Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about North Macedonia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I have reverted a change of "Greek Macedonia" to "Macedonia in Greece". The reason I have done this is linguistic interpretation of the modifier in English. While the two expressions may seem roughly equivalent on the surface, they are different semantically and pragmatically. Semantically, "Greek Macedonia" means that it is Macedonia that is fundamentally Greek, while "Macedonia in Greece" means that it is fundamentally Macedonia that happens to be located in Greece. Pragmatically, we tend to place the element to emphasize first, therefore "Greek Macedonia" emphasizes its fundamental Greekness while "Macedonia in Greece" emphasizes its fundamental "Macedonianness". Thus, if we place "Macedonia" first and use a locative prepositional phrase that divorces its fundamental nature from Greece, we push a Macedonian POV that is at the heart of the Macedonia/Greece naming dispute. If, however, we place "Greek" first and use an attributive form that emphasizes the province's fundamentally Greek nature, then we keep the political status quo as it is--Greek Macedonia is part of Greece. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit the Gini coefficient on the English page. In the CIA report from 2003 it is 39 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html), instead of 29.3 that is current. If you have proof of calculation please present it to be reviewed.
Cacevski (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the link in the infobox under the flag points to the disambiguation page. Does anyone know a way to direct it straight to the appropriate page? It's a bit disconcerting. (Coat of arms leads to a redirect, but that is less of an issue.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Hi, all, I would like to address an issue that appear for this article. I would like to point to you that this same article in macedonian language states different facts. example: mentioning of Macedonian Empire, which in the English version doesn't appear. Tsar Samuil in the English version is Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria, but in macedonian version the macedonian feudal country is called Samuil's kingdom. By the way no mentioning of such a country in the English version. Please revise the macedonian version.
--Magnisima (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Magnisima (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
To my mind FYROM in ancient history was at the land of Paeonia and not in ancient Macedonia!688dim (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Both Macedonia's were at one point part of Paeonia, so says our article. The point? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- There was no FYROM in the ancient world. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The real question is when did the Slavic people called Macedonians arrive where they are now? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- When they arrived they were tribes rather than people, and definitely not "called Macedonians". What they were is just that, Slavic tribes who had their distinct tribal names and who are ancestors (part of the ancestors anyway, along with others) of the modern ethnic Macedonians. Apcbg (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't answer the q I'm afraid. Alright, how about this then. When did the people from whom the modern Slavic people that call themselves Macedonians today descend arrive here? When did the ancestors of the modern people arrive? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- For all I know, in 5-7th centuries AD Slavic people invaded the Balkan Peninsula and eventually settled all over the region including in particular what today is the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and most of Greece (down south to the Peloponnese Peninsula) to contribute to the ethnogenesis of the modern nations in those countries during the subsequent centuries (over one millenia actually). Hope this helps. Apcbg (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is helpful. =) Hmmm, what would be really good is an archaeological report though. One showing when there was a sudden change in the pottery (evidence a new civilisation has arrived) in the area. That would give a pretty good answer for me. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- For all I know, in 5-7th centuries AD Slavic people invaded the Balkan Peninsula and eventually settled all over the region including in particular what today is the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and most of Greece (down south to the Peloponnese Peninsula) to contribute to the ethnogenesis of the modern nations in those countries during the subsequent centuries (over one millenia actually). Hope this helps. Apcbg (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't answer the q I'm afraid. Alright, how about this then. When did the people from whom the modern Slavic people that call themselves Macedonians today descend arrive here? When did the ancestors of the modern people arrive? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- When they arrived they were tribes rather than people, and definitely not "called Macedonians". What they were is just that, Slavic tribes who had their distinct tribal names and who are ancestors (part of the ancestors anyway, along with others) of the modern ethnic Macedonians. Apcbg (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The real question is when did the Slavic people called Macedonians arrive where they are now? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
| Yet more naming threads |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NPOV disputeArbitrary use of the term "Republic of Macedonia", as imposed country name. Opposed to the UN 817 / 1993 security council resolution. No reliable sources are provided in the article to substatiate the international use of any name other than "Former Ygoslav Republic of Macedonia" as the reference name of the country. In addidtion there is an officiall VETO pedding upon the acceptance of the country in NATO under the impossed name "Macedonia" and derivatives. Since this constitutes a major international issue and imposses a direct violation of the afforementioned United Nations security council resolution, the use of the official "Former Ygoslav Republic of Macedonia" under which the country is internationally recognised and refferenced by the United Nations is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.35.65 (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be advisable for the authors and/or protecting administrator of the article to provide with solid citations to reliable sources substantiating the validity of the claim, or otherwise utilise the legitimate "Former Ygoslav Republic of Macedonia". Failure upon either could potentially foster bulk number of articles under misleading names; please do consider "Irish Republic of Edinburgh", "Dublin Republic of Great Britain", "Republic of Texas", which virtually present the same no-degree of validity and resemblance with aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.35.65 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC) NameI don;t want to see it again Macedonia. Macedonia is a greek Region. The country is called FYROM. Change it NOW. Thanks--ArgGeo (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV dispute - 2Yet the fact remains: The article title violates the major NPOV rule imposing a Country Name not being based on any reliable sources. It should be advisable for the authors and/or protecting administrator of the article to provide with solid citations to reliable sources substantiating the validity of the claim, or otherwise utilise the legitimate "Former Ygoslav Republic of Macedonia" for which the widest acceptable citation currently holds (United Nations naming convention). Failure upon either could potentially foster bulk number of articles under misleading titles; please do consider: "Irish Republic of Edinburgh", "Dublin Republic of Great Britain", "Republic of Texas"... which virtually present the same no-degree of validity and resemblance to the subject and the content with the aforementioned.
DisputeThis article violates Wikipedia guidelines. The official name of the country is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of informationItalic text, or a web directory." "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.Italic text" Therefore, the name should be changed immediately to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" if this entry is to be called "encyclopedic" and Wikipedia be taken seriously.Amadeus webern (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The only valid and widely accepted name for INTERNATIONAL USE of the country is the "Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia". Any other name or characterisation (i.e. "Republic of Macedonia") is intendeed STRICTLY FOR INTERNAL USE. Wikipedia is a universal and thus INTERNATIONAL mean of knowledge sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.110.215 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV disputeTitle and 1st paragraph missleading information: Please provide with reliable sources/citations to consolidate the claim that the country's international name has changed to "Republic of Macedonia". Otherwise do revise and refer to it with its official interational name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_817 which is currently the official international (UN index) http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-817%281993%29.pdf name of the country. 91.140.126.157 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
94.64.9.236 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Misleading information about the historical background of the current located country between Bulgaria,Greece,Albania and Serbia.
Ancient Macedonians were not Slavic tribes. Their existence in the area was far before the coming of the Slavic tribes long after the Roman Empire.
- You need a reliable source or a few for that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per above. Kinaro(talk) (contribs) 21:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"In the Republic of Macedonia there are 1,100 larger sources of water. The rivers flow into three different basins: the Aegean, the Adriatic and that Black Sea basin"
should read: "the Black Sea basin"
Ugh...there's a LOT of typos/minor grammatical mistakes in this article. Understandable, those who have a strong understanding of Macedonian history are likely not well-versed in English. Someone who knows this stuff but speaks English as a first language want to read the entire thing for typos?
My change was reverted by Fut.Perf.. Please see msg I left at his talk page for my rationale. Does the community agree that for articles about the political entities to use state as the standard? As far as I know and seen of all "country" articles, sovereign state is used. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Most eastern European country articles (e.g. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine) seem to be using simply "country" without any link. Some western European countries I've seen (France, Italy) instead have a more specific description of their constitutional form. I'd always go for maximum simplicity, and keep WP:OVERLINK in mind ("plain English words"). There are very few places in the world where a "country" isn't a "state", while there are a few more where a "state" isn't a "country". "Country" works fine here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not quite true that "There are very few places in the world where a "country" isn't a "state"". As the country says, it's a geographic area, and all geographic areas on earth are occupied by "states" other than Antarctica, and as such, there's no place that's not a country, defined geographically ty natural features, like a valley, a plain, etc. Political entity (states) divides geographic "countries". For example, Poland. The country it sits on didn't change, but the its border kept changing and dividing the country (territory) in a new way under its political state. Though "country" is a common English word, but it's been misused. Shouldn't we try to correct misuse or misconceptions? Mistakefinder (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Future Perfect. We should go for maximum unambiguous simplicity. In the case of Macedonia, "country" is unambiguous and is the common English word. "State" should be reserved only for those countries where "country" is ambiguous (such as the United Kingdom) or where a qualifying term is mandated (such as Somaliland, where de facto is required). --Taivo (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed "Macedonia Salutarius" (assumed to be a typo) to "Macedonia Salutaris". One occurrence only: the second one was ok. Please see "Tabula successionis provinciarum Romanarum" in the Latin Wikipedia, or "Suddivisioni e cronologia delle province romane" in the Italian one. JmCor (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Could someone double-check the population numbers shown on this template? Thanks.--Sisyphos23 (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The census only gives population numbers for municipalities and not individual cities. The only city population given on that template that can be verified by the census is that of Skopje since it is made up of 10 municipalities. So perhaps the template could be moved to be about the largest municipalities in Macedonia. --Local hero talk 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph "In Vardar Macedonia, after Bulgarian coup d'état of 1944 the Bulgarian troops, surrounded by German forces, fought their way back to the old borders of Bulgaria. Three Bulgarian armies (some 455,000 strong in total) entered Yugoslavia in September 1944 and moved from Sofia to Niš and Skopje with the strategic task of blocking the German forces withdrawing from Greece. Southern and eastern Serbia and Macedonia were liberated within a month." is quoted by unreliable source. It is wrong as well.
There was no Bulgarian army involved in liberation of Republic of Macedonia in WW2. Republic of Macedonia was liberated by the People's Liberation Army of Macedonia, with a size of roughly 90000 soldiers. The number of 455000 soldiers is largely exaggerated as well. On the Syrmian Front there were 2 divisions from the Bulgarian army. The Macedonian army took a larger involvement. There were 2 divisions of the Macedonian army in the start of the Syrmian Front and from january 1945 the 15th corps with size of roughly 30000 (1/3rd of the Macedonian army) was involved on the front. Secondly, there were also not enough German forces in Republic of Macedonia in the 1941-44 to surround any Bulgarian troops. Republic of Macedonia as part of Greek Macedonia was under control of Bulgaria and there were much less German soldiers then Bulgarian. The German army was in Greece. In the end no one really seriously blocked the German forces withdrawing from Greece. They were negotiations and they were often granted free passage through the territory of Yugoslavia even throughout 1945 because some units were strong and skilled enough to take back Belgrade that was liberated earlier by the Red army. No country on the Balkans had equiped and powerful army to defeat the German Army Group E. The Syrmian Front was literally a bloodbath very sadly with many Macedonian names (over 2000 of the 13000+ victims) written on the monument. (Toci (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC))
Check here: Bulgaria declares war on Germany and especially this: On a series of maps from Army Group E, showing its withdrawal through Macedonia and Southern Serbia, as well as in the memoirs of its chief of staff, there is almost no indication of Yugoslav Partisan units, but only Bulgarian divisions. Read also the added sources! Change your mind! Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just an observation. I agree with the deletion of, 'http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/2507/1/ [...]The law doesn't allow for use of Albanian or any other minority language as a second official language on Macedonia's territory.}}? because of the source; but the fact is that the only official language ofthe Republic of Macedonia is Macedonian. Politis (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
First, apologies to User:Philly boy92. There were multiple edits between mine and I didn't see his listed on the change form. I wasn't trying to edit war &c. On the other hand, the name is wikt:official and reverting sourced material is pushing his own POV at the expense of neutrality.
One revert claimed
- "fYROM" is a temporary name given by the UN to refer to the country
It's been almost 20 years. Calling that "temporary" or "provisional" is mendacious WP:OR.
In any case, there are other edits (including translit, removing needless term 'transliteration', etc.) that should be made to the lede by someone approved by the local Powers That Be who won't be autoreverted upon submission. Here's my version of the paragraph:
- Macedonia (/ˌmæsɪˈdoʊniə/ , mas-i-DOH-nee-ə; Macedonian: Македонија, Makedonija), officially the Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија, Republika Makedonija, [rɛˈpublika makɛˈdɔnija] ) for domestic purposes and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM[1]) for international ones,[2] is a country located in the central Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe. It is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991. Because historic Macedonia includes territories outside the borders of the new republic, Greece objected to its name, resulting in Macedonia's admission to the United Nations in 1993 under the "FYROM" designation.[3][4]
— LlywelynII 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the text as it was. The term "official" really has no well-defined meaning, so I don't see why we need to fight over it. If anything, in a context like this, "official" means "self-defined", so the only "official" name is, by definition, the constitutional name. As I said elsewhere, the state itself doesn't use the "former Yugoslav" term for itself, not even in those international contexts were other parties refer to it in that way. About your objection to "provisional"/"temporary", well, that's what it was always meant to be, and it was ("officially") designated as such when it was chosen. The fact that there's been a deadlock over it for a long time now doesn't change this; especially since both states are still holding talks with the express goal of removing this provisional status quo and replacing it with something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Future Perfect. "Provisional" and "temporary" are entirely relative terms; there is no "statute of limitations" on calling something provisional or temporary. The "ceasefire" on the Korean peninsula is now almost 60 years old and that has always been a "temporary" situation with continuing negotiations. --Taivo (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your edits Llywelynll, I am confident you did not mean to revert back to your edits now. However I would like to point out two things:
- "officially the Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија, Republika Makedonija, [rɛˈpublika makɛˈdɔnija] ) for domestic purposes" — this is, in fact, incorrect. The Interim Accord never intended, and indeed does not include such a clause, to force the Republic of Macedonia to call itself fYROM or to force other countries to call it that. It also did not intend to impose fYROM as the international name. The Interim Accord was not addressed to the Republic of Macedonia but to international organizations who have to call the Republic of Macedonia something without infuriating Greece. Therefore the adoption of fYROM is not "for international use" but as a temporary (temporary means until a solution is found; none has been found, therefore it is still temporary) solution, for those that choose to recognize it as such, and not as the required recognition of the state. This is a common misconception in regards to the Accord.
- It's been almost 20 years. Calling that "temporary" or "provisional" is mendacious WP:OR — To be exact, when Greece recognized Macedonia the recognition letter said "In implementation of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of today's date the Government of Greece recognizes the Party of the Second Part within its internationally recognized borders with the provisional name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State". Since no solution has been found, this is still provisional.
- --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your edits Llywelynll, I am confident you did not mean to revert back to your edits now. However I would like to point out two things:
Its NOT MACEDONIA. IT'S OFFICIALLY CALLED FYROM. It's extremely annoying that you call it macedonia--ArgGeo (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out here that the user ArgGeo has posted on the Greek article on Macedonia asking for Greek users of the Greek wikipedia for support to move from Macedonia to FYROM on this. He also labeled us "idiots" essentially. He obviously isn't aware that canvassing is not allowed on wikipedia. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Before going on with these fruitless discussions, please read the notice at the top of this page where it says: "The title of this article has been established by a binding consensus process at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Any threads relating to the title of the article will be speedily archived." Andreas (T) 13:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
i don't care if my topics will continue to be 'speedily archived'...i would like to prompt you again to think about changing the name of the article in something that will not offend neither side...cause this is highly offensive to me and many others...and i won't stop bringing this subject up until i get an answer or something is done about this...
- Ok this is getting annoying, so before making any further edits please inform yourself of the relevant rules passed and currently effective on wikipedia: WP:NCMAC. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
i've read all this...i'm just saying that the subject should be reopened because in this situation wikipedia seems to have picked a side and isn't even close to being objective...it reinforces the skopjan propaganda without even caring for the other side...does this seem fair to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.195.225 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it is fair or not is completely irrelevant, especially in the talk page of this article. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you actually read the arbitration, Anon IP, you will see that the Greek POV was very well represented in the discussion by very experienced Greek editors. The process took several months and was not, as you seem to think, one-sided. No one is going back to the issue anytime soon. WP:NCMAC is the Wikipedia law now. --Taivo (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
i've read that too,yes...as it seems though our pov surely was represented,but not very well...or else the result would be different...as to whether it is irrelevant if the title is fair or not,i take it you're kidding...you can't be serious...and i'd like to know where this subject should be discussed if not in the talk page of this article!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.195.225 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the talk page of the appropriate article, maybe? Please do not continue this discussion here. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
but it's about the name of this article!!!!!not about the naming dispute!!!!anyway,this leads nowhere,so i'm gonna drop it.it's just that i expected more from such a prestigious website... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.195.225 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support this "Greek" editor's right to try to reopen the whole topic. Although I don't personally support renaming the article, I respect that there is no consensus on this topic and so the topic will always remain open until there is (if ever). WP should always be an open, respectful forum. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
In 1993, that part of Former Yugoslavia was named “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Just using “Republic of Macedonia” is not accurate. The prefix “the former Yugoslav” is essential to the history and the geography of that country. So important, that the UN had the Resolution 817 (1993) to make it clear. It is not the same as omitting the “People's Republic of” from China. How can you accept that a couple of geeks in Wiki got it better than the UN? This choice is offensive, illegal and inaccurate. Get off your high horses and fix it. 121.44.140.8 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, stop creating all these different pages for the issue, which in practice is done to disperse the objection to your ruling. There should be one link right next to the headers of the main page, after your title, which should lead to ONE page with all the links to all the relevant pages, or one page with all the content about the issue or edit all the pages to just two (one for the decision and one for running commentary) and put both links on the top of the main article.121.44.140.8 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The topic is closed and you are simply wrong, anon IP--Macedonia was never, ever "named" "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". That is simply the reference (not the name) that the UN chooses to use. Macedonia named itself (every country on the planet has the right to name itself) the "Republic of Macedonia". Read WP:MOSMAC for the details of usage in Wikipedia. You are certainly welcome to try to interest the Arbitration Committee in reopening the issue, but you have presented no new arguments to consider, there are no new facts in the real world to consider, and your hyperactive Greek sensibilities are simply irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neither your pompous tone is an argument, human referenced by the name Taivo. "this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", means that the name of that state is FYROM,for all purposes. Why don't you try to name your country as USA or UK and then we can talk. Why don't you try to name the street and number of your house whatever you like and then wait for the mail to arrive. Why don't you let you wife call me lover or your kids call your next neighbor daddy. You know why you can't? Because names do matter; names is what we are using to reference each other and if we don't agree to it, then we have chaos. UN made a resolution to call that State with a temporary name and the ICJ basically washed their hands from this matter last December, because it is up to the two countries to sit down and arrive to a consensus. Arguments like yours and biases in wikis do not help with the peaceful resolution of the situations. That's why that state should have been called FYROM in here, until a decision is made by the two parties involved.
- 121.44.198.46 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, dude, but the only reference that FYROM is relevant to is the UN. Macedonia calls itself "Macedonia" or, officially, the "Republic of Macedonia". We had a long discussion and a decision was made in Wikipedia--we'll call it "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" when we need to distinguish it from the Greek province of the same name. End of story. Like I said, you can take your hyperactive Greek feelings to the Arbitrators and see if they'd be willing to open another arbitration on the issue (it would be the third as I recall), but since nothing at all has changed in the real world, your chances of opening this can of worms again are slim to none. But knock yourself out. Read the UN documents on the issue. At no point to they refer to "FYROM" as the name of the state. Indeed, the whole point of the "provisional reference" is that the actual name is disputed. It's like calling your child "the baby" before you decide on a name for it. Same thing. "The baby" isn't a name, it's a "provisional reference" until you and your wife agree on a name. "FYROM" is "the baby" that the UN will use until Greece and Macedonia agree on a name. "FYROM" isn't a name, anon IP--never has been. "Republic of Macedonia" is a name, though, because that's what the baby calls itself and what half the world calls it. Macedonia says, "My name is 'Macedonia'". The UN says, "It doesn't have a name yet". Wikipedia agrees with Macedonia. Actually, that's not completely accurate. Wikipedia agrees with common English usage per WP:COMMON and it was demonstrated conclusively in ARBMAC that English speakers overwhelmingly use "Macedonia" and not "FYROM" to refer to Macedonia. So because English language sources and English speaking Wikipedia users overwhelmingly use "Macedonia", that's what Wikipedia uses. So Wikipedia agrees with Macedonia because the overwhelming majority of English speakers agree with Macedonia. Wikipedia isn't here to "help with [a] peaceful resolution", it's here to describe the world, not influence it. And that description means that it follows common English usage and calls Macedonia "Macedonia". --Taivo (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll take my hyperactive Greek feelings away, as long as you do the same for your search for an non existing history. Next thing, Churchill's mother was also a Macedonian, so are mcdonalds. What do you recon the UN is? Some nightclub? You go there or again you go next door for a kebab roll? Who was there to protect FYROM when Albanians tried to have a go, or when the stupid Greeks tried to play Kennedy and impose an embargo? UN was ok then? And who are you to say what wiki is for and for who? Wikis only exist when they co-exist, or they end up being flaming flamingos for dudes like you and me that have nothing else to do. All these lines with no logical argument,just crap coming out of our mouths. You won't find this on pages about flower names or cancer research. The naming of Fyrom is unresolved and controversial and wiki taking a stance is simply stupid. What's wrong with Ireland? Why not have a page about the region, point our that it is currently part of 4 countries and have the common history of all those countries in display. Then different pages about Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Fyrom? Do you know that there are tribes in Afghanistan that claim that they have a connection with Alexander the Great? What if Egypt was split in two and the one part claimed connection with Cleopatra and Macedonians and wanted to be called Verginians.What if the Greeks do a Apple vs Android and claim copyright on the Cyrillic alphabet and every one who speaks it has to pay taxes? Can you get the point here? This only brings the disputes of silly men from the football fields to wiki. As if wiki places a huge cross on its head asking for flaming. That is not what encyclopedias do. Use the name that the International bodies are using and leave politics for other places. This was a wrong choice and no editor in wiki is willing to spend the time to make it right. Just lock the damn pages and place a link to Britannica or google. Next stop, abortions... 121.44.198.46 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- You simply don't understand the point you're trying to make. 1) This has nothing to do with history. It has nothing to do with what Macedonia thinks about its relation to Alexander the Great, so your passions on that score are irrelevant. Your analogies to Afghanistan tribes are simply irrelevant. 2) Wikipedia hasn't "taken a stand". Wikipedia follows common English usage so the English-speaking world has "taken a stand" and Wikipedia just follows along. 3) You haven't said one single new thing that wasn't part of the arbitration already and wasn't considered. And, by the way, several dozen editors participated in the decision making process as part of the arbitration that led to WP:MOSMAC. 4) The UN did not "force" anybody to use "FYROM", it simply said, "In our deliberations, we'll use 'FYROM' instead of a name". Half of the world's countries call Macedonia "Macedonia". Are you saying that they are violating UN rules and regulations as well? If you are seriously making that claim, then the UN has a serious revolt on its hands. 5) Read the notice at the very top of this page. "The title of this article has been established by a binding consensus process". This thread will be speedily archived. I'm done dealing with you now and this thread will go away soon as well. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Мак , russian and cyrillic for poppy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.173.135 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In the ancient times there were no "Macedonias" who didn't speak Greek. The tribes that didn't speak Greek but were a part of the Greek-Macedonian Empire were called "barbaric tribes" and were not members of the tribe of Alexander the Great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark kon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey...uh, i'm not used to editing wiki pages, so I'm bound to do something wrong, but anyways I just wanted to ask if the name "Fyromia" was a legitimate name for FYROM (Republic of Macedonia), as my History teacher tossed the term around a lot, meaning FYROM. --76.226.76.64 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: No. Even "FYROM" is not a name. It is merely a provisional reference, a placeholder, until Greece decides it has exacted its pound of flesh from its neighbor. --Taivo (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
this country cannot be simply named "Republic of macedonia" or "macedonia" in wikipedia because many countries do not acknowledge it. this is arbitrary. the name must be changed to " Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia/Republic Of Macedonia " or reversely wherever mentioned,or if you don't like this,we just delete the page because this nation can't have a title that's not stolen--Frizstyler (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
who just removed my writings and why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizstyler (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
ISO 3166 code MK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.7.2 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi i wanted just to inform you that there are newer stats for 2010 from transparency international and Republic of Macedonia is on 62 place of 178 , the information can be found on http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results Same with Institution for Economics and Peace on this link http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2011/scor/MK And The Heritage Foundation/The Wall Street Journal http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.73.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the countrys name is FYROM and NOT republic of whatever they wish to be told...
the country's name is Slavic Republic of Skopje, please make the appropriate alterations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.143.42 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
85.75.39.155 (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}template. An Arbitration Committee case has bound the name to this current one. See the relevant nutshell and the decision result. →Στc. 07:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"Muslims comprise 33.3% of the population; Macedonia has the fourth-highest proportion of Muslims in Europe, after those of Kosovo (90%), Albania (80%), and Bosnia-Herzegovina (48%)"
Where on earth did you get the 80% muslims in Albania? It is not even sourced. Albania is largely atheist and muslims are not more than 20 %. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.239.114 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- See List of countries by Muslim population. --Local hero talk 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Macedonian is attempting to add an extended and detailed presentation of the Greek POV (exclusively) into the brief summary section on the naming dispute. I have reverted him twice. Will others please weigh in on the issue? --Taivo (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The text correctly summarizes the key greek concerns. There's nothing POV in describing the key issues of the dispute. The whole page is already hugely one-sided and it bothers you that one single paragraph in the middle of the page summarizes the other view? Masri145 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article isn't about Greece and there is already an article, which this one properly links to, that covers this issue in excruciating detail covering both POVs extensively. The text which Macedonian wanted to add is simply too much detail for this article. This article isn't the place for listing every single objection that Greece has including objections to ethnic names, language names, etc. If you honestly think that the Greek POV isn't covered, then add a little more, but a laundry list of every Greek objection isn't appropriate here. And, Masri, you know better than to just throw the contentious text back on these pages without building a consensus first. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- "is simply too much detail for this article" is simply your opinion. Macedonian and I do not think so. It seems to me that you're the single minority once again so stop trying to force your personal POV on the text. There's nothing POV in the suggested text, it simply lists the main reasons why the greeks have a problem with the name, hence the "naming dispute". It gives a good summary and leaves it up to the reader to read more if they like. Masri145 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, Masri, you know good and well that we let things such as this rest a day or two to allow people in different time zones to notice the issue and comment. Yes, there is a naming dispute, but Macedonian's edit wasn't a focused comment on the one issue relevant to this article--the country name. It was a laundry list of every naming dispute the Greeks have with the Macedonians, whether relevant to the single issue of the name of Macedonia or not. I was very clear in my last post. If Macedonian or you want to edit that laundry list down to the one issue about the country name, fine, but bringing up every Greek-Macedonian issue is not appropriate here. The ethnic names, the language name, etc. are not relevant and are simply POV-pushing and WP:POINTy editing. --Taivo (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I fail to see how this is an issue of "POV". POV implies that the statement is not objective. The suggested text is objective as it does not express support for the Greek position but rather lists the reasons as to why Greece opposes the use of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". It is a very complicated issue and simply stating "raised the issue of possible territorial aspirations and also historical concerns regarding the association of the country with the history of the Greek region" is far too vague and borders on oversimplification. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- POV comes in the volume of Greek objections in Macedonian's paragraph including every single issue that Greece has raised. I'm not opposed to expanding the current paragraph appropriately and adding a source, but Macedonian simply placed a laundry list of everything. The Greek objections to the language name and the ethnic name are not relevant to this article and do not need to be included in this article about the country. If the reader wants to know every Greek objection to its neighbor, he/she can read Macedonian naming dispute, Macedonian language naming dispute and Demographic history of Macedonia. But this article is just about the country, not the language or ethnic group. --Taivo (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Macedonian naming dispute exists mainly because of the greek objections. As such, a summary of them should be mentioned at this stage to let the user decide what to do next. Sure, the reader should read the main article if they want to find out the details, but if they want to get a summary, the current text simply doesn't tell them anything. There's no POV in the suggested text. Masri145 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I keep telling you that the POV is in presenting a laundry list of everything that the Greeks object to rather than the specific issues that relate to the name of the country, which is the subject of this article. This article is about the country, not the ethnic group, not the language. I have no objection to mentioning the naming dispute relative to the name of the country in a little more detail with references here, where it is, I agree, appropriate. But I do object to listing each and every dispute that Greece has with Macedonia. The POV enters the picture not because of any specific wording, the POV comes in by listing every single issue that Greece has with its neighbor. Edit Macedonian's text down to remove the language and ethnic group issues, which aren't relevant here, and I'd be willing, as I have said before, to expand the current paragraph. It's a question of degree and relevance to this article. --Taivo (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Macedonian naming dispute exists mainly because of the greek objections. As such, a summary of them should be mentioned at this stage to let the user decide what to do next. Sure, the reader should read the main article if they want to find out the details, but if they want to get a summary, the current text simply doesn't tell them anything. There's no POV in the suggested text. Masri145 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- POV comes in the volume of Greek objections in Macedonian's paragraph including every single issue that Greece has raised. I'm not opposed to expanding the current paragraph appropriately and adding a source, but Macedonian simply placed a laundry list of everything. The Greek objections to the language name and the ethnic name are not relevant to this article and do not need to be included in this article about the country. If the reader wants to know every Greek objection to its neighbor, he/she can read Macedonian naming dispute, Macedonian language naming dispute and Demographic history of Macedonia. But this article is just about the country, not the language or ethnic group. --Taivo (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I fail to see how this is an issue of "POV". POV implies that the statement is not objective. The suggested text is objective as it does not express support for the Greek position but rather lists the reasons as to why Greece opposes the use of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". It is a very complicated issue and simply stating "raised the issue of possible territorial aspirations and also historical concerns regarding the association of the country with the history of the Greek region" is far too vague and borders on oversimplification. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, Masri, you know good and well that we let things such as this rest a day or two to allow people in different time zones to notice the issue and comment. Yes, there is a naming dispute, but Macedonian's edit wasn't a focused comment on the one issue relevant to this article--the country name. It was a laundry list of every naming dispute the Greeks have with the Macedonians, whether relevant to the single issue of the name of Macedonia or not. I was very clear in my last post. If Macedonian or you want to edit that laundry list down to the one issue about the country name, fine, but bringing up every Greek-Macedonian issue is not appropriate here. The ethnic names, the language name, etc. are not relevant and are simply POV-pushing and WP:POINTy editing. --Taivo (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- "is simply too much detail for this article" is simply your opinion. Macedonian and I do not think so. It seems to me that you're the single minority once again so stop trying to force your personal POV on the text. There's nothing POV in the suggested text, it simply lists the main reasons why the greeks have a problem with the name, hence the "naming dispute". It gives a good summary and leaves it up to the reader to read more if they like. Masri145 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article isn't about Greece and there is already an article, which this one properly links to, that covers this issue in excruciating detail covering both POVs extensively. The text which Macedonian wanted to add is simply too much detail for this article. This article isn't the place for listing every single objection that Greece has including objections to ethnic names, language names, etc. If you honestly think that the Greek POV isn't covered, then add a little more, but a laundry list of every Greek objection isn't appropriate here. And, Masri, you know better than to just throw the contentious text back on these pages without building a consensus first. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) I keep seeing the colloquialism "laundry list" appearing over and over again. This is silly, there is no "laundry list". Macedonian's additions consist of 3 sentences. 3 sentences is not a "laundry list". Now, looking at the article in its current version, there is a mention that there is a naming dispute between Greece and RoM, but no explanation of what that naming dispute consists of. The article mentions that there is a naming dispute with Greece, then jumps immediately into the 1992-1995 flag controversy. This is a disservice to our readers. I think we can all agree that a brief explanation of the basis of the dispute is warranted.
Now, while the naming dispute in its narrow sense strictly refers to the issue of the country's name, the actual dispute with Greece consists of several parts: 1) The issue of the country's name, 2) the issue of the name of the ethnic group and the language, 3) appropriation by RoM of ancient Macedonians symbols and imagery, 4) the irredentist claims towards Greek territory. It is standard practice to mention important international disputes in each country's "foreign relations" section. Now, looking at Macedonian's additions, they consist of the following three sentences:
Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient kingdom of Macedon which falls within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier, supporting a compound name (such as "Northern Macedonia") for use by all and for all purposes (erga omnes).
I honestly cannot see any POV in this sentence. It in no way endorses or validates Greece's position, merely makes a statement of fact that Greece opposes the name "Republic of Macedonia" for and X and Y reason. It is neutrally worded and perfectly encyclopedic.
As millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians, 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.
This is part and parcel of the naming dispute. Even if the issue of the country's name is agreed upon, unless this aspect is also resolved, the dispute will remain unresolved. Again there is no endorsement of Greece's position, merely statements of fact. There are 2.5 million Greeks who identify as "Macedonians", and Greece does object to the term "Macedonians" for the ethnic group and the language.
The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered parts of Greece's culture (such as Vergina Sun, a symbol associated with the ancient kingdom of Macedon, and Alexander the Great), and of promoting the irredentist concept of a United Macedonia, which would include territories of Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and Serbia.
Same here, the Republic of Macedonia is accused by Greece of appropriating these symbols, and that is a statement of fact. No judgment is passed on either Greece's or RoM's position, or the validity of these claims. Similarly, the Gruevski government makes no secret of its irredentist ambitions, and this is well known. The proposed additions in no way pass judgement on the irredentist claims.
To me, Macedonian's proposed additions are a succinct, neutrally-worded, encyclopedic explanation of the naming dispute. There is not even a whiff of approval for Greece's positions or disapproval of RoM's positions. The naming dispute is important. Like it or not, RoM is not getting into the EU or NATO unless it is resolved. And only if it resolved in its entirety. I don't imagine Greece will lift its veto on RoM's joining of NATO and the EU if the country's name is agreed upon but the RoM government does not drop its irredentist claims on the Greek province of Macedonia. I think 3 sentences in the Foreign Relations section explaining to the reader the major aspects of a dispute that prevents the country from joining major international organizations is highly warranted.
I can appreciate a concern that the "Naming Dispute" section is rather long, but that can be addressed by trimming it in other places. For example, stuff like In 2010, the Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) and the Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (AMHRC) have launched a campaign placing advertisements in newspapers and billboards across Macedonia "demanding an end to all negotiations with Greece over its name". These are rather insignificant diaspora nationalist organizations, of not particular note or weight. Evidently their campaign "demanding an end to all negotiations with Greece over its name" seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Athenean (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Athenean, for seeing that this isn't a single edit, but a series of individual issues. The main issue that I have a problem with here is the language issue. The language issue is not something that can be solved by Macedonian/Greek negotiations because the Macedonian language has been called "Macedonian" for decades and is universally called that by linguists. There is no connection between the name of the language and the name of the Republic and the issue is far larger than a simple political conflict. I would have no objections to incorporating the information about the name of the country and the symbols (as I have said before), but the language issue is an independent issue and cannot really be subject to a political decision. It is a scientific decision and has been "settled" by linguists far outside the realm of these two countries. I can be neutral about the ethnic name issue, since I'm not an anthropologist. It is not as firmly a scientific issue to me as the linguistic question is. Leave the language sentence out of it (because that's an area where linguists aren't going to surrender to Greece), and I can live with the rest. --Taivo (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Taivo, I actually happen to agree with you regarding the name of the language. So I will leave it out then, but reinstate the rest. Best, Athenean (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also going to trim the section a bit, it is getting a bit long. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. I have a suggestion for removing the latin variant of the name Macedonia from the infobox for a few important reasons.
1. The official language in the Republic of Macedonia is the Macedonian and the official script is the cyrillic. Macedonian is officially written with cyrillic and latin is used only informal.
2. I'll take the page for the Republic of Bulgaria as an example, which also uses cyrillic script as official but in their name there is not a latin equivalent (Republika Balgariya).
3. I see that the wikipage for Serbia contains the same equivalent as Macedonia currently does. But let me remind you that in Serbia, latin scirpt is official just like the cyrillic, so they have a valid reason for that.
I hope that you will consider and implement my proposal. Macedonicus (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. We also include a Roman transliteration of the official name when the official language uses a script other than Roman. See Myanmar for example. --Taivo (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well Ukraine, Belarus and Bulgaria seem to be an exception. If that is a practice for every country with script other than Roman than implement it to every country. Macedonicus (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't completely consistent in everything, but when a transliteration exists, it should not be removed just because you don't like it. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I never said i don't like it, I just noticed that closest countries (in linguistic and ethnic way) to Macedonia don't contain the Roman script in the infobox. That's it. Macedonicus (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well Ukraine, Belarus and Bulgaria seem to be an exception. If that is a practice for every country with script other than Roman than implement it to every country. Macedonicus (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't yet seem to be a Wikiproject:Macedonia, so I'll ask here: I'm trying to update List of heritage registers to make it a little more globally representative; the Republic of Macedonia did not previously feature - but there's this article on the French Wikipedia, which may have some useful links - (in French) Patrimoine culturel de la République de Macédoine; I don't know whether anyone with the relevant knowledge/skills/interest would be interested in starting an introductory page relating to the country's officially designated/protected/promoted cultural heritage as it features on heritage registers? If not, I am, but am unlikely to do it for a few years, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If possible Change "Ancient History of the territory" to "Ancient Period" and change "Midevil Period" to "Midevil and Ottoman Period" since the section discusses both. TheFAIR1 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
there isn't country with the name macedonia. it's fyrom.......
Mitsakos.energy (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MAKEDONIA
Mitsakos.energy (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings!
I have a question regarding the existence of a second official language in Macedonia. In the amendment V of the constitution is written:
1. The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. Taken from: http://www.sobranie.mk/en/default.asp?ItemID=9F7452BF44EE814B8DB897C1858B71FF
As i understand it and as i encountered in this article (MACEDONIA : BETWEEN OHRID AND BRUSSELS - Nadège Ragaru, 2008) it seems that Albanian should also be an official language but i don't know if this is the case (it appears not to be). The information provided in the infobox and the citation doesn't seem relevant (not in an academic point of view anyway which i am interested). Hence What i want to know is if Albanian is an official language or not? Please no nationalistic answers as i am interested only on the truth, and if someone is competent enough to answer please provide some link to the a law or article which i can cite. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purusbonum (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Macedonian is the only official language throughout the entire country. In municipalities where a minority forms at least 20% of the population, the language is co-official with Macedonian. Search the archives of this talkpage for more info. Albanian groups in the country continue to demand their language's official status in the country to this day. Therefore, it has not happened yet. --Local hero talk 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Factually Kosovo is not a Country.
If you wrote that Macedonia is bordering Kosovo they you should write that Gruzija is bordering South Ossetia. It is one way or the other. There must be consistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now that many of the major powers in NATO have recognized it as such, it pretty much IS a country. In this case "might is right" comes to bear. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
pandev plays for napoli. not internazionale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.185.95 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If you follow the provided link after Macedonia's population you will see that the correct number is: 2,057,284.
Furthermore, the population density of Macedonia should be corrected to (2010 estimate):
80.0/km2 = 2,057,284 / 25,713 km2
This is synchronized with the 'List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density' which also had a data copying mistake I edited. However, the link after the population density should be also edited and equal the new rank (119) of Macedonia on the beforementioned list.
Note: This might not be a huge mistake but imprecisement can trouble people like myself. While preparing for a geography exam, I lost valuable time trying to figure the correct population density because of these two trivial mistakes on Wikipedia. I hope the authors will be more careful in the future! StStefanWiki (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you don't end your sentences with an exclamation mark we will be even more careful. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought that sentences with the verb 'hope' require exclamation mark in the end. However, even after a month the wrong number has still not been edited and since it is a mistake easy to correct I suspect that this post has been forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StStefanWiki (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I updated it. --Local hero talk 23:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but would you please also update the link with Macedonia's rank in population density, that is now 122, as well as its correct population number - 2,057,284? Thank you for your help! :)
StStefanWiki (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the rank but the population is 2,058,539 according to the 2011 estimate from the source, the State Statistical Office. --Local hero talk 15:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you're right, I'm sorry! It seems that the population list has a mistake then, since that's where I checked. By the way, the rank is 122, not 112. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StStefanWiki (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. I corrected it. --Local hero talk 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As the country is accepted with the name "Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia" it should be the title of the article and the official name used by the page. Thank you. 2001:648:2800:216:E93C:D748:5BD4:DC21 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done - please see WP:NCMAC. There is a consensus that the article should be titled Republic of Macedonia. If you'd like to change the title you will need to start a discussion there. TDL (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, we have a german website about the Republic of Macedonia so is that passible to become a Link to our german website ? Called http://Makedon.eu We have a lot of information about the Macedonian Culture, History , Language and many more. Best Regards --MakedonEU (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The website is in German so it would not be very helpful in the English version of Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but per our standards at WP:EL, that website is unsuitable. Websites that publish ridiculous fringe claims like this can never be accepted here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay we understand for us is not important to have a link on Wikipedia. We just can write right things about Macedonian Language. We are so sorry that we can not write wrong things. Best regards. --MakedonEU (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I indented for you Makedon, please learn to properly format your posts on the TP. And as Future pointed out, the claims on your page are lunatic-fringe, and are utterly ridiculous. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
We dont know what ure are, but our Author is Linguistic Expert. So We dont have interess anymore to talk with Admins on Wikipedia they do not have any knowledge and do not know how to check Facts. On the words u used we See how is your Standard. Write on Wikipedia what ever u want for Academic people is absolutlly unserious. Best Regards --MakedonEU (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes the admins here are completely irrelevant,but you have a linguistic expert that checks facts and he calls this country macedonia? WOW! TELL ME WHERE HE STUDIED! LMAO--94.70.113.84 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Athenian anon IP, but do you have anything of value to bring to the article? This isn't a place for bipolar ranting. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the name is something that should ever be discussed again. Unless a resolution is reached between the two countries, the dispute won't have a ground for arguement. Greeks will always try to change the name to FYROM or even Vardarska, the Slavomacedonians will always try to sustain the current name. Third parties will always be indifferent to this discussion, too. --Spartacus Marat (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word Macedonia which heads the article is incorrect. The article is about the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia is a geographic region of which the majority is in modern day Greece. FYROM is a part of this greater geographic region. Thus the first word should read FYROM and not Macedonia which is the name of Greece's largest state. Getback42 (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. Please see the links at the top of this page, to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), where this issue was settled in a project-wide binding consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name of this country is Skopje
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Republic of Macedonia to FYROM because FYROM is what is used by international organisations and states which do not recognise translations of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија, Republika Makedonija). Nigwisht (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Minor Grammar
In the table on the right at the top of the page. The population is listed as "146nd" instead of "146th".
I like to correct grammar mistakes like that, but this article was locked.
75.4.21.22 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)6 Feb 2013, 03:24 PST
Please add a small section on Macedonia's small contribution in the Balkan Wars. Here is a link to sufficient information on it: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/PartitionedMacedonia/BalkanWars.html
Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poubavo Devojche (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There definitely should be a section about the different names of this country, locked entry or not. The dispute's alternate names are just as valid and are more legitimate. Fair treatment would be to include the Greek case that proves that all Macedonian cultural references and names are in fact Greek. Let outsiders decide for themselves instead of reinforcing the confrontational rhetoric of a country that was repeated at war over the last twenty years.
Skopia is a historical name of FYROM and there are other historical names like Bovonia.
It is amazing how people can impose their will like fascism in the face of the overwhelming contradiction of history. Yes, anyone can write their own history but what is the goal of making up a history that is imaginary and a fraud. Everyone knows that this area was occupied by the Ottomans. So isn't FYROM still split half and half with different races of people? There really isn't a clear majority in former Yugoslavians states. So, just like 'Ellas' aren't there more important issues to deal with in FYROM other than pretending to be Ancient Greeks from the north? Especially when the first Macedonian king migrated to northern Greece from the south. Someone ought to donate books to Yugoslavia in mass. There must have been a lot of idiotic brainwashing occurring over the last 90 years. Some Greeks have recently shown themselves to be naive or unsophisticated, but the peoples of the Yugoslavia and Albania have been doing one worse. All must look like fools to the outside world.
Considering the lack of proper education under communist rule for many decades and a propagandist articulation of an alternate telling of history which was internally generated; it is unbelievable that the Yugoslavians having split apart don't want an accurate identity for themselves. No one who has survived these terrible wars should buy into a system and culture that remains warlike, envious and socially dishonest.
Yes it is true that anyone can call themselves anything that they wish to, but the "Macedonian Frontier" will always be part of the Hellenic World and anytime the oldest relics are dug up on that land they will always be from the indigenous Hellenic settlements. So instead of progress those people will always look back and not even to their own ancestors.
This may seem to be intended as malicious but it is not, it is what a frustrated true friend would say. Without morality and ethics in the telling of history, society has nothing.64.252.6.62 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't read Macedonian naming dispute. --Taivo (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Macedonia was a greek state inhabited by Greek people. King Philip II conquered a part of modern FYR and dissipated the people who lived there before and transfered Greeks there...So we can understand that Macedonia was the place where Macedonian Greeks lived...Skopjans are Slavs and arived at these places 8-9 centuries after the Alexander's death...So, are Skopjans Macedonians (Greeks)???? NO...Skopjans have no relation with Macedonians just because Macedonians where a greek tribe like the Dorians and the Ionians...So Skopianslavs cannot name their country with the name of an ancient greek area where only greek live... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.57.57 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the country is Republic of Macedonia. Interpretations of history don't get to decide.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Read Taivo's link above. Happily there is no "dispute" over the name in Wikipedia. And, dear new contributors, it is not necessary but it is useful and appreciated if new editors adopt a user name; this helps them keep track of their own contributions and evolution in wikipedia. Meanwhile, thanks for taking an interest. Politis (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article Republic of Macedonia, in the last paragraph of the Naming Dispute chapter, where there is mention of the 2011 ICJ decision, the phrase "The court however did not grant Macedonia's request that it instruct Greece to refrain from similar actions in the future, nor has there been to date a change in the EU's stance that Macedonia's accession negotiations cannot begin until the name issue is resolved." to give a correct understanding should be completed by the explanation given in the same decision by the ICJ and that “[a]s a general rule, there is no reason to suppose that a State whose act or conduct has been declared wrongful by the Court will repeat that act or conduct in the future, since its good faith must be presumed”. Page 47, paragraph 168 of ICJ decision. I therefore suggest that the phrase is changed into: "The court however did not consider necessary to grant Macedonia's request that it instruct Greece to refrain from similar actions in the future since “[a]s a general rule, there is no reason to suppose that a State whose act or conduct has been declared wrongful by the Court will repeat that act or conduct in the future, since its good faith must be presumed”, nor has there been to date a change in the EU's stance that Macedonia's accession negotiations cannot begin until the name issue is resolved." Thank you. Dinooneita (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
