Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

German Austria was renamed by allies to simply "Austria"

The claim that a country always has a right to name itself whatever it wants are false. For instance in 1919, Austria was officially known as the Republic of German Austria (Republik Deutschösterreich). Many territories it claimed under its control included regions that were later assigned to neighboring nations. Not only did the Entente powers forbid German Austria to unite with Germany, they also forbade the name; it was therefore changed to the Republic of Austria.

Irridentist.. that's a new one

Man, I thought an "irridentist" was a doctor that gave your teeth an eery glow. I guess you learn something new every day! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelled "irredentist" (with an "E' not an 'I')

Problem with much of this article

The POV problem with much of this article, in particular with edits such as the most recent ones by User:The Cat and the Owl, is that it mixes up two different things: reporting what somebody's (e.g. the Greek side's) argument is, and our own authorial discussion (as enyclopedia authors) of what the actual historical facts are. The article should really only deal with the first. The second should be left to our articles dedicated to the history of Macedonia or whatever. For the first, what you need as reliable sources is notable representatives of the partisan points of view, e.g. Greek government spokespeople. For the second, you need independent academic sources. What this article is now doing is mixing the two together in a coatracking way: ostensibly reporting the partisan argument, but then, at every corner, mixing in quotes from independent scholars that purport to prove that the partisan argument is correct. That way, people are mis-using this article as essentially a POV fork of "History of Macedonia": you get to write a history of Macedonia, but purely from the one POV rather than the other. Please don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The subsection I was editing is the "Historical concerns" of the "Greek position", so it's the Greek POV by definition. The sources I provided are coming from very well known reliable scholars (Eugene Borza and Loring Danforth) who are experts on the subject, especially Danforth. I chose to add quotes from the sources provided to the references and not to the section, simply to help readers follow the references, which anyway meet WP:RS standards. Of course there will always be people such as BalkanFever who don't feel comfortable with that, but since the subsection I was editing is the "Historical concerns" of the "Greek position", so the Greek POV by definition, my edits was NOT in a coatracking way and they have to get back.

To BalkanFever: We are used to such comments (..."learn the name of the country or gtfo") by you, stop reminding us your background. FYROM is the abbreviation for UN's "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", like it or not. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And Republic of Macedonia is the name of the country, like it or not. If you can't tell the difference, you can't be helped, and you definitely should gtfo. BalkanFever 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat-Owl, you didn't address my argument. As long as you don't show any signs of even understanding what the argument is, revert-warring is not going to help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FPS, independent scholars experts on the issue referenced, reliable sources, the section is Greek POV by definition, what more to address??? BF, you have been reported at ANI. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained to you why the independent scholars are irrelevant here. The section has the function to explain what the Greek position is. Not more and not less. For that purpose, you just need sources exemplifying the Greek position (like a government spokesperson), or even better, an independent scholar discussing the Greek position, as such (like Danforth does in part of his book). What the section must not attempt to do is pass judgment on whether or not the Greek position is correct. Therefore, there is no legitimate function in listing opinions of outside authors just because they agree with this or that corollary of the Greek position. You have been collecting quotes not to explain the Greek position but to endorse it. If you can't see why that is wrong, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I got your point. However my edits has nothing to do with "whether or not the Greek position is correct"! Anyway, shall I then at least add Danforth? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which quote of Danforth? If you mean the one I reduced here [1], the answer is no, and the reason is in my edit summary. That passage, firstly, doesn't say what you claimed it said, and second, it is not about how and why this fact is used as an argument by the Greek side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both, hence:"The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C. or with Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century A.D. as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim." and "Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is perfectly clear that the communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for fostering its development through a concerted process of nation building, employing all the means at the disposal of the Yugoslav state". (The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, not that one. So? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the other either. The one about the "construction of a Macedonian national identity" is, first, again not from a passage where Danforth discusses why and how the Greeks use this as an argument or what role it plays in the Greek position, so again, you are not explaining the Greek position, you are just heaping on what will appear as additional support for it. Second, you are quoting it incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion. Read the next sentence, it goes something like: "... but it doesn't begin with Tito in 1944 either, as the Greek side would want us to believe" (just reporting the sense of it, from memory, can't be bothered to look up the exact wording right now.) So Danforth is in effect saying that both sides are distorting history. You are ripping things out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the full quote: "The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the People’s Republic of Macedonia in 1944 as Greek nationalist historians would have us believe. It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of Macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like Thessaloniki, Belgrade, Sophia, and St.Petersburg. This period marks the beginning of the process of “imagining” a Macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a Macedonian national identity and culture." The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. So, this could possibly serve as a reference to support a sentence in the article that might go something like: "Greek nationalist historians tend to emphasise the late emergence of a Macedonian national identity, often quoting Titoist political initiatives around 1944 as its point of origin and denying or discounting earlier roots in the 19th century." That's what this quote has to offer for a paragraph about the "Greek position". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... The way you put will fit better in the "Ethnic Macedonian position", not the "Greek position"! Anyway, shall I edit it like you suggest, adding the full quote in the ref.? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the whole problem. You misunderstand what "Greek position" means. It doesn't mean that the paragraph should be written from the Greek POV. It means the paragraph should describe the Greek POV, from a neutral distance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, really, I got your point. That's why I asked you to edit it the way you suggest. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a try myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I edit the sentence in the "Historical concerns" to follow the rest of Danforths's passage to follow your above advice and avoid "quoting it incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find that particular addition very poor writing. Clumsy, redundant, and again tendentious. "Despite the fact that.... claim the opposite" is just silly. And, it's again outside the scope of the paragraph. It's about the Greek position, remember? The stance of the Macedonian nationalists doesn't belong here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it accordingly then! I'm self-taught in English... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But remember, not "incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion"... :) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good and "complete" quoting does not mean one has to report everything that an author happens to say on a given page. It means one has to report things respecting their context and the author's intentions. We've dealt with the Greek (over-)emphasis on the late emergence of a Mac. nation; the ethnic Mac. (over-)emphasis on earlier traditions and continuities is already dealt with elsewhere. No need to repeat that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FPS, by removing that sentence (Despite the fact that the history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC or with saints Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century AD, ethnic Macedonian nationalist historians claim the opposite...) from the section, you quote Danforth's passage incompletely, therefore in a distorting fashion, giving a false impression to the readers. Why don't you add it back with your good English? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there's nothing distorting about the sentence as it stands now. The topic of our section is the Greek position; what Danforth means to say about the Greek position at that point is just what it says now, not more and not less. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat and Owl, though I disagree with much in the approach to the Macedonian issue with FPS, I think you have not understood the nature of the quote here and therefore your editorialising is out of place. By wiki standards (whatever they are re file and I understand your aganaktisi) your editing reads like POV. Politis (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, so I added that sentence in the "Historical perspective" of the "Ethnic Macedonian position". Perhaps you can edit it a bit, unfortunately my English are not good to do it myself. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. [2]

Here I was thinking that this little issue had been resolved peacefully. Then come three agenda-driven POV accounts and do this.

It's hopeless. This whole article is a festering rotten mess of a POV nightmare. And it will remain so as long as it's in the hand of agenda editors who will not cease and will not leave it alone until every but every little detail has been given a spin. The result is abominably poor writing.

So you guys want every bit that might be understood as negative about the Greek position to be hedged with "it has been argued", while as long as it's critical of the Macedonian position it's presented as fact, right.

Also, just for the record: The one bit in this composite edit (the one inserted in the Macedonian section) is obviously redundant, this issue is already treated just in the sentences around it. And the other bit is falsifying. That wasn't a direct quote. And there's no use for that hedging there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta recognises Macedonia under its constitutional Name

http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5

Please sort Malta in the List of Countries that bilaterally use the name "Macedonia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait until it is recorded here :

http://www.mfa.gov.mt/

What is this other link?

GK1973 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Order of Malta" is SMOM - a non-state entity, but sovereign, so it has diplomatic relations with states. It would be a nice addition to the list, but alas, from the link here it is not clear if its position is for Macedonia-former yugoslav republic of, or Maceodnia-republic of. Alinor (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention in the article about the recent accusations about minorities

I read the whole article and nowhere is mentioned the recent row of letters sent by FYR Macedonia to the EU. It is technically off-topic but very actually on-topic. It is clearly perceived by Greece as very related to the naming dispute and common sense dictates that has a very strong merit. --Leladax (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: it's off-topic. This article is exclusively about the name of the state, nothing else. The continuous tendency of growing into a general treatment of all Macedonian history of politics must be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not off topic since it is the official stance of the government of Greece that it is on topic. Namely it is perceived - and IMO rightly so - that no such accusations would exist without the naming dispute. It is seen as a decoy related to the naming dispute and a non-real issue. In any case, it is not about my opinion or your opinion, it is related to the official stance of the Government of one of the Countries on the naming dispute specifically. --Leladax (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the international organizations dealing with the name FYROM

The article claims to be about the dispute while there is only mention of UN and that only in FYR Macedonia POV fashion (since it is immediately followed by "but most of its members don't care" etc.). Other organizations include (as found in Macedonia (terminology)): European Union, NATO, IMF, WTO, IOC, World Bank, EBRD, OSCE, FIFA, and FIBA. --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions versus facts on the naming disputer

Futper, you just removed a large section from this talk page and part of your justification was "This page is not for you guys to discuss your "opinions" about Macedonia". Actually I think that discussion is exactly what a talk page is for (it's not the article right?), We are trying to determine if something is a verifiable fact or an opinion before entering the actual article.

(long-winded material redacted again)

No, this talk page is not for exchanging opinions about Macedonia. It is also not for working out what is "true" or "false". It is purely for discussing what needs changed in the article, based not on our opinions but on what the academic literature on the topic says. The article is about the naming dispute. About the dispute as a topic of present-day politics, not about the historical facts regarding the issues the dispute touches on. This article is most definitely not about whether Alexander the Great was Greek, or whatever. Now, what aspect of the naming dispute do you think is currently not represented according to the way reputable sources describe it? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall where I gave "my opinions" in the last post. Didn't I just ask you for yours?

I also clearly stated I was not interested in getting into a discussion on ancient Macedon history (so I'm not sure why you make this point) If you carefully reread the Macedonian naming dispute article you'll see that a huge section of it deals with concerns over historical patrimony so it's clearly not completely irrelevant as you suggest. (which is also part of why the US condemned FYROM for anti-Greek propaganda) The essence of the Greek complaint is FYROM propagandists deny Macedonian (Greek) heritage in order to later claim it as their own history. I fail to see why on a talk page questions are being removed especially considering you were free to answer as you wished.

However, since you object I will happily ask these questions where ever you like. Would you prefer I asked on your talk page? Crossthets (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Which were the Greek's Byzantine days?

I will ask for an explanation. The introduction sounds a bit like nationalist manifesto. It says: "Greece, whose Macedonian province was the first region to be named as such, at official level, since its Byzantine days."
Please supply the facts or revert to my correction. Greek was not even official language during the whole Byzantine (I would write Roman, most precise historical term is Eastern Roman) period so please precise which were the Greek's Byzantine days. Macedonia is Greek region from 1913 and from 168BC it was Roman province and later part of the Ottoman territory called Rumelia up to 1913. (Toci (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Please don't try to re-write history. Not only Greek was spoken in the Byzantine empire but it is documented that in the Roman empire itself Greek was prevalent. Check the sources. --Leladax (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I find it extremely ridiculous that such a sorry state of an article gets even more nationalist extremist edits. It doesn't even include the organizations that call the country FYROM (as it has been stated above) and some editors pump it with even more pro-FYROM POV. This article is at a laughable state at the moment. The only article in the entire wikipedia that may be shedding some light on the issue is Macedonia (terminology) --Leladax (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You sound like a speaker for the Megali Idea. I am sorry for not sharing the same beliefs and views on history.

I am just refering to forgotten history times like the reign of Heraclius, the 7th century AC when the Greek became official language in the Eastern Roman Empire. 50 years before him ruled an emperor born near my city which is in the region of Macedonia who didn't use Greek and his name was Justinian I. Those were the non Greek Byzantine days, but the Latin ones. In the 7th century AC the Byzantine Empire also shrunk to the conquerings of the Slavs, Avars and Arabs as well. Macedonia could have not been very Greek then just when the Greek's Byzantine days begun. Later it becames there and there part of the Eastern Roman Empire, but it is hard to write Macedonia as Greek province or as Greek, when the population was known to be dominantly Slavic speaking and even more it became a center of Slavic literacy. Please stay objective. The line that Macedonia was Greek or a Greek province in the Byzantine days is unsourced and a Greek POV (part of the above mentioned XIX century ideology).

The edits can not be pro-Macedonian because there is dominance of Greek editors on Wikipedia. We are maybe 5 to 1. Everything that looks pro-Macedonian is based on hard facts. (Toci (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

I think you need to look at some maps from the time. I'm also amazed at the way you just miss things - Slavs, Avars and Arabs, but no Bulgarians. I wonder why. But back on topic - I think that the article is about the whole region - I mean, the controversy is because there is a whole region Macedonia. Yes, it is a fact that the Byzantine empire ruled all of it as such and for a long time. What you're missing is that while Macedonia (the territory present-day Republic) became a Scholarship centre of the Bulgarian empire, The likes of Thessaloniki have never fallen to Bulgarians. Besides it did return under Byzantine dominance in 1018. It was more than a century before it switched again. There are many evidence of the Greekness of Byzantines. You can even look at how Bulgarians turned to them - it was either Romei (Romans) or Gartsi (Greeks). And what about all those Greek states that fought to unite Byzantium once again? Why were they explicitly called Greek?--Laveol ^T 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are true. The Bulgars came as well, just a bit later then the Slavs, Avars and Arabs. I have not forget them. The Bulgars were the most succesful tribe, they formed a [kingdom, a khanate], a Bulgarian Empire, and the Roman Empire officially recognized the Bulgarian crown as imperial.

Macedonia (the territory of the republic) was not then under the Bulgarian Empire, but it was under the Bulgarian crown in the period of Samuel, not a Bulgarian himself (he was only slave of god, rb bozi as it is written) and he had Byzantian title. Even more his and his brothers kingdoms was not in Bulgaria, but on a part of the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and in a part of the Greek provinces of Macedonia. He didn't used the Bulgarian capital neither the throne. He received the Bulgarian crown and he included his lands to the remain of the Bulgarian Empire which in that time was under Byzantine rule with their hairs of throne being prisoners in Constantinople. In that time there were just the Bulgarian and the Roman emperor crowns around and he took the Bulgarian crown that cost him darely. He was defeated by the other crown bearer.

About the Greekness of the Byzatines the Bulgarians references are of an even later date then the Heraclian dinasty, when Byzantium (Roman Empire) was hellenized and the Greek was used officially. Then they begun to use both Romans and Greeks, but never Roman means exclusively Greek. In those days (after Samuel) Macedonia was under the Roman imperial crown and was not Greek speaking. Macedonia was dominantly Slavic speaking as it was Bulgaria. So you can't say a Greek province of Macedonia in the Byzantine days or Macedonia was Greek from its Byzantine days. In the same time when Byzantium (Roman Empire) was hellenized, Macedonia was slavonized. Therefore the Byzantine days story about Macedonia is unnecessary and has no verification in historical facts. (Toci (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm not a nationalist extremist. That's the problem in this article-group. FYR Macedonians accusing Greeks of being nationalist extremists and Greeks doing the same. This is a simple historical fact. If you are incapable of even visiting Byzantine Empire in this website to see that Greek was predominant and even Roman Empire to see that Greek was important, it is not my problem. --Leladax (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian ethnic group

Macedonian is attested in English from 1897, according to the OED. IMRO is older than that, if not much. Surely we should be discussing the last half of the nineteenth century? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in a sense you're right, it was used in the late 19th century by specific persons or small groups of people. The IMRO didn't use the name in connection to an ethnic group when it was founded in 1893. Can you please quote the OED reference ?--Zakronian (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The quotation from Gladstone now in Macedonia (terminology): Why not Macedonia for the Macedonians as well as Bulgaria for the Bulgarians and Servia for the Servians? Note that the relevant definition is:

A member of a people of Macedonia distinguished by their Slavonic language and culture. Also: a person identified with this ethnic group, whether or not a native or inhabitant of Macedonia.

Use for Ancient Macedonia is of course much older. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How old is this definition ? That's what i'm asking, Gladstone referred to the people living in Macedonia as the IMRO did in the first years, not to a specific ethnic group. I can understand that "in the first half of the 20th century" might point out to late events and as i said in a broader sense you are right but you are using wrong sources.--Zakronian (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition is of course younger, it was written by the editors of the OED. But if they list Gladstone's quote under the heading with that definition, it means they understand, in retrospect, that Gladstone was using the term in that sense. Now, whether they understood Gladstone correctly or not I have no way to check, but given the fact that early statements of Macedonian nationhood had been made by that time, it's certainly not out of the question. Have you got the context of his quote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, found it myself [3]. Very short and ambiguous in context. We can't really pin down whether he meant it in an ethnic or regional sense without speculating and committing WP:OR. Any treatment and interpretation of that quote in the reliable secondary literature (apart from the OED, which, I have to admit, is not the best of sources for the subtleties of Balkan politics)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And of course the Greek citizens of Macedonia were also calling themselves Macedonians. If somebody wishes to make a research through the two Greek newspapers of the 19th century in Thessaloniki, "Ermis" (Hermes) and "Fos tis Makedonias" (Light of Macedonia), as I have, Greeks in Macedonia call themselves Macedonians all the time. On the other hand, for some reason, they identify every known nation of the Balkans (Bulgarians, Turks, Jews, Vlachs, Serbs, Montenegreans, Croats, Romanians etc) but there is NO MENTIONING WHATSOEVER of any other peculiar, unidentified Slav ethnicity, any "ethnic Macedonians" or anything else of the sort. Greeks' main adversaries are the Bulgarians, who expressly are shown to be the majority around Bitola and Skopje. Everyone who would like to delve into the matter could try the 19th century newspaper archives of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. I could provide you with pdfs of scans and codenumbers if anybody should wish so.

GK1973 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

US Senate

Pmanderson is right: the resolution in the US Senate wasn't "passed". It was an initiative of a handful of Senators which was merely referred to the relevant committee ([4]), where it's apparently sat without being finally voted on for a year. (Of course it's got very little chance of being passed anyway, because it blatantly contradicts government policy, at least in its choice of wording. )

Given this state of affairs, I'd very much question whether the whole thing is notable anyway. These resolution proposals in some parliaments are a dime a dozen. Senators associated with some lobby group can bring in as many such proposals as they wish. Together with that FYROM resolution, there was also a resolution "Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School" and one "Commending the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for holding a 3-day celebration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of the Marquis de Lafayette" [5]. That's about the level of seriousness these kinds of resolutions have. Unlike the FYROM one, those two were actually agreed on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem: the Greek media take everything out of proportion to support the Greek position, and then it ends up here Examples:

• Gruevski at Goce Delčev's grave
• This resolution thing
• Panama switching to "FYROM"

About the last one, Macedonian press reports that in a call to Antonio Milošoski, Samuel Lewis Navarro refuted Greek media claims that Panama switched, and the country still uses "Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 07:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That being said, the Macedonian media have blown up a few incidents as well, but evidently we should also be wary of Greek news. BalkanFever 07:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. That way, it's not even the Greek contributors' fault. They just go by the narrow perspective of their national media. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Of the ten supporters (not nine, Menendez is not a co-sponsor) nine represent urban Northeastern states with large ethnic populations; the tenth is the only Greek-American Senator. Doubtless an act of constituency service, this bill may still be worth noting; the appeal which got it introduced may well affect the small tendril of American attention which the next Administration has to spare for the Balkans - particularly if it is Democratic, like the nine. I would propose:

On August 3, 2007, ten United States Senators proposed a resolution in the US Senate criticising the Republic for "hostile activities or propaganda" against Greece and urging "FYROM to work with Greece [...] to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM." The proposal was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee.<:ref>US Senate. "US Senate Resolution, Modern". 110th Session of Congress.</ref>.

but demoting it from a section to a comment on the position of the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FYROM supporters are neglecting that there are TWO US resolution(s) against FYROM not one. (The currrent article only makes mention of the US Senate one and should be updated to include the one from the House). H RES. 356 (a bill with similar text to 300 from the Senate ) was co-sponsered by a whopping 120 representatives in the House. It also specifically states

'"FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage"'

'"Urges the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to observe its obligations under Article 7 of the 1995 United Nations-brokered Interim Accord which directs the parties to `promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility' and review the contents of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information"'

Full text of bill. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr356/show Crossthets (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop labelling other people as "FYROM supporters"? I very much object to that characterisation. And nobody has been "neglecting" anything; the fact simply wasn't brought up by anyone yet. That said, that House resolution was also just referred to the relevant committee and has sat there without any further action for >15 months. Obviously because there's no chance it will ever be voted upon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Futper, between your editting history and your negative stereotyping comments against all Greeks (e.g. your comment above '"They just go by the narrow perspective of their national media"') it makes it appear like you have an anti-Greek POV. That is what makes me suggest you are a FYROM supporter (it was not meant as a pejorative simply a description of your political leanings). If you wish others to believe you have a NPOV it would require a more careful selection of words on your part and a far more even handed editing history when it comes to the main article. (statistically speaking here, you delete facts that support Greek positions in far great frequency than you do FYROM ones. I can provide a detailed listing on request.).

As for the House Resolution. You made several points to marginalize the Senate bill condemning FYROM for propaganda (signed by Obama... possibly the next US President) based on low numbers. I therefore pointed out the House bill (which you have made absolutely no mention of) had over 120 members supporting it which I belive made it was one of the largest supported foreign bills of the year actually. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest when a fair chunk of the government of the world's most powerful nation (heavily involved with mediating the naming issue) makes a complaint that severe... it should be completely negated from the article. As for you opinion that it (or a child bill) won't become more binding... my own opinion is that will largely be up to the behavior of FYROM government and whether they "abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Futper, I'm rewriten the entry to deal with your concerns of "flow". Given the severity of the anti-Macedonia (Greek Macedonians) propaganda issue and how it relates to Greece's original complaint of monopolization of the term "Macedonia" by FYROM citizens... I believe that a section is warranted (as was originally present). I will wait till tomorrow to give you an opportunity to provide input before reinserting the section into the article. After that you'll still be free to adjust if you feel I've said something factually inaccurate or something that could be more elegantly worded. Crossthets (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in insertion. I've been busy with non-Wikipedia related matters. I'm going to try to make time to add it in early next week.209.161.224.84 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama

The alleged "change" of Panama towards "FYROM" is also misquoted. The ambassador merely said that Panama will apply "for all purposes, the result that arises from the negotiations taking place under the UN", and that it commits itself to abiding by the relevant decisions of the UN regarding that country's name for international and bilateral use, according to [6]. Now, in the context of "result that arises...", the reference to "decisions of the UN" can obviously only refer to any future decision about a final settlement. He's saying his country will switch to whatever is agreed if something is agreed in future. For now, there is no "relevant decision of the UN" that would oblige any individual country to use FYROM bilaterally. The UN only ever decided that they will use FYROM internally. So by committing himself to UN decisions he is basically not making any commitment whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this section yet, but I changed Panama and used A1 [7] as the source. The most important part is quoted in the ref. BalkanFever 08:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate

Hello Everyone! Guess who is back? I want to remind everyone I will work harder through dialog and references this time instead of being a hot head!

Moving forward, under "stalemate" it states " In addition, many of the countries recognizing the state by their constitutional name reconsider their view and abide by the internationally accepted term" in which the only supporting evidence was the Panama case.

As stated earlier, Panama's statements did not mean it reversed recognition from Republic of Macedonia... but instead meant it will recognize a name agreed by Macedonia and Greece. Therefore I am removing this statement and will also be reading the rest of the article for other false statements.

I'd like to remind the Wikipedia audience that Macedonian articles are quick to be rejected while Greek articles are allowed to be used on WP because of the Macedonian vs Greek populations on WP. Greek articles generally write in a way to make "Greece look good" instead of stating all the evidence, and because only Greek sources are allowed to be used, the WP articles become Greek biased. This must be changed in the future because Macedonian nationalist websites like History of Macedonia are immediately rejected while Greek nationalist websites like Macedonia on the web are used throughout Wikipedia. This creates a double standard that does not allow unbiased articles to result. Mactruth (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Mactruth, spare us the complaints. There is no hidden agenda in WK to discredit the Skopjian point of view. They are clear facts that are being presented unlike the facts you guys are trying to include in these articles. I have just spent 3 weeks attending museums in the USA, Australia, Greece & Canada and in all of them i have looked at all things Macedonian. The coins, the statues, everything has GREEK writing on them. How do you explain this? I see no other form of text be it Illyrian, Panonian or anything. There are 1000's of history books written over the years some as far back as 500BC who ALL state that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe. How can you deny that all these historians were wrong and you are correct. For god's sake, present your academic facts when writing articles on this site, not your POVHellasforever (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)hellasforeverHellasforever (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO and EU accession talks

Under this section is the statement "The Macedonian government has not yet issued a statement on whether the proposal has been accepted or rejected" with the source being "Нимиц предложи формула за решавање на спорот (Nimetz proposes a formula for solving the dispute) (in Macedonian), A1 News" is outdated if read by a present audience. Mactruth (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the blocks of information in that section were added as updates of the situation as it unfolded. They all need to be converted to the past tense. That is, if they are kept. The information needs to be summarised and some of the quotes and reports need to be scrapped. That section is unnecessarily long since all it says is: Nimetz made a few more proposals and they didn't work out. BalkanFever 09:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland and Panama

I'd like to point out an example in which Greek sources are immediately used in Wikipedia without confirming it using i.e. governmental sources while Macedonians sources are rejected or delayed as long as possible before being allowed on WP.

Prior to my ban, I posted a link which stated Ireland signed an agreement with Macedonia under Macedonia's constitutional name. Immediately, Niko stated it was personal interpretation of a "biased ethnic Macedonian journalist" and pointed to an Ireland governmental source. Later on, Fut. Perf. sourced another Irish governmental source which contradicted Niko's source and Future Perfect stated "Recognizing another country's name is done by simply beginning to use it, and if that's what Ireland has just done [by signing an agreement with Macedonia under its constitutional name], then that's it." Future also reported that the Macedonian government also reported recognition by Ireland on the Macedonian government's official site which states, "The position of the Republic of Ireland for recognition of the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name has become official." Even with Future Perfect agreeing to my position, he stated to wait and see if more official instances of using the name turn up... and we continue to wait an see too this day.

On the other hand, when Greek sources stated Panama reverted Macedonia's recognition back to FYROM, the source was immediately used in the Wikipedia article and in the recognition region of the article. No government sources were used, no other sources besides Greek sources were used... but it was immediately accepted as fact (See the review here). We need to stop this double standard on WP. Mactruth (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, me and FP resolved Panama in the section directly above your "Stalemate" one, before your insight into the matter. The source was not "accepted" as you say - I didn't notice anything until I glanced at the lists, but then we fixed it. Now that you're here you'll be able to scrutinise every source that comes through, which is good since I don't have the time ;) BalkanFever 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland should be put in the "To be sorted" pile IMO, since they haven't bothered to change their foreign ministry. Just cite both the "FYROM" one and the "RoM" one. BalkanFever 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sniff sniff, macedonian sources are always rejected sob. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When one does not have an argument against the presented information, they make sarcastic or offensive comments. 3rdAlcove, state something useful next time. Mactruth (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sniffles? Tissue? Are you unbanned now? 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

3rdAlcove has a point, Mactruth. Your insistence on only Macedonian (I mean Macedonian from RoM; not Greek-Macedonian [to avoid confusion]) sources is getting not only tiring, but, worse, boring! You can do much better than that, if you try. I'm sure about that. Maybe if you start reading the relevant WP policies?!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Amount of countries recognizing Macedonia by its constitutional name

According to The Star Ledger Koloski stated, "124 countries recognize Macedonia by its constitutional name." Would I be able to update the article? Mactruth (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement is not confirmed in the article. Apart from that the figures 110 or 120 etc are placed as an indication, we haven't counted all the countries verifying source by source.--Zakronian (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems perfectly verifiable that Koloski said so. Saying that he said so, and saying who he is, should be unobjectionable. Our readers should understand that he is likely to have taken the constitutional side on any debatable cases, and add salt to taste. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not confirmed as true by the article's author i meant, just an attributed statement as you said.--Zakronian (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sept, you know very well WP policies. What Koloski says may be absolutely accurate, but the source itself (a statement by a Macedonian politician, confirmed by whom?!) is no way in accord with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. We need something better.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Koloski, president of the United Macedonian Diaspora, an international advocacy group, asserts that 124 nations recognize the Republic as the Republic of Macedonia." is both verifiable and verified. Whether it is worth saying is another question, in which WP:UNDUE comes into play. Prose attribution is a wonderful thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, technically. But in the end, what you mean with "undue" is probably the same as what Yannis means. The purpose of our article is not to explain what Mr Koloski thinks; the purpose would be to say what the number actually is. It just looks stupid for us to be quoting such a minor and obviously irrelevant voice when we really ought to know the number from better sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that nobody impartial has tried to make the count, and that many states that have tried to hedge. It may be useful as an upper bound, and is non-trivial: the UN has 192 members and there are about a dozen other entities which may be sovereign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw a recent Balkan Insight article stating 120 (or something very close). Will try to find. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Koloski has an account on WP lol! Why don't we just... ask him? 68.40.244.138 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you point us to his talk page? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On this topic, has the UN actually held a vote on all the member countries one-by-one? Simple: Ask the question "Do you recognise the country of Macedonia by its constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia)? - YES or NO". Then follow through ALL the member countries and tally the score. Have they done this? It will surely put an end to the debate. Let the world vote.BluePanther (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador

The same site, used as reference, is using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a headline in the diplomatic relations section in english. Note that the section in spanish has a newer event addition in the relations description text. So i think it should be moved to "list of countries/entities to be sorted" or we should define by further investigation the use of each. An email in case they have forgotten to change the english section might be helpfull. I don't know if there's a rule of thumb agreed upon on similar cases in the past. Waiting for a second opinion.--Zakronian (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble opening the link for some reason, but yes, it probably should be moved. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's working now. If you need to see the reference for "RoM", click on "Países con Relaciones Diplomáticas" or "Relaciones Diplomáticas". As an aside, I tend to trust the MFA versions in the official language, since they will be updated more often. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i've done that already, the english section doesn't give a direct link also just the the first menu page , i managed to find one with google somehow. Let's wait a little then if someone else has an arguement or cares to send an email.--Zakronian (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The El Salvador reference link is broken, could you check that it's pointing to the correct website and/or page? Walnutjk (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia

For some reason, links to specific pages at the Slovak MFA aren't working, and they all lead to the home page. If anyone needs verification, click on "Štáty sveta", then "M", then "Macedónsko". There is no use of "BJRM" or "FYROM" or their respective long forms. Only the Slovak versions of "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are used. It even uses the abbreviation "MaR" (which means "RoM") BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

COHA and Mr. Zlatko Kovach

Quoting from the article :

"To Our Readers:

In order to assure fairness and address concerns regarding the neutrality of COHA, Senior Research Fellow, Zlatko Kovach due to his Macedonian descent, COHA would welcome responses of other points of view in its “Forum”. It is our hopes that this would bring about verbose discussion of the topic at hand, insuring objectiveness, and prevent the possibility that a conflict of interest may arise. "

How can an ethnic Macedonian and a member of a think tank called COHA (one among hundreds in the US) be considered a reliable source ? The article has no references to backup his claims, apart from the nationalistic tone. --Zakronian (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do consider an international organization a a reliable source. Bijornos (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The only reliable source regarding Brazil's recognition or lack thereof would be a link to the Brazilian foreign ministry (or at the very least a Brazilian government) website. Besides, Kovach does not claim what some editors here think he does: "Despite Greece’s obstruction of Macedonia’s diplomatic recognition, some countries like Peru, Paraguay, and Suriname have had the courage to recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name. Others, like Brazil or Argentina, have been more circumspect, but have nonetheless extended recognition and established diplomatic ties with the “Macedonian government.” For those who have difficulty understanding English, this means that Peru, Paraguay and Suriname are among the countries that have recognized a "Republic of Macedonia" (under that name), while Brazil and Argentina, being "others", are not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he says Brazil and Argentina refer to the government with which they have relations with as the "Macedonian government". He's using quotes to represent their terminology, not his. Moving on, while I don't doubt that what he says about the recognitions is true, this is most definitely not a reliable source. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing. Australia, for example, recognizes a "Macedonian" language in its census but no country called "(Republic of) Macedonia". And the section is about the official state name under which diplomatic recognition has been granted. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian perspective- historical viewpoint

Someone has unfortunately been increasingly cutting out entire paragraphs from this section. Its a shame that people are so narrow minded about pushing political agenda rather than being open to learning some real historical facts. Never mind. I will re-do the section. Hxseek (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You should not have deleted the part about the Slavs arriving long after the ancient Macedonians had been absorbed into the common Greek culture. It's an indisputable historical fact that is crucial to the debate over the legacy of Macedon. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I? If so, only inadvertently. I do not doubt that the Macedonians became Hellenized after they conquered Greece.

My arguements will be based on these points

(1) That the Macedons were greek is not a proven point. In fact many non-Slav historians propose that they were Thracians/ lllyrians or a mixture. I agree they were then Hellenized. But lets compare the French - many celebrate a Celtic heritage despite the fact that they were Romanized for 2 centuries, and then even Germanized a bit. The main bulk of the population stays in the place. All the "wipe out" theories about the post-Roman migrations are outdated and incorrect. The people always stay there. The culture remains - albeit it may be a modified one. Just a new language is introduced.

(2) That modern Macedonians are a mixture of Slavs and original Balkan inhabitants. Whether it be Hellenized Macedonians or Roman-speaking Macedonians (in the geographical sense). This is based on archeological evidence which show that there was a blending of pre-Slavic and Slavic cultures. Supported by anthropoligists like Carleton Coon, and now genetic evidence.

(3) In the wider region of Macedonia as a whole, Greeks became a relative minority. The Greek part of Macedonia was not fully Hellenized until post WWII ! We all know of the anti-Slav stance of the right wing greek govt after the civil war, where Slavs had to accept Greek names,and many Slavic toponyms were changed to Greek ones. part of the Hellenization of Greece involved the mass immigration of GReeks from other parts of the area, primarily Asia.

(4) All this means that Ethnic Macedonians do have a heritage in Macedonia extending beyond the 600s AD. Even if it was acquired through a greek medium.

Modern Greek Macedonians - many of whom have asian heritage or are simply hellenized Slavs, do not have any greater right to this than "Slav" Macedonians. As i put it, they have deep genetic heritage from the Balkans stretching to Paleaolithic times, speak a SLavic language, and have a Byzantine influenced culture.

Regards

Hxseek (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that the Macedonians have always been a Greek tribe, albeit one on the border of the Greek world. There are theories that they are Illyrians, Thracians, a mixture... actually there is also a theory that they come from Egypt, even from Serius (yep... there is one...). What is not really disputed by the academic comunity is that even if they were Hellenized, which would mean they were not Greeks before, the process had ended long before their conquest of the rest of Greece, somewhere during the 5th or 6th century. Actually, according to Herodot, the Macedonians were among the first, original Hellenes and were the ones to hellenize the Athenians... also, worth mentioning isn't it?

GK1973 (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1) You are using the lack of conclusive evidence to arrive at a conclusion...

2) and the conclusion is that Macedonians were hellenized being a distinct people before, are you going to pass that as a fact in your edits ?

3) No we all (i suppose) know the nationalistic tendencies in the whole region for the first half of the past century. We don't know to what extent we had a forced hellenization, same goes for Bulgarization, Serbianization etc.

4) No, we don't conclude anything from your speculations, give sources about the mixing of cultures and the "important" genetic contribution that's worth mentioning in this article.

One last remark, don't waste your time leaving offensive comments in my talk page, they will be deleted. Not worth my time reporting your behaviour.--Zakronian (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the terms in which you choose to articulate your argument that I have a problem with, Hxseek. For your line of reasoning to hold true, the Macedonians would have had to retain a distinct identity or culture beyond their "Hellenization". If they ever had one to begin with, that is, which makes the term "Hellenization" itself inappropriate. They didn't see themselves as "Hellenized Macedonians", they saw themselves as Greeks, pure and simple. A more accurate way of presenting the history would be to say that the Slavs intermingled with the Greek population they encountered when they arrived in Macedonia, and that yes, the modern "ethnic Macedonians" could well be a product of this admixture. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All modern Balkan nations are products of admixture more or less, depending on location we could be more specific. What he's trying to push in other words is that somehow the ancient Macedonians were hypnotized for 10-15 centuries by the Greeks and suddenly they woke up and remembered their distinct ethnic identity while mixing with the arriving Slavs.--Zakronian (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your humour, that is not what i am saying.

You cannot prove that the Macedonians saw themselves as Greeks. Much of what we know about them is written by Greek historians, because they were the "Gate-keepers' of the ancient world, given their level of sophistication. This means the way they present other people is skewed according to their own political agendas.

I will be more than Glad to give sources about the intermixture of cultures and people. This is no secrete or fringe theory. I am saying that the Slavic arrival was just the latest addition to the heterogenous ancestry of modern Macedonians. There is a continuum of people from Greece to Ukraine, to Spain. Where one language ends and another begins is bery arbitrary and is due to rather random events over history.

My other point is that Macedonian Greeks claim that they are the "real Macedonians" . I am merely illustrating that many Macedonian Greeks ancestors were Greeks moved in from Anatolia, Syria, etc, or were SLavs that became Hellenized over thousand years. So it is a bit rich that they see themslevs as the "real Macedonians", and Slav Macedonians as imposters and stealers of history. Hxseek (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you still not get it? The question of whether the Macedonians were Greek or not prior to the Hellenistic Era is completely irrelevant. By the time the Slavs arrived in Macedonia a thousand years later, they were. And that basic fact cannot be whitewashed to suit anyone's revisionist agenda. The onus is not on us to prove that a Greek-speaking population of Greek culture and traditions was Greek, but rather on you to provide evidence to the contrary, namely that there was a distinct, non-Greek, Macedonian identity at the time of the Slavic incursions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid you are missing my point. Never at any stage have i either denied that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized, nor have I ever made an allegation directly connecting ethnic Macedonians with ancient Macedonians. I understand the thousand year disparity between the two.

My point is that before the Slavs arrived, the wider region of Macedonia was not a tabla rasa. There were still inhabiatants there. The same people that have been living there since ancient times ! Yes, they were all probably Hellenized (barring small groups of Latin-speaking communities).

What you fail to see is that there is a difference between being Hellenized and being ethnically Greek from the outset. When a people is Hellenized, or any thing else "-ized", they still retain local peculiarities. Following on, the Slavs then merged with these people. Cultural contacts flowed both way. Its just happened that Slavic was kept as the main language because the Slavs probably formed a dominant super-stratum. Thus my point is that an element of the cultural and genetic "heritage" of the ancient inhabitants of the region - irrespective of whether you call them Greek or whatever- was passed onto modern Macedonians.

Secondly, my arguement lies in the arguement of Greek Macedonians who see themselves as "real" Macedonians, and that only they hold the right to allude to the historical greatness of Macedon. I am highlighting that during the medieval ages, the presence of Greeks in Macedonia fell to a minority level. IT was only through Hellenization of SLavs (which was only fully completed in the modern era), and the migration of Greek-speakers who are not native to the region that Aegean Macedonia became demographically Greek again. Thus it is ironic that Greek Macedonians arrogantly boast their "real Macedonian" heritage when most of them have only lived in Macedonia for less than a thousand years.

MOdern borders are artificial constructs. This man made dichotomy does not legitimize one country's efforts to monopolize a region with a poly-ethnic and complex history

Quad Erat Demonstrandum :) Hxseek (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the "Hellenized Slavs" you speak of were actually just Slavicized Greeks, who were ultimately "Hellenized Macedonians". In other words, they ended up exactly where they started. "Thus it is ironic that Greek Macedonians arrogantly boast their "real Macedonian" heritage when most of them have only lived in Macedonia for less than a thousand years." You mean there are people alive today who have lived in Macedonia for more than a thousand years? Now that is impressive. By the way, when has Greece ever claimed that the modern Macedonians are the direct lineal descendants of the ancients? What it does say, rather, is that the legacy of ancient Macedonia is an integral part of its national heritage, and thus belongs to all Greeks. The fact that the only Greeks called Macedonians in a modern context are the inhabitants of Macedonia is a simple function of the fact that they are the only Greeks who happen to live there. It's hardly rocket science now, is it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna have to repeat that one, coz what you said makes no sense Hxseek (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you guys are all so confused.it s funny the amount of crap that can be said by ignorants.

First, even if we consider they were hellenised, it does not mean they were not greeks before.In fact, given their greek names, and greek polytheism well before their supposed hellenization, well it s rathor odd to insinutate they were not greeks...

Then, we don t know how close their original language is to greek, but we do know that they spoke greek for the most part of their known history, so no matter how you look at it, they either way belong to history of greece, just like both celts, britons, and the german anglosaxons belong to history of the UK even though they spoke different languages and were different peoples at the beginning (but they merged to form modern england....and in any case macedonians merged with greeks to form latter greeks.....so even if we consider they might not initially have been greeks, it doesn t make any difference. Also, the same can be applied to a lot of other countries, like france, with initial distinct celtic people merging with germanic ones, but nobody starts winning about that in skoje city right?)

The truth is, that when we examine the arguments held against greece, well i find it silly that you neutrals out there on wiki (not greeks, or slavs that is) don t realise that the very same argumants can be applied to all european countries, thus by using those very arguments, i can dismantle history of FRANCE, BELGIUM, GERMANY, ENGLAND, NETHERLANDS

Because all those countries had initial celtic and germanic elements that merged in together. In fact, greeks (including macedonians) were all greek-speaking greeks a thousand years before the germanic speaking saxons arrived in the celtico-briton speaking modern day england. same for france, same for everybody.

But you guys, just for the sake of having skopje's arguments section that can even the greek one in size, keep those arguments that in reality can be used to dismantle any european nations history.

And the funny thing is that, even that way, we do know that ancient macedonians had greek names since the very beginning of their recorded history, and that, what they spoke was according to ancient sources, and modern findings: doric (pella curs tablet-katadesmos),

however, WE DO KNOW that ancient celts, and germanic saxons or Franks that formed the modern english or modern french people, had distinct origins and distinct language.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOME SERIOUS DOUBLE STANDARDS ISSUE NOW OR WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.165.200.231 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Kekrops I see what you are saying in regards to the ancient Macedonians. However ... . Hxseek (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FYROM's EU accession logo.svg

The image Image:FYROM's EU accession logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Macedonia barbed wire.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

South Korea and Indonesia

Be more carefull with your sources, South Korea has not established diplomatic relations with any name. For Indonesia you are using as reference an article in the official site, but in the relations description page Macedonia (FYROM) is used. Removing South Korea, waiting for another opinion on Indonesia. --Zakronian (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thailand

I'm moving it back to the RoM section. The Prime Minister's speech at the UN General Assembly is irrelevant, as it is the UN, where everyone uses "FYROM". This was the whole reason for the renaming/clarification of the sections a while back, because otherwise everyone needs to be sorted. BalkanFever 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think everybody uses FYROM in the UN, it's not obvious to me, can you show me a previous discussion on the matter to see any decisions or opinions ? I thought the same thing myself, that it would be the most preferable place not to use RoM, but i don't consider a list of condolences more credible, many counties use "Macedonia" as an abbreviation to "FYROM" or "Macedonia/FYROM" etc, but when you see "Macedonia" alone in any, not even closely related to the country, section of an official page you use it as a source. --Zakronian (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a precedent, official US statement to the OSCE using the constitutional name. I wasn't able to find any official statement to the UN with any name, i you find one that includes the provisional name by a country that uses "Macedonia" otherwise than i will consider the source irrelevant as you said. --Zakronian (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're confusing me with Cukiger, because I check things a bit more thoroughly than him (at least I think I do). Anyway, if people are using "Macedonia" as an abbreviation for "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of "FYROM", then what's the point? It just goes to show how the country in question doesn't really care. BalkanFever 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing you with anybody, apart fromt that although i consider Cukiger unreliable i try to respect every user's edits the same. My arguement is simple i believe, we have to give a certain degree of credibility to each source regardless of the decision to use it or not, and when i say sources i don't mean MFA sites in general but the specific content of each page of an MFA site. We are talking about a badly written list of condolences when we most often use bilateral relations, diplomatic missions, visa reguirements or detailed official news report MFA pages (the first two are preferable). I also noticed that it uses the "Hellenic Republic" reference while the easiest conclusion from the Thailand-Greece relations page is that the most common name is used officially, that makes me think the list was compiled in a hasty manner, transferring the names from the letters without much consideration, i agree that they don't find it so important, neither did Gerhard Schröder while standing next to Karamanlis at a press conference in Athens a few years ago for example, if we take an "uncensored" record of his statements from a reliable source can we use that also ? Not if we have better sources. As for the relevance of the UN speech i am still not convinced, i only found a discussion where you and NikoSilver took a decision to change the headlines to avoid conflicts. Of course it would not stand against a more credible source. It's not just about Thailand, if you (mostly ethnic Macedonian editors) are planning to reach the 120 number claim with sources like this don't expect everything to be accepted with good faith only. I don't understand the purpose of these lists anyway, especially when the criteria are so loose.--Zakronian (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, Zakronian. The sheer inconsistency in the Thai source means it probably shouldn't be used at all. A list that refers to Greece as the "Hellenic Republic" but the fYRoM as "macedonia" (with a lower-case M, no less) can hardly be considered authoritative. Besides, almost all other countries are listed with their informal short names. Does the Kingdom of Thailand really recognize the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as "UK"? One has to wonder...  ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I could make a fuss about Argentina also, i have found several press releases, like the one used for Kazakhstan, that included the provisional reference but i personally thought it would not be right to move the country cause the "RoM" source is clearer in that case. I don't want to discuss the matter forever, it's one country, i made my point about sources in general. Maybe a discussion should be made about the purpose and the structure of the whole section. --Zakronian (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Singapore

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_consularvisa.asp?web_id=229

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_ConsularVisa.asp?web_id=121

http://notesapp2.internet.gov.sg/mfa/dipCon/dipCon.nsf/FMDetailsAgent?OpenAgent&id=194

The last two links mention "Macedonia', The first one is the pre-selection page of the second, i added it for the disclaimer.

The third is just a copy of the source i added with the difference that it hasn't been updated since 2004.

Do i have to draw my conclusion ? If anyone finds something else post it here first to save time. Cukiger, try not to call me a "parrot" even by mistake, it leaves a bad impression. --Zakronian (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did what!?!? Cukiger (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add on the matter ?

(In the edit summary you said "sorry, zako", strange mistake :p) --Zakronian (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just shortened your username. Does it mean "parrot" in Greek language? If so, I did not know. Cukiger (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means "parrot" in some Slavic dialects in Greece, with a fat "z" it is used in Russian for pheasant also. Anyway, do you have any other source or arguement for moving Singapore again ? Cause i think it should be.--Zakronian (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving Singapore to which list? Obviously, the country uses both, the constitutional name and the refernce, doesn't it?. Cukiger (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference in weight, the visa information page is for Singaporeans, it's more of a practical matter stating "Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia " in China which uses the constitutional name. I don't think most of the citizens of Singapore have any knowledge of the dispute, the most important thing to the purpose of this page is to inform for visa reguirements not to state the official name used, not that it's completely unrelated though. Moreover from the third link one can conclude that there was a change in the official position. If you disagree with me i won't move it, but remember your arguement. A third opinion would be helpfull also.--Zakronian (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs to the list of countries to be sorted, because of the first link (with 'macedonia', but without any reference to the embassy in China). Cukiger (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the one you added, the 1999 statement (press relase or something) ?--Zakronian (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's the difference between this situation and Brazil? Are we disregarding visa info? BalkanFever 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree a source like this is ideal: Turkey. It's in English, and it clearly states Turkey's position. Can't beat that. BalkanFever 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically for Brazil it's the only mention in the MFA site i found, the embassy site (which i consider less credible) was added to show that the country does have diplomatic relations, not so much for the name (something that's not clarified in Costa Rica for example), "Fyrom (Macedonia)" was enough for me not to add it elsewhere. Now in general, using the UN name in a visa reguirement info page would not raise as much doubt as the opposite, because as i said before it's not unrelated but the purpose is mixed, one can think for a reason to use RoM when FYROM is official but what would be the reason to use FYROM in a page like that other than to be clear of the official country position or because they ignore the issue and the existence of a different constitutional name (which might mean that either they don't recognise/have bilateral relations with the state but have a visa policy or that they do not care to know better and follow UN standards) ? One last remark, since the list is used for countries that either have a specific stance which we are not able to specify at the time being and for those that don't really have a concrete position, when we analyze two contradicting sources we have to bear in mind the possibility of changing positions, my source for Singapore mentions the last update so we can exclude the possibility that FYROM has changed, that also raises the odds. Another example is Argentina, i found a press release from 2001 that uses the reference, not to mention 2-3 similar press statements in relation to the UN, but we have to speculate that the embassy page is more up to date and reflects a recent change. This Turkey page is indeed ideal, not many similar sources to work with. I will say it again, given the loosely defined criteria i'm struggling to assume good faith on the way this section is dealt.--Zakronian (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow Cukiger will be able to edit again. BF, i suppose you don't have a problem, so i will wait one more day and then put it back.--Zakronian (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

Please, find more evidence before adding Armenia. For example here [8], here [9], here [10], etc this state is reffered to as FYROM Kapnisma ? 08:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it is to be added it should go to the list of countries to be sorted, definetely.--Zakronian (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Austria

I dont know if someone asked this before, but why is Austria not in the "List of countries/entities to be sorted", too? Neutralista (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you know German, could you look thoroughly around the site and see? BalkanFever 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, Austria is such an insignificant country, I'm sure they were omitted on purpose. Austria only has apple strudel and Mozart, why would we care how they call the country of Sarma and Tose Proeski?

But actually, they do seem to be using just "Macedonia" ([11], [12]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On this page with a disclaimer distinguishing their own usage from that of the EU: [13]. Plus a list of bilateral treaties, using "RoM" since 2002: [14]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) LOL, I'm sure you're not biased ;) That's in reference to your first comment BalkanFever 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)