Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 10

message: On April 11, Archive 9 was created. This was an attempt to reduce the amount of reading necessary for people coming to the page new. However, it is suggested that anyone with time to spend, or anyone who wants to become deeply invloved in the article, read archive 9, if not some of the other archives too. It is also suggested that the comments are read first, in order to understand the poll's context. Robdurbar 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Read before Poll

message: # E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AGREE with the above assessment

message: #I appreciate your valuable input and I agree with the first two of your conclusions. However, I believe that the third one is more complicated and could lead to a course of action people who voted in this poll did not foresee. The poll was not about the usage or not of the term "Macedonia". It was about the usage of the term "FYROM" and the weight it should have in this article (see the rules of the poll). The inclusion or not of the term "Macedonia" and its weight was not an issue in this poll, it was presented de facto and I strongly believe most voters did not make a decision considering this parameter. I will change my vote to Agree if you remove your conclusion about the term "Macedonia", especially in terms of its weight in the intro. --   Avg    23:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REJECT above assessment

message: *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia*, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
* Note that a wikified superscript note links to the relevant section in the article
Vote below:
#—Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #1 – Brief version

message: *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.
Vote below:
# Astrokey44|talk 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #2 – Extended version

message: please indicate and categorise below; copy and render in a fashion similar to options 1/2:
* *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. Due to the naming dispute with Greece, it might be formally referred  as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
Vote below:
#-- Astrokey44|talk 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #3 – Extended version (2)

message: *The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ) ), or simply Macedonia(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.  
* Note that a wikified superscript note links to the relevant section in the article
Vote below:
#International treaties do refer on what you call Republika Makedonija as FYROM. Believe it or not any other reference is historically and scientifically wrong and biased. Exactly because wikipedia should be NPOV (because is not in many editions depending on states' policies upon this matter) the name should be FYROM in accordance to international treaties. If national treaties do change I have not -and I believe many Greeks do not have- any kind of problem to change it. In the meanwhile you should cite why you believe that this country should be named accordingly with the POV term Republika Makedonija. Self determination is not enough as reason. For example, if i want to change the title United States to something else as a member of some indigenous movement you will invoke international legal documents in order prevent any kind of alteration. Why don't you do the same in the present situation?--Kalogeropoulos 12:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #4 – Brief version (2)

message: *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title in international relations; however, a majority of United Nations member states formally recognize it under its constitutional name, including all of its other neighbours.
Vote below:
#If we're going to present one POV, we should also present the other. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #5 – Detailed version

message: *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија) is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title. Sometimes it is referred to as Macedonia.
Vote below:
# A variation of option #2 - talk to +MATIA 09:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #6 – Extended version: variation of #2 

message: The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. Due to the naming dispute with Greece, it is also formally referred to as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in some contexts.
Vote below:
#A variation of #2, it consists in removing the parenthesis (FYROM) and a rewording of the last sentence. Aldux 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #7 – Extended version: another variation of #2

message: *The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), also former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe.  The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
Vote below:
# I consider this a compromise. Not much prominence is given to the naming dispute, just a link to it, but also the formal name FYROM is mentioned.--Avg 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #8 – Extended version (3)

message: *The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM,  Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ) ), or  Republic of Macedonia(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.  
* Note that a wikified superscript note links to the relevant section in the article
: ----Kamikazi2 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote disallowed: suffrage (inception date 7 March 2006); sorry. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option #9 – Brief version: variation of #4

message: Does the country formally use the term FYROM itself? If not, I propose changing the term "adopted" to "accepted" - since it has accepted others to use it, but doesn't actively use it itself. AucamanTalk 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's only used by Greece and international organizations of which Greece is member, such as the UN or the EU. Themselves keep the oficial name of Republic of Macedonia - though sometimes are forced to appear as FYROM in some international meetings. --Sugaar 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it is a formal name and yes it does use it in all international organisations. I agree that it didn't want to use it at first, but this provisional name is the result of lengthy talks. People who continuously refer to FYROM as Greek POV forget that Greece did not want FYROM to have the word Macedonia AT ALL in its name, but it finally agreed to the UN solution, just as FYROM did. --Avg 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, It is not a name at all - it is a reference. Avg, legally the difference is huge. Furthermore it is a temporary reference and its date of expiry legally has passed (In 2003 i think). So even the reference has lost its validity (and this is reflected by the trend in the number of countries that recognize the constitutional name). By august 2005 (sorry I don't have a more recent information), 112 countries have recognized Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. That's out of 143 countries with wich Republic of Macedonia has established diplomatic relations. --Dipazi 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you want to be legally precise, let's be precise. Let's see what is the legal status of FYROM: From 1992 until now, your country does not have a name! In order to bypass the naming dispute and enter the UN (and subsequently all other international organisations), it was decided that UN should refer to your country as FYROM but will not recognize any name at all until the dispute is resolved. This was a provisional solution that could not last for long. Let me admit once again that FYROM is a parody of a name. UN hoped that in the years to come we would have found a solution. Unfortunately this didn't happen. And yes time is with your side, because other countries having to decide between 1) no name at all 2) the parody of FYROM and 3) your self-proclaimed name, find easier to choose the latter. But they also stress that the name they recognise you is only for the bilateral relations and it does not apply to how they refer to you in all international fora. So, to conclude, from an international viewpoint, you don't have a name at all, but for all purposes you are referred to as FYROM. You call yourselves Republic of Macedonia and countries establish bilateral relations with you as such. These are the facts. You seem to ignore completely international organisations and base your decision solely on bilateral relations and you incorporate that to option #1. If we were to impose a solution to you there would be no mention of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". We would say (and let me tell you that this is what I believe and I think a lot of others too), that bilateral relations mean nothing in front of international recognition. There is an hierarchy that goes international > bilateral. But still, have we forced this opinion to you? Have we even proposed it? Show me one option from the other 8 that does not present BOTH international and bilateral appelations.--Avg 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you made any valid points in your last comment, so I won't bother discussing about it. I just want to clear something about your "international > bilateral" hierarcy teory. There is no such thing as "international recognitiona" in international law. Also there is no such thing as an "International organisation for recognizing countries and countries names". Recognition of countries is purely bilateral matter. There is no international entity responsible for recognition of countries. The way you put it, all those countries that recognized Republic of Macedonia under that name have severely broken international law. --Dipazi 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aucaman, please see my answer to johnathunder here above. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the Republic of Macedonia never uses the refference itself. All the official documents contain the constitutional name only. The usage of the refference is only one-way from parties that haven't recognized the constitutional name. --Realek 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and my answer was a little bit irrelevant, I must admit, but I was on my way out, and I didn't read your q. v.well. So, the answer is, it has been adopted by the country, but only officially and for a specific reason: in order to enter the UN (because they had to, immediately). I wouldn't mind skipping the "adopted" verb, but you certainly cannot replace it with "forced", because that would imply that Greece wanted the name FYROM, which is not true because of the "M" in the end (Greek official position is: no Macedonia in the title at all). So Greece's position, now, could be the same: No FYROM in the title. Maybe the verb "accepted" (along with Greece) is more accurate.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: As Nikosilver stated above, this poll doesn't present the options very well. We are trying to find the most acceptable combination of several binary questions, and it would be better to vote on each of those options, and then combine the results into the opening paragraph. For example, each of the following options could be followed by support/oppose votes:
*Shall the opening paragraph begin with "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"?
*Shall the opening paragraph refer to the term FYROM?
*Shall the opening paragraph state that this country has adopted the term FYROM as a formal title, or alternatively, state that many nations and international organizations refer to it as FYROM?
It may be, as stated above, that the current plethora of options are slanted to one or the other of the camps here (divided over whether the most prominent name is FYROM). But the poll is bad enough without that. I am going to abstain. This poll should be discarded and a new one started. --Yath 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Currently, there are two issues of uneven importance addressed in the poll. One is whether the name FYROM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and the other is the exact phrasing of the paragraph. Let's have a consensus on the former (no pun intended) and then we can proceed to the latter.--Avg 19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved poll needed

message: I would like to also express some concern about this "polling as solution" approach.  It seems to me to be setting the cart before the horse.  Ideally, we should write a brilliant encyclopedic article about our subject, and the WP:LEAD should be a concise summary of that article.  I am especially concerned about the idea that a vote could be understood as some sort of indefinite editorially-binding prohibition against mentioning the common alternate names for the subject of an article in the lead.  Feel free to interpret my response as support for option number two, and, further, it can be assumed that I support any edit of User:ChrisO's in the future if this situation comes up again. 
I'd also like to ask contributors here, once again, to reduce the amount of speculation about other editor's motives and the labelling of other editor's suspected political views.  It isn't helpful. Jkelly 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost missed that comment here. You are absolutely right. In fact, your arguements are common to my First and Second points and more specifically to WP:CON#Consensus vs. other policies, when I was desperately trying to dispute the previous "consensus" of ...5 editors. Thankfully, the poll result so far seems to agree with your position (and mine). We know that WP "is not a majoritarian democracy", but it seems that its users indeed are good judges and voters. Personally, I invited in this poll, mostly users at random, from previous talks/edits I'd been, and (not to my surprise) most of them favored my position. My point is, that sometimes end justifies the means. The end in this case, was an NPOV intro; and the means (quite unorthodoxically) is this poll. I've been through hell to pass this NPOV view, I'd even messaged ChrisO for that when I saw his attempts too, BUT, without all you guys here voting, I wouldn't have a chance. Thank you, and let this be an example of how Democracy and Objectivity may not neccessarily be opposed. I just hope I am not jumping into conclusions...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Jkelly: idealism must be balanced with pragmatism.  To extend your metaphor: the horse was on its last legs and being kicked to death. ;)  Lengthy, ongoing discussions were (IMO) going nowhere previously and (obviating any semblence of constructivism) concomitant edit warring resulted in an article edit block which remains to this day.  In the hopes of ending – or at least mitigating – the current stalemate, I was bold and initiated a poll (reviewed by a number of editors beforehand) where additional discourse has occurred and which will likely be decisive any which way, allowing us to again edit and enhance the article.  And other polling options, IMO, would have been more problematic since they do not allow for nuances which, arguably, are at the root of this debate.  Given all this, I'm unsure another course of action was available and believe the current course of action to have been correct.  If wishes were horses, however ... :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimacy of poll and comments here

message: Some months ago we were told that the terms Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs are offensive terms (yet they are used in .mk in "not offensive" contexts). Now we are told by Jonathunder that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, but "Republic of Macedonia" is a name. And we have a poll on whether the long name and the fYRoM will be mentioned. What will be next? AfD the redirects like FYROM and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Why some things that are basic WP procedure in other articles (like using a redirect and then having a bot disambiguating it to the "correct" article) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles? talk to +MATIA 06:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why some things that are basic diplomatic procedure in other cases (recognizing a country's name without interference from a neighbour) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles??? --Realek 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you are not talking about RoM recognizing Macedonia, are you? :) talk to +MATIA 07:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in Wikipedia we now use the globally accepted definition of the country,  Republic of Macedonia, and not by the out-of-date name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  Whatever you say won't change the fact and absolutely not the articles name! Albanau 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I annoyed you that much in Scanderbeg Albanau? This is the second article you are wiki-stalking me... talk to +MATIA 10:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody wants to change the article's name, read what the dispute is about before adapting your anti-greek stance. Miskin 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They take it one step at they time. At first, they try to persuade everybody that the neutral POV is offensive to them and the "actual" neutral POV is their POV. When they succeed that, they attack the (now) neutral POV (x-FYROM POV) and consider this offensive and they try to change it with the new, more hardline, FYROM POV.  That's the kind of Goebbelist propaganda we have been experiencing from our northern neighbours during the last decades. Through heavy propaganda and lies, lies, lies they think at some point people will start to believe it and consider it as a given (and some uninformed people actually do). At first we were told Macedonia is just a geographical term, then they created a nation from nowhere, then they speak about enslaved Macedonia, then they deny that anything Greek is Macedonian, then they forget the agreements they themselves signed, then they present themselves as the poor and opressed people by the "bully" Greece! This is truly mind-blowing propaganda that can result in a stroke. We hoped truth will prevail, but it doesn't. They simply won't let it. So we have to do something about it. --Avg 10:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bored beyond belief 

message: If I understand correctly, the Improvement Drive template should only be in the talk page, and not be on the article page. Could somebody fix that? --GunnarRene 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I've removed the template. -- ChrisO 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive template off article 

message: Why can there not simply be a poll on whether the first word you read on the page is FYROM or Republic of Macedonia.  Is that not logical? Then we can go into specifics later when we have agreed the basics.  The Poll is convoluted with slightly different options, some meaningless. The Poll is over analytical, cryptic  and confused - almost as if the confusion was created so no serious change can take place. Reaper7 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this poll is okay, although the overkill of options put me off voting till I made time to read all of them :-) Alexander 007 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I hear you.  R: because it's not that simple: as above, then we get into any number of permutations: one, any, or all of FYROM, spellout, Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, even Skopje, Republic of Skopje ... then what order?   And how should they be rendered: name and title?  And then after that?   There is currently no consistent rendition for country article introductions prescribed in the country wikiproject (though one is being proposed.)  This poll initiated with two options that were at the root of recent edit warring.  Each of the various options blend all of these notions and have varying measures of some support; being specific also delimits us from having to consider every possible option and opine excessively.  Even amidst these discussions, numerous options (and one in particular) seem to be more agreeable than others.  Any trends, until the poll's conclusion, and the preferred option will be self-evident.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never read so much nonsense and so many nationalistic stupidities in my life! Do you people really think you have the knowledge and intellectual capacity to write encyclopedia articles, when you state that your preferred source is the CIA World Factbook??? Are you all schoolchildren here? The UN situation with the name is quite clear, and the Greek POV is pretending that there is some international agreement about the name of Macedonia. THIS IS A GREEK LIE AND IS QUITE OUTRAGEOUS. 87.202.17.21 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that this dispute is quite outrageous. The state calls itself the Republic of Macedonia and that is its own right. Wikipedia should follow that name, and that name only. Of course, prominent mentions of the situation and other names should be made in the first paragraph, like now. But I don't see why Greeks are so upset over this. The Republic of Moldova represents less than half of the population of the historical region of Moldavia ("Moldova" in Romanian) and yet Romanians have never sought to get it to change its name to "Republic of Chişinău" or the like. I think it's time to live with it. And where did this ludicrous name of Fyromians come from? I believe the correct name is Macedonian Slavs.  Ronline ✉ 11:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more Ronline. - FrancisTyers 11:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Romania has not sought to annex Moldova outside of a few nationalist union movements. In any case, unlike the Macedonian-Greek case, the Moldovans are very similar, if not identical, to ethnic Romanians. What I was pointing out, however, is that Romania is OK with having the Republic of Moldova as a sovereign state under a name that is as much Romanian as it is Moldovan. In my opinion,  the Republic of Macedonia is a progressive state that has a very good record of nationality rights (minority rights are probably the best in the region). The fact that some nationalist Macedonians still see Greek Macedonia as part of the Republic can't be used as an excuse for Greek not recognising the self-identification of this state. In the context of the European Union - and Greek veto power over accession - I find it hard to believe that the Republic of Macedonia would re-claim Greek land, etc.  Ronline ✉ 12:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The biggest difference is that there is no common ancestry, no common history and no ethnological similarity at all, unlike Romania and Moldavia. I mean, if the Fyromians were of Greek descent, the whole issue would be less controversial because they would have at least some relationship with the term and a certain right to use it. These guys simply came from nowhere and invented their history!--Avg 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Things First 

message: [section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a solution. 

message: I've attempted to archive some of this to keep the content down. I know much of the archived content might be seen as important by some but this talk page was srupidly long and unreadable. There was far too much for a newbie to the discussion to be expected to read. Robdurbar 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a hero! I'll try to replace my links to Archive 9. I suggest user Bitola/MatriX does the same...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 9

message: I have the information (and maps) on the 1st and 2nd level of administrative division for Macedonia. Would it be possible to add this? Thank you Rarelibra 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should ask an admin to unprotect the article ... and hopefully respective Wikipedians will edit it judiciously? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So there are no replies to this? I have information that could be added to this article... ? Who is the one that would be able to lift the lock for editing? Rarelibra 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative Divisions 

message: :I believe these schematics severely distort the whole concept of the NPOV.  NPOV is not midway between two opposing POV's, in fact is has nothing to do with whether any sort of bias exists or not.  The NPOV exists seperately of any biased views whether there are none, two opposing views, or five different opinions.  The nuetral point view is looking at a situation neutrally, without feeling, and decribing what exists, what different people think about the situation and why they do so.  I realize it is hard to achieve, but we need to rememeber what this standard really means.  NPOV is not a median view.  It is not a compromise.  It does not need to take into consideration if anyone will be offended by it.  It is not an international designation.  It is not agreed upon by the diplomats of various countries.  It is simply an explanation of the state of things as they are.  This may be hard to do in somes cases such the existance of God, but surely we can give a neutral explanation of the country directly north of Greece.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me first apologize.  I put my comment in the wrong section.  I read all the schematics and the comments following them, and wrote my piece externally.  Then I came back here skimmed dowm the last of the charts and put my opinion in.  However I did not actually read the graph above my comment.  This graph is totally different from the one above which had POV on either end and NPOV in the middle.  My comments are completely irrelavent to the graph directly above which does not mention NPOV anywhere.  Sorry about that, I have now made this a new section to divest it from the graph you are refering to. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Birgitte. Your comment before was indeed well intended, with all this clutter in the page. To my view NPOV is mentioning the whole sketch, not just someone's opinion on it. I also feel that the Greek position ("Republic of Skopje") does not deserve inclusion in the intro paragraph, since it is just ONE case in the whole world (ofcourse it should be mentioned in the Naming Dispute section). Thank you also for your vote, which demonstrates aggreement with this. You might also want to read my "divide and conquer" comment above and judge for yourself if you should act accordingly.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the schematics mentioning NPOV 

message: [section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeling sorry about greeks 

message: [section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeling sorry about Slavs 

message: [section moved to related disputes page. - FrancisTyers 08:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's to discuss?! 

message: I've created a related disputes page, because discussion on this page should relate directly to the article and it has been drifting. I have been part of the problem in this, so now I'm trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully this will make the page less susceptible to filling up like a <insert euphemism here> - FrancisTyers 08:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about <sewer> ?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! No objections here :) - FrancisTyers 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related disputes 

message: The Bulgarian capital Sofia was a minor town but it was chosen as the capital of the emerging Bulgarian state because it is at the centre of the territories where Bulgarians are the dominant ethnicity. Sofia is situated between Bulgaria's religious capital in Ochrid and its cultural capital in Veliko Turnovo.
The government in Sofia has recognised that Western Bulgaria is called, Republic of Macedonia and that it is an independent Bulgarian region. The new republic takes its name from its southern area that belongs to the region of Macedonia and streches between Bitola and Lake Doiran. The area north of that line is Vardar Bulgaria. The area west of Skopje and north of Struga are not Bugarian but traditionally have been Albanian. No problem. Makedonija 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your efforts to overcome the political stalemate are well taken. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Please abstain from comments not directly related to the improvement of the article. Andreas 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Republic of Western Bulgaria?

message: Everyone compares the situation of FYROM naming dispute with other UN names not in use.  The truth is there is currently no other situation that comes even close to comparison with the dispute between Greece and FYROM - so comparisons are futile and desperate by those wanting the page called Macedoinia.  However I have noticed many here saying, it is what FYROM sees it self as that counts, not what Greece or the UN, EU, NATO ect want.  Therefore it is strange whenever I speak to a Palestinian and they all believe their country to be called Palestine, why then when I type the name Palestine into Wiki do I get the UN/ Isreali explanation of their country and not their explanation of their occupied country.  It seems that for this page of Macedonia the World Bodies are ignored including Greece as having got it wrong, LOL, but for the Palestine page the world bodies are taken into huge account and the page does not revolve around what the Palestinians see as their occupied state. Reaper7 14:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Question of Palestine.