Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Egyptians?

Excuse me would really appreciate any info on the Egyptians in Macedonia, when did they get there? How many are there? What religion do they follow Coptic orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam? How did they get there or why? Is it a common occurence in the region, in neighbouring countries? Plz any info would be greatly appreciated.

See Macedonian salad. Miskin 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They are the remnants of older Greek inhabitants. Much more of them can be found further south (Aegean Macedonia), since scientific studies have conclusively proven that Greeks are basically a mix of Egyptians and Ethiopians. Of course the native Makedonski had spotted them thousands of years ago and killed most of them. --Avg 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha.the subsaharan origin of the Greeks!i have heard this joke before:) --Hectorian 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL - see this - apparently the same "research" found that the Japanese also have sub-Saharan origins ;-) Telex 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

KARALOL!'άλλος για τη βάρκα μας...?'...:). (=who else will join us?) --Hectorian 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Afro-Samurais and Macedonian-Slavs. Life is full of surprises. Miskin 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why some nationalist people can't just accept the fact that Macedonian Slavs are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great. It is a well documented fact (by the respected historian G. Paparovski) that when he liberated Macedonia from the Greeks he yelled Слобода или Смрт!--Avg 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

... heh, and then what, did he sing Еј, Словени? Telex 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not just him! there was also the wellknown Mr Moufovski...;-) --Hectorian 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let them name the page Republic of macedonia, it is quite obvious their research of Greeks and Japanese being African is flawless and Alexander the Great spoke a language nothing like Greek despite 3-5bc finds in macedon with greek inscriptions, but one that would be invented 9 centuries after his death. Having said this I would also like to nominate Joey from Friends as the next US president, perhaps he will let the slavs rename Skopje Solun? Some more nice humour for you: http://macedoniancivilization.blog.com.mk/node/1301 Reaper7 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's these kind of things that show manifest inferiority complexes and vile racism most effectively - why else would one resort to such pseudoscience to make themselves feel better. Assuming the HLA genes research was spot on and the Greeks and Japanese (and God knows who else they grouped in that category) do have sub-Saharan origins, is there anything wrong with that, or are Africans necessarily in some way inferior to everyone else? That's what the authors of that web page seem to think - there's more gloating there than when GWB won the elections. I'd be prepared to say that the Jews, the Turks, the Arabs and other non-Aryan peoples have contributed more to mankind than the Macedonian Slavs (whose own status as falling within that allegedly superior category remains dubious). Telex 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that everyone in this discussion should be familiar with this, but let me mention it again just to make sure: it is beyond reasonable doubt that Homo Sapiens first appeared in Africa and spread to conquer the world subsequently. So I do not find anything surprising in the fact that the Japanese or whoever else has genes in common with the African population. In fact I'll be rather surprised if they did not, because of its implications to the human evolution. FunkyFly 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course! According to most scientists, the human race was born in Africa. According to the Christian tradition, it was born in the Garden of Edem (modern day Iraq), but noone says that the whole world is Iraqis...Anyway, we all know that those who create such articles are motivated by racist ideas, in order to show that a nation (Greeks and Japanese in the case discussed) are inferior than the others, for they are/were descendants of black people. So, we should first totally reject such ideas as racist, and then as unhistoric (we all know that they are both...). --Hectorian 04:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading the discussion in this section, i have to say that we (all of those who have editted comments here) did not behave right to the user:Zakaria mohyeldin, who simply asked for info about the Egyptians in FYROM. we kept on refearing to really stupid websites, instead of just typing Egyptians (Balkans), in order to give him the info he kindly asked... --Hectorian 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What is really bad is how Greek-African people in the Macedonian blog are presented as something inferior. It is like saying to your grandfather that he is inferior, because he did not go to college. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that race correlates with intellect or enculturation, people who claim that are (surprise?) racists. FunkyFly 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the new DNA research from FYROM, proving that Greeks actualy have alien origins and they must go from earth??? :P I believe that sometimes we have to be serious and stop the stupidities! --xvvx 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! This was done by us Greeks! Yeah, read Epsilon Team and Dimosthenis Liakopoulos!!! No wonder how we managed to convince every int'l org. that it should be called FYROM!!! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia is Bulgarian heritage

People are forgeting the Bulgarian identity and heritage of the Republic of Macedonia. It is impossible to study Bulgarian history and culture and leave out its lost western heartland that reaches Ohrid. The history of the Republic of Macedonia starts with Bulgaria; to deny this truth would be like saying that Yorkshire is not English, or Peloponnese not Greek, or Elbasan not Albanian. Goce Delcev and many more are Bulgarian heros for peace and democracy for all. They never spoke of our brothers in Vardar Bulgaria as 'ethnic Macedonians', no one spoke of that until Tito. We were all Bulgarians, even if we were born in Skopje, Sandanski, America or Western Europe. Makedonija 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You say this, you are right, but who listens? The "Macedonians" evidently don't want to have anything to do with the... "Bulgaro-Tatars" [1] and the "Greek Ethiopians" ;-) Telex 11:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And now we aren't. You know very well that many Goce's statements speak about Macedonians different from Bulgarians. Make peace with this. Bomac 11:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right ;-) Telex 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's the truth. BTW, Goce never fought for Bulgaria, he fought for independent Macedonia with free Macedonians. Bomac 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, IMARO served Bulgarian interests. His aim was autonomy for the Bulgarians of Macedonia. Telex 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would anybody do a separate country from a region, with the same people? C'm on, this is really bizarre. Bomac 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that Serb nationalists want the independence of Republika Srpska rather than union with Serbia, or the same reasons that Albanian nationalists want independence for Kosovo rather than union with Albania. They know they have no chance of uniting immediately, so they go for independence instead - they know that in time though, the two states will eventually unite. Telex 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a heck of analogy. Do you really think this is adequate? Bomac 11:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said Telex, the FYROMians search so hard to find evidence that the Bulgarian Macedonians are unique, your examples are well thought out, especially the kosovo one. Now we need to teach them how the Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, Athenians ect were just that - Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, Athenians - bound only by hellenism. Then we need to show the archeaology that shows they all wrote and spoke a language similar to the various Greeks spoken by all the different city states, then we need to write an essay on small cultures with inferiority complexes, then hopefully a few of them will start to go,' that stuff they taught me at school in Skopje that us slavs are the real Macedonians - that is true.,.,.,.isn't it??' Reaper7 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL... Nothing else... LOL... Bomac 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that prior to the 1940s the designation Macedonians (Македонци/Μακεδόνες) was only a designation of regional origin, much like Thracians (Тракийци/Θράκες) was then and still is today, by Greeks, Bulgarians and others. After Tito's propaganda came into force, the ethnically Bulgarian Македонци were transformed, after a few years of communist terror, into an ethnic group in their own right. Had Yugoslavia acquired an ethnically Greek portion of Macedonia, then the ethnically Greek Μακεδόνες, would have been made into the Macedonian ethnic group, speaking a Macedonian language, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bulgaria would have probably imposed the economic blockade once the people speaking a Yugoslav socialism influenced Greek language in this hypothetical former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia started presenting Bulgarian history as their own and stared making land claims to Bulgaria :p). Telex 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it was terrible. There was a huge portal in which they put the regional Macedonians, and when they came out, they were ethnic Macedonians... God saved the Greek Macedonians (but - they are ethnic group according Miskin in Macedonians (ethnic group). Wonder what converted them? Bomac 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin ever claimed that (I don't know what he claimed). For some idea of what's going on, try reading this article and try explaining the weird fact that the Bulgarian language was prohibited in the Republic of Macedonia until relatively recently (probably so that the ethnic Macedonians wouldn't notice the uncanny similarities between "Macedonian" and Bulgarian) and when this law was finally lifted, 63,000 ethnic Macedonians declared themselves Bulgarians and acquired Bulgarian citizenship ;-) If Tito wasn't able to "convert" the Greek minority (actually they were a majority before 1945 in Bitola) and other cities it was because, what he called the "Macedonian" language was the regional variation of the Bulgarian language, not the Greek language, so it was easier for the Bulgarian Macedonians to adopt this new identity. Interestingly, the Republic of Macedonia government claims there are no Greeks there today; I see three possibilities: a) the Rep. Macedonia government is lying, b) they were "converted" (ie Slavicized), c) genocide was inflicted upon them. I don't know which you prefer. Telex 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think God saved the ethnic Macedonians, they just built a strong city known in ancient times (see carvings) and modern as Thessaloniki. When the slavs invaded they were safe in there. I think the macedonians have the walls to thank for that. But according to modern FYROM mythology, who were those Greeks in Salonika? Aliens put them in there? Is it possible they are the remnents of the Ancient Macedonians? According to FYROM they must have just been shipped there by ET, where as the real Macedonians stayed outside the walls of Salonika because it was safe in the fields, waited for the slavs 5-9AD, mixed with them exclusively - every last one - lost their language, and now are Alexander the Great's little slav children living in Skopje..mmmm Reaper7 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• FYROM is Vardar-Bulgaria!

• See:
• "what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history."-Misirkov Krste

• "..as follows: now that we are old we cannot learn a new language Bulgarian is the language we know and we shall speak Bulgarian; we are Bulgarians."-Misirkov

• "nobody had bothered particularly with the question of our nationality. We did indeed call ourselves "Bulgarians" and "Christians" in the national sense; but why this was so, and whether it really had to be so, we did not very much care to ask."-Misirkov Krste

• Text of Delcev's letter to Nikola Maleshevski:

"Sofia, 01.05.1899, Kolyo, ... May the dissents and cleavages not frighten you. It is really a pity, but what can we possibly do when we ourselves are Bulgarians and all suffer from the same disease! If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans..."

• "We are Bulgarians and we always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgariandom."

-Dame Gruev (Director of the Bulgarian school in Stip).

• U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

• Ethnographic maps....

http://img67.exs.cx/img67/8450/MapbyAmiBoue1847.jpg http://img56.exs.cx/img56/5857/VolkerkartevonMittel-undSudosteuropa.jpg http://img56.exs.cx/img56/3069/slaveni-karta.jpg http://img57.exs.cx/img57/1241/ResizeofEuropavolkerundsprachenkarte.jpg http://img57.exs.cx/img57/8127/1880-geoturkeyethnographical.jpg http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/races_balkan_shepherd_1923.jpg http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/gateway/maps/Ethnic16.gif http://mitglied.lycos.de/anakin77/Sprachkarten/eth2.jpg http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7540/makedonienlandschaftsundkultur.jpg

• Ethnographic statistic:

http://www.univ.trieste.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolaz-ottomana1911.jpg

• Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgars in Skopje....

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7216/Invitation1893.jpg

• VMRO stamp in Bulgarian language..........

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/6279/Svobodailismyrtpechat.jpg

• The Bulgarian society in Skopje 1870 :

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4454/skopie18701nx.jpg

• Bulgarian municipality - Prilep

http://img47.exs.cx/img47/9107/balgarska_Obshtina_v_prilep.jpg

• Theophylacti Bulgariae archiepiscopi In omnes divi Pauli apostoli epistolas enarrationes

THEOPHYLACTUS, arcivescovo di Ochrida http://www.comune.empoli.fi.it/biblioteca/CATALOGO/schede/sch785.html http://www.comune.empoli.fi.it/biblioteca/CATALOGO/schede/front785.html

Vergina/Macedonia 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Page title / bias

The article's title should be "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accordance to the name recognized by the United Nations, as happens to all nation entries. Also the links at the bottom of the entry are biased towards supporting the FYROM opinion on the disputes with Greece, lacking any credible reference to the Greek arguments. Dr. Manos 22:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Reaper7 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As to the title, you should make your case in a bit more depth. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position. I say that because the current article title has been settled on after quite a bit of turmoil, and just changing it would not be a good idea. On the other hand, with regard to the links, sofixit. I'm sure that more references would benefit the article. --Yath 23:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Manos, please be patient...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: given that one move request/proposal is currently underway, another one now is analogous to putting the proverbial cart before the Trojan horse. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I wish it were (had thought of it myself)...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the country in question have a boundary with Kosovo? Leshkuq 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Po, edhe minoritet shqiptar i shtypur. Telex 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Which would translate to??  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"minoritet shqiptar" is albanian minority, not the rest is left to the imagination:-)--Avg 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My imagination stretches as near as yours... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be something like "Yes, and the Albanian minority is oppressed", and my other guess is that the comment is because Leshkuq is an Albanian who supports Albanian Kosovars. --Avg 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your imagination isn't that much wild, after all... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrators wake up to the cleansing of Bulgarian history

You "Macedonian" guys are behaving like confused western Bugarians and you ignore the history of your ancestors. Instead you try to turn all your neighbours against you with your maps and invented history. The regional map in the main article reflects clear distortion of reality against Bulgaria (and the other 3 neighbours). OK then, how about this: as other people have pointed out, the Republic is and has always been Vardar Bulgaria. The way you are going, one day you will be responsible for the religious heartland of Bulgarians (Ohrid) to be inhabited by Albanians and anyone callling themselves Macedonian will be coming to Bulgari... [user:Makedonija]]

I thought the religious heartland of Bulgarians, as well as that of all Christians, was Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land. Telex 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohrid is the religious centre of the Bulgarian church, in a way, that is where Bulgaria discovered it had absorbed the lessons of Byzantium and realized it was a civilising power. user:Makedonija

I see... like Constantinople is for the Greeks (who lost it to the Turks). Telex 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a very big difference. Bulgaria lost Ohrid to the 'lost Bulgarians'; Greeks did not loose Istanbul until the 1950s with the pogroms. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople the Greeks became the masters of the Christians. When Serbia / Yugoslavia took Ohrid, the Bulgarians lost even the right to worship there. user:Makedonija

Unfortunately your fellow Bulgarians who came down with you in the 5-9AD now think they are the only true relatives of Alexander the Great. As soon as you say the word Bulgarian 50 years of propaganda forces them to explode. Reaper7 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

...and Greeks aren't "masters of the Christians". See Pope vs Patriarch of Constantinople and Halki seminary etc...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Masters" of the Christians?! Oh boy... Not even the most ultra nationalist Greeks would have conceived this one! We are completely unable to even sort out our own Greek Orthodox Church problems! If you haven't seen Christodoulos vs Vartholomeos or heard of what Irineos and Babylis have done you haven't seen how low church debates can go:-) --Avg 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Makedonija is right on every account. In the Ottoman Empire all Orthodox Christian peoples independently of their ethnic origin were political and religious subjects of the Ecumenical patriarch, ethnarch of the Greek Millet. This is not nationalism, only history. The region of FYROM was in fact the heart of the medieval Bugarian state. Miskin 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, i'm sure a in a couple more years the FYROMians will claim to have started our church too, so all this mess in our church is down to them at the end of the day. Some of the benfits of having your history altered, they can take the corruption aswell as the glory.. Reaper7 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the FYROMian church has accidentally "mistranslated" some chapters of the Holy Book, such as Daniel's prophecy on the Greek King who will rule the world, or the deuterocanon's account on the establishment of the Kingdom of Greece over the Persian Empire. Miskin 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Reaper7 your lines are unbelievable man... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hmm... aren't we supposed to be done here today?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, N.: I'll summarise the vote and request a removal of the article block very shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We are making mistake if we allow post-Tito "Macedonian" dreams to confuse reality with wishful thinking. A few people think they are defending the Republic of Macedonia (also FYROM) and are not willing to appreciate reality. The reasonable voices of Skopje historian have to speak out (even if they study in Sofia)...

It is a fact that no European country is ashamed of its ancient and Christian (Greek) roots because this has nothing to do with nationalism. First,the great Romans were influenced. The Second people to learn the lessons were the Bulgarians and they civilised the Slavs. The third, fourth, etc were the nations north of the Alps. Bulgaria suffered under the communist propaganda of the USSR, of Tito, and its own propadandists, but it has always been proud of its heritage and its infuences. Makedonija 10:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Those ..."defenders" are just trying to fight any country that actually has a culture and a history to be proud of (such as yours). I think the ultimate form of nationalism is trying to accuse everybody else of being a nationalist, so that you make them less proud of their heritage and steal from their history! Hell, you can even attract supporters from their own camp, by camouflaging your approach with the pretence of liberalism and neutrality! So I guess you too are a nationalist, my friend Makedonija, just for being proud of your country's "heritage and influences". And let's not bring the discussion to what that would make me, because Super- and Hyper- are not big enough loan-prefixes from Greek to describe it... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like those ultimate communists, the anti-communists and those ultimate liberals, the conservatives, not to mention the ultra-orthodox catholic atheists! Your "theory" is as watertight as a holey sieve and with much less explanatory power! I think "ultra hellenic nationalist fundamentalist" probably describes you quite well Niko :)) You can call me "hyper anti-nationalist nationalist fundamentalist" if you want ^_^ Sorry I haven't replied to your email yet btw, I was away over the weekend. - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not MY theory. Check this and this book (among others). Also, check here that the definition of nationalism includes the text "...as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" (and the text continues to specify which nations' ultimate nationalists may those be).

Furthermore, I carefully didn't use anti-nationalist (as opposed to your "conservative" and "a-theist" poor examples); I used ultimate nationalism.

Finally, I don't accuse you of being a "hyper anti-nationalist nationalist fundamentalist". I accuse you of being an "unaware victim of hyper ultimate nationalists fundamentalists". You have every right to call me an "unaware victim of..." whatever too, but not a nationalist, because then "...I think you would just prove my point" further (<-sounds familiar to you?).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your case would be made better if the links you posted actually had anything to do with your "theory". No I did not read the book yet, know where I can get a copy on the cheap? Again, your theory is bunk, considering the definition of nationalist includes "loyalty to a nation" and something about "national consciousness", and considering as an anti-nationalist I have loyalty to no nation. Including the fact that I don't exhalt any one culture above any other, although I am, you could say "patriotic" (if you wanted to abuse the word) about certain ideals I hold. Or can you point out where I've placed "primary emphasis on promotion of [a nations] culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups". Oh, I see! I'm an "unaware victim". Well, if you think I'd be better waving the flag of St. George, kicking the shit out of immigrants while singing Rule Britannia, and using derogatory terms to describe ethnic minorities, then I guess its your loss. - FrancisTyers 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of renouncing your ethnic id Fran. You missed the point, but maybe it is because I started on the wrong foot. I am just saying that if someone would be under-valueing other people's ethnic id's, that would be more nationalistic than being a nationalist himself. I think you agree to that. And maybe I was a little harsh in calling you an "unaware victim", but you had given on my nerves (or maybe my nerves themselves are the issue). Maybe your page about nationalists is not intended in promoting under-valueing of other people's ethnic id's, but you must admit that there is no clear boundary for that. For one thing it is not clear what someone may consider as under-valueing his ethnic id. And for another, in more than one case, I can observe examples that could be contradicting with other examples, and yet you choose which of the two to use, with your own criteria. The other side may just think that you are under-valueing their ethnic id by choosing the other's POV. (actually I think that the whole point of your page should be illustrating those contradictions, but then again, it's your page).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't undervalue or overvalue anyone's ethnic identity. I don't think ethnic identity should be based on, to give a specific example, whether the Armenian Genocide happened or not. I seriously don't think that these facts are part of an ethnic identity, but rather of an underlying national ideology instituted during acculturation. I don't think a Turk has to give up his ethnic identity to accept that the Armenian Genocide happened, and I'd be very disappointed if we lost diversity through coca-colonisation -- for one I wouldn't be able to rip on my flatmate for buying Danish feta! I agree that I am in some sense seemingly "arbitrary" with regard to these facts, but I hope you realise I am presenting them as I come accross them and understand them, and any perceived bias is probably due to either not knowing both sides, or just not having read enough. As I have continuously mentioned, I welcome input from all sides, as you can see from the reasonably active talk page. I'm interested in your idea about illustrating the contradictions and think we should continue it on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 23:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'Macedonian citizens' chasing Bulgarian pasports

As a follow up to the above entry: Thousands of Macedonian citizens have requested and received Bulgarian passports; the recognise that they are “of Bulgarian origin and have Bulgarian national feelings”. [2]. Conclusion: we cannot ignore the thousands of citizens from FYRO/ROM who consider themselves 'Bulgarian' and who have been left out of the census. Politis 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And with Bulgaria just about to join the EU, who would have thought it! Definately unexpected :)) - FrancisTyers 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad we are talking about probably 5-6% of all the republican Macedonians, the other 95% seem to be consolidating their hatred even more. It is bad that all people with bulgarian consciousness are leaving because the willingness of political reforms and acceptance of certain historical truths leaves with them, but that's life. FunkyFly 14:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that isn't a bad choice of disambiguator... "Macedonian Republican". - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just dont say it to an American, it will drive him nuts. FunkyFly 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think leaving above is a very moderate term that implies choice. Isn't it?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're probably "leaving" for the chance of getting out of the Balkans! - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're already sold into it! :) Good job, read those Macedonian newspapers. FunkyFly 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Bulgaria, but if one acquires Greek citizenship, they he'll have to serve twelve months in the Greek armed forces. In my opinion, the purpose of this is to assimilate them. If Bulgaria still does conscript, and their armed services are anything like the Greek ones, by the time a Macedonian has finished his draft, he'll be more Bulgarian that the Bulgarians ;-) Telex 14:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, there are drafts, only 6 months though. It seems like they'll abolish the draft in 2008 and the army will be professional from them on though. FunkyFly 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And... that would imply that there are more women acquiring the Greek one, which is not true. But anyway... I guess the army didn't earn that motto for nothing: "Army begins where logic ends!"  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Screw the draft! :) - FrancisTyers 15:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If they do abolish it, then they should tighten their nationality laws. People riding through scott-free from a country which is not likely to join the EU until 2015 (according to the BBC) would just dampen the freedom of movement for everyone else from eastern Europe. Even today, people from former communist countries face restrictions on the right to the free movement of workers to as to control the influx of immigrants. Telex 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The nationality laws are pretty strict at present. There's background checks with the police and the justice dept. And there will be visas starting from 2007 when the country joins the EU, right now people from the Republic dont need visa if they are visiting for less than 3 months I think FunkyFly 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats shit. You guys are more than welcome in the UK and Republic of Ireland. That is, as far as I know there is no restriction on movement. I think the same goes for Sweden too, but I can't be 100% sure. - FrancisTyers 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I just checked and its only Ireland that doesn't have any restrictions. UK assholes! Not to mention all the other EU states. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Ireland has a restriction of smoking in public places... :P Miskin 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See this. Telex 15:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!!! And on May Day too. That really made my day :)) - FrancisTyers 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, FunkyFly, I like 'Macedonian republicans'; I will be using it. But I disagree that 95% are consolidating their hatred. I have visited their country 7 or 8 times, I always mentioned my Greek roots and I never came across any hatred against Greeks or Bulgarians; a few people spoke Greek to me and a few were half Greek or saw themselves as Hellenes. I would be very happy to live there for a while. On the other hand, I came across repeated anger/suspicion (not hatred) towards Albanians. I think (nomizo) that the vast majority in FYROM/ROM are good and peaceful people. Politis 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Macedonian republicans is Francis's idea, I suggested Republican Macedonians. FunkyFly 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For me, they still are "automomous Macedonian regioners of Slavic origin", or "Macedonian Slavs" or even "Slavomacedonians" for short. I am not trying to tell them how to call themselves, so let them not try to tell me (or us) how to call them either. Anything else would be too confusing for me, because as you may know, there may be Greek Macedonians with "Republican" feelings (autonomous or just political) as well... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So are Greek Macedonians "Hellenomacedonians", or is that redundant? Because all Macedonians are Greek anyway. Just to be clear... - FrancisTyers 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to use that term, but not for the reason you think. Greeks are not the only people populating the geographical region of Macedonia and I would indeed find this to be disambiguating them from the other regioners. I would only object to the separatist tendencies that such a term could imply. I am sure you were not implying such a thing, Fran, so aside from that, the term is fine by me.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Macedonians are Greek (population of the region of Macedonia says so). But surprisingly they do not claim that they are the only ones... others do.--   Avg    21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

- Bizarrely enough it is best to use history, Alexander the Great spread hellenism, not slavoism across asia, Ptolemy in Eygpt ect ect. The Greeks who live up there are the decendants, as much as that is possible (no one is 100% anything these days)of those Macedonians. The Slavs claiming to be Ancient Macedonians too, are slavs..er who live in the northern part of what was Macedonia according to maps 2000 years ago. The problem is, inorder for the slavs to prove they infact the ancient macedonians there are a few key obsticles in the way, mainly reality. To be more precise there are 2 million Greeks in the north that have to be re-cultured into something non ancient macedonian, there is the problem that when the slavs (who are now apparently the same 3rdC. BC Macedonians) came down into the Balkans in 5-9 AD some people happened to notice and wrote it down, and finally there is the problem of them not having any characteristics of the Ancient Macedonians, IE Alphabet, Language, Culture ect where as the Greeks - what they do have left is 90% more then what the slavs ever had, besides this, yes the Greeks are the true Hellenes. Reaper7 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening a can of WP:BEANS

Is any of the above related to improving this article? Jkelly 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It helps set the mood. Republic of Jkelly (You cannot protest at me using your name because I am a republic and can do whatever I want) 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Congratulations on your adminship too, Telex! (you can also claim the history behind Jkelly's name).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe JKelly will oppose Telex's right for self-determination! It's a Wikipedia guideline:-) --   Avg    23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes he will. Please compare:

Jkelly: 122,000 hits

Telex: 8.58M hits

 NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that until this dispute is resolved, JKelly managed to obtain a UN resolution that refers to Telex as FWKAT (former Wikipedian known as Telex). But who cares what the UN does anyway. I go with Telex. It's his right to be called what he wants. JKelly is an oppressor.--   Avg    23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A billion hits for "Macedonia". FunkyFly 23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one support our new JKelly. May he use the name wisely. - FrancisTyers 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Jimbo recognised Telex under his constitutional name "Republic of Jkelly" or simply "Jkelly". The recognition is temporary until Telex and Jkelly find a diplomatic solution, which Jimbo will accept. One third of the users still call "Republic of Jkelly" as Telex, while the other two thirds call him simply Jkelly. All, repeat: ALL, international organizations refer to Telex as FWKAT. Wikipedia attributes all of Telex's contributions to the name "Republic of Jkelly". Thank God Telex doesn't have a flag yet, or we would be debating about Jkelly lifting his permablock on "Republic of Jkelly".  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The weird thing is the guys real name is J Kellyeski, but it was altered 60 years ago to sound more JKelly Reaper7 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

...sigh... Jkelly 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

9 archives.....

Far out is there any article with more archives/discussion/arguments/talks than this? For such a small country..... Random viewer. user:144.132.12.83

You? A random viewer? I just don't believe. Your edits read like those of a sockpuppet. Politis 13:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Now which particular edit exactly would you mean by that Politis?

this? (image originally uploaded by User:Vlatkoto)

Hmmmm...very appropriate for a "random viewer"... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vlatkoto, how come a 'random editor' just happens to locate a map of 'greater Macedonia' :this? which most had never seen? And then, as someone out of the blue, he/she performs an edit (on user:Makedonija) without any idea of what he/she is doing. I think we have to revert their edit. :  Politis   ^{(T) @ (C)}

Nice signature! Looks like my dog-rug! I wonder who was the idiot that proposed it to you... :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch out! The design is based on a very rare kilim from Chios, once used by the Pasha in Constantinople. :  Politis   ^{(T) @ (C)}

Irredentist map is offensive

The map of the macedonia region in this article is offensive. There are special propaganda websites for such distortions. How would some people feel if someone inrtoduced a map of 'Bulgarian lands' and included Republic of Macedonia? Makedonija 11:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; I've no opinion at present but don't disagree. If anything, I'd prefer a similar, though more inclusive, map (solely) at Macedonia to help clarify accompanying text/notions. I'm uncertain of the practicality of including images in DAB pages, but think it'd be useful for this topic.

And if it helps any, I'm working on a map of Macedonia with current municipal borders etc.; I should have this ready in the coming days. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Something like this is [[3]] is very useful and very respectful. No Macedonian student in Bulgaria uses the 'region map'; and there are 300,000(?) people of Bulgarian Macedonian origin in Bulgaria who came in the 1920s and 1930s but no one uses map of 'macedonia region' or map of 'Bulgarian region'. Makedonija 12:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear you; no real argument. I guess that's what I mean(t) by having a single, inclusive map of the region (depicting all major notions) at Macedonia: take a glance at Americas (terminology) for a variation of what I'm contemplating, in which various maps of the Americas are arrayed to help clarify this or that. In any event, I won't lose any sleep if the prior map doesn't return. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!! Most people in the Balkans want to go to America but you bring America to Macedonia!

I'm smiling, but there's no problem standing pat or in coming to Canada instead. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW: is it me or (on the map) are the 10 municipalities for Greater Skopje amalgamted into one? Shouldn't they be discrete? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention!

This is a notification to all involved editors that there are some apparent double standards used in:

• Portal:Greece/Intro: Inclusion of languages (Vlach, Arvanitic, Turkish, Slavomacedonian) in the intro that are neither official nor frequent (only claimed to be used partly -along with Greek- by 1% or 2% of the population).
• Portal:Republic of Macedonia/Intro: Removal of the Albanian language from the intro, which is both (partly?) official and extremely frequent (as it is used by ONE out of FOUR republican Macedonians mostly exclusively).

Please place those portals in your watchlists.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the Ohrid Agreement, Albanian is co-official with Macedonian on a national level, so the problem seems to have been solved. How come you couldn't find that out by yourself? ;) - FrancisTyers 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you on the talk page that this was one of the terms of the agreement, but I was ignored. Telex 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, why has the Albanian name been removed from the infobox. See Belgium and Finland - this is double standards, ethnic Albanians are not second class citizens. Telex 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted to FT, the following can be found on p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7);the entry for Macedonia (typically one country per page, sometimes more) indicates the following uptop:

• Official name¹: Republika Makedonija (Republic of Macedonia).

...

• Official languages²: Macedonian; Albanian.

The footnote(s) below indicate the following:

• ¹ Member of the United Nations under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ² Albanian was made an official language in June 2002. . . .

which is verbatim the note I added to the infobox, with other content since embellished.

I've restored a conciliatory version, w/o Albanian name in infobox (though I don't deny it, strangely, the Albanian name isn't noted in EB), but with note as before. Telex, I think we were crossing paths (I only realised your restoration after the fact); please restore if problematic and let me know if you've questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

For additional context and clarity, the following can be found on p. 463 of the same volume as above in the World Affairs article for Macedonia (different than the country's statistical portrait later in the same volume):

• ... Implementing the August 2001 Ohrid agreement, the parliament passed several key pieces of legislation aimed at improving relations between Macedonia's two largest ethnic communities. These included a new law in January on local self-government that transferred some powers from the central government to the municipal level, an amnesty law in March, and a package of language laws in June that established Albanian as the second official language.

I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Fyromian language?

SYNOPSIS OF LANGUAGES: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17124/17124-h/images/migrations.jpg

Vergina/Macedonia 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Official language in Macedonia

We can see these days some of the editors trying to equalize the Macedonian and Albanian language in the Macedonian articles. IMO this is wrong. In Macedonia the fundamental, supreme law is the constitution, not the Ohrid agreement. The principles set in the Ohrid agreement were incorporated through the amendments into the constitution in 2001. If we take a look in the Article 7 of the Macedonian constitution([4]), we can see the following:

(1) The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia.

(2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

(3) Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law.

(4) Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use any official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

(5) In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law.

(6) In the units of local self-government where at least 20 percent of the population speaks a particular language, that language and its alphabet shall be used as an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet. With respect to languages spoken by less than 20 percent of the population of a unit of local self-government, the local authorities shall decide on their use in public bodies.

What are the conclusions:

1. Macedonian language is the official language in the whole territory in the country, used in the international relations, in the army, in the Government etc.

2. Any language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is official in a manner of using it in the units of local self-government, in the Parliament of the country etc, but in addition with the Macedonian, not in parallel!

3. The only language that stays as official in the whole country is the Macedonian and for that reason Albanian IMO can be mentioned appropriately in the article, but cannot be totaly equalized with the Macedonian (it doesn’t have the same level of importance).

MatriX 09:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Albanian is official in the municipalties where the Albanian population is more than 20%. South Tyrol in Italy has a German official language, but it is only in the region. Bomac 09:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Albanian is spoken by 25% of the population therefore is an official language at national level, even you failed to disprove this. All MatriX managed to prove is that Albanian is official in addition to Macedonian. I guess this doctrine of ethnic purity and the nation state still persists amongst the people of the Vardar Valley :-( Telex 09:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to say that Albanian doesn't have the same importance as the Macedonian, for example, it cannot be used in the army, in the international relations, only in addition to the Macedonian (and therefore it should't be equalized with the Macedonian in the article). For example, the national currency denar is written only in Macedonian, the Government is obligated to conduct its work on Macedonian... I agree Albanian should be mentioned in the article appropriately, but not in every place where the Macedonian is mentioned MatriX 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No one claims it has the same importance - you don't have to downplay the importance of Albanian, an official language at national level (that is the only criterion to enter the infobox). You can use footnotes for that effect - Wikipedia practice is to use the official languages in the infobox and the introductions. I don't see why this should be tweaked just because you think that the fact that Albanian is of less importance to Macedonian should be emphasized. Telex 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not downplaying the importance of Albanian, I'm just trying to stop you from emphasizing it to the level that is not real at all. For the sake of truth, there is a debate in my country whether the Albanian should be recognized as second official in the country (that means using it in all instances of the government, army, police etc). It is pushed by the Albanian representatives, but, for now, that hasn't happened (read the following article if you can;):[5]

Just to quote the Macedonian minister of justice:

The justice minister, Meri Mladenovska, said the DUI was taking its case too far. "I don't know how they came up with their arguments on the second official language when the constitution is quite precise," Mladenovska said.

or Ljubomir Frckovski, one of the authors of the Ohrid agreement:

Frckovski said the Albanians were unlikely to succeed in making Albanian an official tongue in the police and the army. "Such a thing will never pass," Frckovski said.

Conclusion: Albanian is not officialy declared as the second official language at the national level.

MatriX 10:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Constitution, it can't get any more official than that. Law 101.--   Avg    10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another quote from the Macedonian justice minister (from the same article): "The official language over the entire territory of the state and in international communication is the Macedonian language and the cyrillic alphabet", Mladenovska told the daily newspaper Dnevnik. MatriX 10:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Article 7 subsection 2 of the constitution: (2) Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. Therefore, it can go in the infobox. Telex 10:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not with the same importance with Macedonian and, to repeat again, it cannot be equalized with the Macedonian everywhere in the article MatriX 10:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to deny reality. "Importance" is not the issue here, "officiality" is. The Constritution says it is official in the clearest of ways. --   Avg    10:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No one said with the same importance. We give Albanian its due position, it is an official language at national level, therefore, it goes in the infobox. If there are any loose ends, then footnotes are used to clear up the mess (^{or pipified wikified superscript notes which you like so much}). You are downplaying its position by not even mentioning it until the end of the article. As an official language (per article 7), it should go in the infobox. Telex 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You can also read the following article:[6]. The main point I see there is that there are demands from the Albanian community to designate Albanian as the official second language for Macedonia. THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT OFFICIAL AT NATIONAL LEVEL AT THE MOMENT!!!, otherwise why Albanians whould have to ask for it? The second thing that should be noticed:

The Government of Macedonia is in the process of preparing a language law that addresses Ohrid Framework Agreement provisions for the use of languages other than the Macedonian language.

So, such a language law is not jet done and we cannot make assumptions whether this law will declare Albanian as official on a national level or not! Please, don't become greater catholics than pope (I hope I said this properly):)) MatriX 10:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why does p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7) claim that there are two official languages, Macedonian and Albanian? Perhaps the Albanian request was to make the equal, who knows? Telex 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is just an encyclopedia just like ours, I'm just telling what is the situation in Macedonia as I'm seeing it every day, I hope we will find a way to present the complexity around the official languages policy in Macedonia as close to the real situation as we can. MatriX 11:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bitola what you write above, if we're to accept it, actually means that the government delays the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement and ignores its own amendments to the Constitution. The documents are all before our eyes, we can read them. If the actual situation is not like that, then we also have a blatant violation of legality and agreements by the RoM goverment.--   Avg    11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then why don't we say that according to the Ohrid Agreement and Britannica and the Macedonian constitution (article 7(2) uses the very word "official"), Albanian is official, but according to some news article it isn't. That's the NPOV way, it's Wikipedia. Telex 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If we follow NPOV, then lets describe the situation as it really is. Constitution says it is official, but not at national level: this is not jet regulated by the laws that normally follow every constitution. Lets stick only to the facts, and the facts are that Macedonian is the only official language on the whole teritory of the country and in the international relations (read the subsection (1) of the Constitution's article 7). MatriX 11:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does the constitution say that Albanian is official but not at national level? I see the "official" part, but not the "not at national level" part. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Telex 11:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Subsection one says that Macedonian is official (etc... etc...) and subsection two says that any language spoken by 20% or more is also official. Telex 11:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you are reading ends with as specified below, and in the subsections below you can see that Albanian is always mentioned as in addition to Macedonian (you will never find something like: Macedonian in addition to Albanian, that is why these two languages have no equal importance at the national level). Officiality of the Albanian language in reality here means that this language can be officialy used by Albanian minority, especially in the communities where the Albanians are more than 20% of the population and some exclusive rights as the opportunity to use that language in the Parliament, nothing more than that. MatriX 11:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The constitution doesn't say that. It says that Macedonian is official and Albanian is also official (it doesn't say that they are equal, it does say that they are both official). Telex 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ok Bitola don't worry, the Albanian name will be mentioned in addition to Macedonian.--   Avg    11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Official as specified below, i.e. it can be used by the minorities, not at national level.MatriX 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. Telex 11:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You may not like it, but, it is official. The Constitution says so. It can't get any more explicit than this. The rest is your POV. You are fighting a lost battle. --   Avg    11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't get these things. It says that any language spoken by more than 20% of the population is official (and then a few exceptions are given). The very wording of the constitution says it is official and that is enough to fit it into the "official languages" cell. Unfortunately, there are people who with their country was like Greece: 98% ethnic Greek and only one official language. Telex 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If one Macedonian minister of justice admits that there is only one official language at the national level, then who are we to dispute that? It becomes obvious that we cannot agree at the moment around this and for now I will quit the discussion. MatriX 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

He didn't really admit that. You are willing to infer that from his words though. We can follow the NPOV principle though, and say that according to Britannica, the Constitution and the Ohrid Agreement, Albanian is official, but according to the Minister of Justice and some news article is isn't. Telex 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV principle is to mention that Albanian is official in the municipalties and refers to various documents and stuff. Bomac 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But Britannica says that it is official. The constitution also says that any language spoken by more than 20% of the population is official. This should be mentioned. Telex 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: in the place that is spoken. Bomac 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that - that's what you want it to say though. BTW can't we join the two conversations we are having ;-) Telex 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want to be like that ;-). It clearly states passports, I.D.'s and similar administration stuff + ofcourse municipalties. Bomac 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, see tha actual text above - we are about "the official language of the Republic of Macedonia" [sic]. Telex 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as specified below. Bomac 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is specified below. Give me a quote that proves that such a language is not official. Telex 14:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example:

(3) Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law.

(4) Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use any official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

--Bomac 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, read what you are citing: Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian. In other words, there are other official languages in addition to Macedonian. Not to mention Any person may use any official language [ie there are more than one] to communicate with a main office of the central government [ie not just in municipalities]. Telex 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no, no, no... you are not getting the whole picture. You read only what you want to read: Any person. Simply, it's a life relief. Bomac 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, bite me - you are deliberately ignoring the interesting parts of the text and are focusing on the part you imagine prove your point. Telex 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. Again, your POV. You are not getting the whole picture. Bomac 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

... you are not getting it. When I read "official language" and municipalities are not even mentioned, but the section of the text deals with the national level, then I understant official language at national level. Telex 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of South Tyrol, cosmopolitan? Bomac 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Telex 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

C'm on, think twice... Bomac 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think this page should be back to the version where it gives correct data. The minority lang. should be mentioned in the text, according constitution, where it clearly states that these are official in the municipalties where they are spoken. Bomac 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, compromise. I remove it from the infobox, but leave it in the first paragraph. Telex 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bomac 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - Albanian name has been nixed from the infobox. I'm agreeing to this, as this name does not appear on an MK passport. I have left it in the first paragraph though and will expand on the endnotes shortly (give me a few minutes). Telex 15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What will be in those endnotes, if I may ask? Bomac 15:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

'bout the municipalities. Telex 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the name of the country in the other official languages used in some municipalities: Romani, Serbian and Turkish. --FlavrSavr 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I'm not adding nothing, since the article is protected. Could anyone from the sysops add them:

The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија, Albanian: Republika e Maqedonisë, Turkish: Makedonya Cumhuriyeti, Romani: Republika Makedoniya, Serbian: Република Македонија / Republika Makedonija) --FlavrSavr 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, the article is semi-protected.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some clarifications

It's been put to my attention by Telex that including the exclusively municipal languages in the introduction undermines the status of Albanian as a secondary official language nationwide. According to this logic, including Albanian and other languages in the introduction "undermines" the status of Macedonian as a primary official language. I'd like to explain how language policy works out here - Albanian is an official language, however, it's not official nationwide: it's not in use in the army, in the police, and in 2/3 of the municipalities in the Republic where the percentage of Albanians is below 20%. One can see that the sites of the Parliament and the Government (where Albanian is spoken) are presented in Macedonian only (there's an English version for the foreign public). Given that, I really don't see why we shouldn't include the other official languages in the introduction. --FlavrSavr 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Slododa ili smrt

Is there a source for this, or should I erase it? Telex 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this concern going to be addressed? Telex 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it dates back from the ,,Ilindensko vostanie" (uprising), see the pic below:

The banner of the insurgents from Ohrid

One source I found so far:[7] MatriX 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--Bomac 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right - it's a rip-off of the Greek motto. Telex 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW the text in the picture is Bulgarian. Telex 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is written in the Slavonic letters that are used in today's Bulgarian. Bomac 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's pure Bulgarian language (looks and sounds like Bulgarian). Ask any Bulgarian - they'll tell you. Telex 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex, Macedonian and Bulgarian are closely related languages, many IMRO activists were active in Sofia for example, that time the Macedonian language wasn't standardized, so I can't see what is wrong with that. MatriX 15:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A clearer version of the image. 2nd okrug, 6th okolia can be read to the right.

The flag of the April Uprising, sewn by Rayna Knyaginya

Yeah, and the flag also has the bulgarian colors. How do you explain that? The Vergina star was not discovered yet? The truth is, the Ilinden uprising was largely seen as a continuation of the april uprising of 1876, which eventually lead to the liberation of Trace and Moesia. Also, pay attention to the standing lion right of the girl (look at the clear version, it looks like a girl or I might be wrong :) ) and compare it to the flag of the april uprising. Coincidence? I wonder if there is a country where this symbolism is still used today... On a final note - Sloboda is a serb word, which has somehow slipped in the republican dictionary and replaced the bulgarian Svoboda since the beginning of the 20th century, another coincidence? FunkyFly 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just making an observation. If the phrase sounds the same in both languages, although both languages are written using different alphabets, how do you tell the difference? By which alphabet is being used, of course. In this text, the Bulgarian alphabet is being used, so I'm likely to assume that it's Bulgarian. How are you so certain it's Macedonian? Telex 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, let's focus... I inserted the picture to allude the period this motto dates from. Bomac 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One source I found so far:[8] MatriX 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a mirror of the wiki article List of state mottos. Come on, you must know - everyone knows what their state motto is. If you're sure, we'll leave it at that (although sources would be nice). Telex 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As Bomac said, it is a state motto (of course that we know that), but I cannot provide other internet sources at the moment. If you find somewhere that this info is incorrect, then you are wellcomed to tell us that, so we can change the motto. MatriX 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We can sort it out... ;-)) Bomac 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We just need to leave it as it is and add a footnote that reads:

One more blatant copy-vio (as usual) that tries to capitalise on Bulgarian history too.

Then we can keep it.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. sigh.... why cant people stp stealing others History Heraklios 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because they don't have a history, they have to steal from someone. Actually no I'm wrong, they do have a history, the Bulgarian history, but apparently they don't like it and want someone else's. --   Avg    00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why they admire greek history but Stealing it?? and using false claims???? I dont know.... i guess you believe what you were brought upto believe. personally one of my favourite "arguements" of theirs is that Gotse Delchev was a "Macedonian" :) Heraklios 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the next step, is to start speaking the Greek language and trying to convince the world, that the Greeks stole their language! :P --xvvx 01:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Page protection?

Folks, what a silly editwar again. Can't you guys stop it for a week? I've requested page protection. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Map offensive

We cannot have the map of extremists disguised as Macedonia region. I am sure reasonable Makedonski contributors will agree with this - yes guys?. Politis 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the map could be included at some point in the article with a much more NPOV caption? I would like to hear proposals (other than "RoM is green part but should be grey because 'Solun' and Chalkidiki was stolen by the Greeks"). Maybe you could get inspiration from the red map that appears in this page...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, he'll just have to watch me contaminate his beloved Aryan Егејскана Македонија* with my dirty sub-Saharan genes, and there's nothing those guys up in Skopje can to about it. Telex 13:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

*I tried to use the distant definite article (for obvious reasons), but I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct. Telex 13:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean that the ending -на in Егејска (Aegean), means "distant"?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No such map is best. Someone suggested - I think - to also include a map of ethnic Bulgaria that swallows ROM/FYROM. Where do we stop? Let us simply concentrate on the country as defined by its constitution. If people disagree with the constitution they can always petition the parliament in Skopje. Politis 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand it could be offensive for the whole rest population of the regioners that there is a Republic with their (as well) name without any disambiguating term. So we have two categories of uninformed readers who may misunderstand:

• • With the map: Southern Macedonia is enslaved by the Greeks and Eastern by Bulgarians and should be liberated.
  • Without the map: There is no other Macedonia than the Republic of Macedonia.

I am sure we can find an NPOV text that clarifies both of these issues... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you might have a point. There is a need for disambiguity. But it must be unambiguously clear that the historical Greek province of Macedonia is Greece. I am amazed that we have reached the stage where there exists an invented ROM/FYROM discourse and cartography aiming to identify the so-called Macedonia region as its own 'stolen' lands, and also aims to identify anything with the name Macedonia as belonging to its heritage. Politis 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Aldux changed the intro. I have little reason to disagree and will not revert. Now, for the previous subject, any thoughts for the caption (since IANAL)? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The borders of the Republic of Macedonia within the wider region of Macedonia. Many Ethnic Macedonian nationalists have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" and "Pirin Macedonia" despite the fact that ethnic Greeks and Bulgarians form the vast majority of the population of each region respectively, although these fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia since 1995 when they agreed to remove all territorial claims to neighbouring countries' territories from their constitution.

Telex 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, as an uninformed reader I still miss something:

• With this caption: Despite the fact that Macedonian Slavs live in the wider region, the country is yet smaller than it should be.

BTW, UANAL? :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about the amended version (above). Telex 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry βρε παιδιά, I am a bit lost as to what we are referring. Anyway, no country is mentioned 'within the wider region of...'. I mean, do we have, 'the Swiss Confederation within the wider region of the Alpes', or 'Luxemburg within the wider region of the Rhine'? I cannot help feeling that it plays in the hands of ROM/FYROM extremists and/or ill-informed persons. Politis 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion (on what uninformed readers may think):

• Without the map: There is no other Macedonia than the Republic of Macedonia.
• With the map and the previous caption: Southern Macedonia is enslaved by the Greeks and Eastern by Bulgarians and should be liberated.
• With the map and Telex's new caption: "Republic of Macedonia" is located within a wider geographical region called also "Macedonia", but the people outside the Republic are not the same ethnic group.

Politis? Others? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the only link I currenly have is unencyclopedic (but informative), and I think a few more links could be added to mine. Telex 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Some sources of the present borders of the region should be cited. Are they roman, turkish or something else? It should be said the republic is situated in a region defined by non-existent empires, shared with other ethnic groups. FunkyFly 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This cracks me up. Look at User:Macedonia, where he discusses how Greeks "renamed" places in Greek Macedonia. Edessa is a good example; that name was used during the times of the Ancient Macedonians, and they even founded a city with the same name in Mesopotamia (see Edessa, Mesopotamia). User:Macedonia refers to this as a "new Greek changed name", whereas "Voden" is the original name of the place. User:Vlatkoto on the other hand, takes irredentist nostalgia to a different level, by renaming the official name of the Blagoevgrad Province to Blagoevgrad Province (Pirin Macedonia), under the pretext that it is "the real name of the land". The conclusion here is that Fyrom irredentism takes the following forms:

• Fantasizing about Macedonian minorities in neighboring countries, while pretending the Greeks and Bulgarians don't exist in their own back yard.
• Claiming that the fact that the proof of the Macedonian Slav right to the whole region is that the countries who "unlawfully annexed it" changed the names.
• Presenting symbols and history from neighboring countries as their own.

Telex 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what is curious? On the map of the region of Macedonia, the bulgarian part corresponds exactly to the administrative unit of Blagoevgrad oblast, whose boundaries are drawn by the bulgarian government. Is that the case for the greek part also? So is it true that the region of macedonia is defined by the Bulgarian and Greek (and Albanian governments)? I mean, what if the Bulgarian government decides tomorrow they'll shrink or expand its size - the region will shrink and expand along with it? FunkyFly 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict twice) - The current perception of Macedonia (region) is Ottoman. The Vardar Valley was part of the Roman Province of Moesia and the Blagoevgrad Province was part of the Roman Province of Thracia. Macedonia was roughly all today's northern Greece except western Thrace (which was part of Thracia). Ancient Macedon was just today's Greek Macedonia. Yes, it is true for the Greek part - I'm not sure how it turned out that way though. Telex 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it depends on the map. Also, in principle, I am apprehensive about including it. If you want a caption for ROM/FYROM, Telex's is not 100 per cent accurate because the republic consists of 22-25% Albanians and there are also Greeks (including Hellenovlachs), Serbs, Turks, etc., who also live outside its borders.

• "Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" is shown here located within the wider, ill-definied region of "Macedonia" whose name it adopted when founded in 1991." With reservations... Politis 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Further to my prior comments, I think the regional map in this article about the country is not really needed. Disambiguation pages, as evidenced by the hatnote atop the article, are intended to clarify possible ambiguities cited above, and the article (currently) treats its location and the name situation equitably. And, per the country wikiproject, there is a clear locator map in the infobox with other maps below. Relatedly, I'm also working on a geopolitical map that (among other things) delineates the country's current 84 municipalities.

In addition, there are more effective ways to deal with this. For comparison: an article was recently created – Americas (terminology) – to clarify toponymy related to America/Americas. While the current topic may not have similar breadth, something similar may be warranted here; in the least, a single, succinct regional map can be be added to the Macedonia DAB.

If there's consensus on including such a map here, and I don't see it yet, I might be bold and add similar regional maps to every top-level Macedon/ia-related article (i.e., those in the DAB, current and historic) in Wp for balance. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See also British Isles (terminology), I suggested somewhere having a Macedonia (terminology), no takers yet though. - FrancisTyers 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I can take a crack at this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection, just wanted to see how it looks. Feel free to revert (as if you weren't)! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to Fyrom's claims, Macedonia (region) is probably something like the following:

Macedonia
	Official name	Fyrom name
Albania	Devoll, Korçë and Pogradec Districts	Mala Prespa and Gordo Brdo
Bulgaria	Blagoevgrad Province	Pirin Macedonia
Greece	Macedonia	Aegean Macedonia
Serbia	Pčinja District	Gora and Prohor Pchinski

Telex 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest we also make a .gif animated map which illustrates how Macedonia province was:

• During Macedon and Alexander the Great
• During Roman Empire
• During Byzantine Empire
• During Ottoman Empire
• Defined (obscurely) now (if different)

A nice place for this map would be Macedonia (region). As it takes time to prepare, please inform me if you agree. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know how it was. Telex 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia within the wider region of Macedonia. Ethnic Macedonian nationalists have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Gordo Brdo" (Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (Serbia) despite the fact that ethnic Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs form the majority of the population of each region respectively. These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia since 1995 when they agreed to remove all territorial claims to neighbouring countries' territories from their constitution.

I think the caption (in my proposal now is OK). Telex 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are those specifically Macedonian names for the regions? I've heard Aegean Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia used by many sides. Obviously the "official" names of the regions are the ones you've stated, but I don't think that you can label "Aegean Macedonia", "Pirin Macedonia" and "Vardar Macedonia" to be used only by Macedonians. The terms have some use in English too. - FrancisTyers 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the official names are in the table I gave above. If those terms are used in English, it is usually in Macedonian nationalist or Pro-Fyrom publications. Telex 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you not yet realised that those terms are imperialist language and are found offensive by Greeks (and I thik Bulgarians also). Telex 16:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[9]

That guy seems to be Greek, judging by the name... And how would you define "pro-Fyrom"? Anyone who doesn't agree with Greece? Or just people using Macedonia to refer to the Republic? Am I "pro-Fyrom"? - FrancisTyers 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[10]

And one that seems pro-Albanian. - FrancisTyers 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Greek guy using the term is quoting something called "24 Ibid, p. 244" (and I never said tha Albanians don't use the term Aegean Macedonia). Be that as it may, they are not the self-identifying names (which our friends in Fyrom are so in favour of making the usage obligatory as it's the main argument against using FYROM for the country's name), and if the terms have spread elsewhere, they are not official. What change are you proposing (bear in mind that this is a delicate issue and irredentist maps would probably result in an edit war). Telex 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

About .gif map: Telex, I have a source of a map about Macedon; you said "the Vardar Valley was part of the Roman Province of Moesia and the Blagoevgrad Province was part of the Roman Province of Thracia", so I presume you may have a source of a map or something; Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans (so it must have been the same); and Ottoman is similar to today. Am I wrong?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I was just rattling off what a learnt at schools a few years ago. Telex 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[11]

One from Ireland that uses it, although they have a note: [12]

Pointing out that from a Greek POV the terms might be offensive and adds "In short, it may be very hard to be 'politically correct' with all parties (if conversing in public) even if not intending to offend." So basically its a matter of who you want to offend. From an English point of view the terms are fine. - FrancisTyers 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex, I'm not proposing any changes, I'm querying that the names "Aegean Macedonia" etc. are automatically "Fyrom-POV". - FrancisTyers 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if "Aegean Macedonia" is offensive, are "Pirin Macedonia" and "Vardar Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how Greeks feel about the rest of Macedonia (they are too self involved - they usually call "Vardar Macedonia" ΠΓΔΜ and "Pirin Macedonia" Μπλαγκόεβγκραντ - check elwiki, whereas at mkwiki, the imperialist language is used, but at no other Wikipedias - bgwiki has a compromise in place over the name of Greek Macedonia). Furthermore, this is about Fyrom vs its neighbors. The Fyrom nationalists call those places by those names - what’s inaccurate. The Greek nationalists call southern Albania Northern Epirus - is saying so so wrong because some uninvolved party may use the Greek name and not the official name? Telex 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, all the deviant Wikipedias are the following:

• sr:Егејска Македонија
• bg:Егейска Македония
• mk:Егејска Македонија
• mk:Пиринска Македонија

Everyone else uses the regular names. Telex 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be said that at least some greek editors do not object to the name of the bulgarian article. FunkyFly 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex (map): Ok, but if you do, it's the only missing part (Roman-Byzantine). If you know all neighbours, that'd be helpful too. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fran: Look how the Greek guy (Doctoral Candidate, Department of Political Science, McGILL UNIVERSITY) uses the term:

More specifically, the very name ‘Republic of Macedonia’ could be seen as suggestive of territorial pretensions against Greek Aegean Macedonia.

...under this context, I am sure the use aims to show how FYROM nationalists call that part... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Serbian Егејска Македонија came about after POV pushing by mk:User:CrniBombarder!!! from mkwiki. Telex 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit includes another nice map too (with Voden, Solun etc)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Fran, and the others, please bear in mind: The name Aegean Macedonia (I don't know about bg) would not be insulting or offensive, since it just says that it is near Aegean Sea (we are not WP:DICKS!) BUT:

• It is a pleonasm
• It is used in order only to disambiguate the "true" Macedonia (their Republic), from the "untrue" (or "occupied") Greek part

Hence, no anti-nationalist whatsoever would want to use it! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in certain political contexts I can understand (e.g. referring to Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Aegean Macedonia), but in a geographical context, would it still be considered offensive (if for example one was referring in the same paragraph to Vardar Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Aegean Macedonia). Is it the context rather than the specific name that is considered offensive? I want to be clear on this, as I was under the impression that this three-way split was a relatively neutral way of referring to these areas within the context of the larger region. - FrancisTyers 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm talking in purely geographic terms, definately not the names of political entities... - FrancisTyers 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I personally am suspicious when the name "Aegean Macedonia" appears (even in a neutral document), as it means the "Macedonian" minority will probably be discussed a few lines below. Telex 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, Francis, what's the point of this discussion? Are you trying to say that the "Macedonian" names are in fact the real names and we shouldn't specify that Macedonian nationalists speak of Aegean Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia etc when dreaming. In my proposal we don't say that only they use them - we point out that they use them, but they are exonyms. Telex 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to find out if I will be cruxified for using Aegean Macedonia in a geographical context, along with Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. - FrancisTyers 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're discussing R. Macedonian irredentism and whether it may or may not be justified then don't. If you're just talking about the region, then maybe. Aegean Macedonia is usually associated in Greece, with Fyrom land claims, so if you present a map which says Aegean, Pirin and Vardar Macedonia, you're on a very slippery slope and must make clear in the text that Aegean Macedonia is Greek and that is the way it is going to stay. In my opinion, just use the names: Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and Blagoevgrad Province. Telex 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. - FrancisTyers 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To put simply what's going on, it is ok to use FYROM maps, FYROM terminology, FYROM claims but it is unacceptable POV to use anything remotely Greek. --   Avg    18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's worse is how the Republic seems to be defining the region using the existing administrative divisions of Bulgaria and Greece. So de facto Bulgaria and Greece decide the boundaries of the region? FunkyFly 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about the regions, when I removed the map about the "Macedonian" language EXACTLY because it did not cover only the Slavic speaking prefectures but almost all of Greek Macedonia, I was reverted because supposedly this is Greek POV! As we say in Greek, "They are not wrestled" :-) --   Avg    18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, is it ok for me to say something like "In the context of the larger geographical region of Macedonia, the Republic of Macedonia occupies the geographical region of Vardar Macedonia, the Bulgarian province of Blagoevgrad the region of Pirin Macedonia, and Greek Macedonia occupies the region of Aegean Macedonia"? Or will someone be mortally offended? - FrancisTyers 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you before Francis. Greeks are NOT WP:DICKS about their name. You can add any neutral (like Aegean) disambiguating term you like next to (Greek) Macedonia AFAIC. It is the context that matters more than the terms themselves and usually the term Aegean Macedonia is used in anti-Greek context. It's in the other camp that you will obviously have alleged offences for just trying to find a way to distinguish one part of the region from the other and this apparently seems to exist in a national level too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is appropriate for the article, given that it's clearly derived from "Greater Macedonia" maps - it doesn't add any value and it's too inflammatory. However, I think it would be worth including in an article on the "Greater Macedonia" concept (just as we have articles on Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia). -- ChrisO 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say I substantially agree with ChrisO; I find no particular need to insert a map that is only source of division.--Aldux 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here, here; CO, also note above a proposal which somewhat harks of your sentiment: Macedonia (terminology) – a la Americas (terminology), British Isles (terminology). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What I cannot really understand is that while according to their own propaganda they occupy the region of Vardar Macedonia, they do not accept to be called Republic of Vardar Macedonia but want Republic of Macedonia! If that is not the biggest proof of irredentist claims than what is? --   Avg    22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis/Pluribus: Aye! I completely agree with the proposed article Macedonia (terminology) and will be glad to contribute. Apart from the content of the articles provided as an example above, the article can also have:

• How the region of Macedonia was defined through the ages (.gif map proposed above)
• Borders of political entities within these regions in the past
• ...and today
• Self-identifying official names
• International official names
• Appellations by neighboring countries

It sounds like a great challenge! Hell, it may even explain to the rest why Balkan people seem crazy nationalists!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I suggested it, but fun?? You mean fun like eating a brick? Or fun like wearing a concrete overcoat? That said... lets get started. But first tea... you can't start a hotly disputed article (yes, even before I've hit a single key) without refreshment. And what? Optimistic you say? Nay sir, I merely believe in the dignity of collaborative editing and the cutting edge methods of reliable sources and reasoned debate! - FrancisTyers

Ha! Well, apart from User:FrancisTyers/Nationalist test maybe you should also start a subpage like User:FrancisTyers/Nationalistic stuff addicts! Most of the editors here will be glad to autograph it first (if you don't beat them to it)... :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[offtopic, inflammatory and factually incorrect comment removed - FrancisTyers 09:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)]

Albanian language and EU

As far as know, if ROM/FYROM becomes an EU member state tomorrow, only Makedonski will be recognised as the official language. Albanian will not become an official EU language until Albania joins. In this respect, the republic has not adopted a bi-lingual status, as, for instance, Belgium. It will be up to Skopje to translate the EU documents in Albanian. A similar example applies to Cyprus. It is up to Nicosia to translate the documents into Turkish because Turkish will not become an EU languge until Turkey joins. At least that is how I understand it. Politis 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. If you think Greece is going to sit quietly when a "Macedonian" language becomes official in the EU, you're kidding yourself. Some other name will have to be devised (the same goes for the "Macedonians" - this is why it's highly unlikely that they'll join until the naming dispute is solved). Inside the EU, even Malta can veto (and I think Lithuania has on one occasion). Good example with Cyprus though, why isn't Albanian in the infobox here? --Telex 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not certain that "Macedonian" would become offcial just like that. Irish is the primary official language of the Republic of Ireland, but it is not yet official in the EU. --Telex 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bulgaria will join the EU before ROM/FYROM. Let us see what Sofia will have to say.

Politis 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Greece may have managed for the moment to veto the NAME of another country, but you can be sure that it will not be allowed to comment on -- let alone veto -- another country's language! The identification and naming of an EU country's national language(s) is up to the authorities of that country. It is about time Greece [and Cyprus, for that matter] is put in its place -- which is basically a small economically-undeveloped country grafting on the EU, which tries to play games with its Balkan neighbours. --87.203.113.61 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not change the name. Influence the way it will be referred to and recognized by EU institutions (and it's something they can do). --Telex 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This self-identification right violation thing that our northern friends repeat all the time, has two sides: The Greek official position on this is that it "...monopolizes the name for the Slavo-Macedonians and creates semiological confusion, whilst violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians." So drop it. It's like the Greek proverb that goes: "the burglar screams to scare off the landlord"... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Irish is the primary official language of the Republic of Ireland, but it is not yet official in the EU"

Yes it is :) [13] [14] - FrancisTyers 00:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right - it became official on 13th June 2005. My perception of the Brussels status was out of date. However, R. Ireland joined on 1th January 1973 and Irish didn't become official until it was decided to make it one (in 2005), so my point still stands. --Telex 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but Irish is spoken by a fraction of the population of Ireland (see how I can disambiguate in IN MY HEAD!), Macedonian is spoken by a majority of the population of Macedonia (there we go again — I'm on fire!). - FrancisTyers 00:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. A language doesn't become official just because a state in which it is official joins. It has to be explicitly provided for. --Telex 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying Macedonian will only become a Treaty language? - FrancisTyers 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything. I don't know what will happen. All I know is that we're talking about years (decades) in the future. The naming dispute may have been resolved by then and something like the Nimetz proposal "Makedonian language" may be used, or either side may decide to give way. Furthermore, I highly doubt that, at present at least, Greece would ratify a treaty (all members' consent is needed) which would make a language called "Macedonian" official in the EU. Your guess on what will happen is just as good as mine. --Telex 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

insane

come on man, if you are adding the name of macedonia in albanian, turkish and who knows what else language, than on the greek wikipedia it should be mentioned in all those languages too. but noooooo thats bad:P and this is how it "supposed" to be, its just insane. --Makedonia 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia after all?

I really think that it's claim to be an objective and fully-functioning encyclopedia is at stake through its choice for the FYROM article's title. And that is because:

a) The article is either subjective on the basis of FYROM claims or on the basis of the United States of America diplomatic stance on the issue. Since FYROM is a member of the United Nations, the UN-adopted name should be the one in the title. This is a different case from those of the self-prolcaimed Republics of China and Northern Cyprus (Turkish*). Those are not recognized by the UN, therefore objective encyclopedias have them under the name they've declared their independence with. In this case, they've been accepting the FYROM name for all international organs, therefore FYROM is the name for the article.

b) The page Macedonia should be linking to both the Greek province AND the FYROM country entity, since both are internationally recognized to contain "Macedonia" in their titles and without including the Greek province you can't give a proper picture of the dispute to the encyclopedia's users.

c) FYROM IS a self-identifying term, as they use it every day in the UN, in their relations with the EU, in their EBU/UER membership and more.

I hope that Wikipedia will make the right choice on this one. Dr. Manos 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That hope is in vain. Wiki has already been totally infiltrated by slvs, the UN has been ignored in this case, sad. But Hey! Atleast Wiki now can join its names to countries how ignore the UN like the USA! Reaper7 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish it had been "infiltrated by Slavs". Μακάρι! Then we would'nt have to trudge through the imagined ethnic history of a few misguided Makedonci Slavs... Politis 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Say that again!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Status of "Introduction for Republic of Macedonia"?

What is the status of this issue, linked here from Wikipedia:Current surveys#Polls? - Centrx 02:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course the Skopians are Bulgarians!!!! There Language IS Bulgarian with some Serbian mixed in with it. Why they cannot come to terms with their real heritage I will never Know Heraklios 14:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They need an identity, don't have one, take one - simple. Reaper7 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's time for the poll to be archived. We have reached a consensus on the introduction and things have calmed down for the last month. --   Avg    09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

People need to go and vote in #Initial_opinion_on_poll_results above so that we end this.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Whoever is in charge of the pictures in this article, can they replace some of the mountains with pictures showing the living streets and other places of interest of ROM/FYROM? Politis 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL

This edit made me laugh - not as much as this one though ;-) --Telex 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon guys - are you sure you don't want the "Western Bulgaria" reference? --Telex 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Laughed? How about this retrospective ethnic cleansing attempt, with the justification "remove crap"? :NikoSilver: 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain the edit was placed in the right article. There's a big difference between the vilayet and the town of Monastir, and they could very well had radically different demographics, like Salonica and its vilayet.--Aldux 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a map of the Manastir Vilayet. --Telex 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Languages

This moltiplication of language names seems absurd, and I feel that only official names should remain, i.e. Macedonian and Albanian. Adding languages like Aromanian makes as much sense as adding the German name to the Italy article because it is official in a single province out of 100.--Aldux 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat again (see previous discussions about this), Albanian language is not official at national level and making it equal with the Macedonian language as it is now in the intro is not correct. Any language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language in order to be used only in addition to the Macedonian language (in the units of self-government for example). Macedonian is the only official language in use in the whole country, in the international relations, in the army, in the Government etc. You shouldn't equalize Macedonian and Albanian at all as they don't have the same importance at national level. MatriX 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No one said it's equal, but it is an official language at national level. It has a higher status than Serbian or Turkish - for example, one can get a passport in Albanian and Macedonian, but not in Turkish and Macedonian (even if he is from a largely Turkish area here's an ethnic composition map). --Telex 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

...The justice minister, Meri Mladenovska, said the DUI was taking its case too far. I don't know how they came up with their arguments on the second official language when the constitution is quite precise, Mladenovska said.

The official language over the entire territory of the state and in international communication is the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet, Mladenovska told the daily newspaper Dnevnik.

If you want to read more: [15]

MatriX 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia: Article 7 (2):

Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

Affirmed by p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7). --Telex 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't say this provision applies only to municipalities. It clearly doesn't - if it did, then only Albanian would qualify as a municipal official language. This is not the case, Turkish can be a municipal official language. --Telex 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This can be seen in setion 6 of article 7, which deals with municipal official languages. Albanian has a higher status to Turkish, but a lower status to Macedonian. Deal with it. --Telex 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please explain to me how a citizen of FYROM has a choice of the following passports:

• in Macedonian only
• in Macedonian and Albanian

Why can't one get a passport in Macedonian and Turkish, or in Macedonian and Aromanian [16]? Are you sure Albanian is merely a municipal official language, or is it something more perhaps (not greater or equal to Macedonian though, as then it would be possible to get a passport in Albanian only - this has yet to happen). --Telex 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Albanian is not used officially in the whole territory of the country, in the Government, in the international relations, in the army, police etc... so it is not official at the national level. As you read the intro as it is written now, it looks like Macedonian and Albanian have same importance at national level, that is not true. Even the Macedonian minister of justice says so.MatriX 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't - we removed Albanian from the infobox for that purpose. Check Belgium - German is an official language, but is spoken by less than 1% (2001 census) and they use the German name in the first paragraph and the infobox. Albanian is spoken by 25% (2002 census) in FYROM and is only in the first paragraph. Who is hinting equality? --Telex 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As Telex says, nobody's saying they have the same importance; but Albanian is called official, and it has clearly more importance than Serbian or Turkish, as it amounts to more than 20%.--Aldux 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Telex said: Albanian has a higher status to Turkish, but a lower status to Macedonian. Aldux said: Albanian has clearly more importance than Serbian or Turkish. Then, as we must admit that Macedonian has clearly more importance than Albanian, what are the arguments for including the Albanian with a lower status to Macedonian in the intro and, in the same time, excluding Turk with also a lower status to Albanian? IMO, we should have only Macedonian in the intro as the only official language at national level used in the whole territory, in the Government, police, army etc. As the second option I would propose to have at least Macedonian, Albanian and Turk in the intro (as Turks are the third minority in the country), that way having more neutral intro with one more less important language in it.MatriX 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that Albanian is a second official language at national level, as it fulfils the requirement set out in article 7(2) of the constitution. Turkish doesn't, and falls within 7(6) and therefore is only a municipal official language. --Telex 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there's also that great big disclaimer/footnote in the infobox. --Telex 14:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. Yes, Macedonian is more importantant, and as such we rightly call Gostivar/Gostivari Gostivar, even most of the inhabitants are Albanians; and also it is right that the Albanian name should be only in the +20% municipalities, while the Macedonian is in all. But Albanian is no less called official, while Turkish is not.--Aldux 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And what you fail to understand is that article 7 (1) of the constitution the Macedonian language is the only language explicitly specified as the official language at national level:

(1) The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia.

The article 7 (2) specifies that other languages can be considered official, but only in certain circumstances and only in addition (not equalized) to the Macedonian.

MatriX 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

a) 7(2) does not say "can be considered" - it says is an official language, whereas 7(6) says "shall be used as an official language [in units of local self-government (municipalities)]". Do you see the difference? --Telex 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this, it seems that Turkish is not even official in municipalities, but is only used as an official language. --Telex 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t deny that Albanian is official language in the country, but the article 7 (1) of the Constitution specifies Macedonian as the only official language at national level. The Albanian is official, but only in addition to Macedonian as explicitly said in the article 7 sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. I’m afraid if I continue discussing this and reading again and again the Constitution, I will dream tonight the article 7 subsections:) MatriX 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And according to 7(2) the language spoken by more than 20% of the pop. is also an official language. Do you know what also means? It means in addition; besides; as well; further; too. --Telex 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW I just realized - Turkish's status in R. Macedonia is the same as it's status in Greece (in Greece it is not designated official, but can be used as an official language for members of the minority in municipalities). --Telex 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the point, no one said they are equal. Quite the opposite - check the footnote in the infobox. It says they are not equal. --Telex 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Contested Regions according to the map annexed to the Treaty of Alliance (1912)

The population of FYROM 1912: North of Sar Planina are Serbs ;South of Sar Planina Bulgars!

Contested Regions according to the map annexed to the Treaty of Alliance (1912)

Map from "Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars" 1914. "The Serbian-Bulgarian treaty of 13 March 1912 made provision for the partition of Macedonia along the following lines: 'all the territory north of the Sar range' was to go to Serbia; 'all the region east of the Rhodope range and the Struma valley' was to go to Bulgaria. Bulgaria hoped the intervening country should form an 'autonomous Macedonia', but, if this should prove impossible, a new line was to be drawn leaving Kumanovo, Skoplje and Debar to Serbia, and giving Kratovo, Veles, Bitolj (Monastir) and Ohrid to Bulgaria. Serbia undertook to make no claim south of the line; Bulgaria reserved the right to claim territory to the north, in which case Russia was to act as arbitrator. The area of overlapping claims was known as the 'Contested Zone'. "--quote from: Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series: Jugoslavia, Volume II, 1944, p. 114

• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_contested_1914.jpg
• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html

Vergina/Macedonia 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant. --Tēlex 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Skopje Irredentism

No one supports this has the moral right to act as editor for this article:

You will find at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Telex/The_basic_principles_of_Macedonism, the following offensive opinion:

Any inhabitant of Macedonia, a region in southeastern Europe spanning Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia, who has a Slavic language as his or her mother tongue is an ethnic „Macedonian“, independent of his or her self-determination. An example of this is the claim of Goce Delchev, who clearly determined himself as Bulgarian, being in fact an ethnic „Macedonian“. Makedonija 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it smells like original research. Can you clarify what is wrong with the article? Bomac 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are you talking to, me (Makedonija) or are you talking to user:Telex from whom I am quoting the above text? If you think his contributions are original research, then you must tell him. Makedonija 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Clear case of original research, then. Bomac 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm paraphrasing the article Macedonism which is based on Dr Bozhidar Dimitrov's views. --Tēlex 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Bozhidar Dimitrov claims himself to be the direct ancestor of Bulgars. He also claims that the Bulgarian language is the true ancestor of the sanskrit. Bomac 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarian language spoken in Bulgaria today, or the Bolgar language (spoken by the Proto-Bulgars which settled in present day Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia)? --Tēlex 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because he claims Bolgar language as ancestor of the modern Bulgarian, he claims both. BTW, I don't see any logic in this - two main theories decline the Bulgars: 1. They are Turkic people; 2. They are Iranian people. I don't see how are they related to sunskrit. Bomac 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit is an Indo-Iranian language, although I think the claims of proto-Bolgar being an Indo-Iranian language lie in the realm of fringe theories. --Tēlex 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not an expert about the issue, but, however, Dimitrov claims he is nationalist, and the last thing we need is quoting nationalistic views. Bomac 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Irridentism is really creaping back again. I saw the removal of the dispute with Bulgaria (good point, why has there been nothing on Bulgaria?) and now you are deleating clarification over Greece. I will take reverts into account and re-phrase. Politis 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian citizenship not recognised by Skopje censorship

MatriX, why are you denying the right of Slav Macedonians to declare themselves Bulgarians? Presumably thousands could declare to be ethnic [Greek Macedonians] and gain an EU passport through Greece (in fact, many have), but they choose Bulgaria because that is what they feel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politis (talk • contribs) .

Politis, it's not that simple. You have to prove Bulgarian origin, and even if an applicant had Greek origin, they would not likely be granted citizenship. Greece does not grant citizenship to people of Greek origin in the Republic of Macedonia - I hear they won't even let some of them enter the country. However, even if they did, the application must be made in the Greek (or Bulgarian) language. How many ethnic Macedonians do you know who can speak Greek better than Bulgarian? Finally, your last edit didn't even make sense. Why should the census take Bulgarian citizenship applicants into consideration? Who cares? Do any other states do the same? This is a private matter for each individual and the adoptive state (Bulgaria). --Tēlex 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Telex, I used to know a number of Slav Macedonians in FYROM (from Greece) and they spoke Greek better than me or, for that matter, than George Papandreou. Also thousands of Slav Macedonians from FYROM speak reasonable Greek because they used to work in Greece in the summer months during the tourist season. This trend has almost disappeared, I think, since the mid-1990s and now Bulgarians and Albanians have taken many of those positions. I do not include that info because it is POV, but it is also a fact. I will re-phrase the census contribution. Also, there are many people who feel Bulgarian but there is a climate of intimidation against them. user:Politis

About your last point, we know that. There is as much proof of it as there is that there is a climate of intimidation against the ethnic Macedonian national identidy in Greece. What you add here, pause, think, would you add it (or something similar) to the Greece or any other country article (this is what I call the POV pushing test, where you determine whether a certain edit is POV pushing)? The demographics sections are merely for a list of who lives there. You don't go into detail here. There are other articles for that kind of thing. --Tēlex 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the most things said by Telex here. I'm not sure if we should mention the applications for Bulgarian citizenship at all in the Ethnicity section, because nationality and citizenship are different things. MatriX 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in our case. Citizenship is granted on the basis of certain nationality.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Every country has some policy of granting citizenships. In our case the situation is a little bit complicated, because Macedonia was (lets say) ruled by Bulgaria in the World War II and many people have documents from that period and they are using them in order to get password-->no visa for EU. Don't forget the census data from 2002 that was monitored by international organizations and that census didn't revealed a significant number of Bulgarians in Macedonia.MatriX 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So besically you are accusing your fellow citizens of cheating the Bulgarian naturalization system?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I’d say there is a mutual benefit.MatriX 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes you draw conclusions about a nation, for which cheating might be a way of life, first history, then citizenship...   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What else should I say, but that this is a ,,blessing" from our ,,Bulgarian" ancestors... Bomac 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Say it in Greek (you know you want to :p) ευλογία από τους Βούλγαρους προγόνους σας. --Tēlex 17:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does ,,Βούλγαρους" is pronounced ,,Voulgaros"? Bomac 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Евлојиа апо тус Вулгарус прогонус сас. --Tēlex 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So it's ,,Voulgarus". Tell me, what does it mean? (If might ask) Bomac 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Telex, you don't have to translate it ;-) Bomac 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

«Vulgarus» translates as на бугари(те), «Vulgaros» translates as бугарин(от), and «Vulgaria» translates as Бугарија. There is no inherently derogatory meaning (contrary to the claims in your schoolbooks), except it refers both to the Bulgarian people and to the Bulgars. --Tēlex 18:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - there aren't such claims in our schoolbooks. Yep, you guessed - Misirkov claims that. Still, it is interesting. Bomac 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to what is in this comment, "rough" etc, the word can be used in that sense, however, that was not the reason for it. In Greek, "Turk" can also mean "rough", and "Jew" and mean dishonest. The ethnonym acquired that meaning after the Bulgar's various doings - so it's not like you seem to think. If you want a really creepy etymology, some people think the word Tatar comes from the Greek word Tartarus (which is a word from hell, thus designating people from hell), but it doesn't. This was purely by chance. --Tēlex 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, quite so... (thanks for your constantly watching over me);-)Bomac 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this part holds ground. Don't you think? The Greeks were always pround and, I should add - egoistic. Bomac 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested, Belgium is called Βέλγιο (Velyio). --Tēlex 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, very nice. Bomac 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Still though, I'd like to see the actual statement by Misirkov. I don't know whether he had any expertese in the area of Greek lexicology, however, I don't trust republican interpretations (for various reasons). --Tēlex 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no Republic of Macedonia then. Bomac 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, according to this, he learned in a Greek school till his fourth grade. Bomac 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his words may have been rather different. After all, he declared as a Bulgarian. --Tēlex 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are his words (directly from On Macedonian problems):

,,(...)The Bulgarian name was popularised between the Slavs by the Greeks, and firstly this name reffered to the Bulgars-Mongols(...)at last, it became ethnographic term for the Bulgarian Slavs(...)But that name in the eyes and mouth of the Greeks had even specialized meaning: barbarians, uneducated people, rude people who border with beastry. For the Greeks, everything Slavic was rude and Bulgarian. Greeks gave the name ,,Bulgarians" to us, Macedonians, too..." Bomac 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said. The word "Bulgarian" does not in itself have a derogatory meaning. He is claiming that Greeks don't associate it with nice things. --Tēlex 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And Bomac, if you're interested whether there is a connection between vulgar and Bulgarian — no. It's a phonetic coincidence, 'vulgar' is a Latinate and later Romance word used well before the arrival of the Bulgars or the formation of the Bulgarians as a people. Anyway, I wouldn't rely on Misirkov to define my view of Bulgarians if I were Macedonian — you know, determining his ethnic affiliation was a great problem for him. And Greeks would associate the name Slavs with slaves (God, this works in English too!), so what? Todor→Bozhinov 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Greek, Slav is Slavos, slave is Sklavos, so I think the difference is more noticeable than in English. Any problems Greeks had with Slavs were historical problems with the likes of Stefan Dushan and Samuil. They may be heroes to you, but they're not very popular over here. --Tēlex 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting to note that in the Republic the adjective "Bulgarian" has a very negative connotation (surprising?). For example, Bulgarian train is a train which is dilapidated and/or runs late, Bulgairan basket is a lucky shot in a basketball game, and things of the sort. It seems very natural to me that Republicans are trying to confirm their already established negative connotation with a connection to a Latin word.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Forking

I really do think that the Foreign Relations section is a fork of Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia and should be merged there (perhaps only a brief summary here). --Tēlex 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree; the section is far too long, and needs energic summarizing.--Aldux 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Shqiptarët të Maqedonisë

Pse fshini numri i shqiptarëve të Maqedonisë? Në Maqedoni, shqiptarët janë 45 për qind e popullatës. Regjistrimi i përgjithshëm së maqedonisë është propagandë e sllavëve dhe s' është i besueshëm.

Archive10

I took the liberty of emptying this <sewer> of 407Kb of mostly rants. I even worked on the links in the archive. Feel free to revert me if you think that there was any meaning in all these polls with multiple choices that lead to an un-decipher-able [sic] dead-end. :NikoSilver: 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all this talking HAS to stop! Bomac 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

May archive 11 be full of smileys Bomac! :NikoSilver: 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral violence in ROM/FYROM reflected in wikipedia

Pre-electoral violence is, saddly, rife in ROM/FYROM, with a number of deaths occuring. And yet, some Slavomakedonjians(?) in wikipedia and other websites still have the naivity to propagate maps and claims for a Skopjian Macedonian country that would swallow sections of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Question: and just which violent gang of politicians in Skopje would govern this 'happy', ethnically cleased and decimated 'greater Macedonia'? It is time for the sensible Slavomakedonjians to start contributing, people who do not play with 'macedonianising' words and 'ethnic maps' and to show a different, modern face of the country. Politis 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not use 'Macedonian Slavs' to refer to Macedonians, the wording is less offensive and will make you appear more tolerant! Further bonus: it happens to be easier to spell! - FrancisTyers · 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the Macedonians as 'Macedonian Slavs'? --Tēlex 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe he means referring to the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no "Slavomacedonians"! There are Macedonians! No matter are they an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else. ;-) Bomac 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No Slavomacedonians? I thought the last census showed 1.5million or so. You mean those are an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else? I am confused! (we've both made our point, let's leave it at that - also see the last addition in the heading) :-) :NikoSilver: 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not trolling, I am telling the truth. The ethnic group doesn't calls itself "Slavomacedonians", it calls itself "Macedonians". That goes for the Greeks from Makedonia. Or? Bomac 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends - some of them call themselves Europeans. --Tēlex 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes the two of us. Bomac 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

EUropeans though?:NikoSilver: 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And some Serbs call themselves Yugoslavs (see article in question). --Tēlex 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave Serbs out of this. Focus on Macedonians. Bomac 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Macedonians? --Tēlex 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonians from Macedonia. Bomac 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore certain Serbs are Macedonians! Why should they be left out of this? --Tēlex 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia, too. Bomac 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They are the people who advocated the creation of Greater Serbia, aren't they? --Tēlex 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not them, but the Serbian schauvinistic politicians. Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To Bomac (edit conflict): Ah, I see. That would mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, and the Macedonians. Right? :NikoSilver: 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right! Celebrate diversity! ;-) Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it depends how we define diversity. There are some who think that the names are not that diversified, "creating confusion even among the inhabitants themselves"...:NikoSilver: 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wouldn't say so that it can create confusion even among the inhabitants themselves. If you speak with a Macedonian from Greece, you'll know that he is Greek because of the language. Bomac 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And what if he's one of those who identify as Greeks and speak also this? Also, what if you're communicating in another language (like we do now)? :NikoSilver: 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For the first person - all Slavic languages are not the same. It is very poorly to say only that he speaks Slavic language.

For the second person - that goes the same way as others communicate. BTW, if someone asks a Greek what is his/hers nationality, he/she will answer Greek (100%). No need to mention about the Macedonian ethnic group. Bomac 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found the only question that can be answered possibly without any confusion. How about these:

• Where are you from?
• Where were you born?
• Where do you live?
• What do you speak?
• etc etc etc

...and many more quite frequent questions that anybody would prefer to the... nationalistic banale question: "What is your nationality?". :NikoSilver: 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How can terms like 'Slav', or 'Scandinavian', or 'Germanic' or 'Latin' be 'offensive'? Our Bulgarian, Polish, Russian, Croatian friends are 'Slavs', how can it be dismissive? For nearly 50 years, the inhabitans of ROM/FYROM were Yugoslavs (Southern Slavs); no one said, drop the 'slav' and call us Yugos (in any case, that's a car). Today, they are independent and their culture is not Greek Macedonian, but Slavo Macedonian with healthy blends of Bulgarian, Hellenic, Albanian and Gipsy elements. Anyway, at least you do not risk your life during the elections period in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Politis 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can a term like "Negro" be offensive? I mean, "Negro" means "Black" right? Possibly it is offensive because Black people consider it to be offensive, maybe you don't think it is offensive. We don't have the page at Negro people. I only use this example because it is so obvious you could trip over it. Incidentally, maybe "Slavomacedonian" isn't offensive when said in Greek, much like the term Negro in Spanish. But please, when speaking in English, do try to use "Black people" and not Negros. Of course the analogy isn't perfect (are any analogies?), but I hope you at least try and understand the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally I note you use the term "Gipsy" for Roma people, perhaps you aren't aware that, "This ethnonym is not used by the Roma to describe themselves, and is often considered pejorative." Perhaps you just aren't aware of this, as you weren't aware that "Slavomacedonian" is disliked. Consider taking action as a result of this novel information. - FrancisTyers · 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even at the frequent social strikes and bombs in the center of Athens (Synthagma square etc.)? What was the organisation name... September/October 8?

BTW, do I feel that the ethnic purity doctrine circles again around us? Bomac 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded 100% :NikoSilver: 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "Slav" in a Greek context is not meant to be offensive. I'm certain I've seen the Russian language referred to as Slavorossisti in certain older and formal publications. --Tēlex 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Bomac: ethnic circles and purity? That is a pleasantly LOL remark, especially coming from a person who, it seems, is desperate to identify a distinct 'pure Macedonian' ethnicity. Someone who imposes 'ethnic maps of pure ethnic Macedonians'! Slavism is a culture primarily identified through language and partially through the Cyrillic alphabet. Dear Bomac, I think we have to protect you from your own naivity because you are really not a bad person. Politis 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Pure Macedonian? There is no such thing. I confirm that that is naive and desperate, but I really don't have an attitide towards that claim. I was only trying to say that you are starting to claim that every other neighbouring nation of Greece is a mixture and Greeks are the only ethnicaly pure people in the world. :-) Bomac 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no such 'ethnic purity' claims on this chapter. Being a 'Slav' is not an ethnic attribute but, as pointed out, to share certain common cultural traits. Some people are offended if they are called Slavs and Macedonians in the same breath. The only other choice is Hellenic Macedonians and it is well suited to those who do not consider themselves 'Greek' but who claim links with Alexander's Macedonia. But if you want to drop the 'Slav' epithet, then go back to the Greek language (or call it Romaic if you dislike the term 'Greek'). I accept that just 'Macedonian', on its own is, indeed of common usage in most parts of the world, but that does not mean the problem has been solved because the appelation is so recent and so imbued with Hellenic conotations that one can reasonably question its future. Politis 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Francis about negroes/Black people vs Slavs/Macedonians: No. Not applicable for one simple reason: There is no black person that is not offended by the word "negro". However, all other Slavs are proud to be Slavs. I personally know many of them in real life, who do not find the term offensive. The only problems here for the Slavomacedonian editors, are that none of them wants to accept it in order not to lose face infront of the rest, and ofcourse it is one major argument in insisting for simply Macedonia/ns that must not be lost for reasons of national interest.:NikoSilver: 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, it isn't about the name, it is about who is using the name. There is nothing per se wrong with any calling anyone any descriptive term. What matters is how people feel about those terms. Why continue using a term when it is obvious that the person on the receiving end doesn't like it, and it is also clear that a good proportion of the negative discourse surrounding a group uses this term. Anyway, its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind here, so move along... - FrancisTyers · 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand you though, coz right here there are some other people who feel offended by that other term when referring to the Slavomacedonians. In that sense, why continue using it openly when some feel offended just listening to it? Republic of FrancisTyers or simply FrancisTyers 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Continue to use my name, I'd be honoured :) In fact, in terms of privacy it would be a good thing, there aren't so many people called "Francis Morton Tyers" around. And no, you continue to miss the point by failing to distinguish between; 1. A person, or group, calling themselves a name, and 2. A separate person, or group calling the first person, or group a name. You know, the difference between a black person calling another black person "nigger" and a white person calling a black person "nigger". In fact, I'm sure there is a whole academic discipline relating solely to this issue. - FrancisTyers · 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission in using your name but nobody asked you in the first place (like these Greeks weren't asked). To tell you the truth, I'd be honoured as well if someone chose to use my name, my history, my heritage etc. I wouldn't be if he used it to enter my home, open my bank account, or sleep with my wife! I think that widespread theories of the sort are prohibiting me from enjoying this honour! Now to your (still) incompatible example, (1)they don't even call each other Slavomacedonians, (2)Blacks as a whole never claimed United Black Republic or a name of someone else, e.g. Chinese people!! Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers 13:smthg, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And again we come to the history and politics nonsense, which is tangential to the issue at hand. You know my opinion on that malarkey; 1. So why do you use it? Why not use "Macedonian Slavs" instead, and then eventually you can develop toward dropping the "Slavs" bit! Perhaps even a letter at a time! Or hey, how about Macedonizzles! :)) 2. You're on shaky ground there, can you be sure that some black people haven't used a named that was originally something else? - FrancisTyers · 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! No, I didn't object to Macedonian Slavs. No problem for that. Actually I don't object to Macedonians + anything. What I object to is simply Macedonians. Oh, I lost you in #2, but nevermind...Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers, husband of Ms.Tyers and holder of Mr.Tyer's bank account, home, car, mobile etc 13:smthnmore, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I said in the first place (2nd post ---^) And with the "Ms. Tyers", I'm hoping you aren't indirectly accusing me of incest, that's a personal attack! And regarding your other points I think you're probably better off with what you already have :)) - FrancisTyers · 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, glad we agree, and glad Bomac abgreed as well (below). For the record, who said we're exchanging? I am just taking. And also, this FrancisTyers here wouldn't technically commit incest...:-) 13:smthn, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it this way, "taking" what I have would put you in a worse position than you already are :) - FrancisTyers · 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about if someone is proud beeing a Slav, it's about the name that the people use in their everyday lives. The name they identify with and differ from other Slavic nations. OK, you can have your POV by calling the nation "Slavomacedonians", but the real/existing name of the nation is Macedonians. Bomac 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, or the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogue to this would be: Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks or Greeks? ;-) Bomac 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this in any way related to improving this article? Jkelly 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We are making circulus vitiosus all the time. I'm getting tired of it. Bomac 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly has a point here; this talk section should never have been started, as from the beginning it only started yet another pointless squabble; please, lets try to be constructive! On my own, I'm going to follow Niko; many many smiles

--Aldux 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole arguement started by one genius saying 'there are no slavomacedonians.' Never in the history of Europe has there been a people so confused and sensitive about how others perceive them beside perhaps certain nazi party members who would get angry if someone didn't adhere to their Aryan roots. So very postmodern... # Reaper7  

My last comment: you are really good in changing names. Bomac 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My last comment: I'll stop. Please respect both POV's. I'll never ask again which Macedonians you mean (unless I am really confused) and you never correct me again when saying "Slavomacedonians", or better "Macedonian Slavs" (you choose). Deal? :NikoSilver: 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Bomac 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Connection

Quick qestion. Is there even a mention of the word 'slav' in the whole article? Or do the Fyromians carry direct decent from 500BC to present day with less slav culture and blood than even the Greeks? Anyone reading this article might think they are not a slavic people. Reaper7  

Some guys simply can't resist to quarelling.

--Aldux 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No really, there is no mentioning of the slavic descent of Macedonian Slavs. I don't consider this ranting or anything, but I think a neutral summary of the article Slav Macedonians in the Demographics section would include this information at least. Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 13:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe the problem is more due to modest quality of the history section; there's an incredible leap from 146 BC to AD 1912, 2000 years in 2 lines. Probably 1912-2005 should be shortened (there's History of the Republic of Macedonia, isn't there?) and right a couple of not-too-long paragraphs on the 146 BC to 1912 period; there we could speak of the Slavic invasions.--Aldux 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am not of greek decent and you also from another part of the world and we visit FYROM and Greece we will notice the Greeks speak a language that is the direct decendant of Ancient Greek besides a few Roman and Turkish words thrown in. It has mostly Words and roots found in ancient Theban, Macedonian, Athenian, Thessalian ect texts and monuments. Therefore there is an obvious link seeing that the Greeks still live in these same lands today. Slavs and Albanians famously settled in Greece north and esp south, and now they are Greeks. Unfortunately there were not enough to alter greek culture or language significantly. FYROM does not share this History. The language and names are far far more obviously AD slav than anything else and this should be mentioned because everyday it becomes clearer it is not just Macedonian they speak as if it has a shred of connection to Ancient Macedonian which is how the article appears by not mentioning the word 'slav' at all. Someone who has a basic knowledge of the world will go, 'Is it me or are they speaking and writing russian?' Someone intelligent will simply say, hold on, they are speaking bad bulgarian, I thought i recognised it.' At least with Greek you can see in the alphabet and culture that they have kept and retained certain key aspects of the ancient world besides a name 'Hellenic.' There is a link to the ancient world greater than the name of the country and some ruins. I feel if someone reads this article they need to atleast read that the language is virtually bulgarian and there are countless articles not from FYROM stating that. Also as you said the slav invasions should be mentioned as whatever anyone says either side, these invasions had an impact on those who claim to be from the Republic of Macedonia that affects language, culture, religion appearance - everything. # Reaper7  

folk linguistics. Keep to what you know. - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, I generally agree. Also, we see as it goes and modify accordingly. Would you care to do the honours of making the modifications you proposed above?:NikoSilver: 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll try; but I'm not very good in being brief, so don't be shy in modifying the text if you don't like it.--Aldux 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-id

Luka, it is POV to say that some ethnic Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians. As far as people declaring themselves as Bulgarians are concerned, they are Bulgarians declaring as Bulgarians. Respect their right to self-identification - imagine if I went to Croatia and said that it is inhabited by predominantly by ethnic Serbs declaring themselves as Croats, or to Romania and said that it is inhabited by ethnic Moldovans declaring themselves as Romanians, or even to say that the Republic of Macedonia is inhabited by Bulgarians declaring themselves Macedonians. People are who they say they are - don't impose POV labels, especially without citing sources. --Tēlex 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, with one caveat, some Macedonians may declare themselves as Bulgarians for financial and other benefits that come from having (or will come from having) a Bulgarian passport [17]. And yes, the article does highlight some bad things about Macedonia, so you should enjoy it :) - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that 'Radko', a pro-Bulgarian political party in FYROM, which was banned by the "Macedonian" Constitutional Court as separatist for merely saying in public that the "Macedonian" "nation" are brainwashed Bulgarians, did so for financial benefits? --Tēlex 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The FYROM government weren't happy at all about that organization. Apparently, the Bulgarian ambassador to FYROM attended one of their events, and the FYROM government complained saying that: the presence of a high Bulgarian official at an event intended to deny the Macedonian identity is not within the framework of the usual diplomatic activities in the country which has offered him hospitality [18]. I suppose that, at the very least, they do gain publicity. Anyway, I guess you're right Francis. It's simply impossible that there are people with a genuine Bulgarian national identity in FYROM, for the doctrine tells me so, --Tēlex 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

may - FrancisTyers · 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language

According to this article of the Macedonian constitution, actualy article number 7:

Article 7 The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia.

In the units of local self-government where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in a manner determined by law. In the units of local self-government where there is a considerable number of inhabitants belonging to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, under conditions and in a manner determined by law.

As it is specified in this article, the context must not be mussunderstood, the only official language in the Republic of Macedonia is the Macedonian on a state level, all other languages spoken by the minorities as defined by the article and with the regarding low are official only on municipal level, and the official documents to the citisens who do speak a language different than macedonian and that is official in a municipality where the minority represents more than 20% are given in "company" with the macedonian. It is a completly nonsence the albanian language to stand by the macedonian as it is still not an official one.--Vlatko 22:41, 05 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive10#Languages. --Tēlex 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And it means not that it has been "droven" to a wrong conclusion and can't be discused again, you are makeing a messtake. I'm explainig that over, how is it posoible to be not understanded.--Vlatko 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia: Article 7 (2):

Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

Affirmed by p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7). If Albanian is spoken by more than 20% of the populationm, it is also official according to the constitution. This is confirmed by Britannica. Please read the archives - this has all been answered; we agreed even not to have the Albanian name in the infobox so as to keep you happy. If we are to play by the book, then we should readd it. --Tēlex 21:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Enciclopedia brotanica is not the constitution of Rom, and it is complletly wrong, I asure you.--Vlatko 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting the goddam constitution!!! It says: Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик. --Tēlex 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, if you are asking me, it is same if Albanian will stay in the first line or second. I was just trying to NPOV-ise as I've red the discussions made here by Vlatkoto and you. So get a deal and let's get over with this nonsense. Bomac 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed a while ago as a compromise that the "Albanian" would remain in the languages list, but the Albanian name "Republika e Maqedonisë" would not be in the infobox. --Tēlex 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Albanian is still in the language box, but if you insist for location in it, change to the previous version, but, please let's quit the nonsense. Bomac 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agreed not with that, no need for agreement for something wrongly stated and interpreted. We can disscus this till tomorrow if you want, you are wrong. Here again, you are regarding just a part, realy "smart": again the article:

Член 7

На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. (You pointed this part) Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, (and whats the meaning of the following) како што е определено со овој член. <<<It says as it is defined bellow of this article. (Please read it slowly). Личните документи на граѓаните кои зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, се издаваат на македонски јазик и неговото писмо, како и на тој јазик и неговото писмо во согласност со закон. Кој било граѓанин кој живее во единиците на локалната самоуправа во која најмалку 20% од граѓаните зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, во комуникацијата со подрачните единици на министерствата, може да употреби кој било од службените јазици и неговото писмо. Подрачните единици надлежни за тие единици на локалната самоуправа одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик и писмо што го употребува граѓанинот. Секој граѓанин во комуникација со министерствата може да употребува еден од службените јазици и неговото писмо, а министерствата одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик писмото што го употребува граѓанинот. Во органите на државната власт во Република Македонија службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, може да се користи во согласност со закон. Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа. (And finaly it is defned opnly as an municipality language not a state one)

If the constitution designates it official then it's official. Just like the rarely used Swedish language is in the Republic of Finland (oops - they have Sewdish in the infobox). --Tēlex 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I give the efort. You are realy ...... as you do not understand, please do your wrong edits on the greek and the albanian wikipedia and the articles regarding them, and ....of macedonia. You do not improuve nothing here. --Vlatko 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fellas, lets not get so anti-WP:NPA. Bomac 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what he's talking about. I do very little on the Albanian and Greek Wikipedias - only start articles like Slavomakedones and Sllavomaqedonë. Very WP:NPOV... --Tēlex 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, but can you make a compromise here, at en-Wiki? Can you Vlatko and Telex make a compromise? Bomac 22:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - he seems to be nationalistic and wants a United Macedonia, whereas I am a cosmopolitan. --Tēlex 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (actually, I'm waiting for Francis to respond to all this)

What, a compromise about a verificated and fully amanded constitution of a state that is in legislative and in real use of the word "in strenght". HA, never heard about. Telex please regard in back your actions, And I'm not for a united macedonia, but for recognition of the rights of my people--Vlatko 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The constitution uses the very word "official"! --Tēlex 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Get out of here, the only thing you have to say is: sorry but I do not understand. Aren't you ashamed of this play of yours. I explaned enough, what more do you want. In what context is used that word. As I see you have no Ide, you just like to dispute with your "enemy", even when you are not righ just the "contra" gives you some pleasure.--Vlatko 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Vlatko, this is where you are wrong. I am of Arvanite origin, and I would even like Albanian to be official in Greece. I can't tell you how much I feel 'Republika Greke' or 'Republika Helene' should be at the article Greece. I want this article to be fair, and you know it. --Tēlex 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

More internal problems [19], more WP edit-warring... Guys, you won't exactly make peace with 25%+ of your population if you continue to refuse basic human rights. Even if it wasn't official (which it evidently is) it would be worth being included in the article, as it is spoken by every one out of four! Live with it and make peace. It will be much simpler (and quieter) for all of you. 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with, can't you understand that if it is official I will personaly put it there in the infobox, so please stop adding it.--Vlatko 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Then go ahead and stop pretending you are a constitution analyst. It says clearly that 20%+ is official. It doesn't say less than official or mostly official or near-official. It says official. Now if you don't have what it takes to specify within your constitution which is the only language that has more than 20% frequency in your country, then at least don't pretend it is not so by disputable WP:OR constitutional interpretations. :NikoSilver: 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not pretend, And realy mature for colling me sick, thank you. It says so, ask Telex, as he understands something of Macedonian, he has readed and the Macedonian language costitution, in the article it is written this :Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, како што е определено со овој член. >>>>Another language that at least 20% of the citisents speak, is also, an official language and his letter, as it is defined by this article (and it is clearly defined here how much the other language is official and where) >>>read the other part bellow this one sentence. And you can convince you alln by your self in the originality of this^^^^^^. The albanian is not official on state level, only on municipality level.--Vlatko 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But Vlat, if the things are really like you say, what's the sense of speaking of a national 20% and a municipal 20%? Also it seems hard to believe Albanians would give up so much of what they had obtained at Ohrid.--Aldux 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The more languages the better. See United Kingdom, 6 languages in the Infobox *cool* :)) - FrancisTyers · 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greece biggest investor to FYROM Economy

Should this not even be mentioned once? IE if this suddenly stops being the case, the country will significantly suffer as greece is its only major investor. # Reaper7  

We should need some reliable sources before, giving also the number of the other countries. As an output of the country's exports, Serbia seems to be more important (31% to 9%).--Aldux 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greece is the first among foreign investors in FYROM, having invested a total of more than 460 million euros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Greece

LOL

Reaper7  ]]

Please read the articles before making requests. The source is the European Commission. If in any doubht, log on to its site. People can always write to the Commission and explain to them that they disagree... :-) Politis 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greeks etc

Please Luka Jačov, do not go about asking for proof about everything - or as targetting in a prejudicial manner ethnicities you may despise (I am sure you respect them all). The republic has many minorities and ethnicities because it never went to war in the 1990s trying to wipe them out. Politis 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If we dont have proof how can we know if information is verifibal? During Balkan Wars Greeks took much of Macedonian Slav ethnic territory leaving no Greeks north from then Serbian-Greek border. Show us some proof (presence of Greek Orthodox Church, Association of Ethnic Greeks in Macedonia or similar) and then it could be put again. Sorry but this is wikipedia policy. Luka Jačov 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Luka, we have been through this before. The Joshua Project claims that they have a Greek minority of c. 20,000 [20]. The former Greek minister for Macedonia-Thrace claimed that there are at least 200,000 Greeks in FYROM [21]. The Ethnologue says that Greek is amongst the languages spoken there. Greeks have a historic presence in the area, especially in the south, but there was a recorded Greek community in Krushevo before communism, and Ottoman censi have recorded a Greek presence in the area. Finally, the evidence supporting the existence "Macedonian minority in Greece" is of a similar nature, so if you persist in removing the Greeks from here, I will be removing any reference to Macedonians from Greece. Double standards are not allowed. --Tēlex 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you erase the fact that the "Macedonian" language has a substantial Greek influence and many words of Greek origin. This is a fact, and has been sourced at Macedonian language. Do you espouse anti-Greek sentiment - I wouldn't be surprised. --Tēlex 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this rubbish about Greeks taking Macedonian Slav ethnic territory? The Macedonian Slav ethnicity wasn't created by Tito until the 1940s - during the Balkan Wars, the main ethnicities in Macedonia were Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. All Ottoman censi show Greeks as the largest Christian population in the area. If you really don't know what you're talking about and are as clueless on the topic as you seem to be, then I advise silence. I you want to know more abut the historic ethnic composition of Macedonia, see Demographic history of Macedonia. --Tēlex 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Luka, I just had a bit of an exchange with Telex and he really comes down when he thinks there are double standards, irrespective of their source (mine, yours, or the man in the moon). I think that is a positive attribute and welcome in wikipedia. Politis 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Telex we've been through this before and we came to conclusion there is no Greek community in Republic of Macedonia. Joshuaproject cannot be taken as relevant and not to say quote of Greek Minister and could be serious violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also you say "historic presense". Kruševo has Vlach community which was historicly pro-Greek. I didnt found anything that says about "substantial" Greek influence. Could you gives a proof that Macedonian is influenced by Greek more then it is for example by Turkish language or that Macedonian language has more Greek influence than Bulgarian language (as sentence sounds that one of difference of Bulgarian and Macedonian is Greek influence). I said Macedonian Slavs as neutral term (they are Slavs they are Macedonians no matter if we say they Bulgarians or seperate nation). As you can see on maps of article you gave me there are no Greeks showed in area of today's Republic Macedonia but also not even near its border as maps show Greeks inhabitated only southern edge of historical Macedonia. And I should also point you up that blackmailing not only that is against wikipedia's policy and against normal deceint behaviour it also shows your lack of arguments. So until we get reliable sources we cannot have that information listed. Luka Jačov 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yawn - I'm afraid there are more sources to support the existence of a Greek community than the Egyptians (which you left in the article). I did not say that "Macedonian" is more influenced by Greek than any other language. I said it has been influenced substantially, and this is sourced at Macedonian language like I told you. I don't know how much it is influenced by Turkish etc, if you can cite a source, add that as well. As for the maps on that article, there are statistics and which show a Greek presence in the area, and I think Stanford's map from 1877 in that article shows a Greek majority in all Macedonia. Finally, what blackmailing? Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere. I'll repeat my prior statement. As the sources on the existence of a Greek minority in FYROM and a "Macedonian" minority in Greece are of a similar nature, if you remove Greeks from here, then remove the Macedonian Slavs from Greece so as to avoid double standards. --Tēlex 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why are you saying that "some Macedonians identify as Bulgarians". If they say they are Bulgarians, then they are Bulgarians. Period. See #Self-id. --Tēlex 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW soomeone in the FYROM government claimed in 1993 that there are between 230,000 and 270,000 "Macedonians" in Greece [22]. How come we can write that in Wikipedia, but not what the Greek minister says. Neutrality works both ways, you know. Either we say both, or none. Period. --Tēlex 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you check Egyptians article you ll see they were recorded on 1994 census. Macedonian language does not mentions that the language is "substantialy influenced by Greek" so this is clear pushing of POV. About Bulgarians it should be noted that some people that would otherwise be considered as Macedonians feel Macedonians belong to Bulgarian nation and that they are not seperate. Therefore this is more political preference then ethnical distinction and that should be noted. I dont care what you are goin to do with Macedonians in Greece you do what ever you want. Luka Jačov 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested, it seems that Greeks were recorded in the census [23]. --Kiro Gligorov 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And in case you didn't notice (which I doubt) the above commment, then read it now and stop reverting sourced material, by saying that it wasn't discussed. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Population according to declared ethnic affiliation, 2002 census

Requested by Luka Jačov. Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2004 (CD version)

• Macedonian: 1297981
• Albanian: 509083
• Vlach: 9695
• Roma: 53879
• Turkish: 77959
• Austrian: 35
• Bosniak: 17018
• Bulgarian: 1487
• German: 88
• Greek: 422
• Jew: 53
• Egyptian: 3713
• Italian: 46
• Muslim: 2553
• Polish: 162
• Romanian: 38
• Russian: 368
• Ruthenian: 24
• Slovak: 60
• Slovene: 365
• Serb: 35939
• Ukrainian: 136
• Croat: 129
• Montenegrin: 2686
• Hungarian: 2003
• Czech: 60
• Other: 5332
• Ethnically undeclared: 404
• Regional affiliation: 829

--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference for motto

I have looked through the archive and this appears not to have been discussed. Is there a verifiable reliable reference for the motto for Republic of Macedonia (Слобода или смрт (English: Liberty or death))? It appears to have only been valid about 100 years ago, and even then quite unofficially and by a small group of people. I'm inclined to remove it unless it can be verified. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion (bitchin') about it between myself, Realek, Avg and others in Archives 8-10. There was no productive result. The Greek side stresses that it is exactly similar to Eleftheria i thanatos which is the Greek motto since the Greek War of Independence in 1821 (no sign of "ethnic Macedonians" back then). No objection to delete if a reliable recent source cannot be provided.:NikoSilver: 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant archived rants:

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive10#Slododa_ili_smrt

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive9#What_is_acceptable: (long, see most indented part)

There is nothing productive I can make of these. Please cite or delete. :NikoSilver: 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Telex about the rape of "MAcedonian" land from its "rightful" owners. also i believe the Skopjan uprising took inspiration from the Greek independance struggle and used the Greek's motto. Heraklios 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

External links cull

Its fun to go through external links with reference to Wikipedia:External links and determine which ones should be included according to policies and to cut down on external link spam! Like a game! - FrancisTyers · 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats a reasonable amount done for tonight, if anyone else wants to have a go, be my guest. - FrancisTyers · 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Official government sites

• Assembly of Republic of Macedonia
• Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resource Management
• Ministry of Culture
• Ministry of Defense
• Ministry of Economy
• Ministry of Education and Science
• Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
• Ministry of Finance
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Ministry of Health
• Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
• Ministry of Local Self-Government
• Ministry of Transport and Communications
• Official Government website
• President of Republic of Macedonia
• State Electoral Commission Republic of Macedonia

Other, unofficial web sites

• Detailed Profile of Macedonia from the Encyclopedia of Nations — Delete world factobook mirror. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Organization for the European Minorities' reports on Macedonia — Delete 404. - FrancisTyers · 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• UNGA Resolution about the use of the provisional reference
• Macedonia Official tourism portal —
• The first webpage dedicated to the Republic of Macedonia has general information about the country —
• Development and Civil Society Issues on the FYR of Macedonia
• "Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", United Nations, 13 September 1995
• Macedonia Becomes First All Wireless Country
• Richard Bangs expedition in Macedonia -- delete, poor quality, terribly misinformed (so the Greeks excluded the ancient Macedonians from the Olympic games because they were "too strong"? And Alexander the Great was the first Macedonian to participate and win? Horrid nonsense.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• A website with general information about the state Delete ("...the legendary land of Alexander the Great...") :NikoSilver: 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonia.co.uk, shows Macedonia to the World and Brings the World to Macedonia — Delete ugh, I couldn't even tell what it was. Definately not exceptional material. - FrancisTyers · 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Republic of Macedonia and the Balkans Discussion Forum — Delete discussion forums should not be linked to. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• macedonia :: general information — Delete with extreme prejudice, horrific advertising. - FrancisTyers · 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonia Competitiveness Activity — Delete Cargo cultist nonsense. - FrancisTyers · 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonian Discussions — Delete discussion forums into the fire! - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonian Heritage FAQ from the Greek perspective — Delete not relevant. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• A collection of articles which argues against the Greek definition of Macedonia — Delete nonsense. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• a Macedonian search engine — Delete we are not a link farm. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonian search engine, indexing Macedonian and English-language content — Delete we don't need to link to search engines. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• News from Macedonia — Delete irredentist blog. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Photos of Macedonia — Keep why not, some nice photographs, no advertising to speak of. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Macedonia — Keep useful enough. - FrancisTyers · 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Macedonian newspaper in Bulgaria — Delete we don't need to link to newspapers - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stupid

This map is stupid. It allocates Albanian populated areas (Tetovo, Gostivar) to Serbia. --Tēlex 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a new user's personal opinion of how the RoM should be divided between its neighbours. It's obviously unsuitable for inclusion - I've nominated it for deletion. -- ChrisO 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that image would be appropriate on Wikipedia:No international summits as a sister article to Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man --GunnarRene 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

Well I appreciate the fact that the article was reviewed officially but I still think it needs to be labeled. My reasons are that in the article there are still far too many "facts" to be disputed as representing a certain viewpoint on the matter in question. I feel biased from the Bulgarian viewpoint so I would refrain from editing bits but I would insist that there remains a warning that the article could contain statements whose neutrality is disputable. I deliberatly avoid going into details because there is far too much talking going on already.

International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles.

I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html

OK, just saw that wiki puts everything in bold. Politis 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Electoral tensions in 2006

Elections tend to act as a fuse for violent inter-ethnic and cross-political confrontations, occasionally resulting in deaths. The situation is seen as seriously tarnishing the international reputation of the country. The government in Skoplje hopes to uphold EU and NATO standards with a view to joining them, but has to contend with un-democratic procedures. In the July 2006 elections, NATO warned it over pre-election violence or risk delays in the country's ambitions to join the military alliance. NATO and E.U. officials see the elections as a key test of Macedonian ambitions of joining both organizations after local elections in March 2005 were marred by irregularities. NATO intervention in 2001 helped prevent ethnic conflict developing into full-scale civil war. For the 2006 Parliamentary Elections, the international community sent 6,000 observers to monitor electoral procedures. [24] [25], AP and other agencies. The 2006 electoral violence included clashes between Albanian Macedonians [26].

• Elections tend to act as a fuse for violent inter-ethnic and cross-political confrontations,

There weren't major inter-ethnic confrotations during the elections. The main confrotation was between the Democratic Union for Integration and the Democratic Party of Albanians, the two biggest Albanian parties. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• occasionally resulting in deaths.

Deaths??? What? Can anyone quote a source? --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Skoplje

It is Skopje. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The government in Skoplje hopes to uphold EU and NATO standards with a view to joining them, but has to contend with un-democratic procedures.

No indication where these un-democratic procedures come from.

Why has no one mentioned the election results and the general international opinion of the elections, although they ended more than a month ago? Luckily, despite pre-election day violence, the elections were quite calm, and no one seriously questioned the results. [27] The government is also formed. However, there will be problems because DUI who won the majority of the Albanian votes (17 seats) will not be included in the government, as VMRO-DPMNE decided to form a coalition with it's traditional Albanian partner DPA (11 seats), and also with the newly formed NSDP (7 seats) [28]. The DUI, so far, refuses to accept that it won't be in the government, and organizes protest throughout the country, and as Musa Xhaferi (a DUI offical) has put it: “If the final objective of future prime minister-designate Nikola Gruevski is to disrespect our electorate, that is, the election results of the DUI-PDP (Party for Democratic Prosperity) coalition, whereby we would not be part of the future ruling coalition, then protests, rebellion, Kalashnikovs are possible”. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Flavr that it's biased, so why don't you edit it? You seem to have the right knowledge of the situation to make it informative and NPOV.--Aldux 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, I think the whole Electoral predictions and the new government of 2006 section looks...ugly. This article should be about Republic of Macedonia in general, and not about the elections. I propose that we only summarize the election aftermath and move the largest chunk of the section to Politics of the Republic of Macedonia. I can expand the information given, as well, but it makes no sense to expand it in this article. --FlavrSavr 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you the truth FlavrSavr, I've been thinking exactly the same thing from the creation of the section. But regarding the destination of the material, wouldn't it be better to put it in Macedonian parliamentary election, 2006 or Elections in the Republic of Macedonia?--Aldux 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair is fair. I agree. •NikoSilver• 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope that everything's OK with the summary. I really have no time to expand the Macedonian election article at the moment. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete, distortion of facts and most of all some FUNDAMENTAL facts are missing here

I wonder why the article doesnt mention the Antifascist Assembly of The National Liberation of Macedonia (Antifashistichko Sobranie na Narodnoto oslobododuvanje na Makedonija- ASNOM) held on the 2nd of August 1944 (as a symbolical continuation from The Ilinden Uprising and the Krushevo Republic from the 2nd of August 1903) when this state was in fact formally created? Let me remind you and I will cite sources if needed that ASNOM was recognized by the Allies (USA, UK, USSR) and foreign missions have visited the People's-Liberation army (Partisans) and attended the ASssembly itself.(
I mean, people, you may dispute this and that, the ethnicity, the language, the name of the state and so on and so on, but some basic information on this subject is missing here in this article and Im talking about FACTS that all the sides will agree on. The article only says something like (not an exact but rather an ironical quote): the war ended tito became president he said "from now on u will be called Macedonia". Fullstop. Nothing is mentioned about the ideological basis for the creation of the state, about the continuity with the struggle for "autonomous Macedonia" of VMRO in the past, btw the veteran from Ilinden 1903 Panko Brashnarov was the first speaker of that above mentioned historical Assembly on the 2nd of August 1944 and some of the members of the government incl. former VMRO and Ilinden revolutionaries such as Pavel Shatev for example. Tito did help the whole thing, but he was certainly not the initiator and also later he actually persecuted those who demanded more or complete independence of that Macedonian state from Yugoslavia.
This article may give a wrong impression to uninformed readers that the state was created on the 8th of September 1991?! It only gives the 8th of September as the beginning of the whole thing, while disregarding the continuity with the previous Socialist republic of Macedonia which existed all the time as a STATE with some degree of souvereinity withing Yugoslavia, with capital Skopje, flag, coat of arms, own government, national institutions, Academy of Sciences and Arts etc. All the time during the existing of Tito's Yugoslavia, Republic of Macedonia existed (the formal name doesnt matter, People's Republic of Macedonia, then Socialist Republic of Macedonia etc.). You may claim that it was "an artificial nation that was once Bulgarian but suddenly became "Macedonian", it doesnt matter, adding some simple coldblooded FACTS is needed, how this south european state was formed is among the most important. If Greece for example can claim continuity regardless of the changes to the political system (monarchy, republic, again monarchy, again republic, metaxas dictatorship 1936-1941, military junta '67 and what not), also today's Republic of Macedonia is a continuation of what was created at ASNOM and the struggle during the VMRO/Ilinden period and Krste Misirkov , who who was the first who began seriously propagating "macedonian nation", separate "macedonian language", separate "Macedonian church", codification of the language and phonetic alphabet back in late 19th-early 20th century.
At least, these things can be added with a note that this is the official point of view of Republic of macedonia regarding her history, Im sure that even ppl who would opposed it, they may be interested to learn about it.
This article is written in a so simplified way, also the external link section is so empty?! Why no one puts for example The official website of the Archive of republic of Macedonia. I mean if this wikipedia article is about RoM/FYROM I suppose that IT IS ABSOLUTELY NORMAL to have a link to a RoM/FYROM website with RoM/FYROM POV about history and politics.--Vbb-sk-mk 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been a quote added by an anon in Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 2#International Reactions. The quote is from the web page of Mister Sartzetakis (Greeks will laugh, I'll explain below why), former President of Greece [29]. It includes an alleged quote by Edward Stettinius, foreign minister of the US in 1946. The quote follows:

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

I took the time to verify this quote. Following are two links from State Department interviews and one from the Library of congress that verify it: [30], [31], [32]

I don't know what that should mean. Maybe the anon implies that times change (along with policies)? By the way, Eddy appears to be one of the nicest guys in US foreign affairs. He was the co-founder of the UN among other things...

In case we add the above "recognition by USA, UK, USSR" of ASNOM, shouldn't we also add the fact that the existence of such an ethnic group was disputed also?

PS. 'Mister' is funny because most Greeks remember him prosecuting people for not capitalising Kyrie (=sir) when referring to him. •NikoSilver• 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr

Should it not be mentioned that unless FYROM's name is changed from the title page's version, Greece will Veto FYROM's entry into the EU and the country will be even more isloated? The article is written as if that is the permanent name and there is no chance of a change.. Reaper7 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Although that veto is highly probable, to my knowledge, there is no such explicit statement from the Greek officials. •NikoSilver• 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday translated from Greek so we can all read.

http://www.phantis.com/news/?newsID=20060830130047 Reaper7 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Question?

It says that most people are adherents of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. I share a neutral POV and would very much like the MOC officially recognized - but isn't this contradicting with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Also, what about atheists and agnostics? They're always a majority in former Communist states. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on History

I think this article is very ambiguous with very little reference. When you read it you get the impression that there was no difference between Bulgarian or Byzanthine rule, i.e. it was not part of Bulgaria. This cannot have been true because under Samuil the capital of Bulgaria was Ohrid (which is not mentioned,) there is no point making a capital in a foreign land so obviously this region was an integral part of Bulgaria. Also, it is not mentioned the macedonian music which is popular in Bulgaria and all over the world and is not in Macedonian but in Bulgarian dialect language. I notice this sentence "Harsh rule by the occupying forces encouraged many Macedonians to support the Communist Partisan resistance movement of Josip Broz Tito." - it's not very clear which occupying forces and this sounds like an opinion not facts. So basically, I think this article needs to expand more on the History - it seems like there was no history during ottoman rule which is not true at all - there are many documents about the liberation movement and the famous liberation leaders like Jane Sandanski, also VMRO should be mentioned as well. -- Edi

Macedonia is probably the most disputed region in the world - I apologize to the Israelis and the Palestinians but there issue is like a fight between 3-year-olds compared to the macedonian matters.I am bulgarian and like all bulgarians I support our version because it is the right version.Don't put us aside and don't neglect our role and contributions , because they are also the most crucial ! - BraikoT

Honesty

Some points:

I understand that each nation tries to make their nation as good as possible on this site. However i feel reality is being ever so gently sedated with pretentious dribble.

• 1st The Republic of Macedonia generally has good relationships with Greece. Is how the Greece section begins. Surely that is a bad joke. The fact that they have had major disputes in the past and FYROM will not get into the EU or NATO because of Greece unless it alters its nation's name surely makes the above statement trash.

• 2nd The Republic of Macedonia maintains good relations with the Republic of Bulgaria. Another joke. For both these opening statements a more real opening would be Fyrom has a complex or difficult relationship with said nation. The title instead of 'Greece' should read 'Disputes with Greece'. Under Bulgaria we should see, 'Like Greece Bulgaria openly questions the true ethnicity of FYROMians'

• 3rd The fact the banned flag of Vergina is present under the Greek section is an obvious insult and should not be there.

• 4th Surely if Greece is the largest investor in a nation dependant of outside investment that should be in the first para of the economy section, not the last?

All in all I find the article like someone trying to butter a bad situation. The country's future is uncertain yet the underlying problems seem sugared over. Reaper7 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By an anon: Next time don't erase them if they are in the wrong place,try moving them yourself since you are so unbiased.

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.

(from the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe,

February 26, 1992, p. 35. )

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)."

Quote from FYROM'S President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.

(from the Toronto Star newspaper, March 15, 1992)

22 January 1999: FYROM'S Ambassador in Washington, Mrs. Ljubica Acevshka, gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. At the end of her speech answering questions Mrs. Acevshka said:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great." "Greece is FYROM'S second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language."

24 February 1999: In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented "there is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country."

U.S STATE DEPARTMENT

Foreign Relations Vol. VIII

Washington D.C.

Circular Airgram

(868.014/26 Dec. 1944)

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers*

The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time.

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece".

The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian Forces" against Greece.

The Department would appreciate any information pertinent to this subject which may come to your attention.

Secretary of State

STETTINIUS

Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

EXPLAIN THIS

Scroll down to the group photo - http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/articles/. Also have a read of this article from the Time archives http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html

If someone is Macedonian he has to speek greek greek the language of Hellenic nation the nation that Alexander the Great make and includes only Greeks.

Politis for you:

This does NOT include trade embargos ect, just a basic display first for you why the phrase 'good relations' is what we call a lie in english:

Greece

The indeterminate status of the Republic of Macedonia's name arises from a long-running dispute with Greece, which criticizes the use of what is considered to be Greek name and symbols. The main points of the dispute are:

• The name: the Republic of Macedonia is only part of the wider region of Macedonia, 51% of which is part of Greece, and it is inhabited by an ethnic group of Slavic origin, unrelated to the Ancient Macedonians.
• The flag: the use of a symbol found in Greece.
• Constitutional issues: certain articles of the constitution that were seen as claims on Greek territory.

The naming issue was "parked" in a compromise agreed at the United Nations in 1993. However, Greece refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic and imposed an economic blockade that lasted until the flag and constitutional issues were resolved in 1995.

Naming issue

Greek concerns over the name arise from a number of factors:

• The name is historically associated with Greek culture, notably that of the kingdom of Macedon. Greeks consider that the inhabitants of the neighbouring republic—most of whom are descendants of Slavic tribes who moved into the region around the 6th century AD—have no moral or historical right to claim the name "Macedonia" for themselves. Some Macedonian nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon, making a number of historically dubious claims.

• The territory of the Republic of Macedonia was not so called until 1944, when it was made a separate republic. Thus, although it is certainly part of the historical region of Macedonia, there is no political continuity between ancient Macedon and the modern Republic of Macedonia.

• Greece suspected that the Republic of Macedonia had territorial ambitions in the northern Greek provinces of Macedonia. This has been a Greek concern for decades; as far back as 1957, the Greek government expressed concern about reported Yugoslav ambitions to create an "independent" People's Republic of Macedonia with the Greek city of Thessaloniki as its capital. [7]

The naming issue has not yet been resolved, but it has effectively reached a stalemate. In 1993, the United Nations obtained Greece's acquiesence to the admission of the Republic of Macedonia by adopting the provisional name of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" [1] (поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија - ПЈРМ) [2] However, much to the annoyance of the Greek government, the compromise is wearing increasingly thin, as most states have recognised the country as the "Republic of Macedonia" instead. These include the permanent UN Security Council members of the United States, Russia, and the People's Republic of China, and the former Yugoslavian republics of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In addition, the Republic of Macedonia's other neighbours, Bulgaria and Albania, have also recognised the nation by its constitutional name.

This compromise name is always used in relations when states not recognizing the constitutional name are parties. This is due to the fact that the UN refers to the country only as FYROM, although all UN member-states (and the UN as a whole) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries.

The dispute continues to excite passions in both nations, but in practice the two countries deal pragmatically with each other. Economic relations and cooperation have resumed since 1995 to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[3]

Within Greece, many Greeks reject any use of the word "Macedonia" to describe the Republic of Macedonia, instead calling it ΠΓΔΜ, the Greek version of FYROM, or Skopje and its inhabitants Skopians (Greek: Skopiani), after the country's capital. This metonymic name is not used by non-Greeks, and many inhabitants of the Republic regard it as insulting. Greek official sources sometimes use the term "Slavomacedonian" to refer to the Republic's inhabitants and its language (even the US State Department has used the term side by side with Macedonian, albeit having them both in quotation marks [4]). The term "Macedonian Slavs" is another term sometimes used to refer to the ethnic Macedonians by non-Greeks. A number of news agencies have used it (although the BBC recently discontinued its use on the grounds that people had alleged it was offensive), and it is used by the Encarta Encyclopedia. The Macedonian language translation of Macedonian Slavs - Македонски Словени - has been occasionally used in the past by Macedonian sources, and the term is used in Krste Misirkov's work On Macedonian Issues.

The United Nations set a target of September 13, 2002 for reaching a solution to the issue. This date passed without any solution being found and it is unclear how the issue will be resolved, given the apparently irreconcilable positions of the two sides. The Republic of Macedonia says that it will not abandon the name "Macedonia", while Greece says that it will not accept any permanent name that includes "Macedonia".

The March 2004 application of the Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union may help to speed efforts to find a solution; in a meeting of 14 September 2004, the EU noted that the difference over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still persists and encouraged parties to find a mutually acceptable solution, but stated that it is not part of the conditions for EU accession.

In 2005, Matthew Nimetz, UN Special Representative for the country, suggested using "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] for official purposes. Greece did not accept the proposal outright, but characterized it as "a basis for constructive negotiations". Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski rejected the proposal and counterproposed a "double formula" where the international community uses "Republic of Macedonia" and Greece uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [5][6]

In October 2005 Nimetz made a new proposal. It proposes that the name “Republika Makedonija” should be used by the 106 countries that have recognized the country under that name. It proposes, also, that Greece should use the formula “Republika Makedonija – Skopje”, while the international institutions and organizations should use the name “Republika Makedonia” in Latin alphabet transcription. While the government of the Republic of Macedonia accepted the proposal as a good basis for solving the dispute, Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable.[7]

[edit] Flag issue The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995) Enlarge The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)

Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence flag caused a major controversy when it was unveiled. The use of the Vergina Sun on the flag offended Greeks, as the symbol is being associated with King Philip II of Macedon and by extension with his son, Alexander the Great. The Greek viewpoint was summed up in an FAQ circulated on the Internet in the late 1990s:

The Vergina Sun, the emblem of Philip's dynasty, symbolizes the birth of our nation. It was the first time (4th century BC) that the Greek mainland (city-states and kingdoms) with the same language, culture, and religion were united against the enemies of Asia in one league. At the same time the fractured Greek world grew conscious of its unity. And, in this sense, we have never been apart since then. The "Sun" was excavated in Greece in 1978, and it is sacred to us. [8]

The symbol was removed from the flag under an agreement reached between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece in September 1995. The Republic agreed to meet a number of Greek demands for changes to its national symbols and constitution, while Greece agreed to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic and end its economic blockade.

Constitutional issue

The Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence constitution, adopted on November 17, 1991 included a number of clauses that Greece interpreted as promoting secessionist sentiment among the Slavophone population of northern Greece, and making irredentist claims on Greek territory. Article 49 of the constitution caused particular concern. It read:

1. The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian expatriates, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them. In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.
2. The Republic cares for the cultural, economic and social rights of the citizens of the Republic abroad. [8]

In the Greek view, this was effectively a license for the Republic to interfere in Greek internal affairs. The offending articles were removed under the 1995 agreement between the two sides.

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Greece

Reaper7 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Name Issue

I have read the article and I was amazed by the use of the word Macedonian. There is an open name dispute that is not a matter of foreign relations or of how many countries will recognize the small country with the name it wants.

The problem is very important and very real. I tried to find a good analogy in the comments by I was not able to find something close. Let me state my own analogy.
How would an american (US) feel if mexico was renamed by it's own government as Indians?
How would someone living in Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark feel if a new country was created in the region and the name it chose would be "The Vikings"?

It is clear that the problem Greeks have is more than historical. It is a problem of human rights (of the Greeks is macedonia), it is an economic problem (commerce and trading confusion) and finally a major historic distorion.

Please comment on what I state below.

By Everydaypanos 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What is the problem?

The choice of the name Macedonia by FYROM directly raises the issue of usurpation of the cultural heritage of a neighbouring country. The name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim over the entire geographical area of Macedonia. More specifically, to call only the Slavo-Macedonians Macedonians monopolizes the name for the Slavo-Macedonians and creates semiological confusion, whilst violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians. The use of the name by FYROM alone may also create problems in the trade area, and subsequently become a potential springboard for distorting reality, and a basis for activities far removed from the standards set by the European Union and more specifically the clause on good neighbourly relations. The best example of this is to be seen in the content of school textbooks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

For the first time in their history, in recognition of the problem the United Nations (Security Council and General Assembly) gave the new state the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

2. What caused the problem?

The problem arose when in 1944 the then Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Tito formed a federal state from scratch, to which it gave the name of a large neighbouring administrative region of Greece - Macedonia. The present-day independent state has evolved from the calculations and steps taken in the 40s.

3. How has the problem evolved?

In 1992 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia tabled an application to join the United Nations under the name of Republic of Macedonia. On 7th April 1993 the Security Council noted that although the country fulfilled the criteria for accession to the UN, there was nonetheless a dispute over its name, which needed to be resolved in the interests of maintaining peace and good neighbourliness in the region. The country was consequently accepted under the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Security Council Resolution 817/7.4.1993 officially states that the difference over the name of the State needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region and calls upon the parties to work together for a speedy solution to their dispute. The process for solving this dispute is indicated in Security Council Resolution 817/7.4.1993 and Resolution 845/18.6.1993, which calls upon the parties to continue their bilateral talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General with the objective of solving outstanding bilateral issues as soon as possible. Also, on 8th April 1993, the General Assembly unanimously accepted the accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations with this name. Consequently, both the Security Council and the General Assembly recognised the validity of the Greek arguments on the name issue.

On 13th September 1995, Greece and FYROM signed an Interim Agreement which constituted the point of departure for normalisation of their relations, with the only pending issue being that of the name. According to the Interim Agreement, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has officially accepted that the name of the State is a subject of bilateral negotiations with Greece, as provided for by the two Security Council Resolutions, in other words 817/93 and 845/93, and Article 5.1 of the Interim Agreement. It is therefore clear that the object of the exercise is to replace the temporary international name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with a permanent name acceptable to both parties.

4. Why has the issue not been settled so far?

Over the past decade the two countries have many times been on the brink of reaching a solution. Unfortunately, FYROMs intransigence and more specifically that of the present government has not enabled us to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

5. Does Greece maybe feel threatened by a small country such as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?

There is no question of a military threat to Greece by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the contrary, cooperation between the two neighbouring countries is developing in many sectors. The fact, however, that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia insists on achieving exclusive use of the name Macedonia, or Democracy of Macedonia on the one hand, is not in accordance with the respective UN Resolutions (Security Council Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93) and, on the other hand, is directed against the cultural heritage and historical identity of the Greeks. The visible risk of future destabilisation in the region should therefore not be ignored. Moreover, since the Ohrid Agreement, FYROM has changed its constitutional form and no longer sees itself, as foreseen in the 1991 Constitution, as the state of the Macedonians.

6. Will FYROMs European prospects help settle the issue?

It is a good opportunity for settling the issue, since good neighbourly relations are a requirement of states wanting to join the European Union and do not square with the FYROM Slavo-Macedonians insistence in standing by their intransigent and negative stance towards efforts to resolve the issue.

7. Does recognition of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by the United States under the name of Democracy of Macedonia make it more difficult to solve the dispute?

The United States recognise the need for a mutually acceptable solution within the United Nations framework, irrespective of the reasoning that led to their unilateral recognition. As they have repeated on many occasions, the United States support Mr. Nimetz efforts.

8. What is the current state of play?

For the first time on 29th March, the UN Secretary-Generals Special Envoy Mr. Nimetz tabled a global proposal for finding a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue. Mr. Nimetz proposes that for international use the name Republika Makedonija-Skopje should be used in untranslated form. This name would be valid for all UN bodies, and the UN will propose to other international organisations and states that they also adopt it for official international use. On 8th April, Greece announced that she accepted the Nimetz proposal as a basis for negotiations despite the fact that there were many points in the proposal which needed to be clarified and amended. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the other hand, rejected the proposal and insisted on a double name.

On 25 April, 2005, for the first time in many years, the Conclusions of the E.U. General Affairs Council referred to recent developments on the issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as follows: The Council noted recent developments concerning the dispute as to the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and, in particular, all of the ideas put forward by the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose efforts it supports. The Council encouraged Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to intensify their efforts with a view to finding a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution within the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 817/1993 and 845/1993 as quickly as possible.

On 8 October, 2005, Mr. Nimetz presented a new proposal, the contents of which have not been made public. FYROM initially accepted this new proposal. Greece, however, declared it unacceptable as it adopted FYROMs position.

Greece continues to support the procedure stipulated in UN Resolution 813/93, stating her readiness to reach a jointly acceptable solution on the name issue.

Greece has demonstrated her desire to reach a solution that will lead to the full normalisation of bilateral relations, facilitate the course of her neighbour towards the Euro-Atlantic institutions, and consolidate stability and cooperation in our region, which would be conducive to solving the issue of Kosovo. Greece has also made it clear that there is no question of her neighbour acceding either to the European Union or to NATO under the name Republic of Macedonia.

Conscription?

Do Macedonia stil have conscription?

Nope. Its now vuluntary/paid army. (Or whatever its called.)