How can they call themselves macedonians?means they recognize great alexander as theyr ruller and adobt names of greek historical nations(macedonian means greek-so what they say is fyrom = greece >..that cant be happening!!!!macedonians were ancient greeks ,speaked greek lived as greeks .....how can you claim something else .....If you want to use the name of our ancient fathers you should consider using also our laws and ethics..what im saying is..you say our leader (your ruller)is now also your leader ?except the name facts show you havent used anything else from that culture.(names,laws,ethics,lifestyle and most of all language)so how can this be your leader??.....Let the world decide ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I´m not Greek I insist on keeping the official name - FYROM. Wikipedia shouldn´t support any falsification of history! Keep the official international name - Republic of Macedonia is acknowledgen by Turkey only! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip36 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about the "republic of Macedonia" contains misleading information and inappropriate content. Under UN agreement in no way should any document state the F.Y.R.O.M. under the name of Macedonia of Republic of Macedonia.
This article should be put under the F.Y.R.O.M. one and should be protected. I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia will act accordingly to best of everybody's interest. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Deafakos (
talk •
contribs) 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not answer to the UN, nor any other body. We make distinctions for article based on our own evaluations, it appears that the common English
name Republic of Macedonia, or just simply Macedonia. This is also what the country calls it self. This article is not the first, nor the last name dispute, but in this case, if you look t the pages archives you will find that you are only one of hundreds of people who complained, we've been over this before. If we changed the name to FYROM, the people in Skopje would be just as offended as the Greeks. The horse is dead, stop flogging it.
Samuell
Lift me up or put me down 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
SO you believe it is better to abuse it than change it to something mutually accepted... This is a pretty "undemocratic" way of thinking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.190.34 ( talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt Samuell is an official Wikipedia admin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.139.110 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, the name FYROM is not mutually accepted, otherwise the country would call itself that. Wikipedia is not a democracy
we work by consensus and discussion, not voting. And being an
admin just gives you a few technical features such as deleting and protecting pages, it doesn't make you a spokesperson or give you much authority. The policies that support what I said before can be found
here and
here.
Samuell
Lift me up or put me down 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are contadicting youself here. How can you reach a consensus without democratic processes and no voting? There is no consensus without measuring the "consensus". If someone reports something ABUSIVE about you and this person claimed that it was true then what would you do? Naming FYROM as Republic of Macedonia is abusive to Greeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafakos ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And naming Macedonia FYROM is abusive to Macedonians. Silvery Swirls ( talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't FYROM call itself Vardarska or Paeonia? Would it offend them? Is it more fair to take a nation's history (I'm referring to Greece) and call it your own? What kind of justice is this? 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is only by survival instinct that skopje want to take greece's history, i would too if i had no history of my own worth talking about, but we should just stick to the facts here and all agree that no matter how much anyone tries to take other nations historical facts and make them their own, we the people will not allow it."Macedonia and Alexander the Great are and will always be Greek" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.116.111 ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
imo FYROM should call itself Vardaska - Marku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevarden ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
FYROM or Rep of Makedonia-Makedonia (as you like to call it in here) has nothing to do with Great Alexander's ancient Makedonian Empire. The people of FYROM are a mixed slavic breed that talk in a Bulgarian dialect and write by using the Cyrillic alphabet (like the Russians do for example). They live in their own pseudomakedonian little world believing that they are the descendants of Great Alexander and love making claims around without real proof. By calling FYROM as <<Makedonia>> is a falsification of history and a provocation against Greece. -- 79.166.23.249 ( talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
From yugoslavs to macedonians?????????? how that come?Pls comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As soon as the latest NATO decision has been postponed, the name should be changed to FYROM. Anything else violates the temporary decision in 1992 about this country's name. Now if you want just to obey to what the USA says, you may keep it as 'Macedonia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please move this whole page and all of its detial into Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia because that is exactly what it is. That is how the UN recognizes it and besides, Macedonia as a place is much bigger in Greece to where it culturally belongs. We can't go ignoring UN policy and more countries recognize FYROM including all of the improtant lands: Western and Central Europe etc. One more thing, Alexander the Great was not FYROM-Macedonian because he lived years before the Slavs came along. Antun Gustav ( talk) 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not answer to the UN or any other organization or country. The country calls itself Republic of Macedonia so that is the more common English name (and probably the most neutral). The horse is dead, stop flogging it. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it should be referred as FYROM simply as that's how UN recognizes -and they themselves accept it that way- and UN is the ultimate place for any de-jure recognition of any state (along with name etc).I mean that's start up things for anyone involved in politics and international law.Otherwise we could name ourselves Republic of Apache and claim billions of dollars for Apache genocide by settlers.Or the Hustler's Republic and hustle anyone within our territory.I mean there is a law you know and UN are the ultimate judge on this law. BTW how ROM is the most "neutral" name.Hhaha lol Eagle of Pontus ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please kickbankill BalkanFever for trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.51.67 ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Until the naming dispute is solved FYROM is the generaly accepted name. Only the US recognised Scopje with its constitutional name. Because of that they should be ignored (the US) by the general public. Their opinion (because is only an opinion) shouldn't be taken into account seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamatisg ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Macedonia" is total anti-Greek POV and fully Skopjan nationalist POV. Please, rename the article to FYROM as stated by the United Nations and stop trolling and vandalizing the page with your nationalist POV. 87.219.84.68 ( talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, if Wikipedia and the administrators believe they are objective then I strongly recommend that they don't allow propaganda and nationalism in this site 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
of censorship and has used censorship on Greek users. He is becoming annoying with his obstinacy and his will to harm Greeks. I suggest some administrator look into the behavior of this user together with all others that have posted anti-Greek comments, as they are repeatedly attacking Greek users alongside their propaganda, lies and insults such as the above, calling them racists. It is a real proof that Macedonia is Greek and that FYROMians are trying to usurp Greek history and territory, and he is the kind of person that supports such terrorist acts. 87.221.4.107 ( talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no country named Macedonia, and if you dont know this you can jump to United Nations site and check it out. There are so many other issues, but i think its stupid to even mention them. Of course Alexander the Great was Greek. He spoke Greek. Why these half Albanians-half Slavs dont speak Greek (if they are Macedonians?). ¶ So, its wise for all Greek people to take legal action against wikipedia, cause our History is the most important thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitas72 ( talk • contribs)
No court in the world would take a lawsuit, we are not required to call the country FYROM. And please don't insult anyone, regardless of what ethnicity they are, if they want their own country, they can have it, and they can call it what they like. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. Let's everyone send a CEASE AND DESIST letter to wikipedia! Enough is enough! 213.97.51.67 ( talk) 13:2http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107738.html2, 1 April 2008 (UTC)/
By naming this article as Republic of Macedonia you do not follow the policy of Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia. Once again, the official name of the country you call "Macedonia" is Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia according to U.N.. If you do not obey Wikipedia's policy and rules then Wikipedia is blogctionary (blog & dictionary) in which anyone can say what they think about a topic. In this way, Wikipedia cannot "compete" Britanicca within 100,000,000,000,000,000 milleniums!!!! Goal of Wikipedia is to inform and not to misinform! To sum up, I call the moderators or/and the administrator of the English Wikipedia to rename this article or else this article must be deleted because of Point Of View of the writer/s. Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia
Dear JdeJ could you explain me why do you support Skopje? I ask once again from the administrator and the moderators to rename this article from "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia-F.Y.R.O.M." provisionally until the United Nations decide the name of F.Y.R.O.M.. This is the only solution! The site
infoplease.com says that: "The UN recognized the Republic of Macedonia on April 8, 1993, under the temporary name the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Respect greek history and Greece.
Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia
I just cant get it. why Skopians wanna be named Macedonians? It is pretty weird cause Macedonia is a greek word and has always been one of the Greek races. Why do Skopians get isolated from other countries and why did they change their history books in 1991? And of course a country cant just use any name that desires cause "Re of Mac" to historians sounds like the russians changed their name to f... USA ! . Weird?? Just open some neutral history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why should 'former' be spelled without capitals? I'm just curious. diego_pmc ( talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me speak here. I have posted again and it appears that somebody deleted my post but nonetheless, I believe it's the right of everyone to post their ideas. I think that we all are hiding behind our bare fingers, trying to persuade the world that Vardarska is in fact the nation of Macedonia. This nation is the making of Tito and the independence of Vardarska in the early 1990s. What I see that makes me utterly disappointed is the very fact that nationalists and fanatics have the control of this article and don't allow different opinions to be heard. By all means I could call my house the independent, ethnic state of London, New York, Alsace or Rome.
According to the same logic, I can say that it was my fathers that forged the British Empire, my fathers that made the USA or claim that I'm an ethnic Alsacian (We all know that this territory contains german and french populace) or even claim that the Roman Empire was my ethnic territory and claim it through propaganda.
Tell me: Would this appeal to any of you? Would this get this encyclopedia any further? Would extreme nationalism and propaganda benefit any of us? Since I started visiting this site I believed that it was objective and that it was in fact a site that checks all information, and by that I mean historical sources and not proclaimations of people. Why would the Skopians feel offended if they were to be called with their true name? Slavomacedonians or Vardar Macedonians would sound offensive? But wouldn't it be more offensive for the regions of Macedonia in Bulgaria and Greece to have an actual state being called with their name? I haven't seen such problems rise between Bulgaria and Greece since the Balkan Wars and WW2.
To conclude, I speak as an objective person that sees Greece and Bulgaria more offended than the Skopians themselves. What I see is a direct violation of history, political protocols and above all, national heritage. If the Skopians direly want to be called with the name "Macedonia" the only thing they need to consider is paying taxes to Greece.
I believe that as many of you claim that this site is objective you will allow this post to be read by visitors. Truly yours 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Objective person?? Don't make us laugh! -- Áñtò | Ãňţõ ( talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Laugh while you still can, you seem to conveniently forget that for the things you talk here today people in my country have died to defend them. You got no right to play the boss that says what's right and what's wrong. POV? WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF IT. It exists only when people like me try to earn their right. If you find that nice then FINE, you don't deserve to be read or to be replied to, that was my last reply on the matter, I know I'm a Greek Macedonian cause I'm feeling that way, I know my history and I don't give a damn what you do or say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 ( talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
About the Macedonia name conflict, The Economist wrote:
Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10879850
Very funny! LOL Good job people, you are an Olympic team!!!! ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I saw that wiki uses the name "Re.. of Mac.. " and also in ancient history they put the greek history,, wiki became so small to my eyes...
From now on I will disband wiki ..
if you cant learn something right , just dont learn it..
Even the word Encyclopedia is Greek .. omg.. and the word wikipedia also... so wiki just make your name in a skopian way like eijvsldgk;aldk s;dlgk sldgkj;alkgj .
Bye :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess you love saying that ey Enric? So much hatred behind words. Wikipedia has a bunch of retard nationalists (Skopian) under the protection of people in western countries thinking that they can do whatever they want. If that's what you like so be it. I see now that this place isn't worthy of having visitors, if it's working as propaganda against Greece and Bulgaria. I don't play the victim like the nationalists above, I need the mercy of no one, if you find it PLEASURABLE for you to make Greece be the "bad guys" THEN FINE, you don't deserve to have a proper conversation in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
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) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss for the history of macedonia since there is nothing to argue about,everyone that have study even a litle about history know the truth.I am going to give a simple example about what will happen if greeks dont do anything about the name issue and just leave fyrom to be call as they want. Yesterday i was talking with a friend of mine from Moldavia and he ask me why Greece make all that noise with the name issue of Macedonia. I show him the map of greece and told him that Macedonia is the north part of Greece e.t.c ..... and he answers back to me i can understand now why you have that position and then he told me that both romania and ukraine have some regions of them and they call there regions moldavia and they were before moldavias teritories.I dont know what is true about moldavia but i know if now will let them have their country name as our region Macedonia after some years these people going to say the exacly same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.55.194 ( talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't come here to fight. Of course not. But, if you take into account the fact that Greece and Skopje are now into a "political war", then I believe that you'll be able to understand that the name problem hasn't been resolved yet. This means that you should use the OFFICIAL NAME of the country, which is Skopje, when you are going to refer it to your article. Naming it "Republic of Macedonia" means that the only thing you're managing to succeed is trying to persuade the majority of internet users worldwide (because they are the majority of the people, too and they have a lot "hidden power" into their mind) to use that such a name of that country. So, I advise you to change it to Skopje or AT LEAST at F.Y.R.O.M. in order not to get into trouble with the Greek Politicians and many other people all over the world that know the truth about that topic. That's all from me!
I hope you'll take my opinion into account... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangelis-Ts ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What Greek politicians think ?? booo booo booo
Very important . We are so scared how some bunch of politicians thinks about this issue.
We all do respect culture of ancient Greek culture. But that does not give monopole to modern Greece for "truth" in this case.
Macedonians have right to calle their country as they want to .!! Those Greek insistings of renaming of the country is indescend and nonsence. We two countries named Kongo , two countries named Korea ...
There is only one Macedonia and that is one whose capital is Skopje. That is the OFFICIAL NAME of the country and only accurate one. The province of Greece with the same name is for Greek usage only . -- Anto ( talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia was not influenced by anyone. we chose what is the common English name. If you are still dissatisfied I suggest you go the the [ Greek Wikipedia's article] on The Republic of Macedonia, which uses Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, because it is the common Greek name. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are not Greek, you cannot be Macedonian. It's plain simple. Macedonians were Hellenes, you are Slavs. You changed your name from Vardarska Badovina to Macedonia in 1950 with your beloved Tito. What are you trying to pull now?
-- 87.221.5.107 ( talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You, Hellens, should stop torturing Macedonians and leave them . This is not period of Sokrates and your opinion is not in charge. -- Anto ( talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not ancient Europe but modern Europe in which majority know for only one Macedonia- Republic of Macedonia. If Macedonians decide to change their name it will be by their own decision - not somebody's else
Vardarska Banovina did not include just the territory of Republic of Macedonia-it include also contemporary Kosovo and southern Serbia . And Macedonians did call theselves with that name much before Tito came to power-which proves that you are not really informed abou the history of Yugoslavia-- Anto ( talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually... there is a precedent for forcing a state to change its name. After the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and from 1918 it was known as the Republic of German-Austria (Republik Deutsch-Österreich), but the state was forced to change its name to "Republic of Austria" in 1919 peace Treaty of Saint-Germain! It is now still known as Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.231.107 ( talk) 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is more important for wikipedia? How the country calls itself or under which name it is recognized by official international bodies?
Since wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it should adopt the name recognized by official international bodies. That name is FYROM. 77.49.116.95 ( talk) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
All hi, I think we all understand how many people are reading this and how much influence is placed on them by this lemma. The result is that Wiki is used as a mean of performing politics in or not in purpose - does not matter as the result matters. Consequently, the NPOV principle is offensed anyway (at least until a mutually agreed political decision is reached).
Therefore, I suggest that at least a POV disclaimer/indication is placed on the lema.
ThirstyThought (
talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand why should we consider how Greek or any other country see Macedonia is beeing called by some 3rd country. Greeks have right to call Macedonia with their own name. But they have no right to impose that name to others , especially not to Macedonians. And each nation has right to choose its name. -- Áñtò | Ãňţõ ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, stop pretending the defenseless people. Let's be plain for a second: FYROM has the support of NATO (A.K.A the USA) and that gives them a chance to ask for help pretending the defenseless and hunted people. You are not defenseless you have others backing your cause which corrupts your very dignity. No one would object if you would call yourselves "Republic of Vardarska" or "Republic of Southern Kosovo" or "Republic of Western Bulgaria". Oh, sure that would force you people to accept your roots, which are primarily Slav and Albanian. What I don't get out of this entire story is this: I haven't seen one Skopjan in the Internet say this: That you are descended from Slavs and have nothing to do with Alexander the Great etc etc. But, hey I also see that not a whisper that informs about the propaganda in a neutral way is uttered in Wikipedia. All I've seen, to my utter disgust to be honest, is both the citizens of that state and certain people that support them here in Wikipedia are not saying the stuff I've stated above and prefer to cover the goals of the name and the propaganda with the "I'm a defenseless puppy" attitude. Ah, and a note to the Americans that don't care or consider the matter worthless of discussion: When a certain brand of Vodka presented half the USA under the Mexican rule, there were lawsuits and much of a noise over there. May I ask why? You call the Greeks ridiculous and yet the more serious Americans are afraid of a petty Vodka commercial? I can say that there isn't much reasonability in our times but this is absolutely revolting. Answer carefully please and don't take this as a threat: If someone edits this post then I'll understand that there can't be arguements against mine which will in turn please me. Thank you. 85.75.229.173 ( talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is. I live in Canada, where we have a province named Ontario. Our neighbors to the south, the USA, have several places named Ontario, One is very close to our province. Nobody in either of the countries cares, no place is the real Ontario. The name long predates the current countries and Europeans in North America in General. It is simply a Huron word meaning " great lake." It is the same case here, the name predates the current national borders. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Question -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i would like someone from the english wikipedia to inform me of the reasons why such an internationally controversial name as "Republic of Macedona" is used to refer to the spesific state instead of the internationally commonly used name of FYROM ordained. It is not the Fyromian wikipedia, but the english one and i believe it should be neutral on such a controversial matter, abiding by the internationally accepted practice.-- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The main talk page talks clearly of discussion being done here that would make a change possible. What will it take for that to happen? -- Leladax ( talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This is getting a tad annoying, Leladax. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As the entire world witnessed, the very same country that claims to be "Macedonia" has appeared as "FYROM" in the Olympics Introduction Ceremony . They probably do not even believe what they claim themselves. I therefore do not see why the Wikipedia community has to consider the name anymore. The name should be permanently changed to "FYROM" , the country's official name, until the dispute with Greece is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is for discussions on the name, not for discussion on how Balkan people think. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Regardless of what happens at the Olympics, the common English name is still Macedonia. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Enric, it's much better to just remove things than archive them in a banner shell. Balkan Fever not a fan? say so! 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Couple of sources that mention "Republic of Macedonia" and FYROM just as provisional name. no mather what people from FOPOY (Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan) think about that.-- Aradic-es ( talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a compliment. FOPOY and FYROM are essentially same things. 3rd party involvement into others' business.
I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. -- Aradic-es ( talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
and to Yannismarou and your buddies: this is not your feud . You may not remove the content just because you don't like it calling other user "throlls"
Perhaps on el.wiki but not on en.wiki-- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Aradic-es, we accept the name "FOPOY" if it is not used by any other country...lol
"I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. -- Aradic-es" Just like you invented the country on the north of Greece... The name of this "country"? Macedonia!!!
Dr. Hristo Tatarchev(one of the LEADERS of IMRO): "We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn't accept the position for "direct joining to Bulgaria" because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn't take part in our program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came later."
You can imaging the rest...bla, bla, bla...
As you see "Invention" is probably common to both Greece and fYRoM...
Stop being ironic and try to face the problem. How can Greece accept this name when a great part of her history is written on it?
Was there a "Macedonia" (the way you mean it) before the 90s? There was never such a country before. Even in the Balkan wars Greece fought against Bulgaria, Serbia and the Ottomans for Macedonia, which was a region not a country. You became part of Yugoslavia as part of Serbia, again not as a country.
I read some of your comments, not only in wiki, but in some other forums too and I realise that you are ashamed to call yourselves Slavs like this word is some kind of an insult... However, there are some of you who do not deny this fact. Instead, they believe that ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
At least make up your minds...
As long as there are poeple who don't agree on the name "Macedonia" and other who do, the name should be FYROM since both sides agreed on it in 1993...-- DIMISM2008 ( talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Couple things to mention :
This would be response to previous statemnts by User:DIMISM2008 and other Greek users about their historical right on the name "Macedonia"-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
For months, maybe years, we've been talking and arguing and now a subpage and a Arbitration case later, we haven't gotten anywhere, the article has not changed. Shouldn't we just stop wasting our time? We all have better things to do. We need to realize that things are going to have to change in the "real world" before the name of the article changes. We need to stop dragging our feet and work to improve Wikipedia instead of beating dead horses. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Crossthets ( talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the Manual of Style, I'm talking about this discussion. What do you mean? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I just believe that Wikipedia is just acting brutally, censoring changes and adopting ideas without any proper justification. Sadly there is no alternative to this encyclopedia and hence people will continue to read these inconsistencies. I am rather disappointed but that is how things are. Moreover, people from FYROM, continue to abuse and try to adopt a national identity. There is nothing wrong to that since they are trying to form a nation. It is funny most of them have a Bulgarian ID as well, since they can be Bulgarians (they speak the same language-bulgarian) just by stating so.
The falsification of truth harms any peaceful solution and wikipedia is just adding to this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.117.30 ( talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is accepted by government official and even worn on their id badges (PM Gruevski and his officials wore it at an industrial meeting in New York where the country received some form of a prize). There are numerous examples of this, after all it is the provisional appelation. This fact explains my clarification in my previous edit. Politis ( talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) comment moved from Talk:Republic of Macedonia -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a question aimed towards the admin or admins of this section. When i press the discussion box of the FYROM article, the first thing i see is a box routing me to this talk page, while informing me that my objections will be deleted if i post them there. Isn't that a way of saying "Don't bother mate... it's already taken care of!"? It is obvious that this is done in order to avoid flooding the page with objections, but doesn't that also proclaim the vast number of people who object? I couldn't help noticing the same attitude in the talk page i was directed, along with sayings of dead horses and men poking them. I don't want to be graphic, but since Greeks and the people of FYROM cannot agree for the time being, why doesn't wikipedia use the only name acceptable by both parties, as stated by the agreement signed by both,which is FYROM? Many have proposed so, yet all were dispelled rather harshly, if i may say so. FYROM was accepted by the leadership in Skopje and it exists in order to be used in circumstances like this. If they were offended i believe they wouldn't have accepted it. I hope that the virtues proclaimed by Wikipedia will be applied more actively, since i am but one of those who find your attitude regarding the issue rather unilateral.
thank you for your time, Alfadog777 ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How does the stance of Greece regarding the dispute affect the name by which FYROM is addressed in Wikipedia? The change of name is being asked by hundreds of Wikipedia users, not Greece or the Greek government in Athens. The actions of governments are not dictated by Wikipedia nor can Greece or FYROM be punished by it. From the way you state it JDEJ, it seems that the name remains in order to punish Greece for its actions. When did Wikipedia become a vigilante of international politics? Also i believe the standing name was applied long before FYROM was denied an invitation to start talks.Last but of the outmost importance is the fact that Greece NEVER vetoed the invitation of FYROM. Instead, a large number of NATO members expressed their desire to accept FYROM in NATO with the name dispute resolved and other criteria met.It was thus decided to postpone the invitation, as is the case with the EU invitation. Also, i would like a responsible answer to my previous post by an administrator, please not arguments and questions. I have no desire to argue with anyone in particular, i think it is quite pointless in this case.
Thank You, Alfadog777 ( talk) 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, all other countries were worried beacause of name problem... just Greece was not???? Helllooo!!!???
There are proper places for jokes. This is not one. -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Good evening,
The opinions expressed by the wikipedia editors are absurd and somehow demagogical. So, if USA wants to call itself Ruler Of The World then everyone should accept it, somehow hypocritical. The name Macedonia has to be defined otherwise it will include some other ethnicities which are already geographically defined. To say, my fellow Americans 'Macedonia' is not like Athens of Ohio or Georgia. The Balkans have history of more than 232 years, thousands. It is not only the tree which will follow if Skopje wins but the whole forest, raising issues of the past without any historical substance. UNfortunately (UN with USA undermining any dialogue), electronic encyclopaedias, television, contests etc. every possible expression which can form and influence an opinion should be more careful and no, FYROM will not complain because if you saw or watched the Olympics of 2008 in Beijing the name on the sign was FYROM.
I would like to apologise If I was a bit rough.
Kind Regards Antonios
Snip comment on nationalities
|
---|
Fortunately enough, there's a beacon of hope in this dark world, and that's Greece. Only Greece is wise and intelligent enough to settle these matters. While the rest of the world is full of narrow-minded, POV-pushers who don't understand the issues they debate, Greece sets a shining example to the world by its delicate handling of the Macedonian-issue. The whole world is wrong and respecting independent countries is wrong, but Greece is always right. |
Remove comment on nationalities
|
---|
|
Unbelievable you have cut my last phrase! Freedom of speech? In one of the previous pages one of the admins characterised me as blithering idiot and then they erased the phrase. Continue the good work wiki! Antonios
To be fair, Greece has never said "we should not let countries pick their own name". It goes without saying that we should, when it actually is their own name. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Κέκρωψ, I would not expect any better comment from your side as it is obvious that wikipedia ignores all the above facts mentioned by many people above. Unfortunately, apart from the name issue, things like compensation of the slavic macedonian people, because only your prime minister knows the reason only why, can cause harm and nothing else. Geographically speaking, Macedonia as you know from your beloved wiki includes territories in three countries (Bulgaria, Greece & FYROM). From my point of view to avoid any misunderstanding, Slavomacedonia is a name which perfectly defines FYROM as a country -language & location-. Of course all of these were spoken above but if my country was calling itself Liverpool and recognised only from Turkey with such name then I would prefer , always for the time being, the official one which is FYROM. It is not only the name, but Mr. Gruevski's weird demands which can destroy every possible effort for a solution to be found. He has not even taken a step back. Issues like: civil wars(Croatia vs Serbia), Turkish invasion in Cyprus, Romanian dictatorship, Kossovo and now the name issue with whatever will come with it -let's be honest- destroys every effort for a peaceful future.
Kind Regards Antonios
Most people are more familiar with the historical term Macedonia, because it is part of Greek history, and that is admitted by every scholar, except the ones in Skopje. Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, not Slavic, and that is admitted by every scholar, including the ones in Skopje. Why should Greece and Macedonia in particular pass their history to FYROM ? It is irrational to change history as it is known for thousands of years, since ancient Greeks started writing down history systematically , just because FYROM has launched a full scale propaganda with every means available. Alfadog777 ( talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that the article be moved to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, per the relevant Wikipedia policy on naming conventions: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In other words, the most common English term takes first preference, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case the next most common term should be used. " Macedonia", the most common term in the language, is also the name of a number of other places, while the next most common, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is unique to the country in question. The term currently used, "Republic of Macedonia", is largely an artefact of Wikipedia and the country's government and does not enjoy widespread use in the English language. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
What about Macedonia (country)?-- Patton t/ c 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this shouldn't descend into a debate about the form of disambiguation. It's a simple question of choosing the most common term in English that is also unambiguous. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Be careful what you ask for, Kekrops. I just did a survey of mainstream encyclopedias; there's clearly been a move by many of them in recent years to the unadorned name "Macedonia". Britannica, for instance, now uses that name by itself. I found eleven using "Macedonia", five using "Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of" (or variants thereof) and just one using "Macedonia, Republic of". By that token, we should move this article to Macedonia, no? (I'm not seriously proposing this, by the way - just pointing out that the situation is not quite as Kekrops is painting it.) -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Greece#FYROM and in particular Kekrops' comment of 16:32, 24 March 2009, it's quite clear that this discussion has been started as an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Given that, I'm closing this discussion to avert further disruption. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely not a WP:POINT, and what sparked it is irrelevant. Kekrops' argumentation for the proposed move is perfectly valid. The dismissive nature of the move to this subpage is also quite problematic. ChrisO is a serially involved editor from the first days of this dispute, and should be very cautious of his administrative actions being an involved party with a known opinion. I question the move to the subpage and this "closing". Niko Silver 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a very cheap excuse there in the closing comment, in lack of a proper answer to a concrete argument. Bad faith, heavy bias or plain unperceptiveness, what is it ? And what ever happened to the common decency of just abstaining ? -- Δρακόλακκος ( talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with the majority of users in that closing this discussion was the wrong thing to do. I see it as an attempt to gag an arguably good change proposal. Even if Kekrops had started this as an attempt at WP:POINT, the mere fact that people reacted positively towards this proposal implies that it was an arguably good change proposal, whereas ChrisO's move was for no reason other than "out of process". Going by the same reasoning, one could just as well claim that this was clearly an attempt at WP:POINT on behalf of ChrisO, as this exact scenario is referenced in WP:POINT's examples ( Tu quoque). I really don't want to get into arguments like these, as it seems that the whole thing is circular. In light of that, let us all observe that WP:POINT is merely a behavioral guideline, while WP:IAR is official Wikipedia policy.
Finally, I want to touch on the subject of the naming consensus that has existed since "at least 2003". I agree that there probably was some sort of consensus that did result back then, but it is not true that things haven't changed in the past six years. Wikipedia as a community has more than doubled its members since then! The people whose opinions formed the consensus in 2003 are now a minority whose views no longer represent the views of the community. I'm not saying that wikipedia is majority ruled, but neither is it minority ruled, it is ruled by consensus. I'm saying that if the majority has a POV, then they should be allowed to use the proper channels to try to turn it into a new consensus. From what I've seen so far, that's probably the reason why this "consensus" remained standing for six years... because every time one of the newer members tries to challenge the "consensus", they are stopped with "None of the arguments have changed. Nor have any of the facts on the ground [...] There really is no valid reason to reopen this question now and this move proposal has zero chance of success". The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it never allows for change, progress or fresh ideas and that it doesn't take WP:CCC into account at all! That said, feel free try to rebut my reasoning ad nauseum, just be polite and understanding as I'm a newbie :) -- Radjenef ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Formal request done at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Survey. Please make only constructive comments about the renaming itself, and don't comment on other editors. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. Same advice as above. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Some facts:
-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I referred to the fact that for the rest of the world FYROM=Macedonia ... Most of the world does not know about any other contemporary Macedonia.Except amoung Greeks.-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And what if you wanted to call yourself Greece next year? -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fun fact, Greece isn't called by its constitutional name. Its constitutional name is Hellas. -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The official name of this country is :Република Македонија transliterrated as Republika Makedonija translated in English as Republic of Macedonia and as such recognized by USA (67% of native English speakers)
Plus United Kingdom and Ireland that makes vast majority -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
How can they call themselves macedonians?means they recognize great alexander as theyr ruller and adobt names of greek historical nations(macedonian means greek-so what they say is fyrom = greece >..that cant be happening!!!!macedonians were ancient greeks ,speaked greek lived as greeks .....how can you claim something else .....If you want to use the name of our ancient fathers you should consider using also our laws and ethics..what im saying is..you say our leader (your ruller)is now also your leader ?except the name facts show you havent used anything else from that culture.(names,laws,ethics,lifestyle and most of all language)so how can this be your leader??.....Let the world decide ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I´m not Greek I insist on keeping the official name - FYROM. Wikipedia shouldn´t support any falsification of history! Keep the official international name - Republic of Macedonia is acknowledgen by Turkey only! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip36 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about the "republic of Macedonia" contains misleading information and inappropriate content. Under UN agreement in no way should any document state the F.Y.R.O.M. under the name of Macedonia of Republic of Macedonia.
This article should be put under the F.Y.R.O.M. one and should be protected. I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia will act accordingly to best of everybody's interest. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Deafakos (
talk •
contribs) 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not answer to the UN, nor any other body. We make distinctions for article based on our own evaluations, it appears that the common English
name Republic of Macedonia, or just simply Macedonia. This is also what the country calls it self. This article is not the first, nor the last name dispute, but in this case, if you look t the pages archives you will find that you are only one of hundreds of people who complained, we've been over this before. If we changed the name to FYROM, the people in Skopje would be just as offended as the Greeks. The horse is dead, stop flogging it.
Samuell
Lift me up or put me down 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
SO you believe it is better to abuse it than change it to something mutually accepted... This is a pretty "undemocratic" way of thinking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.190.34 ( talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt Samuell is an official Wikipedia admin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.139.110 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, the name FYROM is not mutually accepted, otherwise the country would call itself that. Wikipedia is not a democracy
we work by consensus and discussion, not voting. And being an
admin just gives you a few technical features such as deleting and protecting pages, it doesn't make you a spokesperson or give you much authority. The policies that support what I said before can be found
here and
here.
Samuell
Lift me up or put me down 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are contadicting youself here. How can you reach a consensus without democratic processes and no voting? There is no consensus without measuring the "consensus". If someone reports something ABUSIVE about you and this person claimed that it was true then what would you do? Naming FYROM as Republic of Macedonia is abusive to Greeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafakos ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And naming Macedonia FYROM is abusive to Macedonians. Silvery Swirls ( talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't FYROM call itself Vardarska or Paeonia? Would it offend them? Is it more fair to take a nation's history (I'm referring to Greece) and call it your own? What kind of justice is this? 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is only by survival instinct that skopje want to take greece's history, i would too if i had no history of my own worth talking about, but we should just stick to the facts here and all agree that no matter how much anyone tries to take other nations historical facts and make them their own, we the people will not allow it."Macedonia and Alexander the Great are and will always be Greek" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.116.111 ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
imo FYROM should call itself Vardaska - Marku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevarden ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
FYROM or Rep of Makedonia-Makedonia (as you like to call it in here) has nothing to do with Great Alexander's ancient Makedonian Empire. The people of FYROM are a mixed slavic breed that talk in a Bulgarian dialect and write by using the Cyrillic alphabet (like the Russians do for example). They live in their own pseudomakedonian little world believing that they are the descendants of Great Alexander and love making claims around without real proof. By calling FYROM as <<Makedonia>> is a falsification of history and a provocation against Greece. -- 79.166.23.249 ( talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
From yugoslavs to macedonians?????????? how that come?Pls comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyromgamiese ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As soon as the latest NATO decision has been postponed, the name should be changed to FYROM. Anything else violates the temporary decision in 1992 about this country's name. Now if you want just to obey to what the USA says, you may keep it as 'Macedonia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please move this whole page and all of its detial into Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia because that is exactly what it is. That is how the UN recognizes it and besides, Macedonia as a place is much bigger in Greece to where it culturally belongs. We can't go ignoring UN policy and more countries recognize FYROM including all of the improtant lands: Western and Central Europe etc. One more thing, Alexander the Great was not FYROM-Macedonian because he lived years before the Slavs came along. Antun Gustav ( talk) 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not answer to the UN or any other organization or country. The country calls itself Republic of Macedonia so that is the more common English name (and probably the most neutral). The horse is dead, stop flogging it. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it should be referred as FYROM simply as that's how UN recognizes -and they themselves accept it that way- and UN is the ultimate place for any de-jure recognition of any state (along with name etc).I mean that's start up things for anyone involved in politics and international law.Otherwise we could name ourselves Republic of Apache and claim billions of dollars for Apache genocide by settlers.Or the Hustler's Republic and hustle anyone within our territory.I mean there is a law you know and UN are the ultimate judge on this law. BTW how ROM is the most "neutral" name.Hhaha lol Eagle of Pontus ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please kickbankill BalkanFever for trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.51.67 ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Until the naming dispute is solved FYROM is the generaly accepted name. Only the US recognised Scopje with its constitutional name. Because of that they should be ignored (the US) by the general public. Their opinion (because is only an opinion) shouldn't be taken into account seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamatisg ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Macedonia" is total anti-Greek POV and fully Skopjan nationalist POV. Please, rename the article to FYROM as stated by the United Nations and stop trolling and vandalizing the page with your nationalist POV. 87.219.84.68 ( talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, if Wikipedia and the administrators believe they are objective then I strongly recommend that they don't allow propaganda and nationalism in this site 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
of censorship and has used censorship on Greek users. He is becoming annoying with his obstinacy and his will to harm Greeks. I suggest some administrator look into the behavior of this user together with all others that have posted anti-Greek comments, as they are repeatedly attacking Greek users alongside their propaganda, lies and insults such as the above, calling them racists. It is a real proof that Macedonia is Greek and that FYROMians are trying to usurp Greek history and territory, and he is the kind of person that supports such terrorist acts. 87.221.4.107 ( talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no country named Macedonia, and if you dont know this you can jump to United Nations site and check it out. There are so many other issues, but i think its stupid to even mention them. Of course Alexander the Great was Greek. He spoke Greek. Why these half Albanians-half Slavs dont speak Greek (if they are Macedonians?). ¶ So, its wise for all Greek people to take legal action against wikipedia, cause our History is the most important thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitas72 ( talk • contribs)
No court in the world would take a lawsuit, we are not required to call the country FYROM. And please don't insult anyone, regardless of what ethnicity they are, if they want their own country, they can have it, and they can call it what they like. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. Let's everyone send a CEASE AND DESIST letter to wikipedia! Enough is enough! 213.97.51.67 ( talk) 13:2http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107738.html2, 1 April 2008 (UTC)/
By naming this article as Republic of Macedonia you do not follow the policy of Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia. Once again, the official name of the country you call "Macedonia" is Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia according to U.N.. If you do not obey Wikipedia's policy and rules then Wikipedia is blogctionary (blog & dictionary) in which anyone can say what they think about a topic. In this way, Wikipedia cannot "compete" Britanicca within 100,000,000,000,000,000 milleniums!!!! Goal of Wikipedia is to inform and not to misinform! To sum up, I call the moderators or/and the administrator of the English Wikipedia to rename this article or else this article must be deleted because of Point Of View of the writer/s. Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia
Dear JdeJ could you explain me why do you support Skopje? I ask once again from the administrator and the moderators to rename this article from "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia-F.Y.R.O.M." provisionally until the United Nations decide the name of F.Y.R.O.M.. This is the only solution! The site
infoplease.com says that: "The UN recognized the Republic of Macedonia on April 8, 1993, under the temporary name the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Respect greek history and Greece.
Chronis_25 Greek User of Wikipedia
I just cant get it. why Skopians wanna be named Macedonians? It is pretty weird cause Macedonia is a greek word and has always been one of the Greek races. Why do Skopians get isolated from other countries and why did they change their history books in 1991? And of course a country cant just use any name that desires cause "Re of Mac" to historians sounds like the russians changed their name to f... USA ! . Weird?? Just open some neutral history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why should 'former' be spelled without capitals? I'm just curious. diego_pmc ( talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me speak here. I have posted again and it appears that somebody deleted my post but nonetheless, I believe it's the right of everyone to post their ideas. I think that we all are hiding behind our bare fingers, trying to persuade the world that Vardarska is in fact the nation of Macedonia. This nation is the making of Tito and the independence of Vardarska in the early 1990s. What I see that makes me utterly disappointed is the very fact that nationalists and fanatics have the control of this article and don't allow different opinions to be heard. By all means I could call my house the independent, ethnic state of London, New York, Alsace or Rome.
According to the same logic, I can say that it was my fathers that forged the British Empire, my fathers that made the USA or claim that I'm an ethnic Alsacian (We all know that this territory contains german and french populace) or even claim that the Roman Empire was my ethnic territory and claim it through propaganda.
Tell me: Would this appeal to any of you? Would this get this encyclopedia any further? Would extreme nationalism and propaganda benefit any of us? Since I started visiting this site I believed that it was objective and that it was in fact a site that checks all information, and by that I mean historical sources and not proclaimations of people. Why would the Skopians feel offended if they were to be called with their true name? Slavomacedonians or Vardar Macedonians would sound offensive? But wouldn't it be more offensive for the regions of Macedonia in Bulgaria and Greece to have an actual state being called with their name? I haven't seen such problems rise between Bulgaria and Greece since the Balkan Wars and WW2.
To conclude, I speak as an objective person that sees Greece and Bulgaria more offended than the Skopians themselves. What I see is a direct violation of history, political protocols and above all, national heritage. If the Skopians direly want to be called with the name "Macedonia" the only thing they need to consider is paying taxes to Greece.
I believe that as many of you claim that this site is objective you will allow this post to be read by visitors. Truly yours 79.130.177.215 ( talk) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Objective person?? Don't make us laugh! -- Áñtò | Ãňţõ ( talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Laugh while you still can, you seem to conveniently forget that for the things you talk here today people in my country have died to defend them. You got no right to play the boss that says what's right and what's wrong. POV? WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF IT. It exists only when people like me try to earn their right. If you find that nice then FINE, you don't deserve to be read or to be replied to, that was my last reply on the matter, I know I'm a Greek Macedonian cause I'm feeling that way, I know my history and I don't give a damn what you do or say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 ( talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
About the Macedonia name conflict, The Economist wrote:
Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10879850
Very funny! LOL Good job people, you are an Olympic team!!!! ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I saw that wiki uses the name "Re.. of Mac.. " and also in ancient history they put the greek history,, wiki became so small to my eyes...
From now on I will disband wiki ..
if you cant learn something right , just dont learn it..
Even the word Encyclopedia is Greek .. omg.. and the word wikipedia also... so wiki just make your name in a skopian way like eijvsldgk;aldk s;dlgk sldgkj;alkgj .
Bye :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.169.3 ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess you love saying that ey Enric? So much hatred behind words. Wikipedia has a bunch of retard nationalists (Skopian) under the protection of people in western countries thinking that they can do whatever they want. If that's what you like so be it. I see now that this place isn't worthy of having visitors, if it's working as propaganda against Greece and Bulgaria. I don't play the victim like the nationalists above, I need the mercy of no one, if you find it PLEASURABLE for you to make Greece be the "bad guys" THEN FINE, you don't deserve to have a proper conversation in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.104 ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
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) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss for the history of macedonia since there is nothing to argue about,everyone that have study even a litle about history know the truth.I am going to give a simple example about what will happen if greeks dont do anything about the name issue and just leave fyrom to be call as they want. Yesterday i was talking with a friend of mine from Moldavia and he ask me why Greece make all that noise with the name issue of Macedonia. I show him the map of greece and told him that Macedonia is the north part of Greece e.t.c ..... and he answers back to me i can understand now why you have that position and then he told me that both romania and ukraine have some regions of them and they call there regions moldavia and they were before moldavias teritories.I dont know what is true about moldavia but i know if now will let them have their country name as our region Macedonia after some years these people going to say the exacly same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.55.194 ( talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't come here to fight. Of course not. But, if you take into account the fact that Greece and Skopje are now into a "political war", then I believe that you'll be able to understand that the name problem hasn't been resolved yet. This means that you should use the OFFICIAL NAME of the country, which is Skopje, when you are going to refer it to your article. Naming it "Republic of Macedonia" means that the only thing you're managing to succeed is trying to persuade the majority of internet users worldwide (because they are the majority of the people, too and they have a lot "hidden power" into their mind) to use that such a name of that country. So, I advise you to change it to Skopje or AT LEAST at F.Y.R.O.M. in order not to get into trouble with the Greek Politicians and many other people all over the world that know the truth about that topic. That's all from me!
I hope you'll take my opinion into account... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangelis-Ts ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What Greek politicians think ?? booo booo booo
Very important . We are so scared how some bunch of politicians thinks about this issue.
We all do respect culture of ancient Greek culture. But that does not give monopole to modern Greece for "truth" in this case.
Macedonians have right to calle their country as they want to .!! Those Greek insistings of renaming of the country is indescend and nonsence. We two countries named Kongo , two countries named Korea ...
There is only one Macedonia and that is one whose capital is Skopje. That is the OFFICIAL NAME of the country and only accurate one. The province of Greece with the same name is for Greek usage only . -- Anto ( talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia was not influenced by anyone. we chose what is the common English name. If you are still dissatisfied I suggest you go the the [ Greek Wikipedia's article] on The Republic of Macedonia, which uses Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, because it is the common Greek name. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are not Greek, you cannot be Macedonian. It's plain simple. Macedonians were Hellenes, you are Slavs. You changed your name from Vardarska Badovina to Macedonia in 1950 with your beloved Tito. What are you trying to pull now?
-- 87.221.5.107 ( talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You, Hellens, should stop torturing Macedonians and leave them . This is not period of Sokrates and your opinion is not in charge. -- Anto ( talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not ancient Europe but modern Europe in which majority know for only one Macedonia- Republic of Macedonia. If Macedonians decide to change their name it will be by their own decision - not somebody's else
Vardarska Banovina did not include just the territory of Republic of Macedonia-it include also contemporary Kosovo and southern Serbia . And Macedonians did call theselves with that name much before Tito came to power-which proves that you are not really informed abou the history of Yugoslavia-- Anto ( talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually... there is a precedent for forcing a state to change its name. After the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and from 1918 it was known as the Republic of German-Austria (Republik Deutsch-Österreich), but the state was forced to change its name to "Republic of Austria" in 1919 peace Treaty of Saint-Germain! It is now still known as Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.231.107 ( talk) 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is more important for wikipedia? How the country calls itself or under which name it is recognized by official international bodies?
Since wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it should adopt the name recognized by official international bodies. That name is FYROM. 77.49.116.95 ( talk) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
All hi, I think we all understand how many people are reading this and how much influence is placed on them by this lemma. The result is that Wiki is used as a mean of performing politics in or not in purpose - does not matter as the result matters. Consequently, the NPOV principle is offensed anyway (at least until a mutually agreed political decision is reached).
Therefore, I suggest that at least a POV disclaimer/indication is placed on the lema.
ThirstyThought (
talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand why should we consider how Greek or any other country see Macedonia is beeing called by some 3rd country. Greeks have right to call Macedonia with their own name. But they have no right to impose that name to others , especially not to Macedonians. And each nation has right to choose its name. -- Áñtò | Ãňţõ ( talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, stop pretending the defenseless people. Let's be plain for a second: FYROM has the support of NATO (A.K.A the USA) and that gives them a chance to ask for help pretending the defenseless and hunted people. You are not defenseless you have others backing your cause which corrupts your very dignity. No one would object if you would call yourselves "Republic of Vardarska" or "Republic of Southern Kosovo" or "Republic of Western Bulgaria". Oh, sure that would force you people to accept your roots, which are primarily Slav and Albanian. What I don't get out of this entire story is this: I haven't seen one Skopjan in the Internet say this: That you are descended from Slavs and have nothing to do with Alexander the Great etc etc. But, hey I also see that not a whisper that informs about the propaganda in a neutral way is uttered in Wikipedia. All I've seen, to my utter disgust to be honest, is both the citizens of that state and certain people that support them here in Wikipedia are not saying the stuff I've stated above and prefer to cover the goals of the name and the propaganda with the "I'm a defenseless puppy" attitude. Ah, and a note to the Americans that don't care or consider the matter worthless of discussion: When a certain brand of Vodka presented half the USA under the Mexican rule, there were lawsuits and much of a noise over there. May I ask why? You call the Greeks ridiculous and yet the more serious Americans are afraid of a petty Vodka commercial? I can say that there isn't much reasonability in our times but this is absolutely revolting. Answer carefully please and don't take this as a threat: If someone edits this post then I'll understand that there can't be arguements against mine which will in turn please me. Thank you. 85.75.229.173 ( talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is. I live in Canada, where we have a province named Ontario. Our neighbors to the south, the USA, have several places named Ontario, One is very close to our province. Nobody in either of the countries cares, no place is the real Ontario. The name long predates the current countries and Europeans in North America in General. It is simply a Huron word meaning " great lake." It is the same case here, the name predates the current national borders. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Question -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, i would like someone from the english wikipedia to inform me of the reasons why such an internationally controversial name as "Republic of Macedona" is used to refer to the spesific state instead of the internationally commonly used name of FYROM ordained. It is not the Fyromian wikipedia, but the english one and i believe it should be neutral on such a controversial matter, abiding by the internationally accepted practice.-- Dimorsitanos ( talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The main talk page talks clearly of discussion being done here that would make a change possible. What will it take for that to happen? -- Leladax ( talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This is getting a tad annoying, Leladax. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As the entire world witnessed, the very same country that claims to be "Macedonia" has appeared as "FYROM" in the Olympics Introduction Ceremony . They probably do not even believe what they claim themselves. I therefore do not see why the Wikipedia community has to consider the name anymore. The name should be permanently changed to "FYROM" , the country's official name, until the dispute with Greece is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsNT ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is for discussions on the name, not for discussion on how Balkan people think. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Regardless of what happens at the Olympics, the common English name is still Macedonia. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Enric, it's much better to just remove things than archive them in a banner shell. Balkan Fever not a fan? say so! 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Couple of sources that mention "Republic of Macedonia" and FYROM just as provisional name. no mather what people from FOPOY (Former ottoman pashalik of Yunanistan) think about that.-- Aradic-es ( talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a compliment. FOPOY and FYROM are essentially same things. 3rd party involvement into others' business.
I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. -- Aradic-es ( talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
and to Yannismarou and your buddies: this is not your feud . You may not remove the content just because you don't like it calling other user "throlls"
Perhaps on el.wiki but not on en.wiki-- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Aradic-es, we accept the name "FOPOY" if it is not used by any other country...lol
"I am sure you can invent smth. Yunanlar people are very inventive in that field. -- Aradic-es" Just like you invented the country on the north of Greece... The name of this "country"? Macedonia!!!
Dr. Hristo Tatarchev(one of the LEADERS of IMRO): "We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn't accept the position for "direct joining to Bulgaria" because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn't take part in our program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came later."
You can imaging the rest...bla, bla, bla...
As you see "Invention" is probably common to both Greece and fYRoM...
Stop being ironic and try to face the problem. How can Greece accept this name when a great part of her history is written on it?
Was there a "Macedonia" (the way you mean it) before the 90s? There was never such a country before. Even in the Balkan wars Greece fought against Bulgaria, Serbia and the Ottomans for Macedonia, which was a region not a country. You became part of Yugoslavia as part of Serbia, again not as a country.
I read some of your comments, not only in wiki, but in some other forums too and I realise that you are ashamed to call yourselves Slavs like this word is some kind of an insult... However, there are some of you who do not deny this fact. Instead, they believe that ancient Macedonians were Slavs.
At least make up your minds...
As long as there are poeple who don't agree on the name "Macedonia" and other who do, the name should be FYROM since both sides agreed on it in 1993...-- DIMISM2008 ( talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Couple things to mention :
This would be response to previous statemnts by User:DIMISM2008 and other Greek users about their historical right on the name "Macedonia"-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
For months, maybe years, we've been talking and arguing and now a subpage and a Arbitration case later, we haven't gotten anywhere, the article has not changed. Shouldn't we just stop wasting our time? We all have better things to do. We need to realize that things are going to have to change in the "real world" before the name of the article changes. We need to stop dragging our feet and work to improve Wikipedia instead of beating dead horses. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Crossthets ( talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the Manual of Style, I'm talking about this discussion. What do you mean? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I just believe that Wikipedia is just acting brutally, censoring changes and adopting ideas without any proper justification. Sadly there is no alternative to this encyclopedia and hence people will continue to read these inconsistencies. I am rather disappointed but that is how things are. Moreover, people from FYROM, continue to abuse and try to adopt a national identity. There is nothing wrong to that since they are trying to form a nation. It is funny most of them have a Bulgarian ID as well, since they can be Bulgarians (they speak the same language-bulgarian) just by stating so.
The falsification of truth harms any peaceful solution and wikipedia is just adding to this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.117.30 ( talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is accepted by government official and even worn on their id badges (PM Gruevski and his officials wore it at an industrial meeting in New York where the country received some form of a prize). There are numerous examples of this, after all it is the provisional appelation. This fact explains my clarification in my previous edit. Politis ( talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) comment moved from Talk:Republic of Macedonia -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a question aimed towards the admin or admins of this section. When i press the discussion box of the FYROM article, the first thing i see is a box routing me to this talk page, while informing me that my objections will be deleted if i post them there. Isn't that a way of saying "Don't bother mate... it's already taken care of!"? It is obvious that this is done in order to avoid flooding the page with objections, but doesn't that also proclaim the vast number of people who object? I couldn't help noticing the same attitude in the talk page i was directed, along with sayings of dead horses and men poking them. I don't want to be graphic, but since Greeks and the people of FYROM cannot agree for the time being, why doesn't wikipedia use the only name acceptable by both parties, as stated by the agreement signed by both,which is FYROM? Many have proposed so, yet all were dispelled rather harshly, if i may say so. FYROM was accepted by the leadership in Skopje and it exists in order to be used in circumstances like this. If they were offended i believe they wouldn't have accepted it. I hope that the virtues proclaimed by Wikipedia will be applied more actively, since i am but one of those who find your attitude regarding the issue rather unilateral.
thank you for your time, Alfadog777 ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How does the stance of Greece regarding the dispute affect the name by which FYROM is addressed in Wikipedia? The change of name is being asked by hundreds of Wikipedia users, not Greece or the Greek government in Athens. The actions of governments are not dictated by Wikipedia nor can Greece or FYROM be punished by it. From the way you state it JDEJ, it seems that the name remains in order to punish Greece for its actions. When did Wikipedia become a vigilante of international politics? Also i believe the standing name was applied long before FYROM was denied an invitation to start talks.Last but of the outmost importance is the fact that Greece NEVER vetoed the invitation of FYROM. Instead, a large number of NATO members expressed their desire to accept FYROM in NATO with the name dispute resolved and other criteria met.It was thus decided to postpone the invitation, as is the case with the EU invitation. Also, i would like a responsible answer to my previous post by an administrator, please not arguments and questions. I have no desire to argue with anyone in particular, i think it is quite pointless in this case.
Thank You, Alfadog777 ( talk) 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, all other countries were worried beacause of name problem... just Greece was not???? Helllooo!!!???
There are proper places for jokes. This is not one. -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Good evening,
The opinions expressed by the wikipedia editors are absurd and somehow demagogical. So, if USA wants to call itself Ruler Of The World then everyone should accept it, somehow hypocritical. The name Macedonia has to be defined otherwise it will include some other ethnicities which are already geographically defined. To say, my fellow Americans 'Macedonia' is not like Athens of Ohio or Georgia. The Balkans have history of more than 232 years, thousands. It is not only the tree which will follow if Skopje wins but the whole forest, raising issues of the past without any historical substance. UNfortunately (UN with USA undermining any dialogue), electronic encyclopaedias, television, contests etc. every possible expression which can form and influence an opinion should be more careful and no, FYROM will not complain because if you saw or watched the Olympics of 2008 in Beijing the name on the sign was FYROM.
I would like to apologise If I was a bit rough.
Kind Regards Antonios
Snip comment on nationalities
|
---|
Fortunately enough, there's a beacon of hope in this dark world, and that's Greece. Only Greece is wise and intelligent enough to settle these matters. While the rest of the world is full of narrow-minded, POV-pushers who don't understand the issues they debate, Greece sets a shining example to the world by its delicate handling of the Macedonian-issue. The whole world is wrong and respecting independent countries is wrong, but Greece is always right. |
Remove comment on nationalities
|
---|
|
Unbelievable you have cut my last phrase! Freedom of speech? In one of the previous pages one of the admins characterised me as blithering idiot and then they erased the phrase. Continue the good work wiki! Antonios
To be fair, Greece has never said "we should not let countries pick their own name". It goes without saying that we should, when it actually is their own name. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Κέκρωψ, I would not expect any better comment from your side as it is obvious that wikipedia ignores all the above facts mentioned by many people above. Unfortunately, apart from the name issue, things like compensation of the slavic macedonian people, because only your prime minister knows the reason only why, can cause harm and nothing else. Geographically speaking, Macedonia as you know from your beloved wiki includes territories in three countries (Bulgaria, Greece & FYROM). From my point of view to avoid any misunderstanding, Slavomacedonia is a name which perfectly defines FYROM as a country -language & location-. Of course all of these were spoken above but if my country was calling itself Liverpool and recognised only from Turkey with such name then I would prefer , always for the time being, the official one which is FYROM. It is not only the name, but Mr. Gruevski's weird demands which can destroy every possible effort for a solution to be found. He has not even taken a step back. Issues like: civil wars(Croatia vs Serbia), Turkish invasion in Cyprus, Romanian dictatorship, Kossovo and now the name issue with whatever will come with it -let's be honest- destroys every effort for a peaceful future.
Kind Regards Antonios
Most people are more familiar with the historical term Macedonia, because it is part of Greek history, and that is admitted by every scholar, except the ones in Skopje. Ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, not Slavic, and that is admitted by every scholar, including the ones in Skopje. Why should Greece and Macedonia in particular pass their history to FYROM ? It is irrational to change history as it is known for thousands of years, since ancient Greeks started writing down history systematically , just because FYROM has launched a full scale propaganda with every means available. Alfadog777 ( talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that the article be moved to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, per the relevant Wikipedia policy on naming conventions: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In other words, the most common English term takes first preference, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case the next most common term should be used. " Macedonia", the most common term in the language, is also the name of a number of other places, while the next most common, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is unique to the country in question. The term currently used, "Republic of Macedonia", is largely an artefact of Wikipedia and the country's government and does not enjoy widespread use in the English language. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
What about Macedonia (country)?-- Patton t/ c 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this shouldn't descend into a debate about the form of disambiguation. It's a simple question of choosing the most common term in English that is also unambiguous. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Be careful what you ask for, Kekrops. I just did a survey of mainstream encyclopedias; there's clearly been a move by many of them in recent years to the unadorned name "Macedonia". Britannica, for instance, now uses that name by itself. I found eleven using "Macedonia", five using "Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of" (or variants thereof) and just one using "Macedonia, Republic of". By that token, we should move this article to Macedonia, no? (I'm not seriously proposing this, by the way - just pointing out that the situation is not quite as Kekrops is painting it.) -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Greece#FYROM and in particular Kekrops' comment of 16:32, 24 March 2009, it's quite clear that this discussion has been started as an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Given that, I'm closing this discussion to avert further disruption. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely not a WP:POINT, and what sparked it is irrelevant. Kekrops' argumentation for the proposed move is perfectly valid. The dismissive nature of the move to this subpage is also quite problematic. ChrisO is a serially involved editor from the first days of this dispute, and should be very cautious of his administrative actions being an involved party with a known opinion. I question the move to the subpage and this "closing". Niko Silver 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a very cheap excuse there in the closing comment, in lack of a proper answer to a concrete argument. Bad faith, heavy bias or plain unperceptiveness, what is it ? And what ever happened to the common decency of just abstaining ? -- Δρακόλακκος ( talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with the majority of users in that closing this discussion was the wrong thing to do. I see it as an attempt to gag an arguably good change proposal. Even if Kekrops had started this as an attempt at WP:POINT, the mere fact that people reacted positively towards this proposal implies that it was an arguably good change proposal, whereas ChrisO's move was for no reason other than "out of process". Going by the same reasoning, one could just as well claim that this was clearly an attempt at WP:POINT on behalf of ChrisO, as this exact scenario is referenced in WP:POINT's examples ( Tu quoque). I really don't want to get into arguments like these, as it seems that the whole thing is circular. In light of that, let us all observe that WP:POINT is merely a behavioral guideline, while WP:IAR is official Wikipedia policy.
Finally, I want to touch on the subject of the naming consensus that has existed since "at least 2003". I agree that there probably was some sort of consensus that did result back then, but it is not true that things haven't changed in the past six years. Wikipedia as a community has more than doubled its members since then! The people whose opinions formed the consensus in 2003 are now a minority whose views no longer represent the views of the community. I'm not saying that wikipedia is majority ruled, but neither is it minority ruled, it is ruled by consensus. I'm saying that if the majority has a POV, then they should be allowed to use the proper channels to try to turn it into a new consensus. From what I've seen so far, that's probably the reason why this "consensus" remained standing for six years... because every time one of the newer members tries to challenge the "consensus", they are stopped with "None of the arguments have changed. Nor have any of the facts on the ground [...] There really is no valid reason to reopen this question now and this move proposal has zero chance of success". The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it never allows for change, progress or fresh ideas and that it doesn't take WP:CCC into account at all! That said, feel free try to rebut my reasoning ad nauseum, just be polite and understanding as I'm a newbie :) -- Radjenef ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Formal request done at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Survey. Please make only constructive comments about the renaming itself, and don't comment on other editors. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. Same advice as above. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Some facts:
-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I referred to the fact that for the rest of the world FYROM=Macedonia ... Most of the world does not know about any other contemporary Macedonia.Except amoung Greeks.-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And what if you wanted to call yourself Greece next year? -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fun fact, Greece isn't called by its constitutional name. Its constitutional name is Hellas. -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The official name of this country is :Република Македонија transliterrated as Republika Makedonija translated in English as Republic of Macedonia and as such recognized by USA (67% of native English speakers)
Plus United Kingdom and Ireland that makes vast majority -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)