Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 11

message: Excuse me would really appreciate any info on the Egyptians in Macedonia, when did they get there? How many are there? What religion do they follow Coptic orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam? How did they get there or why? Is it a common occurence in the region, in neighbouring countries? Plz any info would be greatly appreciated.
:See Macedonian salad. Miskin 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the remnants of older Greek inhabitants. Much more of them can be found further south (Aegean Macedonia), since scientific studies have conclusively proven that Greeks are basically a mix of Egyptians and Ethiopians. Of course the native Makedonski had spotted them thousands of years ago and killed most of them. --Avg 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha.the subsaharan origin of the Greeks!i have heard this joke before:) --Hectorian 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - see this - apparently the same "research" found that the Japanese also have sub-Saharan origins ;-) Telex 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KARALOL!'άλλος για τη βάρκα μας...?'...:). (=who else will join us?) --Hectorian 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afro-Samurais and Macedonian-Slavs. Life is full of surprises. Miskin 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why some nationalist people can't just accept the fact that Macedonian Slavs are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great. It is a well documented fact (by the respected historian G. Paparovski) that when he liberated Macedonia from the Greeks he yelled Слобода или Смрт!--Avg 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... heh, and then what, did he sing Еј, Словени? Telex 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: It's these kind of things that show manifest inferiority complexes and vile racism most effectively - why else would one resort to such pseudoscience to make themselves feel better. Assuming the HLA genes research was spot on and the Greeks and Japanese (and God knows who else they grouped in that category) do have sub-Saharan origins, is there anything wrong with that, or are Africans necessarily in some way inferior to everyone else? That's what the authors of that web page seem to think - there's more gloating there than when GWB won the elections. I'd be prepared to say that the Jews, the Turks, the Arabs and other non-Aryan peoples have contributed more to mankind than the Macedonian Slavs (whose own status as falling within that allegedly superior category remains dubious). Telex 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that everyone in this discussion should be familiar with this, but let me mention it again just to make sure: it is beyond reasonable doubt that Homo Sapiens first appeared in Africa and spread to conquer the world subsequently. So I do not find anything surprising in the fact that the Japanese or whoever else has genes in common with the African population. In fact I'll be rather surprised if they did not, because of its implications to the human evolution. FunkyFly 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! According to most scientists, the human race was born in Africa. According to the Christian tradition, it was born in the Garden of Edem (modern day Iraq), but noone says that the whole world is Iraqis...Anyway, we all know that those who create such articles are motivated by racist ideas, in order to show that a nation (Greeks and Japanese in the case discussed) are inferior than the others, for they are/were descendants of black people. So, we should first totally reject such ideas as racist, and then as unhistoric (we all know that they are both...). --Hectorian 04:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the discussion in this section, i have to say that we (all of those who have editted comments here) did not behave right to the user:Zakaria mohyeldin, who simply asked for info about the Egyptians in FYROM. we kept on refearing to really stupid websites, instead of just typing Egyptians (Balkans), in order to give him the info he kindly asked... --Hectorian 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is really bad is how Greek-African people in the Macedonian blog are presented as something inferior. It is like saying to your grandfather that he is inferior, because he did not go to college. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that race correlates with intellect or enculturation, people who claim that are (surprise?) racists. FunkyFly 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: People are forgeting the Bulgarian identity and heritage of the Republic of Macedonia. It is impossible to study Bulgarian history and culture and leave out its lost western heartland that reaches Ohrid. The history of the Republic of Macedonia starts with Bulgaria; to deny this truth would be like saying that Yorkshire is not English, or Peloponnese not Greek, or Elbasan not Albanian. Goce Delcev and many more are Bulgarian heros for peace and democracy for all. They never spoke of our brothers in Vardar Bulgaria as 'ethnic Macedonians', no one spoke of that until Tito. We were all Bulgarians, even if we were born in Skopje, Sandanski, America or Western Europe. Makedonija 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say this, you are right, but who listens? The "Macedonians" evidently don't want to have anything to do with the... "Bulgaro-Tatars"  and the "Greek Ethiopians" ;-) Telex 11:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And now we aren't. You know very well that many Goce's statements speak about Macedonians different from Bulgarians. Make peace with this. Bomac 11:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right ;-) Telex 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But that's the truth. BTW, Goce never fought for Bulgaria, he fought for independent Macedonia with free Macedonians. Bomac 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, IMARO served Bulgarian interests. His aim was autonomy for the Bulgarians of Macedonia. Telex 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would anybody do a separate country from a region, with the same people? C'm on, this is really bizarre. Bomac 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason that Serb nationalists want the independence of Republika Srpska rather than union with Serbia, or the same reasons that Albanian nationalists want independence for Kosovo rather than union with Albania. They know they have no chance of uniting immediately, so they go for independence instead - they know that in time though, the two states will eventually unite. Telex 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL... Nothing else... LOL... Bomac 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a well known fact that prior to the 1940s the designation Macedonians (Македонци/Μακεδόνες) was only a designation of regional origin, much like Thracians (Тракийци/Θράκες) was then and still is today, by Greeks, Bulgarians and others. After Tito's propaganda came into force, the ethnically Bulgarian Македонци were transformed, after a few years of communist terror, into an ethnic group in their own right. Had Yugoslavia acquired an ethnically Greek portion of Macedonia, then the ethnically Greek Μακεδόνες, would have been made into the Macedonian ethnic group, speaking a Macedonian language, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bulgaria would have probably imposed the economic blockade once the people speaking a Yugoslav socialism influenced Greek language in this hypothetical former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia started presenting Bulgarian history as their own and stared making land claims to Bulgaria :p). Telex 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, it was terrible. There was a huge portal in which they put the regional Macedonians, and when they came out, they were ethnic Macedonians... God saved the Greek Macedonians (but - they are ethnic group according Miskin in Macedonians (ethnic group). Wonder what converted them? Bomac 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Miskin ever claimed that (I don't know what he claimed). For some idea of what's going on, try reading this article and try explaining the weird fact that the Bulgarian language was prohibited in the Republic of Macedonia until relatively recently (probably so that the ethnic Macedonians wouldn't notice the uncanny similarities between "Macedonian" and Bulgarian) and when this law was finally lifted, 63,000 ethnic Macedonians declared themselves Bulgarians and acquired Bulgarian citizenship ;-) If Tito wasn't able to "convert" the Greek minority (actually they were a majority before 1945 in Bitola) and other cities it was because, what he called the "Macedonian" language was the regional variation of the Bulgarian language, not the Greek language, so it was easier for the Bulgarian Macedonians to adopt this new identity. Interestingly, the Republic of Macedonia government claims there are no Greeks there today; I see three possibilities: a) the Rep. Macedonia government is lying, b) they were "converted" (ie Slavicized), c) genocide was inflicted upon them. I don't know which you prefer.  Telex 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Vergina/Macedonia 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of Macedonia is Bulgarian heritage

message: The article's title should be "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accordance to the name recognized by the United Nations, as happens to all nation entries. Also the links at the bottom of the entry are biased towards supporting the FYROM opinion on the disputes with Greece, lacking any credible reference to the Greek arguments. Dr. Manos 22:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the title, you should make your case in a bit more depth. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position. I say that because the current article title has been settled on after quite a bit of turmoil, and just changing it would not be a good idea. On the other hand, with regard to the links, sofixit. I'm sure that more references would benefit the article. --Yath 23:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Manos, please be patient...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes: given that one move request/proposal is currently underway, another one now is analogous to putting the proverbial cart before the Trojan horse. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I wish it were (had thought of it myself)...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the country in question have a boundary with Kosovo? Leshkuq 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Po, edhe minoritet shqiptar i shtypur. Telex 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would translate to??  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  "minoritet shqiptar" is albanian minority, not the rest is left to the imagination:-)--Avg 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My imagination stretches as near as yours... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be something like "Yes, and the Albanian minority is oppressed", and my other guess is that the comment is because Leshkuq is an Albanian who supports Albanian Kosovars. --Avg 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess your imagination isn't that much wild, after all... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title / bias 

message: This is a notification to all involved editors that there are some apparent double standards used in:
*Portal:Greece/Intro: Inclusion of languages (Vlach, Arvanitic, Turkish, Slavomacedonian) in the intro that are neither official nor frequent (only claimed to be used partly -along with Greek- by 1% or 2% of the population).
*Portal:Republic of Macedonia/Intro: Removal of the Albanian language from the intro, which is both (partly?) official and extremely frequent (as it is used by ONE out of FOUR republican Macedonians mostly exclusively).
Please place those portals in your watchlists.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you on the talk page that this was one of the terms of the agreement, but I was ignored. Telex 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

text: ...
*Official languages2: Macedonian; Albanian.
The footnote(s) below indicate the following:
*1 Member of the United Nations under the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.   2 Albanian was made an official language in June 2002. . . .
which is verbatim the note I added to the infobox, with other content since embellished.
I've restored a conciliatory version, w/o Albanian name in infobox (though I don't deny it, strangely, the Albanian name isn't noted in EB), but with note as before.  Telex, I think we were crossing paths (I only realised your restoration after the fact); please restore if problematic and let me know if you've questions.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention! 

message: SYNOPSIS OF LANGUAGES:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17124/17124-h/images/migrations.jpg
:Vergina/Macedonia 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the Fyromian language?

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

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

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

message: I really think that it's claim to be an objective and fully-functioning encyclopedia is at stake through its choice for the FYROM article's title. And that is because:
a) The article is either subjective on the basis of FYROM claims or on the basis of the United States of America diplomatic stance on the issue. Since FYROM is a member of the United Nations, the UN-adopted name should be the one in the title. This is a different case from those of the self-prolcaimed Republics of China and Northern Cyprus (Turkish*). Those are not recognized by the UN, therefore objective encyclopedias have them under the name they've declared their independence with. In this case, they've been accepting the FYROM name for all international organs, therefore FYROM is the name for the article.
b) The page Macedonia should be linking to both the Greek province AND the FYROM country entity, since both are internationally recognized to contain "Macedonia" in their titles and without including the Greek province you can't give a proper picture of the dispute to the encyclopedia's users.
c) FYROM IS a self-identifying term, as they use it every day in the UN, in their relations with the EU, in their EBU/UER membership and more.
I hope that Wikipedia will make the right choice on this one. Dr. Manos 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it had been "infiltrated by Slavs". Μακάρι! Then we would'nt have to trudge through the imagined ethnic history of a few misguided Makedonci Slavs... Politis 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say that again!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia after all? 

message: What is the status of this issue, linked here from Wikipedia:Current surveys#Polls? - Centrx 02:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People need to go and vote in #Initial_opinion_on_poll_results above so that we end this.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of "Introduction for Republic of Macedonia"? 

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

message: This edit made me laugh - not as much as this one though ;-) --Telex 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon guys - are you sure you don't want the "Western Bulgaria" reference? --Telex 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laughed? How about this retrospective ethnic cleansing attempt, with the justification "remove crap"? :NikoSilver: 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain the edit was placed in the right article. There's a big difference between the vilayet and the town of Monastir, and they could very well had radically different demographics, like Salonica and its vilayet.--Aldux 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a map of the Manastir Vilayet. --Telex 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: The population of FYROM 1912: North of Sar Planina are Serbs ;South of Sar Planina Bulgars!
Contested Regions according to the map annexed to the Treaty of Alliance 
(1912)
Map from "Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars" 1914. "The Serbian-Bulgarian treaty of 13 March 1912 made provision for the partition of Macedonia along the following lines: 'all the territory north of the Sar range' was to go to Serbia; 'all the region east of the Rhodope range and the Struma valley' was to go to Bulgaria. Bulgaria hoped the intervening country should form an 'autonomous Macedonia', but, if this should prove impossible, a new line was to be drawn leaving Kumanovo, Skoplje and Debar to Serbia, and giving Kratovo, Veles, Bitolj (Monastir) and Ohrid to Bulgaria. Serbia undertook to make no claim south of the line; Bulgaria reserved the right to claim territory to the north, in which case Russia was to act as arbitrator. The area of overlapping claims was known as the 'Contested Zone'. "--quote from: Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series: Jugoslavia, Volume II, 1944, p. 114
*http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_contested_1914.jpg
*http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html
:Vergina/Macedonia 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested Regions according to the map annexed to the Treaty of Alliance (1912)

message: :No one supports this has the moral right to act as editor for this article:
: You will find at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Telex/The_basic_principles_of_Macedonism, the following offensive opinion: 
:Any inhabitant of Macedonia, a region in southeastern Europe spanning Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia, who has a Slavic language as his or her mother tongue is an ethnic „Macedonian“, independent of his or her self-determination. An example of this is the claim of Goce Delchev, who clearly determined himself as Bulgarian, being in fact an ethnic „Macedonian“. Makedonija 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are you talking to, me (Makedonija) or are you talking to user:Telex from whom I am quoting the above text? If you think his contributions are original research, then you must tell him. Makedonija 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm paraphrasing the article Macedonism which is based on Dr Bozhidar Dimitrov's views. --Tēlex 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I really do think that the Foreign Relations section is a fork of Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia and should be merged there (perhaps only a brief summary here). --Tēlex 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree; the section is far too long, and needs energic summarizing.--Aldux 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forking 

message: I took the liberty of emptying this <sewer> of 407Kb of mostly rants. I even worked on the links in the archive. Feel free to revert me if you think that there was any meaning in all these polls with multiple choices that lead to an un-decipher-able [sic] dead-end. :NikoSilver: 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all this talking HAS to stop!  Bomac 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May archive 11 be full of smileys Bomac! :NikoSilver: 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive10

message: Quick qestion. Is there even a mention of the word 'slav' in the whole article? Or do the Fyromians carry direct decent from 500BC to present day with less slav culture and blood than even the Greeks? Anyone reading this article might think they are not a slavic people. Reaper7  </span>
:Some guys simply can't resist to quarelling. 
--Aldux 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No really, there is no mentioning of the slavic descent of Macedonian Slavs. I don't consider this ranting or anything, but I think a neutral summary of the article Slav Macedonians in the Demographics section would include this information at least. Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 13:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe the problem is more due to modest quality of the history section; there's an incredible leap from 146 BC to AD 1912, 2000 years in 2 lines. Probably 1912-2005 should be shortened (there's History of the Republic of Macedonia, isn't there?) and right a couple of not-too-long paragraphs on the 146 BC to 1912 period; there we could speak of the Slavic invasions.--Aldux 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Aldux, I generally agree. Also, we see as it goes and modify accordingly. Would you care to do the honours of making the modifications you proposed above?:NikoSilver: 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll try; but I'm not very good in being brief, so don't be shy in modifying the text if you don't like it.--Aldux 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic Connection 

message: Luka, it is POV to say that some ethnic Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians. As far as people declaring themselves as Bulgarians are concerned, they are Bulgarians declaring as Bulgarians. Respect their right to self-identification - imagine if I went to Croatia and said that it is inhabited by predominantly by ethnic Serbs declaring themselves as Croats, or to Romania and said that it is inhabited by ethnic Moldovans declaring themselves as Romanians, or even to say that the Republic of Macedonia is inhabited by Bulgarians declaring themselves Macedonians. People are who they say they are - don't impose POV labels, especially without citing sources. --Tēlex 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, with one caveat, some Macedonians may declare themselves as Bulgarians for financial and other benefits that come from having (or will come from having) a Bulgarian passport . And yes, the article does highlight some bad things about Macedonia, so you should enjoy it :) - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that 'Radko', a pro-Bulgarian political party in FYROM, which was banned by the "Macedonian" Constitutional Court as separatist for merely saying in public that the "Macedonian" "nation" are brainwashed Bulgarians, did so for financial benefits? --Tēlex 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FYROM government weren't happy at all about that organization. Apparently, the Bulgarian ambassador to FYROM attended one of their events, and the FYROM government complained saying that: the presence of a high Bulgarian official at an event intended to deny the Macedonian identity is not within the framework of the usual diplomatic activities in the country which has offered him hospitality . I suppose that, at the very least, they do gain publicity. Anyway, I guess you're right Francis. It's simply impossible that there are people with a genuine Bulgarian national identity in FYROM, for the doctrine tells me so, --Tēlex 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: may - FrancisTyers · 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-id 

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

message: Should this not even be mentioned once? IE if this suddenly stops being the case, the country will significantly suffer as greece is its only major investor. #
Reaper7  
:We should need some reliable sources before, giving also the number of the other countries. As an output of the country's exports, Serbia seems to be more important (31% to 9%).--Aldux 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece biggest investor to FYROM Economy 

message: Please Luka Jačov, do not go about asking for proof about everything - or as targetting in a prejudicial manner ethnicities you may despise (I am sure you respect them all). The republic has many minorities and ethnicities because it never went to war in the 1990s trying to wipe them out. Politis 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luka, we have been through this before. The Joshua Project claims that they have a Greek minority of c. 20,000 . The former Greek minister for Macedonia-Thrace claimed that there are at least 200,000 Greeks in FYROM . The Ethnologue says that Greek is amongst the languages spoken there. Greeks have a historic presence in the area, especially in the south, but there was a recorded Greek community in Krushevo before communism, and Ottoman censi have recorded a Greek presence in the area. Finally, the evidence supporting the existence "Macedonian minority in Greece" is of a similar nature, so if you persist in removing the Greeks from here, I will be removing any reference to Macedonians from Greece. Double standards are not allowed. --Tēlex 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: In case you're interested, it seems that Greeks were recorded in the census . --Kiro Gligorov 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in case you didn't notice (which I doubt) the above commment, then read it now and stop reverting sourced material, by saying that it wasn't discussed. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greeks etc

message: Requested by Luka Jačov. Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2004 (CD version)
*Macedonian: 1297981
*Albanian: 509083
*Vlach: 9695
*Roma: 53879
*Turkish: 77959
*Austrian: 35
*Bosniak: 17018
*Bulgarian: 1487
*German: 88
*Greek: 422
*Jew: 53
*Egyptian: 3713
*Italian: 46
*Muslim: 2553
*Polish: 162
*Romanian: 38
*Russian: 368
*Ruthenian: 24
*Slovak: 60
*Slovene: 365
*Serb: 35939
*Ukrainian: 136
*Croat: 129
*Montenegrin: 2686
*Hungarian: 2003
*Czech: 60
*Other: 5332
*Ethnically undeclared: 404
*Regional affiliation: 829
--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population according to declared ethnic affiliation, 2002 census 

message: Its fun to go through external links with reference to Wikipedia:External links and determine which ones should be included according to policies and to cut down on external link spam! Like a game! - FrancisTyers · 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thats a reasonable amount done for tonight, if anyone else wants to have a go, be my guest. - FrancisTyers · 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links cull

message: * Detailed Profile of Macedonia from the Encyclopedia of Nations — Delete world factobook mirror. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other, unofficial web sites

message: This map is stupid. It allocates Albanian populated areas (Tetovo, Gostivar) to Serbia. --Tēlex 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a new user's personal opinion of how the RoM should be divided between its neighbours. It's obviously unsuitable for inclusion - I've nominated it for deletion. -- ChrisO 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that image would be appropriate on Wikipedia:No international summits as a sister article to Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man --GunnarRene 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid 

message: These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles. 
I'll start with a quote.
«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».
"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."
- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html
OK, just saw that wiki puts everything in bold. Politis 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Reactions 

message: Should it not be mentioned that unless FYROM's name is changed from the title page's version, Greece will Veto FYROM's entry into the EU and the country will be even more isloated? The article is written as if that is the permanent name and there is no chance of a change.. Reaper7 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that veto is highly probable, to my knowledge, there is no such explicit statement from the Greek officials. •NikoSilver• 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errr 

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

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

message: This does NOT include trade embargos ect, just a basic display first for you why the phrase 'good relations' is what we call a lie in english:
===Greece===
The indeterminate status of the Republic of Macedonia's name arises from a long-running dispute with Greece, which criticizes the use of what is considered to be Greek name and symbols. The main points of the dispute are:
* The name: the Republic of Macedonia is only part of the wider region of Macedonia, 51% of which is part of Greece, and it is inhabited by an ethnic group of Slavic origin, unrelated to the Ancient Macedonians.
* The flag: the use of a symbol found in Greece.
* Constitutional issues: certain articles of the constitution that were seen as claims on Greek territory.
The naming issue was "parked" in a compromise agreed at the United Nations in 1993. However, Greece refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic and imposed an economic blockade that lasted until the flag and constitutional issues were resolved in 1995.
===Naming issue===
Greek concerns over the name arise from a number of factors:
* The name is historically associated with Greek culture, notably that of the kingdom of Macedon. Greeks consider that the inhabitants of the neighbouring republic—most of whom are descendants of Slavic tribes who moved into the region around the 6th century AD—have no moral or historical right to claim the name "Macedonia" for themselves. Some Macedonian nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon, making a number of historically dubious claims.
* The territory of the Republic of Macedonia was not so called until 1944, when it was made a separate republic. Thus, although it is certainly part of the historical region of Macedonia, there is no political continuity between ancient Macedon and the modern Republic of Macedonia.
* Greece suspected that the Republic of Macedonia had territorial ambitions in the northern Greek provinces of Macedonia. This has been a Greek concern for decades; as far back as 1957, the Greek government expressed concern about reported Yugoslav ambitions to create an "independent" People's Republic of Macedonia with the Greek city of Thessaloniki as its capital. [7]
The naming issue has not yet been resolved, but it has effectively reached a stalemate. In 1993, the United Nations obtained Greece's acquiesence to the admission of the Republic of Macedonia by adopting the provisional name of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" [1] (поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија - ПЈРМ) [2] However, much to the annoyance of the Greek government, the compromise is wearing increasingly thin, as most states have recognised the country as the "Republic of Macedonia" instead. These include the permanent UN Security Council members of the United States, Russia, and the People's Republic of China, and the former Yugoslavian republics of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In addition, the Republic of Macedonia's other neighbours, Bulgaria and Albania, have also recognised the nation by its constitutional name.
This compromise name is always used in relations when states not recognizing the constitutional name are parties. This is due to the fact that the UN refers to the country only as FYROM, although all UN member-states (and the UN as a whole) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries.
The dispute continues to excite passions in both nations, but in practice the two countries deal pragmatically with each other. Economic relations and cooperation have resumed since 1995 to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[3]
Within Greece, many Greeks reject any use of the word "Macedonia" to describe the Republic of Macedonia, instead calling it ΠΓΔΜ, the Greek version of FYROM, or Skopje and its inhabitants Skopians (Greek: Skopiani), after the country's capital. This metonymic name is not used by non-Greeks, and many inhabitants of the Republic regard it as insulting. Greek official sources sometimes use the term "Slavomacedonian" to refer to the Republic's inhabitants and its language (even the US State Department has used the term side by side with Macedonian, albeit having them both in quotation marks [4]). The term "Macedonian Slavs" is another term sometimes used to refer to the ethnic Macedonians by non-Greeks. A number of news agencies have used it (although the BBC recently discontinued its use on the grounds that people had alleged it was offensive), and it is used by the Encarta Encyclopedia. The Macedonian language translation of Macedonian Slavs - Македонски Словени - has been occasionally used in the past by Macedonian sources, and the term is used in Krste Misirkov's work On Macedonian Issues.
The United Nations set a target of September 13, 2002 for reaching a solution to the issue. This date passed without any solution being found and it is unclear how the issue will be resolved, given the apparently irreconcilable positions of the two sides. The Republic of Macedonia says that it will not abandon the name "Macedonia", while Greece says that it will not accept any permanent name that includes "Macedonia".
The March 2004 application of the Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union may help to speed efforts to find a solution; in a meeting of 14 September 2004, the EU noted that the difference over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still persists and encouraged parties to find a mutually acceptable solution, but stated that it is not part of the conditions for EU accession.
In 2005, Matthew Nimetz, UN Special Representative for the country, suggested using "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] for official purposes. Greece did not accept the proposal outright, but characterized it as "a basis for constructive negotiations". Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski rejected the proposal and counterproposed a "double formula" where the international community uses "Republic of Macedonia" and Greece uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [5][6]
In October 2005 Nimetz made a new proposal. It proposes that the name “Republika Makedonija” should be used by the 106 countries that have recognized the country under that name. It proposes, also, that Greece should use the formula “Republika Makedonija – Skopje”, while the international institutions and organizations should use the name “Republika Makedonia” in Latin alphabet transcription. While the government of the Republic of Macedonia accepted the proposal as a good basis for solving the dispute, Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable.[7]
[edit] Flag issue
The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)
Enlarge
The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)
Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence flag caused a major controversy when it was unveiled. The use of the Vergina Sun on the flag offended Greeks, as the symbol is being associated with King Philip II of Macedon and by extension with his son, Alexander the Great. The Greek viewpoint was summed up in an FAQ circulated on the Internet in the late 1990s:
The Vergina Sun, the emblem of Philip's dynasty, symbolizes the birth of our nation. It was the first time (4th century BC) that the Greek mainland (city-states and kingdoms) with the same language, culture, and religion were united against the enemies of Asia in one league. At the same time the fractured Greek world grew conscious of its unity. And, in this sense, we have never been apart since then. The "Sun" was excavated in Greece in 1978, and it is sacred to us. [8]
The symbol was removed from the flag under an agreement reached between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece in September 1995. The Republic agreed to meet a number of Greek demands for changes to its national symbols and constitution, while Greece agreed to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic and end its economic blockade.
Constitutional issue
The Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence constitution, adopted on November 17, 1991 included a number of clauses that Greece interpreted as promoting secessionist sentiment among the Slavophone population of northern Greece, and making irredentist claims on Greek territory. Article 49 of the constitution caused particular concern. It read:
#The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian expatriates, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them. In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.
#The Republic cares for the cultural, economic and social rights of the citizens of the Republic abroad. [8]
In the Greek view, this was effectively a license for the Republic to interfere in Greek internal affairs. The offending articles were removed under the 1995 agreement between the two sides.
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Greece
Reaper7 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politis for you:

message: Greek concerns over the name arise from a number of factors:
* The name is historically associated with Greek culture, notably that of the kingdom of Macedon. Greeks consider that the inhabitants of the neighbouring republic—most of whom are descendants of Slavic tribes who moved into the region around the 6th century AD—have no moral or historical right to claim the name "Macedonia" for themselves. Some Macedonian nationalists and communist-era Yugoslav propagandists have tried to associate the republic with ancient Macedon, making a number of historically dubious claims.
* The territory of the Republic of Macedonia was not so called until 1944, when it was made a separate republic. Thus, although it is certainly part of the historical region of Macedonia, there is no political continuity between ancient Macedon and the modern Republic of Macedonia.
* Greece suspected that the Republic of Macedonia had territorial ambitions in the northern Greek provinces of Macedonia. This has been a Greek concern for decades; as far back as 1957, the Greek government expressed concern about reported Yugoslav ambitions to create an "independent" People's Republic of Macedonia with the Greek city of Thessaloniki as its capital. [7]
The naming issue has not yet been resolved, but it has effectively reached a stalemate. In 1993, the United Nations obtained Greece's acquiesence to the admission of the Republic of Macedonia by adopting the provisional name of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" [1] (поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија - ПЈРМ) [2] However, much to the annoyance of the Greek government, the compromise is wearing increasingly thin, as most states have recognised the country as the "Republic of Macedonia" instead. These include the permanent UN Security Council members of the United States, Russia, and the People's Republic of China, and the former Yugoslavian republics of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In addition, the Republic of Macedonia's other neighbours, Bulgaria and Albania, have also recognised the nation by its constitutional name.
This compromise name is always used in relations when states not recognizing the constitutional name are parties. This is due to the fact that the UN refers to the country only as FYROM, although all UN member-states (and the UN as a whole) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries.
The dispute continues to excite passions in both nations, but in practice the two countries deal pragmatically with each other. Economic relations and cooperation have resumed since 1995 to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[3]
Within Greece, many Greeks reject any use of the word "Macedonia" to describe the Republic of Macedonia, instead calling it ΠΓΔΜ, the Greek version of FYROM, or Skopje and its inhabitants Skopians (Greek: Skopiani), after the country's capital. This metonymic name is not used by non-Greeks, and many inhabitants of the Republic regard it as insulting. Greek official sources sometimes use the term "Slavomacedonian" to refer to the Republic's inhabitants and its language (even the US State Department has used the term side by side with Macedonian, albeit having them both in quotation marks [4]). The term "Macedonian Slavs" is another term sometimes used to refer to the ethnic Macedonians by non-Greeks. A number of news agencies have used it (although the BBC recently discontinued its use on the grounds that people had alleged it was offensive), and it is used by the Encarta Encyclopedia. The Macedonian language translation of Macedonian Slavs - Македонски Словени - has been occasionally used in the past by Macedonian sources, and the term is used in Krste Misirkov's work On Macedonian Issues.
The United Nations set a target of September 13, 2002 for reaching a solution to the issue. This date passed without any solution being found and it is unclear how the issue will be resolved, given the apparently irreconcilable positions of the two sides. The Republic of Macedonia says that it will not abandon the name "Macedonia", while Greece says that it will not accept any permanent name that includes "Macedonia".
The March 2004 application of the Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union may help to speed efforts to find a solution; in a meeting of 14 September 2004, the EU noted that the difference over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still persists and encouraged parties to find a mutually acceptable solution, but stated that it is not part of the conditions for EU accession.
In 2005, Matthew Nimetz, UN Special Representative for the country, suggested using "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] for official purposes. Greece did not accept the proposal outright, but characterized it as "a basis for constructive negotiations". Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski rejected the proposal and counterproposed a "double formula" where the international community uses "Republic of Macedonia" and Greece uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [5][6]
In October 2005 Nimetz made a new proposal. It proposes that the name “Republika Makedonija” should be used by the 106 countries that have recognized the country under that name. It proposes, also, that Greece should use the formula “Republika Makedonija – Skopje”, while the international institutions and organizations should use the name “Republika Makedonia” in Latin alphabet transcription. While the government of the Republic of Macedonia accepted the proposal as a good basis for solving the dispute, Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable.[7]
[edit] Flag issue
The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)
Enlarge
The former flag of Republic of Macedonia (used from 1992-1995)
Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence flag caused a major controversy when it was unveiled. The use of the Vergina Sun on the flag offended Greeks, as the symbol is being associated with King Philip II of Macedon and by extension with his son, Alexander the Great. The Greek viewpoint was summed up in an FAQ circulated on the Internet in the late 1990s:
The Vergina Sun, the emblem of Philip's dynasty, symbolizes the birth of our nation. It was the first time (4th century BC) that the Greek mainland (city-states and kingdoms) with the same language, culture, and religion were united against the enemies of Asia in one league. At the same time the fractured Greek world grew conscious of its unity. And, in this sense, we have never been apart since then. The "Sun" was excavated in Greece in 1978, and it is sacred to us. [8]
The symbol was removed from the flag under an agreement reached between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece in September 1995. The Republic agreed to meet a number of Greek demands for changes to its national symbols and constitution, while Greece agreed to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic and end its economic blockade.
Constitutional issue
The Republic of Macedonia's first post-independence constitution, adopted on November 17, 1991 included a number of clauses that Greece interpreted as promoting secessionist sentiment among the Slavophone population of northern Greece, and making irredentist claims on Greek territory. Article 49 of the constitution caused particular concern. It read:
#The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as well as Macedonian expatriates, assists their cultural development and promotes links with them. In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.
#The Republic cares for the cultural, economic and social rights of the citizens of the Republic abroad. [8]
In the Greek view, this was effectively a license for the Republic to interfere in Greek internal affairs. The offending articles were removed under the 1995 agreement between the two sides.
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Greece
Reaper7 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming issue

message: I have read the article and I was amazed by the use of the word Macedonian. There is an open name dispute that is not a matter of foreign relations or of how many countries will recognize the small country with the name it wants.The problem is very important and very real. I tried to find a good analogy in the comments by I was not able to find something close. Let me state my own analogy. 
How would an american (US) feel if mexico was renamed by it's own government as Indians?
How would someone living in Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark feel if a new country was created in the region and the name it chose would be "The Vikings"?It is clear that the problem Greeks have is more than historical. It is a problem of human rights (of the Greeks is macedonia), it is an economic problem (commerce and trading confusion) and finally a major historic distorion.Please comment on what I state below.By Everydaypanos 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name Issue