Talk:North Macedonia/name

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to deal with the naming of the Republic of Macedonia, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to solely to protest against the current naming, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. A summary of the current proposal for a naming style for entities called "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Suggestions are expected to be informed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

QUESTION

How can they call themselves macedonians?means they recognize great alexander as theyr ruller and adobt names of greek historical nations(macedonian means greek-so what they say is fyrom = greece >..that cant be happening!!!!macedonians were ancient greeks ,speaked greek lived as greeks .....how can you claim something else .....If you want to use the name of our ancient fathers you should consider using also our laws and ethics..what im saying is..you say our leader (your ruller)is now also your leader ?except the name facts show you havent used anything else from that culture.(names,laws,ethics,lifestyle and most of all language)so how can this be your leader??.....Let the world decide ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

falsification of History

Although I´m not Greek I insist on keeping the official name - FYROM. Wikipedia shouldn´t support any falsification of history! Keep the official international name - Republic of Macedonia is acknowledgen by Turkey only! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip36 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article about the "republic of Macedonia" contains misleading information and inappropriate content. Under UN agreement in no way should any document state the F.Y.R.O.M. under the name of Macedonia of Republic of Macedonia. This article should be put under the F.Y.R.O.M. one and should be protected. I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia will act accordingly to best of everybody's interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafakos (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not answer to the UN, nor any other body. We make distinctions for article based on our own evaluations, it appears that the common English name Republic of Macedonia, or just simply Macedonia. This is also what the country calls it self. This article is not the first, nor the last name dispute, but in this case, if you look t the pages archives you will find that you are only one of hundreds of people who complained, we've been over this before. If we changed the name to FYROM, the people in Skopje would be just as offended as the Greeks. The horse is dead, stop flogging it. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

SO you believe it is better to abuse it than change it to something mutually accepted... This is a pretty "undemocratic" way of thinking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.190.34 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Samuell is an official Wikipedia admin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.139.110 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, the name FYROM is not mutually accepted, otherwise the country would call itself that. Wikipedia is not a democracy we work by consensus and discussion, not voting. And being an admin just gives you a few technical features such as deleting and protecting pages, it doesn't make you a spokesperson or give you much authority. The policies that support what I said before can be found here and here.Samuell Lift me up or put me down 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are contadicting youself here. How can you reach a consensus without democratic processes and no voting? There is no consensus without measuring the "consensus". If someone reports something ABUSIVE about you and this person claimed that it was true then what would you do? Naming FYROM as Republic of Macedonia is abusive to Greeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafakos (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And naming Macedonia FYROM is abusive to Macedonians.Silvery Swirls (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyrom is not on macedon soil its in Dardani and Paeonian soil.Megistias (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't FYROM call itself Vardarska or Paeonia? Would it offend them? Is it more fair to take a nation's history (I'm referring to Greece) and call it your own? What kind of justice is this?79.130.177.215 (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've heard far more objections from "pow wow" type Indians than "red dot" type Indians about the use of the word "Indian", and it seems kind of silly to me that the Greeks are objecting to some other country's choice of name, as if they had some sort of a trademark on it or something. Its as absurd as if someone named Joe declared that there would no longer be allowed to be any other people named Joe. A country decides its own name. This is pretty simple stuff, and the Greek objections to what another nation calls itself are stupid and immature. Zaphraud (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well and i think personally Zaphraud that you are the immature in here plus uneducated since you lack deep knowledge about ancient history...So let me inform you that Ancient Makedonia was a GREEK KINGDOM just like Sparta and Athens was. Ancient Makedonia used the Ancient Greek language as their main language and worshipped the Greek gods of Olympus just like the rest of the Greeks did. Ancient Makedonia was not a foreign nation as the Pseudomakedonians of FYROM try to advertise themselves around the globe but unfortunately gullible personalities like you seems to love taking their claims as granted. It is not Greece fault if you and some of your "pals" in this site are gullible Mr Zaphraud. --79.166.23.249 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is only by survival instinct that skopje want to take greece's history, i would too if i had no history of my own worth talking about, but we should just stick to the facts here and all agree that no matter how much anyone tries to take other nations historical facts and make them their own, we the people will not allow it."Macedonia and Alexander the Great are and will always be Greek" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.116.111 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

imo FYROM should call itself Vardaska - Marku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevarden (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FYROM or Rep of Makedonia-Makedonia (as you like to call it in here) has nothing to do with Great Alexander's ancient Makedonian Empire. The people of FYROM are a mixed slavic breed that talk in a Bulgarian dialect and write by using the Cyrillic alphabet (like the Russians do for example). They live in their own pseudomakedonian little world believing that they are the descendants of Great Alexander and love making claims around without real proof. By calling FYROM as <<Makedonia>> is a falsification of history and a provocation against Greece. --79.166.23.249 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OPEN SUBJECT

From yugoslavs to macedonians?????????? how that come?Pls comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to F.Y.R.O.M

As soon as the latest NATO decision has been postponed, the name should be changed to FYROM. Anything else violates the temporary decision in 1992 about this country's name. Now if you want just to obey to what the USA says, you may keep it as 'Macedonia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please move this whole page and all of its detial into Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia because that is exactly what it is. That is how the UN recognizes it and besides, Macedonia as a place is much bigger in Greece to where it culturally belongs. We can't go ignoring UN policy and more countries recognize FYROM including all of the improtant lands: Western and Central Europe etc. One more thing, Alexander the Great was not FYROM-Macedonian because he lived years before the Slavs came along. Antun Gustav (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not answer to the UN or any other organization or country. The country calls itself Republic of Macedonia so that is the more common English name (and probably the most neutral). The horse is dead, stop flogging it. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it should be referred as FYROM simply as that's how UN recognizes -and they themselves accept it that way- and UN is the ultimate place for any de-jure recognition of any state (along with name etc).I mean that's start up things for anyone involved in politics and international law.Otherwise we could name ourselves Republic of Apache and claim billions of dollars for Apache genocide by settlers.Or the Hustler's Republic and hustle anyone within our territory.I mean there is a law you know and UN are the ultimate judge on this law. BTW how ROM is the most "neutral" name.Hhaha lol Eagle of Pontus (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahahahahahahahahhaahahhahahaha. BalkanFever 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I lough upon you, troll. Stop insulting us. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Going with that line of reasoning, there should not be an article named Taiwan at all since Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. As Samuell said it, stop trying to beat a dead horse. I think this issue has been discussed over and over with everyone trying to push their favorite POV.--Ubardak (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The archives of this article, the archives of Macedonia naming dispute, the archives of Macedonian language and the archives of Macedonians (ethnic group), among others, all mention this. BalkanFever 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that the name of this article is another proof of the many cases where Greeks can get away with murder in Wikipedia...--   Avg    02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fute can be so very entertaining when he wants to, can't he? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It should not be called FYROM because the UN recognizes it as that. It should also not be called RoMacedonia because YES THERE ARE SOME RESERVED WORDS FOR COUNTRY NAMES. It should be called RoMacedonia (formerly FYROM), pendig naming issue. 79.103.155.16 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Government of Republic of Macedonia never signs any documents with a name different than the constitutional. For example see this [1] and "I consider this Exchange of Letters as the equivalent of signature." wording. --Kirev (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A pity that its constitutional name is a big lie that will never exist, as Macedonia is Greek my friend. Vardarska is how they should sign. Good game. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Ubardak you must reevaluate your knowledge.FYROM accepted entrance and is accepted as such in UN.RO Taiwan didn't.Don't you see a Pacific ocean of difference;;;;For Christ shake. Eagle of Pontus

Maybe you should reevaluate your knowledge. The Republic of Macedonia did not change its name, it just allowed the UN to use a provisional reference. You don't actually care though, you're just "offended" by the "misuse" of the name Macedonia, and in regards to what you think, no-one cares. BalkanFever 09:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think that maybe it is you who should reevaluate his knowledge, huh? Republic of Macedonia is an illegal name that claims upon Greek history and upon Greek territory. It is about you Skopjans, that no one cares. We had enough of your propaganda. You know what we say is true, it is in every history book, but you insist on usurping recklessly our identity. We really really had enough Yugoslavians. STOP your anti-Greek POV and your propaganda. The world has had enough of your lies. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• To User BalkanFever and all BalkanFevers: Yes we do care. If Skopje would like to be called Macedonia, this is fine. We,Greeks have no problem as soon as it pays taxes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicheader (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have asked :). BalkanFever 07:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your country is all bought by the National Bank of Greece. All what you have about industry is Greek. All the food you eat is coming from Greece. You dare bite the hand of who feeds you? You obviously have neither morale nor dignity. The lies of Skopje have been so many and so long that they contradict themselves... 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please kickbankill BalkanFever for trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Until the naming dispute is solved FYROM is the generaly accepted name. Only the US recognised Scopje with its constitutional name. Because of that they should be ignored (the US) by the general public. Their opinion (because is only an opinion) shouldn't be taken into account seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamatisg (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, rename to the United Nations form at once. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is total anti-Greek POV and fully Skopjan nationalist POV. Please, rename the article to FYROM as stated by the United Nations and stop trolling and vandalizing the page with your nationalist POV. 87.219.84.68 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, if Wikipedia and the administrators believe they are objective then I strongly recommend that they don't allow propaganda and nationalism in this site79.130.177.215 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree as well. Move to FYROM already. Stop telling lies to people! Macedonia is Greek. Yugoslavia is no more. Wake up! Our national bank of Greece has bought all your land, so "all your base are belong to us"... So owned! 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above users are becoming a bit tiresome with their repetitive racist attacks. In their view, everybody who doesn't share their opinion should be banned and it should be a crime to call Macedonia Macedonia. I suggest some administrator look into the behaviour of some of these users, as they are repeatedly attacking other users alongside their racist attacks directed towards Macedonia.JdeJ (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above user, JdeJ has clearly shown his biased, anti-Greek opinion and has used psycho logic attacks like warnings on the user pages and attempts

of censorship and has used censorship on Greek users. He is becoming annoying with his obstinacy and his will to harm Greeks. I suggest some administrator look into the behavior of this user together with all others that have posted anti-Greek comments, as they are repeatedly attacking Greek users alongside their propaganda, lies and insults such as the above, calling them racists. It is a real proof that Macedonia is Greek and that FYROMians are trying to usurp Greek history and territory, and he is the kind of person that supports such terrorist acts. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I try to uphold the Wikipedia policies of WP:MOSMAC and [WP:NPOV]]. While that include edits that the now-blocked user above dislike, they also include opposite edits [2], [3]. And I strongly object to calling "Greeks" racist, I never generalise about any nationality. I've only called the user above racist, and his edit history proves me right. JdeJ (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you JdeJ. It is historical fact that Skopjans helped the Nazis and Greeks fought against them. Minorities on each sides always existed doing the opposite, but that was not the official move by each government. On the other hand, you have to understand how delicate it is for Greeks to have their history and territory taken over by the Salvs-Skopjans and that it is pretty logical that if 'Republic of Macedonia' is being used, it is first in favor of one group, and second a defiance on the United Nations naming convention. On the other hand, I see that no one of your so called racist-Greeks and POV posters has ever claimed the article to be renamed to 'Republic of Skopje', which is how all Greeks call the country and urge everyone to call it. Instead of that, all the Greeks that have talked here, have asked to take the neutral approach 'FYROM', which could keep both sides partially content. In other words, Skopjans want 'Republic of Macedonia' which is unbalanced. Greeks would prefer 'Republic of Skopje', but are tolerant and willingful to a peaceful end and would allow the use of 'FYROM', even though they still do not like it. In conclussion, using FYROM would be the best choice to keep this article neutral and stop this bitter and endless fight. Otherwise, I am pretty sure more Greeks shall follow claiming that Wikipedia is biased, unobjective and illegal, as it is proving through these moments, where the administrators are favoring one side and defying the United Nations. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no country named Macedonia, and if you dont know this you can jump to United Nations site and check it out. There are so many other issues, but i think its stupid to even mention them. Of course Alexander the Great was Greek. He spoke Greek. Why these half Albanians-half Slavs dont speak Greek (if they are Macedonians?). ¶ So, its wise for all Greek people to take legal action against wikipedia, cause our History is the most important thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitas72 (talk • contribs)

No court in the world would take a lawsuit, we are not required to call the country FYROM. And please don't insult anyone, regardless of what ethnicity they are, if they want their own country, they can have it, and they can call it what they like. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Let's everyone send a CEASE AND DESIST letter to wikipedia! Enough is enough! 213.97.51.67 (talk) 13:2http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107738.html2, 1 April 2008 (UTC)/

By naming this article as Republic of Macedonia you do not follow the policy of Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia. Once again, the official name of the country you call "Macedonia" is Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia according to U.N.. If you do not obey Wikipedia's policy and rules then Wikipedia is blogctionary (blog & dictionary) in which anyone can say what they think about a topic. In this way, Wikipedia cannot "compete" Britanicca within 100,000,000,000,000,000 milleniums!!!! Goal of Wikipedia is to inform and not to misinform! To sum up, I call the moderators or/and the administrator of the English Wikipedia to rename this article or else this article must be deleted because of Point Of View of the writer/s. Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia

How original, yet another Greek anonymous user who thinks that everybody has to think like she does because her opinion is the only allowed opinion to have. Of course anyone is free to express their opinions, but how often do we have to read the same ill-argumented rants? JdeJ (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear JdeJ could you explain me why do you support Skopje? I ask once again from the administrator and the moderators to rename this article from "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia-F.Y.R.O.M." provisionally until the United Nations decide the name of F.Y.R.O.M.. This is the only solution! The site infoplease.com says that: "The UN recognized the Republic of Macedonia on April 8, 1993, under the temporary name the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Respect greek history and Greece. Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia

Why I support Skopje? Nah, I don't, never even been there. It's just that there are a few things I dislike. Ethnic cleansing and mass rape are two of them, and that's the way the Greeks "assimilated" the Slavic speakers after they took the area from the Turks. Greeks bragged about this themselves at the time, so there's plenty of written evidence for it. I also happen to dislike extreme and one-sided nationalism in any form and I'm sad to say that I've travelled most of Europe and found some Greeks to be the least educated about the rest of Europe and the most bigotted in their fanaticism about their own country. Add to this that no other country has treated its minorities as badly as Greek and France, and there's not really that much to like about the Greek policy towards minorities and neighbours. That's of course only my personal view without any relevance to Wikipedia, but that's what you asked for. I also find the Greek behaviour over Macedonia rather silly and childish. When did you hear Belgium behave in the same way towards Luxembourg?? JdeJ (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    I just cant get it.  why Skopians wanna be named Macedonians? It is pretty weird cause Macedonia is a greek word and has always been one of the Greek races. 
    Why do Skopians get isolated from other countries and why did they change their history books in 1991? 
   And of course a country cant just use any name that desires cause "Re of Mac" to historians sounds like the russians changed their name to   f... USA ! .
  Weird?? Just open some neutral history books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 

Why lowercase 'former'?

Why should 'former' be spelled without capitals? I'm just curious. diego_pmc (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions and look for the bullet points about two thirds of the way through that section - they explain why. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism in Wikipedia

Thank you for letting me speak here. I have posted again and it appears that somebody deleted my post but nonetheless, I believe it's the right of everyone to post their ideas. I think that we all are hiding behind our bare fingers, trying to persuade the world that Vardarska is in fact the nation of Macedonia. This nation is the making of Tito and the independence of Vardarska in the early 1990s. What I see that makes me utterly disappointed is the very fact that nationalists and fanatics have the control of this article and don't allow different opinions to be heard. By all means I could call my house the independent, ethnic state of London, New York, Alsace or Rome.

According to the same logic, I can say that it was my fathers that forged the British Empire, my fathers that made the USA or claim that I'm an ethnic Alsacian (We all know that this territory contains german and french populace) or even claim that the Roman Empire was my ethnic territory and claim it through propaganda.

Tell me: Would this appeal to any of you? Would this get this encyclopedia any further? Would extreme nationalism and propaganda benefit any of us? Since I started visiting this site I believed that it was objective and that it was in fact a site that checks all information, and by that I mean historical sources and not proclaimations of people. Why would the Skopians feel offended if they were to be called with their true name? Slavomacedonians or Vardar Macedonians would sound offensive? But wouldn't it be more offensive for the regions of Macedonia in Bulgaria and Greece to have an actual state being called with their name? I haven't seen such problems rise between Bulgaria and Greece since the Balkan Wars and WW2.

To conclude, I speak as an objective person that sees Greece and Bulgaria more offended than the Skopians themselves. What I see is a direct violation of history, political protocols and above all, national heritage. If the Skopians direly want to be called with the name "Macedonia" the only thing they need to consider is paying taxes to Greece.

I believe that as many of you claim that this site is objective you will allow this post to be read by visitors. Truly yours79.130.177.215 (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Objective person?? Don't make us laugh! --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Laugh while you still can, you seem to conveniently forget that for the things you talk here today people in my country have died to defend them. You got no right to play the boss that says what's right and what's wrong. POV? WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF IT. It exists only when people like me try to earn their right. If you find that nice then FINE, you don't deserve to be read or to be replied to, that was my last reply on the matter, I know I'm a Greek Macedonian cause I'm feeling that way, I know my history and I don't give a damn what you do or say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Economist mentions this bitter name dispute on their magazine

About the Macedonia name conflict, The Economist wrote:

"If the Olympic games featured an event that measured stubborness and prejudice, the partisans from the Wikipedia talk page dealing with the name wrangle could form a world-class joint team."

Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10879850

Very funny! LOL Good job people, you are an Olympic team!!!!⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay! BalkanFever 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, as if the economist were an independent press!! --Dimorsitanos (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that their governmental-driven direstions were proven unfortunate by history, since this outdated article was written before the veto posed at the Boukouresti summit. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A shame on us... The worse thing is that the trolling and fighting from both sides continued in the comments of the article of the economist. Can both sides relax a little? I'm pretty sure we'll have a final solution on the name issue very soon. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I saw that wiki uses the name "Re.. of Mac.. " and also in ancient history they put the greek history,, wiki became so small to my eyes...

From now on I will disband wiki ..

if you cant learn something right , just dont learn it..

Even the word Encyclopedia is Greek .. omg.. and the word wikipedia also... so wiki just make your name in a skopian way like eijvsldgk;aldk s;dlgk sldgkj;alkgj .

Bye  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

wiki is a hawaiian word.... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you love saying that ey Enric? So much hatred behind words. Wikipedia has a bunch of retard nationalists (Skopian) under the protection of people in western countries thinking that they can do whatever they want. If that's what you like so be it. I see now that this place isn't worthy of having visitors, if it's working as propaganda against Greece and Bulgaria. I don't play the victim like the nationalists above, I need the mercy of no one, if you find it PLEASURABLE for you to make Greece be the "bad guys" THEN FINE, you don't deserve to have a proper conversation in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding that FYROM does not claim Greek history and territory

I think that in order to calm down things a little bit, it would be wise to add to the article the declarations of the Skopjan President and his ministers, stating that:

1) They do not want to claim any ancient Greek history related to the ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great.

2) They do not have any territorial claims on Greece and that their constitution clearly forbids it.

3) That they know they are slavs that have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonia and have made clear that everything that was attacking Greek history or territory was spread by propagandistic irredentists who have no official nor legal power to do so.

NOTE: I'm trying to be productive here. If you find any other text that could be added so that fellow Greek users will calm down, go ahead. Goodwill is always welcome.
87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: No, you are NOT trying to be productive, but to lie and present that as the truth. Republic of Macedonia's official stance is this: "Republic of Macedonia has no territorial claims towards any of its neighboring countries" which is part of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, and is the official stance of the political groups from the country. But the point numbered (1) is pure nonsense - never has Republic of Macedonia stated that it has no claims towards Alexander of Macedon or the ancient Balkan history (I really don't get it why you prefer to call it Greek, it's like you were the only ones on the Balkans from the beginning of the world, right? Why don't you reply and confirm this absurdity, too?). And the point numbered (3) is pure nonsense also. Balkans have always had mixed ethnicities. Even in your sweet country of Greece, which you try to present as the purest country (nationwise) in the world, there are minorities of Albanians, Macedonians, Bulgarians etc. No body can claim that is of pure descend of some ancient nation/culture, nor can claim that some else isn't. So cut the stupidity and be real. And yes, I did use the word stupidity - as it best suits the current greek ranting, no matter how much someone might be offended by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.34.113 (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss for the history of macedonia since there is nothing to argue about,everyone that have study even a litle about history know the truth.I am going to give a simple example about what will happen if greeks dont do anything about the name issue and just leave fyrom to be call as they want. Yesterday i was talking with a friend of mine from Moldavia and he ask me why Greece make all that noise with the name issue of Macedonia. I show him the map of greece and told him that Macedonia is the north part of Greece e.t.c ..... and he answers back to me i can understand now why you have that position and then he told me that both romania and ukraine have some regions of them and they call there regions moldavia and they were before moldavias teritories.I dont know what is true about moldavia but i know if now will let them have their country name as our region Macedonia after some years these people going to say the exacly same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.55.194 (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't come here to fight. Of course not. But, if you take into account the fact that Greece and Skopje are now into a "political war", then I believe that you'll be able to understand that the name problem hasn't been resolved yet. This means that you should use the OFFICIAL NAME of the country, which is Skopje, when you are going to refer it to your article. Naming it "Republic of Macedonia" means that the only thing you're managing to succeed is trying to persuade the majority of internet users worldwide (because they are the majority of the people, too and they have a lot "hidden power" into their mind) to use that such a name of that country. So, I advise you to change it to Skopje or AT LEAST at F.Y.R.O.M. in order not to get into trouble with the Greek Politicians and many other people all over the world that know the truth about that topic. That's all from me!

I hope you'll take my opinion into account... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangelis-Ts (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote: "This means that you should use the OFFICIAL NAME of the country, which is Skopje,..." - nowhere in the world was Macedonia referred as Skopje except in your little complexed country (Greece, for others). Skopje is the capital city of Macedonia, and not its' name. The OFFICIAL NAME is Republic of Macedonia. UN recognize the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and no matter how much you try and lie to everyone around, the part "Republic of Macedonia" will sit in all the references that the world politics give to us. So be quiet and feel happy about the fact that we still didn't mention the ethnic cleansing that underwent in Greece in 1950s.

What Greek politicians think ?? booo booo booo

Very important . We are so scared how some bunch of politicians thinks about this issue.

We all do respect culture of ancient Greek culture. But that does not give monopole to modern Greece for "truth" in this case.

Macedonians have right to calle their country as they want to .!! Those Greek insistings of renaming of the country is indescend and nonsence. We two countries named Kongo , two countries named Korea ...

There is only one Macedonia and that is one whose capital is Skopje. That is the OFFICIAL NAME of the country and only accurate one. The province of Greece with the same name is for Greek usage only . --Anto (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop your irredentist propaganda. Why do you steal Greek history and territory? 50 years ago you called your country Vardarska Badovina. What happened to that now? Why do you so ruthlessly try to take what is not yours in any way? Accorting to one of the resolutions of the United Nations related to the right of culture, you have violated it overwhelmingly. Why don't you stop already with your propaganda? Why are you spreading your lies to wikipedia? Stop at once, please. --87.221.5.240 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not influenced by anyone. we chose what is the common English name. If you are still dissatisfied I suggest you go the the [Greek Wikipedia's article] on The Republic of Macedonia, which uses Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, because it is the common Greek name. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are not Greek, you cannot be Macedonian. It's plain simple. Macedonians were Hellenes, you are Slavs. You changed your name from Vardarska Badovina to Macedonia in 1950 with your beloved Tito. What are you trying to pull now?

--87.221.5.107 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You, Hellens, should stop torturing Macedonians and leave them . This is not period of Sokrates and your opinion is not in charge. --Anto (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Anto, refrain from pushing propaganda into wikipedia. Distorting history will only cause more wrath and anger. This article is still lacking a detailed explanation about how Tito changed the name of this territory known as Vardarska Badovina in the 1950's. Please, if you really respect the neutral point of view of wikipedia, add that already to the article. The world deserves to know it. --87.221.5.107 (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If you think that name "Macedonia" is Greek feud you are very very wrong. The rest of the world does recognize that name. There are two countries named Kongo, two countries named Korea...

This is not ancient Europe but modern Europe in which majority know  for only one Macedonia-
Republic of Macedonia. If Macedonians decide to change their name it will be by their own decision - not somebody's else

Vardarska Banovina did not include just the territory of Republic of Macedonia-it include also contemporary Kosovo and southern Serbia . And Macedonians did call theselves with that name much before Tito came to power-which proves that you are not really informed abou the history of Yugoslavia--Anto (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's the point Anto. THEY HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH ANCIENT MAKEDONIA AND ALEXANDER THE GREAT their FYROM-state was created after the fall of Vardarska Banovina. And by the way just because THEY believe that they are Makedonians does it mean that it is a truth ?? If i believe that i am from planet Mars and be introduced to you as a Martian would you blindly believe that too ? --79.166.23.249 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually... there is a precedent for forcing a state to change its name. After the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and from 1918 it was known as the Republic of German-Austria (Republik Deutsch-Österreich), but the state was forced to change its name to "Republic of Austria" in 1919 peace Treaty of Saint-Germain! It is now still known as Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.231.107 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The final criterion

What is more important for wikipedia? How the country calls itself or under which name it is recognized by official international bodies?

Since wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it should adopt the name recognized by official international bodies. That name is FYROM.77.49.116.95 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Incorrect_again you will see that FYROM is just a provisional name that the UN uses internally until the name dispute is resolved --Enric Naval (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So provisionally it should be called FYROM. When their name changes, we'll change it here. --87.221.5.161 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, their official name is Republic of Macedonia, FYROM is an provisional name used internally by the UN. Also, see the list of countries using one or other name --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So correct those countries too. You cannot be insulting a country just for your own sake. --87.221.4.129 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the legal name is FYROM. Why has wikipedia to go against United Nations conventions? Examples like Myanmar are invalid here. Calling the country Macedonia has irredentism and Wikipedia definitely should not take part of it. Using FYROM is the right way to go until a final name is decided. If you call it Macedonia, you balance it to one side and there you break the NPOV. If you call it Skopje, you balance it to the other side and again you break NPOV. The only way to keep NPOV here is to have both countries content with FYROM. --87.219.84.198 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I clearly say above, FYROM is a name used internally by the UN, stop ignoring that. The country calls itself officially "Republic of Macedonia" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like clearly stated above you are completely ignoring international legality and pledging wikipedia in unnecessary legal doubt. Use the UN name temporarily until the country gets a proper name. This name has to be used wherever Greeks are in order to offend them *less*. The simple fact that Macedonia is in the name of the country is a horrible offense to Greeks. The fact that they are magnanimous and allow their use as FYROM does not mean you have to give it as something defacto. Again please, rename to the legally accepted name and not whatever they want to call themselves, specially in a situation where their name is an insult to another nation. I want to remind you that wikipedia is hosted inside a country under the UN legislation and, as such, has to respect it. We have to stop their propaganda, and this is the beginning. Do you understand now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I advise you to re-read UN conection. The name is for external use, and must compulsorily be respected when there are Greeks around. Please, remember that Greeks refuse completely the use of the word Macedonia in any country where there is no Greek majority. FYROM is a name used to keep the Neutrality in the United Nations and in wikipedia we have to respect NPOV. If the wisest men on earth that lead the UN have chosen UN as a valid external name to reference the country, who are we to fight them? Show up some respect for international law please. --87.221.4.229 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All hi, I think we all understand how many people are reading this and how much influence is placed on them by this lemma. The result is that Wiki is used as a mean of performing politics in or not in purpose - does not matter as the result matters. Consequently, the NPOV principle is offensed anyway (at least until a mutually agreed political decision is reached). Therefore, I suggest that at least a POV disclaimer/indication is placed on the lema.ThirstyThought (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Former Turkish pashalik of Hellenistan

I really don't understand why should we consider how Greek or any other country see Macedonia is beeing called by some 3rd country. Greeks have right to call Macedonia with their own name. But they have no right to impose that name to others , especially not to Macedonians. And each nation has right to choose its name. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the word "Macedonian" mean?--DIMISM2008 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop pretending the defenseless people. Let's be plain for a second: FYROM has the support of NATO (A.K.A the USA) and that gives them a chance to ask for help pretending the defenseless and hunted people. You are not defenseless you have others backing your cause which corrupts your very dignity. No one would object if you would call yourselves "Republic of Vardarska" or "Republic of Southern Kosovo" or "Republic of Western Bulgaria". Oh, sure that would force you people to accept your roots, which are primarily Slav and Albanian. What I don't get out of this entire story is this: I haven't seen one Skopjan in the Internet say this: That you are descended from Slavs and have nothing to do with Alexander the Great etc etc. But, hey I also see that not a whisper that informs about the propaganda in a neutral way is uttered in Wikipedia. All I've seen, to my utter disgust to be honest, is both the citizens of that state and certain people that support them here in Wikipedia are not saying the stuff I've stated above and prefer to cover the goals of the name and the propaganda with the "I'm a defenseless puppy" attitude. Ah, and a note to the Americans that don't care or consider the matter worthless of discussion: When a certain brand of Vodka presented half the USA under the Mexican rule, there were lawsuits and much of a noise over there. May I ask why? You call the Greeks ridiculous and yet the more serious Americans are afraid of a petty Vodka commercial? I can say that there isn't much reasonability in our times but this is absolutely revolting. Answer carefully please and don't take this as a threat: If someone edits this post then I'll understand that there can't be arguements against mine which will in turn please me. Thank you. 85.75.229.173 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. I live in Canada, where we have a province named Ontario. Our neighbors to the south, the USA, have several places named Ontario, One is very close to our province. Nobody in either of the countries cares, no place is the real Ontario. The name long predates the current countries and Europeans in North America in General. It is simply a Huron word meaning "great lake." It is the same case here, the name predates the current national borders. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's totally different Samuel. We have a region called Macedonia, and that region is separated amongst 3 countries, we also have as a fact that historically the name Macedonia is connected with Alexander the Great and kingdom of Macedon. That fact instantly cancels the use of that name by our northern neighbors, or if want the use of just "Macedonia". Historically the Macedonians and Macedonian language had Greek background, how can Greeks accept the fact that someone else uses that name and try to prove that the Macedonians were not Greeks? Let's try an example... we the Greeks decide to call our selves Canadians and our language Canadian English, at the same time we try to convince the whole world that you are not Canadians and have nothing to do with them... does that seems logical to you, how will you feel about the "defenseless" Greeks, that everyone fights them because they just want and have the right of self determination? --xvvx (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Moved from Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Question --Enric Naval (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i would like someone from the english wikipedia to inform me of the reasons why such an internationally controversial name as "Republic of Macedona" is used to refer to the spesific state instead of the internationally commonly used name of FYROM ordained. It is not the Fyromian wikipedia, but the english one and i believe it should be neutral on such a controversial matter, abiding by the internationally accepted practice.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What will it take to change the name of the article.

The main talk page talks clearly of discussion being done here that would make a change possible. What will it take for that to happen? --Leladax (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Greece and that-other-country :D reaching an agreement on the name and finishing the naming dispute? Or Macedonia agreeing to change his name to something that Greece accepts. Or most countries on the world switching to the FYROM name. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So if Macedonia changes its name to something Greece wants and the world still calls it 'Macedonia', it changes? That's a double standard. --Leladax (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't say that. I can't imagine the country changing its name to one that is accepted by Greece, and then the world insisting on using a different name. I am not going to analize every possible situation that could happen, I just listed a few ones that look like the most probable ones, and that would cause the change of name. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Or what about Greece accepting the constitutional name of its neighbour and starting to behave in a more responsible way, along the lines of Belgium's behaviour towards Luxembourg, which is pretty identical situation to the Greece-Macedonia one. JdeJ (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First read some historical book, then take o look at Fyrom's "point of view" (historical and territorial) and then you will realize why Greece is not accepting that name ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And you should realize that - while claims of direct lineage with Ancient Macedon are ridiculous - those living in FYR Macedonia today didn't invent their name. It's another of the side effects of the Ottoman Empire and generally the passage of time. People living in the general Area all took the same name 'Macedonian'. For your information, it's not just FYR Macedonian's claiming it, it's also Bulgarians (which played some part in the early Balkan wars). Once more Greece does nothing at the appropriate time, it would be prudent in the interest of its objective to seek resolution with the Bulgarian side too (but something like that may be of course impossible, as it was to do it for FYR Macedonians before their institutionalization). FYR Macedonia existed with (almost) the same name since the 1940s. (ps. Basically I came to realize Wikipedia is a terrible source on the issue currently. However a good source for any side on the issue is Macedonia (terminology)). Outsiders though should realize that Greece mainly cares about recognition of its historical heritage and only secondarily about any territorial claims or even the use of the name. We are very used to words of our language being used by others and we are proud of it. But claim you are direct successors of Ancient Greeks while coincidentally (for any (even understandable) reason that may be) you have the name of one of their areas which is at the same time an area of the country today, that's not only offensive, it's unsupported by the historical record. --Leladax (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we care about our historical heritage and that's the main issue... but since they use the name "Macedonia", claiming a part of that history, that is unacceptable from us! Some people say that we have nothing to do with ancient Greece and ancient Greeks, well i can't prove anything by dna (and i find it ridiculous), but i know for sure that i speak the same language they spoke (i can read the ancient inscriptions), the majority of the Greek people have ancient Greek names (mine, my brother's, my sister's, my mother's), our cities still use ancient Greek names, we still have have some traditions from that era, some of the Greek people believe in the 12 gods of mount Olympus... what do the people from FYROM share historically with the ancients? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or what about not going off topic. That's where the derail of the topic starts. --Leladax (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a tad annoying, Leladax. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything else off topic and inflammatory you'd like to add? --Leladax (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Admission of the truth in the Olympics, Beijing 2008

As the entire world witnessed, the very same country that claims to be "Macedonia" has appeared as "FYROM" in the Olympics Introduction Ceremony . They probably do not even believe what they claim themselves. I therefore do not see why the Wikipedia community has to consider the name anymore. The name should be permanently changed to "FYROM" , the country's official name, until the dispute with Greece is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good try, but Macedonia actually attempted to use its constitutional name. They were forced by Greece to use FYROM "under a longstanding agreement between Athens and Skopje [that the constitutional name] cannot be used by the neighboring country at international sporting events like the Olympics." [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In these cases, it is not Greece who "forces" an IOC member, and enforces a decision, but it is IOC itself.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, the vicepresident of IOC, Lambis Nikolau, who happens to be greek, has raised a complaint to IOC's chief [5], which is a far call from the IOC forcing anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, who raises a complaint or not is irrelevant. I do not care about background and internal balance stories. I care about institutions and official decisions. IOC is an international athletic institution and took a decision, which was enforced. End of the story!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but, altought we don't know the exact details, it seems that Greece is the one that has menaced with making a scandal and not the IOC. The IOC has enforced nothing, it has just communicated Greece's complaints. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And it took a decision Eric. In another case it could take a decision pro fYROM's interests or against Greece's interests (as it did with Thanou). But a decision is a decision,a nd reflects the official stance of the international athletic organization in question.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A decision by who? As far as I know. Greece and Macedonia had an agreement to use FYROM on international sport events. The decision was not taken by the OIC, but by the chinese government, who decided to change the name on the website and on the lettering, but only in order to avoid a scandal by Greece that would damage the Beijing games' image. There is no official decision by OIC anywhere. Greece threw a hissy fit and China decided to abide in order to avoid problems. The only precedent this event is setting is that Greece has again thrown its weight to prevent macedonia from using its constitutional name, just like with the entry at NATO and at the European Union. You use their constitutional name, and then your diplomatic and comercial relationships with Greece will worsen a lot. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese government could not act by itself; it had to implement this, which is an official stance by the IOC. Now, the argument that the powerful Greece threatens the poor NATO and EU members "You use their constitutional name, and then your diplomatic and comercial relationships with Greece will worsen a lot" is a mere nonsense, and therefore I have no comment on it.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a decision, this comitee was probably called this way because of the agreement between greece and macedonia, there is no OIC decision that I know of, and most certainly there was no decision for the specific case of the Beijing games. And, of course, Greece is already vetoing Macedonia's entry into NATO and into the EU [6][7][8][9], so you are clearly misinformed on how much influence greece has on this matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am really suprised of the fact that you are the only one here to support the FYROM's so called "Macedonian" name, and yet the article states that 'Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, and changes to the name without discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name will be reverted.' I clearly see that most of the people discussing here want the "FYROM" as the name. What sort of discussion led Wikipedia Editors to change the name to "Republic Of Macedonia" ? Why should we keep that false name in the main page since the votes against it are more than for it ? We will misinform the rest of the world just because the U.S. wants to hide the true name and invite FYROM to the NATO (just because they want to have more access to Europe - they don't give a damn for the name or the "macedonian history") ? Michael (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are looking for the discussions in WT:MOSMAC, the talk page for the Manual of Style page that deals with this stuff. I suggest you look at the second page of archives, specially this section and the sections below it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And where is the problem? It is a FYR Macedonia-Greece dispute. Who should try to see it came into effect, god? --Leladax (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was replying to Yannismarou's comment about enforcement. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The entire world saw them. "Forced by Greece" , when they have so badly insulted Greece all the time. They were forced by the National Union and the Olympic commitee to admit the truth. WindowsNT (talk)

You have to love the way the incident was presented in the objective Slav Macedonian media. [10]--   Avg    19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussions on the name, not for discussion on how Balkan people think. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, all people in the Balkans, Greeks and Macedonians included, are notoriously bad at being objective. JdeJ (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) That comment of yours is patronising, to say the least, and even borderline racist. Asteriontalk 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC) No, not really. He's quite right. BalkanFever 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I'm from the Balkans too and I object of this self-loathing attitude. If you are convinced you are incapable of objective thought it is your own problem, don't load it on me and all my relatives and all that I have ever lived near in my life. That is bigotry. --Leladax (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) The statement is more about the media than anything else. And no, you're not objective. BalkanFever 12:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Besides, you say you are a native english speaker. Where exactly are you from? Who are you that thinks should be on a high horse generalizing about whole populations that you have never had real contact with? Have you ever met any Greeks, other than any 18 year olds that watch football or something? I repeat that I object of the bigoted attitude of generalizing whole populations. --Leladax (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah, right, I live in a far away place where there are houses are made of chocolate and we eat fairy floss for breakfast. I don't even know where the Balkans are. You're from Cambodia, right? BalkanFever 12:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It appears you have no argument. --Leladax (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens at the Olympics, the common English name is still Macedonia.Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's wrap it then, delete this article and everything in wikipedia that has to do with the dispute. Don't be ridiculous. --Leladax (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Leladax, honestly, what you're doing is anything but helpful. And, unfortunately for you, some of the greatest Greek editors, such as NikoSilver, have worked a hell to some of these articles you want to see delete (such as the Macedonia naming dispute one).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys I think Leladax meant exactly the opposite, that these articles help to explain the actual problem to those who believe that plain "Macedonia" is the answer to everything (since, dear Samuell, the common English name for the region is also Macedonia and the common English name for the Greek province is also Macedonia).--   Avg    16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I was agreeing with the opinion that Leladax's general behaviour has not been particularly helpful. I'll offer my personal (I know how much you care) opinion here, again, and say that wiki (IMO again) covers everything as well as possible with the country being under Republic of and the main "Macedonia" page being a disambiguation one. As it is, even if people don't care to know what Macedonia in all its manifestations means, they find out anyway. Now, linking to simply "Macedonia" for RoM, when warranted by the "guidelines", might tick some people off (I know it happens to me, sometimes) but I doubt that would ever change. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Enric, it's much better to just remove things than archive them in a banner shell. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming Macedonia in english language sources

• britannica
• encyclopedia.com
• encyclopedia.kids.net.au
• nationsencyclopedia.com
• questia.com
• Columbia encyclopedia

Couple of sources that mention "Republic of Macedonia" and FYROM just as provisional name. no mather what people from FOPOY (Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan) think about that.--Aradic-es (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Add also CIA factbook --Enric Naval (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In this encyclopedia we try to be more accurate than the ones aforementioned. And that is good for us! Oh, and by the way CIA Factbook is sponsored by a country, which has officially recognized fYROM as Macedonia. By the way, nice wordplay with my country's name by Aradic-es! I kindly request him to tell him where he comes from, and I'll prepare something nice for him as well!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

S/he's from the former Fascist/Socialist Republic of Croatia, aka FASORC. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a compliment. FOPOY and FYROM are essentially same things. 3rd party involvement into others' business.

I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. --Aradic-es (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a tendency to call my people with its name's varieties in other languages. If you want to make a point with this tactic, I fail to grasp it. And probably not because I am stupid, but because this tactic of yours is stupid. But I do not have a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I propose to you the Names of the Greeks article some Greek users brought to FA status, in order to enrich your related vocabulary. I strongly believe in your potential.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

and to Yannismarou and your buddies: this is not yourfeud . You may not remove the content just because you don't like it calling other user "throlls"

Perhaps on el.wiki but not on en.wiki--Aradic-es (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no buddies, and I do not know what you are referring to (when did I call anybody a "troll"?). Try first to control your ongoing delirious edits, and then you may be capable of giving to other users such instructions.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aradic-es, we accept the name "FOPOY" if it is not used by any other country...lol

"I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. --Aradic-es" Just like you invented the country on the north of Greece... The name of this "country"? Macedonia!!!

Dr. Hristo Tatarchev(one of the LEADERS of IMRO): "We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn't accept the position for "direct joining to Bulgaria" because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn't take part in our program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came later."

You can imaging the rest...bla, bla, bla...

As you see "Invention" is probably common to both Greece and fYRoM...

Stop being ironic and try to face the problem. How can Greece accept this name when a great part of her history is written on it?

Was there a "Macedonia" (the way you mean it) before the 90s? There was never such a country before. Even in the Balkan wars Greece fought against Bulgaria, Serbia and the Ottomans for Macedonia, which was a region not a country. You became part of Yugoslavia as part of Serbia, again not as a country.

I read some of your comments, not only in wiki, but in some other forums too and I realise that you are ashamed to call yourselves Slavs like this word is some kind of an insult... However, there are some of you who do not deny this fact. Instead, they believe that ancient Macedonians were Slavs.

At least make up your minds...

As long as there are poeple who don't agree on the name "Macedonia" and other who do, the name should be FYROM since both sides agreed on it in 1993...--DIMISM2008 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

greece vs. macedonia

Couple things to mention :

• Ancient Macedonians are different from ethnic Macedonians. but they are also different from modern Greeks or precisely from Greek Macedoninas. Ancient Macedonians and modern Greek Macedonians. Just as Romans are not as Italians. they spoke similar language but they are not the same definitely.
• Republic of Macedonia did not exist as independent country before 1990s. Yes, that is the true. but till 1830s there was no neither any independent country called Greece. In ancient times the Greek speaking territories were divided in city-states (so called polis) . So called pan-helen identity was based on mutual inteligibility ("I understand your speech ,so you are not barbar"). Alexander the Great conquered the all greek speaking area but also huge portion of Asia. his kingdom lter was divided and later colonized by Romans.Later it was byzanthine empire" and later divided int the Turkish pashaliks.

• Ethnic Macedonians are not linguistically related to the Ancient Macedonians. but they are more-less Ancient Macedonians an d Celts that adopted Slavic language but maintained "macedonian" name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradic-es (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense! Every single word of the above argumentation!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain what the hell this has to do with the name used by wikipedia, or it will archived or removed. It was explained by Anto on his comment below. Not that I believe this is a strong argument at all, but, meh. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be response to previous statemnts by User:DIMISM2008 and other Greek users about their historical right on the name "Macedonia"--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So what makes the "ethnic Macedonians", as you call them, more Macedonian than any of the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The same thing that makes ethnic Greeks more Greek than anybody in Greece, ethnic Albanians more Albanian than anybody in Albania, ethnic Romanians more Romanian than anybody in Romania. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but not quite comparable. The lands you mention were named after their inhabitants, not the other way round. In this case, a subgroup of one of the peoples inhabiting the land was named after the land itself (which took its name from an entirely different people in the first place). In order to lay claim to the land itself, quite arguably. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurray, now you openly claim that Greeks have a lesser right (if any) to be called Macedonians. I don't think there's any space left for serious discussion. This is way too surrealistic. You appropriated the name, now you claim it's solely yours.--   Avg    07:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did nothing of the sort. You, on the other hand, by your interpretation of what I said, have just shown that you believe only ethnic Greeks have the "right" to call themselves Greeks. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think it's about ethnicity any more. If it were, as was the case during the Yugoslav era, it wouldn't be that big an issue. The problem arose when the "Macedonians" achieved independent nationhood, at the expense of the "other" (and older) Macedonians. To put it simply, before 1991, Macedonia was inhabited by Yugoslav Macedonians in the north and Greek Macedonians in the south. Now, the population of Macedonia is divided between "Macedonians" and "Greeks". The implication being, of course, that the "Greeks" are not and cannot be Macedonians, simply because the "Macedonians" are the Macedonians. Which is why the powers that be have decreed that the older Macedonians must be relegated to a subsection of the article on the subnational entity they inhabit, while the latter-day variety are allowed to have separate articles on their presence in every conceivable place on the planet they happen to inhabit. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In SR Macedonia, the "Yugoslav Macedonians" you speak of were the ethnic Macedonians. They were (and are) an ethnic group, not "ethnic Yugoslavs" with a regional Macedonian identity, which is what the Greek Macedonians of Greece are. The Slovenes weren't ethnic Yugoslavs with a regional Slovenian identity. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself. In the Socialist Republic (and perhaps the rest of Yugoslavia). Not outside it. Similarly, the Macedonians are simply Macedonians in Greece, not Greek Macedonians. To the rest of the world, the inhabitants of Yugoslav Macedonia were the Yugoslav Macedonians. The Slovenes didn't have to be disambiguated because there wasn't a Slovenia outside Yugoslavia's borders. But they were still called Yugoslavs rather than Slovenes, more often that not, so it didn't really matter. If the Greek Macedonians have to be disambiguated, so should the ex-Yugoslavs. And, since any reference to Yugoslavia or Slavs is "offensive", pick something else. "Ethnic" won't do, as a third of the "Macedonian" population belongs to another ethnic group, and it does nothing to address the question of the country's name, unless you want to call it Ethnic Macedonia, which I believe is already reserved. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just on the right of Macedonia, there is Thrace. It is a geographical region divided in Eastern Thrace (in Turkey) and Western Thrace (in Greece). Both people call themselves Thracians. Imagine what have happened if one of them gained their independence, decided to name the country "Republic of Thrace" and themselves "ethnic Thracians". It's the qualifier that makes all the difference.--   Avg    08:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So you end up with one Republic of Thrace and one ethnic group calling themselves Thracians. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a Republic of Pelagonia based in Florina and an ethnic group calling themselves Pelagonians, speaking and writing a modified form of Greek and agitating for a United Pelagonia with Monastiri as its capital? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So... ?? Who cares? --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

About what, Фасоркче? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that meant to be a word? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just like Јунанци and Фопој are. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So no, it isn't. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere

For months, maybe years, we've been talking and arguing and now a subpage and a Arbitration case later, we haven't gotten anywhere, the article has not changed. Shouldn't we just stop wasting our time? We all have better things to do. We need to realize that things are going to have to change in the "real world" before the name of the article changes. We need to stop dragging our feet and work to improve Wikipedia instead of beating dead horses. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style page explicately states there is no consensus and its only "a proposal" not a policy. Verbatim below...

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Anyone that disagrees with MoS policies should debate it on the MoS page not here. Thanks.

Crossthets (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Manual of Style, I'm talking about this discussion. What do you mean? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just believe that Wikipedia is just acting brutally, censoring changes and adopting ideas without any proper justification. Sadly there is no alternative to this encyclopedia and hence people will continue to read these inconsistencies. I am rather disappointed but that is how things are. Moreover, people from FYROM, continue to abuse and try to adopt a national identity. There is nothing wrong to that since they are trying to form a nation. It is funny most of them have a Bulgarian ID as well, since they can be Bulgarians (they speak the same language-bulgarian) just by stating so.

The falsification of truth harms any peaceful solution and wikipedia is just adding to this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.117.30 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fyrom is accepted by Skopje auhtorities

The term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is accepted by government official and even worn on their id badges (PM Gruevski and his officials wore it at an industrial meeting in New York where the country received some form of a prize). There are numerous examples of this, after all it is the provisional appelation. This fact explains my clarification in my previous edit. Politis (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) comment moved from Talk:Republic of Macedonia --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there was an agreement with Greece to use FYROM on international acts, so that's expected. See the second comment at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#Admission_of_the_truth_in_the_Olympics.2C_Beijing_2008 --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a question aimed towards the admin or admins of this section. When i press the discussion box of the FYROM article, the first thing i see is a box routing me to this talk page, while informing me that my objections will be deleted if i post them there. Isn't that a way of saying "Don't bother mate... it's already taken care of!"? It is obvious that this is done in order to avoid flooding the page with objections, but doesn't that also proclaim the vast number of people who object? I couldn't help noticing the same attitude in the talk page i was directed, along with sayings of dead horses and men poking them. I don't want to be graphic, but since Greeks and the people of FYROM cannot agree for the time being, why doesn't wikipedia use the only name acceptable by both parties, as stated by the agreement signed by both,which is FYROM? Many have proposed so, yet all were dispelled rather harshly, if i may say so. FYROM was accepted by the leadership in Skopje and it exists in order to be used in circumstances like this. If they were offended i believe they wouldn't have accepted it. I hope that the virtues proclaimed by Wikipedia will be applied more actively, since i am but one of those who find your attitude regarding the issue rather unilateral.

thank you for your time, Alfadog777 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"I think there was an agreement with Greece to use FYROM on international acts, so that's expected." If that were the case, why would Greece veto its neighbour from entering NATO and start talks with the EU? JdeJ (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Greece wants RoM to drop all pretensions to use the RoM name on the future in any circumstance, that's why they put that pressure. That agreement is a temporal solution so Greece won't put problems to RoM participating on international stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the stance of Greece regarding the dispute affect the name by which FYROM is addressed in Wikipedia? The change of name is being asked by hundreds of Wikipedia users, not Greece or the Greek government in Athens. The actions of governments are not dictated by Wikipedia nor can Greece or FYROM be punished by it. From the way you state it JDEJ, it seems that the name remains in order to punish Greece for its actions. When did Wikipedia become a vigilante of international politics? Also i believe the standing name was applied long before FYROM was denied an invitation to start talks.Last but of the outmost importance is the fact that Greece NEVER vetoed the invitation of FYROM. Instead, a large number of NATO members expressed their desire to accept FYROM in NATO with the name dispute resolved and other criteria met.It was thus decided to postpone the invitation, as is the case with the EU invitation. Also, i would like a responsible answer to my previous post by an administrator, please not arguments and questions. I have no desire to argue with anyone in particular, i think it is quite pointless in this case.

Thank You, Alfadog777 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all other countries were worried beacause of name problem... just Greece was not???? Helllooo!!!???

There are proper places for jokes. This is not one. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Democracy or Demagogy

Good evening,

The opinions expressed by the wikipedia editors are absurd and somehow demagogical. So, if USA wants to call itself Ruler Of The World then everyone should accept it, somehow hypocritical. The name Macedonia has to be defined otherwise it will include some other ethnicities which are already geographically defined. To say, my fellow Americans 'Macedonia' is not like Athens of Ohio or Georgia. The Balkans have history of more than 232 years, thousands. It is not only the tree which will follow if Skopje wins but the whole forest, raising issues of the past without any historical substance. UNfortunately (UN with USA undermining any dialogue), electronic encyclopaedias, television, contests etc. every possible expression which can form and influence an opinion should be more careful and no, FYROM will not complain because if you saw or watched the Olympics of 2008 in Beijing the name on the sign was FYROM.

I would like to apologise If I was a bit rough.

Kind Regards Antonios

Thank you for your comment, it was very informative. Nobody here had ever heard the argument put that way, but it all seems so obvious now. Of course we should not let countries pick their own name or respect the constitutional names of independent countries, that would be madness. The UN, the US, the Wikipedia users, we are all misguided.

Snip comment on nationalities

Fortunately enough, there's a beacon of hope in this dark world, and that's Greece. Only Greece is wise and intelligent enough to settle these matters. While the rest of the world is full of narrow-minded, POV-pushers who don't understand the issues they debate, Greece sets a shining example to the world by its delicate handling of the Macedonian-issue. The whole world is wrong and respecting independent countries is wrong, but Greece is always right.

Thank you Antonios, it all makes sense now. WP:SARC. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove comment on nationalities

Is there a WP:RancidHumour in addition to WP:SARC? Because seriously something smells like fish roe here. Oh, it's just the Swede. Had me confused there for a sec. Had no idea these guys had learnt how to write. Or left the forests for that matter. Good on them then. Now if only someone introduces them to soap.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.210.67 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2008

Unbelievable you have cut my last phrase! Freedom of speech? In one of the previous pages one of the admins characterised me as blithering idiot and then they erased the phrase. Continue the good work wiki! Antonios

Oh we will. BalkanFever 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

not to judge by your track record they won't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.210.67 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2008

To be fair, Greece has never said "we should not let countries pick their own name". It goes without saying that we should, when it actually is their own name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Κέκρωψ, I would not expect any better comment from your side as it is obvious that wikipedia ignores all the above facts mentioned by many people above. Unfortunately, apart from the name issue, things like compensation of the slavic macedonian people, because only your prime minister knows the reason only why, can cause harm and nothing else. Geographically speaking, Macedonia as you know from your beloved wiki includes territories in three countries (Bulgaria, Greece & FYROM). From my point of view to avoid any misunderstanding, Slavomacedonia is a name which perfectly defines FYROM as a country -language & location-. Of course all of these were spoken above but if my country was calling itself Liverpool and recognised only from Turkey with such name then I would prefer , always for the time being, the official one which is FYROM. It is not only the name, but Mr. Gruevski's weird demands which can destroy every possible effort for a solution to be found. He has not even taken a step back. Issues like: civil wars(Croatia vs Serbia), Turkish invasion in Cyprus, Romanian dictatorship, Kossovo and now the name issue with whatever will come with it -let's be honest- destroys every effort for a peaceful future.

Kind Regards Antonios

+1 Wikipedia should improve itself and start being fair. 87.221.4.12 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you call taking sides at nationalist arguments fair, then I'd rather like it to be unfair, as WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The name "Republic of Macedonia" was deliberately chosen as a compromise between Greek version FYROM and Macedonian version "Macedonia." For the sake of sanity, it would be good to "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass", as FYROM obviously isn't the name Macedonians would choose if they didn't face pressure from some other political body, be it UN, Greece or something else. After all, name one reason why would they be so nostalgic for Yugoslavia. It is obviously a forced name and I really don't see a potential benefit to the readers from choosing the FYROM version. I also assume there are more people acquainted with the historical "Macedonia" version than the newly invented FYROM version. I'm not going to take sides about what Gruevski means about Croatian War of Independence, Kosovo, Ceausescu and other things, as he and his statements don't bear any weight at all in this problem. If you see a page about someone who you don't agree with, that is not a reason to rename that page to "Hitler". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Most people are more familiar with the historical term Macedonia, because it is part of Greek history, and that is admitted by every scholar, except the ones in Skopje. Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, not Slavic, and that is admitted by every scholar, including the ones in Skopje. Why should Greece and Macedonia in particular pass their history to FYROM ? It is irrational to change history as it is known for thousands of years, since ancient Greeks started writing down history systematically , just because FYROM has launched a full scale propaganda with every means available.Alfadog777 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the article be moved to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, per the relevant Wikipedia policy on naming conventions: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In other words, the most common English term takes first preference, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case the next most common term should be used. "Macedonia", the most common term in the language, is also the name of a number of other places, while the next most common, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is unique to the country in question. The term currently used, "Republic of Macedonia", is largely an artefact of Wikipedia and the country's government and does not enjoy widespread use in the English language. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. No need for "the" ;-). I actually agree with you that it's the most common name. Lets hope we can turn over a new leaf here and have this conversation in a civil manner! :P--Patton^t/c

Obviously, you have conveniently overlooked the link to WP:NCON, which is part of the same policy you have quoted so disinginously. And which contains the principle of self-identification names, which needs to be weighed up against common usage. So, it's either "Macedonia" pure and simple (this being both a self-identifying name and arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), or "Republic of Macedonia" as it is now (being the simplest disambiguator that is also compatible with the self-identification rule). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that WP:NCON is a guideline, not policy. As such, "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Moreover, the concept of "self-identification" was introduced by the non-binding guideline's author, User:ChrisO, precisely with this issue in mind. In other words, it served no purpose other than to satisfy his personal preference for the constitutional name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, NCON is explicitly linked to from the policy as providing authoritative guidance on how to handle it, and that has been a stable part of the policy for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Let's keep it civil, Fut.Perf. Yes, 'Macedonia' is of course the most common name in English, though for disambiguation 'Republic of Macedonia' is better. BTW, the whole world once sympathized with Macedonia because of the Greek blockade over something as petty as a naming dispute, but they're losing that sympathy by acting as silly as Greece with this racial-superiority Alexander nonsense to curry votes. kwami (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think people on both sides have had enough of outsiders telling them how "petty" and "silly" they are. It certainly does nothing to help achieve a solution. In any case, we are not here to discuss the essence of the dispute. Our concern is Wikipedia policy and its rigorous application. And even WP:NCON does not rank self-identification above common English usage: "If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence..." ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about NCON, then we should move the article to Macedonia. That is its name in normal English. FYROM is a bit of legalistic jargon that is not used in speech.

Do my feelings really bear such weight? I'm truly flattered. The reason we can't do that though is because WP:NC, which unlike WP:NCON is an actual Wikipedia policy and therefore binding, says that we should avoid names that "conflict with the names of other people or things". And Macedonia is the ambiguous term par excellence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused offense, but outsiders have had enough of this endless bickering. kwami (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None taken. I've been here long enough to have heard it all. The guy who wrote the WP:NCON guideline called us a nation of "crackpots". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt your country's politics is any more crackpot than mine. Which probably means that appellation would apply to all of us. kwami (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[EC] No you did not. It is both sides to blame in the real world. (And btw Alexander the Great was Greek, so it is not only perceived racial superiority, it's even worst: theft of racial superiority. Of course you can't steal something which doesn't/shouldn't/can't exist in the first place, which makes the other side look even sillier... But when one sees how popular concepts like this are in the north, one understands that the issue is much more serious than that and that the racial stuff is an excuse for calling the idiots in support.) NikoSilver 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Macedonia (country)?--Patton^t/c 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Country" is rather ambiguous. You could argue Greek Macedonia is a country. And I doubt it would satisfy people who object to the name. "Republic of X" is standard formal English, even if not as common as the short form.

What about Macedonia (state) then?--Patton^t/c 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Same. Macedonia was a (Greek) state in antiquity. NikoSilver 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these proposals address the issue that some people don't want the country called by its name. "Western Bulgaria" or "Republic of Skopje" would probably be the only things they'd be completely happy with, but they're fabricated and anyway would be objectionable to Macedonians.

There are lots of countries that use what was historically someone else's name: Ghana, Benin, Turkey, America, Sudan, Nepal, Thailand, France, Britain, Russia, etc. Macedonia's just the most recent. kwami (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just a dispute over a name, but whatever. Equating a term that is both widely used and formally recognized on an international level—one officially accepted by the country itself, no less—with an offensive moniker like "Western Bulgaria" is absurd. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this shouldn't descend into a debate about the form of disambiguation. It's a simple question of choosing the most common term in English that is also unambiguous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the current title, which is why it was settled on in the first place. kwami (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then that is clearly "Republic of Macedonia". Kekrops, we've been over this numerous times before. None of the arguments have changed. Nor have any of the facts on the ground. The article name has been stable since at least 2003. There really is no valid reason to reopen this question now and this move proposal has zero chance of success. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The most common long form is not "Republic of Macedonia". Like it or not, the next most common term for the country after the informal and ambiguous short form is the formal name used internationally. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The most common name for this country "Macedonia"-everywhere but in Greece. And it will remain like that Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't use "Macedonia" because it is ambiguous. Wikipedia policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy to avoid ambiguous terms. Ambiguity is a natural, ubiquitous element of human language. Articles can have ambiguous titles if the meaning of the article is the WP:PRIMARYUSE of the term, and ambiguous terms in text can be used at any time, subject only to contextually specific needs of disambiguation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Do you mean this? Again, a guideline, not a policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that you have yourself shortened Template:MKD from "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" [11] without any reason whatsoever. The facts on the ground hadn't changed and the article name had been stable for years. But of course all policy applies only to one side, as always.--Avg (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The decision to shorten the name in templates was purely political. User:ChrisO rammed through a change in WP:MOSMAC in order to justify the move. Now that "MOSMAC is dead", to quote FP, it should be reversed in accordance with policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close Controversial proposal, not listed on WP:M. This has been discussed a million times, current name is by far the most common in the English language, plus it's the constitutional name of the country, plus this discussion was created following a POINTy response to the discussion occurring at Talk:Greece. Keeping this open is just a unnecessary drama magnet and pool for personal attacks, thus I call on any admin to close this asap. I'm not doing it myself simply because I initiated the discussion at Talk:Greece and may therefore be regarded as "not uninvolved". Húsönd 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to help then list it to WP:M. The argumentation for the proposed move is 100% valid according to the Wikipedia rules. NikoSilver 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it's "by far the most common in the English language"? Because Google begs to differ. Most hits for "Republic of Macedonia" -"former Yugoslav" are either Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, or websites belonging to the government in Skopje. The constitutional name does not trump common English usage. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for, Kekrops. I just did a survey of mainstream encyclopedias; there's clearly been a move by many of them in recent years to the unadorned name "Macedonia". Britannica, for instance, now uses that name by itself. I found eleven using "Macedonia", five using "Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of" (or variants thereof) and just one using "Macedonia, Republic of". By that token, we should move this article to Macedonia, no? (I'm not seriously proposing this, by the way - just pointing out that the situation is not quite as Kekrops is painting it.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except we don't follow what other encyclopaedias do. We are governed by our own policies. But at least you accept that Wikipedia is practically alone in using "Republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And we don't follow Google tallies either. This does follow our policies. It's been debated to death. Unless you have something new, enough. kwami (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm simply saying that it doesn't follow our policies. As for Google, it is suggested by our own policies and guidelines. Do you have a better system of measurement to propose? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we first exclude silly legalistic names which no-one actually uses, such as FYROM? kwami (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one uses? Says who? It is in fact used in every international context of note. Before you come back with something like "only because of Greek pettiness", I remind you that is our job to describe, not prescribe. We don't care why it's used or how "silly" it is. It just is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do. Walk down the street and ask people what Macedonia is. They well tell you either: A. "what's a Macedonia?" or B. "it's a country, isn't it?". --Local hero 19:47, 24 March 2009

Depends where you are and who you ask. Not a very scientific method, though. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It kinda depends whether you're not in Greece (or Cyprus) or asking the question to Greeks (or Cypriot Greeks). For the rest of the world, the "Republic of Macedonia" is unequivocally a modern independent country. Húsönd 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Greece#FYROM and in particular Kekrops' comment of 16:32, 24 March 2009, it's quite clear that this discussion has been started as an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Given that, I'm closing this discussion to avert further disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is definitely not a WP:POINT, and what sparked it is irrelevant. Kekrops' argumentation for the proposed move is perfectly valid. The dismissive nature of the move to this subpage is also quite problematic. ChrisO is a serially involved editor from the first days of this dispute, and should be very cautious of his administrative actions being an involved party with a known opinion. I question the move to the subpage and this "closing". NikoSilver 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also be very interested to know how we can request a rename. Surely there should be a process for this that doesn't result in ChrisO closing it to "avert further disruption"? Or should we be led to believe that we cannot change the name of the article, period?--Avg (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for Husond's misinformed remark about Greece and Cyprus (in the end), I suggest he checks France and the English-speaking Australia (for example). NikoSilver 23:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I'm very well aware of the position of many countries regarding the naming issue of the republic of Macedonia. You must honestly believe that the countries that recognize the country as FYROM do so because they agree with Greeks' position, and not for mere diplomatic convenience and good relations. As far as I know, the dispute is known worldwide as one of the pettiest and very denigrating of Greeks' image. However this is Wikipedia, and one of your mistakes is to believe that we will conduct diplomatic games here as well. Quite wrong, we function by consensus here. Húsönd 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware then you are not misinformed, you are misinforming. Your WP:OR is interesting. Perhaps you would like to explain it to Kekrops who is a Greek Australian. Or to Sarkozy lol. Or Zapatero. It happens that in all these countries people (with a few exceptions) are not brainwashed by any (long gone) Bush administration and continue to call Macedonians the Northern Greeks, as it has been for ages, while the current US president was one of the most active senators in calling "FYROM" (as he called it) to its senses to stop claiming Greek territories through its name. What is denigrating is the extent to which you have been misinformed (or uninformed); the issue is much much deeper than a silly name. I thought what we function by here is English usage, not (evil) consensus as you say; but no wonder why you tried to speedy close consensus formation eh? NikoSilver 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a very cheap excuse there in the closing comment, in lack of a proper answer to a concrete argument. Bad faith, heavy bias or plain unperceptiveness, what is it ? And what ever happened to the common decency of just abstaining ? --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with the majority of users in that closing this discussion was the wrong thing to do. I see it as an attempt to gag an arguably good change proposal. Even if Kekrops had started this as an attempt at WP:POINT, the mere fact that people reacted positively towards this proposal implies that it was an arguably good change proposal, whereas ChrisO's move was for no reason other than "out of process". Going by the same reasoning, one could just as well claim that this was clearly an attempt at WP:POINT on behalf of ChrisO, as this exact scenario is referenced in WP:POINT's examples (Tu quoque). I really don't want to get into arguments like these, as it seems that the whole thing is circular. In light of that, let us all observe that WP:POINT is merely a behavioral guideline, while WP:IAR is official Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I want to touch on the subject of the naming consensus that has existed since "at least 2003". I agree that there probably was some sort of consensus that did result back then, but it is not true that things haven't changed in the past six years. Wikipedia as a community has more than doubled its members since then! The people whose opinions formed the consensus in 2003 are now a minority whose views no longer represent the views of the community. I'm not saying that wikipedia is majority ruled, but neither is it minority ruled, it is ruled by consensus. I'm saying that if the majority has a POV, then they should be allowed to use the proper channels to try to turn it into a new consensus. From what I've seen so far, that's probably the reason why this "consensus" remained standing for six years... because every time one of the newer members tries to challenge the "consensus", they are stopped with "None of the arguments have changed. Nor have any of the facts on the ground [...] There really is no valid reason to reopen this question now and this move proposal has zero chance of success". The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it never allows for change, progress or fresh ideas and that it doesn't take WP:CCC into account at all! That said, feel free try to rebut my reasoning ad nauseum, just be polite and understanding as I'm a newbie :) --Radjenef (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

formal renaming request

Formal request done at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Survey. Please make only constructive comments about the renaming itself, and don't comment on other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

See here. Same advice as above. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Democracy or demagogy- another side??

Some facts:

• R. of Macedonia and their people referr themselves as Macedonia(n). That is the official name (Republika Makedonija etc.). Various translations mean the same.
• (Republic of) Macedonia is the name for this country accepted worldwide. As in English speaking countries-so in the others. Everywhere but in Greece.As this is not Greek-language wikipedia Greek opinion is not relevant.
• Ancient Macedonia= mostly Greek (speaking) country, Modern Macedonia= mostly Slavic one . Greeks might not like that, but that is the reality.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By which criterion is "mostly" Slavic one? Greek Macedonia is significantly larger than Slavic Macedonia. Greek Macedonians are significantly more than Slav Macedonians, both inside and outside the region of Macedonia.--Avg (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the country itself - the RoM - is a mostly Slavic-speaking country. That's plainly true, albeit with a large Albanian-speaking minority population as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I referred to the fact that for the rest of the world FYROM=Macedonia ... Most of the world does not know about any other contemporary Macedonia.Except amoung Greeks.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And what if you wanted to call yourself Greece next year? --AaThinker (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact, Greece isn't called by its constitutional name. Its constitutional name is Hellas. --AaThinker (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name of this country is :Република Македонија transliterrated as Republika Makedonija translated in English as Republic of Macedonia and as such recognized by USA (67% of native English speakers)

Plus United Kingdom and Ireland that makes vast majority --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)