Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Province of Northern Greece?

Why did Greece wait until 1988 to rename its northern province as Macedonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.116.73 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a strategy that is used to confuse the world about the identity of the ethnic macedonians who are living in the macedonian province in greece. The ethnic macedonians are macedonians who are currently associated with the macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. Greece is using the word macedonia for themselves to monopolize it when refering to their own greeks who live in the macedonian province. Thats why they took over 70 years to rename northern greece as macedonia. If Macedonian was a greek name they would of used it right away in 1913 as their own. There is a whole documentary about the issue which is going to be released soon about all of this. The documentary is called "A Name is a Name". Its directed by Sigurjon Einarsson, produced by Jason Miko and narration by Sir Andrew Motion. http://www.anameisaname.net/EN/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.6.245 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

if it was banned what is this?? http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2008/01/24/greek-encyclopaedia-helios-of-19th-dec-1947/

The name "Macedonia" (Μακεδονία) has been used uniterruptedly from the 19th century to today for region. In fact, Macedonia was one of the adminiastrive divisions of Greece until the adminstriative reform of until the 1987 administrative reform.  Andreas  ^(T) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

With the administrative reform of 1987, three new administrative divisions were formed, all three having the word Μακεδονία as part of thier name. The Greeks did indeed suppress the use of the word "μακεδονικός/ή" for the language or the ethnic group, but not for their territory. The previous "Ministry for Northern Greece" (now called "Ministry for Macdenonia-Thrace"[1]) was and is responsible for two regions, Macedonia and Τhrace, therefore the name.

This can be easily verified by consulting sources from the time between 1900 and 1987. Here are some examples.

• a Greek map from 1919: Χάρτης της Ελλάδας του 1919 με το Βιλαέτι του Αϊδινίου. Λιθογραφία <1919>[2][3]. You can see that the Northern part is labelled ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ

• a coin from 1963[4][5].

• Map on a Greek school book of 1977[6] (see legend at lower right corner "ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ").

• The most influential newspaper in Northern Greece is named Makedonia and had this name since is establishment in 1911.

The idea that Greeks avoided the use of the name "Macedonia", which often appears in ther Internet, can be traced to a book by John Shea: Macedonia and Greece: the struggle to define a new Balkan nation. On page 8, there is a quote from a newspaper from the Rep. of Macedonia dated 1992, and a quote of the German historian Peter Hill from the Canberra Times, Thursday March 12 1992, p.9. No pre-1987 sources were considered.  Andreas  ^(T) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue to be presented here. There are fora for such kinds of discussions. GK1973 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

F.Y.R.O.M's name

It is obvious that F.Y.R.O.M's name cannot be changed to Macedonia...Whether its right or not it will cause many economical,ethnical,political issues.Can't both countries have this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xleburas (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Problem is that the former Slav and Ottoman region of Macedonia doesn't have any refference to the name. Greece has a continued use of the name since the 19th century war of independence as well as useage of the name Macedonia Bulgar, Serb, Avar, etc but not Macedonian. While the geographical region is correct the people who live there today are not --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue we are concerned with in Wikipedia. Leave politics to the politicians. GK1973 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You would think that, at this particular moment (October 2011), economic matters would be of more concern to the politicians of the "Former Ottoman Vilayets of Adrianople, Salonika, Monastir, Janina and Crete" - rather than the trifling issue of their northern neighbour who has had the good fortune to become independent. Clearly these politicians beg to differ. As long as the UN and other international organisations - and the Greek electorate - tolerate these anal-retentives, they are ignoring other more pressing matters such as the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.31.185.228.111 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the note in the box at the very top of this page: this page is not for discussing our own opinions about the political issue. It is only for discussion on how to improve the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I erased the part about Macedon having been a local phylarch not because it is incorrect, but because it has to be sourced first to be sure that no mistake is made (for example, I think that the text where the phylarch Macedon was mentioned was not ancient, unless it was Strabo.... I am really not sure right now, but I am pretty sure that he was not described as a phylarch of the Makednoi, anyways, I just want to find the exact extract first and then we can add it back)

Nevertheless, I do not think that this "etymology" is appropriate as given. "Macedonia" means "land of the Macedonians". What we are giving here is the etymology of the word "Macedonian" and not "Macedonia". We could just redirect to the appropriate article to give a deeper etymology, but I think it does not belong here. GK1973 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC) MACEDONIA IS NOT PART OF GREECE, BUT GREECE IS PART OF BIG MACEDONIA. MACEDONIA IS NOT FYROM !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.14.133 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1987 administrative region "Makedonia" in Greece

There is a misconception that "the name 'Macedonia' was forbidden in Greece prior to 1988" that is propagated over the internet. However, it is easy to disprove this by looking at any Greek map or encyclopedia of school book of this time. The Greeks did suppress the use of the word "μακεδονικός/ή" for the language or the ethnic group, but not the word "Μακεδονία" for the territory.

"Macedonia" (Μακεδονία) was a legitimate administrative region of Greece until the 1987 administrative reform. The Greek region (διαμέρισμα) in question was called officially "Μακεδονία", and was not known under any other name, until the administrative reform of 1987, when three new administrative divisions were formed, all three having the word Μακεδονία as part of thier name. The previous "Minister for Northern Greece" (until 2009 called "Minister for Macdenonia-Thrace"[7]) was responsible for two regions, Macedonia and Τhrace.

Here is a Greek map from 1919:

• Χάρτης της Ελλάδας του 1919 με το Βιλαέτι του Αϊδινίου. Λιθογραφία <1919>[8][9]. You can see that the Northern part is labelled ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ.

Here is a coin from 1963[10][11].

Map on a Greek school book of 1977[12] (see legend at lower right corner).

Notice also that the popular Thessaloniki dayly Makedonia has been published under this name since 1911.  Andreas  ^(T) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a map yesterday that proves your point. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

looking at the worn out pages it doesn't look like it's from 1977 ;) find me a map with the year on it from 1945 till 1991 and i'll drop the subject79.125.225.52 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)user:mak

What do you need the map for, the coin is from 1963. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Official government statistics breakdown per region 1957 [13]

We have an agreed and well-established formula for the names. We all respect it and we all revert people like user 79.125.225.52. Politis (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

nowhere in the coin is written the year. can i trust you on that???79.125.225.52 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)user:mak

The coin was minted in 1963 to commemorate the Centenary of the Greek royal dynasty [14]. The years 1863 and 1963 are written on the heads face of the coin, a map of Greece with the names of the regions is shown at the tails face.

Also this official statistical report by the National Statistics Agency lists the region of Macedonia as Μακεδονία - Macedonia - Macédoine. It was published in 1964. -- Philly boy92 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Greek school book from 1939 and 1967

Here is a school book on Greek geography[15], published in 1967 by the state-affiliated Organisation for the Publication of School Books. The chapter on Makedonia starts at page 102 with a map on page 103.

On page 103 you can read : "Ἀλλ’ ὅλην τὴν Μακεδονίαν δὲν τὴν κατέχει σήμερον ἡ ῾Ελλάς. Τὸ βόρειον μέρος της τὸ κατέχουν δύο ἄλλα κράτη, ἡ Νοτιοσλαβία καὶ ἡ Βουλγαρία." (My tranlsation: But Greece today does not containe the whole of Macedonia. Its northern Part is contained by two other states, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria).

Read also on page 122 that "Greek Macedonia has about 1,890,00 inhabitants. It is an Administrative Region and is divided into nine prefectures" (my translation). On page 214, you will find a map of the areas that were incorporated into the Greek state at various times. The 1939 edition[16] contains basically the same information.  Andreas  ^(T) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

a schoolbook in acrobat reader? that's kinda suspicious. you work in the ministry of education? ok. let's say that it's verifiable. "its northern part is contained by two other states" that looks a lot like irredentism to me.

can you find a schoolbook of ethnic Macedonians from Greece on Greek Slavic from 1946 till present where it is written Macedonia for that specific region? tnx 89.205.7.164 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)user:mak

The 1967 edition of the school book is hosted on the web site of the Organisation for the Publication of Text Books, an organization that depends on the Ministry of Education and that is the only publisher of government-approved school books sincd 1937. They have all the school books online, including previous editions, as part of the policy of providing free educational material by the Greek state.  Andreas  ^(T) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editors are just playing. I think that soon they will ask Andreas to send them copies of the book and a few of those silver 30 drachma coins :-) And they will still pretend that they want more proof. The fact is that the Greek state has, since 1913, called one of its northern provinces Macedonia. Politis (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in this discussion anyway. What Andreas pointed out we already knew; the Greek state refers to the region as 'Macedonia' since the early 1900s, period. The ethnic Macedonians may not like it, but what can we do. This page is for Greek Macedonia and until proven otherwise, we use the official name of 'Macedonia' for the said region in Greece. I also suggest the page be locked for unregistered users to prevent further vandalism by "unregistered users". --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Phil, good idea to lock page for unregistered user and, I hope, for registered users of recent arrival. By the way, I think that quite a few editor who would identify as ethnic Macedonians must be against the vandalism of the anonymous editors. Politis (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To anyone interested in boosting the chronology of references here is a reference from a 1943 book by Athenian (Stephen Lavra), The Greek Miracle, published 1943, page 105, "Even in those provinces most exposed to attack [by Hitler's army], Thrace and Macedonia, the same enthusiasm and the same loyalty dominated the population" [17] Politis (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Prefecture" instead of "Province" for the Greek Macedonia

I think it is right to use only the term "Prefecture" instead of Province for the Greek Macedonia, because first of all it is the direct and more accurate translation of Νομός/Nomos, and secondly because "Pronince" implies a type of autonomy for a region in our times, i.e. like the Canadian "Provinces" vs Canadian "Territories", and compared to American "States". --Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how they are normally translated, so can not add there, but don't worry about the authonomy suggestions: also in Belgium and the Netherlands provinces are used although they are not federal units with any authonomy... L.tak (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Prefecture" is the conventional translation of "nomos", but Macedonia isn't a nomos; the nomos units are/were much smaller, and Macedonia consists of many of them. The relevant administrative division is at the "decentralized administrations" level (since 2010), or the "periphery" level (before 2010), or the ""diamerisma" level (prior to the 1980s). The trouble here is that Greek Macedonia isn't in fact any single administrative unit today at all – it is made up of two and a half "peripheries", and parts of three different "administrations". As for the old diamerisma of Macedonia, you could translate it as "department", or "province", or "region" (as our Regions of Greece article does). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As Future Perfect notes, Greek Macedonia is not a political entity. A "prefecture" was an administrative unit of Greece of the 2nd level, subdivision of the Peripheries. Currently, there are no admininstrative units called "prefectures" in Greece, they were replaced by Peripheral Units in 2011. Additionally, Greek prefectures were by far smaller than the actual territory of Greek Macedonia. Greek Macedonia has always (at least from what I can remember from school) been a "geographic department" (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα) of Greece, which holds no administrative standing. In essence, when you say "Macedonia" in Greece you mean a geographic region made up of 2 and 1/2 Peripheries, therefore I think the term "province" is suitable. Technically speaking, "region" would be the best choice. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The UN International Court of Justice

I updated this section with the content from the press release of the UN's International Court of Justice.[18] I moved the political statements, some of which are not sourced, some of which are irrelevant (such as: "The EU has so far not commented" -what kind of information is that?!) to a sub-section. I took the content of the positions of the parties in front of the Court in full, as it is written in the press release, in order to maintain the correctness and impartiality (if any of the authors of this article is interested in such categories). Please do not delete this part, because it gives accurate information about the court proceeding, as it is viewed by the Court itself. Please discuss here prior to making any alterations. Crnorizec (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trade embargo

According to article: The ongoing dispute has not prevented the two countries from enjoying close trade links and investment levels (especially from Greece), but it has generated a great deal of political and academic debate on both sides.

According to BBC: Soon after Yugoslavia's southernmost republic declared itself independent under the name Republic of Macedonia in 1991, Greece imposed a trade embargo. The embargo was lifted when Macedonia agreed in 1995 to change its flag and constitution and apply to join international institutions under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, while negotiations continued over the name.

So there was a trade embargo, so what the article says is not true.--Bizso (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article talks about the 2011 reality, not what happened in 1995. Greece is Macedonia's largest foreign investor. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the the article does not talk solely about the events of 2011. Moreover, the sentence at issue does not say "is not preventing" it says "has not prevented." As long as Greece is blocking its neighbor's participation in the Internal Market (European Union) Greece is constraining its neighbor's level of international trade and investment.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Price of Alexander the Great statue

I put in a tiny properly sourced price of the statue of Alexander the Great in the Macedonian capital Skopje with the sentence itself also mentioning it was Italian made. The price was $13 million or €9 million. I thought it was relevant to show how much this "Antiquisation" policy is costing the Macedonian people as even many Macedonians are unhappy with how much is being spent on this remodeling. Also the Philip II Statue opposite will be around the same price. The price edit was immediately removed by Taivo who said it was irrelevant (?) Does everyone else think the price of the statues is irrelevant to the "Antiquisation" policy section? What are your opinions? Reaper7 (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If the the price were included as part of a section or paragraph about how much this policy is costing Macedonia, then I would have not a problem with including it there, but a floating number with no apparent tie to anything that preceded it or followed it seems rather trivial and irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

--- The price is not floated with no apparent tie to anything that preceded it. The statue is mentioned and I simply added the referenced price to give the reader an idea of howmuch this policy is costing the Macedonian public, which you deemed irrelevant and immediately removed. You could be right on this - that no one cares how much the statue/s is costing Macedonia or indeed the "Antiquisation" policy itself. I am just curious if others think it is relevant. Reaper7 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My point on "no apparent tie" meant that no other cost had been mentioned on anything else and there was no reason given for why that one single price suddenly appeared. Of course it was tied to the statue, but there was no other context, and, as such, appeared as simply a point of trivia. Like I said above, had it appeared in a context of "Wow, this is costing a lot and the people don't like it...the statue cost X", then I would not have deleted it. As it was, it just hung there alone. --Taivo (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, it may have just hung there or been as you stated firstly irrelevant, in my opinion, it flowed subtly with the sentence and did not require the theatrical 'Wow, this is costing a lot..' context to be valid.

Original sentence: In 2011, a massive, 22m tall statue of Alexander the Great was inaugurated in Macedonia Square in Skopje, as part of of the Skopje 2014 remodeling of the city.

My edit: In 2011, a massive, 22m tall statue of Alexander the Great costing Macedonia nine million euros ($13 million), was inaugurated in Macedonia Square in Skopje, as part of of the Skopje 2014 remodeling of the city.

Don't think it is irrelevant, out of context, just 'hangs there' or anything of the kind. Think it blends in well and is totally relevant. Reaper7 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Without a context of talking about money, it is, indeed, out of context and simply a piece of trivia about the statue. I've said it several times, but you don't seem to listen--provide a context by talking about out controversial the costs are and it will fit right in. Without such a context, however, it's just a piece of irrelevant trivia about the statue. This article is about Macedonia's naming dispute, not the cost of statues without an appropriate context to tie it to the issue. I could talk about a statue erected in Ukraine in 2004 and mention that it was draped in orange. So what? If I don't provide a context telling our readers about why orange was significant in 2004, it's just a piece of irrelevant trivia. Same here. Without providing a context to our readers that the costs of such Macedonian efforts are controversial, the cost of the statue is just another piece of trivia. Provide a context for it and put it in that context; you simply cannot expect our readers to read your mind about why you put it there. --Taivo (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So to state the staute in a seperate sentence, after the previous sentence already mentions it was erected, was a 'massive 22 meters tall' is more relevant than its price? Explain the logic of why you deem the height relevant, but the price irrelevant to the reader and out of context. What difference does it matter how tall the statue is? is the reader an expert on statue height, if the staute was 10 meters tall instead of 22, would that change the argument? Why don't you delete that too? In context? lol The reader is informed these manouvers are criticised at home and abroad, so i don't think it would take a genius to conect the dots that Macedonia is not such a rich nation that can easily afford $25 million worth of provocative Italian sculture for one square alone. I don't think you need to break up the movement of the article because you don't believe the price is in context when clearly, it is just as useful a 'trivia' in your words, as the height/. As usual Tavio, we are asking for consistency in what you deem to delete, nothing more. Reaper7 (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A statue is defined by three things--its subject, its material, and its size. Its cost really isn't a defining feature of a statue, not one of its identifying marks. The Iron Maiden in Kyiv is about the size of the Statue of Liberty, made of some silvery metal, and depicts the Motherland. Those are its defining characteristics. Not its year of construction, not its price, not who wanted it built. So that's why a statue's size is relevant and nontrivial, but its cost isn't. If you want to include information beyond a statue's basic identifying characteristics, then you have to justify it, especially in an article like this one, where the subject matter is not statuary and the statuary itself is peripheral. It must have a reason for being there. Size and subject matter are fundamental identifying characteristics, cost is not. As usual, Raeper, we are asking you to justify what otherwise seems to be WP:POINTy editing where Macedonia is concerned. --Taivo (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointless Tagging

The "newspaper" tag that was recently inserted by a POV pushing anonymous editor is simply another attempt in a long line of WP:POINTy editing attempts to push an anti-Macedonian point-of-view. --Taivo (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a guideline, but WP:AGF is. Claiming that this is "another strategy for Greek attack against Macedonia" doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "anti-Macedonian point-of-view"? Would you prefer a "pro-Macedonian point-of-view"? I'm all for a neutral point of view.

The claim about the number of countries doesn't have the backing it should. We need an official list of these countries, and we should be able to verify the recognitions. I looked around and there is nothing to be found. I would be delighted if you could help. Until then, the right decision is to insert the tag. Readers should be forewarned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.31.131 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Countries recognising RoM's constitutional name, exclusively

Since there aren't any official data available and many people are wondering, I've asked for information. I've just sent this to FM Poposki's office.

Dear Minister Poposki,

Wikipedia's editors are trying to find official information regarding which states have diplomatic relations with your country, using its constitutional name, exclusively. Unfortunately, there aren't any data available on your Ministry's website. Could you please provide a list of these countries? The information would be especially useful for the article titled "Macedonia naming dispute" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute).

Respectfully yours,

[signature]

I believe that two weeks are enough for an answer (that's until the end of January). After all, they should readily know which countries recognise them using their name. If a) they don't respond, and b) nobody else has reliable, verifiable information, I will follow the appropriate editing procedures in February. Eldar73 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On this page especially, "appropriate editing procedures" means building consensus for any changes by discussion first. --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, there is a problem. I contacted the person in charge for such information (I can provide proof if requested), and I notified everyone publicly in this discussion page. There wasn't/won't be any disruptive editing, against general or specific frameworks. We are seeking reliable, verifiable information, and there are tools for each case. If the outcome is positive (an official source provides a list of the countries, countries are checked), then we should edit accordingly and put a reference. If the outcome is negative (can't verify the claim about the number of countries), I suspect that all editors would want readers to know about it. Eldar73 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem insofar as a letter from a government official, even if sent in an official capacity, won't be a published document and as such may not qualify as a "reliable source" according to our criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they are able to provide a list of the claimed 130+ countries to a member of the public, I'm sure that they could use their website to publish it for the world to see. It's only a copy-paste away. They issued press releases for matters of lesser value, and this is far more serious. Despite that, their answer could be included in another published document by a reliable source, and referenced in Wikipedia.

Any other suggestions? Other ideas about sourcing? Eldar73 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the two newspaper references with the latest official press release of the Macedonian MFA [19]. You'll be disappointed to see that it again reports only the total number and the latest addition (they now put it at 133). But I don't really see the problem about it. The MFA is a reliable source about its own bilateral relations with other countries. They say it's 133. We have no reliable sources that have denied this number or put it into doubt. We have the previously quoted press reports that have apparently been taking these reported numbers at face value. No expressions of doubt anywhere. If we were now to cast doubt on the figure, based on our own argument that the figure lacks credibility in the absence of the full list, would be "original research" on our part. I have therefore removed some tendentious language to that effect. I've left a shorter, neutral note about the absence of such a list in the footnote. Its purpose is to make clear that the following list of countries is not based on that MFA source; that's the only reason we need that type of disclaimer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This might serve as a temporary solution, although the notice could be included in the text. The problem is that the article is about a dispute, and we can't present statements by either party as facts. We should be able to verify Dimas' or Poposoki's claims; politicians have their own agendas. Press reports don't matter because they just copy-paste what is said in press releases. Press releases never reveal the complete number of countries, and the number count seems to fluctuate (check past releases from a few years back). Now, if you were FM of a country claiming that more than 2/3 of UN recognise its constitutional name, wouldn't you want to make their names known? We're just asking the person making the claim to back it. Eldar73 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "ask the person making the claim to back it". That's real-world politics and not our job. --Taivo (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't publish everything a person says or does. "Real-world politics" are involved when there is only one (1) source of information: a party involved in the dispute. There are no reliable third-party sources about the matter. Copying information from a party with a special interest, does not count as fact-checking; the degree of scrutiny is zero. Nevertheless, if you believe that this party is a reliable source of information, then this party shouldn't have any problems in publishing the list. "Real-world politics" might be involved if it doesn't. Eldar73 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that a personal letter or email isn't a reliable source unless it points you to something that has been publicly disseminated or published. "This is the email the Foreign Minister sent me" isn't a reliable source. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've asked for from Macedonia, but that's the Wikipedia policy. Granted, many of the sources we've used here aren't the highest quality, but the general principles of what constituted evidence here were agreed to by consensus a long time ago. I'm willing to wait and see what you get back from the Foreign Ministry, if you get anything, but this effort should be a supplement or further reliable source and not an effort to scrap this list that has been carefully planted and tended by many good editors over the years. --Taivo (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage you and other participating editors to ask them the same question, in order to have first hand knowledge. Regarding sourcing, I wrote about it before. If their MFA is considered a reliable source, then we'll check and reference the list they'll publish. As an alternative, their response could be included in a third-party reliable source. But if they are unable to name the countries recognising their constitutional name, then the quality of this section could be improved. There is at least 25% difference between their claim and the number of countries in the article's list, and some of the references in the list do not back such recognition. However, I'm not adding or removing anything right now, while we wait for an official response. Eldar73 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RoM's MFA didn't respond. We have a single source, involved in the dispute, unable to verify the claim. What are your thoughts? Eldar73 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said: since we have no non-OR reason to doubt the veracity of the source, and there is nothing inherently implausible or sensational about the information that would make it necessary to apply the rule of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", we can simply take the source at face value. We are already properly attributing and thereby hedging the information ("according to"), which is quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It seems that they never published a complete list of these countries during the last 20 years. A bit odd, isn't it? They're supposed to prove why the other party is wrong. IMHO, saying that 2/3 of the UN states support your position, while you're not able to name them, makes for an extraordinary claim. The current phrasing is not strong enough, and the explanation is burried in the reference. WP's list has some sketchy links, and lacks at least 25% of the claimed recognitions. There is room for improvement, but it's better to wait for more input. Eldar73 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edits disputed above, but I have a remark about the issue at hand. Of course MFA claims like "133 countries do that" will look much better if the list is appended. Unfortunately they haven't provided such yet. And I doubt they will reply to an email asking for such list. If you really want to get this you should contact a journalist, who can semi-officially request the information - or simply confront the minister the next time he says "133 countries" with "which ones exactly?". Japinderum (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the late reply. I don't have any free time at all lately. It's easy for RoM's MFA to publish the list on their website. Unfortunately, they don't. They never gave away the names of these countries since the '90s. Given that state recognitions are not secret, draw your own conclusions. Nevertheless, what RoM's MFA might use as a political tool is not a matter for Wikipedia. I encouraged other editors to search for verifiable information, but I don't see anything new. Eldar73 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Panama, Mexico, DR Congo, Albania, Vatican City

Panama, Mexico, DR Congo - do we have sources do we have about these using FYROM? From the glimpse I made it seems that there is only a debunked Greek statement about that.

Vatican City - sources in the article (and [20]) point at FYROM. There is only one where RoM is utilized, but it seems of secondary passer-by nature.

Albania - sources in the article point at RoM. But there is one odd FYROM reference.

I don't say that we should move any of those, but only raise the point for others to look into. Japinderum (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Panama, Mexico, DR Congo should be moved to RoM list; Albania - to inconclusive (albeit almost everything points that Albania should be moved to RoM too).

I would propose moving Vatican to FYROM, but that means disregarding the 2008 RoM passer-by reference (I think it's a weaker source than the others) - does anybody object that? Japinderum (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for Mexico we have an Oct 2008 link from Mexico MFA (not Macedonia or Greece) where they say "FYROM in international and bilateral context", so that clearly points to FYROM. Japinderum (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Mexico

We have conflicting Macedonian and Greek statements. We have Mexico MFA statement about using FYROM both in international and bilateral context. So, clearly - FYROM. Japinderum (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Panama, DR Congo

We have conflicting Macedonian and Greek statements. Macedonian refutal of Greek statement involves also Mexico (proven wrong) - is this sufficient to move conclude that Greek statement is correct also for Panama and DRCongo (e.g. move these from inconclusive to FYROM)? Japinderum (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Vatican City

Almost all sources point to FYROM [21], [22], [23] (these include statements, lists of diplomatic relations, etc.) One single source [24] omits "former Yugoslav", but this is a shorthand in spoken language (it's a citation of a speech) - not in official diplomatic document. So, should we move Vatican from inconclusive to FYROM? Japinderum (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Albania

Dead link sources unknown whether FYROM or RoM:

• [25]

Irrelevant sources - such that are showing usage in international context (where it's FYROM even for states using RoM bilaterally)

• [26]
• [27]

Sources with FYROM:

• [28] - Albania MFA list of embassies

Sources with RoM:

• [29] - official diplomatic document - international treaty fully ratified by both sides
• [30] - Albania MFA - official document of State Protocol - "Diplomatic list"
• Marini, M. (2005-01-12). "Albania recognises constitutional name of Republic of Macedonia — PM Nano". Albanian Telegraphic Agency.

The only FYROM source is a web page (albeit on the Albanian MFA). The RoM sources are official international treaty and official document of Albania state protocol. So, should we move Albania from inconclusive to RoM? Japinderum (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on Skopje's Ancient/Modern building programme

There is a massive new/ancient style arch22 meter tall and an epic statue of Alexander the Great also 22 meters tall/. The project has cost so far half a billion Euros and it is an important state project to project the state's beliefs that it is indeed an ancient state associated with Ancient Macedonia. Why would it be inappropriate to mention it? Who would it offend? Greeks? I say we add it. Zeno77 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the '"Antiquisation" policy, 2006-present' subsection. --Local hero ^talk 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The position of Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia on the issue

I would like to point to the fact that the article lacks the very important role played on this issue by the other three countries occupying territory of the geographic region of Macedonia, namely by Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia. The article seems to have been reduced to a mere Greek-Fyrom dispute, although it certainly involves (I mean the pure naming diplomatic question) the above countries too.

What are their position and reaction with regard to the matter? For certainly there is one, at least in the case of Bulgaria, as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.45.85 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

New source about naming dispute (phd thesis 2011)

Check also this new source about the naming dispute. It is a Phd thesis (2011) from Umeå University / Sweden:

Erik Sjöberg (2011). Battlefields of Memory The Macedonian Conflict and Greek Historical Culture (PDF). Sweden: Umeå University - Phd Thesis. ISBN 978-91-7459-329-7.

Ggia (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia Salutaris: Change translation to "advantagous Macedon"

In the section of the article Background: Controversy the Roman name for a part of the province is given as "Macedonia Salutaris" ("coinciding with most of the modern Greek region of Macedonia, and Macedonia Salutaris ("second Macedonia") in the north").

"Salutaris" is then translated as "second", which meaning for salutaris is not in A Latin Dictionary (Lewis & Short). The Wiki article Macedonia (Roman province) translates salutaris as "advantageous", which is a possible translation of salutaris according to A Latin Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.110.176 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Formatting issue in the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations"

At least on my browser the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations" renders badly since the image is pushing the list of countries off to the side. I don't know enough about MediaWiki to fix it, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention to see if someone more capable could fix it.

superman (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I changed it back to the way it was until a few months ago. Don't know how and why it got messed up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on the naming dispute can be expanded by non- formal Plan B of the Macedonian government relating to request of the Advisory opinion of ICJ

The admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations in April 1993 required the new member to be “provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.” The term “difference” here refers to the dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the use of the applicant state’s name. In its Resolution 817 of April 7, 1993 (by which the applicant state was recommended for admission to the United Nations), the Security Council “urge[d] the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference.” Thus, the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations was subject to its acceptance of being provisionally referred to as the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM) and of negotiating with Greece over its name. The conditions for the admission of states were the subject of exhaustive political and legal deliberations at the United Nations during the 1940s when many states were applying for membership. During the first several years of the Organizations’ existence, admission to, and even representation in, the United Nations were subject to various conditions (outside the scope of those contained in Article 4 of the Charter), which in some cases required recognition of the applicant (as an international subject) prior to its admission to membership. In an effort to resolve the dilemmas regarding the legal aspects of the conditions required for admission to membership and to eliminate the various stalemates that were occurring in the admission process, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 113 (II) of November 17, 1947, requested that the International Court of Justice give an advisory opinion on the following question: Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? The following conditions are expressly set forth in Article 4, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, which provides: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other [i.e., other than the original UN members] peaceloving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” The next paragraph of the article states the procedural rule that “[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” In its Advisory Opinion, Admission of a State to the United Nations, the Court first concluded that the question put to it in an abstract form had a legal nature. Consequently, the Court was required to provide an interpretation of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Charter and, by virtue of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute and as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,” it had the competence to give such an interpretation. The Court then observed that paragraph 1 of Article 4 in effect contains five conditions; to be admitted to membership in the United Nations, an applicant must (1) be a state; (2) be peace-loving; (3) accept the obligations of the UN Charter; (4) be able to carry out these obligations; and (5) be willing to do so. Further, the Court found that the question put to it by the General Assembly could be reduced to the following: are the conditions stated in paragraph 1 of Article 4 exhaustive in character in the sense that an affirmative reply would lead to the conclusion that a Member is not legally entitled to make admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided for in that Article, while a negative reply would, on the contrary, authorize a Member to make admission dependent also on other conditions.

After thorough consideration, the International Court of Justice formulated its advisory opinion stating that a member of the United Nations that is called upon, by virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a state to membership in the Organization, is not juridically entitled to make its consent dependent on conditions not expressly provided in paragraph 1 of that article. Among the most important arguments used by the Court in arriving at the above opinion were that (1) the UN Charter is a multilateral treaty whose provisions impose obligations on its members; (2) the text of paragraph 1 of Article 4, “by the enumeration which it contains and the choice of its terms, clearly demonstrates the intention of its authors to establish a legal rule which, while it fixes the conditions of admission, determines also the reasons for which admission may be refused”; and (3) the enumeration of the conditions in paragraph 1 of Article 4 is exhaustive (and “not merely stated by way of guidance or example”), which follows from the fact that if the opposite were the case, “[i]t would lead to conferring upon Members an indefinite and practically unlimited power of discretion in the imposition of new conditions.” In its deliberations, the Court specifically analyzed whether the political character of the organs responsible for admission (the Security Council and the General Assembly, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 4), or for the maintenance of world peace (the Security Council, pursuant to Article 24 of the Charter), engendered arguments leading to the contrary conclusion regarding the exhaustive character of the conditions enumerated in paragraph 1 of Article 4. The Court rejected this interpretation and held that “[t]he political character of an organ cannot release it from the observance of the treaty provisions established by the Charter when they constitute limitations on its powers or criteria for its judgment.”11 Thus, the Charter limits the freedom of political organs and no “political considerations” can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4 that could prevent admission to membership. (The advisory opinion of the Court makes it apparent that, besides their exhaustive and explicit character, the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter have two additional characteristics: (1) they must be fulfilled before admission is effected; and (2) once they are recognized as having been fulfilled, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership. This last feature also follows from the “openness” to membership enshrined in Article 4, which comports with the universal character of the Organization.) The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was presented to the General Assembly at its third session, in December 1948. At that session the General Assembly adopted Resolution 197 (III), by which it “[r]ecommend[ed] that each member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, in exercising its vote on the admission of new Members, should act in accordance with the foregoing opinion of the International Court of Justice.”

(This resolution and the Court’s advisory opinion have direct legal relevance to the issue of the admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations, since these documents interpret the Charter in a manner that limits the power of the UN organs to impose conditions on admission. The preamble to Security Council Resolution 817, by which Macedonia was recommended for admission, recognized that “the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership laid down in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.” According to Admission of a State to the United Nations and General Assembly Resolution 197, this statement means that the applicant has fulfilled all the required conditions for admission to membership in the United Nations and that no other conditions may be imposed. Contrary to the usual wording of Security Council resolutions recommending admission of a state, Resolution 817, after recognizing the fulfillment of the conditions in Article 4, contains an additional consideration, “that a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region.” This condition, which is found in the introductory part of the resolution, is reflected in its paragraph 2, which recommends the admission of the applicant state to membership in the United Nations. It describes “this State” as “being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.” The Macedonian Government strongly objected to the use of this provisional name, stating that “under no circumstances” was it prepared to accept that designation as the name for the country. Nevertheless, the text of the resolution remained unchanged. As a consequence, the imposed obligation to accept this provisional denomination and the closely related obligation to negotiate over the name of the country served as additional conditions that it was required to satisfy so as to gain admission to the United Nations. These unusual conditions in Resolution 817 are extraneous to the limited list laid down in Article 4. Furthermore, these conditions transcend the act of admission in time. Since the Charter makes no provision for other conditions for admission, it appears that the conditions imposed on Macedonia have no legal basis. Certainly, the ICJ’s advisory opinion makes clear that all the conditions for admission to membership must be fulfilled before admission is effected. Since the conditions that were imposed represent purely political considerations, they are incompatible with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.187.253 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request. 29 December, 2013. Second paragraph not correct/not neutral

As millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians (unclear in what sense if not ethnic), unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great, and of promoting the irredentist concept of a United Macedonia, which involves territorial claims on Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia.

There are 2 problems here - firstly the word "ethnic". This does not belong here - as someone notes in parenthesis. Firstly, the Greek people that 'identify themselves' as Macedonian do so not because of ethnicity (a convoluted term) but because of origin. In other words, simply put, they live in or hail from the Greek state of Macedonia. Secondly, using this word is highly politically charged giving the impression that they are an ethnic group in a region which is not their own or where they are in a minority. See [31] or [32]. The term is simply not needed.

The second problem: "identify themselves as" - again is highly convoluted and not needed. Again it is politically charged by implying a weak connection to the area of origin. I am from the county of Oxfordshire in the UK as this is where I was born and have lived my entire adult life. I would never say, or never be described as, "identifying myself as being from Oxfordshire" or that I identify myself as English.

I could be wrong, but this terminology looks politically motivated. I would propose the following (probably can be improved but you get the point):

As millions of Greeks live in, or hail from, the Greek prefecture of Macedonia and are unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great, and of promoting the irredentist concept of a United Macedonia, which involves territorial claims on Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia.GoldenClockCar (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not even that. The text in brackets ("unclear in what sense if not ethnic") is blatantly untrue. It should simply be replaced with "clearly in a regional sense only". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.209 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That sentence (unclear in what sense if not ethnic) is totally useless in the lead. It's all in the appropriate "Greek position" section, Greek Macedonians identify themselves as Macedonians in a regional and historical sense. Removing sentence. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request. 29 December, 2013. Map - What is "Modern Geographical Macedonia" - it is neither a political or geographical boundary

The map is entitled "Geographic and political division of Macedonia" and yet there is a big grey line that covers the Republic of Macedonia and the Greek state called Modern Geographical Macedonia. This is neither a political division or a geographic division. Should this be on this map in this section? I suggest this should be in only the article on this subject. GoldenClockCar (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We need a specific "This needs to happen" not a "Should this happen?". Please clarify your request and come back with a clearer explanation of what is needed. Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

The last sentence "Economic relations and cooperation have resumed to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the Republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[46]" under the subsection "Stalemate" should therefore be removed as the reference (46) has expired, no longer exists and/or is irretrievable. 120.148.93.147 (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I this case I have added {{dead link}} to the cite. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate article, need to unlock this to serious edits.

http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/1347 example source 179: THAT RUSSIA-PERMANENT SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER RECOGNISES MACEDONIA IN OFICIAL TEXT DOCUMENTS...>Leads to a random link about gynecology. Severely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zergbot123 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Templates

I am a total stranger to this controversial article. I just read it and I see necessary a change: Template `Politics of Macedonia" should come before the template "Politics of Greece" as certainly the issue is a much more vital one for Macedonia than for Greece. Therefore I am changing their places, after 5 minutes. Please don't shoot me for this, if you think I am wrong just revert me and I will not begin an edit war on something I never edited before. (Indeed I wouldn't begin an edit war on anything, I hope. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free. Though that's hardly the most pressing issue for improvement I can see with this page. A good, nice, radical pruning down would come to mind first, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We Need to improve the article of Macedonia naming dispute

<long rant by sock IP snipped> – 212.83.144.225 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the concept of how Wikipedia works. First, your long explanation is absolutely useless without reliable secondary sources backing up everything you want to add to the article (see WP:Verifiability). Second, gather the sources and then edit the article yourself, and if some problems occur, they will be solved here on the talk page. Seems you beleave that good people will read your theory and grab the article and write everything you explained here, but unfortunately in 99% of the cases there is no one to do the work for you, and if you have interest and time, just add the content to the article and then editors may assist you, help you, or oppose you. Then, the problems, if there are any, will be discussed here on the talk-page. Anyway, it would be easier if you followed the advice from Jimbo Wales talk-page and made a summary instead of this long wall of text. Shorter and more straight-to-the-point questions usually get more editors involved. FkpCascais (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Another sock attempt by Operahome (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarize list of countries positions

Browsing through the talk history I have only found remarks on the very poor verifiability of the list in the article and hardly anyone talking in support of it. I dare say there was actually a consensus that was never realized to delete this content and place a concentrated summary in its place. After a glance at the sources provided, it is evident of use of non-reliable webpages (even those are misrepresented) and no official sources are given at most cases. The whole section oozes of WP:synthesis. The undertaking of the wiki in making this enumeration that no-one else has enumerated reliably (so as to cite to as a source), means this section is original research. There is no official document by either of the two countries involved that enumerates the countries said to be supporting their respective clauses. The only strongly sourced part is a dated claim of a number (137?) supporting the one side (but no list) and only a couple of official documents with explicit identification of some country's position (e.g. a NATO document explicitly referring to Turkey's stance).

With this state of things is it in accordance with the wiki policies to leave this list here as it stands? We could more reliably find sources on the big ones positions and give a more readable and informative summary.

Besides this article has been tagged as too long; if we must absolutely have to have an exhaustive list of the position of all the countries in the whole world (and I don't see the reason we ought to), why not move that to a separate (main) article List of sovereign entities' positions on the Macedonia naming dispute or something like that so that it can take its rightful place in the boring part of the wiki, together with List of diplomatic missions of Palestine or the article International recognition of Kosovo which comprises mostly of a list of countries.

Keep also in mind that the citations section has grown to stupendous size mostly because of the appearance of this list and adds even more to the size of the article. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 14:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

New section

Just for curiosity: Why does "Republika Makedonija" translate as "Republic of Macedonia" and not "Macedonian Republic"? Where is the "of"? (I know that "Republic of Macedonia" is the common name in English, I just wonder why.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know much of the language, but as far as I can see "Makedonija" seems to be the noun, not an adjective, so the structure is that of an apposition between the two nouns, literally "the Republic Macedonia". That's the common way of expressing such state names in many languages; it's just an idiosyncracy of English that it uses a possessive construction instead. (Compare "Federal Republic of Germany" with "Bundesrepublik Deutschland"; no "of" in that one either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Simple stylistic differences. "Republic of ____________" (using the noun form) and "___________ Republic" (using the adjective form) have the same meaning in English. The "Republic of ____________" formulation is simply more commonly used in English, though there are exceptions. As in many other instances, there is no real logic to why English uses one form for one country and the other for another. Other instances of noun form vs adjective form also exist. For example, a steel bar may also be called a bar of steel with little or no change in meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

The non-working reference on the UN interim agreement [29 "Interim Accord" (PDF). United Nations. 1995. Retrieved 2008-11-07.[dead link]] can be accessed here: Bargme (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated the link [33]. Thanks a lot for digging it up for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Can someone bring the text into accordance with Wiki naming conventions?

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) shows that no usage of FYROM allowed, plus there are guidelines for usage of Republic of... Anyone? Kirev (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Read all of WP:MOSMAC. --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, that's why I am for removing all FYROM mentions and other arbitrary prefixes. BTW, FYROM is in official use ONLY in Greece. Not a single international organization officially uses FYROM, but they all use Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, or the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (UN provisional reference). So, FYROM has no place in the text.

Kirev (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we are using it only in literal quotations, where of course it can't be changed, and when citing the term itself. Have I overlooked any other instances? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Kirev. Usually when an editor uses "FYROM" here, s/he really means "former Yu...". I didn't realize that you were literally meaning "FYROM". And, as Future Perfect says, if it's in a direct quote it cannot be replaced. --Taivo (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No prob, I did some smallish changes, please check. FYRM is maybe a reasonable acronym for a name (which is not). Not FYROM, but Greece is using it (I suppose deliberately to spoil the meaning of FIRM). Anyway, acronym is not an acronym at all - http://unterm.un.org/DGAACS/unterm.nsf/WebView/5DAA91633F2A4F8285256DC700440A6B?OpenDocument regulates the use of the provisional reference. EU conforms almost always, and if not, they usually correct it when pointed out. So, FYROM is an unofficial abbreviation of the provisional reference. Please recheck my changes, don't want to start a flame war, just to clear up things.

Kirev (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Macedonian language

I believe that the chapter has nothing to do with the "Name dispute". Most scholars accept that the "Ancient Macedonian language", was related with the Ancient Greek language, and this is not a Greek invention. ( The names of the kings etc, are Greek). There is a propaganda that it was not Greek, just to show that there is not any continuity between the Greek Macedonia and the Ancient Macedonia. During the Ottoman empire, many languages were spoken in the region. A lot of people with Albanian origin became citizents of the new Greek state. Both sides are responsible for the "Name dispute", but it has nothing to do with the languages.Jestmoon(talk) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015

Please change 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' to 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' to ensure it is correctly written as a proper noun naming the nation as it was entered into the UN. 124.169.131.203 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No. It is not "Former ..." because it is not a name. It is a description in place of a name. Macedonia has a name, it is "Republic of Macedonia". But because Macedonia's bankrupt neighbor doesn't like its name, it has blackmailed international organizations into not using the name, but only describing the place without a name. Just as wizards simply describe Lord Voldemort as "he who must not be named", so too Macedonia's neighbor refuses to pronounce its name and simply describes it as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It is not capitalized because it is not a name, it is a description in lieu of pronouncing its proper name. If you read the agreement between Greece and Macedonia referenced in the preceding edit request, you will see that Greece's agreement page uses "former Yugoslav" (pg. 12) and doesn't capitalize "former". --Taivo (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the best strategy for Macedonia is to implement Kosovo tactics of UNESCO admission, and establish its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" first in the UNESCO. As observed, on October 21. Executive Board of UNESCO passed its resolution proposing to the General Conference of the UNESCO to admit its membership "Republic of Kosovo", as a full member-state, in that universal agency. In the similar manner "Republic of Macedonia" can introduce and establish its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia in that UN specialized organization. Then, after that if all goes well, in the United Nations too. 77.46.206.215 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as its bankrupt southern neighbor is a member of the UN or UNESCO, it will continue to apply pressure on the organizations to refuse to recognize Macedonia's legal name. Macedonia's legal name is simply held hostage until its southern neighbor comes to its senses. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Still, Macedonia had been recognized by 135 member states of UNESCO and the UN under its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" , and Kosovo only by 111 member states of UNESCO and the UN, as a state. Furthermore, Kosovo needs two-thirds majority of member states of the UNESCO General conference, since it is not yet member state of the UN. In the case of Macedonia, this state would need only simple majority of member states of the General conference of UNESCO for replacing designation FYROM with its state name Republic of Macedonia, since it is already the member of the UN, since 1993. Further, there is possibility for Macedonia even to leave membership of UNESCO, and again to apply for the membership of UNESCO. In that case Macedonia will have to pass its resolution through Executive Board of UNESCO by simple majority of the present and voting members, and than through General conference of the UNESCO, by simple majority of the present and voting members. After Kosovo case, Macedonia have probability of at least 60 percent for success.77.46.206.215 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The description "bankrupt southern neighbour" shows a fanatic character, not suitable to a scholar. Greece lost too much from the Macedonian problem. The problem is not the name ,but the existence of maps (also in Wikipedia), with a region called "Macedonia". This region includes Greek Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, and parts of Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia. During the Greek civil war, there was a plan for the establishment of an independent state with the name "Macedonia". This was the main reason for the population movements which followed. The citizents of Greek Macedonia, are not afraid of their neigbours or their name, but they are afraid of the "Great Powers", which will probably in future decide the establishment of an independent state in the hypothetical region "Macedonia". Historically, this region never existed, and nobody knows its borders. When USA bombed Yugoslavia, they said that the reason was not to take Kosovo from Yugoslavia. Now Kosovo is independent. Jestmoon(talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022073959/http://www.balkaninsight.com:80/en/main/news/14100/ to http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/14100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060420235823/http://www.nbrm.gov.mk:80/WBStorage/Files/AI_Annual_Report_2003_ang.pdf to http://www.nbrm.gov.mk/WBStorage/Files/AI_Annual_Report_2003_ang.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803095306/http://www.vlada.mk:80/?q=node/1733 to http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/1733
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803100604/http://www.vlada.mk:80/?q=node/2273 to http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/2273
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090823042320/http://www.balkaninsight.com:80/en/main/news/21690/ to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/21690/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722215650/http://mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=318 to http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=318&id=588
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722215650/http://mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=318 to http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=318&id=598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090911152813/http://a1.com.mk:80/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=113463 to http://a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=113463
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023100503/http://www.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/201008_H2015.htm to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/201008_H2015.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081114203925/http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=310 to http://mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=310

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130917/http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/04/33103-greece-could-accept-name-northern.html to http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/04/33103-greece-could-accept-name-northern.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612075705/http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=6&InfoID=3110 to http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=6&InfoID=3110
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930045631/http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=276&id=1062 to http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=276&id=1062
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612080008/http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=2&InfoID=4058 to http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=2&InfoID=4058
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612080023/http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=2&InfoID=3940 to http://www.president.gov.mk/info_e.asp?SectionID=2&InfoID=3940
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716154742/http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=275&id=564 to http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=275&id=564
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928184531/http://www.keshilliministrave.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=13411 to http://www.keshilliministrave.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=13411

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)