Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 15

Law about albanian

Please notice that the Macedonian constituion says

"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." [1].

Now, just a few days ago a national law was passed that "doesn't allow for use of Albanian or any other minority language as a second official language on Macedonia's territory" [2]

So, if you are going to make an argument about keeping the albanian name on the lead, then please make it about linguistic minorities, historical stuff, etc, and not about the languages section of the constitution, as their constitution allows for laws to regulate the official languages and albanian has now been regulated as not being an official language. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanians comprise 30 % of the population of Macedonia and it is very natural to include the Albanian name as well. The constitution states that Albanian language is also official where Albanians are majority or have more than 20 %. The news you are refering to that says Albanian is not official since the parliament has passed a new law, lacks facual accuracy. The new law was passed to improve the staus of the Albanian language and is a part of the deal between Gruevski and Ali Ahmeti. I do not know how much you can about law but a law can not change the constitution. All laws that are in conflict with the constituion are ilegal and therefore I don't buy the lie that the parliament decided to make Albanian "unofficial". The largest Albanian daily in Macedonia, Lajm Maqedoni, had this news on 26.07.2008: Albanians language, official language in Macedonia, if you can Albanian you can read it here: http://www.lajmpress.com/index.php?faqe=shfaqlajm&id=2364. The new law only regulates the communication between the parliament and the government. Albanians in the parliament if the conditions are met will be able to communicate in Albanian with the Macedonian government. Mina seems to be based in Canada and is not neutral as far as I can see. Even if you contest Albanian being official in Macedonia we can use the population-percentage argument. 30 % of the people there call it "Republika e Maqedonisë". I will include it now. Hope you don't have anything against it. PS: I understand Serbs being nationalists since they can look back at a Serbian state some 700 years ago, but I don't understand Slavic Macedonians. --NOAH (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, Albanians make up 25% of the total population, not 30%. Second, the new law that passed a few days ago did not make Albanian unofficial because Albanian was never official. Third, since Mina is based in Canada wouldn't that make it neutral? Canada is one of the most neutral countries on Earth. Fourth, in March 2008, the Democratic Party of Albanians walked out of parliament because six demands that they had were not met. One of those demands was that the Albanian language be made official [3](see 6th paragraph). Since there has been no announcement that the demand has not been met, the Albanian language has not been made official. Thus, I am taking the Albanian name out.-- Justmakingonearticle 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are complitely wrong. The law on the languages used between the parliament and the government of Macedonia, was proposed by Ali Ahmeti's BDI and do you think they would have proposed a law that goes against Albanian interests. Do you? The law is part of the deal between Ahmeti and Gruevski, you have read or seen on TV that they have formed government together. You seems to know very little about Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia does not list the names on different languages based on which languages are official but what is relevant. Here it is relevant to take with Albanian because 30 % of the people speak Albanian, Macedonia borders both Kosovo and Albania and the Constituion of Macedonia makes Albanian an official langauge. Racist attempts to not include Albanian will not give any fruits. You and your friends are trying to equalize Rep. of Macedonia with Slavic Macedonians but you comprise 60 % of the population. The others should also be heard and Wikipedia is edited according to neutral point of view. I once againg ask you to read your country's constitution and don't make childish statements. A consitution can NOT be changed by a law. Albanian is official language in Macedonia in all cites where Albanians have at least 20 % of the population. In addition the passports of Albanians are both in Macedonian and Albanian (remember this applys only to ethnic Albanians in Macedonia). Some examples: http://tetovo.gov.mk/, is both in Albanin and Macedonian, http://www.struga.gov.mk/, both in Albanian and Macedonian with Albanians as dfeault language. You see these are government sites and Albanian is official. No more to say about this. Your edit is reverted. --NOAH (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right about one thing: Wikipedia does not list names in different languages based on which languages are official but what is relevant. But the thing is that this is the Republic of Macedonia, not the Republic of Albania or Kosovo or any other entity of a Greater Albania. Thus, Albanian is irrelevant. And just because Macedonia borders Albania and Kosovo, doesn't mean it needs to be included (ex: France does not include the German name). I am not sure what you mean by "fruits" but I am not being racist, I am being politically correct. You say that Albanian is official in municipalities where Albanians make up at least 20% of the total population, which is correct. However, this law says nothing about minorities making up 20% of the entire country.-- Justmakingonearticle 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I ask you to stop with your nationalistic POV and respect the fact that Albanians comprise 30 % of the people in Macedonia and that Albanian is official language in Macedonia, including in Skopje/Shkup. Take a look at the website of the Skopje muncipality. Do you see a language button with Albanian eagle?? http://www.skopje.gov.mk/en/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=1. --NOAH (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to an Albanian version on the Skopje website (no eagle though), to the right of the English button.

Let me make a suggestion here. There is a comparable example in my own country, the United Kingdom. The official languages of the UK are English and Welsh, and public bodies are obliged by law to publish material in both languages. Gaelic is also spoken in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, that language only enjoys official status in the municipalities where it is most widely spoken. It is not a national language in the same sense as English or Welsh.

What editors need to do, therefore, is find some law or constitutional provision (comparable to the Welsh Language Act 1993 in the UK) that mandates Albanian as a national language, with equivalent status to Macedonian throughout the country. If Albanian is only mandated in certain areas then it is by definition not a national language. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? Wikipedia is not obliged to follow Macedonian laws and we shouldn't do it either. We have to follow NPOV and that means we should include how 30 % of the people call that country. All other alternatives would be racist since other groups other than Slavic Macedonians are discriminated. Albanian is an official language in Rep. Macedonia/FYROM and should be included. By the way this article is biased towards Slavic Macedonian and should be edited to reflect that almost 40 % of that country's population is other than Slavic. I will come back to that.--NOAH (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. So until some documentation is found that says that the Albanian language is offical in Macedonia, then it will be kept out.-- Justmakingonearticle 1:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where have you lived for the past 7 years but Albanian has been official for many years now. Like it or not. I have provided many links(gov. websites of Skopje, Tetovo, Struga) so I wonder what more do you want? --NOAH (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Albanian is not official on a national level in the Republic of Macedonia. That's why the Albanians are complaining. If it was official, they wouldn't be complaining. Obviously. Albanian is official in some municipalities, as are Turkish, Aromanian, Serbian and Romany. And Noah, please stop throwing the word "racist" around. Please be WP:CIVIL. BalkanFever 06:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much right, BalkanFever. Noah, Wikipedia is not "obliged to follow Macedonian laws". What we are obliged to do is reflect accurately the effect of those laws. If the Albanian language has equal national status with Macedonian, like Swedish in Finland, then it's appropriate to give both versions of the country's name in the intro. (See the top of the Norway, Sweden and Switzerland articles for examples of how countries with two or more equal-status national languages are treated.) But as far as I'm aware, nobody here has yet cited a source that states that Albanian is an equal-status national language, as opposed to a regionally-mandated language like Basque or Scots Gaelic. In such cases, we don't present them in article intros as equal to the national language. (See the top of Spain for an example - note the lack of Basque, Catalan or Gallego names for the country). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's tough for me; I must accept that, but I do have to agree with both BalkanFever and ChrisO. There is no law or constitutional article upgrading Albanian to a "national-level language". And it is not just the case of Spain Chris mentioned, but of Albania as well; I do not see the Greek name (Albania has a Greek minority in its south) in the country's intro. So, let's keep things the way they are throughout all similar wikipedia articles. And do not evoke again the country's constitution as you did in one of your reverted edits, because it does not say what you argue it says!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the users above. Personally, I think Albanian should be official in Macedonia (and I think the same thing about many other regional languages in different countries) but that is not the case. Looking at countries with significant minorities such as Spain, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia and others, they always give the name onlyin the official languages of the countries, not in regional languages and/or languages of large minorities. Only when more than one language is an official language of the whole country, as in Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland and others, does Wikipedia display names in those languages. In other words, this is very simple case. As long as Wikipedia has the present policy, we're not going to follow an alternative policy for Macedonia. JdeJ (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I now noticed that the country's motto is presented to be the same with Greece's. I may be an ignorant on the issue, but I would like to know where this motto is officially mentioned, because I see no explanation in the article, no citation, no link. Per WP:VERIFY I would like to know if indeed this is the country's motto.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By "presented to be the same with Greece's" do you suggest that the motto was stolen? You're other points might be valid (maybe another Macedonian knows more about the motto, sourcing etc.) but I hope this isn't one of those "Skopjan theft" arguments that have been going around time and time again. BalkanFever 10:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is irrelevant and does not cover me. At least I can tell you that Greece used this motto during the Revolution of 1821. When did FYROM's people exactly use it?

This motto is neither in the List of national mottos. Anyway, provide sources per WP:VERIFY that this is indeed the country's motto or it will be removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True, same for Greece actually. It's unsourced over there too. In my understanding, a "country motto" should only be included if it's officially legislated. Is this motto contained somewhere in the Greek constitution or something like that, where national symbols are defined, along with the flag and the anthem? I have no doubt people in both nations use it and regard it as a national symbol of sorts, but that's really not the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The motto in the case of Greece comes from the flag itself. As Wikipedian's article says "It is still in use today, and is symbolically evoked by the use of 9 stripes (for the nine syllables of the motto) in the Greek flag." So, the motto in the case of Greece is an integral part of the flag itself. Any use of the motto in the search engines links to Greece-related web pages. I just mention Notabilia, where you can see that the motto was indeed written on the first Greek flags. Can anybody find something similar for FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yannismarou, I said your point about sourcing might be valid, but I myself don't know. And could you please not sound so demanding? It really doesn't matter at all what you can tell me about 1821. I merely pointed out that your original comment seemed a bit like an accusation. If it wasn't, sorry, but that's pretty much all that one sees on this page. BalkanFever 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. I just ask for the implementation of WP:VERIFY. I just say that in the case of Greece the motto appears in a series of flags, and was officially used during the ervolution of 1821 (and this is not OR). It is also an integral part of the current flag. I want to know what is the case for FYROM. If there is no basis for its use in FYROM's page, it should go. If there is, then ok! That's all!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, was it ever part of an official flag of the Greek state? Those that you linked to were apparently private banners of some warlords or local communities. And of course there was no Greek state in 1821 that possibly could have had an offical motto. As for the modern flag, I don't quite see the link - "symbolically evoked by the use of 9 stripes (for the nine syllables of the motto)" is a bit far-fetched, unless that interpretation is itself enshrined in some officially legislated definition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The first flag you see in Notablilia was official used during the Greek Revolution (let's just note that this flag and the motto constituted the official emblem of Filiki Eteria). Allow me also when I go home to check the revolutionary constitutions, but the flags which led to the creation of the official flag of Greece and you see in Notabilia already had the motto. I just hope that its use during the Greek Revolution is not questioned here, because this is indeed far-fetched. In any case, if you have a problem about the Greek motto, you are free to go to the country's talk page and raise the issue. Here we are in the FYROM's page, and we discuss about itsd motto. And I just ask not for legal binding texts, but just for some historical indications that it was ever used by FYROM's people!!! Where is the historical background of the motto concerning FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was apparently used on revolutionary banners during the Ilinden uprising, for one thing, so the insurgency background would be somehow similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Source?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One such banner is pictured on the Ilinden uprising page. I agree some backing from the secondary literature would be good of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak about the picture Image:Ohrid Banner1.jpg? But the caption says that this is the Bulgarian flag. Am I missing something? And, of course, just a picture of a banner with no further supporting material is not enough to prove that this was an established motto.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The caption (which was written by a bunch of well-known Bulgarian POV warriors, but that only as an aside) relates to the fact that the banner uses the colors of the Bulgarian flag, sure. But it was the banner used by the revolutionaries in Macedonia, to whom the current Macedonian nation likes to trace its origins, for better or worse. (Besides, of course, "just a picture with no supporting material" is still about as much as we have for the Greek motto, when it comes to usage on flags.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, by a bunch of well-known Bulgarian POV warriors? Didn't see that coming. Are we talking about the Bulgarian flag on the article - the one that was used in the April uprising as well and is definitely the white-green-and-red of Bulgaria. Seems like it, why should the caption be POV? Sorry, no POV pushing there - this is the BG flag as simple as that. Now to the topic since this is what lead me here. I don't think there should be a problem with the motto. For instance, tons of countries have the same one as Bulgaria. I was translating the article in Bulgarian the other day and saw 4-5 countries (besides Belgium of which I knew and also knew was the country that inspired Bulgaria to use the motto) with exactly the same (Unity makes strength) or the slightly different Unity is strength. Therefore such repeating mottos don't seem like a problem in any context (political or whatever). I tried to find out an official usage of the motto though and couldn't find it on any of the top RoM governmental web-sites. MKpedia doesn't show it either. Despite that I do remember seeing it somewhere. I've remembered it like that and the source was certainly not WIkipedia, but I don't seem to know how exactly I acquired the info. --Laveol ^T 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that?! It is outrageous to make this comparison, when there is such a bibliography that it was the official motto of the Greek Revolution; namely when the Hellenic Republic was shaped. The comparison of one flag the caption says is Bulgarian and you say is "Slav-Macedonian" with no supporting material with the use of "Eleftheria i Thanatos" in the Greek case is outrageous! Just go to any search engine you want, and if you find "Freedom or Death" related to FYROM, come and tell me about. And allow me to remind you once more that this is the FYROM's page and we speak about its moto; if you have a problem with the Greek motto go to the Greece page, and raise the issue there. Wherever in the net or in Wikipedia itself click "Freedom or Death", you will find a reference to Greece. To FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, who placed the motto in FYROM's article here the first place?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Give it up Yannis please. They - this page is answerable to no one. No one will support the Greeks here. They can do what they want with this page. We have been for ages here removing lies and for every little history lesson we successfully deliver, 3 new lies appear the next day. If anyone besides Greeks actually cared, you would stand a chance. But this battle is lost. Wait for them to be forced to change their name and then come back with me and the others and we will clean this page with reality. Until then, trying to get them to prove anything in this article through a neutral source is rolling a boulder uphill. Just my two cents file. Reaper7 (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, you're getting very close to a topic ban for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Please tone it down.

• Please refrain from personal attacks.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that "Freedom or death" was the motto of the IMRO organisation at the turn of the 20th century (see [4] for many references). Greeks certainly don't have a copyright on it- many groups have used the slogan over the years. I think there certainly needs to be a reliable source for the statement that it is the motto of the Republic of Macedonia, but on the face of it, it certainly seems plausible given the association with Macedonian nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem remains, and my request still stands. First, I don't see these "many" citations ChrisO claims to be there; I see some of them. Secondly, IMRO, as the above-mentioned user said, and I quote: "was the motto of the IMRO organisation at the turn of the 20th century." What is the connection with the current FYROM? Was this motto proposed, when the current state was formed? Additionally, I read from IMRO's article: IMRO was founded "by a "small band of anti-Ottoman Macedono-Bulgarian revolutionaries. [1] "They considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and all of its inhabitants "Macedonians", no matter their religion or ethnicity". The organisation was a secret revolutionary society operating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the goal of liberating and uniting Macedonia with Bulgaria." It seems to me that this oranization served Bulgarian interests. Are we sure that its mottos, and emblems express indeed the people of FYROM? It may be indeed the case, but as an ignorant reading IMRO's article I find some inconsistencies in this rationale. So this "short" answer looks to me needing some "expansion". I may be wrong of course.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Laveol and Future: the image is not of the Bulgarian flag; there's no green, rather blue. One could theoretically replace that image with anything, and still claim it's the Bulgarian flag, because it's "sourced" (it isn't). BTW, I believe Dennis Hupchik's book says "Macedonian Slav revolutionaries" (not sure though). This was probably changed by one of the POV pushing idiots. Also, this Reaper7 guy seems to be trolling (again). BalkanFever 07:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Idiots is not one of the things it's ok to be said in Wiki. And, yes, this is the Bulgarian flag as used in the April uprising as well. --Laveol ^T 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This just in: blue is not green. BalkanFever 09:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More news: green can become blue. Especially if you paint with non-age-resistant substances on fabric, keep that fabric out in the open for a hundred years, take a poor-quality photograph of the reflecting surface of the fabric from a poorly chosen angle under artificial lighting conditions, and then photoshop the resulting file. here is another photograph of the same object. Whatever color that flag was in the beginning, not much of it seems to be left anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I only one to whom this discussion sounds totally ridiculous? Its pretty simple, if it is official motto of Republic of Macedonia, then it shouldn't be hard to find proper source for it. If there isn't one, then it should be removed, its not like every state has motto, many are completely fine without one. So why is this discussion going on about Greek national moto, and about history of Balkans? Problems with greece motto should be adressed in appropriate place, best probably being talk:Greece. This discussion should be limited to Macedonian motto, and its simple case of having a source, that what is Greece, or any other state's motto is totally irrelevant.--Staberinde (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I say from the fisrt moment. Where is then this "proper source"? But it seems easier for Indiana Jones to find the Crystal Skull than for anybody to find a proper source about this motto. Until now we just have a flag, and we do not even know if it is Bulgarian or "Macedonian"!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gotten off track. I repeat my initial point: A "state motto" is not the same as just any popular slogan considered of national symbolic value. I have no doubt that in both nations the phrase would be regarded as the latter, but that's not the point. A state motto is something given official status in law, side by side with national flags and anthems; or at least something regularly and officially used as part of national symbols, such as state emblems, a caption displayed in connection with the coats of arms etc. I haven't seen anything along those lines for Macedonia yet, and very little of any conclusive value for Greece. A motto of the revolutionary organisations of 1821 / 1905, certainly, but of the modern states? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FutPer raises a very interesting issue about mottos in general, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss such a broad topic. Appropriate discussions can take place in the appropriate places. I'll focus on FYROM's motto asking once again some sources that this motto has anything to do with FYROM's people and its continuity (e.g., indications and sources like the ones me and Futper mentioned above about the Greek motto). I must say that, unfortunately, this problem of verifiability is broader and appears in a series of FYROM-related articles. User:Elonka for instance made some very interesting remarks in Aegean Macedonians article lately; but again this is not the proper place for such broad discussion; appropriate research and discussion will take place in the appropriate places. I just felt the need to make these remarks, as general comments influenced by this "exhausting" but interesting IMO (despite some unfortunate personal comments above) discussion.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is a small (and might be heavily commented upon) contribution to the motto issue. To be realistic here, Greece officialy has no motto at all. The phrase "Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος" ("Freedom or Death"), yes was used by the Greeks fighting for their liberation back at 1820's, it is mentioned also that it was used even before that during the failed attempts of previous uprisings, but it was adopted from the american revolutionaries that used the exact same phrase during their own war of independance, although I currently do not have any references to it handy. After the liberation war of 1821, the motto in question was not adopted as the official motto of the country ever. Using interpretations or explanations of the meaning of the blue and white stripes of our flag as the official "proof" of the use of the motto just isnt right. One can also look at it in a different way, if you need an "indirect" proof for the use of the motto. Every country that has officially adopted a motto, usually puts it on the national emblem. The Greek national emblem never had a motto on it, rather than several kinds of figures (crowns, owls, etc) depending on the regime. Additionaly, Greeks have used several different mottos depending on the times, the places etc. For the official Greek emblem you can visit the most official source: [5] Additionally there is not a single article in the Greek Constitution that refers to a national motto. And in my opinion, any country can use any kind of motto they like, as long as it doesnt offend anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik ethel (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I just found out about the signature --Nik ethel (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian: Слобода или Смрт (Transliterated: Sloboda ili Smrt); English: Freedom or Death is official Macedonian motto, I live in Macedonia and I know this. 79.126.175.9 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

yo peeps, you asked sources about the Greek motto "Eleftheria i Thanatos" Freedom or Death. well here's some, non-Greek sources who explicitly strap the motto to Greek Independence: [6] [7] [8][9] [10]<Turkish one of 1988. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

also i think (and others think too [11]) that the motto comes via the Bulgarian uprising of 1897 and not straight from Greek. see [12] and [13]CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

About NATO

Shoudn't it be mentioned the fact that Greece put Veto in the country's potential NATO entry?TheJudge0791 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this should be included. - 77.29.245.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, be bold and add it yourself, I suggest adding it at the end of Republic_of_Macedonia#Foreign_relations section as the best place for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi can you please add this link

Hi,

I've added a link last Friday I think. The link is being marked as potential spam. The link is not spam (www . Travel2Macedonia . com .mk)

This website has been also added to the Macedonian part of wikipedia, and marked as website of significant importance to the section.

If you can add it to the English part it would be a nice thing.

Thanks in advance, Goran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are already two links on the "Travel" section of external links: National Tourism Portal [14] and a link that says "city guides" [15] (altought I'm not sure of what it's talking about).

Can you ellaborate on how your link provides information that those two links don't already cover? Or how we need another tourism portal when we already link to the official one? From point 1 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, does it offer an unique resource that isn't covered already? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first link coverage is OK. However the other site coverage is not larger than Travel2Macedonia web site. You can see it for yourself if you have time to do it.

regads,

Goran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The second tourism links comparing to Travel2Macedonia web site provides information, but less. However, Travel2Macedonia web site is a portal for foreigners and travelers only and provides detailed information for over 25 destinations in Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2008

I replied on Gorco's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget of Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name

Don't forget of Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name or it may be considered a propaganda stance. People are losing their breath to provide arguments yet they are summary deleted without even being moved there. --Leladax (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there really anything left to say that hasn't been said a hundred times already? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that's what I'm talking about, like the above comment, dismissing people's comments without even looking at them. --Leladax (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A notice in the beginning of the article claims that: "Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article" I can't find these previous discussions; where are they? I have looked in Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name and there certainly doesn't seem to be a consensus there either! Have they been deleted by someone? --Radjenef (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the article, look a bar that says "More Article Information" and click on "Show". There is a boc with links to the archives and polls. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, fair enough, I'll read these first... thanks! --Radjenef (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo

• There's a typo in the article. The sentence, "Macedonian military — the Macedonian Armed Forces - is the name of the unified armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia with Macedonian Army, Macedonian Air Force." is a fragment. I can't edit it, but someone please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.95.81 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked at the main article for that section, and tried to fix the sentence a bit [16]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd appearance of a scroll bar

Whenever I load this page, I get a scroll bar along the bottom of my window. You can see a screenshot here. I only get it on this article. Is there some kind of formatting error that is causing this?--Rockfang (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should scroll all the way to the right and check if there's any text or a template that's making the page wider than it should be. BalkanFever 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. I don't see anything.--Rockfang (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. Maybe see if WP:VPT can help. Or you could switch to Firefox ;). BalkanFever 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly due to non-formatted urls in footnotes that were too long for the page width. Tried to fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo?

Regarding this edit, haven't we been through this already? What version should we leave up? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been there, see Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive_13#Kosovo. I repost a pair of my comments from there:

Maybe, but take into account that it has been recognized as independient by several major countries (or at least that's what the Kosovo article states. If you look at this page with maps, you will see that the maps have evolved from considering Kosovo an autonomous province, on a 1994 map and on a 1996 map to directly painting border lines as if they were two different countries, on a 2008 map (...) My point was that maps from 2008 now paint Kosovo and Serbia as two separate entities, so Kosovo should be on the list of entities surrounding Montenegro. Identical argument for the map on Republic_of_Macedonia#Demographics having Kosovo listed there too.

--Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style

I've made an edit to the top of this page which previously (inaccurately) suggested there is a consensus on a naming convention for Republic of Macedonia. I just wish to make clear my personal intent is not to start a micro editing war on this particular article. (and would recommend blocking anyone whose primary focus is changing other people's references from one to the other) However, I think it's important to recognize there is no consensus either on Wikipedia (the Manual of Style page has clearly stated for a long time it is only a proposal)... nor in the global community which still goes by both terms (including most international organizations and large English speaking nations like the US and UK which still use BOTH FYROM and Republic of Macedonia for official purposes).

Wikipedia naming conventions explicitly state their can be exceptions. Given the very unusual circumstances of the situation in this instance, to take one side of self-described Macedonians over the other would appear to infringe on the rights of either millions of FYR Macedonians.... or millions of Greek Macedonians. Both their human rights should probably take precedence over all other considerations until the name issue is resolved by either of their respective governments (or the international community). As long as an article makes clear what is being talked about, I don't believe their is an absolute technical, moral or legal justification for individual contributers not being allowing to use either name freely without censorship. Crossthets (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, but here's what the Greek Macedonians (and the Greeks as a whole) fail to realize, and what justifies Wikipedia's stance on this matter: most people in the world who are familiar with this issue and are not Greeks, see this dispute as (to say the least) petty on the Greek side. I am not commenting on the nature of the dispute as this is not a forum, but Greeks cannot expect that Wikipedia, which is run by consensus forged among people editing from all over the world, will abide by this sentiment of "Greeks feeling their human rights are being disrespected" (erm, and when it comes to human rights violations, that one must have slipped of the list). The Manual of Style is fine the way it is, there is quite a consensus over it (especially if Greek and Macedonian users are sieved out). We use "Republic of Macedonia" except in very specific circumstances where, thanks to Greek impositions, we cannot avoid and have to cope with one of the ugliest creations of modern history, "FYROM". Húsönd 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new appointment as the voice of "most people in the world". Care to enlighten us why no international organization subscribes to your view? Unfortunately Wikipedia has much lower standards on naming countries than international organizations, which stems from the fact that articles on fine legal issues such as this are not reviewed by experts such as diplomats and lawyers. In fact, why don't you check what your own country uses as an official name when dealing with FYROM? It seems suddenly this "whole world" got smaller huh? --   Avg    02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I expect Greeks to enlighten themselves, as they used to thousands of years ago. Fortunately, Wikipedia has much higher standards on naming countries than international organizations, as we're run by consensus and common sense here, not by who's pulling the strings somewhere. And fortunately, on Wikipedia it is still useless to attack commenters in a futile attempt to discredit them. Coz it often backfires, and for good reason. Diplomats and lawyers having the last word on Wikipedia?! We're trying to build a credible encyclopedia (and this comes from someone whose areas are precisely international law and diplomacy). Oh, and why on Earth would you come up with this Portugal's position on the matter? Since when do I, as Portuguese, have to agree or even express my stance towards a position taken by my country? Portugal may have a lot of bad things, but here we're still very free to have opinions, free to think for ourselves, and free to disagree if we have to. The patriotic always-follow-your-country attitude hasn't been the trend here for decades. Were you actually expecting me to be ashamed or embarrassed just because my country has a different position?! Anyway, this is all very amusing but it's not for here. Not a forum. Húsönd 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed you are an expert on the subjects of international law and diplomacy, I urge you to edit on Macedonia subjects, adding useful references and scientific insight. Most articles are currently hijacked by nationalists and people who clearly do not understand the nuances of politics. I'm afraid though that your stated expertise contradicts with your comments above, which simply lack any scientific merit and show a lack of understanding of the issue, which is the monopolization of the name Macedonia by one entity. And regarding Portugal, my intention wasn't of course to make you feel "ashamed", why should you, just to show that people who hold official positions and are experts on the matter, and of which I'd expect you should at least have heard their position since they're your compatriots, have been much more careful. --   Avg    04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles on Macedonia are well monitored and the not infrequent attempts to enforce POV are promptly repealed. My expertise not only does not contradict my understanding of the Macedonia issue, as I also don't think that issue requires much expertise for comprehension anyway. There is no monopolization of the name "Macedonia", the article is named "Republic of Macedonia", and as far as I remember, there's only one such thing. Of course the article could also be called "FYROM" (yuck!) since many countries and entities recognize it only as such, but on Wikipedia there is consensus to opt for "Republic of Macedonia", a name also recognized by many others and, especially, the only constitutional name of the country. To the eyes of international law, all is well. In Portugal, like everywhere else, people holding official positions are rarely experts on the matter they are responsible for. Decisions are made during chit-chats in corridors, not after hearing experts. And when it comes to the official position of my compatriots, I naturally follow it closely but I am not associated with it and therefore need not to be any careful. Húsönd 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is, there is a consensus on naming the country, and this was achieved through the proposed guideline. The fact that it's a proposed guideline doesn't mean that the consensus carries less weight. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 04:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia link here if it uses the Macedonian consitutional name? The UN and other entities official recognize FYROM as well. its fine using one convention within the article, but the there should be FYROM somewhere in the titles. (infobox, first bold letters???).

Especially since FYROM links here. Many linking through articles just take cursory glances here and there. Lihaas (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia redirects here because it is another name for the subject of the article. This is the same through out Wikipedia. Soccer redirects to Association football for example. See Wikipedia:RedirectSamuell Lift me up or put me down 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name

The article should note that the English pronunciation of Macedonia with a "soft c" (pronounced as "s") is actually a MISpronunciation, founded on misunderstanding of Latinic spelling. The CORRECT pronunciation of Macedonia is with a "hard c" (pronounced as "k"), because this is a classical Latinic spelling, in which c is always k (unless it's a hard g in older times, but let's not get into that). jaknouse (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a mispronunciation. Simply, English is not Latin. It has its own rules. After all if you want to be faithful to the Latin pronunciation, then you should pronounce it Mah-keh-doh-nih-ah (which means that the current inhabitants of the Republic pronounce it quite close to the Latin name - in case you want to check the sound file). Moreover, the Latin spelling was a transcription of the Greek Μακεδονία. According to your logic, if we want to be faithful to the even earlier original pronunciation, the stress should be in "i" and not in "o". It's a path that usually leads nowhere. Let's keep the English pronunciation to English words.--   Avg    01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. English softens the c, like French. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the native Slavic name be the one rendered in the IPA? One would assume that those who can read English already know how to pronounce Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Both should be, as with other country articles. All done. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to include the Република bit, though I'm not quite sure if it's meant to be an r or ɾ, or an e or ɛ. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the file (my computer hates .ogg files) but it would be an alveolar trill, and most likely an ɛ. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably need to download the right codec. Just click on "help" next to the IPA transcription. To me it sounded rather like the Greek e̞. Greek doesn't really distinguish between e and ɛ like, say, French does; rather, it falls somewhere in between. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still don't know what's up with the codecs, but playing it on the "info" page seems to work well. Anyway, Macedonian doesn't really distinguish between the two either, but from comparison with French it's more like ɛ. Also, the guy seems to be saying [rɛpub'lika] with stress on the "li", which is weird. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because he's from Serbia. They can sound a tad musical. It appears that the Eastern South Slavic languages are more in tune with Greek prosody. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the Makedonians have the right to name their own nation, and that we should call them what THEY wish to be called. Yes, I know that Japan should be something like Nihon, Egypt should be something like Mishr, Georgia should be Sakartvelo; I've studied all these. jaknouse (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust: Republic of Macedonia should sue Wikipedia

The current WWII subsection says: Local recruits and volunteers formed the Bulgarian 5th Army, based in Skopje, which was responsible for the round-up and deportation of over 7,000 Jews in Skopje and Bitola. How can you keep such highly libelous claim in the article for months (if not years) without providing any source? This is shocking. I dont have to go through the history pages to understand that it was probably written by some of the Bulgarian or Greek anti-Republic of Macedonia biased editors. How dare you to call this "encyclopedia"? How can you allow such voluntarism? Dont you have any sence of shame and responsibility? The government and the people of the Republic of Macedonia have every right to sue Wikipedia Foundation for defamation.

Its the pro-Axis Bulgaria that is responsible for the genocide, not the locals. Bulgaria occupied and annexed large part of Macedonia including Skopje from 1941-1944 and handed the captured Macedonian Jews to the German Nazis in 1943.

• In March 2008, during an official visit to Israel the Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov said: Bulgaria accepts responsibility for the genocide of more than 11,000 Jews in its jurisdiction during World War II (source: Haaretz: [17], Israel's most influential newspaper, March 2008)
• Bulgaria cruelly organized and carried out the deportation of the 11,343 Jews of Thrace and Macedonia to Treblinka where all of them were immediately suffocated in the gas chambers. Moreover, the Bulgarian Treasury confiscated their entire property and paid to the Germans a considerable amount of money for having liberated Bulgaria from these Jews. Since the end of the war Bulgaria consistently reminded its alleged positive role vis-a-vis the Jews of ‘old Bulgaria’ concealing at the same time both its cruel anti-Semitic legislation and its criminal acts against the Jews extradited for extermination. Bulgaria has never admitted its crimes, has never asked pardon from the victims, has never offered to return their property but knew very well to ask credit and recognition for the survival of its authentic Jews. The Jewish people and the whole humanity will remember forever the criminal role of King Boris, Hitler’s friend and ally, and his fascist government. In a telegram n.442 of April 4, 1943 Joachim von Ribbentropp reported to Beckerle his Minister in Sofia, that Boris told him on April 1stin Berchtesgaden that he has approved the deportation of the Jews of the annexed territories. Thus Boris is not better than other allies of Hitler as Petain and Laval, Antonescu or Horty who helped to exterminate the undesired ‘alien’ Jews saving some or many of their ‘own’ Jews. (source: Association of Jews from Macedonia in Israel: PDF, author: Nissim Yosha, Ph.D., 14 Gluskin str, Rehovot 76273, Israel, Phone 972-8-9469567, Fax 972-8-9462105, E-mail nyosha(at)bezeqint.net 7.8.2001)

And why the WWII subsection doesnt include any mention of the ethnic Macedonian anti-fascist National Liberation War of Macedonia? Because some tendentious Greek or Bulgarian editors found it "irrelevant"?

Shame on you Wikipedia Foundation for allowing this to happen, your so called "encyclopedia" lost all of its credibility long time ago (if there was any).--Retepeliouroum (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

bulgaria occupied yugoslavia not fyrom then.fyrom didnt exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria#World_War_II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well to start with the whole Holocaust is highly disputed by some scholars. I see this as a money industry project. Accusing Macedonians directly could lead to redemption for Israel. And I'm sure Israel tries to suck out as much money from every European country. Nicoliani (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Source verification required

Can anyone give an accessible source for verifying the existance and context of the image/emblem of Macedonia (see image download, 'MacedoniaImage:MacedoniaCoA1614.jpg') [18]? I have tried locating the source (Althan's rolls of arms) but with no luck. Thanks.Politis (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OpstiniMK.png

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

• File:MMCA(Shtip).png
• File:Strumichki grb.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved

One comment moved to Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#Fyrom_is_accepted_by_Skopje_auhtorities --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Return the Macedonian Motto

The motto of the Republic of Macedonia has to be returned. It may be identical to the Greek one, but still it's a national motto and this article about the Republic of Macedonia has right like every other country's article to show the motto. "Freedom or Death" was used in the 1900s in the Macedonia during the Ilinden Uprising which was very important for Macedonia and the Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip MKD (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, there already was a discussion on this - you should provide a valid source that this is the official motto of the country. --Laveol ^T 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as point of interest. As far as I know, Freedom or Death was first used by the revolutionary Greek thinker from Thessalia, Rigas Ferraios in the 1790s. It was adopted by the Greeks in their 1821 Independence war against the Ottoman empire. It then re-emerged in the context of the Bulgarian struggle in the late 19th century. Politis (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The Muslim community and the The Jewish community should be under a Religion section not under the generic Demographics section Alex Makedon (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SERBIA CALLS ROM FYROM

http://phantis.com/news/?newsID=20081011130617

Reaper7 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This needs an official source - it seems that the minister is advocating the change, not that the change has occurred. Jd2718 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is rom or ROM? Is it a state in the UN. Invented immaginary terms have no place in a encyclopedia and generally calling states by unproper names is offensive.Alex Makedon (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthful reporting is paramount because it's offensive to be otherwise.... says FYROM national Alex the Great of Macedon. Relax dude this is just the talk pages. People do use shorthand notation to speed up discussion. I would worry more about your handle which just acts to confirm irredentist intentions. FYRoM's own first President already admitted you are not related to ancient Macedonians. --Crossthets (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For the last time stop trolling. BalkanFever 09:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You should know that for the Greeks it's offensive when you to use the name "Macedonia" since Alexander the Great wasn't Slav nor Albanian... he was Greek, just like his father (Phillip=fried of horses in Greek), his mother Olympias (12 gods of mount Olympus, Olympic games... you don't need to think much to realize that it's Greek), his half-sister Thessaloniki (victory of her father Philip in Thessaly and not Solun!). As you can see it's VERY offensive when you call yourselves with a Greek name which has such a great history. You want to be a Macedonian?... you have to be a Greek ;-) --xvvx (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OOh, yes be sure. LOL --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

History Aristotelis, Platonas, Arhimidis, Evripidis, Eshylos, Odysseas, Ahilleas, Alexandros o Megas and i can say more names until your end of existence. These names are Hellenic, all these men were Hellenes descendants of Hell or Hellenas. When their hobbies were Mathematics, Αstronomy,History, Anatomy, Theater, Athletism, e.t.c. the word slav did not exist or maybe Slavs were monkeys on the trees eating bananas. Moreover Skopia (Fyrom) is a crossbreed of Slavs and Albanians not even Slavs like Serbia, Poland, Russia, Czech, Slovakia, Slovenia,... Slavs generally were called by Byzantium as Sclavines which means something like slaves and barbarians. They first united and came from Karpathian Mountains. Their first historical appearence was near the 2nd century (after Christ of course) and they want now to touch with their tongues the word Macedonia which exist 30 centuries before Christ of course!!! Shame on you monkeys!!! Lets continue history... Byzantium's wealth magnified Slavs and they started raids and pillages. These continued for 500-800 years until they adopted Christianity from Byzantium. They did not even had an alphabet. Cyrillus and Methodius, Byzantine missionaries - monks, created the Slavic language. The Cyrillic alphabet is used today by modern Slavs (Russians, Ex-Yugoslavians, Bulgarians,...). Only Czechs and Polish are using Latinic language. Read and learn History, now all Slavs are friendly and must be friendly with Hellenic nation (not Greek, Greece is a bullshit modern West name), Hellas is the Country. And Hellas watch Slavs like brothers. But you are disgrace yourselves and your history when you are even talk about names like Alexander and Macedonia, because the nation which you disturb today, has offered you civilization and culture. Who created that poll? There is no subject to talk about... All these are created by US, UK, EU Governments in order to create problem and unstabilize political status in Balkans. You Slavs know this well. You were killing yourselves for ten years.

Enlight Yourselves!!! Search and Learn!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.120.85 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greece had a great history, but this chauvinistic outburst with so much nonsense and idiotic statements shows that not all today's Greeks are descendants of Plato and Aristotle. :) I guess that's true for every nation in the world, be it Zulu, Greeks, American Indians, Romanians, Serbs, Chinese... --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, of course saying that today's Slavs from the region of Macedonia, ie. Republic of Macedonia, ie. FYROM, Skopia, or whatever, are descendants of Alexander the Great's nation is nonsense and bullshit, but your whole speech reveals your hatred, ignorance and chauvinism are much worse and self-degrading than their misbeliefs. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

UK and name choice

(Not sure if this belongs on the separate page for the name dispute, but I'm not disputing the name of the article, fine with me, but there is conflicting information in the article about who recognizes what name):

Under the Foreign Relations section, it says: "A number of countries recognise it by its constitutional name – the Republic of Macedonia – rather than the UN reference, notably three of the five permanent UN Security Council members (the United States,[22] Russia, and the People's Republic of China)" - this implies that the UK and France recognize it under FYROM. However, a few paragraphs later under "Macedonia naming dispute": "However, an increasing number of countries have abandoned the United Nations provisional reference and have recognised the country as the Republic of Macedonia or simply Macedonia instead. These include four of the five permanent UN Security Council members, the United States, Russia, United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China," - implying that France is the only one on the UNSC that calls it "FYROM". So, what about the UK, does it or doesn't it? (I assume that with the heated discussions, someone with a POV changed one of the paragraphs without sourcing ... )--Canuckguy (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From Macedonia dispute article "The UK uses the name "Republic of Macedonia" for bilateral relations, and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for multilateral relations [19]" --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heraclea

the expansion happened in 358BC, by then all scholars agree (due to archaeological indisputable findings etc) that Macedon was undeniably Greek. i sourced that with explicit direct mentions to Macedon as Greek. some will hate it, but i don't think is right to hide that from the readerCuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

fyrom is the only legal name outside the country

(moved to Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#fyrom_is_the_only_legal_name_outside_the_country) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Name and the UN

This goes at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The name that is used for all the countries in the world is that registered in the United Nations.For example we do not say Great Britain for the official use of the country that is registered as United Kingdom in the UN catalogues...The same must apply for the name of this country.I cannot see the reason why this case should not be applied here.There is no reason to tell the country "Republic of Macedonia" because the Chinese use that as the name they accept.The chinese may tell us whatever they want.The fact is that this country has agreed to use the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as its official name.UN is the organisation that legalises states and countries or not by its resolutions.Every other explanation from the authors is biased,whether for the Macedonian Slavs or the Macedonian Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.124.178 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know ...

• [[:Image:Flag of Arizona.svg|thumb|Flag of Arizona, since 1917]]
• [[:Image:Flag of Macedonia.svg|thumb|Flag of the Republic of Macedonia, since 1995]]

Curious coincidence ... Apcbg (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing special about it. Did you know about:

• Flag of Bulgaria and Flag of Hungary?
• Flag of Greece and Flag of Finland?
• Flag of Slovenia, Flag of Croatia, Flag of Serbia and Flag of Russia? Fireleaf (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Languages Section

The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has written that Greek is spoken in Macedonia. His source here claims no such thing and should be replaced or the claim removed. Thank you. Bruka (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Read it carefully. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages." Living languages: (1)Adyghe; (2)Albanian, Gheg; (3)Balkan Gagauz Turkish; (4)Macedonian; (5)Romani, Balkan; (6)Romanian, Macedo; (7)Romanian, Megleno; (8)Serbian; (9)Turkish. Care to point it out? Bruka (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I searched some more and this link states it pretty clearly: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ell.Bruka (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, should it even be mentioned as the Greek minority makes up 0.021% of the population? It would already be covered in the line "and others are spoken roughly in proportion with their associated ethnic groups." Bruka (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The more important question is why you want it removed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why did you add it? BalkanFever 08:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It is spoken there, isn't it? Why are you trying to expunge all references to Bulgarian and Greek in the article? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by about, what was it, 600 people? Good for them. And they don't get lynched for speaking it either. Wow. BalkanFever 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How many speak Adyghe? But they're politically correct, aren't they? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They are sourced, properly. BalkanFever 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the source? "Also includes Greek." I don't know how much clearer it could be. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It could list it as an actual language. If it went to the trouble of doing it with Adyghe, why not with Greek? BalkanFever 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An actual language. As opposed to "Greek", which isn't. Right. Still, if you insist that "Also includes Greek" is ambiguous, we also have this. I suppose you'll say that "Macedonia" doesn't mean the former Yugoslav republic. That'll be the day. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What, Montenegro? How can "Macedonia" mean Montenegro? BalkanFever 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Got absurdity? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Greek isn't listed separately here, nor is Australia listed separately here. You're a Melbourne boy, you tell me: is Greek spoken in your neighbourhood or not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All the languages listed as "Languages of Australia" are Australian Aboriginal languages, and English, the official language. To answer your question, yes, and so is Macedonian, sometimes by the same person. Go figure. BalkanFever 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it OR? Australia is listed among the countries where Greek is spoken, though not with a separate entry like, say, the Ukraine. Going by your logic, that either means it isn't spoken in Australia, or that it isn't important enough to warrant a mention. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to be picky, then we should also mention Croatian, German, Russian, French, Italian etc. Why stop at Greek? Bruka (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a source, and go for it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This "Greek language spoken in Macedonia" is a clear attempt to push a Greek Nationalistic Agenda with no valid arguments in the lines of the recent attempts to attribute to the ethnic Latin toungue Aromanian population an unexpressed "(ancient) hellen" identity (similar to many other non-Greeks incorporated in the Ancient Hellen ethnicity that officialy covers 100% of Greece - keep in mind there is no ethnic census, this 100% Ancient Hellens is given by default by the Greek goverment)

• With all the respect to "www.ethnologue.com" this kind of matters are primary evidenced by official Macedonian and International bodies, and there is no such evidence that confirms that the Greek language is spoken in Macedonia (as mother tongue or as a second language) in significant numbers.
• we have evidence that there is no "greek minority" in Republic of Macedonia, at least not a significant one so "A wide variety of languages are spoken in Macedonia, reflecting its ethnic diversity" cannot stand for the Greek language.
• the Greek language allong with the other 6.500 living languages in the world can be spoken by the Macedonian population as a foreign language, still this kind of information is obsolete for Wikipedia Alex Makedon (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nationalist aversion displayed here towards the inclusion of Greek and Bulgarian is as amusing as it is pathetic. You are so obsessed with expunging any reference to the Greek and Bulgarian minorities that you will even reject a source that clearly lists Greek as a language spoken in "Macedonia", your preferred name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But wait, there's more: The town within the borders of the Republic of Macedonia which the republic's authorities call Bitola, its Albanian-speaking citizens call Manastir, while its Greek-speaking families call it Monastir. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL KEK stop inventing things that arn't there, and stop using this new term you have learned "expunging"... Its not that all the world public, the UN and European languages bureaus are waiting for your revelation over the "existence of the Greek language minority" in Republic of Macedonia. go get som real evidence, will ya Alex Makedon (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited two reputable sources, which should be more than enough to justify the inclusion of a single word in the text of the article. Where are yours? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol im not the one that insist on adding something, you are, so you better state some better sources than the "reputable" www.ethnologue.com and a book by mr.no one Jane K. Cowan.

• Lets say Britannica encyclopedia [20]
• Map of languages in Europe by linguistic groups [21] by Europedia with love
• bbc languages there is 4% of Turkish and no greek, im sorry [22]

Alex Makedon (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't list Adyghe, Gagauzi or Vlach either, but they're still in the article. If you really despise the Greek language so much, why not change your user name, ὦ «Ἀλέξανδρε Μακεδών»? This has become farcical. See you tomorrow. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Still don't understand why the big fuss about mentioning Greek. Apart from the sources, it's common knowledge that Greek is a second language to Vlachs and ethnic Macedonians from Greek Macedonia, at least the old generations. In Bitola the language has a recorded long history. Whatever, this was my last revert, if you think this action honors you then remove it again, what can i say.--Zakronian (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

On other hand I dont know why are we pushing Greek when its spoken by minuscule minority. As for Aromanians OK maybe it was common language for them in Ottoman times and it is still for Aromanians in Greece but there is no evidence about today's usage of Greek in Republic of Macedonia by Aromanian population. Luka Jačov (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Minuscule minority? Says who? You make the preposterous claim that Greek is not autochthonous, presumably unlike Adyghe, Gagauzi, Romani or Turkish. In fact, Greek has been spoken in the area since long before any of the other languages listed, including "Macedonian". Your assertion that it isn't spoken in a geographically defined area is equally specious; indigenous Greek-speakers are concentrated in the southern border areas, especially Pelagonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So what if it is was spoken in Ancient times? Greek was spoken also in Persia, Pakistan etc but it isnt spoken there for centuries just like in Vardar Macedonia. Also check ethnographic map from Ottoman times [23] and you ll see Greeks were concetrated long south of current Greek border. Also no references that they are concetrated in southern border areas today. Luka Jačov (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. That Greek has been spoken continuously in the wider region of Macedonia since classical antiquity is hardly in doubt, whether under the ancient kingdom of Macedon, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, or the Ottoman Empire due to the direct influence and dominance of the Greek Orthodox Church. The maps simply record ethnic majorities. Unless of course you actually believe that because a Bulgarian map shaded most of Macedonia green a century ago, no non-Bulgarians lived there. It is a well-known fact that Greek-speakers in Macedonia's northern fringes were concentrated amongst the more educated urban élites of towns like Bitola, while the peasantry in the surrounding hinterland were predominantly Slavic-speaking. Clearly, it is difficult to illustrate this when it comes to cities, which appear as tiny dots on a map, leading to regrettable misunderstandings. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse in most cases cities of multi-ethnical areas have mixed population even so there might be even Greek community in Bitola in those times but that again doesnt mean there still is Greek population today. Luka Jačov (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited an academic source that refers to the existence of Greek-speakers in Bitola in the present tense, as opposed to the plethora of sources that mention the strong historical presence of Greeks there. Seriously, what's your beef against the Greeks? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What academic sourse? I dont see it! Seriously no beef against Greeks just about obssesion of nationalist Greeks with this small country that doesnt threatens Greece and Greeks anyhow. Luka Jačov (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What does any of the above have to do with what we're discussing? We have reliable sources attesting to the fact that Greek is spoken in the country, therefore it should be mentioned in the demographics section. Simple. Greece also has a tense relationship with Turkey, but I don't see Turkish editors or their Turkic brethren attempting to censor any mention of the small Greek minority there. I thought bratstvo i jedinstvo were out of fashion these days, a bit like Serbo-Croatian. As for the "obsession of nationalist Greeks", I return the insult wholeheartedly. There is fact, verified by reliable sources, and then there is an attempted white-washing of the facts to suit a nationalist agenda. Unfortunately for you, however, the "Republic of Macedonia" itself acknowledges the existence of a Greek minority, albeit only of a very small size. I wonder how the numbers for the Adyghe- and Gagauzi-speakers, with which you appear to have no problem at all, measure up against the Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this ridiculous greek propaganda attempts to manipulate the ethnic and language minorities in Macedonia continue, despite all the reasonable talks and overwhelming official evidence we have that negate any such speculations: There is no significant Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia:

• European Council: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[24][25][26]
• United Nations: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[27]
• Britannica encyclopedia: no Greek ethinc linguistic minority in Macedonia [28]
• BBC Educational: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia [29]
• Eupedia: NO Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[30]

The facts are pretty clear - greek nationalistic propaganda pwned. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GREEK PROPAGANDA ARE YOU SURE ?

(GREEKS IN SCHOOL FOR GREEK LANGUAGE LESSONS IN MONASTIRI) http://bp1.blogger.com/_2oeLbEhyIs8/R0CMMw_oIvI/AAAAAAAAATo/hCSHpKroo8o/s1600-h/bor1.jpg

(GREEKS FROM FYROM AND UKRAINE AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS IN GREECE) http://bp0.blogger.com/_2oeLbEhyIs8/R0CC9g_oInI/AAAAAAAAASo/MINGNg51yeU/s1600-h/efhmerida+Apogeymatini,+Kassimis-paidia.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And on the next episode of Sesame Street, Ace plays hide and seek with the other kids to find just where his sources claim what he says they do, and to look for the poor Adyghe and Gagauz who have mysteriously gone missing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

You are right Adyghe, Gagauz and Greek have no place on the article till any relevant source is given. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One word: Ethnologue. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are basicly saying that the web page www.ethnologue.com is more relevant than the official international bodies and other overwhelming official evidence we have that there is no Greek language minority!? I inform you that continuing to push this nationalistic greek propaganda and vandalism will get you reported. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just more thorough. As for being "reported", I'd actually love to see how the admins feel about your persisent removal of well-sourced material, as well as your insane violation of WP:CANVASS today over the language naming dispute AfD. Bring it on. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the appropriate wikipedia language, a clear sign of an "Ancient" culture [31], [32], [33]. Do continue to vadalize the page, make my day. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Greeks have been partial to a bit of healthy γαμοσταύρισμα (cursing) since antiquity. Have you not read Aristophanes? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that even you beloved ethnologue.com does not report the Greek as a living language in Republic of Macedonia.

• Ethnologue.com: no Greek linguistic minority in Republic of Macedonia, do you see Greek on the list?[34] Alex Makedon (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? Yes, I do: "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). 2,071,210. National or official language: Macedonian. Part of Yugoslavia until 1991. Different from the region of Greece with the name Macedonia. Also includes Greek." Furthermore, as acknowledged by your compatriot at the beginning of this thread, the entry on Greek itself lists "Macedonia" among the countries where it is spoken. Unless of course you're claiming that "Macedonia" in this case refers to the ancient Greek region beyond your southern border, which would be a rather fascinating debate in its own right. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Different from the region of Greece with the name Macedonia. Also includes Greek." Yes in the Greek region Macedonia the Greek language is also spoken. This "Different from the region of Greece that also includes Greek" is clearly about the Macedonia (region) not about Republic of Macedonia. How else would you explain why the Greek is not stated under the "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages." and its not among the 9 languages listed for Macedonia or is not stated where in Republic of Macedonia it is spoken? Alex Makedon (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The reason is isn't included in the tally is because it isn't listed separately, for whatever reason. Compare with the entry on Greece: "The number of languages listed for Greece is 16. Of those, 14 are living languages and 2 are extinct." However: "Also includes Armenian (20,000), Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (2,000), Balkan Gagauz Turkish, English (8,000), Ladino (2,000), Northern Kurdish (20,000), Russian, Serbian, Urum, Western Farsi (10,000), Arabic (28,000)". Why is Gagauzi listed separately under "Macedonia" but not here? Only God knows; the distinction seems rather arbitrary to me. Just let it go, Ace. You're way out of your league here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should we continue to search for "what they really meant" when the language is not clearly stated among the languages spoken in Republic of Macedonia? Add here that we have overwhelming official evidence that contrast your interpretations of the Languages of Macedonia ethnologue page. Alex Makedon (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Give it a bone. As I've said countless times already, even if you adhere to the ridiculous belief that it is ambiguous, there is also the entry on the Greek language itself, which lists "Macedonia" among the countries where it is spoken. Countries, not regions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that you have just this two misleading pieces of argumentation from a web page, subject of interpretation, to push your Greek propaganda, in both of the cases it is not clearly stated that the Greek language is spoken in Republic of Macedonia. (Is it just me or i see the name Macedonia (not Republic of Macedonia) clearly under a Region list on the page entry[35] and no trace of Republic of Macedonia in the detalied list of countries where Greek is spoken), to invent a language minority will take a lot more than two interpretations of a web page.Alex Makedon (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! "Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Canada, Congo, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Malawi, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Russia (Europe), Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey (Europe), Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USA." Name a single region other than "Macedonia" in that list. But, if you insist on surrendering the name in exchange for a Griechenfrei republic, I think I can live with that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We could debate over what they ment under Region, still the word Region is stated not Country. your arguments allong with the sources you have quoted are not pretty convincing. Better accept whet the UN an the EU have to say on the matter.Alex Makedon (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, but you've bored me. Next. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, hang on a second. According to all of you, there's Macedonia and Aegean or Greek Macedonia. Well, it does not mention "Aegean" or "Greek", does it?? So it means your Macedonia, doesn't it? Unless, of course, if terms should be chosen according to occassion.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ethnologue is pretty good source but again it isnt faultless. So many sources claim there is not significant Greek community in Republic of Macedonia against one that claims there is. Ethnologue probably listed Macedonia by default assuming Greek could be spoken in all neighbouring countries. Also you still didnt provides with reference that claims Greeks in Republic of Macedonia are mainly concetrated in Bitola and its region. Luka Jačov (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnologue probably listed Macedonia by default..." WP:OR, anybody? The debate isn't over where the Greeks are concentrated, but whether there is a community of Greek-speakers that should be mentioned in the article at all. I have cited Ethnologue regarding the country and the Cowan reference vis-à-vis present-day Bitola. As for any sources claiming there is no Greek community, that's a logical fallacy. Omission does not constitute denial. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's another logical fallacy. Ethnologue's everyone's favourite source when coming to claim (Slav)Macedonian in Greece, but it is not when the contrary is done??? So the mistakes of Ethnologue happen to be in that case only??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• First we have overwhelming official evidence (goverment and international bodies EU,UN, etc) that this kind of linguistic minority is not there or not in a significant number.
• Second even the www.ethnologue.com web page does not state clearly that there is a greek linguistic minority in Macedonia, infact it does not.

its clear that we quarrel with a hard core greek nazionalist propaganda pusher vandal at this point, so im not even reverting, im reporting him. Alex Makedon (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discounting all those evil non-"Macedonians", aren't the "Aegeans" Greek speakers anyway? The debate is about the language isn't it?--Avg (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that last census counted around 400 Greeks but its numbers makes them such a miniscule minority that its mentioning in article could misslead readers thinking its minority bigger than couple hundert people. As for Aegans that settled in Yugoslavia during&after Greek civil war most of them were Slavic speaking with small minorities of Aromanian and Greek speaking people. There was even greek colony in Maglić village in Vojvodina where refugees were settled. However most of Greek speaking refugees left Yugoslavia after Soviet-Yugoslav split most of them left. As for Slavs from Greece they were bit different story as they were not so much treated as political refugees but as refugees escaping from persicution on ethnic grounds. Most of today's 400 Greeks in RoM are Greek refugees that stayed after 1948 and their descedants. But still negligible minority in whole multiethnic mosaic of RoM. Mentioning Greek would be obsolete. Luka Jačov (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just your humble Serbo-Croatian opinion, I'm afraid. How are Greeks a negligible minority compared to some of the others on the list? And yet, it's only the Greeks you have a problem with. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops lost. Move on. BalkanFever 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, go away. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Macedonian is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Standard Bulgarian." and of course that's a linguistic fact and no one can deny it. It's also a fact that thousands of people in FYROM had been granted Bulgarian passports, but still the Bulgarian language in the spoken languages is... "missing"! You should first add this on the article and then you can continue your talk  ;-) --xvvx (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Bulgarian as well. It is rather unfortunate that nationalists would want to expunge any reference to what are arguably the two most important languages in the country's history. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, everyone's a nationalist except for you, Adolf and Osama. It's 400 Greeks against 2 million infidels. Very constructive. BalkanFever 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

I ve seen some other minor language have been deleted. Let me point out why should they stay.

• Megleno-Romanian - endemic to Macedonia
• Balkan Gagauz - endemic to Macedonia
• Adyghe - one of last remaining communities of Balkan Circassians spoken in their respective villages

Ok let me point why others shouldnt be mentioned

• Greek - to miniscule, unconcetrated
• Bulgarian - well, there is no clear defined border between spoken Macedonian and spoken Bulgarian. People that claim they speak Bulgarian and are of Bulgarian ethnicity show their political stance that way but they speak still same idiom as their neighbours. So difference here is political and sociolinguistical not truly linguistical. Putting Bulgarian could only be misleading. Luka Jačov (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't know what the weight of such 'endemic' considerations might be, neither Megleno-Romanian nor Balkan Gagauz are 'endemic' to FYROM, cf. the respective articles. Apcbg (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Endemic to Macedonia, like some kind of migrating bird or disease? Please. In Tito's expansionist Yugoslavia, you may have been taught that Greek has only been spoken in the country since the arrival of the refugees from the Civil War, but the serious literature begs to differ. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree with Luka Jacov about Bulgarian. Unless these people form clearly identifiable, distinct local communities who actually speak standard Bulgarian in contrast with surrounding Macedonian. If it's merely on the level of how they choose to call what is essentially the same local dialect, that's a different case from constituting a normal minority language. Of course the same goes conversely for the Macedonian-identifiers in Bulgaria. We should mention the existence of such orientations somewhere (depending on the numerical weight of the phenomenon), but describe it as a phenomenon quite in its own right; just listing it among other minority languages makes little sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And what about Greek? Is it endemic or epidemic? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek is pandemic, silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly your best joke ever. Who says Germans are humourless, über-efficient robots? Those pesky, unloved Brits have a lot to answer for... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We will not accept the presence on the page of some fantomatic languages like Gagauz, Adyghe or Greek that are supported by a single cherry picked source, this argument is very well documented and 99,99% of the sources we have doesn't recognize this languages as spoken in Macedonia Alex Makedon (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me understand that. You claim that "Macedonian" is spoken in every neighbouring to FYROM country, but you are not willing to accept that Greek and Bulgarian is spoken in your country. Actually Greek has been spoken there since long before the arrival of the modern Slavic speakers' ancestors. And even their language, has been repeatedly called a Bulgarian dialect. As for the Greek, the language is spoken there, and not only in Monastiri, but also near Gevgeli (where a group of Greek refugees were mistakenly settled, during the '20s turmoil). As for who speaks Greek... you'll see; the matter of the Greek minority in FYROM is on its way to the European Council. But I suppose you are perfectly aware of that, that's why you are so enraged... --Hectorian (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hectorian, do you have a source for the Greek refugees in Gevgeli? I've found heaps for the indigenous Greeks of Bitola/Monastiri, but Gevgelija/Gevgeli has proven rather elusive. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Until the 1920s(?) the city of Skopje used to have a quarter called 'Greek Quarter', because it was inhabited by Greeks. Also, in the exchange of populations with Bulgaria, the native Greeks of Gevgelija and Strumnitsa had to move with their families to the northern Greek province of Macedonia. Thousands of Greeks lived in Bitola (former Monastiri) and the language is still spoken in the area. Politis (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the question

Is there any source about the number of Greek speakers in Macedonia? Ethnologue is wonderful, they catalog everything, but they are hopelessly inclusionist. They record major languages, minor languages, extinct dialects, languages formerly spoken in a region... and often without distinguishing clearly. (And what is "Greek is included." supposed to mean? Really.) On the other hand, the sources that Alex provided clearly do not say that Greek is not spoken in Macedonia; a list that ends with a language spoken by 1% of the population makes no implication about whether or not there are more minor languages. Go assume that there are Greek speakers, and find how many there are. If they make up one tenth of a percent of the population (probably not) or if there are a group of majority Greek-speaking villages (sounds more likely), keep it. If not, a note that Greek is no longer in use, but was (see exchange immediately above) would make sense. Jd2718 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the official 2002 census citing 422 ethnic Greeks in the country. I'm not sure if language is recorded separately, and trying to extract anything from http://www.stat.gov.mk/ has been a bloody nightmare for me today—the link entitled Final Results-Census 2002 under Statistics by theme > Pupulation is as dead as a doornail. On the other hand, why is the number of speakers so important anyway? Ethnologue proffers no numerical estimates for the Adyghe or Serbophones either, but that didn't stop the other side of this argument targetting the Hellenophones exclusively. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't do anything with either of those links either. But just 422? That's one or two villages, or one or two neighborhoods in a city - pretty lame grounds for an edit war, especially in this case where the insertion seems designed to get a rise out of your opponents. If you have anything better on recent history, why not try "Greek, once spoken _____ and _____" [supply some sourced detail] "now has fewer than 500 speakers." Jd2718 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

422 is the official number of self-declared ethnic Greeks, not Greek-speakers, quoted by the local authorities in a country where calling yourself Greek is tantamount to coming out as a Nazi. Judging by the level of hysteria that any mention of the country's Greek and Bulgarian minorities has provoked here, I would be rather surprised if the true number were not substantially higher, though obviously nowhere near as high as the ridiculous numbers thrown around by some of our more colourful Greek nationalists. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single Greek speaking village in Republic of Macedonia. It was like that from the Ottoman times and beyond. Luka Jačov (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Perhaps you would like to say It was like that from the ancient times and beyond, but history disagrees... --Hectorian (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no Greek-speaking villages anywhere on the planet, but that means bugger-all if you don't have sources to back it up. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ethnologue has long been your favourite candy in linguistic issues (in the "map issue" for exemple) and you don't like it now? This is the first time numbers are questioned anyway.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue should be treated as a source when they provide numbers - but trust other sources first. And when they don't provide numbers, treat them as a hint to look further, not a source. If other languages are sourced only to Ethnologue, they should be more closely examined, as well. Jd2718 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue should be treated as a source when they provide numbers... numbers we like, perhaps? Since when a source can be considered reliable only when figures are provided? Is this a new wiki-policy I am unaware of? --Hectorian (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because they include dead and near dead languages without identifying them as such. The numbers matter. But if we cannot make that distinction, then treating them as not a reliable source makes sense. Jd2718 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Here, for example, Cappadocian and ancient Greek are clearly tagged as extinct and Romano-Greek as nearly extinct. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And Cornish is not. And "Yinglish"? I just started with Britain. Sourced, unsourced, sourced to 40 years ago. It's like wandering through an antique shop. Jd2718 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "extinct" means something else to you, I don't know. And Yinglish seems to be good enough for its own article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is a logical fallacy. A source either is or is not reliable. It's a yes or no for it as a whole.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, logical fallacies! This one's a false dichotomy, but it looks like yours rather than mine. Jd2718 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why is the lack of numbers a problem for Greek but not Adyghe, with which the nationalists take no issue? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Adyghe is on the list among the 9 spoken languages in Macedonia [36] while Greek is just on your propaganda "to do" list. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already been outed. Don't make things any more difficult for yourself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ethnologue is not the best argument. BUT what is the problem with stating that there are Greek speakers in the Republic? Within living memory, there used to be thousands of Greek speakers and there are some left. On top of that, thousands of people who left from Greece in the late 1940s were bilingual: Greek and their local Slavomacedonian (as they called the language in those days). In this article, a linguistic 'ethnic cleaning' for seemingly political reasons does change the reality on the ground. As mentioned, a whole section of Skopje was known as the Greek quarter.

By the way, I have come gone into at least one predominantly Greek speaking village in the Republic but - perhaps wrongly - I do not feel comfortable mentioning it because apparently they could be harassed. Politis (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can't say, that makes sourcing difficult. Isn't there an EC commission on vulnerable minority languages? Have they gone ahead and started to look? In any event, I think including something along the lines of your "in living memory" might work; but the current bit seems awfully iffy. Jd2718 (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Politis, do not mention the village's name. Even if you are pressed to do so. --Hectorian (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're making the mistake of assuming that Greek is a dead language in this country. It isn't. Cowan refers specifically to the "Greek-speaking families" of Bitola in the present tense, and we can safely assume that the self-declared ethnic Greeks in the census speak the language, in addition to the even larger number of non-Greek Hellenophones. Then of course we have the plethora of relevant Greek sources, but they'd be dead in the water in an article like this. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, there already is a compromise, the one suggested by FP and unchallenged so far except by Aleks Makedonski, of course. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jd2718, I am certain that there is no EU source for this fact. But on Sunday 9th November there is a conference taking place at the University of Macedonia in Thessaloniki on the forgotten Greeks of Skopje (on the Macedonian Greek minority in the Republic). There is also an ongoing campaign for their rights in New York. I hope to upload the posters on wikipedia soon. Politis (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Politis, thank you. I couldn't find anything on the University's website (at least in English), but that means nothing. If they eventually put the proceedings on line, or if you manage to get a notice up, that would be great. I would tend to be warier of stuff coming from New York. Distance breeds belligerence. Jd2718 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into Greek nationalists' hype regarding the "forgotten Greeks of Skopje". Greece isn't about to launch an all-out campaign for the recognition of a large Greek minority or anything of the sort, though I'm sure the nationalists on the other side of the divide probably think I'm some professional "agent of Greek propaganda" for wanting to have the Greeks mentioned in the article at all. There may not be 250,000 Greeks in the country, but denying the existence of Greek-speakers in the country altogether is taking it too far. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not about compromise its about evidence, on what basis we should keep something unevidented?

• On one hand we have main stream official sources like EU,UN,Britannica,BBC that dont mention once the Greek among the languages spoken in Macedonia.
• On the other we have just www.ethnologue.com that states clearly: "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." none of the 9 languages is the Greek. Even if we consider that the "Also includes Greek" is not about the related Macedonia Region, question is why they did not state the Greek among the 9 languages. And in the bottom line if there was a Greek language minority in Macedonia why its not reported by EU,UN,Britannica,BBC,Eupedia etc. Alex Makedon (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source stating absence of greek language from FYROM?--Michael X the White (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't source "the absence of ... " things. That's an Argument from ignorance (and that's two distinct fallacies in one brief thread). What Alex Makedon found raises the question, but does not answer it. Ethnologue's reliability has been questioned, (by me), and even if it weren't, the listings are ambiguous. You could go try to source that there are still Greek speakers in the Republic of Macedonia; that might be useful. Jd2718 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how far your imagination goes but I didn't say that Greek is there because we don't have any sources claiming the opposite. However, that also does not mean that Greek is not there anyway. You could argue that Greek is not mentioned here and there, but you cannot argue that Greek is not spoken in FYROM when you do not have any sources to back it up or contradict the other source (ethnologue).--Michael X the White (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof, as it were, is on those asserting existence. WP requires reliable sources for that 'proof.' I tend to take Politis at his word, so I think that it will be forthcoming. But still, all others can argue is that there is not a reliable source as of yet (treating Ethnologue as either unreliable or ambiguous). No one should be challenged to prove a negative. Jd2718 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources have already been provided, unless you dispute Cowan as well. And we have a plethora of sources regarding the historical presence of Greeks on the territory of what is now the former Yugoslav republic. Where did all those Greeks go? There surely must be some left, and the ones who left for Greece and other countries were replaced by the Civil War refugees. Furthermore, I thoroughly disagree with your assertion is that Ethnologue is either unreliable or ambiguous. It is accepted as a perfectly reliable source throughout Wikipedia, especially in regards to minority or lesser-used languages. Megleno-Romanian language, for example, depends on Ethnologue almost entirely. Britannica, the only other reference cited in the article, describes it as "nearly extinct", but that doesn't stop the Moglenites from being listed at Greece#Languages. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is simply not a good enough an argument, neither is likening a source to an "antique shop". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to argue while we are waiting for a source. It'll just waste our time, and won't go well for you. You have my permission to remove this comment along with yours - we'll all be better off. Jd2718 (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for a source regarding what? The "forgotten Greeks of Skopje"? It would be largely irrelevant to the debate, which concerns the language. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop "denying" the presence of English, French, German and Russian speakers too. BalkanFever 03:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they sourced? If not, I fail to see the validity of the argument. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you must, here's the flyer for the "Skopje – the forgotten Greeks" conference, organized by the "Makednos Panhellenic Cultural Society" at the University of Macedonia ampitheatre. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol this is ridiculous. we have come down to "flyers" as evidence of a minority. Or the "verified" google.com scholar references, can we have a source confirming the presence of some "greek minority" in Republic of Macedonia after lets say 1910? Again Adyghe, Gagauz and Megleno are on the list of the 9 spoken languages in Republic of Macedonia, Greek is not, simple as that.[37]Alex Makedon (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Cowan, in the introduction to her book, discusses three-named places in Macedonia (region), and in doing so uses the phrase "while its Greek-speaking families call it Monastir."

1. She's not asserting existence, she's setting the scene for the rest of the book.
2. She does not specify if there remain 2, or 20 or 200 families.

• Ethnologue database has two pages of some interest: "Greek" and "Languages of Macedonia" (the country, not the Greek region)

1. The Languages of Macedonia page has a leading paragraph that says, in full: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). 2,071,210. National or official language: Macedonian. Part of Yugoslavia until 1991. Different from the region of Greece with the name Macedonia. Also includes Greek. Information mainly from B. Comrie 1987; W. Browne 1989, 1996. The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages. There follows a full paragraph for each of the "9 living languages" none of which is Greek. We are left to interpret a sentence fragment "Also includes Greek." This is ambiguous.
2. On the Languages of Macedonia Page there follows a full paragraph for each of the "9 living languages" none of which is Greek. " We are left to wonder why Greek is not among the 9 living languages. This is also ambiguous.
3. The Greek page has several paragraphs at the top. Of interest is only the 'region' entry, included here with the full list of counries: Throughout the country, concentrated in Greek Macedonia. Also spoken in Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Canada, Congo, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Malawi, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Russia (Europe), Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey (Europe), Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USA. Certainly the phrase "concentrated in Greek Macedonia" is bizarre. But the Bahamas? Malawi? This is one strange list.
4. The Greek page has individual paragraph-style entries for countries other than Greece where Greece is/was spoken. They include France (to account for an extinct dialect). Also, Albania, Cyprus, Egypt, Italy, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine. We are left to wonder why Macedonia is omitted.
5. At best one might claim Ethnologue was ambiguous. But between inconsistency, bizarreness, and inclusionism to the point of looking like an antique shop, I have challenged and continue to challenge Ethnologue being used as a reliable source.

• The sources that show that Greeks once lived in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia are unchallenged. But it is a synthesis to conclude that they must be there today.

It should be possible to find sources. Politis says he spoke with Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia. But so far, the sources are not here. Jd2718 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If a reference to the "Greek-speaking families" of Bitola is not asserting the existence of Greek-speaking families in Bitola, I can't imagine what she really means. You correctly note that she does not specify the number of families, but one would assume it substantial enough to warrant a mention from her, no? "She does not specify if they use the Greek name for the city while speaking Greek or Macedonian". With all due respect, you seem rather confused. She does not use the phrase "Greek families" as you erroneously claim; she uses "Greek-speaking families" (emphasis mine). And the dispute is over the existence of Greek-speakers, not what they call the city in any particular language. But the text is unambiguous all the same: The town... which the republic's authorities call Bitola... (i.e. in the country's official language, obviously) its Greek-speaking families call Monastir (in Greek, even more obviously). Regarding Ethnologue, your arguments can only be described as uninformed or disingenuous. "Also includes..." is the standard formula used by Ethnologue for secondary languages, as in the case of Greece: Also includes Armenian (20,000)... Balkan Gagauz Turkish... Ladino (2,000)... I have deliberately selected three from the list which one would describe as "indigenous" rather than "immigrant" or "international" languages, being spoken in Greece for centuries. One can safely assume that "Also includes Greek" here means that Greek is a language spoken in the country but undeserving of its own individual paragraph for whatever reason. "We are left to wonder why Greek is not among the 9 living languages." Why? Are you also left to wonder whether Armenian and Ladino are spoken in Greece, given that they are not included in the tally of 14 living versus 2 extinct languages, a dichotomy which in any case pertains only to those with their own paragraph? I've sat and counted them myself, have you? And yes, even Malawi, and particularly the maritime Bahamas, have notable Greek-speaking immigrant communities, believe it not. "Politis says he spoke with Greeks... but so far, the sources are not here." Excuse me? Would you accept a write-up by Politis of his personal interactions with Greek villagers as a more reliable source than Ethnologue? What about WP:OR? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I corrected a bit about Cowan; the main question, how many families? remains. "One would assume" doesn't cut it. And no, we don't want Politis' travelogue. Just a reliable source (preferably one that does not require a scholar to interpret). Jd2718 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ethnologue and Cowan think they deserve a mention without being hung up on size, why shouldn't we? It's just one single word in the text of a 67 kb article, for crying out loud. We're not making any claims as to the numerical strength or weakness of the Greek-speaking minority, we're merely noting its existence in the most succinct way possible. Why is that so offensive? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Macedonians - 66.038 (88,58%)
• Gypsies - 2.577 (3,46%)
• Albanians - 2.360 (3,17%)
• Turks - 1.562 (2,10%)
• Aromanians - 997 (1,34%)
• Serbs - 499 (0,66%)
• Bоsniaks - 20 (0,02%)
• others - 497 (0,67%)

This is ethnic composition of present day Bitola. Others includes other peoples of former Yugoslavia, could be some Greek but still very neglible number. La Macédoine et sa Population Chrétienne printed in Paris in 1905 noted that christian population of Monastir consisted of 8,884 Bulgarians belonging to Bulgarian orthodox church, 6,300 Bulgarians belonging to Greek orthodox church, 72 Bulgarians belonging to Serb Orthodox church, 36 Bulgarian protestants, 7,200 Aromanians belonging to Greek orthodox church, 120 christian Albanians, 120 Gypsies and 100 GREEKS. Out of 28 christian schools in city 13 were Bulgarian, 9 Greek, 4 Romanian and 3 Serb.. So even then they were neglible minority. And its city where they claim they were most concetrated. Also this link demistifies Greek presence in Vardar Macedonia [38]: In central Macedonia and generally throughout the rural regions Greeks were almost non-existent. There is a widespread misconception that they inhabited urban centres en mass and engaged in business and trade, however, the ambiguous nature of terms of identification gave the Greeks a presence where there was none. Urban ‘Greeks’ in the Macedonian interior were the descendants of those Christians (typically Vlahs), who had acquired the religion, commercial language and commercial aptitude of the Greeks: ‘in short, they acquired a Greek way of life’.49 The term Greek was applied to urban dwellers liberally, and could be applied to any ‘better off’ or educated Christian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That PDF is 75 pages. Is there something specific you are trying to cite? Further, there is no title page, no author, no publisher. We couldn't possibly use it as a source without those things. Jd2718 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Page 113. Quote its self even has reference of its own. Luka Jačov (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One source written in 1905 does not override the numerous works written just a few years ago which contain no such qualification or reservation vis-à-vis the Greeks' self-identification. Considering the extremely volatile period of interethnic antagonism and conflict during which it was written, it can hardly be assumed to be entirely reliable or neutral. As for your latter reference, allow me to prefer not to use a student thesis written by a Nick Anastasovski of Melbourne, one of the undisputed global hubs of "Macedonian" nationalism, at Victoria University, one of the city's lesser tertiary instituations. It could be BF's, for all I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, need to reject the student thesis. And the 100-year-old book points towards areas that may need to be looked at, but in and of itself can certainly not be of use for the present discussion. Just considering the process of hellenization that was going on, having no Greeks in a place one year did not mean that there would not be Greeks the next. Jd2718 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The premise of Luka's argument is that no degree of Hellenization could turn a Vlach into a Greek; he would always "really" be just a Vlach. Of course, such a thesis completely ignores the way in which the Vlachs viewed their own identity, which was never that one-dimensional. Roudometof is very clear on this point: Historically the majority of Vlachs in the southern Balkans have identified themselves as Greeks. Anastasovski's scare quotes notwithstanding, the Vlachs of Monastiri were Greeks because that's how they viewed themselves, pure and simple. Besides, such historical sources are notorious for mitigating or denying the ethnic self-identification of groups altogether according to the author's political orientation. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This, of course, is an area that needs better exposition in WP. The article on Hellenization is weak. Vlachs hellenized strongly, but Slavic peasants did as well. National lines had not yet been drawn, and were thus fluid. Yes, there are myriad good sources that reject the premise that ethnicity was fixed in the context of turn of the century Macedonia.

Anyway even if they declared Greks historicly they declare themselfs today as Aromanians (9695 of them according to last census) and not greeks. Anyway suma sumarum is there are 422 (0,021% of total population) Greeks in country today probably scattered in major urban centers of country. what we need is an indepedent opinion is that notable enough to be cited in the article or not. I hope its something we could all agree on. Luka Jačov (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If the formerly Greek Vlachs switched to declaring as "Macedonians" or unhyphenated Aromanians, does that automatically mean they stopped speaking Greek too? The debate is about the language, after all. And we haven't even begun to mention the thousands of Greek-speaking refugees of the Civil War who did not identify as Greeks, at least in an ethnic sense. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably they dont anymore. As first you mentioned many Grecoman Vlachs moved to Greece after Balkan wars. Second they belonged to Greek orthodox church, they dont anymore. Third they used Greek as language of inter-ethnic communication which is now obsolete. As for Slav refugees, in Greece they spoke their language in their respective home and respective villages and Greek to outsiders. In RoM...(you do the math) Luka Jačov (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop using pejorative epithets like "Grecoman"? It is extremely offensive to those to whom it applies. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Article grecoman doesnt categorise it as such. Luka Jačov (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Please retract it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's make some comparisons. Ethnologue is an acceptable site for proving the use of the Macedonian language in northern Greece. It is not however a verifiable source for proving the—limited indeed—use of Greek in fYROM. Official census is demanded in order to mention Greek in the RoM article. Otherwise Greek is expelled from the article (let's remind you that the whole debate is for just five letters: G-R-E-E-K). On the other side, official census is not needed in order to make non-verifiable calculations and thorough analysis about the use of Slav or Macedonian idioms in Greece, and see that in the section "Macedonian language" 3 out of 4 citations are (Slav-)Macedonian! No problem of verifiability there! A furious reaction here about just the inclusion of 5 (yes 5!) letters. Who cares if a citation is provided! Who cares if I personally added (in extremis) a "dubious" template! Nothing is acceptable! The 5 evil letters should go! And, of course, who cares if these satanic 5 letters were re-instated by a user with a mainly pro-fYROM record in most Greek-Macedonian debates (my friend Fut. I mean).

The reaction to the inclusion of the 5 evil letters is also a challenge to our rationale. Leaving aside Vlachs etc., we must (there is no other option!) agree to those arguing that all these bilinguals, and in general Greek citizens, who fled to Yugoslavia just after the civil war and resided there, suddenly ceased to speak Greek! As a result, this language is extinct within just 60 years! And this phenomenal event took place, despite the fact that these people used the Greek language as much as the Slav dialect before being obliged to flee. Obviously, these villages mentioned by Politis are nothing more than a delusion (although totally in accord with normal linguistic evolution, which obviously apply in all the world but fYROM). Scientists find to their surprise Cappadocian speakers in Greece 90 years after the populations' exchanges, but Greek speakers in fYROM rapidly vanished!

Excuse me but such an argumentation does not pass the challenge of my rationale. Nor did the argumentation of those arguing that the Albanian is an official fYROM's language despite no such mentioning in the country's Constitution. And I close answering to a reverter of my compromise edit: Yes, my friend, I think the (contrary to the reverters here) fYROM's citizens are not afraid of the mentioning of the 5 satanic letters in this article. Multilingualism is totally acceptable in a pluralistic society; it is actually a most valuable cultural asset. And if you want to make comparisons, then read the Slavic dialects of Greece article first, where all views are exposed, adn then try to follow this nonsensical edit-warring with the parallel exchanging of regrettable accusations ("nationalistic troll" etc.).--Yannismarou (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You came out of retirement for this? First, most of the refugees who settled in SR Macedonia were ethnic Macedonians, not Greeks who spoke Slavic. They spoke Macedonian at home (to Macedonians) and Greek to Greeks when they lived in Greece. After being kicked out, there weren't many Greeks to talk to, Greek was not the language of administration in the country, and so its only use would be as a second language (c.f. English). The ethnic Greeks who settled in SR Macedonia would have kept their native language, obviously, but there are only around 422 ethnic Greeks in the country (NGOs estimate about 600). So Greek is negligible, unless you count it as a second language, when you would have to count English too, which is probably spoken as much as Albanian. And Greek is in a different position to say, the dwindling number of speakers of Megleno-Romanian which warrant a mention. Greek can actually be compared to Hebrew, which the 200 Jews of the country speak, or Croatian (as opposed to Bosnian and Serbian) which is spoken by the 2,686 Croats and yet isn't there. So languages not mentioned are spoken roughly in proportion to their ethnic groups. I agree about multilingualism, but your comparison doesn't work. Compare this with the talk page of the article about Greece, where the mention of any languages other than God's tongue is seen as some anti-Hellenic propaganda. Two of the "contributors" have been indef-blocked because of their disruption of wiki, mainly consisting of disgusting hate speech. The Republic of Macedonia is a multilingual country, and I think it's great that official policy, and in fact public opinion, is nothing like that of Greece. BalkanFever 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So add Croatian, don't delete Greek. I don't think the Jews really speak Hebrew, though. Ladino, perhaps. As for Talk:Greece, exactly. The exclusionist nationalists were ignored, and the minority languages have remained since. Official policy and public opinion in the country may view multilingualism favourably, except in the case of Greek (and Bulgarian), it seems. There may be obvious political reasons for that, but Wikipedia should not be held hostage by them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are Greek speaking refugees from '49, or their descendants... please provide a source. Jd2718 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps calling it Koine Greek will defuse the situation. A number of "Macedonian" nationalists have called the Koine a part of the Macedonian legacy which has been hijacked by the modern Greeks. Or perhaps we could highlight the true origins of the language, which may not be so foreign to the country after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Its clear that there are no relevant sources and evidence that the Greek or Bulgarian language are spoken in Republic of Macedonia. Till relevant sources are provided no changing of the confermed spoken languages in the article can be done.Alex Makedon (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it clear? We can all see the sources above. Could it be that you feel offended by the existence of these languages for some reason? NikoSilver 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with the sources (see discussion, in this section, above). Could we leave the article in this version (not my preferred, FPaS compromise, just restored by Niko) while editors attempt to locate a RS? Jd2718 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

More Sources

• "Most of the 21,000 Greeks in Macedonia live near the border with Greece itself".^{Google scholar snippet} Patrick Heenan and Monique Lamontagne, The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, Taylor and Francis, 1999, ISBN 1579580890, 9781579580896, p.69. (will continue with whichever other sources I will find...) NikoSilver 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now its left to understand how is it possible that the European Council, in particular the Euro Minority and the UN reports have not seen those 21000 people that mr. Patrick Heenan has seen (and counted)? Alex Makedon (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Even in the 1990s some older residents preferred to speak Vlah rather than Macedonian: most had grown up in households where Vlah was the first language. They and many others recalled the linguistic virtuosity of fathers and grandfathers who had known Turkish, Albanian, Arabic, and Greek, and spoke with nostalgia of ways of life swept away by the Yugoslav revolution."^[39] Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation, Princeton University Press and copyrighted, 2003. NikoSilver 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vlach is spoken in Macedonia no one clames any different, Vlach is a latin language btw Greek not. "fathers and grandfathers who had known" Macedonians could know any of the 6500 living languages, are there 6500 language minorities in Macedonia? Alex Makedon (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Finally, defining Macedonia as the Republic of Macedonia, ignores the existence of the part of Greece known as Macedonia. It fails to take into consideration the fact that the Greek language and Greek culture more generally have enjoyed a long history, from antiquity to the present, in Macedonia.", Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691043566, 9780691043562, 1997, p.5. NikoSilver 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• "On of the characteristics of the rural music culture in almost all the regions in the country is the poly-lingualism. Namely, in addition to the Turkish songs, in the majority of the music repertoires that were under research there are incorporated songs from the folk opus in Macedonian, Albanian, and more rarely Serbian or Greek language." Aida Islam, The Rural Tradition of the Contemporary Turkish Community in Macedonia. NikoSilver 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"the rural music culture more rarely incorporates Greek songs" is this the evidence of a Greek linguistic minority? Alex Makedon (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It will take more than a scholar book to deny this: There is no consensus on adding Greek among the languages spoken in Macedonia since it rapresents the most pushed unverified and unsourced personal opinion of some Greek editors and in clear conflict with many official relevant sources. No consensus can add POV on a wikipedia page. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Niko. The 2nd source speaks to Vlah, rather than Greek. The 3rd speaks of the region generally, without making a specific claim. The 4th doesn't address the question of speakers. But the 1st seems to be what we've been looking for. I'm just a bit surprised by the number: 21,000. The relevant pages are annoyingly missing from the Google books snippet in English. But I think that's enough to support leaving it in the article. Any idea why the discrepancy is so large? Jd2718 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Grecoman term I used it as historical legitimate term used for Graecophille population. Maybe its offensive today but if it is please provide us with reference. Also I still think all this debating wont lead us anywhere. As we all know there are 422 Greeks in RoM (we suppose all of them speak Greek language) representing 0,021% scattered probably in bigger cities. We need someone non-biased with more knowledge of wikipedia's rules to tell us is that notable enough to put in the article. Luka Jačov (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jd2718: #2 speaks about the old Vlach people (not language) who were multilingual also in Greek (but possibly now have passed away?). #3 Yes, I knew about Danforth's use of the term "Macedonia" in this specific context, but I couldn't resist posting the quote for the rest of what it says. :-) #4 speaks about rare Greek (and Serbian) songs, which imply that the language is comprehensible to some, so that it can be sang and listened to; not to mention that the author has an evident pro-Turkish orientation therefore she can't be accused of being lenient to the Greeks. #1 indeed does the trick, and thank you. There's a [tedious] way to see more of the text, if you're interested, by searching repeatedly for the additional few words you see in the snippet each time! 21,000 seems a logical figure for Greek speakers (not necessarily nationals). If Greek Helsinki Monitor can estimate 10 to 30 thousand people with "Macedonian" national conciousness within Greece, just by using the less than 3000 votes to the Rainbow party as an indication, then how many should be the Greek speakers in the republic, when we have the communist refugees, the Greeks who didn't come back in the exchanges, the much advertised "many" "Aegeans" who were definitely multilingual Slavic-and-Greek-speakers and were banished by Greece, the Vlachs who are a significant part of the population there and "traditionally identify as Greeks in the Balkans" (according to Rudmetelov) etc etc. BTW, out of personal experience (we call this WP:OR here), since I have invested in the country, my lawyer and his son are Greek-speaking Vlachs living in Skopje, so are a couple of Taxi drivers who pick me up at the border every time, and it wasn't hard to find them by asking around (we don't have to comment about these experiences further, nor do they count, of course). NikoSilver 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Niko, I agree that #4 is the most interesting (though not for the narrow question here). When people shared in each other's culture for so long, it takes more than administrative or government fiat, even including forced migration, to wipe away those ties. I've seen them in Turkey and in Greece. I've seen them here among several groups of immigrants from the region. There's everywhere some knowledge of the other languages, even if the speakers are gone. It's in the food, in the words, in the music, in the customs. And I wish more would acknowledge it, celebrate it, understand the strength that these enduring ties give to all. And now I am way off topic, and this may need to be deleted, so I might as well end with two stories (personal, not sources)... Turkish friend with a friend of hers, in Thessaloniki for a film festival, asks an old man directions in English, and he, haltingly, answers. She relays the info to her friend in Turkish, and the old man, overhearing, comes back and scolds her for not asking in Turkish in the first place, he doesn't get enough practice... And another, in a village on an isolated cove on the Datça Peninsula, listening in the evening as Greek radio played everywhere... And my poor Albanian students complaining that their parents speak to each other in Serbian, so the kids don't understand... Or the obvious word borrowings from one to the other to the other. Or food. Or music... Jd2718 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jd: Ahhhh, "if only" indeed... Not to mention that most Greeks would be proud nowadays of being able to speak Albanian, or Turkish, or even Dopia as they call the language/dialect up north... Pity this is not viewed as an asset for some, as it should be... NikoSilver 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would like to redefine what a linguistic minority is? Because if, like in Greece, you consider a language that for most people is a second language after Greek, then you guys can't have it both ways. You can't have thousands of "Aegeans" in your state and at the same time no Greek speakers. --Avg (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This source: ^{Google scholar snippet} Patrick Heenan and Monique Lamontagne, The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, Taylor and Francis, 1999, ISBN 1579580890, 9781579580896, p.69. ends up on a blanc page here "Greeks+in+Macedonia+live+near+the+border+with+Greece+itself"&ots=f0jQJGtI64&sig=zj3eyPRmxSWk38QBTu-M7wXbo54 should we assume what is written on it ? Alex Makedon (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see that someone still adds [40] as a relevant source, as user Jd2718 showed above its pretty hard to consider as such the ambiguous statements and bizarre lists stated on ethnologue.com.

"Region: Throughout the country, concentrated in Greek Macedonia. Also spoken in Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Canada, Congo, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Malawi, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Russia (Europe), Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey (Europe), Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USA."

Why the biggest number of this states haven't got the Greek language stated among the languages spoken on their territory?

-Why Republic of Macedonia is not on the individual paragraph-style entries for countries other than Greece where Greece is/was spoken?

-Why some greek editors, with this "evidence" are trying to add the greek language just in Republic of Macedonia and the majority of the states on the list haven't got the Greek language stated among the languages spoken on their territory?

-What does it mean: Greek spoken Throughout the country (Greece), concentrated in Greek Macedonia.

-If Greek was spoken in Republic of Macedonia why is not stated on the list among the 9 languages spoken in Macedonia on www.ethnologue.com? [41]

With all the ambiguous and often contradictory statements www.ethnologue.com is hardy a reliable source

What about Bulgarian language, none of the sources indicates a Bulgarian language still some disruptive editors keep adding it among the alnguages spoken in Macedonia, and insist that that is the "compromise solution"!?Alex Makedon (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I know the source I will provide you is not of present times, but it certainly is a means to compare or at least have an idea of numbers of populations. It is a 1911 census, contacted in the vilayets of the then Ottoman empire. The interesting thing (among many others) is the 350,000 Greeks listed in the vilayet of Monastir. I can understand that 100 years can drastically change the contents of a population in terms of origins, but the 350.000 Greeks listed there cannot just disappear or all be victims of the shamable and embarassing exchange of populations. This is the link and it is from a document now held in the University of Trieste, Italy: http://www2.units.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolaz-ottomana1911.jpg Nik ethel (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Providing proof which never counts...

Apparently, what is needed is proof.

Ethnologue has information... but it does'nt count. ** There are descendants of Helleno-Vlachs whose language was (and often remains) Greek and who formed an indivisible component of the 'ethnic' Greek personality... but this does not count as proof. ** There are Sarakatsani Greeks, which do not count. ** There is a map showing a Greek quarter in the city of Skopje, but it does not count. ** It has been recently acknowledged by the government in Skopje that there were thousands of Greek citizens, 'Makedonce' and Greek political refugees who settled in the country after 1949... and this does not count. ** There has been a conference on the 'forgotten Greeks of Skopje' at the University of Macedonia and sponsored by the newspaper Makedonia and the Thessaloniki nomarchy... and all this, too, is dismissed. **

The only thing that counts is that... there have never been and there are no native Greeks or Greek speakers in FY/ROM (likewise, apparently, in Greek Macedonia, but that is another cleansing). Sigh... I will try to track and download relevant links.

For instance, New York demonstration on Greek rights in "fYROM" [42] (I can see its limitations). Article by a Vlach on how the Vlach are the backbone of the Greek nation [43], ok, it's in Greek again... Politis (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again clear manipulation attempts to attribute the Vlach population and their latin Vlach language by force as an unexpressed "Hellenic" identity and language. I remind you that in the census the Vlach population has expressed Vlach ethnicity. The Vlach population have Vlach ethnicity and Vlach Language so really this attempts to push the Vlach as "Hellens" are short-lived. Alex Makedon

• map showing a Greek quarter in the city of Skopje!? this is a new one, can you provide any relevant sources, lets say City of Skopje official page [44]
• recently acknowledged by the government in Skopje that there were thousands of Greek citizens, where is this information from?
• There has been a conference on the 'forgotten Greeks of Skopje'in organized by the Greek nationalistic NGO "Pan-Macedonian Association" in Thessaloniki in attempt to attribute to the ethnic Latin toungue Aromanian (Vlach population) an unexpressed hellen identity in response to the Macedonian minority in Greece request for basic human rights. Thats the reaso hordes of Greek editors work on the "greek minority" in Republic of Macedonia agenda this days. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have a source that has not been questioned: Patrick Heenan and Monique Lamontagne, The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, Taylor and Francis, 1999, ISBN 1579580890, 9781579580896, p.69. Jd2718 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Alex Makedon, what we have is a Vlach population in Greece that stresses (in its overwhelming majority) that, because it is Vlach, it forms the backbone of the Greek nation. And a Vlach population in FY/ROM that, accordinig to contemporary sensus (which I acknowledge), claims to be just Vlach, even though within livinig memory it identified with the Hellenic nation. Politis (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not within living memory. Apparently during Ottoman times. And what would happen to these "Vlachs" in Greece if they didn't stress they were the backbone of Greece? God forbid they be different, ergo "expendable" like the ethnic Macedonians. BalkanFever 12:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What would happen to an (ex-Greek) "Vlach" of Bitola if he decided he wanted to reclaim his forcibly abandoned Greek identity of old, God forbid? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

omg lame disputes, Vlach is Vlach, Greek is Greek, all the world knows that, so going further in this idiotic attempts to push the ethnic Vlach as somekind of greek identity is just stupid.Alex Makedon (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but don't you self identify as Macedonians, and so we're all forced to refer to you in Wikipedia as such?? What about "(Greek-speaking) Aromanians" that self-identify as Greeks? Shouldn't we still "respect" their self-identification? Or is it a different case (because it does not suit your claims)? Anyway, I have one more source supporting Greek identity (or self-identification) of Vlachs (of which you will soon have quotations).--Michael X the White (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But you don't call us Macedonians. And your "sources" are irrelevant. Saying "Vlachs are Greeks" and combining it with the fact there are Vlachs in (the Republic of) Macedonia to leads you to the conclusion "there are Greeks in FYROM". Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There are 422 Greeks in R. Macedonia. There are almost 10,000 self declared Vlachs. If anybody, regardless of whether they are Aromanian or Macedonian or Albanian or Japanese, wants to start being Greek they can say they are on the census. But they don't, as they are not Greeks nor do they want to be Greek. So I suggest you folk get back to the point (hint: it's not about Aromanians). BalkanFever 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not quote official sources, cause according to them there are 1,406 "Macedonians" in Greece. Also, counting according to self-declaration is also not appropriate. Maybe the Greek census has no question about ethnicity, yet in the previous elections those who feel ethnic "Macedonians" had the chance to clearly state that (just a couple or three thousand votes for their party). Since in all related to ethnic group articles estimations can be included and since Aromanians have traditionally and historically identified as Greeks (as I do myself), I cannot see why is it that hard for you to believe that the Aromanians in FYROM self-identify as Greeks... --Hectorian (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I know that they don't. This has diverged far enough from the point of discussion. No more. BalkanFever 00:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose as much as I know that they do. --Hectorian (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This debate is entirely unnecessary. Reliable sources have been cited regarding the presence of Greeks and Greek-speakers in the here and now, and they don't mention the Vlachs at all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

State one Alex Makedon (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember, I did not accept any of the originally proposed sources (and still think we need to treat Ethnologue as "not a reliable source"). But we should accept this source: Patrick Heenan and Monique Lamontagne, The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, Taylor and Francis, 1999, ISBN 1579580890, 9781579580896, p.69. Jd2718 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pag 69 is not provided by Google Scholar, 21.000 people is a pretty big number, so its not clear how is it possible that the UN and the EU reports on Republic of Macedonia ethnicities have omitted 21.000 people. Alex Makedon (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The full sentence goes "Most of the 21,000 Greeks in Macedonia live near the border with Greece itself". and we can see it in the Google Scholar snippet here. The source is highly reliable and there's no restriction for not fully on line sources, of course. The UN and the EU don't need to show obvious things, especially when the people themselves are not jumping around making noise on what they are and what they speak. Finally, we are not talking about goddam ethnicities, we are talking about languages for chrissake! The speakers can be red-painted frenzy (Slav)-Macedonian nationalists with an axe to grind and still speak it! There are fanatic Greeks who speak Turkish and vice versa dammit! NikoSilver 18:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

UN and EU don't state it because it's obvious??? hahahaha!!! That's funny! And if we are talking about languages and not ethnicities then you can not use the source that says "21,000 Greeks in Macedonia" because they might not even speak Greek!!!. That source is hardly reliable either! "Most of the 21,000 Greeks in Macedonia... That could mean the region Macedonia. ...live near the border with Greece itself Near the border with Greece? What does that even mean? Bruka (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer that we include the Greeks in the list of ethnicities rather than languages? That can always be arranged. But congratulations for being so on the ball; it would definitely make sense that there would be only 21,000 Greeks in a region of Greece with a population of 2.6 million... What does "near the border with Greece" mean? Oh, I don't know; how about "near the border with Greece"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a bargain, state clear non ambiguous evidence and we will add anything, A single fraze of scholar snippet taken out of the full text is clearly not an evidence. the full text is not avaliable, nor the full page, so this sentence is defacto taken out of context. Again 21000 people are pretty consistent number so its not possible that they end up reported by just a single cherry picked barely reliable source, if they are really there, there must be lots of evidence. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've temporarily protected the article to put a stop to this edit war. Please agree a consensus version here before you add it to the article - don't fight over it in the text itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just it. We have agreed, with the glaring exception of an editor whose views towards anything remotely Greek-related are well-documented and implacable. The other conscientious objectors have apparently withdrawn from the debate after being presented with compelling evidence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol "we have agreed". You and the other few Greek ultra nationalists hatershave agreed. None eccept few Greek propaganda pusher editors have agreed to add something that is barely souced. Provide relevant evidence and we will add whatever there is to add on the article. Many editors haven't continued to debate simply because there is no real evidence to debate over; the few inconsistent ambigous sources have been taken out of consideration and the new www.googlescholar books you have persented or are on the Macedonia population up till 1918 or talk about Vlach population. It will take some pretty consistant evidence to deny this: Alex Makedon (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Still nothing

I still don't see a consensus here. Not responding ≠ consensus. What I see is Luka and FP agreeing that Bulgarian does not warrant a place here, disagreement over whether the book about Greek is reliable and/or verifiable, and not much on Adyghe. BalkanFever 00:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no serious objection to the book about Greek, and the Ethnologue entry on Adyghe is uncontroversial. FP does not say that Bulgarian does not warrant a place here, but rather that it should be more nuanced, hence my latest edit. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry BF, but silence actually means consent.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One question to the admins: If you intend to let the greek nazi propaganda pusher editors shape the article with NO evidence, isn't it better to use a forum to read this greek nazi crap instead of Greekopedia, at leat there they dont have to pretend to be objective. Alex Makedon (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

INDEPENDANCE FROM YUGOSLAVIA?

I m sorry but i dont understand.fyrom was occupied illegally by yugoslavia until its break in 90s??? this happened to all ex yugoslavian countries serbia,slovenia, croatia...??? or they were united with their own will?? if yugoslavia occupied illegally these countries, who was yugoslavia then if not serbia,fyrom,croatia...??? if yugoslavia did not occupie fyrom then it shouldnt be mentioned as independance but as seperation because independance is when a country free itself from a different country ( france from germans). is like we say for example that washington free itself from USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence Independence can be the initial status of an emerging nation (often filling a political void), but is often an emancipation from some dominating power.Bruka (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources.So its not relieable .also you didnt answer my questions. was fyrom occupied illegaly by yugoslavia or not???

The Socialist Republic of Macedonia was a constituent republic of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, just like SR Slovenia, SR Serbia and the rest. It declared independence as the Republic of Macedonia in the early nineties. It wasn't independence from occupation, but independence from a larger federal entity. BalkanFever 13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please. We can barely agree that a source that lists Greek as a language spoken in "Macedonia" is actually saying that Greek is spoken in "Macedonia". The last thing we need is a semantic debate over the meaning of "independence". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ΟΚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the user above want to achieve by his silly question? Macedonia was not occupied by Yugoslavia, but the the word independennce is appropriate in the sense of Macedonia gaining independence from Yugoslavia. Cukiger (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

EVERY SILLY QUESTION HAS ITS SILLY CAUSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian shields

The macedonian shields were made from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivica666 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from FYROM and other politicians rejecting the name claims

interview with Denko Malevski minister of foreign affairs (FYROM)

Rant snipped. Copyright violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was that long piece of propaganda intended to demonstrate anything else than how not to write a text using sources? At least it didn't bring anything new to the name-topic. The Macedonian constitution establishes its name as the Republic of Macedonia and it's an established Wikipedia-policy to use that name. Following a Wikipedia policy (WP:MOSMAC) is not POV no matter how many tags you try to add. JdeJ (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what Historikos claims, there is no active discussion going on at WP:MOSMAC, last past is more than three months old. The tags are not relevant, at least they have not been shown to be relevant. JdeJ (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The WP:MOSMAC proposal has been REJECTED. That means that a new proposal should be drafted. In the meantime the discussions underway on a diplomatic level between the two states, have stopped to prepare for the coming court battle in Hage. Historikos (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You may disagree all you want, the discussion on WP:MOSMAC is inactive and it was at least the third time only today you were caught lying. You lied about not having removed anything from the page [45] even though you had done just that [46]. You've claimed that various pictures of the Russian prime minister, the Greek prime minister and the French president are your own personal work [47], something we can be pretty sure to be untrue and you've lied about an active discussion going on at WP:MOSMAC [48] even though that's clearly not the case [49]. I don't know if you're a troll, even though I suspect that, but it's already pretty clear to everyone that you're a habitual lier. And that not a personal attack, it's just the only possible conclusion drawn from your own actions. JdeJ (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

map of balkan wars

the map of balkan wars is fake. Fyrom never had never a real hypostasis as state before 1991 and the frontiers are coloured technically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.4.220 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth is that the maps shown as the "balkan wars" maps of the Makedonia region, are NOT included in the 1914 "Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars". Instead the maps shown here, have been edited and colored so to make a point, which doesnt appear in the original maps. If you want a taste of those maps (not downloadable form though) you can have it in the following site: http://www.therealmacedonia.com/6401.html There are only 4 maps shown there, but you can obviously understand that there couldnt be a map such as the one in the article, simply because there was no talk about a "macedonian" country nd exactly because of this there couldnt be a separate mention of it in any kind of map at that commission. Obviously the map shown in this article is a poor attempt of nationalistic irredentism, to provide "proof of existence" of a non-existant separate country at those times. It is also a falsification of original and formal maps and as such it shouldnt be aloud to be posted here and be replaced by the originals or be permanently removed. Nik ethel (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update GDP statistics

As of 2009 there is new GDP information for 2008 from IMF (staff estimates).

Those who have edit access to the page please update it.

Thanks,

TheAct1v8 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in FYROM

I think we have to talk about the Greeks in F.Y.R.O.M. A lot of different sources confirm that the number of Greeks in the "Republic of Macedonia" are much larger than the official census. A reasearch has been made in U.S.A. in 1993 and the conclusion that came out was that the Greeks are about 11% of total population of F.Y.R.O.M. Bulgarian statistics during World War II, estimated Greek population at about 240.000. Where are all those Greeks now? It is recorded by Greek state statistics that only 6.000 Greeks came to Greece from "the Republic of Macedonia" after World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pyraechmes, I see you insist to add info about the existence of Greek minority in Macedonia, but the sources you provided are not reliable. I see you are talking about some research made in USA in 1993, can you provide some link so we can see what that research is saying? As a source you also provided some interview of the former Macedonian president Kiro Gligovor in the Czech newspaper "Czeski Denik", I searched for it on Internet, I didn't find any source for that too. I'm afraid I have no other option than to revert your edit, if you want to make an objective edit please provide more reliable sources. MatriX (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexander-mania

We should probably have a section on the nationalist "Alexander-mania" ideology that is starting to make Macedonia look as silly as Greece. (I've dealt with some of these [if you can't say anything nice] at Burusho.) The CS Monitor just did a short story on it,[50] though I think we'd eventually want something a bit more in-depth than that. kwami (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I think there should be a section on Alexander Mania also, this article from the christain monitor says it all: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0321/p01s01-wogn.html Reaper7 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There has been a long standing consensus to use the present title. Nothing big enough to make the change reasonable has occurred so there is in fact no point in discussing this. This discussion is unproductive since it is only repeating of old arguments. So I am closing it, citing the SNOW clause. No move. --Tone 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia → Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — I propose that the article be moved per the relevant Wikipedia policy on naming conventions: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". "Macedonia", the most common term in English, is also the name of a number of other places, while the next most common, the name proposed, is unique to the country in question. The term currently used, "Republic of Macedonia", is largely an artefact of Wikipedia and the country's government and does not enjoy widespread use in the English language. —  ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose, of course. Pure disruption. Kekrops is deliberately misquoting the relevant policy. He was told the policy explicitly refers to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which is the authoritative guide to working out solutions to such cases, but he's determined to ignore that part of the policy. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is blockable disruption. This renewed proposal is no less of a disruptive WP:POINT violation than the one yesterday. Can somebody please topic-ban this person now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention that I hadn't made the request through the appropriate channels, namely WP:RM. I am merely correcting that omission on my part. As for the essence of the discussion, it is my contention that the current article location is a misinterpretation of the WP:NC policy and the WP:NCON guideline, according to which common English usage takes precedence over self-identification. My intention is not to disrupt but to provoke an open and honest discussion about the rigorous application of Wikipedia policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As 125 countries recognize the country as Republic of Macedonia, I find it hard to believe that the name is "largely an artefact of Wikipedia and the country's government and does not enjoy widespread use in the English language." Unless someone can show that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the alternative term, this move would be nothing but changing one controversial name to another. Jafeluv (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of those countries are not English-speaking. I invite you to compare the number of Google hits for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to that for "Republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been debated ad nauseum. In the interest of balance, I propose that we move Greece to "The Former Ottoman Republic of Yunanistan", and that the United States be moved to "The Former British Colonies of America". kwami (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bogus analogy. Unlike the name I am proposing, which is used extensively on an international level, your colourful sobriquets are neither recognized nor used in any capacity whatsoever. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd recognize satire when you heard it. kwami (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognize it but reject its pertinence. It's not even original, having been regurgitated by countless nationalists over the years. Skopje itself agreed to the use of the provisional name when it signed up to the UN in 1993 and the Interim Accord in 1995. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bad faith disruptive proposal for the usual Greek nationalist reasons by the usual suspect(s). Policy has not changed, the facts on the ground have not changed and this issue has been discussed at length many times before. The current name has been stable for years and fully meets policy requirements; there is no need to change it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Preponderance in google hits is a really weak argument in this case; many of those hits are simply reporting the controversy over the longer name, independently of whether they usually use the shorter or the longer name to refer to the country. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am open to better suggestions on how to measure the relative frequency of the two terms. Remember, I am not arguing that the long term is more common than the short form. While I readily acknowledge that plain "Macedonia" is the most common, it is ambiguous and therefore unsatisfactory, according to WP:NC. I am arguing rather that fYRoM is the more common long form, and consequently the most common term after "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are talking here about "Republic of Macedonia", which is also a long unambiguous name and is also common. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But not as common as the former Yugoslav of Macedonia. That's my whole point. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You say it's "not as common", but you provide no other proof that google hits. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the informal short form that predominates due to its simplicity, the next most common reference to the country occurs in documents issued by international organizations, or at international events such as the Olympic Games or Eurovision. Think about it for a moment. When you read an article about the country in English, it is usually "Macedonia", but almost never the "Republic of Macedonia". In the contexts in which the long form is used instead, fYRoM is much more common, perhaps because those who don't have to say fYRoM simply say "Macedonia". The main exception to this seems to be Wikipedia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no question as to which long form comes second after plain "Macedonia". Google is just an indication of Kekrops' very sound and logical rationale. NikoSilver 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@Kek, all those organizations use FYROM just because of an agreement between Greece and Macedonia to use that name at international events, and you are perfectly aware of that. Idem for usage in UN documents and other international orgs. By the way, that explains a lot of those google hits :P --Enric Naval (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to judge why it is so. It just is and we describe it. And if you are asking me, I think it is very correctly so. NikoSilver 11:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? I could argue that people's sheer historical ignorance and/or intellectual laziness explains 99% of Google hits for "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kek, in your message here of 06:53, 25 March 2009, you didn't search for "Macedonia", you searched for "Republic of Macedonia".

I'm saying that "Former Yugoslav etc." appears so many times in google not because it's a common name in english but because it was agreed to use it in international events and organizations. This just inflates the numbers for "FYROM" in comparison with "RoM". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right. We're not comparing "Macedonia" and fYRoM, we're comparing fYRoM and "RoM". I thought I'd made that clear. As for your second point, I'm not sure I follow your rationale. What do you mean by "inflates"? Is it used or not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not compare "Macedonia" alone because it is very ambiguous and therefore cannot be used here according to the same policy (just click it or click this). But even if we wanted to, it would be impossible: Half of the links in Google regard other Macedonias, and not the country (check first page here for instance). The twice-as-big Greek Macedonia (or plain "Macedonia" as most Greeks would argue in retaliation to their neighbors' obsession for no qualifiers), a major touristic destination of Greece and the home of Greece's co-capital, receives millions of hits. Same does the ancient kingdom or various irrelevant cities in the US etc. How are you going to separate those from the country's hits? NikoSilver 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Policy is clear that the second most common name should precede the third or the self-id for that matter. Just to note that the world is changing: We already notice heavy criticism by both high ranking officials (check this signed by then senator Obama -also here) and the media[51] against the country's insistence for the un-disambiguated name, and all the irredentist territorial and historical claims that it evidently carries (even officially by the hands of the country's prime minister himself). If not right now, this move will definitely pass in the short future. We'll all be here to see. NikoSilver 11:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close. I agree with the name Kekrops proposes, but I see no consensus towards changing the outcome of the long-time ago discussion and poll concerning the article's title and lead, which resulted in the current status quo. If this poll stays open, the same users will move in, with the same arguments, and we'll all vote in the way we are expected to vote. Finally, only a mess will get out of this. Sorry.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• If we look at WP:ENGVAR, it is clear that en.wp has pragmatically decided that in exceptional circumstances it is more profitable overall to deviate from the automatic application of common usage. Sometimes the best thing for the encyclopaedia is to make a slightly arbitrary decision - not only to avoid edit wars over usage, but also to prevent the massive waste of time of repeatedly going over the same arguments and let editors get on with editing the rest of the encyclopaedia. It's not as if this matter hasn't been given due care and attention in the past. There's so amazingly little to be gained on the part of the article readers by another long argument, whatever the result - the naming dispute is already more than adequately explained, and all the necessary redirects and hat-notes are in place. The readers are satisfactorily catered for. Let's get on with the rest of our editing lives. Knepflerle (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of that particular guideline. This isn't a question of orthography or American versus British usage; my argument applies to the English language in general. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. It was a straightforward analogy. It's an example of where picking one answer after an exhaustive discussion and then sticking with it proved best for the encyclopaedia in the long run. This is another example of an exceptionally well-discussed case that would probably benefit from the same treatment, given the minimal possible benefits to the reader of changing the status quo. Knepflerle (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it has more to do with perceived "common sense" than actual Wikipedia policy. Maybe the policy had yet to be articulated in 2002, or maybe editors who made the decision back then simply got it wrong. I wasn't around to know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One undeniable fact is how well this pragmatism has worked, obvious from the distinct lack (comparatively) of squabbles over English varieties. That level of peace and stability would be nice to spread to other less harmonious areas. Knepflerle (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "pragmatism" isn't as "peaceful" or "stable" as you may think. See for example this arbitrary departure from consensus in the case of the country template, which provoked its fair share of controversy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, clear POV-pushing from Greek nationalists. chandler · 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, Kekrops opened the case by asserting that the name of the article is in conflict with the names of other people or things, which is not true, because there is no other country or region that is designated as Republic of Macedonia. The adjective Republic of clearly distinguishes the country from the region in Greece. MatriX (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Just pure disruption, POV and WP:POINT. Suggest speedy close as WP:SNOW. Húsönd 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Just an observation, the usage of the name 'Former Yugoslav etc.' seems to have been expanding since the 2008 Bucharest Summit; I am not going to discuss why and how, just noting that on a number of occasions the organizers of international events (political, economic, sports, cultural, scientific) held even in countries that otherwise accept the name 'RoM' in their bilateral relations with that country, now strictly enforce the designation 'Former etc.' (sometimes to the effect of RoM participants withdrawing) while in previous years the same events used to allow participation under the 'RoM' designation. What happens is yet to be seen, if a solution is not reached in a year or two; what I mean is my observation is placed here because of its relevance to points made above and not as an argument in favour or against the requested move. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. Additional evidence on that in my support vote above. NikoSilver 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why Kekrops keeps citing Google as the determining factor, when the two names are essentially tied on Google, 2.04 M hits to 2.02 M. That would suggest that the decision based on common usage would be a tossup. kwami (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't the figures I got: 2.14 versus 1.23 million. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's weird! I used the links you provided. Last night I got 2,040,000 vs 2,020,000. I remember specifically that the difference was 1%. Today, using these same links, I get 2,040,000 vs 1,100,000. In neither case did I get your figures. kwami (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Both searches are not correct in my opinion. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" search also counts the pages where the country is widely represented as "Republic of Macedonia" or as simply as "Macedonia", but incidentally there is also a mentioning of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" provisional reference, see for example: [52] or [53].

The other search ("Republic of Macedonia" -"Former Yugoslav"), on the other hand, excludes such articles (to repeat again: where the country is widely referred to as "Republic of Macedonia", but there is also a mentioning of the "Former Yugoslav Republic…"). And in most articles on Internet the country is designated like that: Republic of Macedonia, also known as… and this is making those 2 searches inadequate. MatriX (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the changes in numbers is because Google is constantly modifying its database, algorithms and page ranking. Google is completely unreliable as an indicator because of that, and because of the problem with false positives that MatriX notes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you rather we employed your system? According to your "survey of mainstream encyclopedias", 5 used fYRoM and only 1 used "RoM". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requested

Because this proposal has clearly been made in bad faith as an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and game the system, both of which were specifically forbidden by the Arbitration Commiteee in relation to Macedonia-related articles (see WP:ARBMAC#Decorum), I have recommended that Kekrops be topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles. Please direct discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Greek nationalist disruption on Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You first close the initial Kekrops' proposal for disruption, making use of your administrative rights. Then, you participate in the second proposal as an involved voter with opinion (accepting its validity, although you regard it a bad-faith disruption?), and at the same time you open a discussion for topic-banning Kekrops! Pardon?!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no use of admin rights. The purpose of the arbitration enforcement request is to request that some other uninvolved administrator use his or her admin rights to correct Kekrops' behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What is there to "correct"? I have put a proposal out there, and the community will decide its fate as it sees fit. Isn't that how it's always done? Or is it not within my rights as an editor to lodge such a request? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a bad-faith proposal, put forward for bad-faith reasons. The ArbCom specifically prohibited such conduct in WP:ARBMAC. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's a bad-faith proposal because you don't like the fYRoM designation, or because it was made by a Greek editor, or both? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invitation

Years ago there was a centralized discussion at WP:MOSMAC. The discussion came very close to an agreement but it was scrapped in the end. Such an agreement would work very productively for the project (as it briefly in fact did while in effect), and furthermore there was ONE place for a centralized discussions and for changes/opinions etc. A revival of this talk would serve the community, and would help us avoid all this unnecessary drama in a multitude of related articles. NikoSilver 12:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

A straw poll on the application of the name of the Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the article Greece has started here. Advertisement on this talk page should be most relevant, as it should notify and attract all interested parties. Húsönd 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolding of name

There is no need to bold every single name that a country has been called through its history by outside parties. The self-identification and most common English names are typically bolded, not every name used by every other country on earth for the place. (Taivo (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

It is not "every name"! It is the name all the international organizations are using! What is going wrong with you people!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Is the bolding of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" against this policy?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is against practice for non-self-identifications to be included in bold. Compare Republic of China, where "Taiwan" is not bolded even though that is what they are referred to by many international organizations. Only self-identifications and not neighbors' names for the country should be bolded. (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Come on! It is not a neighbor's name! It is name under which RoM itself has agreed to be designated by international organizations. Now, to the point: I give you a policy provision justifying the bolding. Can you provide any provision showing that the bolding is against policy?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a neighbor's name, no matter your legalistic justification of it. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming that it is not a Greek POV to pursue the bolding of this here. Compare this with Republic of China where "Taiwan" is not bolded even though it is the name used internationally. This is another attempt to get another of your "opponents" to violate some detail of Wikipedia policy so you can eliminate more of the opposition. (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

if you want to speak in this tone, then do not insult my intelligence as well. Can you tell me when did "Taiwan" become an internationally recognized name?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course you imply (per your example) that we should create a separate article for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (and stop redirecting), which is the case for Chinese Taipei. RoC internationally recognized name FYI.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, do you prefer that I create a seperate article for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and break the current consensus per your proposed example? I am ready to do it, and my legal background is really helpful in creating a nice article.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add any such material to Macedonia naming dispute, where the legal aspects are already covered. Otherwise it'll be a blatant POV fork. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry John, but I don't see the point. FP and ChrisO are right for once. We already have the naming dispute article for that kind of thing. Keep it simple. "FYROM" is a synonym, and should therefore remain a redirect. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a terrible disruption. There is a consensus for every iota in that intro, which was established by a well populated poll. NikoSilver 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As always, Wikipedia policy has the answer: "Boldface is used to separate the article name from ordinary text. It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms." Any synonyms and acronyms. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both users above. At the same time, my proposal stands: I think it is an interesting idea to create a separate article about the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and stop redirecting, per the example Taivo provided us (RoC and Chinese Taipei each have a separate article).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What content would that article contain? Surely not just a (POV-forkish) duplication of this main article? The "Chinese Taipei" article is essentially an article about the naming dispute. That's analogous to our Macedonia naming dispute, which we already have. What would your new article do that these two articles aren't already doing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, Future, it seems quite clear that the proponents of the Greek (as in belonging to Greece, not Greeks) POV are going to continue gaming the system so that they can claim 3RR for the two of us on this issue. The Greece article has been blocked so this is their playground now. (Taivo (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

You lost the sequence of events. You came here to play first just after the Greece article was blocked. Now, about the article I have in mind, Fut, well per WP:SS I think there is enough encyclopedic ground to make a comprehensive article focused on the history and the legal aspects of the adoption and use of fYROM by the international organizations. The article I have in mind will be mainly focused on international law.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I proposed a re-grouping of the info within the intro. I don't think the country's being "landlocked" is the first and most important information that ought to be mentioned. I've separated out the political and geographical parts more logically. As long as the FYROM stuff is really in the first paragraph, where synonyms belong, I don't have strong objections against bolding them, even though it's somewhat ugly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why we should not follow the relevant Manual of Style, which explicitly states that "any synonyms and acronyms" should be bolded? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And could you please explain why we should bold a designation that is not a self-designation ("Republic of Macedonia") or a common English term ("Macedonia"), but a term that is neither the most common English term, nor a self-identification and is, instead, an externally generated and externally imposed name? (Taivo (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, let's leave the bolding in here. I guess Kekrops has a point about the MoS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's make the same vicious circles again. Because it is the only name the international organizations recognize? Because it is an official name even in many bilateral relations? Because it may not be a self-identification, but a formula the country itself has accepted? Because there was a popular vote and a consensus, which both you and Fut wrote in the oldest of your shoes as we say in Greece?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So why again you had to mess with the most controversial of articles at the most controversial of times? --Avg (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Who cares if it is "externally generated and externally imposed"? Stop projecting your value judgments onto this. That your "Macedonia" has a synonym, which in turn has an acronym, can hardly be denied. The Manual of Style makes no such politically based distinctions. It explicitly prescribes the use of boldface for "any synonyms and acronyms", regardless of their provenance. It most certainly does not say that the synonyms and acronyms which Taivo dislikes should not be in bold. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be a argument for having the FYRM bolded, though it might not. If we look at football clubs that have changed name through history, Arsenal F.C. or Manchester United, in the history section their historical names are bolded. Though not exactly the same situation, a bit similar at least. chandler · 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no historical name. This is a currently internationally recognized name. From a juristic point of view (this is my perversion! I studied it! What can I do?! My mistake!) not similar at all.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in the Arsenal article even the nickname is bolded! Let's see Liverpool, whose I am a fun!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is similar to the fact that it would be bolding something that isn't the article title, and fyrm is perhaps even more relevant as you say, it's current. chandler · 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant with my answer to you chan! For me, it is far far far more obvious the case for fYROM. By the way, I checked Liverpool. Unfortunately, the Reds don't like bolding. I hope Taivo will not use that as an argument!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...Last time I checked Greece was an "externally generated and externally imposed" name for a country its residents call Hellas... Why is it bolded?

GK1973 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's the name the country more-or-less "officially" uses in the English-speaking world, which is a de facto official name. I guess. Maybe. I dunno.

De jure it is not official. De facto? Hmmm ... I think the answer is again probably no?--Yannismarou (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Maybe a better way to say it is that Greece is a name which the country, or more specifically the people of the country, in question have agreed to recognize as a name used for itself, and which they themselves, I think, use most frequently. Although I am not a Greek or Macedonian myself, and on that basis speaking from no direct knowledge, I also tend to think, from the shortwave broadcasts and other comments I've heard over the years, that "Greece" is also possibly the most commonly used popular name for the country as it is currently constituted by its own people. If it is the most commonly used name, and as the name "Greece" itself doesn't have any real ambiguity problems with any other similarly named countries, etc., it seems to me that makes it recognizable and unambiguous enough so that it can be used as the default name for the article. However, if anyone does have better information regarding how the Greeks themselves refer to the government of the country as it is currently established, I would welcome that information, as it might be sufficient to cause me to change my opinion. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No! No! I don't want to change anything there! Keep it as default name for the article, although the Greeks themselves identify themselves as "Hellenes", and refer to the country as "Hellas"! The Greeks of Northern Greece, in particular, identify themselves as "Macedonians", and I do have many Macedonian friends living in Thessaloniki.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe this isn't the best way to proceed, but one suggestion might be "The Republic of Macedonia (for other names currrently used, see Macedonia naming dispute)...." That includes the "other" names the country uses, while at the same time giving primary place to the country's internal name. Somehow, I don't think that option is likely to fly though. I have serious problems just seeing "Macedonia" by itself bolded. Regarding FYROM, that was the name the country was admitted to the UN under, per the lede, so it is a legitimate name the country has itself at least temporary accepted, and it is placed later in the article where the name is directly relevant, so I guess that is a good reason for it to be bolded. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am so happy third-party users came in, and offered their input, bringing some fresh air. And this shows why Taivo's and Fut's unilateral edit-warring was rushy and unwise. I hope such actions will have to continuation.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat a point I made over on Talk:Greece: "FYROM" is not a name and never has been one; it's a provisional reference - a description - for the country, to be used as an interim term while the formal name is resolved. See the second bullet point of Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions. It is not used as a name by the UN or the other international bodies which used "FYROM". There is and only ever has been one officially-endorsed name, i.e. "Republic of Macedonia". When countries such as the US have chosen to switch recognition from FYROM to RoM, they've simply been abandoning the provisional reference in favour of the official name. I can understand why our Greek editors are consistently ignoring this point, since it doesn't suit their POV, but let's not make the same mistake ourselves. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a provisional name. (edit conflict) Do you want to call it a "designation". Do it! But however you may call it, it serves the purposes of a name. As such per international law it has all the characteristics of an internationally recognized name, provisional or not. And this is no mistake, my friend!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And then you accuse us of wiki-lawyering. How is any of that relevant to what we're discussing here? Is "FYROM" the acronym of a synonym of "Republic of Macedonia" or not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO is just playing with words. FYROM is an internationally used NAME of a country. Unless we want to undermine the UN authority and credibility, this should count for something. A country has NO SAY, when it comes to how third parties call it. It is OFFICIALLY used in the UN, NATO, the EU and other important organizations, it is used by other countries, so, we should just be asking ourselves whether we want to just stick to US recognised names and not whether FYROM is a name, whether it externally imposed, whether many or some countries use it. GK1973 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point about ignoring the actual state of affairs, all three of you. If you don't know what the status of "FYROM" is in international law, how it's used or why it was adopted, that's due to deficiencies in your knowledge; don't blame me for pointing it out to you. I strongly suggest that you both do some reading - arguing from ignorance is not an effectice approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything to propose in particular. I am bored lately, and some reading would do me some good.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...wow..bold words from someone who might think of himself an expert and of others as poor plebians... OK, you caught our attention... make your case then, enlighten us on how the provisional reference FYROM, a term used by so many organizations AND COUNTRIES to call FYROM does not deserve to abide by the same rules as any other name of any country... GK1973 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do know something about this, because it's something I've worked on professionally - I wrote a lot of the Macedonia naming dispute article. The issue is discussed in some detail in the Council of Europe's information report 11524 of 8 February 2008. To quote (with bolding added for emphasis): ""The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name. It is a provisional reference created in 1993 for the specific use of the United Nations,pending resolution of the "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" against Greece over the use of the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia"." See [54] for more info. I suggest also having a look at the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1997 for more background. Quoting our own Macedonia naming dispute article: "The term was a reference, not a name; as a neutral party in the dispute, the United Nations had not sought to determine the name of the state.[17] The President of the Security Council subsequently issued a statement declaring on behalf of the Council that the term "merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."[11] The purpose of the term was also emphasized by the fact that the expression begins with the uncapitalised words "the former Yugoslav", acting as a descriptive term, rather than "the Former Yugoslav", which would act as a proper noun.[17] By also being a reference rather than a name, it met Greek concerns that the term "Macedonia" should not be used in the republic's internationally recognised name." Check out the sources quoted there. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pity! I expected something new ans exiting! Anyway, I'll prefer some literature instead ... I've read this stuff, as well as the UN resolution and the bilateral Interim Agreement between Greece and fYROM which opened the way for the country's participation in the UN (where the term "provisional name" is used and there is the signature of both sides). You tell me nothing new. Therefore, you will receive the same answer: call it a provisional reference; call it a provisional designation or appellation. In terms of international law, it serves the purpose of a provisional name.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"All three" of us are ignorant but only "both" require further reading. I won't even bother dissecting that. How does the status of "FYROM" in international law have anything to do with the use of bold type in the article as prescribed by the relevant Manual of Style? Whether it's a "name" or a "reference", it is still a synonym. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You see! Same thing in international organizations! You may call it a "name" or a "reference", but it still serves the same purpose, and it still deserves its bolding.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...Well.. I also expected something better than that... Among other it reads - Resolution (95) 23 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1995 invites the concerned State to become a member of the Council of Europe and emphasises that it will be “provisionally referred to as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’”..so.. if "provisionally referred to" is not a synonym for "called", if all official UN and EU documents regarding FYROM never "name" this country but just "provisionally refer to it", then something is seriously wrong with our logic here. Next thing, we'll start arguing whether "von Bismarck" should be used as a surname, since it is a "regional reference" rather than a proper name (you know... the "von" part written in small letters and staff...). It also reads : "Other states, including most members of the European Union, recognise it under the name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, even if, as in Germany and Italy, there have sometimes been parliamentary initiatives calling for a change." and further on again uses terms like "title", etc.

ChrisO, whatever you call it, FYROM was imposed as a NAME substitute and until this changes, it should be treated thus.GK1973 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GK1973 is just enough for Chris to have a look at Google Book, and there he will see how many jurists speak about a "provisional name". But Kekrops' argument alone is strong enough.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion has already conclusively shown that common alternate names should be bolded. My only question is if the Macedonian-language name should be in bold too. Generally, Cyrillic equivalents are neither bolded nor italicised; see (FA) Belarus for example. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

f

Obviously, in the EU the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is up to. And the International Olympic Committee has its own ways [55]. Politis (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Grandstanding

This is not the place for grandstanding by the pro-Greek faction. The wording in the introduction should be the most neutral, yet still informative. This article already includes sufficient discussion and referencing for the naming conflict. (Taivo (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

The lead is a summary of the article, so the naming dispute needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Patton^t/c 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet you yourself Taivo continuously make POV edits by changing "many countries" to "some countries" (let's see, are 70 countries "many" or "some"?) and by grouping all international organizations as "other", by not accepting the plain fact that after huge research, only one intl. organization has ever referred to FYROM as ROM.--Avg (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Patton, but the grandstanding I am referring to is the use of over quantification of international organizations and the "feel" of the statement. The truth is that 1) the most well-known international organizations use FYROM, 2) less well-known international organizations are not so uniform, 3) most countries of the world use Republic of Macedonia. The key is that these three facts need to be carefully described in the most neutral language possible without overemphasizing any of the three. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Rather than edit warring on the page, let's work out compromise wording for that sentence here. I suggest the following: "Following the UN, most international organizations officially use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but most countries of the world use "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations." (Taivo (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Find me ONE international organization that doesn't use FYROM. For now I'm listing you these:

1. UN
2. EU
3. NATO
4. IMF
5. WTO
6. IOC
7. WB
8. EBRD
9. OSCE
10. FIFA
11. FIBA

(...to be expanded) NikoSilver 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Most" could very well mean exactly that..."most", and my compromise wording above makes that very point. (Taivo (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I think that this wording would be better stylistically (to get away from two "mosts" in the sentence): "Following the UN, most international organizations officially use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but the majority of individual nations use "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations." (Taivo (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree with your proposal. Edit to put "but" and I support. NikoSilver 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thanks Taivo.--Avg (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad the problem at Greece can't be solved so quickly and easily. LOL. (Taivo (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Strong arguments from both sides maybe. ;-) NikoSilver 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)