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

Template:TrollWarning

I took the liberty of emptying this <sewer> of 407Kb of mostly rants. I even worked on the links in the archive. Feel free to revert me if you think that there was any meaning in all these polls with multiple choices that lead to an un-decipher-able [sic] dead-end. :NikoSilver: 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all this talking HAS to stop! Bomac 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May archive 11 be full of smileys Bomac! :NikoSilver: 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-electoral violence is, saddly, rife in ROM/FYROM, with a number of deaths occuring. And yet, some Slavomakedonjians(?) in wikipedia and other websites still have the naivity to propagate maps and claims for a Skopjian Macedonian country that would swallow sections of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Question: and just which violent gang of politicians in Skopje would govern this 'happy', ethnically cleased and decimated 'greater Macedonia'? It is time for the sensible Slavomakedonjians to start contributing, people who do not play with 'macedonianising' words and 'ethnic maps' and to show a different, modern face of the country. Politis 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use 'Macedonian Slavs' to refer to Macedonians, the wording is less offensive and will make you appear more tolerant! Further bonus: it happens to be easier to spell! - FrancisTyers · 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the Macedonians as 'Macedonian Slavs'? --Tēlex 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he means referring to the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Slavomacedonians"! There are Macedonians! No matter are they an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else. ;-) Bomac 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Slavomacedonians? I thought the last census showed 1.5million or so. You mean those are an ethnic group, Greeks or smt. else? I am confused! (we've both made our point, let's leave it at that - also see the last addition in the heading) :-) :NikoSilver: 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not trolling, I am telling the truth. The ethnic group doesn't calls itself "Slavomacedonians", it calls itself "Macedonians". That goes for the Greeks from Makedonia. Or? Bomac 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends - some of them call themselves Europeans. --Tēlex 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the two of us. Bomac 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EUropeans though?:NikoSilver: 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And some Serbs call themselves Yugoslavs (see article in question). --Tēlex 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Serbs out of this. Focus on Macedonians. Bomac 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Macedonians? --Tēlex 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonians from Macedonia. Bomac 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore certain Serbs are Macedonians! Why should they be left out of this? --Tēlex 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia, too. Bomac 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the people who advocated the creation of Greater Serbia, aren't they? --Tēlex 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not them, but the Serbian schauvinistic politicians. Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Bomac (edit conflict): Ah, I see. That would mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, and the Macedonians. Right? :NikoSilver: 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! Celebrate diversity! ;-) Bomac 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it depends how we define diversity. There are some who think that the names are not that diversified, "creating confusion even among the inhabitants themselves"...:NikoSilver: 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wouldn't say so that it can create confusion even among the inhabitants themselves. If you speak with a Macedonian from Greece, you'll know that he is Greek because of the language. Bomac 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what if he's one of those who identify as Greeks and speak also this? Also, what if you're communicating in another language (like we do now)? :NikoSilver: 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the first person - all Slavic languages are not the same. It is very poorly to say only that he speaks Slavic language.

For the second person - that goes the same way as others communicate. BTW, if someone asks a Greek what is his/hers nationality, he/she will answer Greek (100%). No need to mention about the Macedonian ethnic group. Bomac 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You found the only question that can be answered possibly without any confusion. How about these:

• Where are you from?
• Where were you born?
• Where do you live?
• What do you speak?
• etc etc etc

...and many more quite frequent questions that anybody would prefer to the... nationalistic banale question: "What is your nationality?". :NikoSilver: 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can terms like 'Slav', or 'Scandinavian', or 'Germanic' or 'Latin' be 'offensive'? Our Bulgarian, Polish, Russian, Croatian friends are 'Slavs', how can it be dismissive? For nearly 50 years, the inhabitans of ROM/FYROM were Yugoslavs (Southern Slavs); no one said, drop the 'slav' and call us Yugos (in any case, that's a car). Today, they are independent and their culture is not Greek Macedonian, but Slavo Macedonian with healthy blends of Bulgarian, Hellenic, Albanian and Gipsy elements. Anyway, at least you do not risk your life during the elections period in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Politis 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can a term like "Negro" be offensive? I mean, "Negro" means "Black" right? Possibly it is offensive because Black people consider it to be offensive, maybe you don't think it is offensive. We don't have the page at Negro people. I only use this example because it is so obvious you could trip over it. Incidentally, maybe "Slavomacedonian" isn't offensive when said in Greek, much like the term Negro in Spanish. But please, when speaking in English, do try to use "Black people" and not Negros. Of course the analogy isn't perfect (are any analogies?), but I hope you at least try and understand the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally I note you use the term "Gipsy" for Roma people, perhaps you aren't aware that, "This ethnonym is not used by the Roma to describe themselves, and is often considered pejorative." Perhaps you just aren't aware of this, as you weren't aware that "Slavomacedonian" is disliked. Consider taking action as a result of this novel information. - FrancisTyers · 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even at the frequent social strikes and bombs in the center of Athens (Synthagma square etc.)? What was the organisation name... September/October 8?

BTW, do I feel that the ethnic purity doctrine circles again around us? Bomac 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded 100% :NikoSilver: 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that "Slav" in a Greek context is not meant to be offensive. I'm certain I've seen the Russian language referred to as Slavorossisti in certain older and formal publications. --Tēlex 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Bomac: ethnic circles and purity? That is a pleasantly LOL remark, especially coming from a person who, it seems, is desperate to identify a distinct 'pure Macedonian' ethnicity. Someone who imposes 'ethnic maps of pure ethnic Macedonians'! Slavism is a culture primarily identified through language and partially through the Cyrillic alphabet. Dear Bomac, I think we have to protect you from your own naivity because you are really not a bad person. Politis 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Pure Macedonian? There is no such thing. I confirm that that is naive and desperate, but I really don't have an attitide towards that claim. I was only trying to say that you are starting to claim that every other neighbouring nation of Greece is a mixture and Greeks are the only ethnicaly pure people in the world. :-) Bomac 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no such 'ethnic purity' claims on this chapter. Being a 'Slav' is not an ethnic attribute but, as pointed out, to share certain common cultural traits. Some people are offended if they are called Slavs and Macedonians in the same breath. The only other choice is Hellenic Macedonians and it is well suited to those who do not consider themselves 'Greek' but who claim links with Alexander's Macedonia. But if you want to drop the 'Slav' epithet, then go back to the Greek language (or call it Romaic if you dislike the term 'Greek'). I accept that just 'Macedonian', on its own is, indeed of common usage in most parts of the world, but that does not mean the problem has been solved because the appelation is so recent and so imbued with Hellenic conotations that one can reasonably question its future. Politis 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Francis about negroes/Black people vs Slavs/Macedonians: No. Not applicable for one simple reason: There is no black person that is not offended by the word "negro". However, all other Slavs are proud to be Slavs. I personally know many of them in real life, who do not find the term offensive. The only problems here for the Slavomacedonian editors, are that none of them wants to accept it in order not to lose face infront of the rest, and ofcourse it is one major argument in insisting for simply Macedonia/ns that must not be lost for reasons of national interest.:NikoSilver: 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, it isn't about the name, it is about who is using the name. There is nothing per se wrong with any calling anyone any descriptive term. What matters is how people feel about those terms. Why continue using a term when it is obvious that the person on the receiving end doesn't like it, and it is also clear that a good proportion of the negative discourse surrounding a group uses this term. Anyway, its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind here, so move along... - FrancisTyers · 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can perfectly understand you though, coz right here there are some other people who feel offended by that other term when referring to the Slavomacedonians. In that sense, why continue using it openly when some feel offended just listening to it? Republic of FrancisTyers or simply FrancisTyers 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to use my name, I'd be honoured :) In fact, in terms of privacy it would be a good thing, there aren't so many people called "Francis Morton Tyers" around. And no, you continue to miss the point by failing to distinguish between; 1. A person, or group, calling themselves a name, and 2. A separate person, or group calling the first person, or group a name. You know, the difference between a black person calling another black person "nigger" and a white person calling a black person "nigger". In fact, I'm sure there is a whole academic discipline relating solely to this issue. - FrancisTyers · 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the permission in using your name but nobody asked you in the first place (like these Greeks weren't asked). To tell you the truth, I'd be honoured as well if someone chose to use my name, my history, my heritage etc. I wouldn't be if he used it to enter my home, open my bank account, or sleep with my wife! I think that widespread theories of the sort are prohibiting me from enjoying this honour! Now to your (still) incompatible example, (1)they don't even call each other Slavomacedonians, (2)Blacks as a whole never claimed United Black Republic or a name of someone else, e.g. Chinese people!! Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers 13:smthg, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And again we come to the history and politics nonsense, which is tangential to the issue at hand. You know my opinion on that malarkey; 1. So why do you use it? Why not use "Macedonian Slavs" instead, and then eventually you can develop toward dropping the "Slavs" bit! Perhaps even a letter at a time! Or hey, how about Macedonizzles! :)) 2. You're on shaky ground there, can you be sure that some black people haven't used a named that was originally something else? - FrancisTyers · 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! No, I didn't object to Macedonian Slavs. No problem for that. Actually I don't object to Macedonians + anything. What I object to is simply Macedonians. Oh, I lost you in #2, but nevermind...Republic of FrancisTyers, or simply FrancisTyers, husband of Ms.Tyers and holder of Mr.Tyer's bank account, home, car, mobile etc 13:smthnmore, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I said in the first place (2nd post ---^) And with the "Ms. Tyers", I'm hoping you aren't indirectly accusing me of incest, that's a personal attack! And regarding your other points I think you're probably better off with what you already have :)) - FrancisTyers · 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad we agree, and glad Bomac abgreed as well (below). For the record, who said we're exchanging? I am just taking. And also, this FrancisTyers here wouldn't technically commit incest...:-) 13:smthn, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it this way, "taking" what I have would put you in a worse position than you already are :) - FrancisTyers · 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about if someone is proud beeing a Slav, it's about the name that the people use in their everyday lives. The name they identify with and differ from other Slavic nations. OK, you can have your POV by calling the nation "Slavomacedonians", but the real/existing name of the nation is Macedonians. Bomac 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, the Macedonians, or the Macedonians? :-) :NikoSilver: 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue to this would be: Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks or Greeks? ;-) Bomac 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in any way related to improving this article? Jkelly 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. We are making circulus vitiosus all the time. I'm getting tired of it. Bomac 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly has a point here; this talk section should never have been started, as from the beginning it only started yet another pointless squabble; please, lets try to be constructive! On my own, I'm going to follow Niko; many many smiles --Aldux 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole arguement started by one genius saying 'there are no slavomacedonians.' Never in the history of Europe has there been a people so confused and sensitive about how others perceive them beside perhaps certain nazi party members who would get angry if someone didn't adhere to their Aryan roots. So very postmodern... # Reaper7  

My last comment: you are really good in changing names. Bomac 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment: I'll stop. Please respect both POV's. I'll never ask again which Macedonians you mean (unless I am really confused) and you never correct me again when saying "Slavomacedonians", or better "Macedonian Slavs" (you choose). Deal? :NikoSilver: 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Bomac 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick qestion. Is there even a mention of the word 'slav' in the whole article? Or do the Fyromians carry direct decent from 500BC to present day with less slav culture and blood than even the Greeks? Anyone reading this article might think they are not a slavic people. Reaper7  

Some guys simply can't resist to quarelling. --Aldux 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No really, there is no mentioning of the slavic descent of Macedonian Slavs. I don't consider this ranting or anything, but I think a neutral summary of the article Slav Macedonians in the Demographics section would include this information at least. Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 13:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe the problem is more due to modest quality of the history section; there's an incredible leap from 146 BC to AD 1912, 2000 years in 2 lines. Probably 1912-2005 should be shortened (there's History of the Republic of Macedonia, isn't there?) and right a couple of not-too-long paragraphs on the 146 BC to 1912 period; there we could speak of the Slavic invasions.--Aldux 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not of greek decent and you also from another part of the world and we visit FYROM and Greece we will notice the Greeks speak a language that is the direct decendant of Ancient Greek besides a few Roman and Turkish words thrown in. It has mostly Words and roots found in ancient Theban, Macedonian, Athenian, Thessalian ect texts and monuments. Therefore there is an obvious link seeing that the Greeks still live in these same lands today. Slavs and Albanians famously settled in Greece north and esp south, and now they are Greeks. Unfortunately there were not enough to alter greek culture or language significantly. FYROM does not share this History. The language and names are far far more obviously AD slav than anything else and this should be mentioned because everyday it becomes clearer it is not just Macedonian they speak as if it has a shred of connection to Ancient Macedonian which is how the article appears by not mentioning the word 'slav' at all. Someone who has a basic knowledge of the world will go, 'Is it me or are they speaking and writing russian?' Someone intelligent will simply say, hold on, they are speaking bad bulgarian, I thought i recognised it.' At least with Greek you can see in the alphabet and culture that they have kept and retained certain key aspects of the ancient world besides a name 'Hellenic.' There is a link to the ancient world greater than the name of the country and some ruins. I feel if someone reads this article they need to atleast read that the language is virtually bulgarian and there are countless articles not from FYROM stating that. Also as you said the slav invasions should be mentioned as whatever anyone says either side, these invasions had an impact on those who claim to be from the Republic of Macedonia that affects language, culture, religion appearance - everything. # Reaper7  

folk linguistics. Keep to what you know. - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux, I generally agree. Also, we see as it goes and modify accordingly. Would you care to do the honours of making the modifications you proposed above?:NikoSilver: 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try; but I'm not very good in being brief, so don't be shy in modifying the text if you don't like it.--Aldux 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, it is POV to say that some ethnic Macedonians declare themselves as Bulgarians. As far as people declaring themselves as Bulgarians are concerned, they are Bulgarians declaring as Bulgarians. Respect their right to self-identification - imagine if I went to Croatia and said that it is inhabited by predominantly by ethnic Serbs declaring themselves as Croats, or to Romania and said that it is inhabited by ethnic Moldovans declaring themselves as Romanians, or even to say that the Republic of Macedonia is inhabited by Bulgarians declaring themselves Macedonians. People are who they say they are - don't impose POV labels, especially without citing sources. --Tēlex 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, with one caveat, some Macedonians may declare themselves as Bulgarians for financial and other benefits that come from having (or will come from having) a Bulgarian passport [1]. And yes, the article does highlight some bad things about Macedonia, so you should enjoy it :) - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that 'Radko', a pro-Bulgarian political party in FYROM, which was banned by the "Macedonian" Constitutional Court as separatist for merely saying in public that the "Macedonian" "nation" are brainwashed Bulgarians, did so for financial benefits? --Tēlex 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FYROM government weren't happy at all about that organization. Apparently, the Bulgarian ambassador to FYROM attended one of their events, and the FYROM government complained saying that: the presence of a high Bulgarian official at an event intended to deny the Macedonian identity is not within the framework of the usual diplomatic activities in the country which has offered him hospitality [2]. I suppose that, at the very least, they do gain publicity. Anyway, I guess you're right Francis. It's simply impossible that there are people with a genuine Bulgarian national identity in FYROM, for the doctrine tells me so, --Tēlex 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

may - FrancisTyers · 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article of the Macedonian constitution, actualy article number 7:

Article 7 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.

As it is specified in this article, the context must not be mussunderstood, the only official language in the Republic of Macedonia is the Macedonian on a state level, all other languages spoken by the minorities as defined by the article and with the regarding low are official only on municipal level, and the official documents to the citisens who do speak a language different than macedonian and that is official in a municipality where the minority represents more than 20% are given in "company" with the macedonian. It is a completly nonsence the albanian language to stand by the macedonian as it is still not an official one.--Vlatko 22:41, 05 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive10#Languages. --Tēlex 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it means not that it has been "droven" to a wrong conclusion and can't be discused again, you are makeing a messtake. I'm explainig that over, how is it posoible to be not understanded.--Vlatko 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia: Article 7 (2):

Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below.

Affirmed by p. 663 of the Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 (ISBN 0-85229-956-7). If Albanian is spoken by more than 20% of the populationm, it is also official according to the constitution. This is confirmed by Britannica. Please read the archives - this has all been answered; we agreed even not to have the Albanian name in the infobox so as to keep you happy. If we are to play by the book, then we should readd it. --Tēlex 21:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia brotanica is not the constitution of Rom, and it is complletly wrong, I asure you.--Vlatko 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting the goddam constitution!!! It says: Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик. --Tēlex 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telex, if you are asking me, it is same if Albanian will stay in the first line or second. I was just trying to NPOV-ise as I've red the discussions made here by Vlatkoto and you. So get a deal and let's get over with this nonsense. Bomac 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed a while ago as a compromise that the "Albanian" would remain in the languages list, but the Albanian name "Republika e Maqedonisë" would not be in the infobox. --Tēlex 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian is still in the language box, but if you insist for location in it, change to the previous version, but, please let's quit the nonsense. Bomac 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed not with that, no need for agreement for something wrongly stated and interpreted. We can disscus this till tomorrow if you want, you are wrong. Here again, you are regarding just a part, realy "smart": again the article:

Член 7

На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. (You pointed this part) Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, (and whats the meaning of the following) како што е определено со овој член. <<<It says as it is defined bellow of this article. (Please read it slowly). Личните документи на граѓаните кои зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, се издаваат на македонски јазик и неговото писмо, како и на тој јазик и неговото писмо во согласност со закон. Кој било граѓанин кој живее во единиците на локалната самоуправа во која најмалку 20% од граѓаните зборуваат службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, во комуникацијата со подрачните единици на министерствата, може да употреби кој било од службените јазици и неговото писмо. Подрачните единици надлежни за тие единици на локалната самоуправа одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик и писмо што го употребува граѓанинот. Секој граѓанин во комуникација со министерствата може да употребува еден од службените јазици и неговото писмо, а министерствата одговараат на македонски јазик и неговото кирилско писмо, како и на службениот јазик писмото што го употребува граѓанинот. Во органите на државната власт во Република Македонија службен јазик различен од македонскиот јазик, може да се користи во согласност со закон. Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа. (And finaly it is defned opnly as an municipality language not a state one)

If the constitution designates it official then it's official. Just like the rarely used Swedish language is in the Republic of Finland (oops - they have Sewdish in the infobox). --Tēlex 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I give the efort. You are realy ...... as you do not understand, please do your wrong edits on the greek and the albanian wikipedia and the articles regarding them, and ....of macedonia. You do not improuve nothing here. --Vlatko 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, lets not get so anti-WP:NPA. Bomac 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what he's talking about. I do very little on the Albanian and Greek Wikipedias - only start articles like Slavomakedones and Sllavomaqedonë. Very WP:NPOV... --Tēlex 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so, but can you make a compromise here, at en-Wiki? Can you Vlatko and Telex make a compromise? Bomac 22:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - he seems to be nationalistic and wants a United Macedonia, whereas I am a cosmopolitan. --Tēlex 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (actually, I'm waiting for Francis to respond to all this)[reply]

What, a compromise about a verificated and fully amanded constitution of a state that is in legislative and in real use of the word "in strenght". HA, never heard about. Telex please regard in back your actions, And I'm not for a united macedonia, but for recognition of the rights of my people--Vlatko 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution uses the very word "official"! --Tēlex 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get out of here, the only thing you have to say is: sorry but I do not understand. Aren't you ashamed of this play of yours. I explaned enough, what more do you want. In what context is used that word. As I see you have no Ide, you just like to dispute with your "enemy", even when you are not righ just the "contra" gives you some pleasure.--Vlatko 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Vlatko, this is where you are wrong. I am of Arvanite origin, and I would even like Albanian to be official in Greece. I can't tell you how much I feel 'Republika Greke' or 'Republika Helene' should be at the article Greece. I want this article to be fair, and you know it. --Tēlex 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More internal problems [3], more WP edit-warring... Guys, you won't exactly make peace with 25%+ of your population if you continue to refuse basic human rights. Even if it wasn't official (which it evidently is) it would be worth being included in the article, as it is spoken by every one out of four! Live with it and make peace. It will be much simpler (and quieter) for all of you. 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with, can't you understand that if it is official I will personaly put it there in the infobox, so please stop adding it.--Vlatko 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and stop pretending you are a constitution analyst. It says clearly that 20%+ is official. It doesn't say less than official or mostly official or near-official. It says official. Now if you don't have what it takes to specify within your constitution which is the only language that has more than 20% frequency in your country, then at least don't pretend it is not so by disputable WP:OR constitutional interpretations. :NikoSilver: 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not pretend, And realy mature for colling me sick, thank you. It says so, ask Telex, as he understands something of Macedonian, he has readed and the Macedonian language costitution, in the article it is written this :Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните, исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, како што е определено со овој член. >>>>Another language that at least 20% of the citisents speak, is also, an official language and his letter, as it is defined by this article (and it is clearly defined here how much the other language is official and where) >>>read the other part bellow this one sentence. And you can convince you alln by your self in the originality of this^^^^^^. The albanian is not official on state level, only on municipality level.--Vlatko 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Vlat, if the things are really like you say, what's the sense of speaking of a national 20% and a municipal 20%? Also it seems hard to believe Albanians would give up so much of what they had obtained at Ohrid.--Aldux 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more languages the better. See United Kingdom, 6 languages in the Infobox *cool* :)) - FrancisTyers · 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not even be mentioned once? IE if this suddenly stops being the case, the country will significantly suffer as greece is its only major investor. # Reaper7  

We should need some reliable sources before, giving also the number of the other countries. As an output of the country's exports, Serbia seems to be more important (31% to 9%).--Aldux 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greece is the first among foreign investors in FYROM, having invested a total of more than 460 million euros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Greece

LOL

Reaper7  ]]

Please read the articles before making requests. The source is the European Commission. If in any doubht, log on to its site. People can always write to the Commission and explain to them that they disagree... :-) Politis 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Luka Jačov, do not go about asking for proof about everything - or as targetting in a prejudicial manner ethnicities you may despise (I am sure you respect them all). The republic has many minorities and ethnicities because it never went to war in the 1990s trying to wipe them out. Politis 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we dont have proof how can we know if information is verifibal? During Balkan Wars Greeks took much of Macedonian Slav ethnic territory leaving no Greeks north from then Serbian-Greek border. Show us some proof (presence of Greek Orthodox Church, Association of Ethnic Greeks in Macedonia or similar) and then it could be put again. Sorry but this is wikipedia policy. Luka Jačov 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, we have been through this before. The Joshua Project claims that they have a Greek minority of c. 20,000 [4]. The former Greek minister for Macedonia-Thrace claimed that there are at least 200,000 Greeks in FYROM [5]. The Ethnologue says that Greek is amongst the languages spoken there. Greeks have a historic presence in the area, especially in the south, but there was a recorded Greek community in Krushevo before communism, and Ottoman censi have recorded a Greek presence in the area. Finally, the evidence supporting the existence "Macedonian minority in Greece" is of a similar nature, so if you persist in removing the Greeks from here, I will be removing any reference to Macedonians from Greece. Double standards are not allowed. --Tēlex 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did you erase the fact that the "Macedonian" language has a substantial Greek influence and many words of Greek origin. This is a fact, and has been sourced at Macedonian language. Do you espouse anti-Greek sentiment - I wouldn't be surprised. --Tēlex 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this rubbish about Greeks taking Macedonian Slav ethnic territory? The Macedonian Slav ethnicity wasn't created by Tito until the 1940s - during the Balkan Wars, the main ethnicities in Macedonia were Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. All Ottoman censi show Greeks as the largest Christian population in the area. If you really don't know what you're talking about and are as clueless on the topic as you seem to be, then I advise silence. I you want to know more abut the historic ethnic composition of Macedonia, see Demographic history of Macedonia. --Tēlex 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, I just had a bit of an exchange with Telex and he really comes down when he thinks there are double standards, irrespective of their source (mine, yours, or the man in the moon). I think that is a positive attribute and welcome in wikipedia. Politis 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Telex we've been through this before and we came to conclusion there is no Greek community in Republic of Macedonia. Joshuaproject cannot be taken as relevant and not to say quote of Greek Minister and could be serious violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also you say "historic presense". Kruševo has Vlach community which was historicly pro-Greek. I didnt found anything that says about "substantial" Greek influence. Could you gives a proof that Macedonian is influenced by Greek more then it is for example by Turkish language or that Macedonian language has more Greek influence than Bulgarian language (as sentence sounds that one of difference of Bulgarian and Macedonian is Greek influence). I said Macedonian Slavs as neutral term (they are Slavs they are Macedonians no matter if we say they Bulgarians or seperate nation). As you can see on maps of article you gave me there are no Greeks showed in area of today's Republic Macedonia but also not even near its border as maps show Greeks inhabitated only southern edge of historical Macedonia. And I should also point you up that blackmailing not only that is against wikipedia's policy and against normal deceint behaviour it also shows your lack of arguments. So until we get reliable sources we cannot have that information listed. Luka Jačov 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn - I'm afraid there are more sources to support the existence of a Greek community than the Egyptians (which you left in the article). I did not say that "Macedonian" is more influenced by Greek than any other language. I said it has been influenced substantially, and this is sourced at Macedonian language like I told you. I don't know how much it is influenced by Turkish etc, if you can cite a source, add that as well. As for the maps on that article, there are statistics and which show a Greek presence in the area, and I think Stanford's map from 1877 in that article shows a Greek majority in all Macedonia. Finally, what blackmailing? Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere. I'll repeat my prior statement. As the sources on the existence of a Greek minority in FYROM and a "Macedonian" minority in Greece are of a similar nature, if you remove Greeks from here, then remove the Macedonian Slavs from Greece so as to avoid double standards. --Tēlex 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you saying that "some Macedonians identify as Bulgarians". If they say they are Bulgarians, then they are Bulgarians. Period. See #Self-id. --Tēlex 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW soomeone in the FYROM government claimed in 1993 that there are between 230,000 and 270,000 "Macedonians" in Greece [6]. How come we can write that in Wikipedia, but not what the Greek minister says. Neutrality works both ways, you know. Either we say both, or none. Period. --Tēlex 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you check Egyptians article you ll see they were recorded on 1994 census. Macedonian language does not mentions that the language is "substantialy influenced by Greek" so this is clear pushing of POV. About Bulgarians it should be noted that some people that would otherwise be considered as Macedonians feel Macedonians belong to Bulgarian nation and that they are not seperate. Therefore this is more political preference then ethnical distinction and that should be noted. I dont care what you are goin to do with Macedonians in Greece you do what ever you want. Luka Jačov 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, it seems that Greeks were recorded in the census [7]. --Kiro Gligorov 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you didn't notice (which I doubt) the above commment, then read it now and stop reverting sourced material, by saying that it wasn't discussed. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested by Luka Jačov. Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2004 (CD version)

• Macedonian: 1297981
• Albanian: 509083
• Vlach: 9695
• Roma: 53879
• Turkish: 77959
• Austrian: 35
• Bosniak: 17018
• Bulgarian: 1487
• German: 88
• Greek: 422
• Jew: 53
• Egyptian: 3713
• Italian: 46
• Muslim: 2553
• Polish: 162
• Romanian: 38
• Russian: 368
• Ruthenian: 24
• Slovak: 60
• Slovene: 365
• Serb: 35939
• Ukrainian: 136
• Croat: 129
• Montenegrin: 2686
• Hungarian: 2003
• Czech: 60
• Other: 5332
• Ethnically undeclared: 404
• Regional affiliation: 829

--FlavrSavr 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the archive and this appears not to have been discussed. Is there a verifiable reliable reference for the motto for Republic of Macedonia (Слобода или смрт (English: Liberty or death))? It appears to have only been valid about 100 years ago, and even then quite unofficially and by a small group of people. I'm inclined to remove it unless it can be verified. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion (bitchin') about it between myself, Realek, Avg and others in Archives 8-10. There was no productive result. The Greek side stresses that it is exactly similar to Eleftheria i thanatos which is the Greek motto since the Greek War of Independence in 1821 (no sign of "ethnic Macedonians" back then). No objection to delete if a reliable recent source cannot be provided.:NikoSilver: 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant archived rants:

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive10#Slododa_ili_smrt

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/Archive9#What_is_acceptable: (long, see most indented part)

There is nothing productive I can make of these. Please cite or delete. :NikoSilver: 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its fun to go through external links with reference to Wikipedia:External links and determine which ones should be included according to policies and to cut down on external link spam! Like a game! - FrancisTyers · 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thats a reasonable amount done for tonight, if anyone else wants to have a go, be my guest. - FrancisTyers · 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Assembly of Republic of Macedonia
• Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resource Management
• Ministry of Culture
• Ministry of Defense
• Ministry of Economy
• Ministry of Education and Science
• Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
• Ministry of Finance
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Ministry of Health
• Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
• Ministry of Local Self-Government
• Ministry of Transport and Communications
• Official Government website
• President of Republic of Macedonia
• State Electoral Commission Republic of Macedonia

• Detailed Profile of Macedonia from the Encyclopedia of Nations — Delete world factobook mirror. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Organization for the European Minorities' reports on Macedonia — Delete 404. - FrancisTyers · 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UNGA Resolution about the use of the provisional reference
• Macedonia Official tourism portal —
• The first webpage dedicated to the Republic of Macedonia has general information about the country —
• Development and Civil Society Issues on the FYR of Macedonia
• "Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", United Nations, 13 September 1995
• Macedonia Becomes First All Wireless Country
• Richard Bangs expedition in Macedonia -- delete, poor quality, terribly misinformed (so the Greeks excluded the ancient Macedonians from the Olympic games because they were "too strong"? And Alexander the Great was the first Macedonian to participate and win? Horrid nonsense.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A website with general information about the state Delete ("...the legendary land of Alexander the Great...") :NikoSilver: 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonia.co.uk, shows Macedonia to the World and Brings the World to Macedonia — Delete ugh, I couldn't even tell what it was. Definately not exceptional material. - FrancisTyers · 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Republic of Macedonia and the Balkans Discussion Forum — Delete discussion forums should not be linked to. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• macedonia :: general information — Delete with extreme prejudice, horrific advertising. - FrancisTyers · 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonia Competitiveness Activity — Delete Cargo cultist nonsense. - FrancisTyers · 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonian Discussions — Delete discussion forums into the fire! - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonian Heritage FAQ from the Greek perspective — Delete not relevant. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A collection of articles which argues against the Greek definition of Macedonia — Delete nonsense. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• a Macedonian search engine — Delete we are not a link farm. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonian search engine, indexing Macedonian and English-language content — Delete we don't need to link to search engines. - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• News from Macedonia — Delete irredentist blog. - FrancisTyers · 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Photos of Macedonia — Keep why not, some nice photographs, no advertising to speak of. - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Macedonia — Keep useful enough. - FrancisTyers · 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Macedonian newspaper in Bulgaria — Delete we don't need to link to newspapers - FrancisTyers · 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map is stupid. It allocates Albanian populated areas (Tetovo, Gostivar) to Serbia. --Tēlex 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]