{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

After seeing that a lot editors were reverting each other, the subtitle of an image, I have written under the 1981 census "Ethnic map of the (back then "Yugoslav Federal Socialist"-) Republic of Macedonia, based on the sensus of 1981" and I've thought that would be acceptable by all sides. It seems that some editors prefer an anachronism, but I'm not in the mood of reverting them - I hope they'll correct their mistake soon. talk to +MATIA 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, maybe we should remove the map, I think it is outdated. Bitola 13:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Map removed. The country has held far more recent ethnic sensus since independence. Regarding the Albanian population, the numbers vary depending on whether you count the Kosovar Albanians and other non-Macedonian Albanians who moved there since 1991. I appreciate the sensitivity this issue may occasion. Politis 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits of Ancientmacedon (talk · contribs) for the following reasons:

• It's a blatant copy-paste (not a copyright infringement or plagiarism) and looks bad.
• It's irrelevant to this article. If it is agreed that this section should be kept, it belongs on Macedonians (ethnic group), not here.
• I looks suspiciously like propaganda. I've heard that about those widely discredited theories on the "sub-Saharan" origins of the Greeks. More akin to pseudoscience than what should be written in an encyclopaedia.

--Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These were discussed thoroughly before. One may go to Talk:Macedonia_(region)/archive#HLA_Genes_research and read till the buttom of the page. talk to +MATIA 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! We now have Genes in macedonians - I can't say that the things started good enough. talk to +MATIA 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder why this user dissappeared from wikipedia! Probably he/she had vanishing chromosomes! NikoSilver 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - oh wait, but.... Chaldean 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E Pluribus Anthony, I already had a lengthy discussion in the Macedonia talk page about the use of the FYROM abbreviation. Please read it: Talk:Macedonia#Naming_conflict_guidelines. You can also read the UN resolution for admitting the membership of my country (there is no FYROM in the resolution): [2] The bottom line is that the abbreviation is used in many places, but, however, it is considered insulting in my country and for that reason I’m trying to minimize its use in the Wikipedia articles. I hope you will understand why I’m doing this. Bitola 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in December, we agreed to a conciliatory rendition for the name and abbreviation. This initialism is commonly used by the UN and elsewhere, and your link provides no consensus to support your removal of this information. Wilfully removing it from the articles where it is directly relevant to the topic matter serves no purpose and is contrary to Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy.

So you will understand why I will restore these notes unless compelled otherwise. I encourage others to comment, however. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is bound to report current usage, and FYROM occurs far more commonly than "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to live with it. The use of the terms "(Republic of) Macedonia" and "Macedonian" is also offensive, to Greeks, but that hasn't stopped them being used ad nauseam here.--Theathenae 11:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bitola => NPOV. All views are to be represented. The naming conflict guidelines deal with the titles of articles, not whether an obviously common abbreviation used by many relevant an neutral sources can or cannot be used. NPOV overrules your POV and the naming conflict guideline. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]