of the Rainbow people, WP:RS#Extremist sources may be applicable. They are no scholars, we don't even know with certainty that this census is real, we only have their word for it.DL1977-2 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling the rainbow people extremist is untrue and insulting at the least. Have you seen their political program? For God's sake, all they want is to be allowed to use their own language (Macedonian) AT HOME and in ELEMENTARY school! How extremist is that? The poor people were attacked and their property vandalized ONLY because they put the name of their party on a sign in Macedonian Cyrillic AS WELL, besides greek and english versions. Then only because of that they were sued by local Greek courts for A YEAR, before the European court had to intervene. It would be a veeeery long stretch of imagination to call these people extremists.
As for your arguments, there is a formal logical fallacy whose name I cannot remember right now, and consists of chipping little pieces for the opponents argument using semantics and intricacy of language or situation and in that trying to make the otherwise solid argument, somewhat dubious. Mr. Neutron tried that above with obscuring obvious facts, of course, from different reasons than you. Instead of nitpicking about obvious things I would suggest you do some research and present some original arguments. The fact that a completely neutral 3rd party like Fut.Perf. gets involved in an argument like this means that you really went over the limit. -cheers Capricornis 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You must realise that the Rainbow Party's incessant denigration of the Greek nation, combined with their reluctance to accept any criticism of their own national self-identification, does smack of extremism in the eyes of most Greeks. That is why their share of the vote is so low even amongst the Slavophones whom they purport to represent. As for your points about the language, I don't know where you got your information but there are no laws in Greece regulating languages spoken at home. And as a Greek taxpayer I don't see why I should have to pay for Greek schoolchildren to be taught the language of a neighbouring state over the national language. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am yet to see a single statement from Rainbow party that denigrates the Greek nation. The vote share and talking a language at home have something in common, and that is constant terrorizing by the official and unofficial structures to the people who do so. It is a much better detterent.
As for your second statement I must say I am baffled by it, especially coming form a person that lives in the cradle of western democracy. For the same reason I am paying for children to be taught in Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi on the west coast of Canada, though the official languages are just english and french. For the same reason R.Macedonian taxpayers are paying for children to be taught in Albanian, Turkish, Vlach, Serbian, Romani,etc. For the same reason ANY taxpayer in ANY democratic country pays so that the children of minorities can preserve their mother tongue and their native culture. The reason is called democracy. Capricornis 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've visited enough times to know what I'm talking about. Perhaps the reason you have "yet to see a single statement" from the party that denigrates the Greek nation is that you don't read Greek; they tend not to translate their more venomous diatribes into English. Their rhetoric is a curious mix of anti-nationalist deconstructionism and rejectionism vis-à-vis the Greek identity on the one hand, and old-fashioned Macedonism on the other. I'm sorry, but if you're against the concept of the nation you have to be consistent; disparaging the legitimacy of the nation-state in the Greek case while holding the "Macedonian" sacrosanct is just plain-old ethnic nationalism. As for the "terrorizing" of the people who choose to speak the Slavic language at home or vote for the Rainbow Party, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about, considering the authorities have no access to private property and the secret ballot is enshrined in law. If you mean the reaction of their friends and families, they too are entitled to their opinion, no? Finally, your attempt to equate democracy with multiculturalism along Canadian lines is unfounded. There are many democracies without such policies, France being the leading example. That might explain why, unlike Canada, France isn't on the constant brink of dissolution. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we've both have said our parts, and there's nothing much to be added. As for your jab at Canada and it's dissolution, believe when I say this as a Canadian and a francophile, Canada and Quebec within Canada will stay with this world for many generations to come. France has much more to worry about considering the riots last year.
And no, you are completely wrong about the world democracies. It is not just Canada's multiculturalism that allows this, but the US too, you can study in spanish or mandarin wherever there are these minorities, UK is the same, Germany is the same, France is the same too, they by no means forbid classes, education and communication in minorities own languages. All of the other neighbors of Greece do the same, Albania included (in Mala Prespa there is elementary education in Macedonian). I am not familiar with any other country which calls itself democracy besides Greece which obstinately refuses to acknowledge ANY ethnic minorities among its population, and refuses to give them any rights. Capricornis 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And all I have to say to that is good luck convincing the Greek electorate that it should. At this stage you can't even convince your target demographic; Виножито gets more votes outside Macedonia than within. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And all I am saying is that the rights and freedoms that are considered 'basic' in countries that call themselves democracies are non-existent in Greece Capricornis 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And all I'm saying is that you're talking fiction and you haven't got a clue what human rights are if you really believe that. Typical FYROM propaganda.--DL1977-2 07:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can share your esteemed opinion with the Human Rights Watch as they seem to disagree Capricornis 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some first-hand experience might help our readers here. In April 2007 I visited a village called Agras, outside Edessa in Greek Macedonia, during the annual festival. This is a village where older people are slavophone, but anyone younger than 50 years old is now Greek-speaking. The whole village takes part in the festivities, people dancing, eating outdoors, etc.. A band was playing folk songs with lyrics in (slavo)macedonian. The villagers later told me that they recognised the music, the melody, but not the lyrics. In fact I noticed that they were dancing in instrumental dances and refused to dance when the singer would use words. This was their kind of protest against this band which was not a local band - it had come from across the borders! Needless to say, nobody obstructed the events or any expression of peoples' feelings. It is hard to believe that basic freedoms are non-existent in Greece.Tafi 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Revizionist is keeping making sneaky edit-summary-less reverts on this issue without having defended his reasons even once. Why exactly he insists on removing the link remains a mystery...DL1977-2 07:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to DL1977-2's attacks

File:Greek encyclopaedia 80s Frontpage.jpg
DL1977-2, as I can see, from your contributions, you have never created an article or constructive text. All you ever do is vandalize Macedonia-related articles. But still I will answer your questions. The census has graphs Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Aromanian (Vlach), Armenian, Macedonian, and so on. So in order to be neutral we just rephrased this, and not give self interpretations. And second, this is the front page of the encyclopedia published 1980 in Athens. You have done nothing else but sabotage and vandalism. I hope this is the final evidence you needed to stop vandalising the article. Otherwise, I will ask assistance from an administrator. Revizionist 19:22, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
As I suspected, it was a privately published encyclopaedia, probably a poor translation of a foreign one - the author's name is Dionysia Weissman - and certainly not a government-endorsed school textbook as erroneously reported before my latest edits. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Οχι ρε φιλε μου. Approved by the ministry of culture of the Hellenic republic. Go and find it in any library in Greece. And there is also the Geography textbook from 1977 that referes to SR Macedonia as Μακεδονια. Revizionist 19:31, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol Are you absolutely sure about that? I don't know how things work in your country, but publishing houses in Greece need no ministerial approval to print a book. As for the geography textbook, Greece has never disputed that the FYROM belongs (at least partly) to the wider geographical region of Macedonia, so I don't know why you think you've made some great revelation. I've also seen a Greek atlas with the name ΣΕΡΒΟΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ (Serbomacedonia). How do you like that one? ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As wikipedians we are obliged to present evidence and facts. This is evidence that Greek textbooks and encyclopedias referred to SR Macedonia as "Macedonia" and to ethnic Macedonians simply as "Macedonians". Before you attack something please check it first. Go to a library or bookstore. And for the geography textbook it is without any doubt approved by the Greek government institutions. If you have other evidence, please present, otherwise please do not vandalize the neutral version. Thanks in advance. Cheers. Revizionist 19:48, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to take an encyclopaedia entitled for you, kids anywhere near as seriously as you seem to. And your attempt to present it as a "Greek school book" is simply misleading. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion (that the book is not serious). It is not a comedy book to be funny or not serious. I simply stated that it was printed in Greece, and it refers to ethnic Macedonians as Macedonians. If you think it is not approved by the ministry of culture, please give evidence. And second, I never presented it as a "Greek school book". I said in Greek textbooks and encyclopedia (which is different from what you said). P.S. The Geography textbook is a Greek school book. Revizionist 20:23, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the onus is on you to prove that a privately published children's encyclopaedia was somehow approved by the Ministry of Culture of the Hellenic Republic. I wonder why not the Ministry of Education? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I approve the evidence you gave with the website (you see, I like when people give evidence that argument their claims), and I agree 80% with your last version. BUT, the book, although published by a private publisher, it was approved by the ministry of culture. Revizionist 20:32, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
Then please provide evidence of such approval. As far as I know, the Asimakopoulos Brothers (owners of Avlos) never held a ministerial post. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok see my last revision (it is 100% of your version with added private published in front of the encyclopedia). I just added state published for the geography textbook. Τι νομιζεις? Τωρα καλα ειναι? Για σου. Revizionist 20:42, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think my addition needs a tag though - it's common knowledge. You yourself have provided the evidence for it, with the school textbooks including Vardarska in the wider geographical region. Greece's objection has never been to the geographical term per se but to its (mis)use for a neighbouring nation, its people and their language. In other words, it is absurd to say that "Macedonia spans Macedonia, Bulgaria and Greece". But "Macedonia spans Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece" wasn't, which is why it was never an issue in Greece until 1991. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, which is the official Macedonian/Slavomacedonian authority that raises the [moronic and non-]argument that Greek schoolbooks called a province on the North "Macedonia"? Please cite the officiality of the argument with a non-MakNews-like source. Also, after you do so, do you care to explain how this becomes an argument when the Greek FA says "...monopolizes the name of a wider geographical region..."? Who denied that the country is within/overlaps Macedonia (region)? Why would it be news that Greek schoolbooks called the province/subnational entity as such? NikoSilver 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome home, Niko. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling an argument moronic is definitely not in accordance with the wikipedia principle of 'assuming good-faith' and does not speak well of the author. The authority is the press of Republic of Macedonia. And as for who denies any non-greek Macedonia, you might want to refer to the jolly bunch at the Pan-Macedonian Organization. Please quote some official sources from R.Macedonia which 'monopolize' the name Macedonia, as I am not familiar with any. On the contrary, from what I've seen in the press, it is the Greeks who claim to have absolute monopoly on the name 'Macedonia' -best regards Capricornis 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The press? What part of the press? Is the press elected, or is it as reliable as the Pan-Macedonian Organization? Where in the Greek position do you see the PMO as a source for official arguments? How funny indeed... NikoSilver 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't calling your country after the wider region "Monopolizing" then? As for putting the words authority and macedonian newspaper in one and the same sentence, I'll have to repeat myself with this--Laveol T 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture captions

I have made small additions. It is pretty obvious that no administrative divisions are given for Yugoslavia for the images in the middle column, so I added that fact. Second, it is not known if the name "Macedonia" on the map refers to a general geographical area, or specifically to the area of SRoM for that matter. The cartographer's understanding of Macedonia might differ with the Yugoslav Macedonia. Mr. Neutron 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That disclaimer together with the insinuation implied in the "allegedly" constitutes "original research". I'd remove it. Fut.Perf. 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about allegedly, but it seems to me not having the administrative divisions makes a difference. Mr. Neutron 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You are beating a dead horse yet again. If this particular map didn't show the administrative divisions that doesn't mean that suddenly they got abolished, but they can be seen from many other maps in Wikipedia, including the ones in SFRY, and it is more than clear MAKEDONIA was written accross SR Yugoslavia Capricornis 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont think you really understood me. I am not saying the divisions are abolished, just that they are not shown on those maps, and we both agree on that. However, I disagree that the label "Macedonia" in the absence of administrative divisions on those maps applies strictly to the borders of the Socialist Republic, and not to some other geographical area. There is simply no way to tell. Bear in mind that there are a great deal of definitions for Macedonia. Mr. Neutron 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You still choose to deny the obvious. Overlay that map over the map from SFRY and you will get your administrative divisions. It is the same country, it is the same era, what is not clear? Capricornis 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not the same, I'm simply going by the maps provided. There are no administrative boundaries, and its not at all clear to what boundaries "Macedonia" applies in the case, as there are many areas to which it can be applied. See Macedonia (terminology). Mr. Neutron 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is the same. If you start taking every picture on wikipedia isolated from the general context and related articles then we are in a lot more trouble here Capricornis 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond its borders

I don't see anything in this statement more definite than the assertion that the Republic claims "the whole region of Macedonia". This does not say that the region stretches beyond the Greek frontier. I have no trouble believing that the Greek government acknowledges that; but this is not a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the word "entire" vs the word "our" that would have been used instead. Simple English. After all, this is a non-issue until someone cites this argument as an official argument of the Macedonian/Slavomacedonian government. NikoSilver 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't see that. The name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim over the entire geographical area of Macedonia. would be equally natural if Macedonia meant the Province, in which case it is horror that the Republic claims all Macedonia down to the sea, whereas (in a hypothetical world) border adjustments claims around Florina might be negotiable [or at least tolerable 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]. You may be right; but this doesn't prove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol, Sept, I'll let you ridicule the poor Macedonian/Slavomacedonian government by putting words in their mouth that there is an argument in this blog-retrieved piece that you call a section for WP. I'm not reverting by deleting it as I should, I'm just laughing. Go on please, there are more in MakNews... NikoSilver 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's MakNews we're representing in this section, isn't it? :} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Duh no. It's the "Macedonian" government. On the section right above we're presenting and attempting to analyze the views of Greek government; not those of the MakNews-rival . NikoSilver 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Then rearrange the sections to make that clearer, 'cause it isn't. The section is The ethnic Macedonian position not the Position of the Republic, and the next subsection is The ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece, who certainly don't speak for the Republican government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Care to do the honors? As I said, it simply amuses me, and I feel that the [non-]argument ridicules the poor country (and the authors of this article), so I am reluctant to touch it. Feel free to leave it as is, and I'd even love to see the section expanded. NikoSilver 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Natural? What hogwash. As if any country would ever suggest a scenario involving territorial concessions on the website of its foreign ministry. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as you're sure the other side isn't going to do X, suggesting that they're EVIL because they don't do X is just good clean fun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Mwahahaha. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, read Q&A #5 in the FA site. In the meantime I am still amused by the officiality of the argument listed here. Who doesn't still understand that Greece has a problem with an autonomous state being named as a wider geo region that encompasses parts of its territory? Who doesn't understand that it is equivalently ambiguous to calling one country alone e.g. "Balkans" or "Scandinavia"? NikoSilver 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This piece of collective self-pity will be answered elsewhere. However, I would like to see how the prestidigitators manage to draw "Greece has never officially disputed" out of the source they claim supports it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Who still doesn't understand that Belgium has a problem with an autonomous state being named as a wider geo region that encompasses parts of its territory? Actually, nobody, because there isn't a problem: the issue hasn't been exploited by demagogic politicians. -- ChrisO 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You will never understand the essence of this problem, if you don't realize that it has much more to do than with some "demagogic politicians" or the "self-pity" of the X or V nation. It has to do with the historical heritage and pride of one nation, and with the national self-determination (a national identity formed during the last century) of another nation, which are unfortunately conflicting, and it is not easy to reconcile. Yes, the problem could have been solved in 1993, but these "bastards", the alleged demagogues did not allow that. But then? More "mature" leaderships in both countries rose to power. What was the result? Cul-de-sac! E.g. the renaming of an aerodrome, marking the scornfulness of one side, and the ireful veto threats of the other side, marking its rage. There must be something beyond demagogues (the simplistic explanation of the problem) that makes, Chris, the situation a bit more complex than the Bel-Lux no-problem, just like the Greco-Turkish relations remain much more complex than the Franco-Allemagne ones. So, comparisons with Belgium or arguments about "self-pity" are capable of interpreting just a 25% of the problem in my opinion. The quest for the rest 75% deserves some more profound and courageous analyses. Regards!--Yannismarou 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And, by the way, when the Greek government says that "the name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim over the entire geographical area of Macedonia" it is clear IMO what it means: that no party should stake an exclusive right over the entire geographical area of Macedonia (which is broader than the Greek Macedonia). That is what my possibly inadequate mind understands! Anyway ...--Yannismarou 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the same is true of the relation between Great Britain and Ireland over Northern Ireland, but it has been some years since any British politician (even an Ulsterman) has been foolhardy enough to demand that the Republic of Ireland change its name; other guarantees are a different matter. We anglophones are underwhelmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And it goes without saying that we Greeks, like much of the rest of Europe, are even more underwhelmed by the Anglosphere. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the point at issue, the text claims that the Greek government acknowledges a "wider region of Macedonia". The source is a primary document, and the interpretation of that document is disputable. Please either find a secondary source, which may well support the broader claim that the Greek government has always done so, or a primary source that uses those words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation is "disputable" only to someone lacking good faith. Your suggestion that it could mean anything else is wholly unconvincing and, quite frankly, tedious. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"List of countries/entities that have not yet granted recognition as either RoM, or FYROM"

This section is inaccurate. Those countries don't have diplomatic relations with Skopje, this doesn't mean that they don't recognize them. Check what South Africa has to say [38]:

In October 1995, South Africa officially recognised Macedonia under the name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in accordance with UN practice. (FYROM is the name by which the country is formally registered at the UN.)
The South African Embassy in Athens, while being responsible for FYROM, has no accreditation to FYROM as the latter wishes South Africa to establish diplomatic relations under the name "Republic of Macedonia".

Or Georgia [39]:

Georgia has no diplomatic relations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia due to the name issue. We hope that UN could find a viable solution to this problem. The solution of this problem would help the region’s stability and help the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia build a multi-ethnic state and integrate into EU and NATO.

I wouldn't be surprised if all those states recognized Skopje only as FYROM and the latter has refused them diplomatic relations unless they call them "ROM".--NetProfit 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to answer this or should I just delete the section?--NetProfit 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite more similar positions to those of South Africa and Georgia, I'd suggest we find some way to say that "non-recognition may be largely due to the name issue." -or something like that. NikoSilver 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it.--NetProfit 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Veto or not

However, the Greek Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis has denied pledging to veto the accession and has stated that he would only block the Republic of Macedonia's application for EU and NATO membership if it sought to be admitted under its constitutional name.

The source given for this is '"Report by Khiotis: "I Never Used the Word Veto"," To Vima, 11 September 2007'.

What does the source say?--NetProfit 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's virtually word for word. To quote the relevant bits from the report:
In his interview on Alter television with journalist Khatzinikolaou, Karamanlis also retracted his promise to veto Macedonia's EU membership unless the naming issue is resolved first, pointing out that he would block Macedonia's EU and NATO membership only if the latter uses its constitutional name ...
Karamanlis caused a stir when he addressed the Skopje issue, and claimed that he never spoke about a veto during the televised debate between political leaders. "I never used the word 'veto'. Not because I do not want to use the veto, but because I never work with clichés. What I will tell you is that with what they call their constitutional name, there is no way they can head for NATO or the EU."
Hope that helps. -- ChrisO 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for finding that. I think I need to change the attribution slightly - I'll add the hyperlink too. -- ChrisO 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No worries. How did you know about it if you didn't have the link? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at an English translation of it. -- ChrisO 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Where? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
On a subscription news service. I was doing a bit of digging to find out what the current Greek line is on the RoM's accession to NATO and the EU, and also to find out what the RoM is saying on the name issue. -- ChrisO 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Care to share the link with us? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't - the British Library's computers are configured in such a way that you can't copy or paste anything. It's very annoying but I assume they've done it for copyright reasons. Anyway, since it's a subscription service you (and I) would only be able to access it from one reading room of the BL, so the link wouldn't do anything useful. -- ChrisO 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the latest involvements around the name of Macedonia are already hardening the positions of both Athens and Skopje. The first reaction to be noted was the unacceptable behaviour of the representative of FYROM lately in the UN-completely lacking of diplomatic manoeuvres. By bridging all formalities within the UN, he managed to bring in the open FYROM s denial for essential negotiations with Greece regarding the name. This at the very moment where there are some many things in stake for FYROM specially regarding their assession in NATO which will offer some guarantees for the territorial integrity of this small central balkan state.

The fact that skopje openly challenged the diplomatic formalities leave Athens with very little space for manoeuvres and in fact a further hardening of the Greek policy is to be expected. So a veto for both EU and NATO seems inevitable at this moment as the greek government desperately seeks a diplomatic victory in order to further strenthen its position within its own parliamental majority. What Skopjie seems not to be able to apprehend is that currently the greek government holds a very marginal majority within the Greek house of representatives. The government expects to get a vote of confidence early next week and it only needs two MPs to challenge the right of Mr Karamanlis to rule Greece for another 4 years. The Greek government cannot afford to loose the parliamental confidence bearing the stigma of a defeat in this very sensitive national matter, that will initiate a chain reaction within the Greek social and political spheres of influence with unforseen concequences for FYROM and the Balkans in general. Skopje with their behaviour simply demonstrate that FYROM is not part of the peace process in the Balkans but they are in fact part of the central Balkan problem and of the grey disputable area covering Kosovo and FYROM with borders and future of both areas to be inevitably linked and blurred- 25 pct of FYROMs population are ethnic albanians living in the half of the country adjustant to Albania ans kosovo. Greece from the other hand is quite vigilant and relactant to participate to this new central balkan domino as it has no territorial or national claims on any of the adjustant countries. Nonetheless Greece will take all legal nessecary measures within all international organisations to adress this brand new assymetric threat coming from the north, a threat that will ultimately be expressed in the form of open irredentic claims from the side of Skopje against Northern Greece and perhaps Western Bulgaria and will eventually give birth to further speculations regarding unjustified theories about an important part of greek history, that of the ancient greek kingdom of Macedon (known also as Macedonia and Makedonia). As such a Greek veto for me is simply a matter of time. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talkcontribs) 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

== Document 95-27866 13 September 1995 UNITED NATIONS Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the FYROM NEW YORK, 13 September 1995 ==

C. INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS Article 11 1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part 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 (Greece) reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part(FYROM) is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).(note FYROM) So i guess even if they do object they hold a pretty strong case.The document is signed by both parties :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the Macedonian nation "created" in 1944 by Tito? Lets have a look...

Fatmanonthehorse 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN). First, you are responding to an alleged claim, which doesn't exist in the first place in the official statement of Greece (Greece does not negate the existence of a separate ethnicity or nation). Second, you are doing this with an unofficial pile of synthesized material, which has not been compiled (or even mentioned) by any official source of your country.
Of course, there are extremist Greeks who support that "Tito created RoM/FYROM", but until we list them here under the "Greek view" section, may I ask: To who are you responding to? NikoSilver 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that this was the official view of Greece, that the Macedonian identity was a communist invention. So does Greece recognize the existence of a seperate Macedonian nation before Tito? Fatmanonthehorse 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greece's position in this case can best be described as agnostic. Greeks take issue with the name, not with the existence of a second Slavic nation on their northern border per se. Ultimately, it is a question that troubles the Bulgarians more than it does the Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Then this is a big issue with Greece since this ethnic group call themeselves "Macedonians" and "...the place which is theirs is called Macedonia." Fatmanonthehorse 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just their opinion, I suppose. One amongst many. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the information back because it is still very critical to the subject of the article, however I changed the headings.Fatmanonthehorse 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, Greece never disputed the existence of a separate nation and ethnic group. In fact, Greece supports a separate entity (and I'm sure you realize that Greece would most probably not prefer the Republic to be united with Bulgaria). Greece does not dispute either that this entity is located in great part within the wider Macedonia region, nor that the citizens of that entity are Macedonian regioners (like all other inhabitants of that region). I'm sure we all agree to that one (at least I hope so).
Greece's only concern (and I urge you to read the official statement of the Foreign Ministry), is that apart from you Macedonians, there are also other Macedonians (notably the Greek ones who also outnumber you on their own). It is that apart from your Macedonia, there are also other Macedonias (notably the Greek one which is much greater). I'm sure we all agree on that one too (or again I hope so).
In my personal view, those facts wouldn't be a problem either, if only the use of the name without any qualifiers was not done for the purpose of equating things that are not equal (i.e. "Macedonia=Macedonia" or "Macedonians descend from Macedonians" or "Macedonian language comes from Macedonian language" etc). Unfortunately, those fallacies are propagated in the country and there are various sources to prove this (see the featured article Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism (Extreme and moderate)).
Anyway, nobody denies those people are distinct, nobody denies their right to form a separate nation, and nobody denies that this separate nation is located within a wider region by the same name. So why should we fill up a "naming dispute" article with sections about "separate ethnicity dispute" or with a "different territory dispute"? Who are we trying to convince? The one who is already convinced? Why is this relevant to anything here? NikoSilver 09:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Greece has no right to tell you what you are. She has every right to tell you though what you are NOT. And you are NOT descendants of Ancient Macedonians, you bear NO relation to Alexander the Great, Vergina and Macedon. You can NOT claim something that it's not yours. --   Avg    18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest Provocacy?

Shall we put the incident in the UN assembly where the president of the assembly refused TWICE to call Yugoslavia with the name FYROM (a remark was made by the Greek ambassador and he still refused). The Greek ambassador noted that this was an insulting violation of the international law, because it has been formally decided that within the UN, Yugoslavia will be called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) until the dispute is resolved. Watch the incident: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the latest involvements around the name of Macedonia are already hardening the positions of both Athens and Skopje. The first reaction to be noted was the unacceptable behaviour of the representative of FYROM lately in the UN-completely lacking of diplomatic manoeuvres. By bridging all formalities within the UN, he managed to bring in the open FYROM s denial for essential negotiations with Greece regarding the name. This at the very moment where there are so many things in stake for FYROM specially regarding their assession in NATO which will offer some guarantees for the territorial integrity of this small central balkan state. The fact that skopje openly challenged the diplomatic formalities leave Athens with very little space for manoeuvres and in fact a further hardening of the Greek policy is to be expected. So a veto for both EU and NATO seems inevitable at this moment as the greek government desperately seeks a diplomatic victory in order to further strenthen its position within its own parliamental majority. What Skopjie seems not to be able to apprehend is that currently the greek government holds a very marginal majority within the Greek house of representatives. The government expects to get a vote of confidence early next week and it only needs two MPs to challenge the right of Mr Karamanlis to rule Greece for another 4 years. The Greek government cannot afford to loose the parliamental confidence bearing the stigma of a defeat in this very sensitive national matter, that will initiate a chain reaction within the Greek social and political spheres of influence with unforseen concequences for FYROM and the Balkans in general. Skopje with their behaviour simply demonstrate that FYROM is not part of the peace process in the Balkans but they are in fact part of the central Balkan problem and of the grey disputable area covering Kosovo and FYROM with borders and future of both areas to be inevitably linked and blurred- 25 pct of FYROMs population are ethnic albanians living in the half of the country adjustant to Albania ans kosovo. Greece from the other hand is quite vigilant and relactant to participate to this new central balkan domino as it has no territorial or national claims on any of the adjustant countries. Nonetheless Greece will take all legal nessecary measures within all international organisations to adress this brand new assymetric threat coming from the north, a threat that will ultimately be expressed in the form of open irredentic claims from the side of Skopje against Northern Greece and perhaps Western Bulgaria and will eventually give birth to further speculations regarding unjustified theories about an important part of greek history, that of the ancient greek kingdom of Macedon (known also as Macedonia and Makedonia). As such a Greek veto seems to be simply a matter of time. `Italiotis`

We'll wait and see. In the meantime, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. :-) NikoSilver10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for editing without asking but having as a reference when they use the former flag of FYROM which is an offense to me as a Macedonian and a Greek,was unaccepted.The flag with the Vergina Sun is an ancient Greek flag and part of my cultural heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ahem. This is Wikipedia. You don't get to choose what sources can be used or cannot be used just because you don't like their opinions, or the symbolism they use. Fut.Perf. 11:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But you do? I thought sources used in wikipedia should not be based in biased websites.By what you say i understand that i can source any silly nationalistic website i want.I wouldnt mind the reference as long as it had the correct flag of this country.It doesnt ,so i find it provoking to all Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are biased is not the issue; whether they are reliable is. If you wish to argue against that, you're welcome. The website has been used here by multiple users for a long time. Just spare us your indignation; what you find provocative or not is totally irrelevant here. By the way, they aren't using the vergina flag as a symbol of the country, but as a symbol of the ethnic group, which seems to be in line with what many members of that group actually do, so there's no obvious error in that. (There is, however, a rather obvious howler when they quote the Greek "Makedonia ksakousti" as an anthem of Macedonians, so yeah, that sort of sheds a dim light on their reliabilty, I guess...).
By the way, if you want to remove it, please make sure you check which facts in the article are actually taken from it, so we don't end up misattributing them to someone else. Fut.Perf. 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict / Fut.Perf.'s comment already addresses this in part:] Actually there are certainly apparent flaws in Eurominority, and those are not necessarily limited to the use of the flag. From what I see in their text, there seems to be an apparent confusion between Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greek). You will note that the site contains the Greek hymn for Macedonia (Greece) right next to 'Denes nad Makedonija'.[40] I'm sure whatever Slavic-speakers with an ethnic Macedonian national identity exist in Greece would not adopt a text about "ήσουν και θα 'σαι ελληνική / Ελλήνων το καμάρι / κι έμεις τα Ελληνόπουλα / σου πλέκουμε στεφάνι" in their anthem. (transl."you [Macedonia] were and you'll [always] be Greek / the pride of the Greeks / and we the Greek youth / plait for you an [olive-]crown". As such, the source is highly discredited on its own. NikoSilver 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(sidelined discussion moved to User talk:Italiotis. Fut.Perf. 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Remove wikilinks from quotations

This article contains some quotations, but inside them some wiki editors have put wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. This looks problematic to me. To some readers who don't know exactly what a wikilink is, it could potentially convey the notion that the source of the quotation (the person who said it or the site/document that included that text) explicitly agrees with the destination of the wikilink or even its contents. Furthermore, these links could be seen as a form of emphasis. I suggest removing all wikilinks from quotations qand placing them into the main text instead. If this is not possible due to lack of consensus, then I would suggest placing a note (emphasis/links not part of original text being quoted) under each quotation. NerdyNSK 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, please go ahead and change it. I think there's something in the Manual of Style supporting your view. Fut.Perf. 06:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for the wikilinks (as discussed in the FAC discusion of Macedonia (terminology) were two: One, to help the reader disambiguate the similar/identical names in case there is doubt (simply by mouse-overing). And two, to actually explain and inform what these terms mean in the context they are used. In that sense, I find them very useful, and I think that the probability for perceived emphasis or the probability for perceived agreement of the source with the linked content (which mostly anyway truly applies) are counterbalanced by this utility. I'm open for discussion. NikoSilver 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't quickly find the relevant older discussion you mention. I still strongly dislike these links. As for your arguments, I don't see how most of these do "disambiguation" or explanation - most of them (like "Kiro Gligorov" or "Alexander the Great" are simple unambiguous items and could easily be linked from somewhere else in the text. Others are more problematic: linking "cultural heritage" to "Macedon" and "Hellenistic civilisation" is a massive interpretative editorial intervention into the quoted text. Even if that interpretation probably captures something correct, it borders on OR and interferes with the reader's normal understanding. Also, I remember once having read that "surprise" links (where the target is not easily predictable from the displayed text) are strongly discouraged. Can't find the relevant MOS passage right now though. There's also an element of coming across as patronising the reader, since really in most of the cases the intended meaning is entirely clear from the context. In any case, consensus in the MOS discussion seems to be that links in quotes are generally discouraged. (The relevant MOS passage is currently marked as "disputed", but the dispute is merely about just how strongly they are discouraged.) Fut.Perf. 14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You're mostly right, so let's follow a middle solution. Let's use some common sense and de-link several of the obvious ones. I'll give it a shot. NikoSilver 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay with me, thanks. Fut.Perf. 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If someone quotes something I wrote I expect them not to change anything, not to put any hyperlinks in my words, and if they emphasise a particular point to put a notice like 'emphasis mine' . If I write 'I love cats' in my blog and someone quotes it but makes the word 'cats' a hyperlink then I would be upset, especially if they fail to notify the reader that hyperlinks were not in the original, and I would be even more upset if the hyperlink pointed to a page about dogs. What if the readers thought that 'I' put the hyperlink on my blog, or that I approve of the change in the quote? Misquoting someone is a big no-no in journalism, and my opinion is that hyperlinks embedded in quotations is a form of misquotation (and lack of respect for the person or organisation we quote, albeit of a less degree than actually changing the words). If for some reason we think that we need to change a quotation then we must inform the reader that we changed it. I'll put such notices in the article. NerdyNSK 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the redundant links are away now, and those few that only remain are only for disambiguation purposes. The notice elaborates on something that hardly exists IMO, and it should be removed. I won't lose my sleep over it, though. NikoSilver 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek language self-reference

The article says 'Attic Greek evolved into Koine Greek and in turn into Byzantine and modern Greek' and then it has a reference which reads 'See Greek language' . This would be appropriate as a footnote, but not as a reference. It looks like a self-reference (a Wikipedia article using another Wikipedia article as a source to support a statement as a fact) to me. I support the view that a reference, any reference, is better than no reference at all; but we should prefer reliable external references when available and when appropriate. I would like to see this self-reference being replaced by proper reference to an academic reliable source and a 'see also' wikilink to Greek language. NerdyNSK 05:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it myself. NerdyNSK 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref. Since this is a rather indisputable fact of [mostly] common knowledge, this was not intended as a reference, but as a reading suggestion for more details. I suppose it can be solved by wikilinking any instance of "Greek language" in the main text. I'll go ahead and fix it. NikoSilver 11:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[41] Fatmanonthehorse 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd read what I quote, it says clearly "Unofficial source".--   Avg    00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I live in Makedonia.Get real people that's ridiculous.In fact the party of Slav minority in Greece even in European parliamentary elections can't get more than 7,000 in all country.You are living in a world of your own.Eagle of Pontus 19:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The guys live in their own world. Today their Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested we name our Macedonia "Ancient Macedonia" to avoid ambiguity :-) --   Avg    19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you must live in a world of your own, Avg! Ancient Macedonia and modern northern Greece are different entities Hxseek 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, how about telling that to your own minister who, if you'd bother to read what I wrote, made this proposition?--   Avg    00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Macedonian (Greek) minority in the FYROM

"...the Vlach minority in the country which numbered 250,000 in 1994"

Can someone please fix this! Everytime I edit this, it gets reverted. --AimLook 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried but am getting reverted. That statement is not sourced properly and is incorrect. Because:

1) The source states that the Greeks claim a Greek minority of 250,000 and that there is an unknown number of Vlachs. The article states something else.

2) The source does not use 1994 census data anyway.

3)The Vlachs are not Greeks, so even if historically, the ones in Greece identified as Greeks, it would have been on a national, not ethnic, level. If they were ethnic Greeks, the Principality of Pindus would not have existed. The ones in the RoM identify as "Macedonians" - national consciousness, or ethnic Vlachs (apparently under 10,000 in the 2002 census). Alex (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're committing the grave error of projecting the current situation in your homeland onto that in Greece and the wider region of Macedonia before the advent of Macedonism. The fact that the Vlachs north of the border identify as "Macedonians" today does not mean that their ancestors did not identify as Greeks in the past, particularly in the Bitola/Monastiri area. Furthermore, Greeks, including Vlachs, tend not to distinguish between ethnicity and nationality. The former derives from the Greek word for 'nation', éthnos, while the latter derives from the Latin. Greek, being the older language, lacks the Latin word. Vlachs in Greece identify both as ethnic Greeks and Greek nationals. The only exception to this seems to be the Muslim minority and the non-Greek-identifying Slavophones of Macedonia, who may be Greek citizens but are considered allogeneís, i.e. 'of another race'.[42] Aromanians and Arvanites are not included in this category, as they are considered (and consider themselves) Greek through and through. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Vlachs in Greece consider themselves Greeks in both senses, fine. But that is not the case with the Vlachs in the Republic. Did their ancestors consider themselves Greeks? I don't believe they did - because the thing is, they weren't (they're not today either). During Ottoman occupation, they had their own representatives to the Sultan (or something like that). During the Balkan wars, depending on where they were, they chose sides. I don't want to get into a minority dispute about Greece - I'm just saying it is ludicrous for Greece to claim around 1/8 of the Republic are Greeks (on a historical basis), when most of those 250,000 were never Greeks. Alex (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well we have a source saying that the Vlachs of the southern Balkans did traditionally identify as Greeks, so that would include those living in what is now the Republic. The fact that they were subsequently "Macedonianised" under Yugoslav rule is another story. And while it is true that the separatist Vlachs managed to persuade the Sultan to recognise them as a millet distinct from the Greeks in 1905, most Vlachs chose not to abandon their Hellenism. The claim that there are 250,000 Greeks in the Republic today is admittedly rather colourful, but no more so than the United Macedonia enthusiasts' "1 million Macedonians in Greece" and the like. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The source says: historically the majority of Vlachs in the southern Balkans have identified themselves as Greeks. Weren't the majority of Southern Balkan Vlachs in Thessaly and Epirus? This "majority" probably didn't extend further (maybe not even including) Bitola. And the Vlach minority in the north would have been Serbianised under Yugoslav rule. Today, most identify as Македонци, which in English can be translated as "ethnic Macedonians" but is also the demonym in the coutry.
And how many Hellenised Vlachs as opposed to "separatist" Vlachs are we talking about here? Wouldn't it take a significant number to convince the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to grant them millet status? Alex (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to be entirely certain about these things, but that there was a significant community of Greek Vlachs in the Bitola/Monastiri area before the Balkan Wars of 1912-3 can hardly be disputed. Of course, their fate under Serbian and then Yugoslav rule was not unlike that of the Slavophones in Greece who proclaimed a non-Greek identity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Alex (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pretentious heading and should be deleted. WP:NOR It is made to conterpart the heading "The ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece", The heading has no ground. Showing that there is Macedonian (Greek) minority consisted of 422 Greeks and unconsient unknown number of Vlachs is pretentious and is more propaganda then fact. The term Macedonian Greek is not existing officially as ethnicity anywhere (if they are please include official censuses), but it means Greeks living in Macedonia. These are the facts: The Greek minority in Republic of Macedonia counts 422 by the census of 2002 (I could not found official number from the census because the Greeks are included in others, so this is number from the Macedonian Wikipedia. The ethnic Vlachs numbering around 9000 were regarded as Greeks in the past because they were Greek Ortodox. Most of them even today are Greek Ortodox and not Macedonian Ortodox, but they feel ethnically Vlachs and they speach Vlachian language (a version of Latin mixed with slavic word and very close to Romanian). That is shown on the census. If Vlachs felt ethnically Greeks, they would have written themselves as Greeks in the census. (Toci (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

The presence of a Greek minority in the FYROM is well documented, as is the traditional use of Macedonian by the Greeks of the wider region, not just the Greek part, i.e. don't even think about it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is misleading to call them "Macedonian (Greek)". Why not just "Greek" as those 422 could be from Athens, or Larissa, or Crete. Macedonians (Greeks), as you can see from the link, refers to the Greeks of Macedonia (Greece), not the Greeks of the wider region. BalkanFever 05:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And they could also simply be indigenous. In that case, the redirect is not entirely accurate. Of course, I was against the merge to begin with. The original article read as follows: "Macedonians is the term by which ethnic Greeks originating from Macedonia, particularly Greek Macedonia, are known." This information was lost during FP's orgasm of creativity, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. The Greeks of what is now Bitola have also traditionally referred to themselves as Macedonians, in the same sense as the Greeks south of the border. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they could be indigenous, just like they could be immigrants. It is not known how many of those few hundred do or don't call themselves "Macedonians" in the Greek sense of the term. So why should the heading refer to them, if there is no possible way to figure out how many of them there are? BalkanFever 06:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason you can have an "ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece" without any census or other official figures to verify its existence. The purpose of the section is to demonstrate the parallel and often conflicting uses of the name Macedonia(n), which are a crucial parameter of the naming dispute. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The establishment of Rainbow as the officially recognized party of ethnic Macedonians is a fact. Greece recognized ethnic Macedonians two times in the history, first the communist party did (but then they signed that they didn't) and now is the Rainbow party. Rainbow is also internationally recognized as party of an ethnic minority and they even republished their first language book from 1925. So we have right to make an article for the "ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece". Kékrōps please use official documents to back up your facts of Macedonian Greek minority, otherwise please delete the pretencious heading WP:OR or use Greek minority. Using "The Greeks of what is now Bitola have also traditionally referred to themselves as Macedonians" is not a fact to make a heading Macedonian (Greek) minority. The Greeks in Bitola are Greeks today by the census, why should they refer themselves Macedonians when they are Greeks? There is ethnical difference between Greeks and Macedonians in Republic of Macedonia and it is showed in the census. Greek minority in Republic of Macedonia is the only fact by the censuses, the Macedonian attribute is propaganda. (Toci (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
Greece never recognised a macedonian minority,the Rainbow party and the communist party are not Greece in anyways,not goverment or anything else.Megistias (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I share the objections against the wording "Macedonian (Greek) minority" in this context. Not because the term would be factually wrong, but because it's overly specific and places the emphasis wrongly. Natural language, people. In natural language, you don't use a more specific term, even if it is applicable, when a more general term is available that covers the concepts salient to the situation better. Yes, these people are "Macedonian (Greek)", but their being Macedonian rather than Thessalian or Epirote isn't what makes them relevant to the discussion of this article. What's salient about them is first and foremost that they are Greek rather than Slav or Albanian or whatever. The use of "Macedonian" here, to me, comes across as forced, as a maneuvre to drive home the point that look mum, I can get away with using this word my way!. Fut.Perf. 08:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, surprisingly. The salient feature about them in the context of this article is not that they are Greek - adjacent countries having mutual minorities is hardly an extraordinary phenomenon - but the fact that they are also a Macedonian minority. And this article is about the dispute over the name, not the general state of relations between the two countries, minority issues, etc. Note that Greece does not dispute the existence of a Slavophone minority; calling it "ethnic Macedonian", with the implication of obligatory non-Greekness that that entails, is the issue. The mere fact that any alternative use of Macedonian north of the border is so controversial makes it a perfect candidate for inclusion in an article on the naming dispute. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a point that can easily be pointed out in the text. But the heading needs to direct the reader's attention to the salient distinguishing property, because that is what determines the structure of the article, and that distinguishing property is still their Greekness. I'd be okay with "Greek Macedonian". Having "Greek" in parentheses strikes me as extremely odd, from the perspective of an outside uninvolved reader. Fut.Perf. 09:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess that was just a reflection of the name of the article that you got rid of. Go ahead and change it, if you must. Then again, I still think the emphasis should be on Macedonian and the conflict that can arise from its use. Isn't that precisely what this article is about? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. I don't think "Greek Macedonian" takes away from their Macedonianness unduly. Fut.Perf. 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Macedonicity, myself. I guess we could also try "(Greek)" in front. What does Nikos think? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article of preference, it is article of facts. Otherwise is Greek POV and it has no place in Wikipedia WP:NPOV. Or if it is it should be pointed out that it is not the factual situation, but a biased article that represents Greek POV. Please use Greek minority which is fact. (Toci (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
Toci, for the last time, try to understand that you are not the only Macedonians around! NikoSilver 11:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the parentheses and such in the title, I stand amazed that the "Natural language" argument hasn't come across for e.g. the Macedonian Slavs article title. However, I feel that Fut.Perf's modification indeed makes the title clearer to the casual reader. Also, to my knowledge, Greece does not object to any qualifiers to their names. It is the other side that adamantly does so. NikoSilver 11:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Because, as Toci would say, the Μακεδόνες are only "Greek Macedonians", not real Macedonians; those would be the ethnics. Isn't that exactly the kind of attitude that BalkanFever (erroneously) accuses Greece of? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not conviced in the facts that the Greek Macedonians fits. There is nothing for understanding. The Greek Macedonians is used for Greeks living in Macedonia opposite of Greek distinction "Macedonian Slavs" as "Slavs" living in Macedonia which in Greek POV (naming us "Slavs" offends us and there is no ground for it, besides the slavic language. I must add that the Swedish are also offended if a German says that they are Germans due to they use germanic language). Insted of using Macedonians (Greece) it is more precise if you use Greeks (Macedonia) which shows the factual situation. Greeks (ethnicity) (Macedonia (in a region)). If you have any other factual proof of Greek Macedonians (not statement of Karamanlis in newspapers that all the Macedonians are Greeks and not article in Wikipedia that you have edited) please write a link and I will get convinced. If you name yourself Μακεδόνες at home and declare yourself as Greek ethnically, then I internationally understand that you are Greeks (because it is personal how you name yourself home, I myself personally think that I am Citroen (this is a joke, no offence)). We are having international talk here. Greeks (Macedonia) is not offending (you regard yourself as Greeks) and it is factual (fits all the official censuses). (Toci (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
To be perfectly frank, the Macedonians couldn't give a fat rat's what you think of what they call themselves. Yes, they are ethnic Greeks and they were also Μακεδόνες long before you were "Македонци", and they're not about to surrender their name to you. Just let it go. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kekrops, Μακεδόνες relates to Greeks (if they've ever used it before 1989!). It is a geographic determination. Македонци refers to an ethnic group, nation and country. Do you see a minute difference? And Македонци also are not about to surrender their name. However, unlike you, they have no problem with your use of Μακεδόνες. Live with it :) Crnorizec (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And again this 1989 story. It cannot be a coincidence, your propaganda must be feeding you this for years. Please understand this is a blatant lie. Northern Greeks were called Macedonians for centuries and officially there is a Macedonia province in the modern Greek state since 1913 and hundreds of Macedonia related names in practically everything. So both officially and unofficially, this is way, WAY before you. --Avg (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
See for example Makedonia (newspaper).  Andreas  (T) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
More like see for example the historically attested self-identifying name of the ancient Macedonians. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning user Ireland101

There has been much discussion on this in the past. His edits are violent and he does not even dignify them with proper reasons. He abuses wiki and unfortunately has a large ego not based unfortunately on knowledge of the subject. I made a few minor edits, not anything bias to either side. He deleted them all citing:

Corrected useless changes, Laveol enough info is presented in the source buy the book if you want to check the source) (undo)

?? Anyhow i undid his deletion of my edits, you can please judge for yourself if they were wrong or even offensive in anyway. I went to Ireland's talk page User talk:Ireland101 and realised their is a terrible history of fights their he seems to have done some poor editing and vandalism. The question is should he be banned from all editing or only Macedonia related edits? Reaper7 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of bullying that we don't need. Stop it please. Fut.Perf. 22:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I must say I was very surprised when I saw what you have been posting throughout Wikipedia about myself Reaper7. You have gone around making comments claiming that I have "a terrible history of fights" and other statements lacking validity. You posted comments with threats on my talk page claiming you will "take this to moderators" if I don't fulfill your demands, as usual I agree with Fut.Perf, this sort of bullying does not belong in an encyclopedia. In reality I have no history of conflicts as I have never been blocked. On the other hand Reaper7 has been blocked for making personal attacks (I hope this trend ends soon). And now this user wants a vote to have me banned, I never thought I would see this. But then again that is one of the downsides of a website like wikipedia. Although unnecessary as my edits speak for themselves I will go threw each one to satisfy Reaper7.
  • Reaper7 claim: 'People's Republic of Macedonia was established as part of the newly proclaimed federal Yugoslav state under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito.

This is historically inaccurate as the 'People's Republic of Macedonia' was under the leadership of Lazar Kolishevski.

  • Reaper7 claim: Republic of Macedonia nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon.

Macedonians from the diaspora were the main ones doing this during the communist era as it was not allowed in communist Yugoslavia. The Macedonians from the Diaspora are not “Republic of Macedonia nationalists” as the identify from different parts of ethnic Macedonia.

  • Reaper7 claim: Skopje rejects many of Athens's objections due to what it sees as several errors in the Greek claims.

Other neutral scholars do to such as Eugene Borza, Peter Green and John Shea etc...

  • Reaper7 claim: “It should be noted, however, that the Slavs inhabited Macedonia for more than a millennium before the name "Macedonians" was first used to distinguish a specific Slavic ethnic group in the first half of the twentieth century.”

You deleted a source

  • Reaper7 claim: “In the 6th and 7th centuries AD Slavic-speaking populations came into northern Greece and the ethnic composition of the wider Macedonia region

Again you changed info from a source.

  • Reaper7 claim: “eventually supplanted it entirely in Macedonia from the 5th Century BC, and ancient Macedonian became extinct during the first few centuries of the Common Era

I realy do not understand what you were attempting to convey.

Although I now see the word "useless" may not have been the best word to describe the changes however I am not sure which other word can describe the edits made. Reaper7 please stop making comments that are incorrect about myself such as "He abuses wiki and unfortunately has a large ego not based unfortunately on knowledge of the subject". This is a personal attack and I can launch a complaint if I wish. Ireland101 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to add after your response, not only are you aggressive and dismissive with your edits and revisions, you seem to be confused as to who has done what to the article, but I will answer your points of what I apparently 'claim' anyway. Ok point by point,
  • I am talking about who was incharge of yugoslavia in which your state was formed, not who was incharge of Macedonia, reread. No one has said who was incharge of macedonia at the time. You simply do not want the word Tito mentioned.
  • Republic of Macedonia nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon. They have. Even your Govt Websites make the connection. Do you want more links? just say. Is your only counter that the diaspora has done more? LOL In your own words, 'useless'.
  • Finally what you claim as a seperate Ancient Macedonian Language from Greek, if there ever was one, was lost by the 5th Century BC as a form Greek became the main language.

Now I understand that you are a violent nationalist for the republic of Macedonia and your talk page is like a graveyard of disputes, but please, this is not your page. It belongs to everyone. If someone can prove what they are saying, I am afraid just because you may not agree, it kind of means nothing, or in your own words, is useless. Hope you have less disputes in the future, Reaper7 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the way to ask a user to be banned and generally to express your willingness for this to happen. His edits have certainly being pretty disruptive, but there is still hope he'll begin reading some the rules soon. Adding back a source without even knowing what it is about or having read it is certainly a thing I find really inappropriate. That is apart from the general POV-pushing off course. --Laveol T 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

North Macedonia

I read today that this name gains ground in Skopje, having support from people like Ljubčo Georgievski. However, they still want it to be used only in international organisations and not in bilateral relations. I think Greece would agree with this name (however in all relations, not only international) --   Avg    22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And I heard (more precisely - read) that he was proposed North Macedonia or New Macedonia, but turned down both. --Laveol T 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Greek to you, but here's what the Greek press says: [43] [44]. Might want to translate these here: [45] [46] NikoSilver 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Laveol you're probably referring to Nikola Gruevski, while I referred to Georgievski. Here is the article in Greek [[47]] and a machine translation [48] --   Avg    23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, AVG, I've misread your whole sentence. Yeah, Ljubcho (our guy) has said a lot of things to most of which I think people in RoM do not agree: that the country has no future, confederation with Bulgaria, some answers to the historical issues and so on. A former prime-minister - a serious blow, but I don't suppose he is popular in the country anymore. As for the article about Gruevski - that's the one I read (in а Bulgarian media). Oh, and Greek to me is Chinese in Bulgaria (I've thought about adding it recently. --Laveol T 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, is he the guy who got a Bulgarian passport? And yes "Greek" in Greece in Chinese as well :-) . You should add Bulgarian here ! Surprised that our neighbours have "That's a Spanish village for me"!--   Avg    00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the guy. He is a Bulgarian politician at the moment (or at least is trying to get into the Bulgarian political life). Шпанско село, eh, I don't get it really - we should ask one of our colleagues. --Laveol T 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is a pattern with Spanish, this is what they also say in Croatia, Czech Republic, Serbia and Slovenia, if this site is right of course.--   Avg    00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but why a village? --Laveol T 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe villagers are harder to understand or something. But I've never heard someone say that. And my 2 denar worth of conspiracy theory: Lyubcho is an agent and wants to be mayor of Blagoevgrad so it joins with the Republic :D. Alex (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the UN designation for FYROM

By not using the official UN designation for FYROM or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Wikipedia is taking sides and loses all credibility as a neutral source. I am therefore changing all references to the disputed "Republic of Macedonia" which is not recognised by either the UN or the EU or NATO or any international organisation, to the official UN designation for FYROM or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in order for this article to comply with Wikipedias neutal point of view guidelines. --Mapeal (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. When you do this you will be reverted and blocked. Game on. BalkanFever 14:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You have threatened to start an edit war. If you try to revert my NPOV edits again without discussion and consensus from all the editors I call upon the moderators to block you for vandalism.--Mapeal (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahahahaha. Consensus was Republic of Macedonia. Although you wouldn't know that since you only edit one day out of the year. The UN picked the provisional reference fYROM (lowercase f) so as to not get involved, not to have a NPOV. Maybe you should actually read the article. BalkanFever 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Moderators please block BalkanFever for repeated vandalism of changes to I have made to this article to make it comply with NPOV guidleines. There is no consensus or vote in this forum to use the so-called constitutional name for FYROM which is not recognised by the UN. NPOV guidelines dictate that only the offical UN designation should be used while the name dispute remains uresolved otherwise Wikipedia would be taking sides--Mapeal (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSMAC. Read it. Then read it again. And again. And again. And 10 times after that. BalkanFever 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this in an article concerning Greece and is listed as such on the page itself, the guidelines allow the use of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Republic of Macedonia" to refer to FYROM. NPOV dictates that only the UN designation should be used in this article as the general name for FYROM otherwise it is clearly biased against Greece and insulting to Greek readers especially Macedonian Greeks.--Mapeal (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if Greeks get offended by everything that is not Wikipedia's fault. Macedonians get offended by having the country that they live in called FYROM. You have no interest in NPOV. You just want to push Greek POV again and again. It's always a conspiracy against you. It's like offending a Greek is worse than genocide. Greece cannot dictate what another country calls itself. And neither can the UN (not that it is trying to). It is "Republic of Macedonia" so get over it.BalkanFever 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the name dispute is being dealt with by the UN organisation, the guidelines state that when articles deal with international organisations the designation of FYROM or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should always be used as the countries name. What you are trying to do is prejudge the solution to the name dispute in favour of FYROM before a solution has even been reached. Whatever that solution is it was not be "Republic of Macedonia." --Mapeal (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article does not deal with international organisations. This article deals with the dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The UN did not want to get involved. It does not deal with the dispute What you are trying to do is use "FYROM" as the name for the country, which it was never meant to be. I am calling the country by what it calls itself - i.e. the correct name. BalkanFever 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article deals with the efforts of the international organisation United Nations to solve the FYROM name dispute. The UN is actively involved in the issue and has appointed Matthew Nimetz as its official mediator you so are wrong. Since this article deals with Greece and the international organisation United Nations the guidelines are perfectly clear. FYROM may only be addressed by its official UN designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. What FYROM calls itself is the subject of the disputed and using that name instead of the UN designation pre-judges the outcome of negotiations and misleads readers since Greece will never agree to FYROMs international recognition or membership or any international organisation by its disputed name.--Mapeal (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever if you carry on vandalising this article and violating the NPOV guidelines on the name dispute which clearly call for the designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be used to refer to the disputed entity in the context of this article then you will be blocked. The Greek position is that the name Macedonia or any of its derivatives should not be used in the name of FYROM. You know the FYROM position. The UN designation is the temporary international compromise. Stop vandalising this article in order to promote the FYROM position.--Mapeal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You started this by vandalising a perfectly good page. There is no international compromise. And besides, more countries use "Republic of Macedonia" than "FYROM". And don't make empty threats. Who is going to block me? You? The almighty Hellenic Republic? That voiceover guy from the movie trailers? I really don't see where you are going with this. BalkanFever 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the following:

"This is because Wikipedia's naming conflict guidelines mandate that articles on self-identifying entities should use the name, or an English translation thereof, chosen by the entity in question. ("Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.") Therefore the fact that the UN, the EU or any individual country uses a particular name for an entity does not require Wikipedia to use the same name; however when discussing the UN, the EU or any individual country, its internal policies on the naming issue should be respected."

According to this, if the UN choses "skoje" as the definitive name, and every country uses the name "skopje" appart from fYROM that continues to use "macedonia", then THIS world encyclopedia would still use "macedonia". You are right on this one balkanfever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaman4 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea, if you've just been blocked for edit warring on an article, to come back to the same article and restart the edit war. I've protected the article to permit discussion to take place without the edit warring getting in the way (and, like Fut. Perf., I'm quite willing to block anyone who engages in edit wars).

As the person who devised Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) in the first place, I can say categorically that Mapeal is misinterpreting it. This article was not only written to the WP:MOSMAC guidelines, it's actually cited in MOSMAC under the section which says "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece." To quote that section further: "While the name used for the republic should still be Republic of Macedonia, additional qualification in the form of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "the Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia", or some other phrasing of the same information, can be helpful in such instances. This, in general, needs to be done only once in an article." You'll note that the second paragraph of the article gives the FYROM name and explains the circumstances in which it was adopted - thus meeting the guideline's recommendation.

MOSMAC goes on to say: "when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is." The status quo in the article is to use "Republic of Macedonia", not the longer name. This has been a settled issue since the article was first created back in December 2006, and many Greek editors have contributed since then without feeling the need to change the name for partisan reasons. If Mapeal thinks everyone who's edited the article over the past year was wrong, he needs to get consensus for this position, not impose his preferred version unilaterally.

On another point that Mapeal raises, he says: "By not using the official UN designation for FYROM or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Wikipedia is taking sides." The reason why we use "Republic of Macedonia" is because that's what another Wikipedia guideline - Wikipedia:Naming conflict - requires. We don't take sides on whether a particular name should not be used; to quote WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms, "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." In using the name "Republic of Macedonia", we're not endorsing the country's name - we're simply noting that that is what the country calls itself, rightly or wrongly. The reason why we do this is because it's actually a significant breach of NPOV to deny a self-identifying name; to quote WP:NCON again, "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So-called "Ethnic Macedonian Minority in Greece"

The reference to the so-called "Ethnic Macedonian Minority in Greece" is misleading and also insulting to Greeks who consider themselves to be the only ethnic Macedonians and do not constitute a minority but a majority of nearly three million.

Since this article is part of the section on Greece the term Slav Macedonian should be used instead since this is the term used by the Greek government, unless someone can think of a more neutral term.--Mapeal (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no Greeks that consider themselves ethnic Macedonians. Why can't you understand that? BalkanFever 15:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well even Виножито refer to Greece as "our country" (η χώρα μας) in their Greek-language press releases, so that may not be entirely true. They identify ethnically as "Macedonians" but also as Greek citizens. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant ethnic Greeks, which is why I linked to the ethnic group page (for instance you, Kekrops, don't consider yourself ethnic Macedonian). If I meant Greek citizen I would have written Greek. BalkanFever 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider myself ethnic Macedonian because I don't believe in the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity. However, "the Greeks are a nation and ethnic group", not just the latter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is just a whole series of ethnicity debates pertaining to Balkan countries, isn;t there. Montenegrins, Bosnians are also now considered seperate 'ethnicities' . Yes, ethnically, it seems rediculous to try and tease out, or even construct, identities, when you may argue that Balkan ethnicity can be more easily lumped into : Greeks, Albanians, Romance-speakers, South Slavs. However, things aren;t as clear cut: as there has been so much intermixing that language does not necessarily equate with original ethnic ancestry. Sorry to say,but modern GReeks are a far cry from the anceint Greeks. They too are a hetergenous people Hxseek (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't "nation" and "ethnic group" mean the same thing in this context? Because the Greeks are certainly not a nation (country). Greece is a country. And don't forget that the Greeks only have one word for it. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There are non-ethnic Greeks who have represented Greece in international sporting competitions, for example, and are as much a part of the Greek nation as anyone else. And what do you mean by "the Greeks are certainly not a nation"?! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"Nation" meaning "country" in that context (i.e. Greece is a Balkan nation=Greece is a Balkan country). Wouldn't your comment be kind of confusing if you were to say it in Greek? In Greece, they would be considered part of the Greek ethnicity even if they aren't because it's the same word. Or can you tell by context or something? And are you talking about Vlachs/Arvanites/Slavophones or are you talking about imported athletes? BalkanFever 13:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about the more recent arrivals, or perhaps even such older imports as the former royal family who can be Greek in the national sense without having to be Greek in the ethnic sense. The Vlachs, Arvanites and Slavophones have long been established as both, so they don't fall under that category. The self-declared "ethnic Macedonians" are a bit of an oddity, admittedly. If Greeks bothered to acknowledge them at all, they would by instinct consider them to be anti-Greek or at least un-Greek in spite of their Greek citizenship, but then their party leaders would come out and call Greece "our country", confusing everyone in the process including you, most likely. And yes, there are words that can be used to distinguish between ethnic and non-ethnic Greeks, such as ομογενείς and αλλογενείς, but the former is generally reserved for the Greeks of the diaspora while the latter is rarely used, mostly in reference to members of the Muslim minority whose ethnic origins are not obviously Greek. Other words like εθνότητα (as opposed to έθνος) are also rather rare and technical, usually employed in texts translated from other languages. But I still don't get why Greeks are "certainly not a nation". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think Nation#Ambiguity in usage and Nation (disambiguation) sum it up. "Nation" generally refers to "a group of people...." (as in the first definition of the dab page, and what you were talking about) The Greeks are a nation in that sense. I was talking about "Nation" sometimes being used as a synonym for "Country", and if it is used in that way, then Greeks cannot be a nation, because they are not a country. Greeks are certainly not a country, and if you use "nation" to mean "country" then Greeks are not a nation. BalkanFever 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If fYROMS evetually gets officially called MACEDONIA, then there will definately be a macedonian minority in todays macedonia,greece. But amusingly,i ve been there, and they dont call themselves ethnic macedonians, so if they ever get called this way in skopje, I don t know if they will SELF-IDENTIFY with the But balkan fever,you are right, there is a small such minority! But you are also wrong.I feel ethnic macedonian, i just usually use the word macedonia just like londonians dont use the term ethnic londonians and bavarians dont use the term "ethnic bavarians" although it is stipulated in their constitution that they reserve themselves the right to gain independance from germany in the future if they wish so....yet they dont call themsellves ethnic bavarians.And i call myself a macedonian.not an ethnic one.It should be noted that the ancient sentence goes like "for i myself am a macedonian" and not "for i myself am an ethnic macedonian" for obvious reasons.There cannot be an ethnicity within greek ethnicity.only regional affiliation. So you are wrong balkan fever on this one...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaman4 (talkcontribs)

Origins of Politicians in the Republic of Macedonia

Hello everyone. I found out some interesting information about some politicians in the Macedonian government which I thought could be worth mentioning. According to a biographical documentary, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski's parents originate from Florina, and the mayor of Skopje Trifun Kostovski, his mother is from Giannitsa. Both individuals still have many relatives currently living in northern Greece. Asapov109 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting indeed. Could you provide any links/sources? When you do, you should probably add the information to the corresponding articles first. BalkanFever 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was some documentary from last week on the MRT channel, they were both interviewed. Asapov109 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Unfortunately if we can't cite any sources or references it can (and probably will) be removed at any time. BalkanFever 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so if something is not posted on the internet, then it can't be used here. Now I know how accurate Wikipedia really is... Asapov109 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. It might be in a Macedonian newspaper somewhere.... or you could just try and cite the documentary (I don't know how). I believe you, and would love to include that information, but I'm not in Macedonia and don't have MRT, so I don't know what you know. BalkanFever 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Paraguay and Suriname recognize Republic of Macedonia

Hi. Article "List of countries/entities that have not yet granted recognition as either RoM, or FYROM" should be updated ,becouse in the past 3 months Republic of Macedonia was recognized as Republic of Macedonia by this 2 countries , paraguay and suriname . here is one article about that issue.

? Mo1981 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Can somebody add Japan to the list of countries that recognize the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will once the protection expires. Thanks for the source.BalkanFever 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's funny that this page shows the exact opposite, that Japan uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", when referring to the country as you can clearly see at the bottom of the page. Macedonia is only a short form for convenience.--   Avg    07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The official page of the ministry is not enough proof??? Ministries of foreign affairs tend to be very exact about such issues.If you want to go into details about the documents, it shows that Japan used the reference until 2002. The next two documents from 2004 use Macedonia. The last document concerning the ICTY doesn't mention the country at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I must agree, this looks very much like a shift of policy after 2002. Obviously, they'd keep the original titles of the older documents unchanged. Fut.Perf. 07:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Japan isn't Greece, where I'm sure every mention of the word Macedonia or Macedonians to refer to the northern neighbours was disambiguated or erased. BalkanFever 07:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
When did Greece ever mention her northern neighbours as "Macedonia" or "Macedonians"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, it would be preferable if we had explicit confirmation on how and when such a change in policy happened. Fut.Perf. 08:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think NikoSilver stated this a while back - to find out which name (officially, shortform - whatever) that a country uses takes a lot of (multilingual) work. Also, the foreign ministry websites have more important things to do than give a concrete explanation on which name they use for a random country and why. BalkanFever 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where in the post-2002 documents is the constitutional name used? "Macedonian" was used even in the documents that use fYRoM, so you can't claim Japan recognises any "Republic of Macedonia" on that basis alone. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the feeling that post-2002 Japan diplomats are really careful to avoid direct reference to the country's name (choosing to use only adjectives), in order not to offend either side.--   Avg    02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe that you would try to negate something as clear as this. What is the important thing - the look of the official page of the japanese ministry, or your "feeling"? So much reflex opposition for an issue so trivial. It is really sad that total bias has entered every sphere and every aspect of this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify the issue. "Macedonia" is not the constitutional name, it is a shortcut used only for cataloging in the web site and nowhere in official documents. The constitutional name is "Republic of Macedonia". When you can produce a Japanese official document saying "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (as was the norm at least until 2002), then of course this is proof that Japan recognises the country with its constitutional name. It might well be the case that Japan has indeed proceeded with such a recognition, it's just that the only official documents on the site refer to "FYROM".--   Avg    03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Croatia is not the constitutional name either. Neither is Germany. Do you see where this is going? BalkanFever
Not really. In diplomatic relations inference by analogy is a no-no. Explicit mention is what we should be looking for and the only explicit mention of the country's name is fYRoM.--   Avg    04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not inferring by analogy. What I'm saying is calling it Macedonia yet recognising it as FYROM kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? The disambiguation from the other Macedonia (which isn't even a country) with the FY is the whole point here. If you're not going to disambiguate it anyway, what's the point. BalkanFever 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Diplomatic recognition is perhaps the most formal of political acts, meaning that "Macedonia" cannot be the official name by which Japan recognises the country. It can either be "fYRoM" or "RoM", and you have yet to produce a source for the latter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW why is Paraguay still in the list of countries that have not yet granted recognition List of countries/entities that have not yet granted recognition —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find Macedonia (under any name) in the foreign affairs ministry. BalkanFever 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
this things don't count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're going to have to research the sources cited from that report by yourself. I tried, but still couldn't find anything. BalkanFever 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

- 118 countries (61% of all UN member states) of the world have recognized Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. Among the others the UN permanent Security Council members USA,China,Russia.[49]. Is there the space for the same kind of discussions over and over again? Alex Makedon (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add specific countries, and this is what this paragraph is about, the encyclopaedic way is to provide a reference to that. Or else I very much agree you can stick with a number, provided of course the number itself is referenced.--   Avg    03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
How can anything be proven or referenced when you reject everything that you don't like, using all kinds of ridiculous excuses and "explanations"? By doing so you don't leave a room for something even resembling a fair and balanced article. But this is obviously your intention anyway. You see Wikipedia as a battlefield where Greek nationalistic views must win, regardless of anything else. Please don't be lecturing about references. You will reject them anyway, you will find something "wrong" with them, regardless of their quality: Also, let me inform you that 121, not 118 countries have recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008
This is simply an encyclopaedia. Reference it and it's valid. Speaking about references, I may not have seen correctly, but did you just repost the same reference, the one that specifically mentions fYRoM? I ask you again, where is RoM mentioned? As for the second, my Slavomacedonian is not that good and I cannot follow it, but its title looks like "Greek Hysteria"? That looks like a balanced source :-) --   Avg    23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not balanced, fair enough, because the writer is annoyed with the dispute. But it's not like he's going to fake the numbers. The numbers are there to support the argument. A1 is pretty much Macedonia's BBC. It is a reliable source. BalkanFever 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is the "BBC" I can only imagine the rest... by the way I see Mitsotakis name mentioned. Is this the famous (in Greece) and obviously disproved statement that everybody will have forgotten about the issue in ten years?--   Avg    02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It quotes Mitsotakis saying "In Greece there is a tight (strong) nationalist ?position?. We can never ?understand/catch? that name. That is a reality which you, our neighbours, need to understand. If you want to live nicely with us, you need to change your name, to not use the name 'Macedonia'". BalkanFever 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Countries recognising Macedonia as RoM

Aside from emailing all the foreign ministries in the world, I think the best way to get a definitive list would be to email someone from A1 news. In regards to reliability, A1 is legitimate because it is probably the largest source for news in the Republic of Macedonia, and is a private broadcasting company, so there is no "State-sponsored propaganda" and whatnot. In regards to bias, the journalists will probably take sides in the naming dispute, but it's not like someone from the BBC or Reuters will research this because of an email request. And I won't expect a Greek source to publish which 121 countries are blasphemous ;-). Are there any requests/thoughts before I send the email? BalkanFever 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really plan to put 121 (or whatever number) names of countries in the article?!? Anyway, if you're not joking, in that case this "definitive list" obviously needs its own article. And obviously that applies to the other side as well. --   Avg    02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but then will we get rid of the lists here? Having a selection of countries displayed on this page when there is a separate list doesn't seem right. BalkanFever 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree very much with this.--   Avg    02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. I will wait before sending the email so that others can request or comment. BalkanFever 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"This" = Specific countries should be removed from main article and placed in a separate article, not that A1 is a definitive source :-) But anyway, let me assume good faith and wait as well for their reply. By the way, did you know there is a newspaper in Greece called A1? I have to admit though it's too nationalistic/populist for my taste. --   Avg    02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what "this" meant. Retrospectively I should have put the two comments in separate posts :). Did not know about Alpha1 though. BalkanFever 03:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the foreign ministry in Skopje have an easily accessible list? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Macedonian foreign affairs ministry has a list, it's not easily accessible. BalkanFever 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And I'm saying they probably should, if only as a propaganda tool. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
They probably don't for that same reason - Greece would accuse them of propaganda. BalkanFever 08:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And since when do they give a shit what Greece thinks? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Greece advertises which countries use FYROM, and besides, this is not Armenia-Azerbaijan. BalkanFever 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Following is a video link to a recorded documentary of the accredited Greek journalists Alexis Papahelas and Pavlos Tsimas, from the popular documentary series "Oi fakelloi" ("the files"), which ends with an interview of Denko Malevski, the first Foreign Minister of FYROM: [50] (with subtitles)

Malevski claims the following:

  1. "It was a tragedy that the moderate governments of that time did not manage to reach a compromise."
  2. "Alexander the Great's place in the history of my country is probably the result of political planning rather than historical tradition, which belonged only to the mindset of fringe groups in my country."
  3. "Those fringe groups were insignificant in the first years of our independence, but the Balkan nations have been used to legitimize themselves through history. They need 2-3,000 of history to be legitimate."
  4. "Therefore, since you [Greeks] forced us to invent a history, we did invent it!"
  5. "Our country was forced by your refusal to compromise, into an irrational race for history, in order to establish whichever rightful, or not, rights in it."
  6. "The pressure we received from the Greek political world, resulted in us moderates being defeated, and be replaced by hardliner nationalist groups."
  7. "Since you [Greeks] did not allow us to exist with dignity as a nation next to you, and you didn't give us the time to sort out our problems, our historical differences, you obliged us to dig up in history as deep as you do."
  8. "It is you [Greeks] that forced us in the arms of the extremist nationalists who claim today that we are direct descendants of Alexander the Great."
  9. "Your reaction was a self-inflicting prophecy, like as if you wished things had happened the way they did!"

Well, I'll be damned if this is not the most accurate description of the situation I've ever heard! I think we should include several of those quotes in the article. NikoSilver 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The documentary fragment lasts 7-8 mins. The first 5 mins are interviews with students which confirm that the schoolbooks in the Republic contain irredentist and pseudo-historical claims; this is already cited in the article by multiple sources, so we don't need the added melodrama. Malevski's interview starts at 5:25”. NikoSilver 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the points you quote are about the naming dispute. Giving more coverage to arguments of that type here would just drive the page further into the direction of a POV fork of whatever else we have on Macedonian history. This whole field is over-grown anyway. We need less coverage of Macedonian disputes, not more of it. Fut.Perf. 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The fact that the previous adamant Greek position of "no Macedonia in the title" is cited by the first FYROM MFA as a major reason for the failure of all negotiations is not directly related to the naming dispute? The pseudo-history? His indirect characterization of the present government as a "hardliner nationalist group"? The fact hat Balkan Nations need a long history to legitimize themselves? NikoSilver 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So what can we actually add to the article from this? That ethnic Macedonians are not directly descended from Alexander the Great? It's in pretty much every article already. That the naming dispute was started by Greece? Good luck not getting that reverted. BalkanFever 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More by Maleski:

"The lack of capability by Macedonists in condition of democracy, also contributes to the vision of their opponents. The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the Macedonian historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the Macedonian identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure Macedonian space.

But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modelled according to the Greek one. The direct descendants of Alexander the Great raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Hellenes (Greeks), the direct descendants of Greek gods. This warlike attitude of the "winners" which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises had its price. In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialog. With Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of the history and we are angry at those which dare to call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic!? We are angry when they name us what we -if we have to define ourselves in such categories- are, showing that we are people full with complexes which are ashamed for ourselves. We lost our capability for reasonable judgment, someone shall say, because the past of the Balkans teaches us that to be wise among fools is foolish. Maybe. Maybe the British historians are right when they say that in history one can find confirmation for every modern thesis, so, we could say, also for the one that we are descendants of the Ancient Macedonia…" (Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, October 16, 2006) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys like Malevski are the main reason I still have hope in the talks process.--   Avg    14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys like Karamanlis are the reason I don't. BalkanFever 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Because he said what exactly? That he's a Macedonian like 2.5M other Greeks? Unless you believe this is not true. Do you?--   Avg    15:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, he can call himself whatever he wants. Which is exactly the problem that nationalists like you have. BalkanFever 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Is Karamanlis a Turkish surname? (exept for that -is). Im asking because ,,karaman" in Turkish means smt. black. Bomac (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See my comment here--   Avg    16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greece isnt claiming lands in Fyrom.Nor is Fyrom ancient macedonian territory but Thracian one of the paeonians.So the nationalist here is the state of Fyrom.Megistias (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you actually think that is just sad. BalkanFever 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok what statement are you referring to then? This is the only one I've heard it wasn't received well in Skopje. I guess he's bad news by default, he's the PM of this evil state. As far as who's the nationalist, I simply refer you to your summary a couple of comments ago, that Malevski should be Greece's president (so he is some kind of a "traitor" I presume) because he simply states common knowledge facts. Did you notice that he's criticising Greece somewhere there? Probably not... --   Avg    16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did, and that is why he should be the PM of Greece. Do you understand what I mean now? Spare me your crap about "traitors" - it was your people who got rid of Mitsotakis on that basis. BalkanFever 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't expect you to know anything about Greek politics, but huh? Just FYI Mitsotakis was governing with only 1 person's parliamentary majority and when that person left the party he was forced to go to the polls. The Macedonian issue had nothing to do with it. In a funny turn of events, Karamanlis is now governing with 1 person parliamentary majority as well. --   Avg    16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure it didn't. Wasn't the opposition guy a hard-liner on the Macedonia issue? You complain of intransigence from the Republic's side, but really it was your side that was intransigent - back then, and judging by your beloved polls, still is now. BalkanFever 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of information they feed you there, but PASOK (which by the way is more left on the political spectrum than Nea Dimokratia, so by default less focused on these issues), won because ND had clashed with almost all unions and just a while before the elections they imposed a ridiculously high extra tax on petrol. Some conspiracy theories also involve major government contracts going to the wrong hands with the fall of the government. But I have never heard the Macedonian issue being mentioned. Now going back to the dictionary, intransigent means not to be willing to compromise. Greeks, even though they overwhelmingly oppose any usage of the name Macedonia in the name, are willing to accept a compound name. How intransigent is that.--   Avg    16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've met almost no Greeks who are willing to "compromise". They either call the country by it's name (which they aren't offended by, so obviously they should be burned at the stake) or they call it any one of the derogative names you come up with. And no, I'm not talking about using the name of the capital city, or the provisional reference (which many of them think is the official name), I'm talking about actual assholery. As for your government - their position has always been "Real Macedonia" vs "Other Macedonia". Greeks tell me it's a case of the Greek government being idiots, or the Republic's government idiots. No compromise. All you nationalists, though, talk about having a right to the name, but there is no such thing, and you bring up the Kingdom of Macedon, which stopped being the main area called "Macedonia" a long time ago. Greeks weren't offended with the Roman definition of Macedonia, nor were they with the Byzantine, which was actually in Thrace, and they did not have a problem with the Late Ottoman and contemporary definition. So the fact that they have a problem with one extra definition, on the basis that there can only be one definition (their one) is idiotic. The Republic of Macedonia is no less a Macedonia than Macedonia(Greece). I don't expect to agree, but (to quote your edit summary) you're a nationalist. Let's hear from someone less biased. BalkanFever 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't really make much sense and you are persistent in replicating false facts. I've told you what is the official position of the Greek government, you can see it yourself in the Greek MFA site. It is also obvious that the Greek people are more hardline than the government (how many times do I have to say/show with polls this?). We come to the table with a proposal for a compound name with Macedonia in it, even if what we'd really like is you to stop call yourselves Macedonia. This is by definition a compromise and a big one at that, which has also caused a huge negative reaction, especially in Greek diaspora (and Australia is a great example, as you know better than me)--   Avg    02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Australia, where I have met many Greeks calling the country "Macedonia". Most of the ones who don't are the elderly (who are actually racist anyway - they hate Turks, Bulgarians and Albanians as well), nationalist irredentists (like the Hellas Fan Club), and the people running the organisations of the Greek diaspora (who reiterate complaints from the elderly community). And not to mention that there are plenty of (racist) Greeks I've met who hate "Macedonian, Albanian and Turkish skata". So calling them "Macedonians" doesn't mean you can't hate them all the same. The Republic was willing to compromise around 15 years ago, but Greece wasn't. That is a fact. If the Republic is intransigent, now, it's Greece's fault. If you ever get into another dispute, work on your timing. BalkanFever 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that begs the question, why isn't the Republic willing to compromise now? Or was it only willing to compromise when it was safe in the knowledge that the other side wasn't? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't the same be said for Greece, now? BalkanFever 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Feigning flexibility would make it much harder for Greece to return to the "no Macedonia in the name at all" position. The conditions in Greece are ripe for a compromise now; they simply weren't 15 years ago. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Conditions were good enough for a flag compromise, and apparently a constitution compromise, which were essentially Greek victories, so the only thing left was for Greece to say "OK, let's be reasonable here..." BalkanFever 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's when Skopje also said "we've done our bit, it's your turn now". In other words, we'll give you the flag and constitution in exchange for the (undisambiguated) name. All subsequent pronouncements from Skopje confirm this. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

People, lets get back to the point: Shouldn’t the quotes be in the article? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maleski (he is without v in his last name) is highlighted in this documentary and paraphrased by the Greek reporter to show that Macedonians invented their history in 1991 (Greek POV). There is also not a single word about the historian Todor Cepreganov. About the histories consult the historians and the people, do not listen what the politicians say.
Todor Cepreganov is historian and claims that Macedonians have both written and unwritten history and that Alexander the Great (Aleksandar Makedonski) is often mentioned in our stories. In former Yugoslavia all the nationalist movements were severely punished (the first president of People's republic of Macedonia Metodija Andonov was jailed for nationalism) and that is why there were no references to the spoken history and reference to. After 1991 in the Republic of Macedonia we can freely tell and write our history. Telling our grandfathers stories is what we are. Look the documentary one more time and listen to the historian. The statements of the politicians like Maleski, Karamanlis, Gruevski, etc. will be maybe of interest in 50-100 years. Today their statements should be excluded of all the encyclopedia articles, or mentioned with warning. (Toci (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC))


Is that good enough? I tried to find something more specific but za mene toa e špansko selo :). BalkanFever 07:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Same as the Japanese example above. "Macedonia" is just shorthand for whichever official name the country recognises. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't you agree that using "Macedonia" as shorthand for "FYROM" defeats the purpose of the dispute? BalkanFever 09:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear from that, and from the non-existant Google results that Uruguay recognises Macedonia under its chosen name.
Su búsqueda - fyrom - no produjo ningún documento.
Su búsqueda - former yugoslav macedonia - no produjo ningún documento.
Su búsqueda - "Antigua República Yugoslava" - no produjo ningún documento.
There are a fair number of results for just "Macedonia", and for one I don't blame them, imagine trying to pronounce ARYDM in Spanish! - Francis Tyers · 10:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
República de Macedonia on Uruguay .gov sites - Francis Tyers · 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And even more for "Ex República Yugoslava de Macedonia". Oops! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps "República Yugoslava de Macedonia" is the safest bet, as it covers both the "Ex" and "Antigua" variants. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well what do you know? Leaving the accent out of República almost doubles the results for fYRoM (as it nets the capitalised versions as well) but halves them for RoM. So fYRoM outnumbers RoM 10 to 1. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I bet it took some extra amount of work to carry out a manipulated search with that accented "u" which doesn't exist in English keyboards... Some here trying to prove a point maybe? And, guys, please quit it already with the one-by-one. You're getting nowhere because it's inconsistent (at best). I've proven it multiple times. See here for example... This chat here is a primary example for this valued article! (have fun reading!) NikoSilver 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL I know nobody cares, that's my point - inconsistency means they don't take it seriously. That's why I tried to get an email list from A1, but nothing yet. And I hope yourealise that you're only further undermining the Greek position with your link to that article. BalkanFever 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Even if nobody cares, that doesn't mean we can't have our fun. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And then you go apeshit over our fun. BalkanFever 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if "apeshit" is the right word for it; that would be a more apt description of, say, the 2006 Lebanon War in which hundreds had to die for the sake of two captured soldiers. But it is annoying, you must admit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Both sides of nationalism are annoying. That's why we still have a dispute. BalkanFever 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We're doing better than in the past; at least the dispute now is over semantics, not over territory. Ergo no lives being lost in mindless bloodshed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. There was never going to be mindless bloodshed though - at least I dont think so...BalkanFever 14:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean there used to be, over Macedonia. So this is progress. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually when I linked to "Nobody cares", I meant this for both sides. I bet Uruguay wouldn't give a damn if the compromise ended up in, say, "New Macedonia"; would she? I mean, come on, who can seriously argue that "New" is an "offensive qualifier"? (Unless of course we want for some reason to pretend they are "older"). Same does the US (at least they say so when they say they "will accept whichever compromise by the two states", but who knows what they actually think)... NikoSilver 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is "offensive" because it undermines their claim of an unbroken line of continuity between Alexander the Great and Aleksandar Milošoski. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Who? BalkanFever 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ Иван Михайлов. "". КАК ПИШЕХА НАШИТЕ НАРОДНИ БУДИТЕЛИ И ГЕРОИ. Retrieved 2007-01-02. 
    • ^ Димитър Влахов. "". Борбите на македонския народ за освобождение. Retrieved 2007-01-02.