Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

The New Round of Reverts

Check this:

WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."

After this, and keeping in mind the equal-votes poll, reverting is considered vandalism!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C)

That is why the naming dispute section exists. Bitola 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just bolded the two words in the previous quote that make the difference between section and initial paragraph. I think, that since the name of the article is still negotiable (both in WP and in a diplomatic level), the very LEAST we can do (for now), is to include the other name in the top. Sorry, tough luck!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaning the changes I made - read before you revert!

  1. The naming dispute at least in wikipedia was resolved. Unless this changes: Stop disputing the name in the article itself - there is a link to the Naming dispute article for that.
  2. The sentance recognized by most states and international organizations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - FYROM is false anyway - most countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name. "International organizations" is a relative and very strechable term (you surely dont have the statistics to support your claim)
  3. Making the former flag appear smaller is just funny. But If it helps solving the situation, I wont object to it. It's silly.
  4. All those sites that reffer to Macedonia as FYR Macedonia are overloading the article. And if they are mentioned, then we should also put links to all the government sites of countries that recognise the constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia. But this would unecessarily overload the article even more. So if you wish do it in the Naming dispute article (ofcourse be fair and represent the other side too - countries and organisations that recognise the constitutional name)
  5. "Some countries" is relative term and you only have a source for one (not really valid - daily politics). Anyway since you're so insistant that it should be included in the article, lets make it percise:
    1. The link from an official European institution is surely more suitable than the greek link.
    2. The claim that Greece secured the European future of the Balkans is just false - Greece is not in a position to shape European politics and strategy in such a way, no matter how much it supports the process.
    3. You dont show the whole picture - the reafirming of Macedonian EU prospects after Ms Merkel's statemant (I provided links earlier in this discussion, greek users didn't even bothered to discuss it)
    4. The whole game of words looks malicios. The whole paragraf looks POVish, not very percise and argumented.
  6. The satelite picture shows area outside the borders of Republic of Macedonia. But ofcourse it does - no country has a rectangle shape. Nobody seems to be bothered by this in other articles. Anyway the map doesn't show the whole region, so the sentance Satellite view of Macedonia, as a geographical region is false anyway. Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.
  7. Final note: this is an areticle about Republic of Macedonia. It's not about the naming dispute and it's not about bashing Republic of Macedonia. There are a lot of other things to talk about here: economics, culture, transportation... Please refrain from distorting the article and overloading it in certain areas.

--Realek 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1.The name has to do with this article too,so it can also be discussed here,since it has to do with how the article is named.
2.u are kidding of course when talking about organizations...just to mention some:UN,EU,FIFA,FIBA,UEFA,Counsil of Europe,UNESCO,include this in UN if u want,but it still remains that the international organisations call the country FYROM and especially the largest and most well know organisations. comment about the former a matter of fact,i have no idea why it is still in the article.all the countries have former flags,but they are in the respective articles,were they belong.keeping it here is just...funny.
4.if u want to present the countries that call FYROM by the name "Macedonia',u have to mention that they do this only in biliteral relations.also,the sentence Republic of Macedonia is a member of a number of international organisations such as the United Nations, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe Council of Europe, associate member of La Francophonie, World Trade Organization (WTO) etc. is POVish enough,since these organisations recognise 'FYROM' as their member,not the 'Republic of Macedonia'.
5.whether u like it or not,Greece plays a very important role in the Balkans and it has a word in the accession of these states in EU.Merkel's statement is a fact,and so it has to be included,unless u do not want to refear at all about FYROM-EU relations...
6.since i've seen claims from FYROM to the whole geographical region,this image cannot be the way that u want.u said 'Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.',change the image... is about FYROM in all aspects. --Hectorian 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. The naming dispute at least in wikipedia was resolved. Unless this changes: Stop disputing the name in the article itself - there is a link to the Naming dispute article for that.
  2. The sentance recognized by most states and international organizations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - FYROM is false anyway - most countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name. "International organizations" is a relative and very strechable term (you surely dont have the statistics to support your claim)
And how is an international organization a stretchable term? How is the UN, WTO, NATO, EU, the World Bank for example stretchable? What statistics are you refering to? FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Making the former flag appear smaller is just funny. But If it helps solving the situation, I wont object to it. It's silly.
Ok, nothing wrong with expressing your opinion. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. All those sites that reffer to Macedonia as FYR Macedonia are overloading the article. And if they are mentioned, then we should also put links to all the government sites of countries that recognise the constitutional name - Republic of Macedonia. But this would unecessarily overload the article even more. So if you wish do it in the Naming dispute article (ofcourse be fair and represent the other side too - countries and organisations that recognise the constitutional name)
The article is hardly overloaded with mentioning the international name in the beginning. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Some countries" is relative term and you only have a source for one (not really valid - daily politics). Anyway since you're so insistant that it should be included in the article, lets make it percise:
    1. The link from an official European institution is surely more suitable than the greek link.
    2. The claim that Greece secured the European future of the Balkans is just false - Greece is not in a position to shape European politics and strategy in such a way, no matter how much it supports the process.
That again is certainly your take on the subject matter, open to debate. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. You dont show the whole picture - the reafirming of Macedonian EU prospects after Ms Merkel's statemant (I provided links earlier in this discussion, greek users didn't even bothered to discuss it)
    2. The whole game of words looks malicios. The whole paragraf looks POVish, not very percise and argumented.
  1. The satelite picture shows area outside the borders of Republic of Macedonia. But ofcourse it does - no country has a rectangle shape. Nobody seems to be bothered by this in other articles. Anyway the map doesn't show the whole region, so the sentance Satellite view of Macedonia, as a geographical region is false anyway. Furthermore this is an article for Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia the region.
It's not false, how can you say that? It sure does cover the entire region. (minus a little bit in the very eastern end of the Greek part). I would not object to "satellite image of the Republic of Macedonia". It would be especilly nice if we could find an example where the borders are drawn, like this one or this one. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Final note: this is an areticle about Republic of Macedonia. It's not about the naming dispute and it's not about bashing Republic of Macedonia. There are a lot of other things to talk about here: economics, culture, transportation... Please refrain from distorting the article and overloading it in certain areas.
Sure but the name used in international organizations sure is used quite common and you simply cant avoid it. FunkyFly 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Really sad! I won't argue with you... I'll just have to let any neutral person to make his/her own conclusions from what have been said. --Realek 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You could try, truth is born out of arguments (well most of the time) FunkyFly 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Realek,i thought that u brought your thoughts here for discussion,right?otherwise,u should had said not to comment on them... --Hectorian 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I try to discuss, but even obvious things are disputed (out of nationalism, out of arogance, out of bad intentions). Every time I try to show good faith or to be as constructive as possible I'm met with lies, distortions, insults... It is really sad that few greek users spend their whole days butchering articles on Macedonian, Turkish and Albanian issues. --Realek 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Something might be obvious to you (because of your own nationalism, arrogance, or bad intentions) but it might not be so obvious to others. FunkyFly 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Carefull there. When I mentioned those words It wasn't personal. You are making a personal attack here. Consult NikoSilver how to make a personal attack without being punished. He recently gave Reaper7 a lesson how to insult me without being blocked. He seems to be an expert in the area. --Realek 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! I told him:"However, I strongly advise Reaper7 to refrain from bad language towards other users, or he can be blocked for that also (read WP:NPA)." (right above), and in his talk, after he insisted that "fool/silly" (LOL) is not considered an insult, I told him: "Ok. If you wanna use fool/silly, use it, BUT, not ad hominem (i.e. not he is silly). You can always say this is a silly arguement. Not too often though AND with full citation, or you won't be taken seriously when you say it." (here). According to Realek, this is a lesson!!! From this, you can judge how NPOV he can be on all other issues as well!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Mine's also not personal, rather refers to editors from THE REPUBLIC. FunkyFly 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Realek,at least u cannot blame me for personal attacks(insulting u)!if i did,or any other did,just report careful when using the words 'nationalism,arogance,bad intentions',they may fit to the people of your country more than to the greeks.and yes...the greeks are butchering all articles...pffffff...what a comment!now,what would a nationalistic greek do for u breaking the 3RR? --Hectorian 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Reaper7 called me a fool and an idiot. I leave for others to conclude if it was a personal attack. And the difference between my coment and FunkyFly's is that mine wasn't personal. So If you blame me for using those words you should blame him much more. --Realek 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not taking sides when users have conficts between them for personal stuff.personal attacks can be forgiven,resolved,replied by another personal attack,or is none of my business.all i care is the articles. --Hectorian 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I do! and I advise them NOT to do so, as I am advising Realek right now!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, there's nothing to discuss here, the version with the footnote (and not with the redundant edit) was discussed long time ago, and compromise was made. See the archives if you don't believe it. And stop already, think freely, not nationalistic! And get real - the name is Republic of Macedonia Bomac 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the initial paragraph stays with the comment about FYROM, either you like it or not, just as Greeks don't like "RoM". You get real, and RTFM: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." The discussion "a long time ago" you mention, finished with an EQUAL votes poll. I expect EQUAL appearance of FYROM in the article (and just the initial paragraph is far from EQUAL already). Reverting is considered vandalism!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I've modified the first paragraph to add a sentence that "It is recognised diplomatically as the "Republic of Macedonia" or the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM)". I've also removed the stand-alone name "Macedonia" from the first sentence. The country identifies itself as the "Republic of Macedonia", hence the article name; the different names are a matter of diplomatic recognition, rather than self-naming. -- ChrisO 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the prior introduction, i.e, before this sleigh ride began (again), which was a discussed and agreeable conciliation to address the multiple viewpoints regarding the country's name; the above rationale is rather subjective. As per the country wikiproject, most countries have short- and long-form renditions that differ but are generally noted in the introduction: this case is only slightly different with the adoption of FYROM ... which is already linked to and noted below in a dedicated section of this article (for those wishing to insinuate arguments regarding undue weight) and at length in the foreign relations article, and also increasingly deprecated. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is not acceptable. You will have to give EQUAL appearance of FYROM in the article. Your "discussed and agreeable conciliation" is far from general concensus of the editors of the article. The users involved in that talk were E Pluribus Anthony , Bitola, naryathegreat, Erath and Jonathunder (i.e. 5 users in total). Based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each", I will keep reverting, unless we come into a real concensus.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it will have to do until you can compel and garner consensus for edits that support your position and said changes, which doesn't exist. A previous agreeable arrangement, lasting for weeks during which little politically has changed, cannot be obviated by wilful changes that are supported by even fewer editors than originally. As well, little has transpired that would necessitate changes regarding toponymy that are already given due weight (in the form of an entire section) and, arguably, excessively in this overview article already. Anything otherwise will be judiciously dealt with. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but your position is unacceptable by WP policy. As per "judiciously dealt", I am picking the glove.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's unacceptable to you ... but agreeable with both policy and most editors involved in these discussions. Garner consensus before insinuating a point-of-view. Pick all you want, but harping about changes which are insinuated by a minority and being made without consensus will be dealt with judiciously. Until you can compel otherwise, deal with it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
After reading all the discussion here, i have not yet realised why is it such a big problem if we and the name 'FYROM' in the first paragraph. the international organisations and several countries refer to the country with this name. we just have to follow what the world recognises. --Hectorian 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a consenual project and the current version was consensually arrived at; recent edits, though not necessarily personally disagreeable, have not been. Importantly, this is an article about the country, not the name: juridically, RoM is unambiguously used (which if, anything, is a truncated version of FYROM and sufficient on its own), and a dedicated section already exists to address this – arguably, enough consideration in this overview article has already been given to the name. Moreover, said edits seem to flow from those who wish to expatiate propriety over the name and who cannot or will not accept the republic's statehood. (And before various editors get up in arms about this, note that I'm writing this from across the pond and my father was born in Tripoli). If necessary, I'm for reopening the issue but, given all of the above, see little reason to. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the article is titled RoM is a result(among others) of 'those' who now want the term 'FYROM' to be incuded in the 1st paragraph. i am not disputing the name of the article, cause of good faith and wiki rules. But i will insist for the term 'FYROM' to be included in the first paragraph, simply cause it does not violate any rule, and because it is a name widely, internationally, and officially used. it is a name for this country and it has to be mentioned 'hand-by-hand' with the other one, for as long as our fellow diplomats are still discussing the dispute. --Hectorian 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily disagreeable; however, given the agreeable conciliations arrived at (which recent opponents were either unwilling or unable to contest when originally implemented), I am not as insistent ... and am resistant given the lack of consensus in doing so. Recent opponents decide to change the article and to late embolden text in what others might perceive as deprecating; others will change it back. And for what? I maintain the prior rendition/version a balance of the two positions and see little reason to forego it yet.
Looks like we might have to have a vote on that. FunkyFly 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
in case someone has not understood what i mean,i am saying that the country is rocognised by both names. hence, both should be added in the 1st paragraph. --Hectorian 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and NPOV

FYROM stays in the initial paragraph. And in bold. WP:CON does not apply to 5 users discussing in a page. Until you can provide TRUE concensus, deal with the reverts, based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Nor does it apply to a position beheld by less than five users with NO consensus. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not democracy, and i am sure we all know that. and this goes to all the users involved in this topic. i am saying and insisting in keep being compatible with what is going on with the name problem of this country. and it is so simple:it is recognised by both names, so both names will be stated in the first paragraph. anything different than that is simply POVish. --Hectorian 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a democracy, but various users insinuate edits without requisite consensus or sufficient discussion beforehand. Problems result ... and nothing herein solves them. Moreover, the article can't possibly be partial given the note linking to a dedicated section regarding this issue. And I'm sure Macedonians would take issue. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The article can't be POV-ish because it has a compatible dispute section. High Elf 22:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Just listen to what you are saying, E Pluribus: If there was even a true WP:CON by 5 users that we should change the name of the article to "Banania", that would supersede the rule of WP:NPOV and we'd rename it? Let aside that the "consensus" you are referring to is not valid.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Argument = red herring. Pot, meet kettle. Given the presence of a dedicated section (and link), accusations of partiality are bogus. Moreover, given the contentious nature of this article, my point is that NO consensus exists for said changes, no matter how proper they are. Perhaps you should try to constructively discuss and propose changes before insinuating them ... or should have expressed dissent in January when the conciliatory note was first implemented. In cyberspace, noone can hear you scream. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus helps us to determine, through discussion with involved editors, how to make the article consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We discuss which viewpoint is the majority one, what other viewpoints are notable minority ones important for conclusion, and which ones are fringe and should be left out of the article, and we attempt to reach consensus on those issues. Jkelly 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jkelly. That is exactly my point. There was no real discussion as to which viewpoint is the majority one, nor was there any discussion about which are the minority ones. The alleged "consensus" was conducted under our noses, in no time, by irrelevant users. On top of that, I disagree with your edit summary comment. It is evident to me that WP:NPOV is much more powerful than WP:CON, because NPOV is what the consensa seek.  NikoSil</b&amp;gt;ver  (T) @ (C) 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There are pages and pages dedicated to this issue, openly discussed; if discussions were conducted under 'noses', it's only because said users had them elsewhere or were otherwise indisposed or not compelled to dissent. And I'm unsure who or what the inchoate "irrelevant users" is supposed to refer to. And, still, little has been presented to substantiate that the status quo is not impartial. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I should have stepped forward then, but I was a newbee. We learn as we age (see my favorite motto in my userpage). Irrelevant users, means that I haven't seen the names of the involved parties of the "consensus" as frequently appearing in this talk, as I have seen tens of other users. Status quo substantiation, can be described in 20 characters: WP:NPOV#Undue weight It is obvious that the "Naming dispute" is the hottest issue and the reason why we have 7 arcives of talks already. My POV is that this is THE most serious issue, for the article and for the readers. I think the "Naming dispute" section is definitely unequal in strength to: (1) the name of the article and (2) to the initial paragraph. That's all I've been substantiating about since the beginning of this talk!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw this: The Note. See how many users are trully involved in this "concensus"!!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is rather inchoate and am unsure what it demonstrates; the wikilink to "The Note" and that discussion differs from that which has been in place for the last two months. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


About the bolding of FYROM in the first paragraph, we've been having a dispute similar to this over at the Persian Gulf page. It seems that according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, alternative names should be bolded. However, the dispute is ongoing, whether "Arabian Gulf" is an alternative name or not. The issue here is different - FYROM is definitely an alternative name - however this whole issue seems too controversial to make things simple. What does everyone else think? --Khoikhoi 23:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

i think that if we can bold, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, an alternative name of a gulf that has been called mostly Persian for far too long, we should definately bold the alternative name of a country that has been using the other name for just 15 years(for as long as the alternative name). not to mention that this name is in use officially by many countries and organizations in diplomatic level. --Hectorian 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Adding the bolding per... WP:BOLD !!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I've reincorporated the alternate lead, consistent with the MoS, and have balanced it to clearly indicate the nature of the alternate name. Moreover, I've measured disdain for the approach taken by various editors, primarily from ones surrounding Macedonia, that insinuates a particular opinion under veil of neutrality and has overly-politicised this by foregoing or ignoring prior consensus – and yes, it did exist, despite naysayers. My only hope is that a renewed consensus materialises – which has not occurred yet – that equitably treats the country in this overview article. And I reserve the right to restore the prior version if a consensus isn't evident or for other compelling reasons. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Anthony. There is a new nationalistic approach around, that has the unique property of recruiting most anti-nationalist, liberal people, without them knowing it. It is a new kind of nationalism that instead of focusing on increasing the national awareness of its own people, it tries to decrease the one of all others. That way, it can impose it's multiethnic philosophy to any other nation by even recruiting local unaware liberals. This, is the most dangerous form of nationalism ever invented! I believe that people need to live peacefully, while respecting each-other's cultural, linguistic and historical differences. Globalisation is a wonderful thing that will help most people come closer to one another. It will also help people mix and make nationalism an unnecessary cause. It is good, however, that different cultures, languages and histories exist, because a single one would make this planet a very borring place, and because diversity can help progress in diverse fields. I try to be neither the traditional old-fashioned nationalist, nor the dangerous new kind. It's just difficult to find the golden section...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I can see, the compromise solution is not longer in place. Ok, then I’m also not obligated to follow the compromise guidelines. As the Naming dispute section was created only to exclude mentioning of naming dispute in other sections (which is now in a great extent violated with putting the reference in the first section), I will now remove that section as no more relevant in the same way as I created it.Bitola 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the above, I've little argument. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't expect so. I do, though: WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Dear, Bitola, there was no consensus to begin with, unless you consider "consensus", your little talk with naryathegreat and flavsavr here. Unless equal weight is given to both names, you cannot expect consensus. I consider the initial paragraph and the Naming dispute section, FAR inferior to the NAME of the article (unless, ofcourse, you want to discuss renaming the article). I remind you that a relative poll ended with EQUAL votes.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, the effect of our “little” talk (as you are describing that) lasted for several months and now you are initiating the edit warring again (maybe that is your goal, who knows).Bitola 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"As the Naming dispute section was created only to exclude mentioning of naming dispute in other sections "
You can't just decide on your own and order around in wikipedia. Nor you can simply ignore the importance of the UN-officially recognised name by claiming that it is only allowed to appear in one single section. Whether good or bad, the name FYROM has right now an official status, hence we're not given an option. It's an obligation to mention it in the head, I don't even we this is still being discussed. There's always going to be a minority of people to oppose consensus, this should not affect the neutral editing policy. Miskin 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone please demonstrate that a consensus exists now? Good luck. And arguments regarding neutrality and undue weight are moot, even inflammatory, given the ethnicity of said editors and vocal insinuations of this or that. If a consensus isn't in place or can't be demonstrated, usurping one which clearly existed previously, I see no reason to not restore the prior agreeable version ... which, I might add, is reflected in other compendiums like the Encyclopædia Britannica (Ready Reference) (which notes FYROM below in its entry), its annual yearbook (through a note, as per the status quo), the Oxford English Dictionary (which doesn't even note FYROM), et al.

Funny you say this, because the American Dictionary Thesaurus right next to me states (amongst other definitions):
  • Macedonia: A landlocked republic in the Balkans; pop. 2,038,000; capital:Skopje, official language: Macedonian. Official name: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... (in bold)

Miskin 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) doesn't note FYROM at all. Given the various renditions and the above, the status quo (with upfront note and dedicated section below) seems to be both equitable and appropriate. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The annual yearbook (2005) that was previously mentioned, also includes FYROM in the head of the article and provides a reason:

  • Macedonia is a country in southeastern Europe. From 1946 to 1991, it was the southernmost of the six republics that made up the federal state of Yugoslavia. In 1991, after the republics of Croatia and Slovenia broke away from Yugoslavia, Macedonia also declared its independence. Macedonia is also referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to distinguish it from the region of Macedonia in northern Greece.

Miskin 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. For the Macedonia entry in my yearbook edition (2003), Macedonia (p. 663) is indicated (short name), with official name – Republic of Macedonia1 – and footnote to the bottom of the page which indicates the following: "Member of the United Natons under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia."
The entry for the country in the EB Ready Reference indicates the following verbatim (wky as they do):
Macedonia: officially Republic of Macedonia; Country, southeastern Europe, southern Balkans region.
Area: 9,928 sq mi (25,713 sq km). Population (2000 est.): 2,041,000. Capital: Skopje. Two-thirds of the population are Slavic Macedonians and about one-fifth are Albanians. Languages: Macedonian (official). Religions: Serbian Orthodoxy, Islam. Currency: denar. Located on a high plateau studded with mountains, Macedonia has few mineral resources and is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Agriculture is central to its economy, and includes the production of tobacco, rice, fruit, vegetables, and wine; sheep herding and dairy farming are also important. It is a republic with one legislative house; its head of state is the president, and the head of government, the prime minister. Macedonia has been inhabited since before 7000BC. Under Roman rule, part of the region was incorporated into the province of Moesia in AD 29. It was settled by Slavic tribes by the mid-6th century AD and was Christianized during the 9th century. Seized by the Bulgarians in 1185, it was ruled by the Ottoman empire 1371-1912. The north and center of the region were annexed by Serbia in 1913 and became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) in 1918. When Yugoslavia was partitioned by the Axis powers in 1941, Yugoslav Macedonia was occupied principally by Bulgaria. Macedonia once again became a republic of Yugoslavia in 1946. After Croatia and Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia, fear of Serbian dominance drove Macedonia to declare its independence in 1991. In order to appease Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, it adopted as its formal title Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and normalized relations with Greece in 1995. In 2001 ethnic strife endangered national stability as pro-Albanian rebel forces in the north, near the Kosovo border, led guerilla attacks on government forces.
My point is this: renditions differ and the Wp status quo, arrived through agreement (while the recent one was not) is an apt conciliation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of online encyclopedias have articles about Macedonia under that short name (not even under the Republic of Macedonia as we are using it here in order to satisfy constant objections of some Greek editors):

  • Encyclopedia Britannica [1]:Macedonian Makedonija , officially Republic of Macedonia , Macedonian Republika Makedonija country of the southern Balkans.
  • Encyclopedia Columbia [2]:Macedonian Makedonija, officially Republic of Macedonia
  • US State department [3]:OFFICIAL NAME: Republic of Macedonia

However,I agree to keep the current rendition unless someone comes with a really good arguments for a better solution acceptable for the majority of editors of this article. Bitola 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any majority here. You posted twice the same source, and then a source which is not encyclopaedic and describes a USA-specific policy. Britannica does mention FYROM, except not in the head, but later in the section. Britannica also starts the "Macedonian (Slavic) language" by "Macedonian Makedonski Jazik South Slavic language that is most closely related to Bulgarian", and makes constant references to "Macedonian Slavs" - wikipedia policies which have been already in favour of the Slav Macedonians. Miskin 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
B., I think the point is this: renditions, and viewpoints, do differ ... which lends even more credence to the status quo. Neither extreme will do. The current version is IMO the "golden section" previously alluded to, not – as some recent editors would have us believe – the goldbrick insinuated recently. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning all significant names in the first paragraph. I think that the solution in this case is pretty straightforward: to describe the situation as it actually is. The country describes itself in its constitution as the Republic of Macedonia and it is also known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because of the naming dispute with Greece which has yet to be resolved. LionKing 03/04/06

Furthermore, it is inherently biased to omit the name FYROM from the first paragraph, when the name Macedonia is included. LionKing 03/04/06

Straw-ncensus and WP:NPOV#Undue weight


of all, since we have a "consensus", as you call it, kindly provide me the names of the consenting and opposing users that took part in it. I dare you.

(In the talk below it is illustrated that the ...consenting parties were less (5) than the ones now disputing this parody of a "concensus". Another "consensus" also emerged that the article was for three years with the name FYROM in the intro. The opposing users say that the "naming dispute" section was added in order to remove the name from the intro. The supporting users say that both should exist, since the naming section is neutrally positioned, and far inferior in readability to mentioning the name in the intro.)


WP:NPOV can be described as the constitution (policy) of WP. Even if your WP:CON (guideline) is valid (which it is definitely not as everybody will see if you dare post the names of the consenting parties), that does not mean that we will break the constitution in view of a mere law. You do not need to comment on this point, but keep it in mind, so that you understand how significant the existence of a true consensus is. For more information on that matter please refer to WP:CON#Consensus vs. other policies.

(No comment has been made to support the validity of this "consensus" to the extent that it justifies as a reason to break the WP:NPOV policy.)


Both sides have presented enough evidence in 7+1 Archives (or 80,569 words, or 493.8Kb, without the ones you are now reading) that the names are both significant.

(Both sides continue to discuss. This arguement is gaining validity.)


A large part of the countries in the world call the country "FYROM", two of the three largest English-speaking countries (Australia and UK -under EU- vs USA just recently) call the country also "FYROM", and all (repeat: ALL) international organizations call the country "FYROM". Examples of the latter are: UN [4] , IMF [5], EU [6], EBRD, [7], NATO [8] and OSCE [9].

(Disputes of the word "all" have been presented by the opposing editors, nevertheless, an example has not been presented. Also, the opposing editors claim that certain individual members of such int'l organizations recognize the country as RoM. The supporting editors claim that the organizations themselves (not all individual member countries) never use the term RoM (at least officially) and always use the term FYROM, they also say that these countries cannot be counted twice, i.e. both individually and within int'l organisations.)


A simple google search is not clear to see how often the names are used. One needs to eliminate all possible mentionings of the name "Macedonia" for purposes that do not refer to the country. Also, since this is the English version of WP, one has to search for pages written in English. Such a test has been conducted below. The results are obvious, please compare:

The search uses all possible forms of FYROM:

"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
"Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia"
"FYRO Macedonia"
"FYR of Macedonia"
"FYR Macedonia"

Excluding: Wikipedia and "Republic of Macedonia" (to avoid double inclusions).

Please note that this exclusion, does not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).

The search excludes some obvious words that refer to ...other Macedonias [sic]. Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions:

-Cyprus (ie all Greek sites)
-Thessaloniki (the capital of the Greek part of Macedonia)
-Salonica (other name for the above)

-Ohio (yes, there is a... Macedonia in Ohio!)
-Pittsburgh (in Pittsburgh too!)
-Connecticut (you guessed right)
-"South Carolina" (here too)
-Canton (also)
-Texas (also)
-Alabama (also)
-"Michael Macedonia" (there is an artist by that name)
-Corinthians (The Bible mentions the name –as Greek, ofcourse)

-Former (to exclude all possible mentionings of the name for FYROM)
-Yugoslavian (also)
-Yugoslav (also)
-"F.Y.R.O.M." (also)
-FYROM (also)
-FYRO (also)
-FYR (also)

Same note as left: These exclusions, do not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).

(Nobody has disputed the validity of the above tests yet.)

Why did you exclude Yugoslav??? It doesn't seem fair. The country name in the Yougoslav federation was Socialist Republic of Macedonia. And it was an integral part of the Yugoslav federation. Not to mention that until 1991 Greece had NEVER objected the name of the country. --Dipazi 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At last! A dispute for the Google test! Did you even bother to check what the result would be if I didn't exclude "Yugoslav" and "Yugoslavian"? Check it here: 6.64M results!!! Thank you for your contribution in my point!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


There was a recent poll, for a similar subject: whether the article for the ethnic group, should be called "Macedonians (ethnic group)" or "Macedonian Slavs". The result of the poll was a tie.

(No comment has been done yet to disconnect this poll from the article.)


The Republic has willingly accepted the official provisional name "FYROM" that has been provided by the United Nations. This is a demonstration of selective self identification. This self identification is POVishly renounced by some FYROM users due to their extreme nationalistic feelings.

(The opposing party suggests that the name was imposed to their country by Greece. The supporting party states that the name was imposed by UN to both, as Greece didn't want the use of the word "Macedonia" at all. In any case, both countries had to accept it for superior reasons.)


All FYROM-like redirects are landed to the article, then the reader could expect to have the name bolded in the introduction paragraph. Otherwise an ignorant reader that clicked on the FYROM link trying to find what it is all about would be completely lost.

(This comment was pointed out by an administrator who participated in the talk. It has been adopted by the supporting side)


The much respected CIA World Fact Book, (which has been used as a reference to many controversial WP articles) (here) uses the exact same way of listing both formal names in the intro (despite the fact that US has rushed to recognise the country as RoM).

(There were comments made against the validity of the Factbook, versus e.g. the State Department. The problem is, that the State Dept is not a factbook. It is rather a fact-paper. It has also been presented that the US government has declared that it will adopt any name that is derived by the bilateral talks of Greece and FYROM.)


Most major English-language media outlets do call the country FYROM as well. Examples:


Geographic name servers, such as the NGIA GNS specify both names: here


In view of all this, the name "FYROM" should be used as the name of the article. If not (for now), then at the very least, it should appear in the intro sentence along with a well presented link to a Naming dispute section as well. Whatever more arguments are presented by the other side, they are just one more justification that BOTH names are under strong debate. I am NOT taking sides in this debate (as the FYROM users are), I am only saying that BOTH names are strongly considered, they are BOTH significant and they should BOTH be presented in the article EQUALLY. Any other solution is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be treated as mere vandalism.

As you see, there is a strong case for including the name FYROM in the intro. For those not yet convinced, that their view is naive, POV and nationalistic, or just "any-version-is-fine-as-long-as-there-are-no-reverts-so-let's-get-done-with-it" I will keep reverting the article, unless there is true consensus. I am closing my statement now, I have an article to revert.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


  1. FYROM in the intro -OR- rename article as such
  2. CLEAR link to Naming dispute section in the intro (not *, but at least ).
  3. Naming dispute section with a neutral summary of the Naming dispute article (as it already is).
  • A version that incorporates all three points, to an acceptable level, had been created by admin ChrisO [here] at 02:35, February 20, 2006, but it was reverted by E Pluribus Anthony with the edit summary comment: '"(while not disagreeable, restoring prior intro, which was the result of prior discussions; talk to propose changes)", which is no longer valid. Naturally, all subsequent changes (that do not affect any of the above points) can be added.

 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps,NikoSilver,there is nothing to be said against the statements u have made here. or there is noone willing to reply and contrantict your edits... --Hectorian 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please disregard my last 'edit summary comment', as it was written under extreme psychological pressure. Naturally, I do not intend to performing 3 rv's for ever, I am willing to discuss this, and hopefully one of the two sides will be convinced.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please also note, that since I consider the above "strong case" indisputable, I will be glad to participate in the WP:RFC procedure, or a new poll if you wish.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the answer why somethimes nobody bothers to answer some of the stuff written here: often it is irational and pure nonsence (and insulting also). So when you dont get a comment, don't jump into a conlusion that nobody dares to opose you. Maybe nobody thinks that some comments deserve an answer. Furthermore I tried to clear some pretty obvious stuff, but I didn't get attention from some users whatsoever. Instead it was promptly burried under a ton of mostly irrelevant stuff. --Realek 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for including your wisdom in this talk. Anybody else? or shall we start the poll and the WP:RFC with these as the comments for your party?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Realek,these things are relevant to the issue. instead of denying what is true, better try to find something to contrantict the edits. what NikoSilver wrote is not his ideas or thoughts, and not replying to them seems that u silently accept them as a fact. --Hectorian 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hectorian surely you should be more critical towards your self. Many relevant issues didn't get answered here. They got buried under greek nationalistic comments. So dont claim Victory quite yet. Lately I avoid commenting about my name/nationality issues. I consider those "discussions" irational and they are also insulting me. NikoSilver, If you want a poll on this issue, you surely wont object to polls on similar issues, or am I wrong? --Realek 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please illustrate your point and I will gladly answer, as I always do (unlike you). I am signing off for tonight. We will continue tomorrow. This blind nationalistic POV pushing to exclude vital information without discussion will be highly criticised in the poll/RFC.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
NikoSilver you are of course 100% correct. The fact is that narrow minded administrators here who do not get this issue at all, will threaten you with the 3RR. It happened to me. --Avg 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well at least consensus among greek users is not an issue :))) --Dipazi 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
U are right Dipazi! the same goes for the skopjian users as well :))) --Hectorian 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
At least you should decide what insulting term for my nationality you will use in the furure. We can't be Skopjians, Fyromijans, Bulgarians and Slavomacedonians at the same time --Realek 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Realek, I stopped to answer insulting comments from a few users a long time ago because, believe me, they don’t deserve an answer. Bitola 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh, I see, so a Greek that comes from the region of Macedonia would be a...? Because this is who Macedonians are to Greeks. You are Macedonian as per yourselves. Sixty years ago you decided to appropriate a name and a history that was someone else's. It happens that there are people here who know a thing or two about how you came up with this name. Of course I don't blame you personally, since you were born within this propaganda and it's virtually impossible to think out of the box. So there is no "insult" in calling you with a neutral name (and not the one you stole from us). --Avg 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This still reminds me of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Bomac 14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try countering the argument? --LionKing 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs should make reference to FYROM. Indeed, the above statement is true: the Republic willingly accepted the official provisional name "FYROM" provided by the UN. All wiki contributors to this question have done exhaustive research and seen that international organisations also use the term 'FYROM'. Some people object to this; I respect their objections but facts are facts. The bottom line is that RoM/FYROM and Greece are very good neighbours who co-operate and agree on all important issues. Athens supports a united Republic to its north, secure and free of corruption. The 'FYROM' issue is a temporary fact between friends. Politis 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I have protected the article so you could solve your dipute on the talk page rather than by edit warring abakharev 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Protection of Republic of Macedonia article

Hi, thanks for your help with protection of Republic of Macedonia article. I'm just asking you if you can make a little change and protect the compromise version of the page. Namely, before several months, after a long and exhaustive edit warring around the name, all relevant editors (both Macedonian and Greek) agreed to make a compromise. The compromise was to create a new section especially intended to describe the naming dispute and to include ALL DATA related to this dispute there (although such sections are unspecific in all other articles about a country). The compromise was related to the intro section as well: we agreed to include a piped/wikified superscript note (*) to the initial sentence/reference that will lead to the naming dispute section. Now some users are not satisfied with that and initiated the current ongoing edit war, but I think it is fair to protect the compromise solution as the only one relevant at the moment. One of the compromise versions is this: [10]. Bitola 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Protection, is not an endorsement of a version, it is just a tool to force the users to find a compromise on the talk page instead of the revert warring. If there is a consensus to make the requested change, I can do it while the page is protected. I am certainly not an expert in the matter, but I would think if this is Ugly Name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is used by many respectful International organization and the redirect is landed to the article, then the user could expect to have the name bolded in the introduction paragraph. Otherwise an ignorant user that clicked on the FYROM link trying to find what it is all about would be completely at loss when he would land on this article. This is just my uneducated opinion, please find a better compromise on this talk page. If the compromise would not be found, lets file an RfC to start a Wikipedia-wide discussion. abakharev 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand something. Bitola says that Greek editors agreed to that compromise, I can't see any Greek editors anywhere in that discussion. --LionKing 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't see them because they are like the Yeti! You can also not see any counter-arguements, because there aren't any. You can ONLY see POV-nationalistic replies like "insulting (?) comments", "insulting nationality term", "these discussions are irrational and insulting me", "your comments don't deserve an answer" and "there used to be a concensus between Me, Myself, and I". Nobody from the FYROM side has true arguements, nobody dares to point out the consenting users, and nobody has what it takes to call for an RfC or a poll.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Every user can check that archive and see that you, user:NikoSilver was pretty much involved in the discussion before the reaching of the compromise solution. Where have you been then to say something against the compromise? Bitola 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absence does not necessarily mean agreement. He did not participate in that discussion, so you can't claim he agreed to it. --LionKing 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks LionKing. User Bitola has a point, I should have stepped up. Trully, I didn't see it, as I was kept busy discussing with him irrelevant matters in other sections of the talk. And even if I had, I'd not know what to do since I was (and may still be) a newbie (I didn't even know how to check 'history' so as to see messages posted in other parts of the talk). The fact that something unjust had been unilaterally decided without me and other users noticing it, doesn't mean that we must not rectify this injustice. Does it? On the contrary, the more time the allegged consensus version was on air, the greater the harm that has been done and the greater the remedy needed.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a straw poll - I think the administrator who blocked the page made a good point about the redirects. --LionKing 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution

Let me explain again the situation happening at the Republic of Macedonia article. The last compromise solution stopped edit warring for several months before user:NikoSilver and other Greek users started to violate the compromise. The compromise was built on the following:

  • All data related to the naming dispute was incorporated into the newly created Naming dispute section in order to avoid repeating of same thing in every section of the article, beside the fact that this problem is already covered in lenght at Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue.
  • A superscript note to this new section was added in the intro section

With the addition of temporary reference in the intro section, the compromise is violated and we have mentioning of naming dispute in two sections. I (and IMO all Macedonian and other neutral editors) will not allow mentioning of this naming dispute in several places in the article. All users must understand that this article is not dedicated to the naming dispute, instead it should deal with all aspects of one country as Macedonia is. For that reason, if the temporary reference is going to stay in the intro section, the Naming dispute section will be no more relevant and it is going to be removed from the article in the same way as it was added as part of the compromise, that way avoiding the repetition of same thing in two sections and making a balance between the desire of Macedonian editors to completely eliminate the ugly reference from the article and the desire of Greek editors to overload the article with the naming dispute. Bitola 10:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the country also goes by the name FYROM then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph, the reasons can be dealt with later on. As there is clearly no consensus now, a new one should be formed. In my opinion, Wikipedia should respect the UN's decision and name this article "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - as that has not happened, the least that can be done is to mention the other name at the start. --LionKing 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that some encyclopedias refer to this country exclusively as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so merely mentioning it as an alternative name is not dedicating the article to the content dispute. Also, I would dearly love to meet these neutral editors, where are they? One's stand in the matter is not always dependent on ethnicity. I thought Wikipedia was descriptive, not prescriptive. But here you are prescribing the use of the name Republic of Macedonia instead of describing all alternative names. It is inherently biased. --LionKing 10:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of the compromise was to avoid mentioning of the naming dispute every time Macedonian issues are mentioned. Therefore it was put sparately and a link is to be provided when it's relevant to mention it. User Bitola is right when saying that Macedonian articles shouldn't be burdened with so much naming dispte, nation negating, language negating, country bashing... just to please the nationalistic sentiments of some users. There are much more things that should get mentioned, but they are neglected because all the energy goes in edit warring! --Realek 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the CIA World Fact Book gets away with it They mention it many many times... without POV usage of footnotes to supress information. --LionKing 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course the CIA also has nationalistic sentiments. --LionKing 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

CIA doesn't have the dilema what to call the Republic of Macedonia anymore. In fact it doesn't even use the whole name - it uses simply Macedonia. --Realek 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to New Editors

There is a dispute since last weekend (April 2-3, 2006) between mainly Greek and FYROM users, as to whether the alternative name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" has to be inserted in the intro paragraph of the article. The Greek position has been outlined just above in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Straw-ncensus and WP:NPOV#Undue weight section. Until now, only a part of the outline of the FYROM users position has been posted at the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Compromise solution section by User:Bitola. The new readers of this page should not base their judgement on the complete arguements of just one of the sides.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want, but the compromise solution I made with other relevant editors at the time was a good example of collaboration between the editors and nobody even mentioned the naming dispute on that page for months until your recent attempt to overload the article with the naming dispute. However, as your attempt is not accepted by the majority of Macedonian editors (see the history page of the article): (user:Bitola, user:Realek, user:Bomac,user:Dipazi, user:Vlatkoto etc) and several other editors like user:Upon the stair, user:Jonathunder, user:E Pluribus Anthony, you should now start to find a new compromise or accept the existing one instead making insulting comments with using of the temporary reference for the Macedonian editors.Bitola 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the burden is on NikoSilver to convince you. Collaboration means one side making a proposal to another and then counter proposal being make until a mutually acceptable one is found. Your compromise version, achieved when all Greek editors were away is equally unacceptable to them. The user ManiF, who appears to be in some way affiliated to Iran preferred the Greek version as did Khoikhoi and FunkyFly, so it's not exclusively Greek. OTOH it has been explained why your "compromise" version will not do, you have yet to explain why the "Greek" version is not good enough. Why can't Wikipedia be descriptive instead of prescriptive? Why must it prescribe the use of the name Republic of Macedonia when it could describe all alternative names. I understand that you dislike the name FYROM, but why do you have to illegitimize it? If the UN can use it, then Wikipedia should give it sufficient prominence. --LionKing 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice! At last we have an attempt for a list of the allegged consenting parties. Can you please also add links to the quotes of their approval in this parody of a consensus?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is that list ;-) --LionKing 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is really sad that you are calling a parody (?) the consensus reached among user:E Pluribus Anthony, user:Bitola, the admin user:Jonathunder, user:naryathegreat, Greek editor user:Erath and probably all other editors at the time, because no one objected the consensus then and in the next months, but what can I do? I’m still waiting to see your compromise solution as I already provided one. Bitola 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You show no sign of intention to co-operate nor collaborate. Do you agree to a straw poll like NikoSilver proposed above? --LionKing 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean "compromise solution" - your version is a much as "compromise solution" as the version I was reverting to. I fail to see why your version is special - the name FYROM was in the first paragraph long before you even joined Wikipedia [11]. Through all 2005, 2004, 2003, the name FYROM was there. Who rocked the boat? --LionKing 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitola, why don't you click the only consenting "Greek" User:Erath to see his/her Babel? Even if s/he is Greek, do you call "consensus" 4 pro-FYROM users and only 1 allegged Greek user? Are you writing this seriously? Do you have what it takes to ask for a new true consensus, since this one is disputed already by more users than those who participated?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more constructive here

Guys, please be more constructive instead of riding the tall horses and throwing personal comments to everybody else. We all can understand feelings of people forced to name their motherland by such an ugly name. On the other hand, while UN and many countries use this name we have a duty to our readers to somehow mention it in the intro. Any ideas how to do it without upsetting understandable feeling of Macedonians would be very welcome. abakharev 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not discovering America here and this argument has been repeated countless times, but since there is a bilaterally accepted name, which is FYROM, why not use it in Wikipedia? Neither side likes it, but they both have to use it until they reach a solution. It seems obvious to me that deviating from that name would be taking a position on the issue. --Avg 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no bilateraly accepted name! The refference is a temporary solution forced on my country in a time and circumstances in wich it wasn't able to refuse it. Greece should be ashamed for doing that. Anyway it's not bilateraly accepted name - there is no bilaterally accepted name. And there's the whole point: a country doesnt need bilateral agreements for its name, it gets to choose its own name! Furthermore the last proposal of the mediator Mathew Nimitz was rejected by Greece. Meanwhile Greece is loosing even more ground (and the trend is unreversible - those 110+ countries that recognize the constitutional name can't unrecognize it). This is irational problem created by Greece and is slowly moving towards is righteous solution. You can't just impose a irational problem and then expect a compromise. Not to mention that Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore so now the situation is even more ridiculouis: greeks would like us to be a former republic of a former country. Sad. --Realek 13:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You completely miss the point. Greece has no problem with you. In fact, as you probably know, Greece is your biggest economic partner and an advocate of your EU and NATO membership application. We want the best of relations with our neighbours and we have made many compromises in order to achieve that, think for example of Greco-Turkish relations. Our issue with FYROM is that while there were plenty of names to choose from (for example Vardar Republic, it was used previously anyway), Tito decided to name your region Macedonia and start to teach Greek history as yours. How can you really expect us to accept that? And STILL, we are at talks with you RIGHT NOW in order to find an acceptable solution to both parties. --Avg 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to believe all that, be my guest :-D I suspect you are unaware of the latest developments and statements of the US government regarding recognizing the name which will emerge from the outcome of the naming dispute as a comrpmise between Greece and FYROM. Not to mention that you shall not be joining the EU under the name Republic of Macedonia. Greece can waste time, if FYROM does not co-operate, all Europe except FYROM will have joined the EU and FYROM will end up being the most backward state in Europe. You need to co-operate ;-) --LionKing 14:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article should mention that those 110 countries recognise FYROM as Republic of Macedonia only in bilateral negotiations or negotiations where Greece or Cyprus are not a party ;-) --LionKing 14:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)



As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.


As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it is sometimes formally referred as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

As I understand it, there is a dispute if the country voluntarily adopted such a strange name. On the other hand it is clear that some authors use this title. abakharev 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article title is at Republic of Macedonia - the country is referred to as Republic of Macedonia, what is so wrong with saying that the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is an alternative name. Forcing the UN name to a section at the bottom of the page like they want seems to me like trying to imply that it is an illegitimate name. It is a perfectly legitimate name and the Google searches above prove it is more widely used in English than the other name AND this country agreed to it. Normally, we should be discussing renaming the page - its one descriptive and wholly accurate sentence and no justification has been given for removing it except an alleged consensus formed among known pro-FYROM editors which, it is alleged, overrules three whole years of having that name in the first paragraph. Any way of mentioning it would do. --LionKing 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the provisional reference shouldn't be mentioned at all. To repeat again, I will accept it in the first paragraph only if we remove the Naming dispute section as I created that section as part of the compromise. I will never accept overloading of the article with the naming dispute and mentioning of that in more than one place in the article. Bitola 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And I will never accept hiding up that legitimate alternative name. It has been in the first paragraph for three whole years. It is the legitimate name under which the majority of states and the EU and UN recognise it. It should be in the first paragraph and I'm prepared to take this to the highest level. --LionKing 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitola try to put your patriotic sentiment aside for a moment. It's not degrading to say that FYROM is the official UN name, since it is TRUE. How about making FYROM link to the naming dispute? Miskin 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is acceptable:

And I will never accept anything less per my case presented above than:
  • (1) FYROM in the intro -OR- rename article as such
  • (2) CLEAR link to Naming dispute section in the intro
  • (3) Naming dispute section with a neutral summary of the Naming dispute article.
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So, the following solution is acceptable for you?

  • Mentioning of Republic of Macedonia only in the first paragraph (no other names in the intro)
  • A link to the Naming dispute section in the intro
  • Naming dispute section stays

Bitola 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. Clarification of above statement. Please re-read.  NikoSil</font>ver  (T) @ (C) 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with adding the alternative name in the intro and use that as the link to the naming dispute section. Almost all other encyclopedias have a paragraph dedicated to the naming dispute - it is usually in the history or politics/government sections. All encyclopedias mention the naming dispute OUTSIDE such sections. --LionKing 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this head:

The Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (constitutional name Macedonian: Република Македонија, United Nations membership name: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM) is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.

This is the most neutral head I can think of. It doesn't coin names such as "official" and "unofficial", it just tells the truth. It also links to the naming dispute with FYROM. Miskin 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, did you ever heard what is footnote? Bomac 13:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have, it's for citing sources, not a way of hiding vital info. --LionKing 13:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No I "did never heard" of it. I'm providing a footnote-free solution above, link goes directly to section. Footnotes by default are used because they will only be checked by a minority of readers, which is far from our scope here. By the way, the image "Satellite view of the Republic of Macedonia" will go. I think everyone would agree that it should Macedonia (Greece) and only a tip of the republic. Does the POV-pushing have any limits? Miskin 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't repeat things. You know that FYROM is a Greek POV and a Greek case of onania. FYROM exists only in the Greek "hot-heads" such as yours. The Greek leftists prooved that. Bomac 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You guys do you ever stop? FYROM is as NPOV as it can get. Greek POV is Skopje. Every Greek refers to your country as Skopje. Greek position is that your country should not have any mention AT ALL of Macedonia in its name, simply because YOU STOLE IT from us! Just to put things in a perspective here.--Avg 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. Macedonian POV about Greece is Athens. Let's make a compromise - FOGOP. Is that acceptable for greek users? I guess since there were wars to the north and an illegal blockade to the south (by greece), my country have done the unthinkable and allowed its neighbour to bully it and put a ridiculous temporary name on it. In the same circumstances Greece would have been called FOGOP. But in such circumstances I can't imagine the greek users would ask for this to be mentioned in every corner of the article. --Realek 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference. I don't make up from my mind what I write as you do. Greeks DO refer to your country as Skopje (and formally "Republic of Skopje"). I agree with you that FYROM is NOT, I repeat NOT, a good name. Of course you have the right to have a proper name, it's a fundamental right of self-determinance. But can you please leave our history out of it, please? --Avg 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So if majority of greeks think that way, then it's ok? I see. But nevermind that - what you're saying is we can choose our name but greece should have veto power over it. Come on now. Are you serious !? --Realek 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course we don't have anything to do with your internal name (nor do we want to). But as far as international recognition goes and since I think we're also part of the international community, we can object to what you chose if it insults us. This is what we did, this is why we have seeked mediation. This is why the whole issue has been going on for 14 years. I don't know what you might think of Greeks, but in all polls most Greeks tend towards the left than the right. This is not a nationalistic issue. It is an identity issue. By appropriating the name and the history of Macedonia, you deny all Greek Macedonians of their identity. --Avg 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah right. We have the right to choose a name for internal use and you have the right to impose a name for international use!? And thats why you have seeked mediation!? I would add to this: and because that makes so much sense, you have been loosing ground permanently since the time you created the problem. Also the mediation is going more and more in Macedonia's favour. --Realek 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And let me ask you how the name Republic of Macedonia is insulting??? Furthermore how it wasn't insulting until 1991. --Realek 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
We have not imposed anything. You prefer not to remember that you have accepted this provisional name. And, since you seem to ignore what I have written before, this provisional name is a bitter compromise to Greeks as well, because the name Macedonia is still inside FYROM. How it is insulting? That's simple. You proclaim yourselves as the descendants of Alexander the Great and the Ancient Macedonians, while it is obvious that you are of Slavic descent and the first Slavs only came to the area hundreds of years after Alexander, you adopt as a flag a symbol that is Greek (and found in a Greek city), your constitution speaks about parts of Macedonia under occupation and so on...Thankfully, some of these are now resolved. Some others though, still remain. About "losing ground", well that's a personal opinion on yours, as far as I'm concerned all international organisations refer to you as FYROM. Anyway I have the feeling the naming issue will be resolved soon (and that's what Condoleezza Rice hinted to, a couple of weeks ago when she met our foreign minister). I really want to get over it as much as you do.--Avg 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes you imposed it. And we did not accept it - we were forced to temporarily swallow the insult by our bully neighbour. Even if I accept that there are a lot of people in Macedonia negating our slavic ancestry (there aren't), the greeks have no more claim over Alexander than we do. Anyway it's not an insult no matter how you put it. But you didn't answer - how it wasn't insulting until 1991??? Your claim that the vergina(kutlesh) sun is greek is false. It's an ancient Macedonian symbol. Your claim that there were parts of the constitution that speaked about parts of Macedonia under occupation and so on is pure and simple lie!. There was an article wich obliged Macedonia to care for the minority rights of macedonians abroad. And Greece bullied us into erasing it. I wonder why since greece claims there are no other people than greeks in greece. Anyway it's not related to the name dispute so dont't drag it into it. The "loosing ground" by greece i mentioned is not my oppinion but it's a clear trend. Finally Condoleezza Rice hinted nothing that greece should be happy about - quite the opposite. If they are telling you that you should be happy about it, then you have a real big problem with the media in greece. --Realek 16:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a nice story, but it has no dragon. We did not impose this name. If we could impose our opinion, you would now be called Republic of Skopje, because this is what we wanted and we could not achieve. So much for Greek influence. As for who has more claims over Alexander, well it so happens that he was living in what now is Greece, he had a Greek name, he spoke a Greek dialect and he lead the Greek armies to the East. And nobody was doubting all this for thousands of years, until some neo-historians decided to write their own version of history. Funny that you mention that there aren't a lot of people negating your slavic ancestry, because when the name Slavomacedonia or Slavic Macedonia came to the table you refused it (probably because of the Albanian minority). You bring up again what happened before 1991. As I had already said, before that this was an internal name, with no international significance. You couldn't mess up with the internal parts of another country. And back then, you were far less provocative. The absurdity about being descendants of Macedon and Alexander came to prominence when you gained your independence, I guess there was a need to create an identity for a new nation. About the media, I can agree that we have a problem in Greece, but that's because they make crap series:-) --Avg 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I just saw it, even your country motto "Liberty or death" is taken from ours! But I guess that's ok. See, no grudges here, it's a nice motto after all. --Avg 15:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're getting more and more ridicolous. Anyway thanx for allowing us to use it, but where is your proof that it is taken from you. Maybee it's the other way around. Let me return the favour - you are allowed to used just becouse we are so nice. --Realek 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i could not help it not replying to that:) the greek flag has 9 strips cause 9 are the syllabes of the phrase 'freedom or death' in greek, and in 1821-1828 the motto was written on the ensigns. but i will not be surprised if u say that the greek flag was originally a fyromian claiming Alecander the Great and Ancient Macedonians were not greek, and now implying that even the motto of Greece is not 'really' greek, i can expect everything, right?:) --Hectorian 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well this happens to be the official motto of our revolution against the Ottomans in 1821. I guess this settles the precedence. But, as I said before, it is not offending if someone elses uses our motto, in fact I consider a great thing that we believe in the same values. Because beliefs, everybody can have the same. But when facts are distorted, here is where the problem begins. --Avg 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I need not remind you WP:NPA again Realek. Do I? You could say: "your arguements are getting more and more ridiculous", though. Anyway, to the (irrelevant) point: Liberty or Death was the motto of the Greek War of Independence in 1821. You didn't make a revolution that early. Did you?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes that would be a better way to put it: your arguements are getting more and more ridiculous! Anyway - if you feel that you have grounds to report a personal attack (especially after all things you said) please do report it. Now about your claim that Macedonians didn't make revolutions before 1821. They did! Long before. Read about Marivska Buna, Karposhovo Vostanie etc. But that's not really relevant. You don't need a revolution to have a motto. And the Komitas used this motto from who knows when. --Realek 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Now you got it right! See? Not only User:Reaper7 learns from me! :-) Anyway, I guess it's just one of those generic mottos that anybody can have, cause it's simple and powerful. Maybe Greeks used it before they rebel also. I really have no idea who used it first and to tell you the truth, I don't care. Do you? I think it is the FYROM mentioning in the intro we are supposed to discuss here. Right?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was Avg who dragged the "motto issue" in this discussion, not me. --Realek 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you prove for ONCE in your life that you don't need to have the last word, even if the other party has an agreeable approach? Should you always indulge in answering irrelevancies? Don't you understand that the more you delay with this, the worst it is for you?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, NikoSilver. Greece doesn't have to block FYROM joining the EU, only to delay it indefinitely... right until FYROM is the only state in Europe which hasn't joined and the most backward state in Europe. Greece can make life really hard for FYROM so that's why they'll have to heed Condoleezza Rice's suggestion and co-operate and agree on a name for the whole world to recognize. I don't know what that name'll be, but I know it'll not be Republic of Macedonia. Everyone knows that, except Realek obviously, who just attacks Greece and makes his little digs all the time. Well done!. --LionKing 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Another brilliant and non-disputable Greek argument. They are the bullies and they will have it their way, no metter what! Fortunately greece is no position to be a bully on the world stage and this is just wisfull thinking on behalf of LionKing. And could you please provide me a link to this statement of Condoleezza Rice that so favorable to greece. It looks to me that you're just making it up. --Realek 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't - it's the international official name. This was demonstrated at the Olympic Games and the Eurovision ;-) --LionKing 13:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before... ;-) Bomac 13:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---> United Nations It's your World ;-) --LionKing 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's your world when Greece POV-pushes everything for it's own onania... I wonder what will it be if Greece wasn't such a onanious country? Surely, the UN itself will react for the name... Bomac 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Bomac. The name FYROM will become permanent when you join the EU under that name ;-) LionKing 13:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you living in smt. called "The Greek 21 century"? Sure is bad... Bomac 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one believe that the article should be renamed to FYROM. Heraklios

And have you heard about the "flatfoot"?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" used to refer to the state in the U.N. admission was not a name at all; it was a diplomatic way to avoid the name. Note the use of lower case, which I reproduced exactly as in the original documents. It is just plain incorrect to say "FYROM" is the "name" or "formal title" of the country. The only way to cover the whole naming issue correctly and in proper context is in a paragraph, as discussed at great length in the archives. Jonathunder 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the CIA World Factbook does the exact opposite of what you're saying It mentions the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the intro and has other sections to deal with it as well. --LionKing 13:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And, by "great length" you obviously refer to the "consensus" that is disputed by more users than those who took part in it, right?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "The Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia" should be changed to The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia". These are the two formal names. If someone refers to this country colloquially as Macedonia, it does not constitute a reason for the article to mention that on the first line, perhaps somewhere below. Why in articles about the Greek region of Macedonia everyone takes care to explicitly state that it is about "the Greek region of Macedonia", while every Greek refers to it by simply Macedonia? I cannot accept the usage of the name Macedonia as a reference to the country. --Avg 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. At Austria, ONLY the formal name is mentioned. --LionKing 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not make the intro like this:

The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), also known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (in Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ)), is...

--LionKing 13:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder makes a very important legal point. The refference is not a name - it is what it is a refference. The UN is not and it didn't claim then, to be in charge of naming my country. The name of a country is a sovereign decision of the particular country. So a phrase like "also known as" is false. It's not like an alternative name or something. It's a temproary refference. --Realek 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If the CIA World Factbook can say something, then so can Wikipedia. --LionKing 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Really??? Well CIA is an USA agency. And USA recognizes the constitutional name. Am I free to conclude that we solved the issue and that from now on only "Republic of Macedonia" will be used in wikipedia? --Realek 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

…and why you don’t want to accept that the provisional reference is not a name at all, that it is just a reference used in some international organizations under Greek pressure, that the ordinary people throughout the world except Greeks are using Macedonia and Macedonians for my country and my people, that there is a whole section in the disputed article created just to describe the dispute… If we continue this way, we will never reach a consensus or compromise. And then, we will restore the previous compromise as the only relevant at the moment. Bitola 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which compromise. The state of having FYROM in the intro which we had for THREE WHOLE YEARS? That was a really effective compromise. If the CIA World Factbook can do it, then so can Wikipedia (NikoSilver's proposal). You still didn't give your opinion on the poll idea. --LionKing 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bitola this is exactly what you are trying to achieve under the table. The de facto recognition of your country with the name Macedonia. Sorry mate, it won't happen. --Avg 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not so powerfull to do so:) (not that I don't want that). Just to answer to the newbee(?) LionKing comment, the "Naming dispute" section wasn't there for THREE YEARS also as I created it to serve as part of the compromise. So, ok, lets include the reference in the intro and remove the section. Bitola 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose erasing all the information in that section. I think it may be OK to merge it into some other section (that's what other encyclopedias have done) and I quite like the way this issue has been handled at --LionKing 14:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again with the "CIA argument". LionKing -that is not valid. If you're so into the american POV go to the state department's site [12], and see whats their position. --Realek 14:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's valid. Have you read the intro. Their position explains the current location of this article - that could change quickly if a poll were to be called. They mention the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the intro (in a descriptive sense) and elsewhere. Therefore so can Wikipedia. If you can't (or don't want to) understand, don't make it my problem. --LionKing 15:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's your problem too when you make an invalid argument.
  • Your position is: CIA said that and we should copy it to wikipedia. CIA is the ultimate source.
  • I'm saying that if this rationale is accepted then: CIA is under the control of US government and their position is clear - they recognize the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. So only this name should be used.
I'm only saying this to explain that your point is invalid. You might be a newbie, so you still don't understand that you cannot just apply a solution found on 1 site. Especially in disputed articles. --Realek 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The CIA website proves that the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia exists for even those who recognise the country as Republic of Macedonia - therefore there is no reason to exclude it from the introduction here. That page mentions it in the introduction, therefore so can Wikipedia. I am not trying to use the CIA page to rename this article, that would be foolish. I'm giving an example of an organization, which recognises you a Republic of Macedonia, but which mentions the name FYROM in the introduction of its descriptive publications and elsewhere. Therefore so can Wikipedia. If I wanted to rename the page, I'd be citing pages like Encarta, which refers to you only as FYROM. You still haven't understood, have you? --LionKing 15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Latinus, The CIA site is not a proof. It's a site. But if you consider it a proof you're welcome to edit the ΠΓΔΜ article on the greek wikipedia according to it. --Realek 15:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Latinus in this talk? Anyway, I am: The factbook is not proof. It is one important book that includes a lot of info about countries. It is also an indication, that countries who recognise FYROM under RoM, such as the US, also use the FYROM term. Greece does not recognise the RoM term. The Greek WP is for Greek readers. Greek readers call you Skopia (maybe instead of ΠΓΔΜ which is the translation of FYROM, we should use Skopia instead, as it is more widely used in Greece). The article there signifies the country's intention to be named plain "Macedonia". This is the English version. The English speakers use both names (regarless of the country as explained above with the CIA example). Therefore, both names must appear EQUALLY per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Now what part don't you understand?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Really??? You expose yourself more and more everytime you post. So according to you greek wikipedia is for greeks only and furthermore they shouldn't know about anything else than the greek irational point of view. Good luck with the greek wikipeda then. --Realek 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Something irrelevant(sort of): could someone archive this page? and write a reference about the archive (so that noone to tell me that i am asking to hide comments)? i would do it myself if i knew how. the page takes ages to load! --Hectorian 16:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Did it. I archived everything irrelevant to this talk. Please keep in mind that this is still a huge talk, despite the fact that I sent about half of it to new Archive 8. I am also adding a new heading below, cause it's getting increasingly difficult to locate one above. You can rename it accordingly.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Validation of the term FYROM

I just made some quick search in articles about other countries. In Iran, it is stated in the first paragraph the former name of the country (Persia), which i must say is still in use (to a small extent) in Greece (and maybe in other countries as well). In the article Greece, the name Hellenic Republic (the name we use for our country) is stated in the first paragraph. we never call our country 'Greece'. yet, since this is how we are called abroad, the name is used primarily in the article. there is no reason not to mention the name 'FYROM' in this article. it is a legal, official and internationally recognised name (which the government of RoM has accepted in order to participate in the organisations and to have diplomatic relations with other countries-notably Greece, but also UK,Australia,France,etc). the people of RoM may call their country 'Macedonia', but since other many countries and all the intern. organizations refer to it as FYROM, wikipedia has to mention it. --Hectorian 17:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. The name greece was not imposed to you
  2. FYROM is not a name but a refference
  3. We did not accept it - it was temporarily forced upon us and the date to wich it was to be used has passed
  4. Much more countries recognise the constitutional name than the other way around (not to mention that those that still reffer to as a former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can and are changing their minds quite frequently now; an example of the opposite has not been recorded - the trend is clear)
  5. A lot of organisations recognize tha constitutional name so stop claiming that all organizations don't. Also NATO is an interesting case, since you include it in those that reffer to us as FYROM. As user Dipazi mentioned - in all NATO documents concerning Macedonia it is mentioned wich members recognize the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia
--Realek 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly why you don't want a solution. Because you count on people getting bored to say the full name FYROM (something perfectly normal, I would do the same if I wasn't Greek). But you know they do that because they don't know there is a very serious issue behind it. Where the issue has been raised (and that is at ALL international organisations where Greece is a member, NATO included), the agreed compromise is used. Here is what will happen: Pressure is applied to both parts to finally get over this naming dispute. We don't like it, you don't like it, sooner rather than later we will reach an agreement and it will NOT be Macedonia, because it simply can't be. And then everybody will refer to your country with this newly agreed name, abandoning Macedonia. --Avg 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah right, because greek arguments make so much sence. --Realek 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1. but it is still used
2. it is a name used (it is not just a reference)
3. u do not know the future. if greece and fyrom agree in a name, all these countries will accept it
4. all international organizations recognise u by the name FYROM. UN,EU,FIFA,Council of Europe,UEFA,UNESCO,NATO(NATO uses the name FYROM, some members may not-i am not talking about the NATO-members, but about the organization itself) will be very interesting to see if Bulgaria will continue to recognise u as 'Macedonia'... next year Bulgaria will be an EU member, and EU does not recognise that name...I do not know how things are going in such situations, but i am curious:) --Hectorian 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Irellevant to the point I made
  2. Not a name - a refference
  3. You skiped this one and "answered" 4. Anyway You say that all organisations... Are those 6 all the organisations in the world??? And don't distort my words about nato. I didn't only say that some members of NATO recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name, but also that it is mentioned in every document concerning macedonia.
And Hectorian let me satisfy your curiosity about what will happen with Bulgaria. They will change nothing. The relations between the two nations are much better than you would like to admit and much better than they will ever be with Greece for Macedonians and Bulgarians alike. The disputes sadly come out exactly from the closeness of the two nations. But let me be more specific about what happens with countries that join EU and recognize Macedonia: Nothing! Take the Slovenian example. You can also take the Poland's example - They joined the EU and they recognized the constitutional name after that. --Realek 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is outside the point. Nobody disputes the de facto existence of the name Macedonia by some (many) counties and in some context. It is the FYROM editors that dispute the existence of the name FYROM by all other countries and all int'l orgs. Can you focus on that please and stop hypothesising about what'll happen in the future?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the point. apart from my last sentence, all the above show that the name 'FYROM' is in use and that's why it has to be mentioned. --Hectorian 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
But it should not be mentioned too many times. --Realek 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, only the other side is defending "Macedonia", while it should be offending "FYROM".  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This happens because greek users change topics too often (every time they feel defeated in the discussion). You even dragged the economic issues again today. I didn't answer to such an irrelevant thing altough lies were written in order to proove that irrelevant point - that greece is the most important economic partner of Macedonia (it's not, it is 3rd and you can check your beloved CIA factbook for this)
Perhaps the other side has not understood that we are not discussing to ommit the name 'Macedonia', but to include the name 'FYROM' as well... --Hectorian 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
How many times should this name be mentioned in the article in your oppinion? (and the naming dispute mentioned) --Realek 20:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
For sure it has to be mentioned in the beginning. 'bout the rest, i do not know, and i've not counted yet. --Hectorian 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please give a straightforward answer. --Realek 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, What is acceptable:

Check the talk above to see what is acceptable.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No it is not acceptable! BTW is "FYROM in the intro -OR- rename article as such" an ultimatum or something? --Realek 20:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Is no fyrom in the title an ultimatum or something?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No NikoSilver, an ultimatum is when you say something like: do this or else. My point was: since you know that there will not be any renaming, you are trying to look like you are ready for compromise. --Realek 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. Are you all?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I really dont know what "Are you all?" means. Please clarify. --Realek 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As you perfectly understood, the three points proposed were already a compromise, since I am not going to ask for a rename (not that there isn't gonna be any -as you put it). The question is: Are you all ready for a compromise too? (your answer alone is not enough)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am against your proposal and I don't see it as a compromise. --Realek 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. We can move to the next level then, as I proposed several times above (like e.g. here). Can't we?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you need my permission for that? I'm quite new so I really don't know... But it would be strange... --Realek 21:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to exhaust all other possible means of compromise. Shouldn't you consult your fellow editors before you take the burden of such a binding decision for yourself? Especially since you are new, as you say.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
WHAT??? What burden have I taken? I just asked you a question... My coment is just above for you to distort it in this way. But if you missunderstood (quite inprobable) let me clarify my question - What do you need my permission for? And if you need the other's permission you should ask for it by them. I'm not in a position to decide for them even if you put words in my mouth. --Realek 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood. Don't worry, you haven't taken any burden. I certainly don't need your approval for proceeding in the next level. But I think there can be compromise through talk and "ultimatum" talks usually lead to next level solutions. You know, this is the article talk page, not your personal talk page. "Them" could answer for themselves directly. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So what was the idea behind: Shouldn't you consult your fellow editors before you take the burden of such a binding decision for yourself? Any reason for saying that? And where did I express my readiness to take this burden you are talking about? --Realek 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It was frank. I want you all to think about taking this to the next level, instead of solving it right here. Nobody else answered, your "ultimatum" talk was inflamatory (and still is), and I tried to see if anybody else would answer. Now I am going to bed. I advise everybody to sleep on it.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And I still dont get it why you made that comment, but nevermind. --Realek 22:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. I will explain further: The comment was not in past tense; it was in present tense. That means, I did not imply that you took some kind of responsibility, as you falsely assumed in your next message. It implied an advice not to take (in future) one by yourself, without consulting. Still, there is no definite answer to my question from you and your fellow editors: Are you prepared for a compromise solution, or shall we proceed in the next level (poll/rfc)?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think that your proposal is a compromise, then you are wrong. You are offering basically your version that is in a great extent rejected by almost all Macedonian editors and other editors as well. You were the one that violated the previous compromise, so then, go ahead, and offer some more reasonable compromise. To repeat again, nobody mentioned that we should exclude mentioning of provisional reference in the article, we are disputing the overloading of the article with that specific issue that is not so important as you are trying to make it. Find a way how to minimize the mentioning of naming dispute so it will no affect the overall design and content of this important article.Bitola 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it was past tense or present tense. I did not take or tried to take any burden as you put it. I just asked a question. Like I said - my coment is just above for you to distort it in this way. And like I said (speaking only for myself) - I dont see your proposal as a compromise. Maybe I would consider it as a proposal if you specifically tell me: many times should the refference be mentioned in the text 2. be more specific about the naming dispute section. --Realek 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bitola, nice to see you in this talk. I thought you were still pestering. Here are my answers:
For "my proposal being compromise", think how you'd feel if the article was called FYROM and what you'd ask in intro.
For "other editors as well" please check here, and here.
For "violated the previous compromise" please check points First and Second.
For "overloading with not so important issue", you must be kidding. Check point Third.
For what is required check here and here.
Still waiting for your (and fellow editors) answer on the previous question. :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think that I have all day to chat with you or that I'm affraid of your "proposal", you are terrribly wrong.Bitola 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you do (for both). The following proposal, was just a logical next step by the rest of the Greek users, and I had nothing to do with it, except for providing the necessary indisputable arguements here.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Parliament apologizes in Skopje

On 4 April 2006, the RoM/FYROM parliament apologized to the victims of the communist regime. Does the apology extend to the Greek Slav-Macedonian victims who suffered at the hands of Slav Macedonian communists in Greece, during the Greek civil war? Many of those perpetrators moved to southern Yugoslavia and some continued their oppressive policies. The Skopje parliament said some 50,000 people were subjected to communist oppression in Macedonia (Fyrom). Politis 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please dont try to look sad about the faith of Macedonians under communism. Your feelings towards Macedonians are well known. Now about the apology - it was needed. Everybody must face the facts from their countries past. I just wonder when Greece is going to do that. After all Macedonians suffered much more at the hands of extreme-right Greek governments than from the Yugoslav communists. --Realek 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with you. Greek slavophones or Slav-Macedonians have suffered at the hands of extreme-right Greek governments; Athens should not only find a formula to express its regrets but must help them more to express their identity and culture within Greece. On the other hand, Greek Slav-Macedonians have also seen their culture invaded by Skopje's communist and post-communist ideology of nation building; their unique slav macedonian dialect is also disappearing under the continued influence of the post WWII, re-formated slav Macedonian language. Politis 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk is irrelevant. Please FOCUS or the protect tag may remain here forever.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Real solution: Rename the Article

Since a number of proposals are out, let me tell you what I propose. This article should be renamed to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. There has NEVER been a compromise about its naming and believe me I have read through almost all archives. It is a BLATANTLY FALSE statement from the fyromian side that such a thing has ever happened. Greek editors are being forced to continuously monitor this article to ascertain that the FORMAL name of this country is included. Well once and for all, let's have a poll in order to arrive at a solution about its name. And not only that, ALL Wikipedia articles that include a reference to this one, are force to conform with this name. Greek cities that border with FYROM have to refer to "Republic of Macedonia". This is absurd, how can one conform with a WRONG naming. The repercussions of a wrong and forced decision are felt throughout this encyclopedia and this has to stop. --Avg 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Avg, try to understand that WP is not built on desire of just one side, it should always conform to the NPOV policy. Polls are somethimes useful, but if you read the WP article about straw polls that are so many times mentioned here, you will find the following:
A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority.Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.
If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a polls are evil and stupid option and your poll not being regarded as binding.
Moreover, be aware that the majority of online encyclopedias are referencing my country simply with Macedonia (without mentioning the provisional reference in the intro section):[13]
Britannica online: [14]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[15]
Canadian Encyclopedia: [16]
so that is also an option about how this article should be named. But, that is another story, now we are discussing mentioning of the famous provisional reference in the article, not the name of the article itself (or I'm wrong?). Now, I will step out and wait until someone proposes some reasonable compromise. Bitola 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
HEY! Weren't you the one who was defending a "consensus" of 5 users just before? Are you now trying to dispute even the next step, which is a poll/rfc? Will you decide: Either both your alleged "consensus" and the poll/rfc are moot (but the poll/rfc is still better), or your "consensus" is valid and the poll/rfc may be an even better solution. I hate double standards so please clarify.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bitola - or rather, I agree with what is factually correct: the referencing takes place under Macedonia; also, a search for the country is usually carried out under 'Macedonia'. But, of course, the referencing and search of the historical Greek province of Macedonia is also undertaken under the name 'Macedonia' (ergo...?) Politis 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is when 5 users made a compromise solution that was respected by all editors for several months. That gives the validity. Straw poll is not considered a binding vote when someone tries to force some solution with the will of the majority. If you read the first sentences in the WP article about straw polls, you will find this: Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule. In adition, please read the following article: Wp:consensus and you will find why the consensus is more relevant than supermajority. Bitola 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is you that must read it. Especially the paragraph Wp:consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies. There, you will see that the proposed poll/rfc is a way to overcome POV majority (if your ...5 consenting parties can be called such). Nobody asked about a silly straw poll of the current editors (which would be indeed better than your previous "consensus"). I was talking about poll/rfc, which invites neutral users to make an article NPOV.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes the current discussion is about the provisional reference, but the naming of the article itself was, is and will be an issue that won't go away until finally the conflict is resolved. I am aware that most people refer to FYROM as Macedonia, for two reasons: 1) it is simple and not cryptic as FYROM (which of course I agree is unacceptable as a solution, you deserve a proper name) and 2) they don't know (and don't care to know) the background of the conflict or even that there is a conflict in the first place. I also know that a lot of encyclopedia articles are submitted by authors who clearly have a POV, because there is nobody knowledgeable enough to counteract them. And this doesn't apply only to the Macedonian issue. About the poll: It was you I believe (or was it Realek?) who mentioned that there has been a poll that reached consensus about what we are discussing, while the truth is that no consensus has ever been reached. Let's do that now, to the limit that we can agree to something that is. --Avg 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have elaborated on the proposal for true consensus here.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That is absolutely excellent Nikos! Well done! Perhaps it should be on the top of the page, because it sums up almost everything written here. --Avg 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Your feelings towards Macedonians are well known. Now about the apology - it was needed. Everybody must face the facts from their countries past. I just wonder when Greece is going to do that."
This is not a constructive attitude and we're not here to solve political questions. My books say that the Slav Macedonian opression over the Albanian minorities had been uncomparably worse than the one of Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo. There are no saints and devils in the Balkans, there's only winners and losers. Blaming the others for your own misfortune doesn't provide any physical help. Miskin 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wich books would that be??? And I must add - your last two sentances are just brilliant. I guess if the nazis won the WW2 and "softened" over the years, they would have used something simmilar as an excuse. --Realek 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Where did THIS discussion come from?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the above and the intractability of said positions ...

=Brief Version Supporters

The cause of the problem

The Republic of Macedonia is a country in Europe. The country is part of a greater region called Macedonia. Greece and Bulgaria are neighboring countries of Macedonia having regions in its borders called Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria) and Greek Macedonia or simply Macedonia (Greece). Since the Republic of Macedonia became an independent state in 1991 after breakup of the former federation Yugoslavia, Greece opposes the right of its neighboring country to use its name (despite the fact that the country uses this name officially since 1945 as one of the six republics of the former federation). For that reason, the country was admitted to the UN under the provisional reference "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". (note that this is not the proof that the country changed its name, on the contrary, the constitutional name of the country is still the Republic of Macedonia). Moreover, the country and the Macedonian people never accepted that provisional reference as it was done forcibly under the Greek pressure. Finally, most people in my country consider this reference insulting.

How other online encyclopedias deals with this issue

Almost every online encyclopedia (the only exception I found so far is Encarta) uses the short term for the articles about my country and even don't mention the provisional reference in the intro section:[17]
Britannica online: [18]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[19]
Canadian Encyclopedia: [20]

How WP deals with this issue

The article about the Republic of Macedonia is named by the country's constitutional name (the Republic of Macedonia), not by its short version (Macedonia), so we are already making an exception regarding the majority of other online encyclopedias and this naming is IMO slightly biased.

Before several months, after a long and exhaustive edit warring mostly between the Macedonian and Greek editors, several editors, including me, agreed to make a compromise. The compromise was built on two decisions:

  • We used the constitutional and short naming of the country in the intro section, introducing a piped/wikified superscript note (*) on the short naming that will lead to the naming dispute section.
  • We created a new section especially intended to describe the naming dispute and to include ALL DATA related to this dispute there (although such sections are unspecific in all other articles about a country). In this section we included the famous provisional reference (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in bolded version, in order to have a balance between the mentioning between the constitutional and short names in the intro section and the provisional reference in the appropriate section.

Compromise validity came from the fact that since it was achieved, we had no problems and edit warring for several months in this article. However, this compromise was violated by some editors who inserted the provisional reference (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in the intro section. That action disrupted the compromise in a great extent, introducing the naming dispute in more than one place as it was arranged with the compromise.

- Please remove the picture that shows the so called "Macedonia" and the wider Macedonian area. It has not been proven that the so called Macedonias have anything to do with the real Greek Macedons. Take the language for examble the ancient Macedons used Greek and the new ones a Slavic dialect. You can call your country as you wish but at the same time you should imply that your counrtry is bigger then it is.

What is my opinion about the poll

This poll is an excellent example of lacking a good will for reaching a compromise through the polite discussions, understanding and mutual appreciation (you can see some editors even calling the previous compromise a parody?). Simply, there are so much editors that have not very friendly feelings about this country and trying to present the country as worse as possible. Polls are many times useful, but in the WP article about straw polls we can find the following:

A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority.Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.
If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a polls are evil and stupid option and your poll not being regarded as binding.

What we are supporting

The provisional reference and naming dispute between two countries are important to be mentioned in the article, but we already have a whole section dedicated completely to this dispute. What I and other users are opposing is not the mentioning of the provisional reference itself, rather, for us is unacceptable to overload the article with this dispute as the article about a country should deal with many other aspects of one country, not with dealing with one single issue in several sections. This article shouldn’t be focused on this dispute in such extent. For that reason, I invite you to vote only for the first option.

Bitola 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Extended Version Supporters

It is argued that the alleged "compromise" was a parody. Please see the position of the Extended version supporters analytically here.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived from post-poll comments


The name of the state is UN Competence! Not Competence of Wikipedia !

Vergina/Macedonia 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong. The name of any country is only that countrie's competence. And UN never took a responsability for naming Republic of Macedonia. The UN is only included in helping the two sides find a compromise. --Dipazi 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also let me point you to the text that Johanthunder provided earlier, for the admission of the Republic of Macedonia in the UN. As he already said, it is too obvious that the resolution avoids mentioning any name. --Dipazi 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"Republic of Macedonia" is a Problem name for the UN
The Name "Republic of Macedonia" is the falsification of Macedonia!
The state is "Vardar-Bulgaria" and the people BULGARS!Not Macedonians!
The proofs:
  • "what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history."-Misirkov Krste
  • " follows: now that we are old we cannot learn a new language Bulgarian is the language we know and we shall speak Bulgarian; we are Bulgarians."-Misirkov
  • "nobody had bothered particularly with the question of our nationality. We did indeed call ourselves "Bulgarians" and "Christians" in the national sense; but why this was so, and whether it really had to be so, we did not very much care to ask."-Misirkov Krste
  • "And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?"-Misirkov Krste
  • Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:
"Sofia, 01.05.1899, Kolyo, ... May the dissents and cleavages not frighten you. It is really a pity, but what can we possibly do when we ourselves are Bulgarians and all suffer from the same disease! If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans..."
  • "...We are Bulgarians and we always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgariandom."-Dame Gruev (Dame Gruev Director of the Bulgarian school in Stip)
  • Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgars in Skopje....
  • VMRO stamp in Bulgarian language..........

  • The Bulgarian society in Skopje 1870 :
  • Bulgarian municipality - Prilep
  • Theophylacti Bulgariae archiepiscopi In omnes divi Pauli apostoli epistolas enarrationes THEOPHYLACTUS, arcivescovo di Ochrida
  • Theophylacti archiepiscopi Bulgariae In quator Evangelia enarrationes

THEOPHYLACTUS, arcivescovo di Ochrida
  • " Respected representatives of the Bulgarian people, ....
Here is a excerpt from a letter written in 1861 by the people of Ohrid in protest to the arbitrariness of the Greek metropolite Meletius in which they insist on the restoration of the Ohrid Archbishopric closed back in 1767.
" Respected representatives of the Bulgarian people,

The undersigned inhabitants of Justiniana Prima or Ohrid, after seeing, on one hand, that regardless of all our hopes our common mother, the Great Church of Christ, did not pay attention to the petitions submitted to Her one after another in which we kindly beg Her to change Metropolite Meletius appointed against our will and requests, and ,on the other hand, informed that all our Bulgarian people is indignant with the same at the Great Church of Chris, considered it our inevitable duty to appoint you and recognize you, in accordance with our people, as our plenipotentiary representatives so you can petition, in the kindest fashion, the Sublime Porte to hear our our requests and deliver us from the arbitrariness of the Greek clergy by affirming the restoration of an autocephalous archbishopric of Ohridian Prima Justiniana and all Bulgaria....

April 9th, 1861
Prima Justiniana or Ohrid
1911:Population by Vilayet Thessaloniki(Selanik)
Muslim :605.000 ;47,5 %
Greek:398.000 ; 31,0%
Bulgarian:271.000 ; 21,5%
  • 1911:Population by Vilayet Monastir(Bitola)
Muslim:456.000 ;43,3%
Greek:350.000 ;33,3%
Bulgarian:246.000 ;23,4%
  • 1911:Population by Vilayet Kosovo(capital city Uskub/Skopje)
Muslim:959.000 ;60,6%
Greek: 93.000 ;5,9%
Bulgarian:531.000 ;33,5%
  • According to a Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904:
3) Another table is the one published by the League of the Nations. According to the League of the Nations in 1926, in Aegean Macedonia occupied by Greece in 1913 lived:
Turks :2,000
Greeks :1,341,000
Others (Jews):91,000 (Propaganda of FYROM)
  • Vilajet Saloniki:
333.500 Mahomedaansche Turken
180.000 Orthodoxe Wallachen
99.000 Mahomedaansche Bulgaren
22.000 Mahomedaansche Zigeuners
44.600 Christen Bulgaren
168.000 Orthodoxe Grieken
25.000 Orthodoxe Wallachen
55.000 Joden
15.000 Gemengde
  • Vilajet Kossowo:
418.000 Mahomedaansche Albaneezen
9.000 Mahomedaansche Turken
14.000 Mahomedaansche Bulgaren
250.000 Christene Bulgaren
113.000 Orthodoxe Serviërs
900 Orthodoxe Wallachen
200 Orthodoxe Grieken
22.000 Gemengde
  • Vilajet Monastir:
219.000 Mahomedaansche Albaneezen
11.500 Mahomedaansche Turken
24.000 Mahomedaansche Bulgaren
331.000 Christene Bulgaren
62.000 Orthodoxe Grieken
65.000 Orthodoxe Wallachen
35.000 Gemengde
  • Das Osmanische Reich-Bevölkerungsstatistik 1894
  • Vilayet Thessaloniki 1894
Muslem  : 463.000
Griechisch Orthodox: 277.000
Bulgarisch Orthodox: 223.000
Juden  : 37.000
  • Vilayet Monastir(Bitola) 1894
Muslems: 225.000
Griechisch Orthodox: 226.000
Bulgarisch Orthodox: 205.000
Juden  : 5.000
  • Vilayet Kosovo 1894
Muslems: 419.000
Griechisch Orthodox: 29.393
Bulgarisch Orthodox: 274.826
Juden  : 1.706
  • U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius:
“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”.

At this mass conference of Agean Macedonians in Western Australia request that persecution Macedonian Slav peoples under Greek tyarnny be put on security Council agenda and immediately solved by uniting all parta of Macedonia into free and independent State in Yugoslav Federation(STATE IN YUGOSLAV FEDERATION) and stopping persecution of our peoples.
Chairman:K. Angelcoff
Secretary:L. Malco
See poliitecon oct. 1946 in Bulgarian language!!!
  • WHERE ARE THE BULGARS OF Vardarska Banovina TODAY???
Vergina/Macedonia 06:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say... I gues you just proved with your undisputable "sources" that I am "Bulgar" as you put it. And all this time I was under the impression that I was a Macedonian, but it turns out that they never existed. Thank you for clearing that for me, now I know my true nationality thanks to you. Unfortunately my late great-grandmother is not around any more to let her know this. She was also convinced she was Macedonian (far before the famous brain-washing of 1945). But I guess this brain-washing included complete memory-erasing, so it makes sence she couldn't remember that she was member of the "Bulgars" before 1945. --Realek 07:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The question remains upright:
Vergina/Macedonia 07:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool it down a little bit Vergina, will you please? Ah! I corrected your link above. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C)

Common misconceptions

1st misconception is that the refference actually represents a name.

2nd misconception is that the UN is involved in "naming" of the country.

3rd misconception is that FYROM is one form of the refference (this abbreviation never existed legally). For citizens of the Republic of Macedonia it is an even more offensive term used than the refference.

Theese are the steps that some are taking to go from: the UN formulation in 1993 "this State being provisionally referred to" to "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as an name for the country to the non-existant "FYROM" abbreviation finnaly ending with Firomians as an ethnic group.

--Dipazi 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Actual Common misconceptions:

1st misconception is that FYROM is Greek POV and the argument is about which of the two countries POV will prevail. Wrong. FYROM is NPOV. Greek POV is Republic of Skopje.

2nd misconception is that "FYROM" was imposed. Wrong. It was what Skopje agreed with in order to enter the UN.

3rd misconception is that this country's only possible final name can be Republic of Macedonia and the ethnic group Macedonians, since it is used by themselves and they have their fundamental right of self-determination. Wrong. Before arbitrarily Tito chose the name Macedonia, they were called Vardar Province and everybody was happy with that. --Avg 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greek Wikipedia and the naming dispute

Hi. I noticed that the Greek Wikipedia has the article on this state at el:Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας - the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I tried moving it a few days ago to the Republic of Macedonia name, but this was soon reverted. I believe that this name goes against Wikipedia policy, and only the Welsh, Danish and Greek Wikipedias have the article at this variant. The case for using FYROM should be discussed more in depth, but I think it is only reasonable that a nation's constitutional name is used - a name recognised by the majority of the world's nations - even if the text happens to be in Greek, the language of a nation that does not recognise the name. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 11:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, I have taken care of the Welsh Wikipedia name. I don't think its worth trying for the Greek Wikipedia — maybe in ten or twenty years or something :) - FrancisTyers 12:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not go against policy. Many encyclopedias, both in English and in Greek use refer to this country as the FYROM, so it can be done without compromising neutrality.

BTW your note at the talk page of the Greek Wikipedia article has been answered.

BTW also the final name will not be Republic of Macedonia - the UN will not permit this and neither will Greece. What will happen is they will have to alter their name so it can never be Macedonia. What annoys me is someone reading this will get confused about A the country's name i.e. when it is changed they will be like 'I thought a country was once called Macedonia' - Other guy 'naa, The UN blocked the name until it was altered, don't trust Wiki - they are not a non-bias site - if Iran changed its name next week to DIE ALL AMERICANS and the UN said it was unacceptable - if there were lots of Iranians on this site (like there are lots of FYROM slavs on all the web) that would be the name of their page unfortunately - If this was a real Encyclopedea however it would do what the other Encyclopedeas do - go with Nato and UN, EU ect - not what the GOVT proclaims itself. To have a name that old and that important other bodies have to agree, unfortunately this has not been the case with FYROM hense the name FYROM. If Greece pulled some action like this everybody would go with the UN or EU in naming Greece, but because this is such a small country and Greece has been painted as an angry old man (unfortunately for the slavs with UN and EU, and Nato backing Greece) everyone has overlooked the rules and just given in to the name they want but have not been allowedReaper7 12:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not about what the UN wants. Greeks love packaging up their argument in this notion of "the entire world is with us. They will not allow FYROM to be renamed RoM". However, FYROM is a provisional name that is not recognised as the name of the country by the majority of the UN's own members. It's not as if the RoM is isolated in the world on this. It is not an unrecognised state in the same way Abkhazia or Transnistria is. Rather, the name Republic of Macedonia is recognised by all of the country's neighbours except Greece, as well as the US, and many other countries throughout the world. Also, it's not as if the UN is actively propagating the use of the FYROM name. More importantly, as I said before, Wikipedia does not use UN positions in its articles, in the same way that it doesn't propagate the One China policy and places the article on Taiwan at Republic of China.
As to the multitude of "Fyrom Slavs", I believe that there are more Greek people on Wikipedia than Macedonian Slavs. There are more than 10 million Greeks around the world in comparison to 2 million Macedonian Slavs. The ratios are similar on Wikipedia. I think portraying Greece as the "minority" or weaker nation is misleading hype. The way I see it, it's the opposite way around. This is a purely point of view, but I think the Republic of Macedonia has been very obedient to the world community in the past 10 years and has conceded a lot, both in terms of foreign policy and domestic rights. I admire them for that very much, and I believe it has made them a better country. So painting them as a hostile country that is appreciated because it is small is superficial. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA, America only conceded to letting them have that name because they sent troops to that stupid campaign in Iraq and Greece didn't, I think some people need to grow up on here. America does not care what it is called as long as it is supported on its disgraceful war on terror. The UN helped rename the Balkans and it stuck - they will do the same here. Stealing another country's history is not a simple precedure and the UN, NATO and EU recognise they have got away with alot, now if they want to join the EU their name will not be the Greek MACEDONIA but Macedonia along with another name, like Bosnia Hertz, this site will look silly for backing these FYROM cyber workers and not the international community AKA the UN.

Also this page I think should mention this country's first action as a new nation was to fully support American politics in Iraq with FYROM soldiersReaper7 13:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well an increasing number of countries are recognising the country's own name, Republic of Macedonia, so it's not a one-off US thing. And even if it was due to murky politics, that in itself shouldn't matter. The name is more recognised due to that. Greek foreign policy and its more advantageous status in the EU+NATO made the EU and NATO recognise it as FYROM. I don't see why one case is different than the other. Also, maybe one day the Republic will become known as Upper Macedonia, as was the proposed name some time ago. That may happen. But at the moment, it's official name is the Republic of Macedonia. And that looks like it's probably going to stick. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fyromian encyclopedia and the naming dispute

Hi, I noticed that the FYROMian article about the country mk:Република Македонија does not have any prominent reference at all about the internationally adopted name of FYROM, except in the very last paragraph of the page and only for a totally biased four lines, WITHOUT mentioning that this is the internationally adopted name, WITHOUT explaining the issue at all, but only stating that 109 countries have recognised it with the name Republic of Macedonia including USA, China, Russia etc. etc. Are you going to change that as well Ronline? I didn't see any of your reverts there. --Avg 13:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So far I haven't even edited this article. And I'm not Macedonian, and have absolutely no knowledge of the language. But I will ask around if there is a neutrality issue over there. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 13:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I presume you don't know Greek as well, but you certainly edited the Greek article (in ENGLISH!)--Avg 13:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I never edited the Greek article. I moved the page to a new name and wrote on the talk page in English. I will do the same at (of course, I will not move the article since there's nothing to move). The responses I got at seem much more rational than the discussions over here. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 13:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm,a one-off US thing?? There is no such thing, when they do something the world notices and the weaker countries follow, Greece was not aided by the UN - they simply agreed the name was unacceptable in its present state and with the UN, the US and UK carry more weight so something went wrong for FYROM. FYROM should be in the first line. The current name won't stick and you even predicting it will is neglent - not the place of an encyclopedea. Reaper7 13:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said Greece was aided by the UN, but that it had a greater position of influence than the Republic of Macedonia in the EU and NATO, since it was a member. This is the same as your alleged hypothesis that the US only recognised the country's name because of the Iraq War. I said that this was not a one-off US thing - I meant that other countries also recognised that name, and that even if the US position was fishy, more countries are choosing to recognise the name of Republic of Macedonia. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, over at Pjrmskata Vikipedija, in their article on the FYROM, the UN name for the country and the name under which (to use EU terminology) is shall be admitted to the EU (assuming Greece and Cyprus don't refuse to sign the ascension treaty) is only mentioned once in the following context:

Due to political pressure from Greece, the state is using the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), although it is accepted by its constitutional name by 109 member states of the UN along with the permanent members of the UN security council: USA, China, Russia; members of the EU: Poland and Slovenia; and by the neighbouring countries: Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Croation, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Turkey etc.

Talk about sweeping something under the carpet! They don't even mention that they only use the constitutional name in bilateral negotiations. These double standards have got to stop!

I just updated it to say 112 countries. Ronline, I apreciate your constructive attitude, but as a Macedonian I can tell you that I don't really mind what the Greek Wikipedia says about the matter. It is a matter of how acurate encyclopedia they want to have. If they have a consensus to say that the cuntry name is qwiufdqia and that is inhabitet by scumonians let them do so. It would be unfortunate but... Same goes about the Macedonian Wikipedia. But the English wikipedia is a completely different matter. Here I will scrutinaze their words (when they have at least traces of any reasonable meaning, the irational nonsence I just ignore). Thank you for your objectivity and for participating in the discussion. We really need more neutrals here. Regards --Realek 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Greek wikipedia says in the first paragraph (this is an exact word for word translation): "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (disputed constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia"), is an independent state and is located at the center of the Balkan peninsula and S.Eastern Europe, occupying an area of 25.333 sq.metres. Many times it is referred to (especially outside Greece) simply as "Macedonia", but this causes confusion with the Greek geographical periphery of Macedonia or the wider area of historic Macedonia. In Greece it is often referred to as Skopje or State of Skopje or with the English abbreviation FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), which is also used by most states and most international organisations, such as the European Union and the United Nations. However, some states have recognised it with its constitutional name". Both opinions are presented clearly. Can you compare that with the Fyromian version, or even the English version? You're directing your criticism to the wrong people. --Avg 13:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I challenge any Fyromian to write below the exact word-for-word translation in English of his country's page in South Slavic. Afterwards we can see who's objective and who's not.--Avg 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I got a Bulgarian friend of mine to translate the first two paragraphs:
Република Македонија е држава со парламентарна демократија. Се наоѓа во Југоисточна Европа, во центарот на Балканскиот Полуостров. Главен град е Скопје. Република Македонија е само дел од етничка Македонија, и опфаќа околу 38% од нејзината територија.
Република Македонија на исток граничи со Бугарија, на север со Србија и Црна Гора, на запад со Албанија, и на југ со Грција. Должината на границите е вкупно 766 км, и тоа со:
The Republic of Macedonia is a parliamentary democracy. It is located in East south Europe, in the Centre of the Balkan peninsular. Its capital is Skopje. The Republic of Macedonia is only a part of ethnic Macedonia and occupies only 38 per cent of its territory.
Macedonia's borders are: East with Bulgaria, North - Serbia and Montenegro, West - Albania, South - Greece. The overall length of the borders is 766 km and they are as follows:
I'd say thats fairly reasonable, but I think the bit about "ethnic Macedonia" should definately be changed. That is clearly nationalist pov. Something like "The Republic of Macedonia occupies only 38% of the wider Macedonian geographical region" would be better. Sadly on the smaller language Wikipedias nationalistic POV does tend to have more sway. This means that they need to be improved, not that we need to stoop to their level though. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. I tried to remove some nationalist POV from articles on the Macedonian Wikipedia but I was promptly reverted there by Macedonian nationalists like I'm ususaly revertet here by Greek nationalists. But the English Wikipedia is much more important and relevant so here we should fight nationalism very vigorously. And ofcourse that we shouldn't drop to the level of those smaller language Wikipedias, but they should Improve their neutrality. --Realek 15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I incorporate that in the table below.--Avg 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Never happen, this site has already been tacken over, their intro if translated will be totally bias and non diplomatic, yet the Greek version is being questioned - only on Wiki! Reaper7 13:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for EVERYBODY TO SEE what the first paragraphs of the same article are:

Greek Wikipedia (article el:Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας) FYROMian Wikipedia (article mk:Република Македонија)
"The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (disputed constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia"), is an independent state and is located at the center of the Balkan peninsula and S.Eastern Europe, occupying an area of 25.333 sq.metres. Many times it is referred to (especially outside Greece) simply as "Macedonia", but this causes confusion with the Greek geographical periphery of Macedonia or the wider area of historic Macedonia. In Greece it is often referred to as Skopje or State of Skopje or with the English abbreviation FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), which is also used by most states and most international organisations, such as the European Union and the United Nations. However, some states have recognised it with its constitutional name" "The Republic of Macedonia is a parliamentary democracy. It is located in South-East Europe, at the Centre of the Balkan peninsula. Its capital is Skopje. The Republic of Macedonia is only a part of ethnic Macedonia and occupies only 38 per cent of its territory. Macedonia's borders are: East with Bulgaria, North - Serbia and Montenegro, West - Albania, South - Greece. The overall length of the borders is 766 km and they are as follows: "

'nuff said.--Avg 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - when will certain members realise just how double faced this FYROM propaganda is - DIGUSTING. Reaper7 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong from the beginning - there is only Macedonian Wikipedia. FYROM exists only in the Greek nationalistic minds. FoxyNet 14:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Q. What does the Wiki and American have in common?

A. The UN means absolutely NOTHING to them when deciding the world.

All the Un wanted was for America to wait, all Greece and the UN wants is for a resolution, Wiki and America just go ahead regardless and get it wrong everytime. Reaper7 14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but still there is Macedonian Wikipedia and Republic of Macedonia. FoxyNet 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but times are changing and America and WIKI are becoming weak to logical concerns, a couple of days ago if someone looked up Macedonia they would have seen nothing about FYROM in the first Paragraph - that has now gone and now people will see just a glimpse of the UN, now we have to change the Slav page too Reaper7 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Live with it - Republic of Macedonia. FoxyNet 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
FoxyNet, I urge you not to get to the level of some users here. Don't let yourself to be dragged in silly irational exchanges. I made that mistake few times when I first saw what nonsence and insults some users are using, but belive me it's not going to get you anywhere. Be as constructive as you can. Some comments are best to be left unanswered - they speak best about themselves. --Realek 14:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the reason I stopped posting. Gee, this primordial Balkan menthality really gives me the creeps. FoxyNet 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry - this whole mess might be over by June ;) --Realek 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
And FoxyNet, don't forget, you can always use a WP:NPA template as your friend Realek did with me, if you don't like what the other guy is saying. --Avg 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the Greeks, Alexander the Great's people have never looked kindly upon invaders, just because a bunch of slavs settled in nothern macedonia in the 5AD does not mean Greeks will just sit there and let the Slavs claim to be the real Macedonians, LOL. Now we can see the UN coming through on the opening Paragraph, next the Slavic pages - Greeks have a history of defending and giving culture - when it is stolen, the consequences are never easy. Hopefully in the coming weeks we will see more UN and less USA dictating this page, the Britannica - an American Encyclopedea will not have influence on the web!! Reaper7 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

May I attempt to translate the above into normal English? "The barbaric tribe of Alexander the Great [at least, that is how Ancient Athenians considered them] did not like being invaded. Just because Slavs have lived in the region for 1,500 years does not mean that we Greeks will accept their claim to be Macedonians. We intend that Greece will push its own viewpoint more powerfully on Wikipedia ove rthe next few weeks. " Is this an accurate translation??
Just to put into one single word what Reaper7 said: Greeks have a history of defending and giving culture - when it is stolen, the consequences are never easy-> Nemesis :) --Hectorian 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This dispute is really becoming irrational here. Avg, it would be much appreciated if you adopt a more constructive and less inciting tone. You know as well as I do that the proper term for the ethinc group is Macedonian Slavs and that the language is called Macedonian, not South Slavic (which is an language group). The Wikipedia is not the "Slav Wiki", as Reaper7 said, but the Macedonian Wikipedia. I think the article in its current state is fair and explains the naming dispute well. The "FYROM" name is also given weight in the first paragraph. The poll should also settle this to an extent. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 00:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I personally don't find any difference between "Fyromian" and "FYROM national", since I had complaints that "Fyromian" is somehow offensive, I will refer to inhabitants of FYROM as "FYROM nationals" from now on (and to the language as "South Slavic"). --Avg 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll stop arguing with you about this, but I really thing the use of "South Slavic" is stubborn. There is no single South Slavic language. And there is no other Macedonian language than the South Slavic one. It's not as if there is a Greek Macedonian language (that is just called Greek). Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 01:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, honestly, what I really want to call this language is Bulgaromacedonian, because it's really a Bulgarian dialect. But I'm sure some FYROM national will be again "offended" by this.--Avg 01:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
folk linguistics. - FrancisTyers 01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I did mention I'm sticking to South Slavic, didn't I?--Avg 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not folk linguistics, and there is nothing irrational in here...maybe irrationalism comes from the other side. as odd it would be to say that the Americans speak 'American' and the Mexicans speak 'Mexican' (unless we accept Bush's, the same thing happens here as well: it is the same language, and this cannot change, no matter what anyone may say. What some people call 'Macedonia' is just a collective name for the western dialects of the Bulgarian language. Regards --Hectorian 07:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think an old friend of mine (whom I miss more and more every day) once said that it is an Ausbausprache. I guess it's the correct way to put it, and I'll paste that info at the language article talk too.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be an accurate description NikoSilver. Like many languages in the world today, Macedonian is an Ausbausprache. - FrancisTyers 13:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually even in Greece we have such a phenomenon. A dialect spoken by Greeks called Arvanitika is similar to Albanian. At the same time, each speaker of Arvanitika will be extremely offended if he's characterised an Albanian. I guess we have the same situation here. While the two languages ("Macedonian" and Bulgarian) are very similar, the people speaking them do not feel an ethnic connection to each other.--Avg 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point something: in the last period we can see an intensified use of insulting terms for the Macedonian people like Fyromians, FYROM nationals, Skopians etc. Please be aware that use of that wording is highly insulting for every ordinary Macedonian user/reader and such behavior will be conveniently reported at WP:PAIN, WP:AN and other places (if needed) in the future. Although this issue is controversial, IMO the only way to avoid such problems is to use the term that WP is using as well: Macedonians (ethnic group). Bitola 07:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bitola, but the Greeks call u 'Skopjians', without wanting to insult u. we have to call u somehow, and there is no way that we will call u 'Macedonians'. so, do not expect something like that. the only thing i may be able to do (in order to find a middle solution) is to call u 'Slavomacedonians'. this is the furthest i can get. --Hectorian 08:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Bitola be assured that I (and I guess others) can take it as far as it goes, in order to protect ourselves for your falsification of history. Names like Fyromians or Skopians and also the rather neutral "Fyrom nationals" are acceptable. Perhaps you want a poll on this too? --Avg 10:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyromian history falsification

"Republic of Macedonia" as state name of FYROM included Greek History of Macedonia!It is a falsification of Macedonia.

Vergina/Macedonia 09:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To User:Kunzite

The name "FYROM" is only one spare name as description of the state.

Vergina/Macedonia 06:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Or even the main one concerning UN, EU, NATO and Greece. Should be put first Reaper7 11:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC).