Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 13

message: I m sorry to hurt your feelings but under the current status this state is formally referred by the UN as Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia which is abbreviated as FYROM. Till there is another settlement within UN this and only this is the oficial undisputed name.
Italiotis 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses the direct translation of whatever name a country calls itself to title articles about a country.  The UN has no affiliation to wikipedia so there is no particular reason wikipedia would choose to instead use the UN for it's naming convention especially since while there are some countries that are not members of the Un there are no countries that have no name they recognize themselves by.  For english this policy obviously means the title of the article is going to be Republic of Macedonia.Zebulin 23:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, It's called itself the Republic of Macedonia so it is the Republic of Macedonia. Greece doesn't have a dispute with Eritrea, even though there's a greek city calle Eretria which is practically the same. A large number of people think that the greek province of macedonia should be part of the republic of macedonia anyway. Even though I don't necessarily agree with that its called the Republic of Macedonia. Let's keep the status quo. 86.163.116.131 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eretria and Eritrea? You can do better than that, since the country actually got its name from the Greek word Erythraia :-) --   Avg    22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed a zillion times, but let me state once again that the ACTUAL neutral position is FYROM, adopted by almost every international organization since there are ongoing diplomatic discussions between the two countries. If Wikipedia adopts any other name before the dispute is resolved, it takes sides. Do not adopt Republic of Skopje or Vardaria or any other proposals Greece has made (THIS is the Greek POV, not FYROM...), but do not adopt Republic of Macedonia also, which is Skopje's POV. So much for Greeks imposing their opinion... --   Avg    00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About FYROM

message: First of all the real name is REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA !!! NOT FYROM !!! Who do thay think the Greeks are. Only Macedonia can tell what the true name is. The Greeks have their Greek Macedonia but that is a part of Macedonia that has been taken after the Balkanic War II with the Bucharest Peace Contract. Even if the name in the UN is FYROM that will change. Plus that in the Bucharest Peace Contract says that after 2013 Macedonia should reunite if until then exists Macedonian people and Macedonian country. Pirin Macedonia and Greek Macedonia should reunite in one country as Republic Of Macedonia. The Greeks are afraid of that so they want to change the name so Macedonia can't reunite. 
                               
I just want to ask what do you know about our name and our history. The Macedonian history was always different from the Greek's. Macedonia was and it always will be a diferent country, with different people, different cultures and everything different.
I don't wanna argue but stop acting dumb! It's NOT Republic Of Macedonia, it's  FYROM!!!
Please look at this http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#t  Zisimos 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Republic Of Macedonia!!! NOT FYROM!!!

message: There are a couple of points that I would like to stretch about the Macedonia name dispute. And I m going to stretch both historical , etthnical, and linguistic points. First of all Macedonia as an area has been altered substantially through time. Initially it was the name used to designate the ancient greek kingdom of Macedon and its greek inhabitants. This area is completely encompassed within the borders of modern Greece and constitues today the greek province of Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians were one the the seven ancient greek tribes that constituted the greek nation according to the cosmogony of Isiodus. On top of it Herodotus further stretches that Macedonians were Greeks of Doric origin, who never followed the doric descent to the southern greece but remained in their original area Macedon. Macedon from the the 4 century BC were speaking Attic Greek and whatever writing findings we have before that time that signify that the ancient Macedonian Language was simply another Greek dialect closely related to the doric form of greek. So it is widely accepted that ancient macedonians were simply Greeks. Some dispute however rises from some scholars who challenge this issue. Those scholars belong to the same school of thought that initiated the theory of Black Athina simply stating that that the ancient Athenians and perhaps the ancient greeks where of African/Nubian and not of european origin . This school of thought came in existence as the result of an attempt to rewrite the history and forge a new perception of a multiroot origin of classical civilisations. All those theories of course never become dominant among the scientific community remaining isolated opinions of some scholars, but opinions and not reality nontheless. However it was this school of thought that suggested that the ancient Macedonians were not greeks in an attempt to include the slavic people into the group of people who produced classical civilisations. This exact forgery -that was never managed to be imposed universally- Tito, the communist president of the republic of Yogoslavia for decades,managed to exploit. Among Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Bosnia he created a sixth state encompassing the area of ancient Paionia, and named ir Yugoslavic republic of Macedonia. This area was inhabited by Serbians, Albanians and finally by a substatial Bulgarian minority who Tito used to built upon his irridentic claims on the whole area of the Ottoman province of Macedonia. Macedonia under the Ottomans was the name of an area much wider than the ancient Macedonia(alocated today in northern Greece). It constituted further the ancient paionia, most wisely known as Vardar Macedonia constituting the current state of the self called republic of macedonia, and Pirin Macedonia, currently the pirin mountains, the land gains of serbia and Bulgaria respectively during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. Those Bulgarian people Tito groomed to develop a totally different national identity from the rest of Bulgarians. He named their language , a dialect of bulgarian language , as macedonian, and raise a forged irredetic claim during the cold war on greek Macedonia. The years passed ,communist regimes collapsed and with them Tito s regime. Nonetheless the fragile Yogoslavia splited in parts and the little southern republic emerged to a state still using the name of macedonia and sstill raising direct or indirect claims on the region of Macedonia and the greek history of ancient hellenistic roman and byzantine Macedonia. Those people, Bulgarians by origin speaking a bulgarian dialect, are still bearers of Tito s irredentism and self determine themselves mistakenly as ethnic Macedonians. All the world concider them as a people of slavic origin with the right to self determine themselves as distinct of Bulgaria. Nonetheless it is rational for them to bear a name that will describe them distict from Bulgarians but at the same distict from the name of macedonia which describes an important part of the greek history and culture. The current description as republic of Macedonia is completely inaccurate and a huge historical mistake that will have to be corrected the soonest, and those people must finally acquire an accurate and real description of their nationality A nationality that came in existence only 60 years ago. And don t forget till today people from FYROM still acquire bulgarian passports in order to come and work in EU on the basis that they are bulgarian by origin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the name of Macedonia

message: I think that the languages spoken are serbian,bulgarian and albanian. There is no such thing as macedonian language. It is the language of the country, but it is nonsense (as if we are talking of australian or brazilian language)85.74.51.209 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I once heard a saying that a language is a dialect with an army. :-) See Macedonian language#Classification and related languages for info on the classification of the language. I should note that scholars don't have universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, but the experts do seem to take the view that that Macedonian is sufficiently distinct to be described as a language. For instance, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) treats Macedonian as a distinct language for classification purposes. -- ChrisO 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris you were looking for this. Also, in terms of abstand, their language could well fall within the definition of a Bulgarian dialect. However, linguists say that a language is a language if its speakers say so. And there's no doubt about what they say it is. NikoSilver 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch on the quote, Niko! I'd forgotten the "-and a navy" bit, but in hindsight it wouldn't have been very appropriate in the context, would it? Though there is a Swiss Navy, sort of... -- ChrisO 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, if it relied on the navy alone, there would be no doubt about the Greek language at least! NikoSilver 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Can someone provide a link/list of countries recognizing Macedonia as "Republic of Macedoia" (to be 106 according to the Macedonia naming dispute page) and those recognizing it as "FYROM"? Alinor 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible. See the end of the thread here for explanation. NikoSilver 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not even relevent Alinor.  A country has the right to decide whatever name it wishes.  There is Ireland and Northern Ireland and people don't care about the naming.  Do the other countries of North America care that citizens of the USA call themselves 'American'?  Do members if the European countries care that citizens of Cyprus refer to themselves as European even though the island is geographically part of Asia?  Macedonia has every right to choose whatever name it likes without interference from other countries.  Everyone accepts that it's called Macedonia but on paper and in the United Nations they use FYR of Macedonia just to please the Greeks. 217.200.200.54 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming dispute 

message: "Macedonia gained its independence peacefully from Yugoslavia in 1991, but Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered a Hellenic name and symbols delayed international recognition, which occurred under the provisional designation of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." In 1995, Greece lifted a 20-month trade embargo and the two countries agreed to normalize relations. The United States began referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, in 2004 and negotiations continue between Greece and Macedonia to resolve the name issue." - CIA Factbook
When referring to the name that the Greeks prefer, including the word "former," it would seems that it would be proper to capitalize the "F". Note that that is the convention accepted by the CIA, the BBC, IOC, IANA and other major international organizations.4.243.146.157 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is no. See Macedonia naming dispute (with added bolding): "It should be noted that this is purely a provisional reference — describing how the UN calls the state — rather than a determination by the UN of what the state's name should be (hence not a provisional name). This is emphasized by the fact that the expression begins with the uncapitalised words "the former". The UN also did not seek to set a standard for how others should refer to the republic, emphasizing that the reference had been adopted for use only "within the United Nations". The same convention was adopted by many other international organizations and states but they did so independently, not as the result of being instructed by the UN. The United Nations Security Council has emphasized that the reference is purely descriptive and "merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."" -- ChrisO 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't the "F" in "Former" be Capitalized?

message: From the History section:
In the late 6th century AD, Byzantine control over the area disintegrated, and the region was conquered by Slavic tribes from the north, assimilating the preexisting Greek, Latin, Illyrian and Thracian-speaking inhabitants.
The citation is from a Fyromian site aswell:
http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/slavsin.htm
The greeks stayed within the walls of Salonika during this time and did not assimilate or suddenly start speaking slav. Reaper7 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a goofy little shit. Can you imagine Italy throwing a fit because the United States has a Latin motto? Or Israelis throwing fits because people from any number of European countries give their children Hebriac names like Isaac and Simon? Or the aboriginal population in Australia throwing complaining because the white settlers adopt their words and give their cities aboriginal names? That's how absolutely absurd the Greek argument is in this matter. I side with the Greeks on most everything - from their dispute with Turkey regarding Cyprus to your 2000 Olympic bid - but on this matter you're behaving like a bunch of Turks. The mindless, pointless, absolutely nonsensical rambling about something as inconsequential as the name of a country which has NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO GREECE - which hystorically was part of the region of Macedonia (SO THE NAME IS ACCURATE) - is absolute lunacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.178.138 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course i agree with the above you said, but why is FYROM trying so desperate to prove that the ancient Macedonians have nothing to do with Greeks? And i'm not talking about some few ultra nationalist people in FYROM and abroad, i'm talking about the government too... why is that? Also since you said "FYROM is a part of Macedonia region, so the name is accurate", what about the other regions? Why FYROM to monopolize a name, that don't belong only to them (but Greece and Bulgaria too). So the appropriate is to choose a name (with the term Macedonia) that separates you from the Greek and Bulgaria Macedonia and of course to stop claiming other nations history (i'm talking about ancient Macedonia). If you can do that, then i'm sure we have nothing else to argue ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And modern America has nearly nothing to do with Ancient Rome, but they have a latin motto on their money. What kind of crazy nonsense is that??  I think Italy should protest this outrage before the UN security councel!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.178.138 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, I don't know what sprung off this comment, but all the examples you stated have different official names that disambiguate adequately. I don't think that Greece wold raise issue if that solution were to be applied, and some people euphemistically/for-simplicity used Americans to refer to the inhabitants of the USA.(<---mouse over these) As for Australia, I doubt New Guinea would be able to monopolize the name instead of the Australian Commonwealth which occupies -say- 95% of the continent. In our case the country occupies only 30% or so, with Greece occupying 51% (not to mention the unrelatedness in historic background). NikoSilver 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Their Eurovision candidate is one very beautiful girl if it helps. I was almost stunned (and that's rare). Also, the Greek commentator's tongue slipped to say plain "good luck Macedonia", to be quickly corrected by her almost angry colleague. I just say this to verify that the above official/simple distinction could also even occasionally apply in Greece! (and because I really liked the girl) NikoSilver 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Monastiri and beautiful? She must be of Greek Vlach origin. Go for it Karolina, Greece is behind you! ;-) Politis 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, she is one very beautiful F.Y.R.O.M. girl born in Bitola and she has very good voice. We Macedonians are happy that she succeeded to go in the final. Niko, I'm glad that you liked her;) MatriX 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet you're glad about the rest of my comment too. ;-) NikoSilver 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Lets hope Karolina and your Sarbel would have great success tommorow eveningMatriX 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again.. 

message: :Image:Coatofarmsradovish.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Coatofarmsradovish.gif

message: Please do not use Talk:Republic of Macedonia as a message board. This is not what talk pages are for - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- ChrisO 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of talk pages 

message: Reaper7 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did someone remove the image of the FYROM money note depicting the white tower?? 

message: Following ChrisO's question, there was an unofficial poll carried out in 2004 that I just spotted: . For those of you who can't read Greek, 68-75% support a solution with "Macedonia plus something". (There's a comment quoting the poll results "before reset" which raises the number of participants to c.270 -with the same results). Also, I found this fantastic opinion/article in Kathimerini by the prominent Greek journalist Athanassios Ellis, which states "We requested the maximum [i.e. "no Macedonia in the title"], hence we lost the minimum.[i.e. not even a dab]" The journalist also reconfirms that each political party accuses the other one for "treason" even if the solution chosen is similar to the one provided by the accusatory party! I posted these here to confirm my initial response. NikoSilver 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good, Niko, but it doesn't justify the intransigence of the other side. Greece made the first move by accepting the initial Nimetz proposal as a "basis for negotiations"; the ball's squarely in their court now. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a recent sourced addition of an anonymous user in Macedonia naming dispute about "Gorna Macedonia", it may not be entirely their fault. See this diff , which blames the Tetovo crisis for yet another failure in a definite solution. Jeez, I hope this all comes to an end at some point! NikoSilver 15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it could just be that they used the Albanian insurgency as an excuse not to reach a painful but inevitable (for both sides) compromise with Greece, in which case it is very much their fault. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm pretty sure it was Gorna Makedonija, Slavic for Upper Macedonia. Gorna Macedonia must be a typo on E's part. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously I have nothing intelligent to add to the name dispute, since the dispute itself is moronic, but since I am already here, I will throw in my 2c though nobody asked me for it :)  I am baffled, dazed and confused how did it come to this state of affairs and how come Macedonia and Greece are not the closest allies on the Balkans? For God's sake, Greece is Macedonia's exit to sea, and Macedonia is Greece's highway to Europe! The two countries NEED each other! And instead of being allies and stand together (since pretty much every other neighboring country hates them both, for different reasons though :) they are going bananas over some stupid name and some second hand history from 2000 years ago, passed down by who knows how many drunken Roman and Byzantine historians until it reached us as something just a little more than a fairytale! I live in the 21st century AD, not in the 5th BC! I couldn't give less crap about what happened 2500 years ago, I care how is my life today (well, to be exact I live on a different continent, but those are details :).. So what I propose is: kill all the politicians (both Greek and Macedonian), get drunk together (both rakija and Ouzo are fine :) and I am sure the people themselves will come a commonly agreeable solution :))  -me out Capricornis 05:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As about your comment "some second hand history from 2000 years ago" I strongly disagree. History is not something that we are allowed to leave for the past and just forget it, or worse, re-modify it for our diplomatic or political needs but something that we have to learn from in order for humanity to gain wisdom from its experiences and its mistakes (imagine for example someone like Hitler uprising to power because we did not take a lesson from WW2). As for the rest of the conversation I think you are partly right. This kind of rivalry is more dangerous than moronic and is one more reason why nobody should forget history. It seems that many people have forgotten that this kind of rivalries drived us to the Balkan Wars that created a lot of misslocations, immigrancy, misery and national hate between our countries. Moronically we find war and dispute much easier than trying to get along and make an objective view of the truth without rights and wrongs and without sublimation and demonalization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.44.77 (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Needs cleanup. The text reads, "The Republic of Macedonia is amongst one of the countries with the most beautiful preserved Byzantine fresco paintings, mainly from the period between the 11th and 16th centuries." A reference for that would not even be useful. Peacock phrases like "most beautiful" are against Wikipedia's editing policy. And phrases like "exquisite beauty" aren't any better. It sounds like a tourist brochure.Acumensch 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture Section 

message: Should be removed for obvious reasons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Macedonia.JPG Reaper7 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indulge me, what are the obvious reasons? -- ChrisO 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (ie a human who wants to learn about this nation who does not know it already) will see what we see now. A sat picture of a piece of land, no boarders to indicate where it begins or ends, a piece of land that seems unfortunately for reality to go half into Hellenic non-slav terority and appears to show your nation as a mediterranean one and not a land locked one like we know it to be.  It is ok for the people of Fyrom - within their boarders to create any reality or history they please, that is their right, but for goodness sakes, non Fyromian kids read wiki, at least they deserve to see the real boarders of your land and not some ambiguous sat image which carelessly engulfs a big part of Hellas. Reaper7 01:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, perhaps the best thing to do in that case would be to trace the country borders onto the map in a similar fashion to :Image:Southeast mediterranean annotated geography.jpg, which I produced a while ago. (I wasn't responsible for the RoM satellite image, for the record). -- ChrisO 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite view of the Republic of Macedonia 

message: In the start of the third paragraph in the History section of this article, I wish to point out what I believe is an error.
"In the late 6th century AD, Byzantine control over the area disintegrated, and the region was invaded by Slavic tribes from the north, assimilating the preexisting Greek, Latin, Illyrian and Thracian-speaking inhabitants in the regions of today's Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, where they formed eventually the First Bulgarian Empire, centered at the city of Ohrid.[4]"
Ohrid was a major cultural center of Bulgaria, yes, but the only time when Ohrid could be called the 'center' of the First Bulgarian Empire was near the end of the empire, when Byzantium had conquered Eastern Bulgaria.
Not only this, but the First Bulgarian Empire didn't hold Macedonia in its creation, Macedonia was later acquired through conquest, whereas other territories, now Romanian, Moldovan, and Ukrainian were, in fact, part of Bulgaria through the first empire.  (I'm not sure what the paragraph above tries to convey, but what it does convey, is inaccurate.)
Perhaps the article should read:
"In the late 6th century AD, Byzantine control over the area disintegrated, and the region was invaded by Slavic tribes from the north, assimilating the preexisting Greek, Latin, Illyrian and Thracian-speaking inhabitants in the regions of today's Republic of Macedonia, where they were eventually absorbed into the First Bulgarian Empire.  A city of the region, Ohrid, became one of Bulgaria's leading cultural centers throughout the first empire."
chris289
Yes very good point. I suggest you go ahead and implement that change. In fact I would go further to elaborate a little. " In the ......... today's RoM. THis area was subsequently conquered/ incorporated into the First Bulgarian empire. A city or the region........ In fact, after the fall of the Bulgarian capital in 972, the area corresponding to today's RoM continued to assert independence against the Byzantines, before also falling finally in ? 1041". 
Hxseek 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight historical inaccuracy concerning the First Bulgarian Empire 

message: The Britannica source concerning the official name of the Republic of Macedonia is no longer reliable or upto date since recent developments in Macedonia's government rejected full complete official use of the Albanian language  and also rejected bilingualism. According to another news report, , the Albanian party claims that Prime Minister Gruevski doesn't have enough power to "prevent it from being announced as a second official language in Macedonia". This was their response to Gruevski's comment that nobody should hope for bilingualism in Macedonia.
From the same news report, it also says that on July 19th, Nikola Gruevski said there’s an agreement with DUI leader Ali Ahmeti. They agreed on three points, while the language issue was still hanging. 
The Republic of Macedonia has a Constitution and Framework Agreement, which do not provide for bilingualism in Macedonia and none of the parties should hope for one because it is not mentioned neither in the Constitution, nor in the Framework Agreement. We do not intend to fulfill somebody’s wishes, which are out of the Constitution and Framework Agreement,” Gruevski said.
 
Uuttyyrreess 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not talk about a political decision, only about inclination of Gruevski to reject it. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. If a decision is made, it could be reflected in the article. Also, I dont see a decision to overthrow the Ohrid Agreement, which I assume is therefore still in effect, and according to which every language with more than 20% total speakers is official on national level. Mr. Neutron 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VMRO-DPMNE and DUI are having an ongoing political dispute but Gruevski's decision has not been made official. So until the dispute is solved between the parties the Albanian language will be official. 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And such a source is the Ohrid Agreement, as already stated above. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiousity, can you please quote the exact text from the Ohrid Agreement which makes Albanian official, as what I am reading (as in the link to the full agreement from the O.A. page) only makes provisions for (not set in stone) and inline with Annex B, which is basically the same as what I quoted above from the constitution, as in local government munipical areas. --Russavia 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 6.5. ForeignerFromTheEast 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments of Albanian language in Macedonia 

message: From history
The Skaviniai were eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors, who would submit or expel the Slavic invaders from the Greek peninsula in successive waves[5]. The elimination of the Slavic element in Greek-Byzantine Macedonia reached its peak with Justinian II, who is said to have removed as many as 200,000 from Macedonia to central Anatolia[5].
I think this is not accurate, aimed at subtely colouring the article. The slavs raided northern greece and were eventually pacified, yes. But they were not all expelled. This is testamount by the existence of slavophone Greeks, as well as macedonians and southern bulgarians ! It would be more accurate to say that the slavic threat on Thessaloniki was quelled, and many were exiled or forcibly Hellenized, but obviously many, if not most, remained -under Byz rule. Back then the byzantine empire reached far further north than northern greece. Obviously the slavs were not expelled
Hxseek 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another slight inaccuracy 

message: There is a new state university being started in Macedonia, called 'Goce Delchev' and is located in Shtip. I think October 2007 is when the first classes commence, but I am not sure, maybe it was October 2006. The university doesn't have a web page yet (I think), but here is an advertisement from 'The Economist' soliciting computer equipment tenders for the new university http://www.economist.com/classifieds/view_ad.cfm?sitd=6058&sitd_type=T Capricornis 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the web page was in the Economist article http://www.ugd.edu.mk/ (only in macedonian for now) and first classes commence October 2007. :) Capricornis 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New state university in Macedonia  - added to education section 

message: Please, could anyone upload a picture of a monument of Gotse Delchev from the Republic of Macedonia, especially of the famous statue from Skopje? A quality picture of Delchev's grave will be even more appropriate. I think that such pictures are necessity in the article Gotse Delchev. Greetings, Vulgarian 11:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Gotse Delchev's monuments and grave 

message: Although you might find it irrelevant, it is not. Recently a poll decided to rename the article from Myanmar to Burma, even if Myanmar is the name preferred by the country itself. So the primary criterion for Wikipedia article naming seems not to be self-determination but something else? How can this apply to RoM/fYRoM?--   Avg    03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's not directly comparable. There's a dispute within the country about its name - the opposition prefers Burma, the junta prefers Myanmar - and the country's constitution still defines it as Burma. The name is genuinely not settled as a point of self-identification. Contrast this to the RoM, where the population and parties are overwhelmingly supportive of the current name and unambiguously self-identify by it. The naming dispute there is external to the country, not within it as in the case of Burma/Myanmar. -- ChrisO 09:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name is Union of Myanmar. The people of Myanmar do not object to the name because they consider it the same word. The opposition prefers Burma for strictly political reasons. The UN and most of its members separately have recognised it as Myanmar. We adopt Burma because we don't like the junta (which is undoubtedly the case, but should be irrelevant to an encyclopaedia that supports NPOV) or because this is how the US and UK refer to it (which is clearly systemic bias)? So the connection I'm making here is that there are very prominent instances where the naming guidelines are not followed. --   Avg    14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if the guideline isn't being followed consistently then it should be. But the Burma/Myanmar case strikes me as an unusual one. It certainly can't be said that "the people of Myanmar do not object" because (very obviously) they don't have a say in the matter. All we can say for sure is that the opposition clearly does object, as do overseas Burmese groups. The basic premise of a self-identifying name is that the subjects should identify by it; we can't say that's so in this case. -- ChrisO 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Myanmar]]/[[Burma]] case 

message: Vladika Jovan was exonerated by Macedonian court (charges of embezzlement) in April 2007. see: http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2007/04/11/srpski/SP07041001.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.96.231 (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoran Vraniškovski was declared innocent 

message: :Image:Coatofarmsradovish.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Coatofarmsradovish.gif

message: Fatmanonthehorse 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unofficial source"...--   Avg    00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRITANNICA 2007 SAYS 1.8% OF GREECE ARE MACEDONIANS!!!! 

message: So many times already discussed, but could you guys read your own constitution?
Article 7
"The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia.
In the units of local self-government where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in a manner determined by law. In the units of local self-government where there is a considerable number of inhabitants belonging to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, under conditions and in a manner determined by law."--   Avg    00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have read their own constitution, and that is why Albanian was removed. Some people are thinking that because a language is official in a local government unit, then it is also official in the entire country. The way that this is being mis-interpreted by people, example, Miami has 3 official languages, therefore, this means that English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole are official languages of the US, and we all know this is not the case. People have also quoted the Ohrid Agreements, which clearly states on levels of self-government and does not cover the country on the whole. --Russavia 11:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wanted to say something but Russavia has already said it, thanks.--Phantom IP 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. -- ChrisO 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to section 6.5 of the Ohrid Agreement:
6.5. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, as set forth herein. In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law, as further elaborated in Annex. Albanian is clearly an official language on national level. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are problems with this approach - specifically, the Ohrid Agreement is a primary source and thus needs to be dealt with under the guidelines set out at WP:PRIMARY. I think we're getting into original research territory here by trying to interpret the meaning of the Agreement ourselves. It would be preferable to find a secondary source that explains what the wording of the agreement actually means. I'll have a look around and see what I can find. -- ChrisO 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohrid Agreement was signed under one very important condition: Macedonian must be the only official language on national level. DUI is fighting for albanian as second official language on national level but Gruevski clearly said: No. Aagain: "Republika Makedonija" is the only official name of the country.  Only the Macedonian municipalities in which Albanian is official should have their names given both in Macedonian and Albanian.--Phantom IP 08:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop making things up. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only official language in the Republic of Macedonia on national level is Macedonian--Phantom IP 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making things up. Are you claiming the Ohrid Agreement is not valid and in effect anymore? ForeignerFromTheEast 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language

message: Hello.
I tried to redirect the article "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" but it has been redirected again by someone called Black and Decker threatening to delete me from contributing to the english wikipedia due to long discussions on the macedonian matter on this page and predisposing me not to try argue on the matter for it is rather impossible to persuade the wikipedia community for that change, before even trying. After posing some argument and questions to that administrator, I have been left with no answer whatsoever. I would like to ask if there is another administrator to whom I may pose my questioning pending on a reply. Thank you.--Dimorsitanos 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been addressed numerous times. First, moving pages by copying-and-pasting them isn't allowed, because it doesn't move the page history with it. Second, under Wikipedia's naming conventions, we name articles on countries by the English equivalent of a country's own name for itself. Since the English equivalent of "Република Македонија" is "Republic of Macedonia", that's what the article is called. The RoM doesn't call itself "Former Yugoslavic [sic] Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM", so the article isn't at either of those names. -- ChrisO 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 124 countries have recognised Republic of Macedonia under it's constitutional name. It's nearly two thirds of UN members.--Phantom IP 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know better than me (but are afraid to admit) that all these countries have recognised fYRoM with its constitutional name just because they want to establish diplomatic relations with your young state. It's not that they "agree" in any form with your outrageous beliefs, no matter how you want to spin it. They recognise the STATE, not the NAME. And of course they have all accepted the UN jurisdiction over the naming dispute. As soon as the dispute is resolved they will recognise fYRoM with its proper name.--   Avg    20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut out the nationalist rants, please - they're not helpful. -- ChrisO 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you're replying to me, I'd appreciate your clarification on which part of my comment was nationalistic. Otherwise, an apology would be a nice idea. Thanks. --   Avg    20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general tone of your comment was inappropriately hostile, bordering on a personal attack. I'd suggest toning it down - there's no need to provoke other editors. -- ChrisO 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In answer to your question, there's no need for a separate article - the issue is discussed in this one, and there's a whole article (Macedonia naming dispute) about the dispute with Greece. -- ChrisO 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions posed. 

message: I've temporarily protected the article to stop the edit war over the country's name/official language. Please work it out here on the talk page. -- ChrisO 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the article still keeps being reverted about the very same issue --   Avg    00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected

message: Macedonians try to reduce number of ethnic Albanians in BYRM!!!
    * Macedonians (Sllavo-Maqedonë) 1.297.981 (57.34 %)
    * Albanians (Shqiptarë) 750.121 (33.14 %)
    * Turks (Turq) 77.959 (3.44 %)
    * Roms (Romë) 53.879 (2.38 %)
    * Serbs (Serbë) 35.939 (1.59 %)
    * Bosniaks (Boshnjakë) 17.018 (0.75 %)
    * Vlachs (Arumunë) 9.695 (0.43 %)
    * others (të tjerë) 20.993 (0.93 %)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.170.108 (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About ethnicities 

message: Introduction paragraph seems fine. There is no need to mention that, "The Republic of Macedonia forms approximately 38.3% of the land and 44% of the population of the wider geographical region of Macedonia", especially since, that region is a fluid entity and not recognised as a European region. If we mention it, then we go into all sorts of complications such as having to clarify that the largest population in 'the region' are the Greek Macedonians (over 2 million) - it just gets silly. Please remove for the sake of the article. Politis (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead, as is, is fine. It clearly identifies Macedonia (country) as part of the larger Macedonia (region). The point is well made, should stay, and does not require further elaboration. Jd2718 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change proposal

message: English, French, and German are compulsery languages in primary and secondary education levels in Macedonia. Should they also be included in the ofifcal languages section of the info-box ? Fatmanonthehorse 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Article 7 of the Constitution and the Ohrid Agreement said so, than yes. --   Avg    11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTION 

message: I don't see how Alexander's conquests are relevant to this article, other than as a rather poor attempt to claim modern ownership over them. Philip II is relevant because it was he who conquered Paionia, which covered most of today's FYROM. The expansion of Macedon under Alexander, on the other hand, had no immediate effect on this land, as it was already part of the empire when he ascended the throne. A simple link to Macedon should therefore suffice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander's conquests 

message: There is a problem with the borders of Macedon described in the article. At first there are no scientifical proves that Macedon covered part of today RoM before Philip's II reign. On the contrary all discovered Macedonian cities in RoM as for example Heraclea Lyncestis were build from Philip and only in  southern regions. There are no Macedonian archeological findings before his reign in RoM. More, we have detailed description of the borders on the territory of RoM :
The Macedonian border fortresses are not a myth or a fiction. Exactly those fortresses that were built by the Macedonian soldiers of Philip II of Macedonia and his son Alexander III The Great or even Philip V and his son Perseus, today very clearly draw the northern border of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Well known are the points western of Bitola, as well as northern of Heraclea Lyncestis at the border with the Deuriopi and Pelagonia. Amphaxitis following the course of the river Vardar is in a similar condition. The western line along the high mountain Kojuv is not well conceived in the archaeology, but it is almost unbelievable the fact that this mountain did not attract Philip II, due to the gold mining shafts. The border of ancient kingdom of Macedonia under Philip II and Paeonia in the middle of the Vardar Valley was traced in the zone between Demir Kapija and Udovo (a village in Southern Macedonia in Valandovo municipality). The Macedonian border continues along the Belasitsa mountain range  between Amphaxytis (Valandovo region) and the Paeonian town Doberus (Strumica). Source:  Macedonian Center for Archeological  resurch. - Republic of Macedonia.
The described borders as on the map bellow ! Jingby 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. What about the area where Skopje now lies? Was it ever part of the Macedonian empire? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders of Macedon by Philip II 

message: According to the Official portal of City of Skopje it's history is unclear! - 
...The history of Skopje can be traced back some twenty-five centuries. Archeological findings at Skopje's Kale fortress show that an unidentified people lived here in prehistoric times, between the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Scientists think that they date back to before 4,000 B.C. Actual evidence and records of the Skopje region date from the IV century B.C. According to some scholars, the Paionians initially settled the town. In the III century BC, Skopje and the surrounding area was invaded by the Dardani. However, the expansion of ancient Macedonia during the time of Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander III of Macedonia throughout the then known world certainly had positive influence on Dardania, which is confirmed by the tomb plate found on the Skopje fortress. The Roman occupation of Macedonia, after the Macedonian-Roman wars, meant also the occupation of Scupi. The Roman historian Titus Livius made the first historical reference to Scupi. Being a part of the Roman prefecture Illyricum, Scupi was latinized, especially through the colonization of Roman veterans from the VII legion. During the time of Tiberius, there was the first partition of the Balkan provinces, which were eventually defined by the emperors Diocletian and Constantine I. From the Moesia Superior, a new province was extracted, Dardania, with Scupi as the administrative center. Jingby 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders of Paeonia, Macedon and Dardania - Skopje

message: :::According to this map from A History of the Ancient World by George Willis Botsford Ph.D., published by The MacMillan Company in 1913, Alexander's Macedonian Empire certainly did cover Skopje and as far north as the Danube River as well. Fatmanonthehorse 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our own map (left) would appear to dispute that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jingiby, Give it a Break!

message: "Freedom or death" was the motto of the Greek revolution of 1821 against the Turkish. It's not "Macedonian"-Skopian or anything else. Please correct that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.181.29 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseam. Let them have whatever they want as their motto. I actually like that they have the same ideals as us! After all before the Greeks it was coined by an American and it is still the state motto of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die").--   Avg    00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Republic's motto should be "Live Free or Die Hard" :D Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some sort of copyright in country and revolutionary mottos? If that's the case then Bulgaria and Italy are going to the courtroom as well :) To ALex: About the Bulgar/Bulgarian stuff I'm not sure I'll be able to answer you in a single Wiki article :) No, seriously I might try right after getting all the wine that I drunk the last two days in Melnik behind my back. --Laveol T 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  freedom or death motto 

message: It is possible to flip through The Peace Atlas of Europe (1946, The Foreign Policy Association) on line. Page 102 begins a brief section on Macedonia. Jd2718 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting source 

message: I notice that there are several locator maps used for European countries. Macedonia's is Mercator, and extends far north and west, leaving the country looking tiny (if it weren't already quite small). Compare at the map used for Italy, which seems to be far more suitable for showing countries on the European mainland, especially towards the south. Can the other base map be adapted for use here? Jd2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the originator of the PNG locator maps as used in Italy and various other European countries, which are consistent with maps used for most other countries.  Surprisingly, there was a prior edit war regarding these maps, with some arguing that the horrid orange Mercator maps should remain without there really being a prior consensus to keep them.  Anyhow, it is my intent to produce SVG maps for all European countries when able, but I have been delayed in doing so.  This is still on my to-do list, so stay tuned! Quizimodo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox locator map 

message: :Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

message: "Over the centuries the territory which today forms the Republic of Macedonia was ruled by a number of different states and former empires, but Macedonian blood has always run in the genes of the Macedonians living in this region."
Could someone clarify this statement for me? How is "Macedonian blood" defined encyclopedically? Should Wikipedia rely on a nationalist, gene/blood-related definition of ethnicity (see Blood and soil)? If Wikipedia were to rely on such a definition, then this statement would definitely need to cite a credible peer-reviewed source (preferably one including comparative DNA tests performed on the remains of people living in the region during the past 2816 years).
Of course it could be the case that the author intended a different meaning whereby, at any point in time, the people living in the region called themselves Macedonians. So, in that case, the Greek inhabitants of ancient Macedon called themselves Macedonians in ancient times; while, in our times, the predominantly Slavic inhabitants also call themselves Macedonians. If that is the case, then the whole statement should be removed on the grounds of relying on circular reasoning, as this ambiguity would confuse many of the readers (particularly when viewed in the context of the Macedonia naming dispute - i.e. in what context is the word "Macedonian" used and in what context is the word "Macedonians" used in this statement).
Moreover, the part that refers to the "Ancient Period" contains numerous ambiguities with regards to its references to ancient Macedon. While it mentions early on that "The kingdom of Macedon took over Paionia", it then goes on to refer to Alexander the Great as "Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), the King of Macedonia" and "Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia". This begs the question of whether the word "Macedonia" here refers to ancient Macedon or to the former Yugoslav Republic. I am not trying to flame anyone here; all I am trying to say is that you people should pick a naming convention and then stick to it... you can't use the words Macedon and Macedonia interchangeably, in this article, for fear of confusion! This is an encyclopedic article; we can't assume any knowledge of history on behalf of the reader, so it is essential to avoid such situations. As a final remark, I should note that since this is not part of the history of the "Republic of Macedonia" [sic] per se, but of the history of the "Region of Macedonia", this should not be a part of this article for fear of confusion.
--Radjenef (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Justinian pic needs to go.  He was actually born in Leskovac, Central Serbia, which is quite far from the border with FYROM, he was certainly not a Slavic Macedonian, nor is that mosaic of him located on the territory of FYROM.  Therefore there is not a single valid reason why that pic should be included in this article.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And please, add him to the page about Greece or Greek history. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to ancient Macedon in the History section 

message: ::Someone remove the redundant weasel tactic monastery pic and restore the map with the Thracians pertaining to the antiquity to its proper position and size .Megistias (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAp 

message: ::Put it back polybiush diffMegistias (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "In the Republic of Macedonia the past meets the present," what is this, an advert?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.203 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivism 

message: The fact that an illegal name is being used instead of the legal FYROM one, as has been seen all along through all these discussions, makes it clear that this article has to be tagged as such. Not following the United Nations is already an insult, but making illegal names as if they were worthy is completely unacceptable. Either you rename the article as FYROM or you tag the whole article as 'neutrality disputed'. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please rename to FYROM or mark that the neutrality of this article is disputed 

message: I think that in order to calm down things a little bit, it would be wise to add to the article the declarations of the Skopjan President and his ministers, stating that:
:1) They do not want to claim any ancient Greek history related to the ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great.
:2) They do not have any territorial claims on Greece and that their constitution clearly forbids it.
:3) That they know they are slavs that have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonia and have made clear that everything that was attacking Greek history or territory was spread by propagandistic irredentists who have no official nor legal power to do so.
Here is a link that justifies this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWojHzP8dw
NOTE: I'm trying to be productive here. If you find any other text that could be added so that fellow Greek users will calm down, go ahead. Goodwill is always welcome.
87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of the nationalist/not-so-calm Greek IP users actually read anything other than the title? BalkanFever 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony and sarcasm are an unnecessary provocation. Yes, I have read the article, but no, I still do not agree the way it is redacted. Sorry for expressing my humble opinion. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually being serious. I wasn't referring to you (although your original contributions weren't helpful...) but other nationalists who just complain about moving the page and attack everyone for being "Anti-Greek". BalkanFever 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Considering that the topic is hot, I would try to persuade them with good manners. Calming the situation is the priority. Anyhow, about the three points I wrote in the beginning, which do you think would be applicable (in a better resentenced way, of course). 87.219.85.149 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still stuck on how to reword it. BalkanFever 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to reword any of it because none of it is true. --Justmakingonearcticle 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say this, and I'd wish it was the other way round. Really. But please check the official sources listed in United Macedonia, where it is evident that the reality is totally different. Sadly, the state declares that they do not, but in many side ways they officially do. They do it in the schoolbooks, and they do it inn governmental publications. Repeatedly too. I would accept a wording that brings the whole aspect to the reader's attention, but simple aphorisms of officials that "we do not claim anything", while in reality they do is unacceptable. BTW, if it were my country doing that to someone else, I'd be the first to out them, so that they fix their mistakes. I hope you do the same. NikoSilver 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding that FYROM does not claim Greek history and territory