Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 7

message: because I'm Macedonian and he is pro-Greek.
Fortunately he only blocked my friends' ip and not mine, I have dynamic.
MACEDONIA IS SLAVIC AND ONE DAY ALL MACEDONIAN AREAS WILL BE LIBERATED Arnegjor2 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be doing arbitrary edits which are commonly considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Nobody is denying your freedom of speech, and stop making ridicilious accusations. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet forum where you can put anything you want, including capslocked claims such as the "liberated Macedonia" statement. "And they blocked me again for being a Macedonian!". No, they didn't do that, and you better get rid of that "poor little Macedonian" victim mentality, as soon as possible. I'm a Macedonian myself, and nobody blocked me so far. As a Wikipedian, and as a Macedonian, my advice is - read Wikipedia policies well, articulate your views, and participate into discussion with sources, be tolerant to others (even if they have different points of view), and do not make personal attacks. I hope you'll accept my advice. Best regards. --FlavrSavr 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO you can't be Macedonian and talking about "poor little Macedonians". I'm sorry for my capslocked claims which were under my anger, but I find your "stop making ridicilious accusations."
a personal attack against me, why nobody sends you a warning about that? 
Is that because you want Macedonians to have a fake and "calmed down" perspective of our recognision problems and I fall out of this standards? Am I doing bad for our country just because I'm honest and so have to be kicked out of wikipedia? Is this the purpose of wikipedia? Arnegjor 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that I have made a personal attack against you, you can report me here. I can assure you, that I have made spent hours and days proving and arguing in defense of some Macedonian positions. My reaction to the English Wikipedia admins which was written in protest why it had referred to our nation as "Macedonian Slavs", lead to a series of actions, that, although after a long period, finally resulted in the change of naming - now we are referred to as Macedonians. ChrisO also played a significant role in this change - so accusing him of being pro-Greek is the accusation that I consider ridicilous. He is the most neutral editor I have encountered here, and he is has the courage to engage in sensitive issues, just for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality.--FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also must inform you, that I'm an administrator of the Macedonian Wikipedia, and I am one of the biggest contributors there - I have translated much of the interface in Macedonian, I have created hundreds of articles, I have made efforts in promoting it etc. Now, I hope "NO you can't be Macedonian" sounds as a unfounded accusation, as well.--FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As for what Wikipedia stands for, you should read the NPOV policy. In this case, I'm acting in good faith - but, I leave it to you to choose whether you'll accept my advice or consider me a traitor (or whatever). --FlavrSavr 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] blocked me out from editting this site

message: "what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now. There have always been two Slav nationalities in Macedonia: Bulgarian and Serbian. So, any kind of Macedonian Slav national revival is simply the empty concern of a number of fantasists who have no concept of South Slav history."-Misirkov Krste
::Vergina 23:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it looks more like a decorative sun symbol that can be found on many Greek Orthodox churches than the Vergina Sun... but one sees what one wants... talk to +MATIA 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but the girl presented on the picture holds two symbols, the one is the lion (also Macedonian symbol) and the second as I can see is a sun. Bitola 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, after I discussed the presence of the Macedonian sun at the picture presenting a proclamation of IMRO in 1893, the image inexplicably disappeared (it cannot be accessed anymore from the link provided by Vergina). Fortunately, I have a copy of the picture, so I uploaded it again and it can be found at the following location:  Bitola 10:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian Slavs as a nationality has never existed

message: I made an edit to the first paragraph of the article while I wasn't logged in(IP:220.245.178.137) in which I changed the wording to make note of the fact that the name used by international oranisations such as the UN is being used provisionally ie. temporary until the dispute is resolved. It was edited by Macedonian citing propaganda, and I assume he feels it was POV in some way, which I see as unlikely as I am a Macedonian, and I hope growing up in Australia means I am relatively NPOV. Either way, RoM is in fact referred to by the UN as FYROM provisionally, in fact I believe the declaration welcoming RoM into the UN even states that.
Also something that has been edited two times recently is the word 'was' in the following sentence:
"Due to the naming dispute between the Government of the Republic and the Government of Greece (one of Greece's northern regions is also called Macedonia), the country was referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in its admission to the United Nations."
My edit changed the 'was' to 'is', which is factually correct as far as I can tell, seeing as Macedonia is still referred to by international organisations as FYROM.
I wouldn't mind some feedback here before I change this again, so that it isn't edited more times.
--Gorast 05:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I might have reverted that as ungrammatical; the country's admittance to the UN is in the past.   Jkelly 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In hindsight it is actually grammaticaly correct. Scrap that bit then, I guess all that's left is to see whether my other edit was NPOV, which, in another bout of hindsight, probably should be on Macedonian's talk page.*embarassed* Gorast 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sigh. This is so petty. I've rewritten that sentence to take out was/is altogether. -- ChrisO 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Provisional UN Name, "was" vs "is"

message: I've protected the article from moves following the latest outbreak of anonymous vandalism (the vandal has been blocked, btw). -- ChrisO 08:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected from moves 

message: Matia's wording is more accurate - countries "now recognise it under its constitutional name for bilateral diplomatic relations" rather than "now recognise it under its official name". FYROM is an official name too; it's mostly used in multilateral contexts, where Greek delegations need to be kept happy, rather than bilateral relations, where they don't. -- ChrisO 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep the Greeks happy? They have a name of their country that no-one denies. R.o. Macedonia name is disputed by Greece. What about the Macedonians? They are surely not happy when someone is putting-on the ethiquette "FYROM" as a name of the country. Bomac 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boyan, ChrisO is representing a real situation in international law. And unfortunately, international law is pretty much real politik - which means that if Greeks are more powerful and/or have more powerful allies than Macedonians they have the greater right to be feel happy. I'm satisfied with the current state of the opening paragraph, and I don't see any problems in it. The official name of the agreement with Greece, includes the FYROM designation. Our politicians signed that agreement. Me and you, may not like that, but that won't change the fact. --FlavrSavr 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much. +MATIA  ☎ 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "FYROM" isn't a name at all. It is a way of avoiding the name. Most countries recognize the obvious. CDThieme 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a name. There's nothing in international law that says that a country may only be recognised by its constitutional name. The UN could recognise Greece as the "former Ottoman Province of Hellas" if it really wanted to. Reality isn't necessarily a factor in international politics. Don't forget that for decades the UN recognised a small island in the South China Sea as "China" and ignored the existence of a much bigger state next door... -- ChrisO 00:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And will you tell me what if it ISN'T WANTED TO?!? Bomac 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for emotions here. Chris, it is true that nothing specific in international law says that a country may only be recognised by its constitutional name, but, there are related principles that can apply here (self-determination, etc.). Boyan, Chris does not necessarily agree with the ways of international law. Keep in mind that we are primarily here to discuss topics in light of their relevance to the article, and not to solve real world issues. --FlavrSavr 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the actual resolution that admitted the country. It goes to great pains to avoid naming it. It obliquely calls it the country in the application, which is being referred to as "the former..." CDThieme 00:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional name / official name 

message: User:Miskin wants to replace this:
:Due to a dispute between the governments of the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, the United Nations recognized the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) when it became a member state in 1993.
with this, based on a Britannica entry:
:In deference to Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, the country adopted as its formal title "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and normalized relations with Greece in 1995. 
This just goes to show that you shouldn't blindly trust Britannica - it's wrong. The FYROM name was adopted by the UN General Assembly, not by the Republic of Macedonia. See UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, which is where the name comes from. As I understand it, the FYROM name is always used by foreigners to refer to the RoM, not by the RoM to refer to itself. Perhaps our Macedonian friends can confirm my understanding of this? -- ChrisO 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica also says this. Rex(talk) 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is that your wording is very misleading. You say that "the country adopted as its formal title..." Not so; its formal title is its constitutional name. The FYROM name is, as you know very well, only used in international and some bilateral settings. The RoM applied for recognition by the UN, which Greece objected to because of the name; the UN brokered a compromise (the FYROM name) which the RoM and Greece both reluctantly accepted. From what I recall, a lot of pressure was put on the Greek government at that time, as a lot of Greek politicians opposed any form of words that included the word "Macedonia". The RoM government didn't like the name but consented to it because it wanted recognition; the Greek government didn't like it either but also agreed to it, after coming under a lot of pressure from other EU and NATO states as well as the US. Your suggested version makes it sound like the RoM volunteered to be called FYROM in all settings, which clearly wasn't the case. -- ChrisO 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisO, you are quite right that it was imposed on Republic of Macedonia for sure. Furthermore, the Macedonian government does not sign any document that refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The usual way of dealing with UN and its agencies is to sign two different copies of the document. The difference is in one thing - the usage of our constitutional name or UN provisional reference. Both sides sign its own copy of the document, exchange copies and shake hands. Regarding the foreigners, I might say that only Italians and Greeks in EU institutions use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Even Tony Blair announced that "We hope to see a Europe reunited in all its aspects. Obviously, Macedonia is an important part of that vision,". Kirev 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was trying to suggest a head which came from a neutral source, but I don't insist on it. The "yeah, and" was referring to REX's bizarre remark. Miskin 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FYROM and ''Britannica''

message: I suggest that Bulgarians should stop editting Macedonian sites as YOU ARE NOT MACEDONIANS! - Arne 
Macedonia is Bulgarian and the proof is that what you want to call "Macedonian" language derives from the Bulgarian Language,
Both Greeks and Slavs rewrite the HISTORY, check this : http://www.macedoniainfo.com/10_Lies_Macedonism.htm Svetlyo 01:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonia and Bulgaria

message: *EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"
::Vergina 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes it is. It's not "RoM" only when are discussed billateral issues between Macedonia and Greece. Bomac 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can either of you provide some evidence? Izehar (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bomac, I'm afraid you're wrong. Officially, (in international documents) the EU refers to our country as FYROM, although, unofficially, they use the plain name Macedonia. I don't know how Tony Blair's statement would be classified - he was the first at the summit to confirm the Macedonian EU candidacy and he used the term Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, according to this policy Wikipedia should refer to this country as Republic of Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My proposal for this sentence is to avoid both terms, by adding "the country". We needn't get into banal disputes. --FlavrSavr 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. The country is simply referred to as FYROM for the duration of the dispute between it and Greece. The UN and other nations have never stated that FYROM is the name of the country, just a provisional name, ie. temporary.--Gorast 13:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a  damn fine small change.  :) --FlavrSavr 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EU name of FYROM is not "Republic of Macedonia"

message: To keep the record straight - UN does not refer to Macedonia as FYROM but only as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Both long and short names in use in UN are the same - "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Check these link:
UN site search for "former yugoslav republic of macedonia" - 17500 results
and
UN site search for FYROM - 606 results
I consider that usage of FYROM is just an error - Macedonia and Greece agreed on use of "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" not FYROM. Also, ISO defines this ISO 3166-1 record:
"Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of (MK, MKD, 807)"
We can see this at UN member states
 By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.
Considering the fact that more than 100 countries and 3 permenent members (out of 5) comprising more than 90% of Earth population recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name I suggest that we directly omit using "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" at all, but only the constitutional name. As Wikipedia does for every other country in the world.
:Not an option. Other countries do not have disputes over their name. This one does. And no they don't recognise it under "its constitutional name" - FYROM is not its constitutional name. They specifically refuse to recognise it under its constitutional name. FYROM is an interim name used for it in all cases at the UN. 
:PS: stop being pedantic about FYROM. That is an acronym of the full name, used to avoid using the full length name all the time. Ditto with UK for United Kingdom. (and please sign your name)FearÉIREANN15px\(caint) 00:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom? Is it Éire, Ireland, or ROI? If you are so pedantic, you should just use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and not FYROM. If you like acronyms, use ISO country codes - MK and MKD. FYROM is not an option - it has not been agreed with Greece and it is highly offensive. Somehow, if you check the paragraph about international relations, you would understand that, yes - the Greek friends on this matter are getting close to zero as time passes by... Kirev 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I found the reference. This is the document that you should find to see that there's no short form in the UN:
TITLE: Country Names
SERIES: Terminology Bulletin
No.: No.347/REV.1
LANGUAGE: M.
SALES #: 97.I.19
ISBN: 9210020685
SYMBOL: ST/CS/SER.F/347/REV.1/CORR.1
PAGES: 84pp.
PRICE: $20.00
DESCRIPTION: Compendium of country names in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish listed in English alphabetical order. It includes names of the United Nations Member States and members of specialized agencies such as the International Court of Justice.
Therefore, I will remove all occurences of FYROM from the article.
Kirev 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of FYROM to "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" 

message: This is a country which was a part of Jugoslavia,where a lot of people are Albanians,where they speak a bulgarian dialekt,and they want to have a greek name(makos in ancient greek means tall).user talk:makedonas--Makedonas 12:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is FYROM? 

message: WhY do people have the right to block users, if they edit a pro-greek comment? do you only support the slawo-macedonian attitude? this shares not the free mind of the free encyclopedia wikipedia, both sides should be heard, so that neutral readers can make their own conclusions.such editors who block the truth-loving edits should be blocked and reported to wikipedia. whith your current version the article is not neutral, absolutely pro-slawo-macedonian. let people freely edit the article and after time the slawo-makedonian arguments will quickly vanish. Nestore 16:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nestore, i don't know if you (or other Greek) have been blocked, but please put your comments at the end of the document, not at the beginning! Of course, nobody should be blocked for expressing its opinion, unless he is posting clearly nonsense or insulting comments. Also, I’m also sure that after time the arguments that are not relevant and based on the truth (no matter whether they are Greek or Macedonian) will vanish.However, you should ask yourself why the edits like your last one are constantly reverted by the Wikipedia users--Bitola 17:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people need to realise, this page isn't about the naming dispute, its purpose is to give information about the nation. There is already an article dedicated to the dispute, and a large majority of edits made  by Greeks to this page should be directed there, where they would still be deleted anyway as it is mainly nonsensical rubbish.--Gorast 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Greek Statements constantly get blocked and deleted - WHY? 

message: I would like to appeal to all editors of this very sensitive page. Please, don’t add info in large amounts that are changing completely the look of the article. I know that everyone wants to explain the history the best he can, but regarding the sensitivity of the article, make just minor corrections.  Any bigger changes to the article should be previously discussed in the TALK page! I also want to ask the editors to stop adding info to the page that can be viewed as insulting to the readers from the other side.  I noticed that, unfortunately, this behavior is commonly practiced in this page.
--Bitola 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to all editors of this article 

message: Okay, before someone goes off on the note, I'll make this clear once: There was a template which basically said and did the same thing a few months ago.  It was deleted by community consensus because it was a tautology--the statement is true of its own logic-- that Wikipedia does not endorse either side.  That is our policy.  It doesn't need to be stated in any article to appease any editors, be they Greek or otherwise.--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My removal

message: Nikolas, I think it would be better if you can create a user profile on Wikipedia if you already don’t have one and to sign properly after your edits on the discussion page. About the discussion, you have several assertions and I will try to provide the answers:
1 assertion: Keeping this in mind, isn't it a bit selfish for a nation to want to monopolise this name? Imagine for example that it wanted to call itself "Balkania". Wouldn't that be immediately offensive towards the other countries of the Balkan Peninsula?
My answer: What about United States of America? Isn’t America the name of a whole continent? Following your logic, USA is monopolizing the name of a continent. Moreover, if we follow your logic, then Greece shouldn’t use the name Macedonia at all, because it is also a monopolization of the name.  I’m sorry to repeat again that the Republic of Macedonia never disputed the right of Greece to use the term Macedonia for its northern part, Greece is the one that tries to deny our right to use that name.
2 assertion: As for Greece using to call "Northern Greece" our Macedonia, I must say that this whole story doesn't fit. Do you have a fact proving this? Or you just say it because you heard it from someone from your people? My father (65) was taught of the Macedonia district in his elementary school in 1947 
My answer: Yes, I have facts and I will provide 2 of them:
In the article  written by John Shea in 1997 you can find this:
Peter Hill, professor of Slavonic studies at the University of Hamburg in Germany, makes a similar point:  
Funnily enough, northern Greece was for many years called just that, "Northern Greece"... and the name Macedonia was considered somehow suspect....  But three years ago that all changed. Now that name, Macedonia, is at the heart of it dispute that has paralyzed the foreign policy of the European Community and brought thousands of people on to the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brussels.  
In the article from the Diplomatic observer site  you can find this:
Between 1912-13 and 1988, Macedonia of Aegean is officially called North Greece and “the North Greece Ministry was founded for the area, all these shows that Greece itself hasn’t mentioned this area as “Macedonia” for 75 years. Indeed Macedonia of Aegean was called “Northern Greece” until 1988 and after then it began to be called “Macedonia” Macedonia-Thrace” with a code of law. These lands have been called Macedonia for at least 1500 years by the Slavic and Macedonian residents as well as by the Albanian and the Ulahs peoples. On the other hand, not only the Hellenism of Macedonia but the Greece’s historical continuity which is taken back to 4000 years ago is imagination of Greek education policy and its historical perceptions.
3 assertion: Does that mean that any neighbor can utilise and monopolise a name and a history behind it that lasts for 3 to 5 MILLENIA and it is all Greek? Unless ofcourse you doubt that this history is Greek!
My answer:In the same article written by John Shea  you can find this:
The name Macedonia was not used until the second century B.C., and it was applied to the country by the Macedonian king, not by a Greek. The term "Macedon' and the expression "land of the Macedons" were used long before that time, though there is debate about the origins of the word "Macedon." Philologists are not certain of its derivation, though Greeks prefer to think that the word comes from Greek. In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek; thus the name the Macedonians used for their land must surely belong to them alone.
While it is true to say that the name Macedonia has been applied to Aegean Macedonia for a long time, "more than 3000 years" is pushing things just a little. Twenty-three hundred to twenty-six hundred years would be closer to the mark. However, most of the territory of the present Republic of Macedonia has also had that name for the same period of time. Although the boundaries of that land called Macedonia have changed from time to time under the rule of the Romans (this includes the period of Byzantium), the Bulgarians, the Serbians, the Turks and the Greeks, all historical analyses, even those emanating from Greeks, show certain territories to have been part of Macedonia since the time of Alexander the Great. Included in these territories are Skopje, Stobi, and Herakleia. (later Monastir/Bitola). These towns come close to the northern and western boundaries of the present Republic of Macedonia. They have been Macedonian since before the great empire. The territory that is now northern Greece has also been an important part of Macedonia since ancient times, though most of this territory was not a part of the first Macedonian kingdom, but was gradually incorporated into that kingdom as Macedonian power grew. 
It is fine to say that Macedonia, meaning the history of ancient Macedonia, is an indispensable part of Greece's heritage. Given that the Greeks occupy a major part of ancient Macedonian territory, this seems fair enough. The fact that the ancient Macedonians and Greeks despised each other, and that the Macedonians conquered the Greeks, need not be relevant to this aspect of modern political life. However, it does seem quite paradoxical for Greeks to choose as a national symbol a recently discovered emblem used by the hated overlords of ancient times (the Macedonians). The implication that there is a coherent ethnic group existing today, living only in northern Greece, that we could recognize as "Macedonian"- people who have a strong line of descent from the ancient Macedonians - simply cannot be substantiated.
Nikolas, I’m asking you and other Greek contributors to this article to read more independent articles about the history written by neutral journalist and historians, because it is not correct to supply only Greek point of view on the issue.
--Bitola 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Greek Macedonian songs that date back to 1913. They celebrate Macedonia's liberation from the Turkish and Slavic threat. This fact alone makes your claims moot. By the way, your "independent articles" are linked to a FYROM propagandist website. It also claims that the Bulgarian Empire of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria was in fact a "Macedonian". Do you see the irony? Miskin 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Nikolas,
Greeks are famous by their myths and I understand your fascination with the myth that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Even if that is true, it doesn’t give you a right to tell me who I am.  Forgive me, but your intention to tell me who I am, what is my name, my nation, my language, my history are ridiculous for me. You would say OK for me and my country to use the name Macedonia if it has nothing with our ethnicity, history, Great Alexander, Vergina etc.  I would say the opposite, Macedonia is our fatherland, we have Macedonian ethnicity, we have Macedonian history, Macedonian language etc. You are talking about your grandfather, parents and their feelings.  I will tell you that I’m feeling as a Macedonian, my parents and their friends are feeling as Macedonians, my grandfather and my grandmother are also feeling as Macedonians, they told me that their parents and grandparents were also Macedonians etc. You know what, I have also an atlas from my primary school and, guess what, my country is also called MACEDONIA with big letters. Since I was born, I’m filling as a Macedonian and you can stand on your head, but that will no change my opinion and my identity at all.  
--Bitola 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers to Nikolas assertions 

message: Of course that you have an illusion that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Can’t you see that only Greeks have that opinion and nobody other is supporting your position?  You never believe in the independent historians that are telling opposite meaning than yours.  Let’s for example look at the following writings presented by the Eugene Borza. If you don’t know who is Eugene Borza, take a look at the following site: . I will present some text from his article presented at the Annual meeting of the American Philological Association :
* What were a people's origins and what language did they speak? From the surviving literary sources (Hesiod, Herodotus, and Thucydides) there is little information about Macedonian origins, and the archaeological data from the early period is sparse and inconclusive. On the matter of language, and despite attempts to make Macedonian a dialect of Greek, one must accept the conclusion of the linguist R. A. Crossland in the recent CAH, that an insufficient amount of Macedonian has survived to know what language it was. But it is clear from later sources that Macedonian and Greek were mutually unintelligible in the court of Alexander the Great. Moreover, the presence in Macedonia of inscriptions written in Greek is no more proof that the Macedonians were Greek than, e.g., the existence of Greek inscriptions on Thracian vessels and coins proves that the Thracians were Greeks.
* Self-identity: what did the Macedonians say or think about themselves? Virtually nothing has survived from the Macedonians themselves (they are among the silent peoples of antiquity), and very little remains in the Classical and Hellenistic non-Macedonian sources about Macedonian attitudes.
* What did others say about the Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.
* What is the nature of cultural expressions as revealed by archaeology? As above we are blessed with an increasing amount of physical evidence revealing information about Macedonian tastes in art and decoration, religion, political and economic institutions, architecture and settlement patterns. Clearly the Macedonians were in many respects Hellenized, especially on the upper levels of their society, as demonstrated by the excavations of Greek archaeologists over the past two decades. Yet there is much that is different, e. g., their political institutions, burial practices, and religious monuments.
I’m little tired arguing with you (Miskin, Makedonas, Nikolas etc) because you don’t want to hear nothing different from you narrow-minded view on the problem and I’m planning to quit for a while this meaningless discussion with you.
--Bitola 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is this discussion doing here? If you want to learn about ancient Macedonians have a look at Macedon and its Talk:page. Even if the ancient Macedonians weren't Greek (doubtful), I still wouldn't see the the link with modern Macedonian Slavs. The Slavs came to the region some time in the 6th century AD, where Macedonians were already assimilated with the Byzantine Greeks. Anyway I'm not really willing to waste my time with people who quote FYROM websites. I know the story already, the infamous First Bulgarian Empire was actually a Macedonian one, etc, etc. You need to come up with new material, that stuff is getting boring. Miskin 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were ancient Macedonians? 

message: Quite frankly, this is a joke.  Wikipedia is NPOV without question.  No, of course we do not take a position on the naming issue.  I don't care if you are Greek or Macedonian or Mongolian, there's something blatantly wrong about it.  It doesn't matter if consensus was supposedly established "2 years" ago.  The deletion of the template confirms that the community by and large does not want this type of note, nor does it condone it.  And, of course, the UN's decisions and resolutions have no basis or power here, we do not abide by them, and they are not in any way in authority over this project, but the inclusion in that location of the statment suggests otherwise.  It's fine to include the note in the article that the UN uses the name FYROM; I'm not in any way disputing that, but it should be part of the article, not a note which suggests we blindly follow UN decisions (which are POV in and of themselves).  
This article suffers from a lack of mature editors.  It represents the way Wikipedia's system of compromise can fail when this page turns into a soapbox for Greeks and Macedonians to yell at each other about supposed ancient ethnic groups and language relations, subjects at which any of us, including me, are hardly experts.  By clinging to childish notions of who owns a name and attempting to boss others around against their will makes Wikipedia look bad.  The final say in the matter ought to have been long ago that the common name by an overwhelming majority in English is the use Macedonia, which nothing will ever change, hence my comment, "get a grip" (as in of reality!).  However, if every controversial article on Wikipedia doesn't need such a note, then why does this one?  There really is nothing special about this controversy.  We should work together, not tear each other apart.  It's time for some of us to be big, let go of our pride, and work to make Wikipedia better, which is simply the obligation of each and every editor here.  Therefore, the note does not belong on this article and the Wikipedia community as a whole will never condone such things.  Quite simply, it just makes us look bad.  Again, no problem with including the UN's resolution or the fact that there's a naming dispute or a link to the article; but, lets be mature, do the right and honorable thing, and put the facts where they belong: in NPOV text which strengthens the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since I've gotten little comment (except one support!), the note will be removed 24 hours from now if the situation has not changed.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The note

message: "New Democracy", a center-right wing party that was in power in the early nineties - and it again is now -, used the situation to gain acceptance. "We'll solve the macedonia naming problem soon" or sth they said. They didn't solve or  changed anything whatsoever. "Pasok" the center-left wing party used that result for it's own propaganda about how horribly New Democracy failed and stuff. There were tv spots about it 24/7. Greeks here that remember 1993 know what I'm talking about. I suspect that the naming issue would be much less important in Greece if those two parties weren't fighting for votes.
ps. I've posted this story to the proper foreign relations of the republic discussion page as well but it seems lots of people like to make a mess about the naming issue all over the place, forgive me if I contribute to the mess, but at least here I sign it properly --Fs 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Greek and I'll tell you another story 

message: The beginning of the article states that this is about the country and that other uses may be found at Macedonia.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone will be at Republic of Macedonia if they were looking for the geographical region or the Greek state known as Macedonia.  Usually such notes are used only if the article and the mistake have the same or almost exactly the same title, such as at photon.  But here this isn't the case.  Is the note really necessary?  If you type in Macedonia, you can't have come here without having been there, so what's the point?--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of places throughout Wikipedia in which the word "Macedonia" is piped to this article, potentially confusing readers.  There are also a number of redirects to this article that contain the word Macedonia.  Perhaps a better solution would be to clean up the piping and examine some of the redirects.  Jkelly 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, the reason those links pipe to this article is because they specifically refer to the article in the use of its name as a country, which makes sense.  However, it makes very little sense to suggest that anybody would really arrive here when they meant to be at Macedonia (region), etc.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A good point, but better used to argue for the use of Macedonia as the word (which, contrary to popular belief, would cause almost no confusion at all).  However, for the sake of my sanity and that of anyone who edits this article (and to prevent stupid and pointless edit wars), the article is at Republic of Macedonia for the time being.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top note

message: People who have a tendency for reverts should stop for a while and think what is meant with the term International Organizations. The paragraph Republic_of_Macedonia#International_relations can be helpful to distinguish the difference between country and associations or organizations of that country... talk to +MATIA 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Organizations