Talk:North Macedonia

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

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

Law about albanian

Please notice that the Macedonian constituion says

"The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia.

In the units of local self-government where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in a manner determined by law.

In the units of local self-government where there is a considerable number of inhabitants belonging to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use, in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet, under conditions and in a manner determined by law." [1].

Now, just a few days ago a national law was passed that "doesn't allow for use of Albanian or any other minority language as a second official language on Macedonia's territory" [2]

So, if you are going to make an argument about keeping the albanian name on the lead, then please make it about linguistic minorities, historical stuff, etc, and not about the languages section of the constitution, as their constitution allows for laws to regulate the official languages and albanian has now been regulated as not being an official language. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanians comprise 30 % of the population of Macedonia and it is very natural to include the Albanian name as well. The constitution states that Albanian language is also official where Albanians are majority or have more than 20 %. The news you are refering to that says Albanian is not official since the parliament has passed a new law, lacks facual accuracy. The new law was passed to improve the staus of the Albanian language and is a part of the deal between Gruevski and Ali Ahmeti. I do not know how much you can about law but a law can not change the constitution. All laws that are in conflict with the constituion are ilegal and therefore I don't buy the lie that the parliament decided to make Albanian "unofficial". The largest Albanian daily in Macedonia, Lajm Maqedoni, had this news on 26.07.2008: Albanians language, official language in Macedonia, if you can Albanian you can read it here: http://www.lajmpress.com/index.php?faqe=shfaqlajm&id=2364. The new law only regulates the communication between the parliament and the government. Albanians in the parliament if the conditions are met will be able to communicate in Albanian with the Macedonian government. Mina seems to be based in Canada and is not neutral as far as I can see. Even if you contest Albanian being official in Macedonia we can use the population-percentage argument. 30 % of the people there call it "Republika e Maqedonisë". I will include it now. Hope you don't have anything against it. PS: I understand Serbs being nationalists since they can look back at a Serbian state some 700 years ago, but I don't understand Slavic Macedonians. --NOAH (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, Albanians make up 25% of the total population, not 30%. Second, the new law that passed a few days ago did not make Albanian unofficial because Albanian was never official. Third, since Mina is based in Canada wouldn't that make it neutral? Canada is one of the most neutral countries on Earth. Fourth, in March 2008, the Democratic Party of Albanians walked out of parliament because six demands that they had were not met. One of those demands was that the Albanian language be made official [3](see 6th paragraph). Since there has been no announcement that the demand has not been met, the Albanian language has not been made official. Thus, I am taking the Albanian name out.-- Justmakingonearticle 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are complitely wrong. The law on the languages used between the parliament and the government of Macedonia, was proposed by Ali Ahmeti's BDI and do you think they would have proposed a law that goes against Albanian interests. Do you? The law is part of the deal between Ahmeti and Gruevski, you have read or seen on TV that they have formed government together. You seems to know very little about Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia does not list the names on different languages based on which languages are official but what is relevant. Here it is relevant to take with Albanian because 30 % of the people speak Albanian, Macedonia borders both Kosovo and Albania and the Constituion of Macedonia makes Albanian an official langauge. Racist attempts to not include Albanian will not give any fruits. You and your friends are trying to equalize Rep. of Macedonia with Slavic Macedonians but you comprise 60 % of the population. The others should also be heard and Wikipedia is edited according to neutral point of view. I once againg ask you to read your country's constitution and don't make childish statements. A consitution can NOT be changed by a law. Albanian is official language in Macedonia in all cites where Albanians have at least 20 % of the population. In addition the passports of Albanians are both in Macedonian and Albanian (remember this applys only to ethnic Albanians in Macedonia). Some examples: http://tetovo.gov.mk/, is both in Albanin and Macedonian, http://www.struga.gov.mk/, both in Albanian and Macedonian with Albanians as dfeault language. You see these are government sites and Albanian is official. No more to say about this. Your edit is reverted. --NOAH (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right about one thing: Wikipedia does not list names in different languages based on which languages are official but what is relevant. But the thing is that this is the Republic of Macedonia, not the Republic of Albania or Kosovo or any other entity of a Greater Albania. Thus, Albanian is irrelevant. And just because Macedonia borders Albania and Kosovo, doesn't mean it needs to be included (ex: France does not include the German name). I am not sure what you mean by "fruits" but I am not being racist, I am being politically correct. You say that Albanian is official in municipalities where Albanians make up at least 20% of the total population, which is correct. However, this law says nothing about minorities making up 20% of the entire country.-- Justmakingonearticle 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I ask you to stop with your nationalistic POV and respect the fact that Albanians comprise 30 % of the people in Macedonia and that Albanian is official language in Macedonia, including in Skopje/Shkup. Take a look at the website of the Skopje muncipality. Do you see a language button with Albanian eagle?? http://www.skopje.gov.mk/en/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=1. --NOAH (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to an Albanian version on the Skopje website (no eagle though), to the right of the English button.

Let me make a suggestion here. There is a comparable example in my own country, the United Kingdom. The official languages of the UK are English and Welsh, and public bodies are obliged by law to publish material in both languages. Gaelic is also spoken in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, that language only enjoys official status in the municipalities where it is most widely spoken. It is not a national language in the same sense as English or Welsh.

What editors need to do, therefore, is find some law or constitutional provision (comparable to the Welsh Language Act 1993 in the UK) that mandates Albanian as a national language, with equivalent status to Macedonian throughout the country. If Albanian is only mandated in certain areas then it is by definition not a national language. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? Wikipedia is not obliged to follow Macedonian laws and we shouldn't do it either. We have to follow NPOV and that means we should include how 30 % of the people call that country. All other alternatives would be racist since other groups other than Slavic Macedonians are discriminated. Albanian is an official language in Rep. Macedonia/FYROM and should be included. By the way this article is biased towards Slavic Macedonian and should be edited to reflect that almost 40 % of that country's population is other than Slavic. I will come back to that.--NOAH (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. So until some documentation is found that says that the Albanian language is offical in Macedonia, then it will be kept out.-- Justmakingonearticle 1:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where have you lived for the past 7 years but Albanian has been official for many years now. Like it or not. I have provided many links(gov. websites of Skopje, Tetovo, Struga) so I wonder what more do you want? --NOAH (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Albanian is not official on a national level in the Republic of Macedonia. That's why the Albanians are complaining. If it was official, they wouldn't be complaining. Obviously. Albanian is official in some municipalities, as are Turkish, Aromanian, Serbian and Romany. And Noah, please stop throwing the word "racist" around. Please be WP:CIVIL. BalkanFever 06:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much right, BalkanFever. Noah, Wikipedia is not "obliged to follow Macedonian laws". What we are obliged to do is reflect accurately the effect of those laws. If the Albanian language has equal national status with Macedonian, like Swedish in Finland, then it's appropriate to give both versions of the country's name in the intro. (See the top of the Norway, Sweden and Switzerland articles for examples of how countries with two or more equal-status national languages are treated.) But as far as I'm aware, nobody here has yet cited a source that states that Albanian is an equal-status national language, as opposed to a regionally-mandated language like Basque or Scots Gaelic. In such cases, we don't present them in article intros as equal to the national language. (See the top of Spain for an example - note the lack of Basque, Catalan or Gallego names for the country). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's tough for me; I must accept that, but I do have to agree with both BalkanFever and ChrisO. There is no law or constitutional article upgrading Albanian to a "national-level language". And it is not just the case of Spain Chris mentioned, but of Albania as well; I do not see the Greek name (Albania has a Greek minority in its south) in the country's intro. So, let's keep things the way they are throughout all similar wikipedia articles. And do not evoke again the country's constitution as you did in one of your reverted edits, because it does not say what you argue it says!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the users above. Personally, I think Albanian should be official in Macedonia (and I think the same thing about many other regional languages in different countries) but that is not the case. Looking at countries with significant minorities such as Spain, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia and others, they always give the name onlyin the official languages of the countries, not in regional languages and/or languages of large minorities. Only when more than one language is an official language of the whole country, as in Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland and others, does Wikipedia display names in those languages. In other words, this is very simple case. As long as Wikipedia has the present policy, we're not going to follow an alternative policy for Macedonia. JdeJ (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I now noticed that the country's motto is presented to be the same with Greece's. I may be an ignorant on the issue, but I would like to know where this motto is officially mentioned, because I see no explanation in the article, no citation, no link. Per WP:VERIFY I would like to know if indeed this is the country's motto.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By "presented to be the same with Greece's" do you suggest that the motto was stolen? You're other points might be valid (maybe another Macedonian knows more about the motto, sourcing etc.) but I hope this isn't one of those "Skopjan theft" arguments that have been going around time and time again. BalkanFever 10:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is irrelevant and does not cover me. At least I can tell you that Greece used this motto during the Revolution of 1821. When did FYROM's people exactly use it?

This motto is neither in the List of national mottos. Anyway, provide sources per WP:VERIFY that this is indeed the country's motto or it will be removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True, same for Greece actually. It's unsourced over there too. In my understanding, a "country motto" should only be included if it's officially legislated. Is this motto contained somewhere in the Greek constitution or something like that, where national symbols are defined, along with the flag and the anthem? I have no doubt people in both nations use it and regard it as a national symbol of sorts, but that's really not the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The motto in the case of Greece comes from the flag itself. As Wikipedian's article says "It is still in use today, and is symbolically evoked by the use of 9 stripes (for the nine syllables of the motto) in the Greek flag." So, the motto in the case of Greece is an integral part of the flag itself. Any use of the motto in the search engines links to Greece-related web pages. I just mention Notabilia, where you can see that the motto was indeed written on the first Greek flags. Can anybody find something similar for FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yannismarou, I said your point about sourcing might be valid, but I myself don't know. And could you please not sound so demanding? It really doesn't matter at all what you can tell me about 1821. I merely pointed out that your original comment seemed a bit like an accusation. If it wasn't, sorry, but that's pretty much all that one sees on this page. BalkanFever 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. I just ask for the implementation of WP:VERIFY. I just say that in the case of Greece the motto appears in a series of flags, and was officially used during the ervolution of 1821 (and this is not OR). It is also an integral part of the current flag. I want to know what is the case for FYROM. If there is no basis for its use in FYROM's page, it should go. If there is, then ok! That's all!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, was it ever part of an official flag of the Greek state? Those that you linked to were apparently private banners of some warlords or local communities. And of course there was no Greek state in 1821 that possibly could have had an offical motto. As for the modern flag, I don't quite see the link - "symbolically evoked by the use of 9 stripes (for the nine syllables of the motto)" is a bit far-fetched, unless that interpretation is itself enshrined in some officially legislated definition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The first flag you see in Notablilia was official used during the Greek Revolution (let's just note that this flag and the motto constituted the official emblem of Filiki Eteria). Allow me also when I go home to check the revolutionary constitutions, but the flags which led to the creation of the official flag of Greece and you see in Notabilia already had the motto. I just hope that its use during the Greek Revolution is not questioned here, because this is indeed far-fetched. In any case, if you have a problem about the Greek motto, you are free to go to the country's talk page and raise the issue. Here we are in the FYROM's page, and we discuss about itsd motto. And I just ask not for legal binding texts, but just for some historical indications that it was ever used by FYROM's people!!! Where is the historical background of the motto concerning FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was apparently used on revolutionary banners during the Ilinden uprising, for one thing, so the insurgency background would be somehow similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Source?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One such banner is pictured on the Ilinden uprising page. I agree some backing from the secondary literature would be good of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak about the picture Image:Ohrid Banner1.jpg? But the caption says that this is the Bulgarian flag. Am I missing something? And, of course, just a picture of a banner with no further supporting material is not enough to prove that this was an established motto.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The caption (which was written by a bunch of well-known Bulgarian POV warriors, but that only as an aside) relates to the fact that the banner uses the colors of the Bulgarian flag, sure. But it was the banner used by the revolutionaries in Macedonia, to whom the current Macedonian nation likes to trace its origins, for better or worse. (Besides, of course, "just a picture with no supporting material" is still about as much as we have for the Greek motto, when it comes to usage on flags.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, by a bunch of well-known Bulgarian POV warriors? Didn't see that coming. Are we talking about the Bulgarian flag on the article - the one that was used in the April uprising as well and is definitely the white-green-and-red of Bulgaria. Seems like it, why should the caption be POV? Sorry, no POV pushing there - this is the BG flag as simple as that. Now to the topic since this is what lead me here. I don't think there should be a problem with the motto. For instance, tons of countries have the same one as Bulgaria. I was translating the article in Bulgarian the other day and saw 4-5 countries (besides Belgium of which I knew and also knew was the country that inspired Bulgaria to use the motto) with exactly the same (Unity makes strength) or the slightly different Unity is strength. Therefore such repeating mottos don't seem like a problem in any context (political or whatever). I tried to find out an official usage of the motto though and couldn't find it on any of the top RoM governmental web-sites. MKpedia doesn't show it either. Despite that I do remember seeing it somewhere. I've remembered it like that and the source was certainly not WIkipedia, but I don't seem to know how exactly I acquired the info. --Laveol ^T 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that?! It is outrageous to make this comparison, when there is such a bibliography that it was the official motto of the Greek Revolution; namely when the Hellenic Republic was shaped. The comparison of one flag the caption says is Bulgarian and you say is "Slav-Macedonian" with no supporting material with the use of "Eleftheria i Thanatos" in the Greek case is outrageous! Just go to any search engine you want, and if you find "Freedom or Death" related to FYROM, come and tell me about. And allow me to remind you once more that this is the FYROM's page and we speak about its moto; if you have a problem with the Greek motto go to the Greece page, and raise the issue there. Wherever in the net or in Wikipedia itself click "Freedom or Death", you will find a reference to Greece. To FYROM?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, who placed the motto in FYROM's article here the first place?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Give it up Yannis please. They - this page is answerable to no one. No one will support the Greeks here. They can do what they want with this page. We have been for ages here removing lies and for every little history lesson we successfully deliver, 3 new lies appear the next day. If anyone besides Greeks actually cared, you would stand a chance. But this battle is lost. Wait for them to be forced to change their name and then come back with me and the others and we will clean this page with reality. Until then, trying to get them to prove anything in this article through a neutral source is rolling a boulder uphill. Just my two cents file. Reaper7 (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, you're getting very close to a topic ban for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Please tone it down.

• Please refrain from personal attacks.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that "Freedom or death" was the motto of the IMRO organisation at the turn of the 20th century (see [4] for many references). Greeks certainly don't have a copyright on it- many groups have used the slogan over the years. I think there certainly needs to be a reliable source for the statement that it is the motto of the Republic of Macedonia, but on the face of it, it certainly seems plausible given the association with Macedonian nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem remains, and my request still stands. First, I don't see these "many" citations ChrisO claims to be there; I see some of them. Secondly, IMRO, as the above-mentioned user said, and I quote: "was the motto of the IMRO organisation at the turn of the 20th century." What is the connection with the current FYROM? Was this motto proposed, when the current state was formed? Additionally, I read from IMRO's article: IMRO was founded "by a "small band of anti-Ottoman Macedono-Bulgarian revolutionaries. [1] "They considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and all of its inhabitants "Macedonians", no matter their religion or ethnicity". The organisation was a secret revolutionary society operating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the goal of liberating and uniting Macedonia with Bulgaria." It seems to me that this oranization served Bulgarian interests. Are we sure that its mottos, and emblems express indeed the people of FYROM? It may be indeed the case, but as an ignorant reading IMRO's article I find some inconsistencies in this rationale. So this "short" answer looks to me needing some "expansion". I may be wrong of course.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Laveol and Future: the image is not of the Bulgarian flag; there's no green, rather blue. One could theoretically replace that image with anything, and still claim it's the Bulgarian flag, because it's "sourced" (it isn't). BTW, I believe Dennis Hupchik's book says "Macedonian Slav revolutionaries" (not sure though). This was probably changed by one of the POV pushing idiots. Also, this Reaper7 guy seems to be trolling (again). BalkanFever 07:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Idiots is not one of the things it's ok to be said in Wiki. And, yes, this is the Bulgarian flag as used in the April uprising as well. --Laveol ^T 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This just in: blue is not green. BalkanFever 09:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More news: green can become blue. Especially if you paint with non-age-resistant substances on fabric, keep that fabric out in the open for a hundred years, take a poor-quality photograph of the reflecting surface of the fabric from a poorly chosen angle under artificial lighting conditions, and then photoshop the resulting file. here is another photograph of the same object. Whatever color that flag was in the beginning, not much of it seems to be left anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I only one to whom this discussion sounds totally ridiculous? Its pretty simple, if it is official motto of Republic of Macedonia, then it shouldn't be hard to find proper source for it. If there isn't one, then it should be removed, its not like every state has motto, many are completely fine without one. So why is this discussion going on about Greek national moto, and about history of Balkans? Problems with greece motto should be adressed in appropriate place, best probably being talk:Greece. This discussion should be limited to Macedonian motto, and its simple case of having a source, that what is Greece, or any other state's motto is totally irrelevant.--Staberinde (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I say from the fisrt moment. Where is then this "proper source"? But it seems easier for Indiana Jones to find the Crystal Skull than for anybody to find a proper source about this motto. Until now we just have a flag, and we do not even know if it is Bulgarian or "Macedonian"!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gotten off track. I repeat my initial point: A "state motto" is not the same as just any popular slogan considered of national symbolic value. I have no doubt that in both nations the phrase would be regarded as the latter, but that's not the point. A state motto is something given official status in law, side by side with national flags and anthems; or at least something regularly and officially used as part of national symbols, such as state emblems, a caption displayed in connection with the coats of arms etc. I haven't seen anything along those lines for Macedonia yet, and very little of any conclusive value for Greece. A motto of the revolutionary organisations of 1821 / 1905, certainly, but of the modern states? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FutPer raises a very interesting issue about mottos in general, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss such a broad topic. Appropriate discussions can take place in the appropriate places. I'll focus on FYROM's motto asking once again some sources that this motto has anything to do with FYROM's people and its continuity (e.g., indications and sources like the ones me and Futper mentioned above about the Greek motto). I must say that, unfortunately, this problem of verifiability is broader and appears in a series of FYROM-related articles. User:Elonka for instance made some very interesting remarks in Aegean Macedonians article lately; but again this is not the proper place for such broad discussion; appropriate research and discussion will take place in the appropriate places. I just felt the need to make these remarks, as general comments influenced by this "exhausting" but interesting IMO (despite some unfortunate personal comments above) discussion.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is a small (and might be heavily commented upon) contribution to the motto issue. To be realistic here, Greece officialy has no motto at all. The phrase "Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος" ("Freedom or Death"), yes was used by the Greeks fighting for their liberation back at 1820's, it is mentioned also that it was used even before that during the failed attempts of previous uprisings, but it was adopted from the american revolutionaries that used the exact same phrase during their own war of independance, although I currently do not have any references to it handy. After the liberation war of 1821, the motto in question was not adopted as the official motto of the country ever. Using interpretations or explanations of the meaning of the blue and white stripes of our flag as the official "proof" of the use of the motto just isnt right. One can also look at it in a different way, if you need an "indirect" proof for the use of the motto. Every country that has officially adopted a motto, usually puts it on the national emblem. The Greek national emblem never had a motto on it, rather than several kinds of figures (crowns, owls, etc) depending on the regime. Additionaly, Greeks have used several different mottos depending on the times, the places etc. For the official Greek emblem you can visit the most official source: [5] Additionally there is not a single article in the Greek Constitution that refers to a national motto. And in my opinion, any country can use any kind of motto they like, as long as it doesnt offend anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik ethel (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I just found out about the signature --Nik ethel (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian: Слобода или Смрт (Transliterated: Sloboda ili Smrt); English: Freedom or Death is official Macedonian motto, I live in Macedonia and I know this. 79.126.175.9 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

yo peeps, you asked sources about the Greek motto "Eleftheria i Thanatos" Freedom or Death. well here's some, non-Greek sources who explicitly strap the motto to Greek Independence: [6] [7] [8][9] [10]<Turkish one of 1988. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

also i think (and others think too [11]) that the motto comes via the Bulgarian uprising of 1897 and not straight from Greek. see [12] and [13]CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

About NATO

Shoudn't it be mentioned the fact that Greece put Veto in the country's potential NATO entry?TheJudge0791 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this should be included. - 77.29.245.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, be bold and add it yourself, I suggest adding it at the end of Republic_of_Macedonia#Foreign_relations section as the best place for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi can you please add this link

Hi,

I've added a link last Friday I think. The link is being marked as potential spam. The link is not spam (www . Travel2Macedonia . com .mk)

This website has been also added to the Macedonian part of wikipedia, and marked as website of significant importance to the section.

If you can add it to the English part it would be a nice thing.

Thanks in advance, Goran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are already two links on the "Travel" section of external links: National Tourism Portal [14] and a link that says "city guides" [15] (altought I'm not sure of what it's talking about).

Can you ellaborate on how your link provides information that those two links don't already cover? Or how we need another tourism portal when we already link to the official one? From point 1 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, does it offer an unique resource that isn't covered already? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first link coverage is OK. However the other site coverage is not larger than Travel2Macedonia web site. You can see it for yourself if you have time to do it.

regads,

Goran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The second tourism links comparing to Travel2Macedonia web site provides information, but less. However, Travel2Macedonia web site is a portal for foreigners and travelers only and provides detailed information for over 25 destinations in Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorco (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on Gorco's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget of Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name

Don't forget of Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name or it may be considered a propaganda stance. People are losing their breath to provide arguments yet they are summary deleted without even being moved there. --Leladax (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there really anything left to say that hasn't been said a hundred times already? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that's what I'm talking about, like the above comment, dismissing people's comments without even looking at them. --Leladax (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

• There's a typo in the article. The sentence, "Macedonian military — the Macedonian Armed Forces - is the name of the unified armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia with Macedonian Army, Macedonian Air Force." is a fragment. I can't edit it, but someone please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.95.81 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked at the main article for that section, and tried to fix the sentence a bit [16]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd appearance of a scroll bar

Whenever I load this page, I get a scroll bar along the bottom of my window. You can see a screenshot here. I only get it on this article. Is there some kind of formatting error that is causing this?--Rockfang (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should scroll all the way to the right and check if there's any text or a template that's making the page wider than it should be. BalkanFever 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. I don't see anything.--Rockfang (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. Maybe see if WP:VPT can help. Or you could switch to Firefox ;). BalkanFever 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly due to non-formatted urls in footnotes that were too long for the page width. Tried to fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo?

Regarding this edit, haven't we been through this already? What version should we leave up? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been there, see Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive_13#Kosovo. I repost a pair of my comments from there:

Maybe, but take into account that it has been recognized as independient by several major countries (or at least that's what the Kosovo article states. If you look at this page with maps, you will see that the maps have evolved from considering Kosovo an autonomous province, on a 1994 map and on a 1996 map to directly painting border lines as if they were two different countries, on a 2008 map (...) My point was that maps from 2008 now paint Kosovo and Serbia as two separate entities, so Kosovo should be on the list of entities surrounding Montenegro. Identical argument for the map on Republic_of_Macedonia#Demographics having Kosovo listed there too.

--Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style

I've made an edit to the top of this page which previously (inaccurately) suggested there is a consensus on a naming convention for Republic of Macedonia. I just wish to make clear my personal intent is not to start a micro editing war on this particular article. (and would recommend blocking anyone whose primary focus is changing other people's references from one to the other) However, I think it's important to recognize there is no consensus either on Wikipedia (the Manual of Style page has clearly stated for a long time it is only a proposal)... nor in the global community which still goes by both terms (including most international organizations and large English speaking nations like the US and UK which still use BOTH FYROM and Republic of Macedonia for official purposes).

Wikipedia naming conventions explicitly state their can be exceptions. Given the very unusual circumstances of the situation in this instance, to take one side of self-described Macedonians over the other would appear to infringe on the rights of either millions of FYR Macedonians.... or millions of Greek Macedonians. Both their human rights should probably take precedence over all other considerations until the name issue is resolved by either of their respective governments (or the international community). As long as an article makes clear what is being talked about, I don't believe their is an absolute technical, moral or legal justification for individual contributers not being allowing to use either name freely without censorship. Crossthets (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, but here's what the Greek Macedonians (and the Greeks as a whole) fail to realize, and what justifies Wikipedia's stance on this matter: most people in the world who are familiar with this issue and are not Greeks, see this dispute as (to say the least) petty on the Greek side. I am not commenting on the nature of the dispute as this is not a forum, but Greeks cannot expect that Wikipedia, which is run by consensus forged among people editing from all over the world, will abide by this sentiment of "Greeks feeling their human rights are being disrespected" (erm, and when it comes to human rights violations, that one must have slipped of the list). The Manual of Style is fine the way it is, there is quite a consensus over it (especially if Greek and Macedonian users are sieved out). We use "Republic of Macedonia" except in very specific circumstances where, thanks to Greek impositions, we cannot avoid and have to cope with one of the ugliest creations of modern history, "FYROM". Húsönd 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new appointment as the voice of "most people in the world". Care to enlighten us why no international organization subscribes to your view? Unfortunately Wikipedia has much lower standards on naming countries than international organizations, which stems from the fact that articles on fine legal issues such as this are not reviewed by experts such as diplomats and lawyers. In fact, why don't you check what your own country uses as an official name when dealing with FYROM? It seems suddenly this "whole world" got smaller huh? --   Avg    02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I expect Greeks to enlighten themselves, as they used to thousands of years ago. Fortunately, Wikipedia has much higher standards on naming countries than international organizations, as we're run by consensus and common sense here, not by who's pulling the strings somewhere. And fortunately, on Wikipedia it is still useless to attack commenters in a futile attempt to discredit them. Coz it often backfires, and for good reason. Diplomats and lawyers having the last word on Wikipedia?! We're trying to build a credible encyclopedia (and this comes from someone whose areas are precisely international law and diplomacy). Oh, and why on Earth would you come up with this Portugal's position on the matter? Since when do I, as Portuguese, have to agree or even express my stance towards a position taken by my country? Portugal may have a lot of bad things, but here we're still very free to have opinions, free to think for ourselves, and free to disagree if we have to. The patriotic always-follow-your-country attitude hasn't been the trend here for decades. Were you actually expecting me to be ashamed or embarrassed just because my country has a different position?! Anyway, this is all very amusing but it's not for here. Not a forum. Húsönd 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed you are an expert on the subjects of international law and diplomacy, I urge you to edit on Macedonia subjects, adding useful references and scientific insight. Most articles are currently hijacked by nationalists and people who clearly do not understand the nuances of politics. I'm afraid though that your stated expertise contradicts with your comments above, which simply lack any scientific merit and show a lack of understanding of the issue, which is the monopolization of the name Macedonia by one entity. And regarding Portugal, my intention wasn't of course to make you feel "ashamed", why should you, just to show that people who hold official positions and are experts on the matter, and of which I'd expect you should at least have heard their position since they're your compatriots, have been much more careful. --   Avg    04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles on Macedonia are well monitored and the not infrequent attempts to enforce POV are promptly repealed. My expertise not only does not contradict my understanding of the Macedonia issue, as I also don't think that issue requires much expertise for comprehension anyway. There is no monopolization of the name "Macedonia", the article is named "Republic of Macedonia", and as far as I remember, there's only one such thing. Of course the article could also be called "FYROM" (yuck!) since many countries and entities recognize it only as such, but on Wikipedia there is consensus to opt for "Republic of Macedonia", a name also recognized by many others and, especially, the only constitutional name of the country. To the eyes of international law, all is well. In Portugal, like everywhere else, people holding official positions are rarely experts on the matter they are responsible for. Decisions are made during chit-chats in corridors, not after hearing experts. And when it comes to the official position of my compatriots, I naturally follow it closely but I am not associated with it and therefore need not to be any careful. Húsönd 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is, there is a consensus on naming the country, and this was achieved through the proposed guideline. The fact that it's a proposed guideline doesn't mean that the consensus carries less weight. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 04:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia link here if it uses the Macedonian consitutional name? The UN and other entities official recognize FYROM as well. its fine using one convention within the article, but the there should be FYROM somewhere in the titles. (infobox, first bold letters???).

Especially since FYROM links here. Many linking through articles just take cursory glances here and there. Lihaas (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia redirects here because it is another name for the subject of the article. This is the same through out Wikipedia. Soccer redirects to Association football for example. See Wikipedia:RedirectSamuell Lift me up or put me down 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name

The article should note that the English pronunciation of Macedonia with a "soft c" (pronounced as "s") is actually a MISpronunciation, founded on misunderstanding of Latinic spelling. The CORRECT pronunciation of Macedonia is with a "hard c" (pronounced as "k"), because this is a classical Latinic spelling, in which c is always k (unless it's a hard g in older times, but let's not get into that). jaknouse (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a mispronunciation. Simply, English is not Latin. It has its own rules. After all if you want to be faithful to the Latin pronunciation, then you should pronounce it Mah-keh-doh-nih-ah (which means that the current inhabitants of the Republic pronounce it quite close to the Latin name - in case you want to check the sound file). Moreover, the Latin spelling was a transcription of the Greek Μακεδονία. According to your logic, if we want to be faithful to the even earlier original pronunciation, the stress should be in "i" and not in "o". It's a path that usually leads nowhere. Let's keep the English pronunciation to English words.--   Avg    01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. English softens the c, like French. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the native Slavic name be the one rendered in the IPA? One would assume that those who can read English already know how to pronounce Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Both should be, as with other country articles. All done. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to include the Република bit, though I'm not quite sure if it's meant to be an Template:IPA4 or Template:IPA4, or an Template:IPA4 or Template:IPA4. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the file (my computer hates .ogg files) but it would be an alveolar trill, and most likely an ɛ. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably need to download the right codec. Just click on "help" next to the IPA transcription. To me it sounded rather like the Greek e̞. Greek doesn't really distinguish between Template:IPA4 and Template:IPA4 like, say, French does; rather, it falls somewhere in between. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still don't know what's up with the codecs, but playing it on the "info" page seems to work well. Anyway, Macedonian doesn't really distinguish between the two either, but from comparison with French it's more like ɛ. Also, the guy seems to be saying [rɛpub'lika] with stress on the "li", which is weird. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because he's from Serbia. They can sound a tad musical. It appears that the Eastern South Slavic languages are more in tune with Greek prosody. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the Makedonians have the right to name their own nation, and that we should call them what THEY wish to be called. Yes, I know that Japan should be something like Nihon, Egypt should be something like Mishr, Georgia should be Sakartvelo; I've studied all these. jaknouse (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust: Republic of Macedonia should sue Wikipedia

The current WWII subsection says: Local recruits and volunteers formed the Bulgarian 5th Army, based in Skopje, which was responsible for the round-up and deportation of over 7,000 Jews in Skopje and Bitola. How can you keep such highly libelous claim in the article for months (if not years) without providing any source? This is shocking. I dont have to go through the history pages to understand that it was probably written by some of the Bulgarian or Greek anti-Republic of Macedonia biased editors. How dare you to call this "encyclopedia"? How can you allow such voluntarism? Dont you have any sence of shame and responsibility? The government and the people of the Republic of Macedonia have every right to sue Wikipedia Foundation for defamation.

Its the pro-Axis Bulgaria that is responsible for the genocide, not the locals. Bulgaria occupied and annexed large part of Macedonia including Skopje from 1941-1944 and handed the captured Macedonian Jews to the German Nazis in 1943.

• In March 2008, during an official visit to Israel the Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov said: Bulgaria accepts responsibility for the genocide of more than 11,000 Jews in its jurisdiction during World War II (source: Haaretz: [17], Israel's most influential newspaper, March 2008)
• Bulgaria cruelly organized and carried out the deportation of the 11,343 Jews of Thrace and Macedonia to Treblinka where all of them were immediately suffocated in the gas chambers. Moreover, the Bulgarian Treasury confiscated their entire property and paid to the Germans a considerable amount of money for having liberated Bulgaria from these Jews. Since the end of the war Bulgaria consistently reminded its alleged positive role vis-a-vis the Jews of ‘old Bulgaria’ concealing at the same time both its cruel anti-Semitic legislation and its criminal acts against the Jews extradited for extermination. Bulgaria has never admitted its crimes, has never asked pardon from the victims, has never offered to return their property but knew very well to ask credit and recognition for the survival of its authentic Jews. The Jewish people and the whole humanity will remember forever the criminal role of King Boris, Hitler’s friend and ally, and his fascist government. In a telegram n.442 of April 4, 1943 Joachim von Ribbentropp reported to Beckerle his Minister in Sofia, that Boris told him on April 1stin Berchtesgaden that he has approved the deportation of the Jews of the annexed territories. Thus Boris is not better than other allies of Hitler as Petain and Laval, Antonescu or Horty who helped to exterminate the undesired ‘alien’ Jews saving some or many of their ‘own’ Jews. (source: Association of Jews from Macedonia in Israel: PDF, author: Nissim Yosha, Ph.D., 14 Gluskin str, Rehovot 76273, Israel, Phone 972-8-9469567, Fax 972-8-9462105, E-mail nyosha(at)bezeqint.net 7.8.2001)

And why the WWII subsection doesnt include any mention of the ethnic Macedonian anti-fascist National Liberation War of Macedonia? Because some tendentious Greek or Bulgarian editors found it "irrelevant"?

Shame on you Wikipedia Foundation for allowing this to happen, your so called "encyclopedia" lost all of its credibility long time ago (if there was any).--Retepeliouroum (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Source verification required

Can anyone give an accessible source for verifying the existance and context of the image/emblem of Macedonia (see image download, 'MacedoniaImage:MacedoniaCoA1614.jpg') [18]? I have tried locating the source (Althan's rolls of arms) but with no luck. Thanks.Politis (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OpstiniMK.png

The image Image:OpstiniMK.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved

One comment moved to Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#Fyrom_is_accepted_by_Skopje_auhtorities --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Return the Macedonian Motto

The motto of the Republic of Macedonia has to be returned. It may be identical to the Greek one, but still it's a national motto and this article about the Republic of Macedonia has right like every other country's article to show the motto. "Freedom or Death" was used in the 1900s in the Macedonia during the Ilinden Uprising which was very important for Macedonia and the Macedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip MKD (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, there already was a discussion on this - you should provide a valid source that this is the official motto of the country. --Laveol ^T 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as point of interest. As far as I know, Freedom or Death was first used by the revolutionary Greek thinker from Thessalia, Rigas Ferraios in the 1790s. It was adopted by the Greeks in their 1821 Independence war against the Ottoman empire. It then re-emerged in the context of the Bulgarian struggle in the late 19th century. Politis (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The Muslim community and the The Jewish community should be under a Religion section not under the generic Demographics section Alex Makedon (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SERBIA CALLS ROM FYROM

http://phantis.com/news/?newsID=20081011130617

Reaper7 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This needs an official source - it seems that the minister is advocating the change, not that the change has occurred. Jd2718 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is rom or ROM? Is it a state in the UN. Invented immaginary terms have no place in a encyclopedia and generally calling states by unproper names is offensive.Alex Makedon (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthful reporting is paramount because it's offensive to be otherwise.... says FYROM national Alex the Great of Macedon. Relax dude this is just the talk pages. People do use shorthand notation to speed up discussion. I would worry more about your handle which just acts to confirm irredentist intentions. FYRoM's own first President already admitted you are not related to ancient Macedonians. --Crossthets (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For the last time stop trolling. BalkanFever 09:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You should know that for the Greeks it's offensive when you to use the name "Macedonia" since Alexander the Great wasn't Slav nor Albanian... he was Greek, just like his father (Phillip=fried of horses in Greek), his mother Olympias (12 gods of mount Olympus, Olympic games... you don't need to think much to realize that it's Greek), his half-sister Thessaloniki (victory of her father Philip in Thessaly and not Solun!). As you can see it's VERY offensive when you call yourselves with a Greek name which has such a great history. You want to be a Macedonian?... you have to be a Greek ;-) --xvvx (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OOh, yes be sure. LOL --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

UK and name choice

(Not sure if this belongs on the separate page for the name dispute, but I'm not disputing the name of the article, fine with me, but there is conflicting information in the article about who recognizes what name):

Under the Foreign Relations section, it says: "A number of countries recognise it by its constitutional name – the Republic of Macedonia – rather than the UN reference, notably three of the five permanent UN Security Council members (the United States,[22] Russia, and the People's Republic of China)" - this implies that the UK and France recognize it under FYROM. However, a few paragraphs later under "Macedonia naming dispute": "However, an increasing number of countries have abandoned the United Nations provisional reference and have recognised the country as the Republic of Macedonia or simply Macedonia instead. These include four of the five permanent UN Security Council members, the United States, Russia, United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China," - implying that France is the only one on the UNSC that calls it "FYROM". So, what about the UK, does it or doesn't it? (I assume that with the heated discussions, someone with a POV changed one of the paragraphs without sourcing ... )--Canuckguy (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From Macedonia dispute article "The UK uses the name "Republic of Macedonia" for bilateral relations, and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for multilateral relations [19]" --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heraclea

the expansion happened in 358BC, by then all scholars agree (due to archaeological indisputable findings etc) that Macedon was undeniably Greek. i sourced that with explicit direct mentions to Macedon as Greek. some will hate it, but i don't think is right to hide that from the readerCuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

fyrom is the only legal name outside the country

(moved to Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#fyrom_is_the_only_legal_name_outside_the_country) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Name and the UN

This goes at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The name that is used for all the countries in the world is that registered in the United Nations.For example we do not say Great Britain for the official use of the country that is registered as United Kingdom in the UN catalogues...The same must apply for the name of this country.I cannot see the reason why this case should not be applied here.There is no reason to tell the country "Republic of Macedonia" because the Chinese use that as the name they accept.The chinese may tell us whatever they want.The fact is that this country has agreed to use the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as its official name.UN is the organisation that legalises states and countries or not by its resolutions.Every other explanation from the authors is biased,whether for the Macedonian Slavs or the Macedonian Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.124.178 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know ...

Flag of Arizona, since 1917

Flag of the Republic of Macedonia, since 1995

Curious coincidence ... Apcbg (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WOW. They are sooooooo similar. More similar than the Bulgarian and Hungarian flag or the Greek and British East India flag. This is soooo interesting. Please add this to the article so that human knowledge can be further enriched. BalkanFever 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages Section

The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has written that Greek is spoken in Macedonia. His source here claims no such thing and should be replaced or the claim removed. Thank you. Bruka (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Read it carefully. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages." Living languages: (1)Adyghe; (2)Albanian, Gheg; (3)Balkan Gagauz Turkish; (4)Macedonian; (5)Romani, Balkan; (6)Romanian, Macedo; (7)Romanian, Megleno; (8)Serbian; (9)Turkish. Care to point it out? Bruka (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I searched some more and this link states it pretty clearly: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ell.Bruka (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, should it even be mentioned as the Greek minority makes up 0.021% of the population? It would already be covered in the line "and others are spoken roughly in proportion with their associated ethnic groups." Bruka (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The more important question is why you want it removed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why did you add it? BalkanFever 08:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It is spoken there, isn't it? Why are you trying to expunge all references to Bulgarian and Greek in the article? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by about, what was it, 600 people? Good for them. And they don't get lynched for speaking it either. Wow. BalkanFever 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How many speak Adyghe? But they're politically correct, aren't they? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They are sourced, properly. BalkanFever 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the source? "Also includes Greek." I don't know how much clearer it could be. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It could list it as an actual language. If it went to the trouble of doing it with Adyghe, why not with Greek? BalkanFever 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An actual language. As opposed to "Greek", which isn't. Right. Still, if you insist that "Also includes Greek" is ambiguous, we also have this. I suppose you'll say that "Macedonia" doesn't mean the former Yugoslav republic. That'll be the day. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What, Montenegro? How can "Macedonia" mean Montenegro? BalkanFever 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Got absurdity? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Greek isn't listed separately here, nor is Australia listed separately here. You're a Melbourne boy, you tell me: is Greek spoken in your neighbourhood or not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All the languages listed as "Languages of Australia" are Australian Aboriginal languages, and English, the official language. To answer your question, yes, and so is Macedonian, sometimes by the same person. Go figure. BalkanFever 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it OR? Australia is listed among the countries where Greek is spoken, though not with a separate entry like, say, the Ukraine. Going by your logic, that either means it isn't spoken in Australia, or that it isn't important enough to warrant a mention. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to be picky, then we should also mention Croatian, German, Russian, French, Italian etc. Why stop at Greek? Bruka (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a source, and go for it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This "Greek language spoken in Macedonia" is a clear attempt to push a Greek Nationalistic Agenda with no valid arguments in the lines of the recent attempts to attribute to the ethnic Latin toungue Aromanian population an unexpressed "(ancient) hellen" identity (similar to many other non-Greeks incorporated in the Ancient Hellen ethnicity that officialy covers 100% of Greece - keep in mind there is no ethnic census, this 100% Ancient Hellens is given by default by the Greek goverment)

• With all the respect to "www.ethnologue.com" this kind of matters are primary evidenced by official Macedonian and International bodies, and there is no such evidence that confirms that the Greek language is spoken in Macedonia (as mother tongue or as a second language) in significant numbers.
• we have evidence that there is no "greek minority" in Republic of Macedonia, at least not a significant one so "A wide variety of languages are spoken in Macedonia, reflecting its ethnic diversity" cannot stand for the Greek language.
• the Greek language allong with the other 6.500 living languages in the world can be spoken by the Macedonian population as a foreign language, still this kind of information is obsolete for Wikipedia Alex Makedon (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nationalist aversion displayed here towards the inclusion of Greek and Bulgarian is as amusing as it is pathetic. You are so obsessed with expunging any reference to the Greek and Bulgarian minorities that you will even reject a source that clearly lists Greek as a language spoken in "Macedonia", your preferred name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But wait, there's more: The town within the borders of the Republic of Macedonia which the republic's authorities call Bitola, its Albanian-speaking citizens call Manastir, while its Greek-speaking families call it Monastir. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL KEK stop inventing things that arn't there, and stop using this new term you have learned "expunging"... Its not that all the world public, the UN and European languages bureaus are waiting for your revelation over the "existence of the Greek language minority" in Republic of Macedonia. go get som real evidence, will ya Alex Makedon (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited two reputable sources, which should be more than enough to justify the inclusion of a single word in the text of the article. Where are yours? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol im not the one that insist on adding something, you are, so you better state some better sources than the "reputable" www.ethnologue.com and a book by mr.no one Jane K. Cowan.

• Lets say Britannica encyclopedia [20]
• Map of languages in Europe by linguistic groups [21] by Europedia with love
• bbc languages there is 4% of Turkish and no greek, im sorry [22]

Alex Makedon (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't list Adyghe, Gagauzi or Vlach either, but they're still in the article. If you really despise the Greek language so much, why not change your user name, ὦ «Ἀλέξανδρε Μακεδών»? This has become farcical. See you tomorrow. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Still don't understand why the big fuss about mentioning Greek. Apart from the sources, it's common knowledge that Greek is a second language to Vlachs and ethnic Macedonians from Greek Macedonia, at least the old generations. In Bitola the language has a recorded long history. Whatever, this was my last revert, if you think this action honors you then remove it again, what can i say.--Zakronian (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

On other hand I dont know why are we pushing Greek when its spoken by minuscule minority. As for Aromanians OK maybe it was common language for them in Ottoman times and it is still for Aromanians in Greece but there is no evidence about today's usage of Greek in Republic of Macedonia by Aromanian population. Luka Jačov (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Minuscule minority? Says who? You make the preposterous claim that Greek is not autochthonous, presumably unlike Adyghe, Gagauzi, Romani or Turkish. In fact, Greek has been spoken in the area since long before any of the other languages listed, including "Macedonian". Your assertion that it isn't spoken in a geographically defined area is equally specious; indigenous Greek-speakers are concentrated in the southern border areas, especially Pelagonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So what if it is was spoken in Ancient times? Greek was spoken also in Persia, Pakistan etc but it isnt spoken there for centuries just like in Vardar Macedonia. Also check ethnographic map from Ottoman times [23] and you ll see Greeks were concetrated long south of current Greek border. Also no references that they are concetrated in southern border areas today. Luka Jačov (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. That Greek has been spoken continuously in the wider region of Macedonia since classical antiquity is hardly in doubt, whether under the ancient kingdom of Macedon, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, or the Ottoman Empire due to the direct influence and dominance of the Greek Orthodox Church. The maps simply record ethnic majorities. Unless of course you actually believe that because a Bulgarian map shaded most of Macedonia green a century ago, no non-Bulgarians lived there. It is a well-known fact that Greek-speakers in Macedonia's northern fringes were concentrated amongst the more educated urban élites of towns like Bitola, while the peasantry in the surrounding hinterland were predominantly Slavic-speaking. Clearly, it is difficult to illustrate this when it comes to cities, which appear as tiny dots on a map, leading to regrettable misunderstandings. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse in most cases cities of multi-ethnical areas have mixed population even so there might be even Greek community in Bitola in those times but that again doesnt mean there still is Greek population today. Luka Jačov (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited an academic source that refers to the existence of Greek-speakers in Bitola in the present tense, as opposed to the plethora of sources that mention the strong historical presence of Greeks there. Seriously, what's your beef against the Greeks? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What academic sourse? I dont see it! Seriously no beef against Greeks just about obssesion of nationalist Greeks with this small country that doesnt threatens Greece and Greeks anyhow. Luka Jačov (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What does any of the above have to do with what we're discussing? We have reliable sources attesting to the fact that Greek is spoken in the country, therefore it should be mentioned in the demographics section. Simple. Greece also has a tense relationship with Turkey, but I don't see Turkish editors or their Turkic brethren attempting to censor any mention of the small Greek minority there. I thought bratstvo i jedinstvo were out of fashion these days, a bit like Serbo-Croatian. As for the "obsession of nationalist Greeks", I return the insult wholeheartedly. There is fact, verified by reliable sources, and then there is an attempted white-washing of the facts to suit a nationalist agenda. Unfortunately for you, however, the "Republic of Macedonia" itself acknowledges the existence of a Greek minority, albeit only of a very small size. I wonder how the numbers for the Adyghe- and Gagauzi-speakers, with which you appear to have no problem at all, measure up against the Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this ridiculous greek propaganda attempts to manipulate the ethnic and language minorities in Macedonia continue, despite all the reasonable talks and overwhelmingly official evidence we have that negate any such speculations: There is no significant Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia:

• European Council: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[24][25]
• United Nations: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[26]
• Britannica encyclopedia: no Greek ethinc linguistic minority in Macedonia [27]
• BBC Educational: no Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia [28]
• Eupedia: NO Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia[29]

The facts are pretty clear - greek nationalistic propaganda pwned. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And on the next episode of Sesame Street, Ace plays hide and seek with the other kids to find just where his sources claim what he says they do, and to look for the poor Adyghe and Gagauz who have mysteriously gone missing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

INDEPENDANCE FROM YUGOSLAVIA?

I m sorry but i dont understand.fyrom was occupied illegally by yugoslavia until its break in 90s??? this happened to all ex yugoslavian countries serbia,slovenia, croatia...??? or they were united with their own will?? if yugoslavia occupied illegally these countries, who was yugoslavia then if not serbia,fyrom,croatia...??? if yugoslavia did not occupie fyrom then it shouldnt be mentioned as independance but as seperation because independance is when a country free itself from a different country ( france from germans). is like we say for example that washington free itself from USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence Independence can be the initial status of an emerging nation (often filling a political void), but is often an emancipation from some dominating power.Bruka (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources.So its not relieable .also you didnt answer my questions. was fyrom occupied illegaly by yugoslavia or not???

The Socialist Republic of Macedonia was a constituent republic of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, just like SR Slovenia, SR Serbia and the rest. It declared independence as the Republic of Macedonia in the early nineties. It wasn't independence from occupation, but independence from a larger federal entity. BalkanFever 13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please. We can barely agree that a source that lists Greek as a language spoken in "Macedonia" is actually saying that Greek is spoken in "Macedonia". The last thing we need is a semantic debate over the meaning of "independence". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ΟΚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the user above want to achieve by his silly question? Macedonia was not occupied by Yugoslavia, but the the word independennce is appropriate in the sense of Macedonia gaining independence from Yugoslavia. Cukiger (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

EVERY SILLY QUESTION HAS ITS SILLY CAUSE

Macedonia and Alexandar the Great

I think we should expand this article more with facts from history. For example, Alexandar the Great was Macedonian, not Greek (as Greek historians would like us to beleive). YardFly56 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He was Macedonian, therefore Greek, but that's irrelevant to this article which is about the modern Slavic-speaking republic, not the ancient Greek-speaking kingdom. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)