Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Simple options

The options are simple:

  1. Macedonia - unworkable, because for millions of people worldwide Macedonia means different locations. As an encyclopædia wikipedia will have articles relating to the different concepts of Macedonia in politics, history, culture, etc. So we cannot decide Macedonia = the state that used to be in Yugoslavia, any more than we can decide Macedonia = region in Greece. Macedonia is at best a disambigulation point from which different links to different understandings of the term can branch. Because of its ambiguity it cannot be anything else and I fail to understand why Daniel is so determined to push the use of a word that cannot be used because of its disputed nature as the home of this article.
  2. Republic of Macedonia - it is the constitutional name given to the state that used to be in Yugoslavia. It is unrecognised by any other state as the valid name. Why, whether they are right or wrong, is 100% irrelevant. The simple fact is that it is. By using it we would be taking sides on the debate. We very deliberately do not use constitutional names of states as article names. There is no logical reason to break precedent and depart from NPOV rules by taking sides in the dispute.
  3. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - that is the agreed compromise used worldwide, including by the Macedonian state itself. It does not say that any side is right or wrong. All it says 'this is the temporary name the Macedonian state itself agrees is OK to use pending an agreement on a final name, the name used by the EU, UN, EBU, Unesco, US, Council of Europe, etc.' If the Macedonian state was opposed to its use, then we could not use it, as to use it would be taking sides in the argument. But not merely does it tolerate it, it proposed it, its president uses it, its foreign ministry uses it, its prime minister uses it, its ministers sit on international bodies under that name, etc. So it is 100% NPOV. To date no logical reason has been put to justify using a disputed name with POV connotations over an NPOV that even the Macedonian state uses internationally.

The other options are to use wikipedia variants:

  1. Macedonia (country) - again unworkable as many people disagree on which Macedonia is a valid country.
  2. Macedonia (republic) - less problematical but still controversial because it still could be be seen as taking sides in the argument over the whether the Macedonian state is entitled to call itself Macedonia, which is no concern of ours.
  3. Macedonia (FYROM) - uses Macedonia and FYROM, meaning that both sides of the argument are covered. It doesn't use the disputed Republic of Macedonia nomenclature, and uses as a disambigulation point the most widely recognised and least disputed reference which the Macedonian state is happy with, Greece is happy with and everyone else is happy with. And for those hell bent on avoiding the internationally used and accepted name because of their own agendas, it does do so, simply uses it as the secondary disambigulation point. (We could then use Macedonia (Greece), etc in a show of NPOV terminological neutrality.) FearÉIREANN 22:40, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(resigned sigh) I don't suppose it matters a great deal. The Macedonians are used to being bullied by everyone, I don't suppose this denial of their elementary right to call themselves what they like will add to to their woes very much. Call the article what you will. Adam 00:17, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am not used to be bullied by anyone and I am a Macedonian. So I suppose you are wrong about that. There is no "elementary right" to call oneselve what they like. If that was true then we would be in even greater chaos. One should call themselves what they like as long as this doesn't violate someone elses rights. The dispute here is that Greece believes its rights are violated. We are not here to judge if this is true or false, the states can settle that on their own. But wait! They actually did! And FYROM accapted to be called that! 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(But henceforth I will call Ireland Uzbekistan and Poland Bolivia.) Adam

Don't be childish Adam. In any case saying The Macedonians are used to being bullied by everyone. I don't suppose this denial of their elementary right to call themselves what they like will add to to their woes very much shows you are trying to push an agenda here. That is NOT what we are supposed to be doing here, and I expected better of you. Whether Macedonians (whomever they are) are the bullies or the ones being bullied is irrelevant. What IS relevant is finding a neutral name that all sides can accept and all sides have accepted a neutral international name, the FYROM. You have spent ages demanding that wikipedia call the Macedonian state something it itself does not demand, that it be known internationally as the Republic of Macedonia. If the Macedonian state does not demand the international usage of that name, why are you and Jiang so determined to demand that an international encyclopædia ignore the name the Macedonian state accepts for usage internationally. It makes no logical sense. In Ireland there is a phrase 'More Irish than the Irish themselves'. You see to be more Macedonian than the Macedonians. FearÉIREANN 01:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No one has proposed to move this article to Macedonia, even though that's what the media and our friend the EB uses [1]. Daniel proposed Macedonia (country), not "Macedonia" by itself. That proposal is supported by no one else so we can leave it alone for the moment.
We are avoiding constitutional names for the sake of adhering to our "use common names" policy, not for NPOV sake. [REPEAT: See People's Republic of China (not at China) and Republic of China (not at Taiwan, Renegade Province of the People's Republic of China)]. Whether other governments recognize a state by its real name or by any name at all is 100% irrelevant towards the article's location. This encyclopedia is not a government. We go by the truth - the country is the ROM. We list it at where it really is, and mention why a separate label is deemed necessary. The discussion the controversy in the article itself is sufficient.
But as for linking to this article, I support The former Yugslav [[Republic of Macedonia]] (ROM shouldn't stand by itself if the controversy is not explained on the same page). --Jiang 00:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That is an absurd article, Jiang. Where a name is common and uncontroversial we use it. Where it is controversial, we go for a recognisable NPOV alternative. We went for the two China option because people committed to either kept moving the articles around to suit their agendas. Using state names in that case, as with Republic of Ireland, allowed both sides to have their names with the understanding that they had then to accept the other.
The truth is that the country IS NOT the ROM yet (notice the "yet" part). Uninlaterally naming myself to Jiang does not make me Jiang and creates confusiong and controversy. If confusion and controversy is what you propose and prefer, then it can be aranged. But what makes your point moot, is really the fact that FYROM has agreed to that name and has not made demands to be called ROM. I believe that somehow you link this issue to your own personal bias towards Republic of China. Don't. They are very sepparate cases and very different. 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Naming yourself Jiang does make you Jiang even if others don't recognize that name. There are many individuals with the exact same name. Yes, it is confusing, but the bureau that issues birth certificates does not prevent this from happening. Is there a precedent for this situation? Provide some backing for your premise that people don't have the right to name themselves whatever they wish.

You said it yourself - it is domestically the ROM. If it is valid domestically, then how can it not be valid at all? Isn't this a contradiction? The country IS the ROM domestically and constitutionally. Repeat: The UN, EU, etc. has left the issue of what the country calls itself alone. FYROM is just a "temporary" reference used for international/diplomatic purposes only. No party ordered (or has the authority to do so) the ROM to change its name. --Jiang 22:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First of all. I can change my name, but I need to apply to a higher authority to do so. I cannot unilaterally declare myself being you and sign with your name. Do you really need me to bring exmples of forgery? Have you really never heard of it? I doubt it. Now, regarding that nobody ordered FYROM to change its name. I believe it is irrelevant. Since the UN accepted it with that name, for the purposes of identification, there name the country calls itself is irrelevant. In Greece we call the country "Ellada", that doesn't mean the UN calls us "Ellada". 193.195.0.102 11:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As for We go by the truth - the country is the ROM that is POV rubbish. (a) Not everyone agrees it is a country, and (b) not everyone agrees that is its name. Which means to say it is or to say it isn't is by definition a breach of NPOV. All encyclopædias reflect the constitutional, political, cultural, historic and regional realities in how they define things. Cornwall nationalists insist the incorporation of Cornwall into England was illegal and thus Cornwall is independent. If there was widespread dispute about that all encyclopædias would reflect that. There isn't, just a small fringe so encyclopædias worldwide say Cornwall is currently part of the UK. Not should be, could be, is disputed, etc. IS. The nomenclature of the Macedonian is widely disputed. You may believe that it is entitled to be called the Republic of Macedonia. I may agree with you. But when there is a dispute, wikipedia, as an open-edit encyclopædia has to be cognisant of the dispute and be careful to use careful, neutral language that all sides can agree to tolerate. And all sides agree with the FYROM designation. They don't agree on the ROM designation. So ROM is a non-starter under wikipedia rules. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true if millions disagree. And in this case, millions agree and millions disagree. And Wikipedia can no more reflect the Greek view that the Macedonian state official view. That is how encyclopædias work. FYROM fits all the criteria of name recognition, consensus acceptance and accuracy. ROM lacks consensus acceptance and as it is not used outside Macedonia also lacks the same level of name recognition. And accuracy, as in so many cases, is in the eye of the beholder and so POV. FearÉIREANN

The article proclaims that the ROM is an "independent state." We don't need to acknowledge fringe notions. How is the country not the ROM? FYROM is a "temporary reference" used for diplomatic purposes. The international organizations the FYROM participates in and the countries the FYROM has diplomatic relations with do not deny that ROM is official and constitutional name of the country. 193.195.0.102 is simply uninformed in believing a UNGA resolution has the authority to amend the ROM's consitution to change the official name to FYROM. --Jiang 22:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN, you seem to confuse this article with British and Irish history and analogies. Macedonia is not some republic self-declared by 18 rebels. It's a real country.

Yes it is a country in Greece. 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There are countries inside of Greece? Perhaps you are confused about what "country" means in English? Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

1. Macedonia is a country. You can't dispute that. The only thing disputed here is the name of the article and the name that should be used in the article.-- Daniel Quinlan

I can dispute that according to Jiang. By the fact that 3-4 users don't accept it, it makes it "disputed". In any case, as I said, Macedonia IS a country within Greece. Which one do you refer to? 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Again, you are really confused. There are no separate countries contained inside of Greece. Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

2. All sides do not agree FYROM is the common name. That was a diplomatic compromise, yet the BBC (web site articles), CNN, and other news agencies usually call it Macedonia and not FYROM. You disputed this and when I showed ample evidence, well, I guess it did not sway your personal view.-- Daniel Quinlan

Huh? When you say "sides" do you mean you and Jiang and a bunch of other people who hold no authority at all? Cause last time I checked, both Greece and FYROM agreed to that name and it was also blessed by the UN. This site is not about personal views as you seem to believe, but about facts. The fact is that the name FYROM has been agreed by all sides. It doesn't make everyone happy, but it HAS been agreed and that's what compromises are. You chose to totally eradicate that compromise based on your personal view. I, on the other hand, even though I am against the name Macedonia being used by FYROM, have no issue with respecting the aggreement and use it as it was meant. 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
By sides, I mean people with different views. Even though Macedonia made an agreement with Greece, it does not seem to stop them from using the name in their constitution or in relations with other countries like the UK and the US. It's only in a few contexts involving Greece that FYROM is canonically used. Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

3. ROM is not a non-starter. FYROM should be the non-starter as it is a name imposed by an agreement between two countries (extending to several international organizations). FYROM is not supported by common usage nor is it supported by the country internally, just when necessary due to agreements.-- Daniel Quinlan

Common usage means what exactly? Just because people are ignorant about the name of this country, it does not mean that it is not called FYROM. Maybe it would be better if this encyclopedia tried to educate people instead of maintain igonrance amongst them? 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is incorrect any more than I agree that "United States" is an incorrect name for "United States of America". Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

4. When those agreements are not a factor, Macedonia is used the vast majority of the time with just as much FYROM usage as ROM usage. That includes both Macedonian and non-Macedonian sites (and news organizations, as I have shown ample evidence). Some other relevant examples:

-- Daniel Quinlan

Irrelevant. FYROM has its own propaganda engine and so does Greece. I can point you to numerous sites that don't even call it FYROM. I respect your intelligence though and I leave propaganda out sites of this. Please do the same, 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My point was that FYROM name is only used in some contexts. I think I proved that quite well. Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

5. Finally, Wikipedia is not a party to these agreements, so we can make up our own mind about what is the most common and appropriate name. Daniel Quinlan 09:32, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Or we could actually use a name that does not offend any sidd and has been accepted officially as the name to that state, by the state itself. But that would be like we saw reason somehow ... 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm not offended by any of these titles. I think that FYROM is the incorrect choice for the page title though given common usage and other factors. FYROM needs to be mentioned and explained, though. Daniel Quinlan 11:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Image Layout

Hello Jiang, br clear=right doesn't seem to work properly:
File:Clipboard01-JeLuF.png
I think this doesn't look that good. -- JeLuF 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Does it look like that now (that I've moved things around)? Yr. edit destroyed to locator map and flag. --Jiang 01:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's what the page looks like currently. What do you mean by destroyed to locator map and flag? -- JeLuF 01:22, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is what it looked like:[2] --Jiang

Image looks fine on Camino. It may be a browser problem. Some versions of IE completely muck of page layouts on wikipedia and it is a problem with the browser, not the page. FearÉIREANN 01:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not a browser issue per se, it's a width of your screen issue. The code of the page is broken, not the browser. If a new float starts before the last one is finished, the browser has to but it left of the first float. -- JeLuF 01:54, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The code isn't really broken either. It's a font size issue. It should look OK for most people, but if you have a sufficiently small font, then the new float starts too early, and then this happens. To avoid this, the map could be left-aligned, but then you can get other problems if your screen is too narrow. --Wik 02:05, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

The same problem occured on among other pages Robert Mugabe. People on IE got images clashing with text, images colliding with each other, etc. No-one else did. When IE users fixed the images according to the way their browsers showed them, they promptly made a mess of everyone else's page. An edit war was the result until it was copped on after a couple of hours that it was the browsers (in that case a specific version of IE) that was the problem. This was only shown when copies of how the page looked on different browsers were shown and compared and it was found to be a broswer problem. IE (certain types) also misreads some caption commands and other tags, leading to the abandonment of some commands entirely as they were producing different pages on IE and other browsers. FearÉIREANN 02:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Naming policy

If our naming policy for countries is that we must use a "neutral name that everyone can agree on," as FearUZBEKISTAN says, how do we manage to have an article on Israel? I can introduce you to several hundred million people who object violently to that name. Why don't we call the article Former League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine? Answer: because we acknowledge that Israel does actually exist (whether we think it ought to or not), and so we call the country by its name. Adam 03:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, because Israel is recognized under that name by the UN and most of the world. --Wik 03:21, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
The state in dispute is recognised as FYROM by the UN. 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Does the UN choose Wikipedia page titles? No. Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Jiang is a "troll"

Right, user Jiang continues to refuse to answer the question of why it is necessary to use POV and call the article "Republic of Macedonia", instead of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" when the second name has been agreed by both sides. He actually claimed that because HE disputes the name, it is disputed thus unnacceptable. Apparently he believes he holds some authority which is superior to that of the states of FYROM and Greece, not to mention the UN. If this continues, and is accepted by all, it means we all have the right to start disputing any name we see in this Encyclopedia and unilaterally start changing it to our liked version. Maybe a good place to start would be the Republic of China article which seems to be POV anyway. I believe user Jiang should be excluded from this discussion since he persists in giving the same answer without providing any backing to it. I believe have been reasonable up to now, but since users like Jiang (trolls) do not seem to appreciate this and on top of that, get their way by unilateraly forcing their ideas on us, I am considering of changing my ways. Thanks, 193.195.0.102 10:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Even if Jiang is 100% wrong, it does not mean we should change the page title. Other people, myself included, think FYROM would not be the right title for this article. I'm not saying that numbers necessarily make us right, but focusing attacks on Jiang and calling him a troll, do not help move the debate forward. Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
My argument was against the fact that the FYROM is entirely undisputed. I'm not the only one thinking that it's not NPOV. --Jiang
Oh please... FYROM being POV? Why? Because both sides agreed to it? Because the UN proposed it? Because nationalists in both countries hate it? Who else thinks it is not NPOV besides you and why? And btw "I think it is not NPOV" without giving any reason is as good as "Nuhuh"... 193.195.0.101 12:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

FYROM(Slav people & Albans) is not: "Macedonia" ,"Macedonians" Macedonian language !!! Vergina 12:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Three quick points:

  1. Unaccustomed as I am to finding myself on the same team as Jiang, he has made a genuine contribution to this debate, and does not deserve to be called a troll by an anonymous user whose behaviour has been as trollish as anyone else's in this long, tedious and pointless exercise in competitive pedantry.
  2. How can it be POV to call something by its real name?
  3. Can we nominate Vergina to be banned?

Adam 13:19, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  1. I am no more anonymous than Jiang so if you feel the need to make a special attack on me based on this alone, I suggest you drop it cause it kinda make you look bad. 193.195.0.102 18:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  2. Care to prove to me that it is its real name? Oh wait! This does not belong here. Nobody calls it by its defacto real name. Some people call it how it named itself. I can name myself your hasband. Can I demand you call me that? Even more so, will I actually BE that? 193.195.0.102 18:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  3. Why? Because her English is bad, or because she persists in supporting the Greek side in the same way you support the Skopjan side? 193.195.0.102 18:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2. You will BE that, but you cannot demand that he call you by that, But what he calls you is irrelevant. --Jiang

Vergina's posts are bordering on the level of nonesense. I would support and offer additional arguments for such a ban if User talk:Vergina/ban is started. --Jiang 01:09, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Article name vs. country name vs. region name

I think a lot of us are missing the point: the title of the article does NOT have to be the same as the name of the country. For example, there is a China article as well as a Republic of China article.

A better example is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which no-one except Turkey recognises at all, which sends Greece and Greek-Cyprus into paroxysms of rage, and yet which we are perfectly happy to have an article about under its real name, with no objections from anyone. I find this curious. Adam 14:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is totally irrelevant IMO. The "Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus" (an illegal regime), has not agreed to be called with a name other than that internationally. FYROM has agreed to that name. 193.195.0.102 18:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We also have articles for Somaliland and Puntland. Daniel Quinlan 16:39, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


Indicate your preferences with the 3-tilde thing. Note that these issues won't necessarily be decided by Wikipedia:voting.

Where the article should be

Note that you can sign more than one option!

Total of approval votes for each article title:

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia = 4
  • Republic of Macedonia = 7 (plus Adam would be 8)
  • Macedonia (country) = 1
  • Republic of Macedonia with first sentence disclaimer = 8 or 9
  • FYR Macedonia= 1

By a factor of about 2-to-1, Republic of Macedonia is the most accepted option for the title. The disclaimer is already present and adds an additional approval vote. Is it really going to be productive to continue discussing this? Opinions seem quite deadlocked. Daniel Quinlan 03:58, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

What the name of the country is

Region name question

The land known from ancient times as "Macedonia" has been split into two parts, right?

  • True: Greece has the southern portion, and FYROM (or ROM) has the northern portion -
  • Not quite just two countries from what I've read: Daniel Quinlan, 193.195.0.102 (90% is still in Greece, the rest - vitola/monastiri - is in FYROM),
  • False: The vast majority of it is currently in Greece. A small portion is in FYROM. The rest of FYROM was ruled by Macedonia, but was not part of the original kingdom of Macedon. --Delirium 20:28, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Confused Delirium:The rest of FYROM was ruled by Osman Kosovo!! NOT by Macedonia. Vergina 23:29, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Country name question

The country calls itself ROM and tolerates being called FYROM.

Article name question

  • Should be the same as what the country calls itself. -Dori 14:59, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC), Daniel Quinlan
  • Should be the same as it's generally known in the English-speaking world - Uncle Ed, Daniel Quinlan
  • Should be the same as what the country calls itself, unless there is a major international dispute over the country name - Uncle Ed, Daniel Quinlan, 193.195.0.102
  • Should be whatever we think our readers will look for it under - Uncle Ed, Daniel Quinlan
  • Should be whatever the UN "officially" calls it - Daniel Quinlan, 193.195.0.102
  • Should be whatever the US calls it - Daniel Quinlan
  • Should be the same as it's generally known in the English-speaking world, unless this common usage is POV or factually wrong. --Jiang

I think this classification system is overly simplistic and not reaching the point of being helpful. It's only how you evaluate and weigh the various factors that determines which choice is used. Daniel Quinlan 16:31, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Debate

A debate that would make TAFKAP proud Dori 14:59, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Just in case anybody missed it. Please do not link this issue with the ones of Northern Cyprus and Taiwan. None of these regimes have been recognised by the UN and AFAIK they did not agree to be called under any name internationally. FYROM has agreed to that name and noone has officially agreed to call them ROM yet. Lets don't try to change history here. People implied I am biased for supporting the FYROM solution, yet they seem to ignore that that name (FYROM) was also a compromise for Greece, not only FYROM. What I would really want to see, is this country be called with the name it had before Tito renamed it to "Macedonia". That is "Vardarska Banovina". After all, their capital was part of the Kossovo Villayet even at ottoman times. But since this is the Greek view, I am not pushing it forward. I am being reasonable though, and only support the agreement Greece had with FYROM and the UN. 193.195.0.102 18:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The country called international FYROM and local(intern) ROM

This is true and UNO juridical !! Vergina 19:53, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not UNO !! Vergina 20:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The Republic of China is a member of APEC, IOC, FIFA, and elsewhere under the name "Chinese Taipei". It is in the WTO as the "Separate Customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu". How is this situation different?
Has it agreed to be called "Chinese Taipei" internationally? Actually "Repubic of China" is confusing since Taiwan is not China anyway. In any case, this is irrelevant. It would be relevant if Taiwan came under an agreement with China to be called something other than ROC internationally, and wikipedia still went on to call it ROC. 193.195.0.101 12:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hm... "The constitutional name of that state means nothing internationally unless this state is recognised by the UN." --Jiang 22:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know that America under Bush finds this hard to comprehend right now, but the UN is the world! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:25, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Very good point. 193.195.0.101 12:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not an American, and I certainly don't accept that the UN has the right to decide what countries should call themselves, and certainly not what they should be called in encyclopaedias. All of this again loses sight of the central point, which is that the only reason anyone uses FYROM is to appease Greek nationalist sentiment, which is not an obligation we are under. Adam 01:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, if you choose not to listen to argument and continue to want to POV an article to suit your political agenda, fine. But it is as wrong and as illogical now as the last 500 times you have said it. And FYROM is the name the Macedonian state itself uses internationally. Are you deciding that not alone do you not care what the international community says, all international bodies say, what the Greeks say, you don't even care what the Macedonians say? That is nonsensical. FearÉIREANN 01:41, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't keep accusing me of stupidity or obtuseness, when you know quite well that I am neither stupid nor obtuse. You also know quite well that Macedonia agreed to be called FYROM only under duress, and that they would stop doing so immediately if that duress was removed. Just because Macedonia is under duress from a much larger and more powerful neighbour, and just because the EU and the UN agreed to use FYROM as a means of defusing the Greece-Macedonia confrontation in 1995, is no reason why we should agree to do so. We are not under duress from Greece, and we are not involved in international diplomacy. To talk about the 1995 agreement as though it was freely negotiated between equals is nonsense. Macedonia was coerced by Greece, which controls its access to the sea and its access to EU aid. That was the only reason Macedonia agreed to be called FYROM (but not actually to change its name). And the "international community" only agreed to this to appease Greece and prevent a deadlock in the EU, where Greece like all members has a veto. Privately everyone else thought that Greece was behaving like a bully and that the whole issue was being driven by Greek domestic politics (which it was). In these circumstances the use of FYROM is much more POV than the use of ROM, which can always be defended on the impeccable grounds that it is the country's legal name. Adam 03:19, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam. The Greek nationalists OPPOSE the name FYROM. If this was a way to appease them then it obviously failed cause they HATE IT. Get your facts sorted out and stop talking out of your behind, pretty please. FYROM is in fact the NPOV name. Who are you to be the judge of whether Greece was wrong or right to challenge the name "Macedonia"? Please leave your personal opinions and fiction out of this. Here is a FACT: Both sides have agreed to use FYROM internationally. This is an international encyclopedia. Maybe you can make it so .mk sites see the ROM version if you feel these people are hurt or whatever you try to prove here. 193.195.0.101 12:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alexander the Great is Macedonian. is the Alexander the Great as "Macedonian" FYROMIAN?? (See ROM propaganda)!!

See Macedonian or Macedonian language ! The forgery!!!! Vergina 07:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_4&oldid=883103003"