Talk:Republic of Macedonia

Template:Oldpeerreview

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Name of the country

Current text:

The Republic of Macedonia, known by most international organizations and foreign states as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYR Macedonia)¹, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula...

How about this:

FYROM is the name the Macedonian state itself uses internationally (JTD said)

So, I propose that the article remain at Republic of Macedonia and beginning as follows:

The Republic of Macedonia (known internationally as The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) is a country in...

--Uncle Ed 14:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do not accept the above proposal. Republic of Macedonia is not NPOV and should not be the title of the article or the heading name. A more appropriate first sentence could be:

The The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM) (known whithin its borders and constitution as Republic of Macedonia) is a country in...

After this, it sould be refered as "FYROM" or "The Republic".

FYROM is not a disputed name, while ROM is, and it is also the name only one side prefers.

Some people suggested that FYROM is not NPOV but gave no evidence to support that. It is a fact though that ROM is not NPOV since it is disputed by the UN and Greece. 193.195.0.102 17:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me: ROM or FYROM -- let's just try not to move it back and forth more than once every other day... --Uncle Ed 18:28, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are two issues, the name of the article and the opening of the article. I would suggest

as the name: Macedonia (FYROM)
opening text - The independent state of Macedonia, known internationally as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and internally as the Republic of Macedonia¹ . . .

Footnote

¹ short summary of the fact that there is a dispute and why both names exist. FearÉIREANN 20:19, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess I'd prefer something more like either of the following:

The Republic of Macedonia, known internationally as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)...
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, known internally as the Republic of Macedonia...

Despite being mostly a Greek partisan on this issue by heritage, I'd be willing to acquiesce to the former version. I don't like Jtdirl's proposed version quite as much, because of its equating this country with the term Macedonia, which is the most controversial component of the name. Calling it the Republic of Macedonia is less controversial than calling it Macedonia is. --Delirium 20:54, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

The reason why I proposed the form above was that it uses a totally neutral initial reference, independent state of Macedonia and avoids giving weight to either name. I deliberately use the state because all sides can agree that an independent state exists. Alternatives like 'country', etc are too controversial. Using Macedonia is unavoidable but to avoid running into difficulties it is necessary to have a 'neutral qualifier' and 'indepedent state' is factually correct but with none of the POV connotations of something like Republic of Macedonia, which because it is not accepted widely is too controversial a qualifier to be used. Using either ROM or FYROM as the primary name seems to be a problem. This way we avoid using both as the qualifier, instead using them as part of the explanation that different people use different names. So the language is carefully neutral and endorses neither term, merely explains they exist.

Saying either The ROM, known internationally as the FYROM . . . or The FYROM, known internally as the ROM . . . implies that one or other is the real name and the other the subsidary one. As this page has shown in exhausting detail, partisans on each side of the debate are all too willing to read an agenda for one side and against theirs, if their preferred option isn't used and the one they oppose is, or given the lead in the sentence. The language I have proposed is clinically neutral, with no implicit or explicit endorsement of either side. Using the word state in the rest of the article would avoid any problems, as one of the main ones is the belief by one side that using Macedonia would judgmentally imply the Macedonia in the article is the Macedonia. In constitutions a clear distinction exists between the words state and nation, with the former implying the governmental institutions and the governed unit, and the latter implying the cultural and historic entity. Macedonia (the entity we are talking about here) is often taken as meaning the 'Macedonian nation' and so controversial. State has none of those connotations.

That distinction between state and nation was used, for example, in the Irish constitution. The controversial Article 2 in its original form talked about about the 'National Territory' (ie Nation) in a manner as controversial as the question of 'what is Macedonia?' is here. De Valera, the author of the constitution, got around this by using 'state' to imply that part of the 'national territory' he actually governed. So while Article 2 prior to its recent change was all emotional waffle about the Irish nation including Northern Ireland, Article 3, which focused on 'the state', was pragmatically focused simply on the practical self-governing entity that had been called the Irish Free State which he renamed Éire and now is called the Republic of Ireland. Using state here (lowercased) allows us to leave the emotions of the 'Macedonian issue' to one side and focus on the practical reality of a self governing independent entity, the 'state of Macedonia', which is internationally recognised.

The Republic is not as neutral. Using it capitalised implies we are using a name, which as we have seen here is controversial. Using it lowercased makes no sense as a 'republic' is just a system of government. It would be as linguistically absurd as using constitutional monarchy constantly as an implied name. (eg, 'The constitutional monarchy has fifteen regions and 47 cities.' etc.) State however, lowercased, can be used correctly in such contexts, without implying any implicit endorsement of any side, any name or any agenda. (eg, 'The state has fifteen regions and 47 cities. The state's budget deficit is running at 3.7%. The state's parliament meets in three sessions every year.' etc FearÉIREANN 21:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess my main problem is that state of Macedonia takes the FYROM POV that its state is legitimately called Macedonia and its inhabitants Macedonians, as well as implying that it's the state of Macedonia, rather than a state in Macedonia. Republic of Macedonia qualifies it a bit more. --Delirium 23:01, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. The only problem I see with ROM is the fact that it is disputed. Otherwise I'd have no problem with it. Indeed I'd see it as the ideal name. But as it is disputed (regrettably IMHO) I can't see how we can use it without appearing to take sides in the dispute, which we cannot do without breaching NPOV rules. And if (again I say regrettably) ROM or The Republic carries too much POV baggage, and is grammatically unusable if lowercased, we face a problem. Personally I think FYROM is quite a neutral term, because it does not speak of Macedonia but that Macedonia that had been in the Yugoslav state previously. It doesn't claim to be the Macedonia but a Macedonia. ROM can be implied as suggesting there is only one Macedonia, the Republic. (The Republic of Ireland for many years faced the same problem, which is why until the 1990s Britain often used the Irish Republic, they interpreting that format as leaving open the possibility that there was another Irish something or other also.)

'State' is problematical. I just think it is less problematical than the other alternatives. It allows a grammatically correct way to avoid talking about the FYROM in a way that suggests it is the only Macedonia. I think using Macedonia without a qualifier implies one Macedonia and so is POV. 'Republic' implies the official state title and that too runs into POV problems. So we are running out of alternatives. I have looked through textbooks to see if I could find a perfect word but could not find one. State was the best I could find. I think if properly contextualised at the start of the article, to make it clear it does not imply the state but a state, it becomes if not the best option (I don't think there is one), then the least worst one. If capitalised as State then it would be implying that there is only one Macedonia and it is it. But lowercased and initially contextualised, I think it can work, particularly if we put all concepts of Macedonia into the same format, ie Macedonia (FYROM), Macedonia (Greece) Macedonia (region), etc. Using an identical disambigulation structure and clearly defined language would follow NPOV rules by not appearing to give one claimant to the name Macedonia special status.

Please don't think I am trying to be stubborn on the ROM nomenclature. It is simply that I cannot see how to marry a disputed title with NPOV. If I could see a way I would support it. We could always try Macedonian republic but the problem there is that it sounds like a title. Using state of Macedonia is a statement (no pun intended) that there is a place calling itself Macedonia that is a self-governing state, not a declaration of a name. Indeed the more I think about it the more I admire those negotiators that came up with the FYROM name, because it achieves the seemingly impossible; recognition that there is a Republic of Macedonia, while not suggesting that it is the only Macedonia. I can't held wondering if we are trying to achieve something which has already been achieved with the FYROM name - a non-judgmental name that has enough in it to keep both sides if not happy then at least accepting. FearÉIREANN 23:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. Let's try again to sort it out.

Ed's questions

Are there 2 different, non-contiguous regions both called "Macedonia"?
- YES: Aegean Macedonia, as well as the sum of FYROM + Greek Macedonia + a bit of M in some 3rd country
- NO: It's all one region, split politically into 2 or 3 regions.

I asked my Greek friend last night, and he said that Macedonia is "a region" split into 3 political units, one part Greek, one part Bulgarian, and one part FYROM. --Uncle Ed

All sides agree that whatever Macedonia is, it's contiguous. "Aegean Macedonia" is synonymous with "Greek Macedonia", but not a term used by Greeks. Whether it is one region or split depends on who you ask. Greek viewpoint: only one region, Macedonia (Greece), the cultural heir to Macedon, whose inhabitants are of necessity Greek-speaking (since Macedonia was a Greek empire) mostly within Greece (not counting a few remnants in Albania, Turkey, and FYROM). Others disagree with this characterization. --Delirium 23:01, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

So how far should we consider Greece's viewpoint? After all, they still claim that all Albanians of Orthodox faith are Greeks and that southern Albania should be part of Greece. Dori 23:14, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Greeks dont say that all Albanians who are Christians are Greeks. The fact is about 1/7 albanians in Albania are Greek orthodoxs but this doesnt mean they are Greeks! As Serbs and Russians are not Greeks eitheir! --212.251.28.65 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As they are quite entitled to do, but let's not get into that here!Adam

I still haven't seen an answer to the point I made earlier: that although it may be correct to say that "FYROM is the name the Macedonian state itself uses internationally", that is only true because they were coerced by Greece into that arrangement, and if the threat of coercion was dropped they would immediately stop using FYROM. That is why FYROM is POV, because it amounts to an endorsement of Greece's view that the ROM has no right to call itself Macedonia. It is true that the use of ROM conversely endorses the ROM's view that it does have that right, but since we have to choose between two POV terms, when there is no mutually acceptable alternative available, we should choose the option which conforms to the country's legal name. The fact is that there is no such country as FYROM, and the use of the term is inescapably POV. Adam 23:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is simply not so. The Macedonian state itself accredits its ministers to international bodies as the FYROM.

Under duress

Complete nonsense, Adam.

And if you think the world does what Greece wants you have a rather diluded impression of Greek power.

All EU members have a veto

OK. So I guess you have a shaky knowledge of the EU too. EU members have a veto in limited areas of the EU. Telling countries what their relationship is with a non-EU country is not one of them. And they don't have a veto in the UN, Council of Europe, UNESCO or all the other bodies that have the FYROM accredited under that name.

The international community has a problem with the ROM name,

Untrue

Try reading the files, Adam

given the context of the country's constitution, just as it had a problem with the Irish constitutional claim to Northern Ireland and other claims. The world community, supported by the Macedonian state,

Only under duress

again, a gross distortion. Obviously international law is not one of your strongpoints Adam either.

supported the use of the FYROM as a neutral term pending the solution of the broader issues over the question of what is Macedonia and who has the greater right to the name. If it is good enough for the Macedonian state, why is it not good enough for you, or do you claim the right to ignore the world community, all international bodies and the Macedonian state itself?

of course we have a perfect right to ignore all these if we think they are wrong

FearÉIREANN 23:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that ROM agreed to be called FYROM only under duress?
Are you seriously suggesting that the rest of the international community would have given a toss what an obscure Balkan state called itself had it not been for Greek objections?
Are you seriously saying that an independent encyclopaedia is bound to follow the usage of the UN, the EU or anyone else? Adam

I suppose I'm a bit confused by this discussion thus far. It seems that FYROM as the article location has less support than ROM as the article location. However, we're also discussing some variant on Macedonia or Macedonia (country) as the article location and intro text. I'm not sure why we're discussing the latter: unless I'm mistaken, it's more controversial to Greeks than ROM is, so we don't gain anything on that front by moving from ROM to Macedonia or state of Macedonia, and may in fact lose ground. So, given that I don't think we're going to be moving it to FYROM (pending a change in opinions here), I think ROM is an okay place for it to stay. --Delirium 00:54, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Delirium. I think it would be non-NPOV of Wikipedia to use the FYROM name in the context of the Macedonia article naming. Using FYROM as the name in articles such as a list of NATO countries is correct, of course, since the country is referred to using the FYROM term in those countries. However, naming this article FYROM or "Macedonia (FYROM)" or similar would be a endorsement of the Greek POV that Macedonia should not be allowed to refer to itself as ROM. That is why I proposed "Macedonia (country)". It's the only country calling itself Macedonia, so I don't see why this was objectionable, but it was apparently objectionable since it somehow implied that the region of Macedonia was a country. Using this twisted logic, the "United States of America" means that the United States is laying claim to all of North and South America as well.

I think if you're looking to be offended, you can succeed pretty much 100% of the time. "Macedonia (ROM)" is just plain dumb, so I think "Republic of Macedonia" may be necessarily the median name that is least objectionable on the whole. It was also the most approved name according to the vote that we held. Given the lack of a more approved and more accepted name, I am opposed to any attempt to move the article. Daniel Quinlan 01:02, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

If DQ is correct that ROM "was also the most approved name according to the vote that we held" (I haven't been keeping count), then we should declare the polls closed, the issue resolved, and talk about something else. Adam 03:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, here's the vote I referenced. It has been archived twice now (not surprising considering the volume of this discussion), including a comment I made just yesterday. sigh

Where the article should be

Note that you can sign more than one option!

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Uncle Ed, 193.195.0.101,Vergina FearÉIREANN
Republic of Macedonia - Uncle Ed ,Rmhermen, Zundark, Jiang , dml, Dori, Daniel Quinlan (my second choice), Iceager
Macedonia (country) - Daniel Quinlan
Republic of Macedonia (with disclaimer in the first sentence) -Delirium, Jiang (it's not necessary to include this option in the poll!) (so no title for the article, Jiang?)(what?? why list ROM twice in this poll? we can settle this after we decide on it)
FYR Macedonia-Vergina

Total of approval votes for each article title:

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia = 4
Republic of Macedonia = 7 (plus Adam would be 8)
Macedonia (country) = 1
Republic of Macedonia with first sentence disclaimer = 8 or 9
FYR Macedonia= 1

By a factor of about 2-to-1, Republic of Macedonia is the most accepted option for the title. The disclaimer is already present and adds an additional approval vote. Is it really going to be productive to continue discussing this? Opinions seem quite deadlocked. Daniel Quinlan 03:58, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

What a sensible grown-up solution. Thank you Adam. Wetman 05:46, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

In that case the issue should be regarded as closed: Vox populi vox dei.

I would suggest the opening paragraph should read:

The Republic of Macedonia is an independent state in the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe. The United Nations and foreign states recognise it under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (commonly abbreviated to FYROM). The use of the term Republic of Macedonia in this article does not imply that Wikipedia takes any position on issues in dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and any other country.

Adam 04:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the introduction is more or less okay, but I did add a footnote with a rephrased version of your disclaimer. I don't think the United Nations should be specifically mentioned in the introduction, and some foreign states do recognize it under the ROM name (Turkey, at the very least) and certainly a number don't mind the ROM name given the usage of ROM in the name of embassies and so forth. It might be good to say "abbreviated", though. Daniel Quinlan 05:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I like my version better, with the change to "most foreign states," but not enough to start a new argument about it. Adam

IMO including the disclaimer in the text is disruptive. The footnote works better. The fact that it is recognized by the UN/most other countries by that name is more extensively stated later in the article. Why single out the UN? I restored JTD's version of the first paragraph, since it is better in include the FYROM in the first sentence, to lessen to precedence we give to ROM.

Which states besides Turkey dont use the FYROM designation? This should be noted in the article. --Jiang 06:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Turkey and the North Cyprus regime. 193.195.0.102 10:03, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. --Vladko 12:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC) FYROM was not forced to accept this name. It was indeed under durress, but so was Greece since it was Greece who was being indirectly thretened with identity theft

What a terrible threat! Did they steal Greece's credit card?

How about they commited crimes in the name of Macedonia? Oh I guess that would not mean much to you, anyway right? And because it means nothing to you, it should mean nothing to everyone, right? Care to push your POV a bit more cause really, it hasn't been completely clear yet. [/sarcasm] 193.195.0.101 09:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

and territorial claims by the Yugoslavian state

Untrue. Neither Yugoslavia nor ROM ever made territorial claims on Greece. Some political groups in ROM did, but that is not the same thing. Some political groups in Greece claim that Cyprus, North Epirus (southern Albania) and most of Turkey should be part of Greece. Adam

The current Wikipedia article, if it is accurate, claims otherwise. Supposedly part of the agreement with Greece was removing a clause from the ROM constitution referring to uniting the three parts of Macedonia. That sounds like an official territorial claim by the ROM to me, and the current Wikipedia article even describes it as such ("its constitution was changed so as not to reflect any territorial claims"). --Delirium 01:23, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. They even have territorial claims in their schoolbooks (approved by the state). There are so many pieces that point to their territorial claims, it is not even funny. The articl only refers to the most obvious. 193.195.0.101 09:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Worth checking out. Greece might have considered the name alone to be a claim. It may just be that they added a disclaimer. It might also have not been a claim, but a provision to allow other parts of the region to join (which would still be worrisome to neighboring countries, but is not quite the same thing). I don't take for granted any information in Wikipedia. Too many people are busy pushing their POV. Daniel Quinlan 01:35, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

. It is a fact though, that the name FYROM was a compromise for BOTH states. FYROM was NOT suggested by the Greek side and it has NOT been accepted by nationalists in either state, as some here try to present. I don't understand how 8 people here seem to totally ignore that FYROM is NPOV while ROM isn't. Sheesh! 193.195.0.102 09:56, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the article looks much better regardless it being under the wrong heading IMO. 193.195.0.102 10:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The statement in the 1991 constitution was indeed a foolish provocation, but it was not a territorial claim. It was, as I explained above somwhere, the doing of the IMRO party in Macedonia, which is no longer in office, and it was deleted as part of the 1995 agreement. Anyway it has nothing to do with the naming issue. Adam 02:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Behold! Here comes Adam to tell us all, what has what to do with what! What was foolish and what was not, what was right and what was wrong! So, Adam, wasn't FYROM under "durress" when they deleted their territorial claims from their contitution? The name "Macedonia" itself is a territorial claim. It is also ridiculus in so many levels. They call it "Macedonia" while call the proper historic region of Macedonia, "Aegean" or "Greek Macedonia" and a small part in bulgaria "Pirin Macedonia". Sure. No territorial claims in naming things, right? [/sarcasm] How about the use of the ancient greek emblem? Sure, individually these things don't look so bad, but when you have the capacity to put them all together you can see that there are clear territorial claims, even today. Hell, just go and have a look at their school books (aproved by the state). 193.195.0.101 09:58, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The "SOSIALISTIC YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" is SLAV STATE !IS NOT IDENTICAL TO "REPUBLIC OF MACEDON/IA" .THIS IS FORGERY !!!!Vergina 07:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article is "Republic of Macedonia" ! Current text: The Republic of Macedonia¹, known by most international organizations and foreign states as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYR Macedonia),....Vergina 11:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yugoslavia vs. now

Reading Vergina's comments gives me an idea: shouldn't we make a distinction between the region, republic or province which was "part" of Yugoslavia? I'm still not clear on how or why some parts of "Macedonia" ever became part of Yugoslavia. I'm even less clear the connection to FYROM, Bulgaria or Greece any more... --Uncle Ed 16:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Simple. Macedonia mostly went to Greece since it was mostly populated by Macedonians (Greeks). Some parts to the north had Bulgarians and other slavs along with the Greek populations. Some of these parts got annexed by Serbia and Bulgaria. Notably Moastiri(Vitola) which had about 250,000 Greeks but now has none was annexed by Serbia. Later on. the Bulgarians in Monastiri were all renamed to "Macedonians", to distance them from Bulgaria and also allow for territorial claims towards Macedonia.

Map from 1912/14 [[1] (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_aspirations_1914.jpg)]

Note where Macedonia is marked to be and note the names.

Also you may want to have a look at this [[2] (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/OttomanMacedonia/statistics.html)]. The page is not of Greek origin but I would like to see how someone can dispute the numbers quoted there.

In any case, as I said before, I am not here to solve the issue and I am not here to demand of anyone to stop using the term "Macedonia" when refering to FYROM. My main interest is in seeing that an agreement is honoured by everyone.

They don't even mention any Albanians in the area. Worthless "statistics". Dori 17:19, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Albanians go under Muslims I think. But yes, the rest of the statistics are pretty much worthless.

Yes, Albanians go under "Turks and Others" I believe. The main controversy is between "former Yugoslavs", Greeks, and Bulgarians, so it's understandable that Albanians would be lumped under "Others", since that issue is mostly tangential to the 3-way conflict. --Delirium 19:08, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Music

Could somebody willing and knowledgeable in this area (besides Vergina) issue an opinion on where the information I placed at Music of Macedonia should be? Tuf-Kat 08:42, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I would say go with Music of the Republic of Macedonia, awkward but it should be less contentious than Music of Macedonia and not as awkward as Music of FYROM. Dori | Talk 15:20, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

What a nice article Music of Macedonia would be, demonstrating the cultural exchanges in music between the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and the Macedonian Slavs. I know a some things about this subject, but right now I'm less than willing to write it. Etz Haim 01:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SFRY links

How is listing other republics and provinces of ex-yugoslavia off-topic here? macedonia was a republic of yugoslavia, major parts of macedonian history are connected that to history of yugoslavia, the article mentions other republics and provinces... it's just handy to have them all together. Zocky 17:40, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's taking the navigation aid one step too far. The ex-provinces are not part of any single political unit, so listing them as such is confusing, unnecessary, and clunky. I'm removing them again. Daniel Quinlan 17:45, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I Still think yo are wrong. The ex-republics were a part of a single country, which was much talked about in recent years, and anybody reading up on one republic might want to read up on another. It's NPOV, useful and non-intrusive. It's just like see also links and as such, completely uncontroversial. Other opinions welcome. (Not to mention that just deleting somebody's contribution might be considered bad form). Zocky 17:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is it bad form? No contribution is immune from being deleted, modified, or moved by another user. It's called collaborative editing. We could add lots of links to every article, but the number of navigation links in country and province articles is out-of-hand in many articles. The listing of Council of Europe is also POV and unnecessary, but deleting those is another matter... Anyway, I deleted your contribution also for style and presentation reasons in addition to the reasons listed above. Daniel Quinlan 18:06, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

The facts that Macedonia used to be part of Yugoslavia and that it's a member of the organization called Council of Europe, are just that, facts. They are in no way POV. Zocky

Listing the Council of Europe and promoting it above other European organizations is POV. It's not needed for navigation purposes since there is an article with countries of Europe and not all European countries are in the Council of Europe. Daniel Quinlan 18:31, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

And the fact that there are numerous links in most country and province articles means that many people thought they should be there. It's not your personal playground. I'm reverting to my version and expect you to have strong arguments on the talk page (or, preferably drop it, since it is trivial), rather then revert it for the third time. Zocky 18:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm removing your links because Yugoslavia is is not a political unit in existence today. I think it is also POV to list it here, but I think that is less significant than my aesthetic concerns. I have made no editing related to the Council of Europe links (yet). While you can argue that your addition is trivial and I'm being silly for removing them, I can equally easily argue that your addition is trivial and you're being silly for obsessing about including it. Just because an addition required some work does not mean it improves an article. Daniel Quinlan 18:31, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Why the ex-yugoslav link-bar should be included

It's a link-bar I found in Slovenia, enhanced and put in all articles on ex-yugoslav republics and provinces. My thoughts as to why follow. Please comment.

It's completely NPOV - it's just pointers to other elements of the set {x:x is ex-yugoslav republic V x is ex-yugoslav province}.
It is still relevant - the fact that something is no longer true does not falsify the fact that it used to be true. Ex-Yugoslavia is still much talked about and understanding of it and its other republics is important for understanding Macedonia.
As far as readers not familiar with the region are concerned, it is very useful.
It's not even a part of the article - it's clearly separated and looks just like a navigational aid, which it is. Adding more link-bars like this can only be useful, as long as they are suitably chosen and sensably ordered.

Also, the thing did not cause any concerns in Slovenia, and so far nobody has objected to it in other articles. Anyway, it should be in all of them or in none. -- Zocky 19:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary

It's POV. It strongly suggests a greater relationship with the former political unit than current politics, surrounding countries, etc. That is far from the case.
It's ugly, clunky, bad layout, etc.
It's big (and made bigger still by adding non-English words to it, but removing the non-English would only make it about 5% less objectionable to me).
It's historical information better located in the article. Thanks Camembert for that edit. I think this answers most of your concerns.
Links clutter the article and need to be chosen very judiciously.
The navigation zoo in Slovenia is horrible. Citing it as an example of aesthetics is really scary. Fewer people are watching Slovenia and I haven't noticed it yet. Clearly, some more global approach needs to be taken with respect to how much navigation should be in country articles, as was done with the table of information about each country.

Daniel Quinlan 20:01, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

You are right about non-English names. I didn't like them in the first place. And maybe the text could be changed to "Former republics and provinces of Yugoslavia" .

OTOH, I did not cite Slovenia as an example of aesthetics. But, the whole thing being on the bottoom of the article, separated by a line and obviously looking like a footer, it does NOT look that bad and is the right place to put organized links to other articles that a reader might want to read after reading about Macedonia. Nothing POV in it. Zocky 20:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that a "see also" link to a separate topic that is simply a list of the former Republics of Yugoslavia would be entirely appropriate, but a navigation device within the page(s) is, effectively, even if unintentionally, a political statement, linking these now-independent countries as if they were all still part of a unit. The same logic would have us link all of the countries that were formerly in the Ottoman (or Austro-Hungarian) Empire. -- Jmabel 21:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Valid remark, but I still disagree. "See also" with a list is much larger and more intrusive.

Why Yugoslavia and not Ottoman empire? The break-up of Yugoslavia is recent, in historical and geo-political terms. Current events in Macedonia et Al., don't have much to do with Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary, but have a lot to do with Yugoslavia.

What I don't get is how is saying Former republics of Yugoslavia linking anything as it were still a part of a unit? It clearly says former

All that said, I think that some kind of policy concerning ring links (as I now whimsically choose to call them, because they're a bit like web rings) in country/province articles would be a Good Thing. [[Zocky 00:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)]] 00:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Countries that recognise FYROM as Macedonia

I've found that some countries apparently reject the FYROM name, recognising it as the Republic of Macedonia instead - notably Turkey (see examples at NATO (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=turkey+macedonia+recognises+site%3Awww.nato.int)). Does anyone know of any other countries which follow this policy? -- ChrisO 16:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reportedly Northern Cyprus and the People's Republic of China (the state press uses "Republic of Macedonia"). --Jia ng

Well, "Northern Cyprus" itself is internationally recognized as "the northern portion of the Republic of Cyprus, currently under Turkish occupation", not as a state. =] --Delirium 07:44, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

The other four countries created after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia do for sure, it plainly doesn't make sense for them to refer to the republic as FYROM when they're all FYRs. --Shallot 13:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't notice how old this comment was. The article already includes an up to date list. --Shallot

Lithuanian name for this state is Makedonijos Respublika (Republic of Macedonia); short name is just Makedonija. It is never called "Buvusi Jugoslavijos Respublika Makedonija" or anything like that. DeirYassin 17:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Odd sentence

The article says:

"The state's name remains a source of local and international controversy and shows that the political force is always dominating the international law."

What does that mean? I'd rewrite it to make it less clunky, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Quadell 16:45, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I read it as saying "The state's name remains a source of local and international controversy, which demonstrates that political concerns always outweigh legal rights." Definitely a POV statement (I would guess from a pro-Macedonia party) so I would suggest getting rid of everything after the word "controversy". -- ChrisO 17:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

squared

All the squared stats have been changed to just the non-superscripted number, e.g. km2. I'm not sure why. I'm reverting. Quadell 15:57, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Might be a too-smart webbrowser which destroys the ². Using ² is usually saver, yet more ugly to have HTML source in the text. andy 16:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Move page

Change this page back to Macedonia (country) as in Encarta [3] (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555941/Macedonia.html) and Britannica [4] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119675) [5] (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=396145). Having the article at Republic of Macedonia is POV. This is already well defined in the Macedonia page:

Macedonia - disambiguation page
Macedonia (region) - historical region
Macedonia (country) - landlocked republic
Macedonia (Greece) - province of Greece

--Cantus 05:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYROM is Ottoman Kosovo! Not Macedonia! See Uskub (Skopje) the capital city of Ottoman Kosovo! --Vergina 06:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia would beg to disagree. --Cantus 07:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned before, "Macedonia (country)" would be similarly POV. There's no good solution so I support staying put. --Jia ng 07:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. The present name of the article (which is the country's constitutional name) is probably the least POV solution we can adopt. -- ChrisO 09:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree too, the things should stay as they were. I'd also revert the disambiguation thing, the region deserves the first place. --Shallot 13:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Luckily a lot of people disagree with you, so your opinion is by no means a consensus. --Cantus 14:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What kind of a smug response is that? Are you in a mood for flamewar or something? Not impressed... --Shallot 14:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How can Macedonia (countery) be POV since it is the only current country that has that name? 80.255.214.183 14:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

overemphasis on the naming dispute

Jiang, while there is reason to leave the naming dispute in a separate section, and a bit less reason to expound the chronology of it right here at the top of the main country page, I don't see why we should litter the top section with all that stuff too. This is a fully functional state, just like any other one (at least the ones in the vicinity), it just happens to have two different names in official use. It should be treated as such. --Shallot 00:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue and the controversy must be made clear in the beginning. Yes, details may be moved elsewhere, but hiding the controversy in the history section does not make the information readily available. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "litter the top section with all that stuff too" while you also think there's reason in having a separate section. --Jia ng 00:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Republic_of_Macedonia&diff=4956915&oldid=4956890). This belongs to the section on the naming dispute, not to the very top of the page. The top of the page already clearly states that there are two names and that it's because of the dispute. The "Naming dispute" section is the first in the table of contents so if anyone manages to miss it, they would appear to have reading habits different from the remainder of the world's population... --Shallot 01:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at wikipedia:lead section. The content appropriately belongs in the lead section. The naming controversy is over the Republic of Macedonia and Greek objections and subsequent effects on its international recognition and participation. What percentage of the entire region the Republic controls is introductory material and the mention of Vardarska banovia is not tied with the Greek objections. Being formerly part one of the six constituent republics is also not tied in with the dispute. If this text is to be kept under the naming dispute, what do you suggest we have in the lead section? --Jia ng 01:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how the current ordering breaks the guidelines laid out in the lead section document, and it's also perfectly in line with the vote about the names listed at the top (discussed in this page), and with the WP Countries template. The exact regional delineation and the old names are also pertinent to the naming dispute section (and also to the geography and history sections), they're not crucial for the lead section. I did not disagree that the fact that it was part of Yugoslavia should be included in the lead section -- I left it there. It's good to mention Yugoslavia soon after mentioning the term FYR, and it's good in general (ex-.yu was crucial in establishing its borders and status as a nation, and it also happened relatively recently). --Shallot 16:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lead sections for articles like these should be a couple paragraphs long. What do you suggest we place in the second paragraph? If the text also applies for the geo and history sections, then perhaps the naming dispute section is not the best place to put it? As it is not limited in relevancy to the naming dispute (and is imo not the most relevant there) it belongs on top. How is it not introductory material? --Jia ng 22:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just see where this line of reasoning has gotten us... now the second paragraph is wonderfully bloated with excessive historical information, and the intro is useless because nobody will bother reading to the end of a thousand-word paragraph. Blech. --Joy [shallot]

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the details of the dispute in the history article. First, it's not made clear on this page that more details are given there and Second, it's not just about history but about foreign relations. The list of countries states that the dispute is discussed here. There's nothing wrong with keeping all the information here, but we could also start a new article specifically on the naming dispute. How much more is there to mention? --Jia ng 01:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, what happened originally (the flamebait in the constitution and the flag etc; the subsequent sanctions and negotiations) is a notable thing, but it is indeed history. I really doubt .mk or .gr will ever revert to that kind of behaviour again. A new article that would integrate the whole chronology of the dispute could be good, just make sure to eliminate any leftover duplication if you do it. --Shallot 16:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jiang here - it would make more sense to cover the naming dispute under Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, as the issue is really one of Macedonian-Greek relations. It's certainly not an historical matter as the dispute is still ongoing. -- ChrisO 17:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I concentrated a bit too much on the issue of main page vs. subpage. Moving stuff from the history subpage to foreign relations subpage is fine by me. I'll go do that. --Shallot 19:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there should eventually be a completely separate article on this, as the issue of Macedonian identity isn't really a sub-issue of any one country. The history of how ancient Macedon morphed into a modern geographic entity, and the politics and history involved, is an interesting story. Sure, the foreign relations of FYROM are part of it, but only one part of it, so it doesn't really belong on that page. --Delirium 16:55, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, I know why you moved the naming dispute to the politics section, but will it do any good? See also Jiang's argument above. --Joy [shallot] 12:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will do any good, given the strength of feeling in some quarters, but I think it does need to be done. I agree that there has been an overemphasis in the article on the naming dispute. It's hardly the most important thing about the RoM. In fact, I'd suggest that the passage of time has downgraded the importance of the dispute considerably - it certainly hasn't stopped the Greek government from pragmatic cooperation with the RoM. Other issues, such as the Slav-Albanian relationship within the RoM, are arguably of far more pressing importance; giving such prominence to the naming dispute suggests an importance that it simply doesn't have these days. I may trim it further, as the present naming dispute section feels a bit too detailed for an overview article. -- ChrisO 21:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then you may want to review Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Etz Haim 23:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that article, I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO 23:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vergina's dispute notice, or something

Disputed Article:Republic of Macedonia

The article is disputed,although on the part of the Wikipedia not to see want!

Vergina 06:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I for one don't understand this sentence. Please try to use meaningful English. --Joy [shallot]

Notes: "¹ The title of this article is not meant to imply an official position on this naming dispute."

The constitutions name "Republic of Macedonia" is disputed.Not the temporary name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

Vergina 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The temporary name is disputed by the Republic of Macedonia itself, they don't want it. D'oh! --Joy [shallot]

== MACEDONIA? What's in a Name - A Rose by Any Other Name, Is It Still A Rose? ==

Is a rose by any other name still a rose? What if we started calling the "rose" an "onion"? If you had both next to each other, could you point to each and call each an onion? Would one be a real onion and the other a fake onion? Would both smell the same, look the same, have the same texture, color, and all other qualities? If you asked someone for an onion what would he give you? Would your sweetheart appreciate the dozen onions that you sent her for Valentine's Day?

Now, what happens if one area of our world started calling itself with the same name as a neighboring area? What if this area also took the identity and history of its neighbors? What if this first area becomes a country? Can it now decide to call itself with the same name as its neighbor and the rest of the world recognizes it so? The Massachusetts Bay Colony consisted of the area of the northern New England states and also encompassed part of what today is the Canadian province of Quebec. Throughout the years, many Quebec inhabitants have migrated from Quebec to the New England states. If Quebec broke away from Canada and became an independent country, would it be suitable to change its name to "New England"? Would it bother anyone if this "New England" hoisted a new flag with New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain in the middle of it, printed new currency picturing Bunker Hill on it, redrew their maps such that their territory is shown going all the way down to Boston and beyond, and revised their history books to indicate the colonial New England history as their own. Maybe we can call this new country "New New England" and we can rename the Northeastern part of the United States "Old New England". Will that make it clear to everybody? We read the above hypothetical situation and think that it is so ridiculous that it could never happen. But, that is exactly what is happening today right before our eyes between The FYROM, former Yugoslavia's southern republic, and Macedonia, one of Greece's northern provinces. Before 1944 the area that later comprised of the former Yugoslavia's southern republic was not called Macedonia but was called Vardarska Banovina (Province -of the river- Vardar). It was in 1944 that (Joseph Broz) Marshal Tito, the Communist dictator ruling Yugoslavia at that time, created Yugoslavia's southern republic and called it "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". However, "Macedonia" was already the name of one of Greece's northern provinces. In ancient times, the land that Macedonia covered included this northern province of Greece, a small part of Bulgaria, a small part of Albania, and a small part of the region that Tito named the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. It is pertinent to note that Tito?s Socialist Republic of Macedonia consisted of not only a small part of ancient Macedonia but also a far larger part from Slavic Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that creating this Republic in the southern region in Yugoslavia and including "Macedonia" in its name was deliberate with the main intention of laying claim to the region of ancient Macedonia of the northern province of Greece. Particularly, what Tito and his Communist allies wanted was the city of Thessaloniki with its lucrative warm water port.

After 1944 a deliberate and systematic campaign was initiated for Yugoslavia's southern republic to take over the history of ancient Macedonia. ?Scholars? from the ?People?s Republic of Macedonia? were commissioned to re-write their history books to include the ancient Macedonian History according to the wishes of the League of Communists of communist Yugoslavia, accompanied by perverted maps showing their "Macedonia" going all the way down to the northern half of Mount Olympus. Also, ?linguists? led by Blagoj Konev, a.k.a. Bla?e Koneski, were appointed to create the alphabet for and refine the "newly discovered" Macedonian language, which, of course, was made to sound as if it were the ?natural development? of the ancient Macedonian language. Through their control of mass media and education, the government of ?People?s Republic of Macedonia? then introduced this language and claimed that it is the language that was spoken by the ancient Macedonians. However, this language is grammatically nearly identical to Bulgarian and, due to continuous government interventions, its vocabulary tends to include more Serbo-Croatian words that have replaced the Bulgarian words. They clearly overlooked the unquestionable fact that the inhabitants of ancient Macedonia were Greeks and spoke the Greek language. Numerous excavations in all of the ancient Macedonia area have consistently unearthed relics clearly with Greek writings, and depictions of rulers clearly designated with Greek names. --Themata 00:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As long as officially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not Republic of Macedonia, why should we call it Macedonia? We are not for example a turkish or a chinese encyclopaedia that address to turks and chineses. www.wikipedia.org is global web-site.--212.251.28.65 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It actually has two official names - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for most international affairs and Republic of Macedonia as its constitutional name, which around 40 countries also recognise internationally. Wikipedia discusses the wider region of Macedonia at the namesake article and uses Republic of Macedonia after the country's own practice, just as we use Republic of China for Taiwan. -- ChrisO 23:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV:

The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM. I will not turn a blind eye to this for the sake of politeness. To all those who are trying with demagoguery and propaganda to infect Wikipedia with controversial names for this country such as "ROM" or the incendiary "Macedonia" so as to serve some alternative agendas: cease and desist. As you will find in Wikipedia, the names that countries use for themselves, if they are not the internationally formal names (such as Hellas for Greece, Holland for The Netherlands and Britain for The United Kingdom) all are articles which redirect or refer the reader to the proper article with the proper title. There is no reason for the entry for this small state to be treated in any way differently merely to appease their desire to promote their propaganda and I shall not allow it. Philaleth

ok Holland has erroneously become a byword for the Netherlands, but Hellas is not an alternative word for Greece, it is Greek for Greece!, and Britain is the UK excluding Northern Ireland, 80.255.214.183 14:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read through all the archives before posting. If you'd even read just the post immediately above yours, you'd see that sentences 1 and 4 are incorrect. Everything else you've posted is based on sentences 1 and 4 so I don't see an argument --Jia ng 05:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you assuming that I did not read the archives? I did. And I feel that it is imperative that someone put the brakes on this revisionist madness. If no one does, then Wikipedia will become the purview of bullies (see Joy's threat to me for my tone! Never mind the facts, as long as we all nicely agree to the lies? Is that what you consider NPOV?) and it will lose its ability to contain true information from a NPOV. Now to address specifically your posting:

Check every international legal reference source you care to check (including those that you recommend on your user page: LOC and CIA) and you will find only one internationally accepted name for FYROM, and that is: FYROM. The fact that some anonymous poster has posted a glib claim to the contrary does not constitute rational basis for your claim that my sentences 1 and 4 are incorrect. Instead it points to the possibility that you have some other agenda or that you just don't have the facts on the subject.
If you wish to refute my argument then address my argument: If it is proper for Hellas, Holland and Britain to be a referring articles why is it not for Republic of Macedonia? It is not only inconsistent, it is also not NPOV and in addition offensive to the people of Greece. If you believe that this should be the purpose of this Wiki effort then just say so and be honest about it. If not, then I propose that this offense be remedied immediately . Philaleth 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What he said. Also, FWIW, this arrogant tone will only help you get ignored and/or banned. --Joy [shallot] 11:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we are to truly take seriously the relevance of Wikipedia, we must accept the truth, even if it is presented in a manner that does not please us. I respond to factual arguments, not to threats. Philaleth 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. "You will not change what I wrote!" is plain old wack in our context and only contributes hostility. --Joy [shallot]

It's simply not true to say that "The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM" - at least 40 countries recognise it as the "Republic of Macedonia". This fact is mentioned in the article and in my earlier comments on this talk page. As I said earlier, we are simply following existing precedent in using the country's own name for itself - the same happens for the Republic of China (Taiwan).

It is in fact true that "The one, internationally legal, formal name which is acknowledged by all nations for this country is FYROM". There is no nation that does not recognize that name. By contrast, whereas you and some anonymous writer claim (without offering any substantiation) that "40 countries recognize the name ROM", the rest of the world does not. Ergo: FYROM is NPOV (by the definition of NPOV) and ROM isn't. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a pretty one-sided look at things. All UN member countries know what is meant by FYROM due to a general consensus, but many of them explicitly *do not* use this and instead use just ROM. Trying to imply that this has no significance, and that therefore FYROM is the end-all solution to the naming dispute, is pure sophistry. --Joy [shallot] 10:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, the naming issue has been extensively discussed already and a free vote of Wikipedians has already decided on using "Republic of Macedonia". If you want to organise a fresh vote, then of course you have a right to do so, but unless you think of a better argument that that it's "offensive to the people of Greece" I doubt whether you'll get much support. It's not up to you whether you want to "allow" the name to stand or not - that's up to the Wikipedia community, not you on your own -- ChrisO 23:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do not confuse consensus with the truth. Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the truth, I am here to contest the consensus that was reached in my absense. And as for whether or not it is up to me to "allow" it: insofar as Wikipedia is a democratic medium, the opinion of all participants can and must be heard, and new information must be incorporated. Therefore, if the previous decision was reached in the absense of certain facts or under the influence of revisionist propaganda then, for the sake of the veracity and therefore relevance of Wikipedia, it must now be changed. I have presented a number of factual and rational arguments in support of that

That's what you think. We, obviously, disagree. --Joy [shallot]

and yet it seems the only one that you selectively remember is "offensive to the people of Greece." Whereas I would remind you that something offensive to the people of a whole country is not by any stretch of the imagination NPOV I would urge you to also read the rest of my arguments. I am not yet familiar with the process for causing revisions, reviews, votes and the like but I will familiarize myself and preserve the truth that flies in the face of the subversive propaganda that possibly has been embedded in Wikipedia by FYROM radicals. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(added) I think Philaleth's comments on Wikipedia:Peer review shed a lot of light where s/he is coming from - just more nationalist ranting of the kind that we've seen all too often on this issue, unfortunately:

If I may add to Etz's sober commentary: I believe that what is appropriate for Greece, Britain and Holland, is also appropriate for ROM/FYROM. There is no rational reason for which Wikipedia should concede to be used for the furthering of the propaganda of that (terrorist/extremist (http://search.loc.gov:8765/query.html?col=loc&qt=macedonia&qp=url%3A%2Frr%2Ffrd%2F&submit.x=0&submit.y=0) friendly and drugrunning (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/NarcsFundedTerrs_Extrems.pdf) and money laundering (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mk.html#Issues) friendly) state. We must vehemently protect Wikipedia from such aggressors

Spoken like a true propagandist. Because the country has various issues, we should completely ignore their opinion (and the opinion of other countries friendly to them) on how they should be called. That just doesn't fly. --Joy [shallot]

if it is to become relevant as a source of information to the world and worthy of this concerted effort. The one internationally legal name of this state is FYROM and so the article should be titled. A footnote can then show that its inhabitants want to use a different name for themselves. I believe that to do otherwise would not only be not NPOV and offensive to the people of Greece, but it would also run contrary to international laws and conventions. This article's title must be changed forthwith. I don't know how to do this so someone please advise. Philaleth 22:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will kindly request that you refrain from maligning my writings with slander. There is not one iota in that paragraph that is not true and relevant to the issue. I see no reason why a state that is akin (in our government's eyes) to Afghanistan under the Taliban, should be allowed to disperse its propaganda on Wikipedia. If you have any facts by which to present a bona-fide argument please do so. (By the way you will have to address those to the CIA and the Library of Congress and all of their sources and contributors, as I merely linked to their sites.) I am not interested in interpersonal "character assasination" and would ask you to refrain from it. Philaleth 01:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

American Recognition

Finally, someone is setting this stupid, childish dispute right. If the frickin' people in Macedonia want to call their country Macedonia then the Greeks have to live with it. Philaleth, I have no idea what on earth you want to argue about such a ridiculous formality, but you need to stop.

The "Macedonians" can call themeselves anyway they want. The Greeks will do what they have to do to defend their history and their heritage.

- Philaleth 05:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) whoever you are you little punk a$$ freak, if you had a brain larger than a pea you'd see the problem: what would Bush do if part of canada suddenly called themselves Michigan and started demanding that they be reunited with their fellow "Michiganians"? I'll tell you what: he'd bomb the place back to the Ice Age and turn it into a parking lot! Your stupidity is equaled only by that idiot Bush's... His time will come (in International Court, Hague or otherwise) and all you pea-brains will have to crawl back under the rocks you came from...

USA recognises Macedonia with its original name

From this month(November 2004) United States of America officialy recognised Macedonia with its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia".

Notice to User:Vergina

The historical name (with over 2500 years of history, great part of it being indeed Greek) is Macedonia itself, not "Republic of Macedonia". Nevertheless, you keep adding the same stupid stuff:

"The name "Republic of Macedonia" included 2500 years Greek history of Macedonia.See FYROMs history-propaganda (http://historyofmacedonia.org/)"

which, as I've told you, doesn't make any sense. It's a shame you've chosen this way to embarass yourself, and Greece too. Etz Haim 19:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes the name "Republic of Macedonia" included Greek History and Greek Symbols:http://www.makedonija.info/info.html

Vergina 19:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Scope of dispute: "Whether articles on States should be named based upon international recognition, or based upon the state's internal recognition." I suggest we do not submit sources disputing the history/geographical area/etc, but instead effectively sub-contract that part of the debate out to the politicians of the world.

I have moved the article to be named "FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" as it is internationally recognised. example (http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/deplib/countries/macd.htm). This is the most NPOV name for the article, as it is the name recognised by the majority of countries - you even admit to this in the opening sentence of the article, so why you should decide to name the article based upon a minority view is beyond me.

I am aware that was a previous discussion on this, but this was effectively 7 people voting based upon opinion not fact. They might as well have been voting on whether 2+2=7. Wikipedia is not supposed to be democratic. --Rebroad 21:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is democratic - the entire encyclopedia works on the basis of consensus and agreement. The matter of this article's name was discussed at length and agreed by a majority. The minority might not have liked the outcome but they did agree to abide by it. To put it mildly, it's presumptuous for you to claim that your view should override that of everyone else. If you really want to get the article's name changed, persuade people that your point of view is the right one - don't try to impose it. -- ChrisO 21:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFAIWA, I was quoting Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines and meta:Don't_vote_on_everything. Also, may I ask you not to accuse me of vandalism, as you have just done on my talk page, along with threatening to block me, both of which are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Thanks, --Rebroad 12:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your changes, like for an example your use of improper capitalization of article title, were a clear and deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Naive cynic 13:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The capitalizaion of the word "Of" was an honest mistake. Which policy?? --Rebroad 14:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Consensus. --Jia ng

Also, History_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia, also states it was internationally named FYROM in 1993. ChrisO, what is your objection? Why are we debating this, 11 years later? --Rebroad 15:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, we stated that it was not just an issue of what names international organizations (not everyone) use. Your average tourist just calls it "Macedonia". Should we move it there? --Jia ng 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected to prevent it from being moved again without community consensus. --Jia ng 06:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been a year since the last poll, let's have a new one. --Joy [shallot] 11:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm game, but could we do it after Christmas? -- ChrisO 13:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to cover the naming dispute?

In anticipation of questions/objections, I'll explain here why I've made a number of major changes to the way the naming dispute is covered on this article:

1) Position within the article. Taxonomically, the naming dispute section was misplaced - it's clearly a subset of the country's politics (i.e. regarding foreign relations), not an issue separate from and above all every other matter regarding that country. It also gives entirely the wrong impression about the relative importance of the issue. I know some people on both sides feel strongly about it, but objectively it can't possibly be argued that the naming dispute is more important than every other aspect of the state's history, politics, geography, economics etc.

2) Level of detail. This is a summary article; the naming dispute is covered in detail in a separate page. As such, it's surely not appropriate to go into too much detail about any issue (naming or otherwise) on a country page. Doing that also unnecessarily duplicates the detailed coverage elsewhere. The old version of the naming dispute section was too long - in fact, longer than any other section other than the history one - and it went into excessive detail, such as quoting UN resolutions verbatim. I've summarised it in two paragraphs and pointed the reader towards the detailed article.

3) Conformance with templates. Having a long naming dispute section at the very top of the article is clearly not in conformance with the WikiProject Countries template. This change brings the article into line with the standard template. -- ChrisO 17:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is ridiculously exaggarated, but I think it shouldn't be completely omitted from the intro, since that will only last until the next person with an axe to grind comes along. I think it would be best if it was mentioned in a single sentence in the intro (preferably close to the names themselves) and linked to another place (possibly the politics page). Hopefully, interested people will click that link and edit, complain, debate and argue there, leaving this article to concentrate on more important things. Zocky 19:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a sentence which should hopefully fit the bill. -- ChrisO 01:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now it looks like it's about official names in general. The link should be more eye-catching, something that those so inclined will rush to click. I'm not sure how to do it - maybe go as far as "the name is disputed by Greece. See wherever we put it". Zocky 02:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first thing people ask when visiting this article should be why is the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" used in the first place, as opposed to plain old "Macedonia". Putting the naming dispute first was not necessarily a statement of its importance (is politics more important than economy?), but out of necessity to clear any confusion for the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with the dispute and see this unusual moniker being used without explanation.

WikiProject Countries template is designed as a guideline only and should not be strictly followed when there are good reasons not to. At Republic of China for example, there is a section on foreign relations since the issue has significance.

I don't think the lead section is currently clear enough. The current section on "foreign relations" is focused solely on the naming dispute so it is improperly titled. I think we should move the content in that section (now that it has been condensed) back to the section labelled "naming dispute" to clarify the most confusing aspect of this country. Otherwise, the precedent is to have foreign relations sit as its own section and not as a subsection for politics. The articles on Canada and India, for example, start with a section on naming. --Ji ang 10:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're not quite the same. Canada and India refer to the etymology of the name, not the political aspects of using it. The naming issue of "Macedonia" is a political one, not an etymological one. As such, I suggest that it belongs in the relevant section - under Politics.

As for the clarification of any confusion, I think this is adequately addressed by the first paragraph, which makes it clear that the RoM isn't the same thing as geographical Macedonia or Greek Macedonia. That point is made again under Geography. -- ChrisO 08:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The logical connection is not made in the lead section and should not be assumed to be made by the lay reader.

anyway, the precedent is to have foreign relations sit as a separate section (the template has foreign relations linked under "miscellanous topics" when there is no section). since this deals with both politics and foreign relations, i dont see why this can't have its own section. our politics sections for countries almost always focus on government, not international relations.--Ji ang 18:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I thought that in a way it could work in the political section but now it’s clear that 'buried' under that section, it simply does not serve its purpose. On another note, it was vandalised without any attention for quite some time and considering the ongoing UN mandated discussions (i.e. the recent suggestions-discussions that reached the news), the section (and its 'position') did not relate the pivotal necessary information to the lay users. -- Ninio 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The county of Luxembourg seems to attract no problems being listed as Luxembourg depsite being part of a larger historical area part of which remains as a province of Belgiam and is still called Luxembourg. Pandering to objections on Macedonia calling itself what it is is itself POV. Call it Macedonia and have a disambiguation page or direction to the area in Greece. Dainamo 14:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Republic contains roughly NOT 38% of the area and nearly NOT 44% of the population

These percent 38%;44% do not agree! Skopje as an Uskub was Kosovo zone! Not Macedonia.

Vergina 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where are the Serbs and Bulgars of Vardarska Banovina ?

Vergina 11:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYROM is Official name of the country

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries
See history:
Official Country Name(s)
(local)

Vergina 19:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and? That refers to "Република Македонија". --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Official Country Name" is what the country calls itself, not what others call it. Compare the infobox on People's Republic of China. -- ChrisO 08:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notes and warnings

Wikipedia should NOT put any warnings in articles. We simply use the name the country likes to call itself. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The country calls itself Republika Makedonija, not Republic of Macedonia.--Theathenae 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. And since this is the English Wikipedia, should use the English translation. Republika Makedonija is translated in English as Republic of Macedonia. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 20:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do we call Moldova Moldova in English and not Moldavia, which is the correct English translation?.--Theathenae 20:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly.--Theathenae 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia"