Talk:North Macedonia

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that the name Republic of Macedonia will be used in this article, and changes to the name without discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name will be reverted. Discussion of the naming issue should be posted to the subpage Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name.

Important notice: Wikipedia's naming conventions for entities called "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" are set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). These conventions represent the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion regarding naming, please read the naming conventions first.

Infobox locator map

I notice that there are several locator maps used for European countries. Macedonia's is Mercator, and extends far north and west, leaving the country looking tiny (if it weren't already quite small). Compare at the map used for Italy, which seems to be far more suitable for showing countries on the European mainland, especially towards the south. Can the other base map be adapted for use here? Jd2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the originator of the PNG locator maps as used in Italy and various other European countries, which are consistent with maps used for most other countries. Surprisingly, there was a prior edit war regarding these maps, with some arguing that the horrid orange Mercator maps should remain without there really being a prior consensus to keep them. Anyhow, it is my intent to produce SVG maps for all European countries when able, but I have been delayed in doing so. This is still on my to-do list, so stay tuned! Quizimodo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References to ancient Macedon in the History section

"Over the centuries the territory which today forms the Republic of Macedonia was ruled by a number of different states and former empires, but Macedonian blood has always run in the genes of the Macedonians living in this region."

Could someone clarify this statement for me? How is "Macedonian blood" defined encyclopedically? Should Wikipedia rely on a nationalist, gene/blood-related definition of ethnicity (see Blood and soil)? If Wikipedia were to rely on such a definition, then this statement would definitely need to cite a credible peer-reviewed source (preferably one including comparative DNA tests performed on the remains of people living in the region during the past 2816 years).

Of course it could be the case that the author intended a different meaning whereby, at any point in time, the people living in the region called themselves Macedonians. So, in that case, the Greek inhabitants of ancient Macedon called themselves Macedonians in ancient times; while, in our times, the predominantly Slavic inhabitants also call themselves Macedonians. If that is the case, then the whole statement should be removed on the grounds of relying on circular reasoning, as this ambiguity would confuse many of the readers (particularly when viewed in the context of the Macedonia naming dispute - i.e. in what context is the word "Macedonian" used and in what context is the word "Macedonians" used in this statement).

Moreover, the part that refers to the "Ancient Period" contains numerous ambiguities with regards to its references to ancient Macedon. While it mentions early on that "The kingdom of Macedon took over Paionia", it then goes on to refer to Alexander the Great as "Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), the King of Macedonia" and "Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia". This begs the question of whether the word "Macedonia" here refers to ancient Macedon or to the former Yugoslav Republic. I am not trying to flame anyone here; all I am trying to say is that you people should pick a naming convention and then stick to it... you can't use the words Macedon and Macedonia interchangeably, in this article, for fear of confusion! This is an encyclopedic article; we can't assume any knowledge of history on behalf of the reader, so it is essential to avoid such situations. As a final remark, I should note that since this is not part of the history of the "Republic of Macedonia" [sic] per se, but of the history of the "Region of Macedonia", this should not be a part of this article for fear of confusion.

--Radjenef (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to transmit knowledge, let's make sure people are not getting "technically" correct but ultimately misleading information. You seem to imply that the blurb on ancient history is sloppily written; however, I think it is intentionally hazy. It is perfectly accurate, yet can lead an unknowing reader to the impression that the Republic of Macedonia has some sort of cultural continuity with ancient Macedon. I conquer, Radjenef, that that whole section should either be clarified or moved to a different article. This also goes for some of those photos appearing in the margin (i.e. readers could be confused into thinking that the emperor Justinian was an "ethnic Macedonian").

Anyway, I find it sadly ironic that in this same article, we learn that:

"The Macedonian State Religion Commission denies the group (the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric) to be registered as a religious group saying that only one group may be registered for each confession and that the name was not sufficiently distinct from that of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."

The government of the Republic of Macedonia seems capable of recognizing the obvious problems in the overlap of religious groups' names, but not in the overlap of the names of countries and cultures.... But perhaps I am delving too far into politics here! Nojamus (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Justinian pic needs to go. He was actually born in Leskovac, Central Serbia, which is quite far from the border with FYROM, he was certainly not a Slavic Macedonian, nor is that mosaic of him located on the territory of FYROM. Therefore there is not a single valid reason why that pic should be included in this article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, add him to the page about Greece or Greek history. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The map of Kosovo is missing. Kosovo should be reflected on the map because it is now a Republic --Arber (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still not a republic. Self-declaring something is not encyclopedic fact. It's just news. The same thing is with Skopje. Self-declaring a name doesn't mean that is fact/closed case. We should wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.155.16 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very biased to describe the Republic of Kosovo as a Serbian Province. We should adopt the neutral sounding "Kosovo" rather than "breakaway province of Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo".

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shortky find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're way off base. First of all, Canada has not recognized Kosovo's independence but, judging from its very pro-US government right now, it really is only a matter of days or weeks before it does so. Secondly, there are examples of countries with territorial disputes that HAVE recognized its independence. Have you forgotten the UK and that pesky trouble in Northern Ireland, for example? The point is this: it is impossible to draw many general conclusions about who is supporting and who isn't supporting Kosovo's independence. The only pertinent one I see is that the West generally is, and the East generally isn't, supporting it. This has more to do with who gets to benefit from small, weak, dependent states than it does with whether a country has its own territorial squabbles. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? Nojamus (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation that the UK should have a vested interest because of Northern Ireland is completely nonsensical; Northern Ireland has historically been a problem and the territory is hardly cherished. If you would like to provide a source to show that the current government of the UK is desperate to retain the province, then I'll be happy to accept your point. The Unionists, naturally, would have a vested interest in preventing independence, but the Government of Serbia does not run from Kosovo, so the two situations are not comparable. Your citing of 1 relevant country with a bias in its political dealings does not validate your flippant dismissal of 2007apm's recognition of the undeniable correlation between states failing to recognize Kosovan independence and their own potential breakaway provinces. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? That would be because of the conspicuously over-wordy phrasing "and its partially recognized breakaway province" before "Kosovo" in the introduction. I think either simply "Kosovo" with an inconspicuous link to the list of countries which recognize her, or "(and Kosovo)" after the mention of Serbia- would be most acceptable. LaFoiblesse (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (GMT)

MAp

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

Vandalism

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

Subjectivism

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

   Yeah,it sounds like some kind of an advertisement,doesn't it?
     I think it should be removed.Silvery Swirls (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please rename to FYROM or mark that the neutrality of this article is disputed

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

Adding that FYROM does not claim Greek history and territory

I think that in order to calm down things a little bit, it would be wise to add to the article the declarations of the Skopjan President and his ministers, stating that:

1) They do not want to claim any ancient Greek history related to the ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great.

2) They do not have any territorial claims on Greece and that their constitution clearly forbids it.

3) That they know they are slavs that have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonia and have made clear that everything that was attacking Greek history or territory was spread by propagandistic irredentists who have no official nor legal power to do so.

NOTE: I'm trying to be productive here. If you find any other text that could be added so that fellow Greek users will calm down, go ahead. Goodwill is always welcome.
87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the nationalist/not-so-calm Greek IP users actually read anything other than the title? BalkanFever 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Irony and sarcasm are an unnecessary provocation. Yes, I have read the article, but no, I still do not agree the way it is redacted. Sorry for expressing my humble opinion. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually being serious. I wasn't referring to you (although your original contributions weren't helpful...) but other nationalists who just complain about moving the page and attack everyone for being "Anti-Greek". BalkanFever 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Considering that the topic is hot, I would try to persuade them with good manners. Calming the situation is the priority. Anyhow, about the three points I wrote in the beginning, which do you think would be applicable (in a better resentenced way, of course). 87.219.85.149 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on how to reword it. BalkanFever 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed upon motto

I see that the motto is exactly the same as the Greek one. Apart from that, there are no references. Are we sure that this is the real motto and was not invented by anyone? It's simply a very strange coincidence. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not strange, but yes, it is the same. Many countries have a motto based on "freedom or death". I think some American guy said it first... BalkanFever 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You make sense on that. But the citation is still missing, I'm afraid. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The incorrect use of "FYROM"

After attempting to edit a few Wikipedia articles regarding the Republic of Macedonia and specifically the mention of the reference used in international organizations (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) I came to the realization that I am unable to edit either that specific part of the article or the article itself. The problem in question is regarding the reference. I repeatedly see the word “FYROM” used as an abbreviation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the manual for Macedonia related articles YOUR rules specify the correct use of the reference which is, again, “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM. Using FYROM to abbreviate the inconveniently long reference is not a correct way of doing so and it is offensive. In many instances you also seem to put FYROM in parentheses after displaying the full reference. I cannot see the point in doing so since you do not use the same principle in articles regarding Greece (the Hellenic Republic (HR)) or Germany (Federal Republic of Germany(FRG)). The UN resolution states that the Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the UN and not FYROM or F.Y.R.O.M. (note the use of the lower case letters for “the” and “former”). This information is linked from Wikipedia to the following: [1] Another important thing to mention is that whenever the Republic of Macedonia is mentioned in NATO, the full reference is used and a footnote is present referring to the countries that recognize the country by its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia. In footnote #3 in the article about the Republic of Macedonia you claim the reference used in international organizations such as the EU, NATO and the WTO is FYROM. This is not correct as the resolution clearly states that the full reference is to be used. If your intentions, as an information portal, are to be politically correct I ask you not to be subjective in your intentions and please correct the unintentional mistake on your part. Our objection is that when you are using the reference, you use it as intended without modifying or abbreviating it, meaning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me if used everywhere, that is so long as it is used as well to replace 'Republic of Macedonia'. Otherwise, a double bias is fine as it is. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not a double bias. It's incorrect.

FACT: The country's name is Republic of Macedonia (as 130 other countries that recognized it)

FACT: The country was addmited in the UN by the reference :the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

So, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])" is actually a incorrect.Noompsy (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The point that Noompsy is trying to make is that the abbreviation "FYROM" is incorrect because that is not the proper reference to be used. Using "FYROM" when using the reference assigned to the country in question by the UN resolution is incorrect. The reason why it is biased is because it satisfies the Greek intention that the name "Macedonia" is not mentioned or non-existent in the name of the country when pronouncing "the reference" ("FYROM") as a word by itself rather than use it as intended - "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Using the word "FYROM" constitutes a word by itself, which is fairly easy to pronounce and might mislead users who want to get objective information regarding the name of the country that this word is in fact the politically correct way of referring to the country, when it is in fact NOT. Another important thing to mention is that this is the article about the country, a country which is recognized by more than 130 nations by its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia". A simple mention that there is a naming dispute going on with a reference to the wiki article that deals with that dispute would suffice and both points of view can be expressed in that section. The current reality is that the country's official name is "Republic of Macedonia", but because of Greek opposition, that is being disputed and a reference is in place for use in international organizations such as the UN. The proper reference is not "FYROM" nor "Fyrom" nor "FYR Macedonia" but rather "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, if you replace all references with that, everyone will be happy. But if you happen to keep any single 'Republic of Macedonia' around, a flamefest will probably start over again, and we do not want that. And about the opposition of Greece, I think most of us know that this is no child's play, but that there are indeed historical and territorial issues behind all this, which have led to this situation. Still, I do not agree with you that FYROM is incorrect by any ways, it is the abreviation of the legal name given temporarily by the United Nations, but again, if you want to replace all and any of the references, everyone will be more than happy about that, and with all I mean from Fyrom, FYROM, fYROM, Rom, Republic of Macedonia, and so on. As you might well understand, using a self-claimed name that denotes historical and territorial claims, will cause unnecessary anger and wrath, which as I said before, is to be avoided. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm always surprised by the anonymous 87.xxx IPs who talk about the "legal" name. (And less surprised by their constant blackmailing "if you do as I say, everything will be fine") It happens so often that I almost tend to think that they believe what they are writing. So for their information, FYROM is not the legal name. The United Nations do not provide legal names for any country, nor do they even claim to do so. The only name that is "legal" in any sense is the one that the country's constitution uses, and that is Republic of Macedonia. Needless to say, that is not binding for any of us, as neither Macedonian nor Greek laws have any authority over Wikipedia. As I've said often before, compare with Luxembourg for an identical situation, only that anonymous Belgian IPs aren't edit warring over it all the time. JdeJ (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to replace most of the instances of "FYROM" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". If anyone has a valid reason that in a particular instance it should be "FYROM", then change it. The non-nationalists will understand what the previous sentence means ;-). BalkanFever 11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On looking at it again, it seems Noompsy is not referring to this article, but other articles. BalkanFever 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you, BalkanFever, to go ahead with your proposed change of changing "FYROM" to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and even delete the added "FYROM" in parentheses in the following line:

"It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])"

I have to stress again that "FYROM" is not the reference that the country was admitted under but rather "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and I stress the lower-case "f". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO". I would like this to be changed to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" until you provide a document from within the EU, NATO and WTO where the acronym "FYROM" is actually used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on this one. Many institutions and countries call it FYROM like that and pronounce it like that. Even calling the inhabitants FYROMians, and I am not refering particualary to Greece, because they use the term Skopjan. However, in countries like Spain or France it is pretty common to hear FYROM and FYROMian rather than Macedonia or Macedonian, as those refer to the Greek territory. Concluding, if we have to follow NPOV, we have to take care of all of it.

In reply to JdeJ, as I stated before, in the Balcans we have territorial issues with the Slavic people, in Belgium not. Your argument is of no point in here. Comparissons make no sense in this case. And yes, I do believe what I write, what I cannot believe is that you do the same about your writtings. There are many inconsistencies and you are always trying to defend your arguments with things that have already been discarded clearly with historic and territorial arguments. And finally, yes, if we replace it everywhere, you DO understand that everyone will calm down. If you don't, refrain from commenting on it. I think it's pretty common sense. Do you not wish peace and calm in here? 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wish for peace and calm here. And I strongly recent thugs who argue that if we just do as they want, it will be peaceful and calm. In other words, the user above agrees that it is he who causes the unrest here. JdeJ (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Many institutions MAY call the country "FYROM" BUT that does not mean it is correct. My point was that in the UN, NATO and WTO you will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER see the ACRONYM be used. If I'm wrong, please present me with an article from any or all of those institutions where the country was referred to by "FYROM" and not "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Therefore I ask you to make the change I had asked for. Instead of saying "The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO" please change it to "The reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO, and the WTO" because THAT is the reality of the situation.

On another note, saying FYROM as a word that refers to the country AND referring to the citizens of that country as FYROMians IS offensive and not only is it incorrect, but it is done so by the countries that you mentioned in order to sympathize with the Greek POV WHICH is biased.

Lastly, JUST because you want peace and calm here does not mean that you should be biased yourself and take an approach more suitable to one side. THAT is called extortion. If that is what is going on, please specify so in the article. Bojancho (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think that this discussion is getting out of it's context. I don't care how Germans, Greeks, French, etc. refer to the country and it's inhabitants. That is a dispute that will be solved, but not by us. As I have mentioned a couple of times, the sentece "It was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional reference former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM[2][3])" is wrong. If there is somebody that can't see that, then that is their problem and not mine (or Wikipedias).(link:[2]) So, if you want this article to be correct I suggest you change it.

One more thing. How and when should we use "Republic of Macedonia", "Macedonias", etc. is clearly stated in the Wikipedia RULES. (link:[3]). If somebody has a problem with that, then, again, it's their problem!

BalkanFever I'm referring to all articles that use "FYROM" including this one. (on some of them, the changes were made but this one seems to fall behind) Noompsy (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated,[2] or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia. In such cases, the first use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should always be followed by (FYROM) if the abbreviated term is to be used later in the article."

There is no other use of FYROM in the article therefore the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should not be followed by "FYROM" and I would ask you to remove it.

And I would like again to stress that the 3rd footnote is incorrect. The "FYROM" acronym is NOT officially used by international organizations. When officially referring to the country those international organizations use the full reference which is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I would also like to see this changed. Thank you. Bojancho (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes. From those references that are now gone - EU uses "fYROM", NATO uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and WTO uses "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in all instances. BalkanFever 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people have a problem with the "fYRoM" acronym, but they don't say anything about the "Republic of Macedonia"... do you want to be objective? When an article says "fYRoM", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", when it's "Republic of Macedonia", write "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", then nobody is going to have a problem! ;-) --xvvx (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you. BalkanFever 12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to him and to everyone. At least, to everyone with NPOV and little common sense. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait BF. You know how I feel about the acronym myself, but here you're wrong. First off, the acronym is used extensively in all int'l orgs and we all know it, so it must be there. Second, the particular intro sentence is the result of a huge previous debate (see /Archive10), by dozens of wikipedians. It could only be changed by the same procedure, and only if the change was correct (which it isn't). Also, the timing of this change is a little suspicious. Please do not revert the acronym again, unless you establish a consensus of dozens of users. Thank you. NikoSilver 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the acronym is to be anywhere, it should be here in the main country article. Saying it "isn't used anywhere else, except in quotes" isn't a valid argument either, especially when it has been systematically removed by other users in the past. Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means when reading a ref. And it does actually occur at least once further down in the article, in Wikipedia's own voice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I add my consent to the others, the name should be RoM and that's how it is to be called as per WP:MOSMAC but it's a fact that many organisation use the acronym and it needs to be mentioned. JdeJ (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, please don't try to represent things that are not true. ΚέκρωΨ thank you for your statement "Readers still need to know wtf "FYROM" means" which I tried to point out but nobody seems to agree. "FYROM" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. So yeah, please make that clear. On the other hand, the rules are clear. "FYROM" is to be used ONLY if there is "FYROM" present in the article. In this article it IS NOT. I don't care what millions of people think. (some time ago millions thought that the earth was flat also...)Those are the rules and they have to stick to them (and so do you). And also please bring back the update that was made. If you have a problem that the majority of UN members recognise the country by Republic of Macedonia then go and talk to them and not modify this article. That is a fact and it has to be clear to the reader that 51+% of the countries in this world recognise that piece of land as Republic of Macedonia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take your POV elsewhere. The acronym is present in the article (take a closer look) and its use by major international organizations has been verifiably demonstrated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kékrōps, might I point out that the Greeks on this page have been clearly expressing their POVs for a very long time now. Noompsy, it as I have told the Greeks before, we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is). I would ask both side to stop making such a big deal of it. I heard one person suggesting war as a possibility, it's just a name, please calm down. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuell, I understand as an observer you cannot comprehend why the name is so important to both sides. I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I'll tell you that for Macedonians, it is much more than a name, it is an identity, it is the thing that defines us and that is why it is so important to us.

I realize that many will start a debate because of what I said, but all I did was express what Macedonians all over feel in regards to this "name" as you call it Samuell. So, it may be just a name to you, but to many its so much more, and for that reason, we can't just calm down.

With regards to what you said, I don't quite comprehend exactly what you meant by "we follow the common English name and what the majority of countries does not mean that it is the common English name (but it is)". Do you mean to say that you follow what the majority of countries refer to the country as? Because if that is the case, as Noompsy has pointed out, 2 thirds of UN members refer to the country by its name (Republic of Macedonia) and not the reference. Bojancho (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the Macedonians. NikoSilver 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well you can’t say that I didn’t try. Since my contributions to Wikipedia are not welcome, I will certainly refrain from contributing. At least I learned one thing. It’s ok to write incorrect things and not follow rules on Wikipedia as long as there are few influential people that want it that way. (by the way, this is my POV). I mean, I’ve heard some ridiculous opposing arguments but this, I just can’t explain.

1. This is the first time in my life that I’ve seen an article where the actual article explains what its footnotes mean. But it’s ok. I guess the concept of a footnote is a little harder to grasp than I thought.

2. “The "FYROM" acronym is officially used by international organizations, such as the EU, NATO and the WTO” Although you provide links to these organizations where EU uses “fYROM”, NATO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and WTO uses “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)” you somehow manage bring all these three names together into one, “FYROM”. Hahaha, genius. And the argument why that is: quoting NikoSilver “we all know it”. So what he is trying to tell me (and everybody else) here is that he(we all) knows(know) that NATO uses FYROM although on NATOs official webpage it says “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Talking about POVs). Like I said, genius.

3. Dear ΚέκρωΨ, until you provide me with some official document (and I don’t mean a document from Greece) where it says that “FYROM” can be used to refer to the country (means) Republic of Macedonia, FYROM will not mean anything. So until then, “FYROM doesn’t mean anything” is not my POV but it’s a fact.

4. For the proposed change of “although a large number of countries recognize it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia.”: I think I was quite clear why this should be changed. If ΚέκρωΨ thinks that this is my POV then somebody needs to look up either “majority” or “POV” in the dictionary. Last time I checked 118 out of 192 constitutes as a majority.

In order to have a “preferred” name (or an object) you have to have at least two or more. (I don’t think that anybody can object to this). Thus by saying that Republic of Macedonia prefers a name it basically means that it has two or more. Unfortunately this is not correct. That same country has one name “Republic of Macedonia” and has a reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The reference doesn’t constitute as a name. (example: You can refer to me as Sir but that doesn’t make it my name). But according to some people on Wikipedia this is my POV. Wow. Or maybe it is a really bad time to change it? Well then NikoSilver, when is a good time to change it? Please tell me, so that you can change it then!

In the end, I would like to mention that I’m sorry if I offended somebody. That was not my intention. I just wanted to point out the kind of responses and arguments I received when I wanted to contribute something and explain why my opinion of Wikipedia has changed. Noompsy (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These arguments are correct, which is why I made the edit. Proper sourcing is needed, or we change the wording. BalkanFever 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're nothing of the sort. The EU uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM)", NATO uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" (check the source again - even the bloody URL is http://www.nato.int/fyrom/ for fuck's sake), and the WTO uses the same. If your only argument is that the EU uses "fYROM" and not "FYROM", then with all due respect that's a rather pathetic argument. WP:MOSMAC requires us to introduce the acronym, and that's that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly interesting article that could be added to the name dispute

New York Times source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/lweb22greece.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

update

I think the article needs a little update. For example:
"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although a large number of countries recognise it under its preferred name as the Republic of Macedonia."
It's not really clear about the number of institutions or countries that have recognised it either way. A better way to say it is:
"Many other international institutions and countries have recognised the country under the same reference, although the majority of UN members recognise it under its constitutional name the Republic of Macedonia."
It's sheds more light on the actual situation. If nobody has any objections to this, then please change it. Noompsy (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. BalkanFever 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)