Jump to content

Talk:2008 Bucharest summit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macedonia

[edit]

The official NATO reference is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and this is the name that should be used in NATO-related articles per WP:MOSMAC. Please refrain from shortening it to "Macedonia". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary ?

[edit]

I found this [2] we should use it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Would it be better to call this summit (and the others) the Bucharest NATO summit? Surely this is how it is known rather than the Bucharest summit? Google test shows NATO summit in Bucharest as the favorite. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because all the NATO summits are named like that, for example "1990 London summit". Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Named by whom? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Ijanderson977 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if we rename all of them. I think 2008 Bucharest NATO summit would be better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika, Nazi uniform, and the PM bowing in front of the United Macedonia map

[edit]

We have three issues mentioned in the section:

  • The cross on the Greek flag replaced by a swastika
  • Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform
  • FYROM PM Gruevski laying a wreath under the map of the irredentist concept of United Macedonia

The first two issues received international condemnation (i.e. not only "Greek", as the article would say before my revert). See the sources about EU's expansion commissioner Olli Rehn for example, who went further on to add that "the act was not in line with the principle of good neighborly relations ... is offensive against the Jewish community in Greece".

Now the third issue, is much more important: It concerns the head of the government of a state which is about to enter a military alliance, bow and deposit a wreath in front of a map with irredentist content against a member of that very alliance! The Greek MFA has noted this action in multiple occasions in the international media (along with the rest of the irredentist propaganda in the country's schoolbooks and govt publications etc), as the major reason behind its veto. I have included two very reputable sources on that Greek concern, and there are numerous others.

If there were something to be deleted due to ...space considerations, that should definitely NOT be the actual reason for the veto. I don't get why this is pro-Greek or whatever, and I really wish things were different. NikoSilver 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia Section should be written like so

[edit]
Main article: Macedonia naming dispute

Greece had threatened on several occasions to veto the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's NATO bid due to the longstanding naming dispute over the latter's name.[7] Athens argues that use of the name "Macedonia" implies territorial claims on the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia, a claim rejected by Skopje. NATO officials said the country could begin talks on joining the alliance as soon as it had resolved its dispute with Greece.[17]

Agree?

Its NPOV, simple and gives a brief explanation to the dispute, which affects FYROM NATO membership. That is all what is needed Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cross on the Greek flag replaced by a swastika
  • Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform
  • FYROM PM Gruevski laying a wreath under the map of the irredentist concept of United Macedonia

These are not really needed on this article, as they are related to Macedonia naming dispute instead, not the 2008 NATO summit Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't know why it should be that brief. When I first visited this article, only the (immaterial, small, stupid, initiated by private orgs etc) issue of the swastika was mentioned. I merely added what was of real importance: The territorial concerns. I will settle for replacing the swastika and the Nazi uniform for the wreath. I mean, people may think Greece went crazy over a name or something, but the issue is much more complicated than that. Self-declared "pro-American" Sarkozy said he is in total agreement with the Greek government over the issue. More than half of the members were in support. NikoSilver 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this version [3] Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did something too.[4] Explanation: As WP, given the overwhelming evidence of official support to irredentism, we cannot verify that "Skopje rejects these actions". We need to mention the rest of the story. I spared the spicy details from the article text. Agreed? NikoSilver 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia and Greek veto

[edit]

While the article does state Greek claims and stance, it fails to include the Macedonian position and reply to the Greek stance.

For instance, "Athens states Republic of Macedonia has territorial claims" should be followed by "Skopje denies the allegations Athens puts forth, since the Republic of Macedonia has changed its constitution to state no territorial claims towards its neighbors. reference: http://www.constitution.org/cons/macedoni.htm

Another is the wrath under the "United Macedonia" allegation, the whole picture is not presented. Please add "The wrath was placed on a VMRO member grave, who fought for Ottoman Macedonia which was presented above the PM."

Also, the article does not state violation of the Interim Accord with Greek veto. Please add, "With the veto, Greece has violated the Interim Accord, which states Greece will not prevent Republic of Macedonia from joining any international organization as long as it does so with the FYROM acronym reference: http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html

The following are not associated with the government of the Republic of Macedonia therefore it is difficult to blame the government for the actions and its allowance of freedom of speech 1.) The cross on the Greek flag replaced by a swastika 2.) Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform

You may add portions, but please do not remove my content. Maktruth (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth[reply]


Please make these changes so the whole picture is known, which allows Wikipedia to remain a neutral site, which shows both Greek and ethnic Macedonian sides of the veto. Maktruth

I suspect those would be another example of "details" that need to be spared from the article. Unless, of course, we need to further elaborate by saying that "Greece states that the interim accord cannot be followed selectively", as it has been done in this case with constant violation of:
  • Art.3 (respect on sovereignty)
  • Art.5, par.1 (to support negotiations for another name)
  • Art.7, par.1 (to limit territorial propaganda - which is the core of the issue given the constant official provocations)
  • Art.7, par.3 (to not use symbols - e.g. renaming airports and such)
I reverted these details (or should I add the rest?). Maktruth, you are welcome to bring this up in the relative article about the Macedonia naming dispute. Thanks. NikoSilver 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maktruth, you reverted without adding an edit summary, or a rationale on the talkpage. NikoSilver 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Niko, I am replying to your statements, also how do I sign because I am new to Wikipedia, thanks Maktruth
You must reply before you revert in such contentious issues, especially if they are connected to Macedonia. See WP:ARBMAC. Keep it in mind for the next time. Also, watch WP:3RR. You can sign by placing four tildes at the end of your comment (like this: ~~~~). Waiting for your reply. NikoSilver 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The details I stated should be permitted since it is a reply to Greece reasons of vetoing. Art.3 has not been violated since Republic of Macedonia has not done anything to undermine Greece’s sovereignty. If you refer to citizen action, that cannot be blamed on government actions, since freedom of speech cannot be denied. Art.5, par.1 has not been violated since Republic of Macedonia did accept “Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)” before the NATO summit. Also, Republic of Macedonia tried joining under the FYROM acronym and stated it would have continued negotiations after the summit (before the veto threat occurred). Macedonia insists a new name that does not endanger Macedonian ethnicity was needed for the proposal to be approved, something Greece has not offered. Art.7, par. 1 has not been violated since Macedonian government has not done any action to cause territorial aspirations from its citizens. Again, the “United Macedonia” was actually simply a historical map since the PM was putting a wrath on a VMRO member’s grave. Art.7, par.3 has not been violated since Macedonian government changed its flag and only used Alexander the Great as admiration, not robbery. Many nations have buildings and etc that only admire other nations’ heroes; this is an overreaction from the Greek government. Maktruth (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth[reply]
I will look for a reference for the following "NATO officials said the country could begin talks on joining the alliance as soon as it had resolved its dispute with Greece." I know it has been stated, but a reference is needed. Maktruth (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth[reply]
lol, it existed in the refs you deleted... BTW, nothing of what you placed in the article is supported by any relative source! NikoSilver 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position. That would mean, we'll have to include (a) your version about the violation of the accord, (b) Greece's reply, (c) your reply, (d) my reply on your reply, etc. It doesn't work this way. You need a reliable source to back up those replies of yours (and mine). I gave a source for the Greek concerns (and I do not examine them, I merely mention what the source says), you must find a source for the reply, and then ...we must move all these immaterial details to the relative article: Macedonia naming dispute. For now, you must definitely reinstate the previous sourced version (that one), or put sources and gain consensus for changing it to yours. NikoSilver 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your reply on the issue at hand, we can go on talking for ages, but here goes: 15 years of not an inch in backing up isn't exactly constructive. Freedom of speech does not count as an excuse for irredentism when it comes to the prime minister and to governmental publications and schoolbooks (see here for 320 official examples). And there are more replies/comments for the rest, but we should better move to another talkpage. NikoSilver 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I told you I am new. What do you mean when you state "Relevant source."? I am guessing you state neutral sources, I will look for neutral sources but understand you are also obligued to do the same (meaning Greek sources should not me used). I do not understand how my sources aren't reliable, I am an ethnic Macedonian who used GREEK SOURCES!!! I used sources from the opposite person and they are unreliable? The viewers have a right to know that Macedonia's constitution states no territorial claims and that Greece violated the Interim Accord since what was the Greek argument for vetoing Macedonia. 17 years have passed and BOTH sides have rejected and approved some proposals, but a critical circumstance is that Macedonian ethnicity is NOT endangered with a name change, Greece must recognize this when considering the name change, which it has not done yet. I will look for "reliable sources" since there are many out there which support what I have stated. I do find it funny when the opposite side uses Greek source it is unreliable, but then later one you use a Greek (non-governmental and non-media) source to argue the claim of irredentism. Maktruth (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Maktruth[reply]
You added the interim accord itself. You didn't add anyone commenting that "it was violated". That's WP:SYN, and it is also part of the story, as I explain above. NikoSilver 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the Interim Accord was necessary since Republic of Macedonia tried joining under the FYROM acronym, hence the Interim Accord and Veto are connected on the issue. I will re-word it if you want me too. Maktruth (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interim accord itself is indeed relevant, but it's worthless as a citation for saying that "Greece breached it". You need to find someone say that for you. BTW, Greece says that the interim accord cannot be applied selectively, and I have a source for that. Where's yours? And, anyway, for chrissake, all this belongs to Macedonia naming dispute, NOT here! NikoSilver 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Niko, I am confused, if I want to state Macedonia has no territorial claims, I cannot use the Macedonian constitution as a reference? I have to show a reference with a Macedonian politician stating there is no territorial claims? Maktruth (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But even if you found a reference of a politician saying so, there is overwhelming evidence that in practice there are such territorial claims by numerous official sources. I gave you 320 above. So, if you say "the constitution does not have territorial claims, and politicians XYZ say so", you'll also have to add that "in practice there are numerous such claims by official sources", as it has been cited above. That's how the article was before. Notice that we don't take position, we merely describe the sources at hand. NikoSilver 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have used a Greek source to state your case though, isn't it just as easy for me to use Macedonian sources to prove my case? Why is the article to show Greece in a good light rather then showing a neutral side, which shows both sides? Maktruth (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the following: "but supported through various actions of high government officials, schoolbooks, and governmental publications.[11][12][13][14]" since reference 11 and 12 are simply Greek politician allegations, 13 is simply pictures does not give any explanation from the Macedonian side as to what the pictures mean, and 14 is a biased Greek sight. Maktruth (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos is right; you need secondary sources that interpret the primary sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed a bit the part talking about the Interim Accord that was claimed by FYROM to be violated by the Greek veto, in order to make it objective and to sound neutral in reference to both sides' views on the issue. Please advise if smthng wrong Cdr259 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a neutral statement Cdr259, since it states Greece had to veto in order to prevent Macedonia from breaking the Interim Accord, when in fact the Greek government broke the accord with the veto. Maktruth (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you refer to my "Greek position on the NEED to apply the veto": i.e. meaning what Greece sees as a need to apply the veto. On the other hand, what you say ("...whn in fact the Greek government broke the accord with the veto") does not sound neutral either. My point was and is that we are not here to discuss who broke the accord, just to document the publicly stated aspects of both countries. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdr259 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Greek weasel wording

[edit]

In a situation that F.Y.R.O.M. hangs swastika flags, we have a wikipedia article that only reads "Greece violates an accord". The swastika flag info is irrelevant as well as officials of them encouraging the anti-Greek sentiment that reaches levels of discrimination of the antisemitist type, but the ant-Greek weasel wording is not. Very nice, great success. --Leladax (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...a claim rejected by Skopje" (for the territorial concerns of Athens) is POV. I have provided numerous sources that show that it is actually endorsed by the government in Skopje, by its highest officials, by the country's schoolbooks, by governmental publications etc. Either we will include the full story (NPOV), or we will delete the one sided POV that "Skopje rejects it". Take your pick. NikoSilver 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here are the sources (which may have been lost in the rampant edit warring by "new" editors here):
  • Greek FA complaining about them:
  • A compilation of 300+ official irredentist provocations in all kinds of governmental sources, including schoolbooks and parliamentary discussions:
    • Society for Macedonian Studies, Macedonianism FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006, Ephesus - Society for Macedonian Studies, 2007 ISBN 978-960-8326-30-9, Retrieved on 2007-12-05.
  • Foreign media:
  • Greek media:
    • Patrides, Greek Magazine of Toronto, September — October, 1988, p. 3.
  • Local examples:
We do not need to include them all, of course. And there's a lot more where these are coming from... NikoSilver 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to understand, Macedonia wants a pie from Greece? Marc KJH (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yes. It says officially that it doesn't (of course), but the actions are louder than words... There's a whole lot more than a mere terminology dispute. See also United Macedonia. NikoSilver 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the most powerful military alliance the world has ever known will meet at a time of growing global threats to international peace and security. But at the Nato summit in Bucharest, issues of Kosovo's independence, tensions in the Middle East, growing divisions with Russia, prospects of resolution of the Cyprus conflict, and membership prospects for Ukraine and Georgia, may have to take a backseat as ministers and generals debate the most weighty issue of all: what the Macedonians can call themselves.

The issue also is if the other Macedonians are allowed to a non-ambiguous self-identification for themselves. NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the summit, the Alliance was expected to extend membership invitations to Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, but Greece is blocking Skopje's bid due to the name issue. Athens' extreme diplomatic inhospitality towards its newest neighbour is rooted in the national indignation that another country should give itself the name of one of its own provinces, especially the one associated with Alexander the Great and Phillip of Macedonia, and fears that Skopje's use of the name implies a claim to the Greek northern province. Greece has already forced on the Macedonians the appalling moniker, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or FYROM, in all international forums. As if Athens would ever accept to be called the "Former Ottoman Province of Greece".

The provisional reference is not pleasant for any of the parties. It was imposed to both. NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To break the impasse before the summit, various compromises have been suggested, nearly all of which are as deeply insulting to Macedonians as FYROM. In the last few weeks, we've seen "New Macedonia" or "Upper Macedonia". The Macedonians have reportedly now agreed to add the geographic tagline: "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" to meet a previous Greek demand, but even that is not apparently enough for the Greeks today. Talks have moved from the UN to Washington in hopes of a solution before a train wreck this week.

Well, that suggestion was obviously insulting for the intelligence of the other Macedonians. Parentheses, as in "optional", and a similar if not greater awkwardness to that of the FYROM acronym... NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional analogy

[edit]

The notion that two geographic locations cannot share the same name would strike many as bizarre. Few would mistake Paris, France, for its counterpart in Texas, or Toledo, Spain, for its counterpart in Ohio. The residents of the Belgian province of Luxembourg have never been threatened by the country of the same name, nor by the Luxembourg Palace in the aforementioned Paris - France, that is. There are so many Springfields in the US that it has become an inside joke on The Simpsons.

Fictional secession of Baja California from Mexico as a new country, the "Republic of California". Would the United States accept them in NATO as "California", with no disambiguation? Especially if they openly taught their schoolchildren "United California" irredentist scenarios, i.e. that California historically belongs to them and should one day be liberated from "US occupation"? If they named themselves "Californians" and didn't accept any form of disambiguation as e.g. "Hispanic Californians" because... "it is offensive"? If they called their language "Californian"? If they claimed a minority of 800,000 "Californians" in your "US-occupied" California, while in reality there were only 3,000 to 30,000 in a total population of millions of proud Californians who were also proud US citizens and resented the other side's suggestion that they were not Californian because they had a US identity? If their prime minister bowed in front of this map here? ([1])
Speak about adjacent ones. Like New Mexico, like "Great Britain" having to change its name to "United Kingdom" for entering the EU, due to France's fears for her Bretagne, like the envious stability in the other part of the world where such a solution has been applied... NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Greek intransigence on the Macedonian name issue is not just an amusing or annoying nationalist throwback. It has real and damaging consequences, not least for Balkan - including Greek - security and stability. Macedonia's membership in Nato would stabilise the region and Greece's relations with its neighbours in the same way that Turkey's membership has. It would facilitate an open dialogue on all issues. A stable, secure and prosperous Macedonia, whatever its people choose to call themselves, will only be good for Greece.

Yes. They may also decide to hand away their largest province too. Citation? Proof? We certainly saw how good the NATO allies were when it came needing them with Turkey's membership. I wonder what they may have in mind next for us... NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast those strategic interests with the apparent threat that Greece seems to fear. Does Athens really think that the country of Macedonia, with some two million relatively poor people, wants to take over a region in Greece, a country which is far richer and five times more populous? Do they believe that Skopje is pushing the territorial claims of Alexander and seeking an empire stretching not just to Thessaloniki, but all the way to Afghanistan and Egypt?

Times change and allies change. Surely you don't accept a country with open official territorial threats in a military alliance that easy. Do you? Here, on the right, is an example with Baja California. Would the US accept them as "Republic of California" in NATO? Is it a threat? NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch..they would never accept 'La Republica de Californias' :) Marc KJH (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are real and practical solutions here. Nearly seven years ago, the International Crisis Group suggested a compromise under which the UN, Nato, the European Union and other international organisations would use the Macedonian-language "Republika Makedonija". This would come in the context of a bilateral treaty between Skopje and Athens in which Macedonia would commit to fair treatment of the Greek cultural heritage in the Macedonian educational curriculum, agree that Greece could use its own name for the state of Macedonia, and commit to strict protection against any Macedonian exploitation of its constitutional name to disadvantage Greece commercially or legally. Alternatively, a solution that includes a geographic qualifier is still a workable option. Both should be considered.

Sure. A geographic qualifier happens to be Greece's official position now. But certainly not a mockery of the sort of "Macedonia (Skopje)". NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athens has long-standing and legitimate concerns on key issues being considered in the context of Nato, as well as the European Union, including the futures of Cyprus and Kosovo. These are serious issues involving serious debates. By sticking to a hardline - and, some would say, frivolous - position on the Macedonian name issue, it is risking its credibility on these questions. More importantly, it is risking adding another element of instability in a region that has already seen far too much tragedy in the recent past. Greece should know better: its friends and allies from around the world - including from Athens, Georgia - should tell them this in no uncertain terms. --Marc KJH (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like as if Britain is no ally with Ireland or France. Like as if Mexico's Baja California would be a threat to US security... NikoSilver 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all this above is mere philology on the issue. We have an NPOV dispute here: "rejected by Skopje officially" vs "done by Skopje in practice". We either mention both in this article, or none. WP:NPOV, not WP:MPOV. NikoSilver 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

[edit]

The "Outcome" section seems to have been written by someone whose first language is other than English. It deserves a rewrite. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI i wrote that and my first language is English. I admit i am not the best at writing thing in the best way, but that is due to my dyslexia. But feel free to make it better. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and Basescu

[edit]

Do you have a picture with both of them? I would love to see it in the article. Marc KJH (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Veto

[edit]

The article was misleading claiming there was a Greek veto when in actual fact no invitation was extended in the first place.Xenovatis (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically/officially a veto, it's actually a veto. --Leladax (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a veto unless the government actually vetoes something. If it doesn't it is at most the threat of a veto. The title was misleading.Xenovatis (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

albania invited? is that a joke?

[edit]

read title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? NikoSilver 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jovack this is not a forum. Take your rantings else where, such as a blog. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

[edit]

With NATO members (at least European), Romania and Albania.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia - Greek propaganda

[edit]

I find it funny how I wrote a neutral article in the past in regards to the Macedonia portion of NATO summit. I have read the article now, and it disgusts me how much the Greeks have twisted and manipulated wording to favor the Greek side, disgusting. Change it back to its neutral article or I will do so myself. Maktruth (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys base your argument that Macedonia has territorial claims on what? Historical maps? For the record, the only time "United Macedonia" is ever seen is when the Macedonian government is honoring the VMRO members, since that is the Macedonia they were dying for. Many of your sources are from Greek based forums and media outlets, which cannot be taken seriously as a source. What next? Should I use my own blog as a source? Maktruth (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, didn't your government state "There is no Macedonian ethnicity, and no Macedonian language?" Is this about territorial claims or about trying to hide and eliminate an ethnic peoples? reference: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9219/ Maktruth (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been to Greece? I suppose you have not since all this extremist propaganda depicting Greece like Nazi Germany, posting about it and hanging swastika flags has nothing to do with reality. --Leladax (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to Niko's wording. Maktruth, Greece's "allegations", "violation" and the idea that the US security pact is linked to the latter are your personal opinions, not NPOV. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please do not change the topic names or my statements, that is a violation of free speech. There are other portions that have been deleted that are NOT opinion, that is propaganda Maktruth (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Greek government violate our self-determination calling us "Skopjans" and "voulgars" that is not friendly neighborhood actions and the poster was from a private corporation, get it right Maktruth (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voulgars??? When did this happen? Do you have a source? I think that is the true propaganda, the one you're doing right now. Well, about the ethnicity, I cannot see why you should be called an ethnic group, since the belief that you could be Macedonian came after WWII. 60 years of an idea make an ethnic group? --Michael IX the White (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True propaganda? Stating we were invented by Tito is propaganda! Filthy neo-Greek! We are ETHNIC-MACEDONIAN, I really don't mind what you call us, the problem is when you try to deny our self-determination and try to trick the world into calling us "skopjans!" You think we are foolish enough to think we do not know? Search for the Cultural Genocide document 1982 - Greece Maktruth (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which does not exist to accommodate your "statements" or "free speech". We are here to present the facts as neutrally as possible. Your claim that "with the veto, Greece has itself violated the Interim Accord" is simply not in line with that principle, especially when you have cited no reliable, secondary sources to back it up. Besides, there are numerous counterexamples of Skopje's violations the Greek side could produce, such as the state-sanctioned irredentism, the renaming of Skopje Airport, etc. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how it is possible that I do not have good sources, you use biased Greek sources to claim your arguments, but when I myself use Greek documents they are unreliable! You did not include the portion which stated Macedonia was punished for its identity! AND GUESS WHAT? I have documented and shown Greek government did in fact do this Maktruth (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you have stated, I used the Interim Accord to the portion which states Greece cannot veto Macedonia with the FYROM acronym Maktruth (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not allow Macedonia to respond to any of Greek arguments! That is biased towards Greece's favor! You state you are being neutral, that is not neutral Maktruth (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the stuff about "Macedonia" being "punished for its identity" is the epitome of POV. What you call "punishment", others call defending their identity. In any case, I challenge you to find the exact page on the Greek foreign ministry website that uses the terminology you claim it does. As for the "violation" of the Interim Accord, I have already explained my position. Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source to support your assertion, don't bother. The text of the Interim Accord is a primary source which you have taken upon yourself to interpret in the way you see fit. I could also go ahead and list all the violations of the Interim Accord I think Skopje has committed. But here on Wikipedia, that simply isn't good enough. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to what is neutral, how can punishment defend their identity? Isn't that a POV in itself? Look, I have presented both sides with documents, Greece stating Macedonia has territorial claims and Macedonia stating they don't, while Macedonia states Greece is punishing because of identity while Greece states it is about the name. Both POV, that is all Maktruth (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh and ps: I have documents from the Greek government which has operations as early as 1982 to exterminate ethnic Macedonian culture and identity within Greece. I also have documents that Greece rejects Macedonian identity and language, so there is argument to the punishment from identity argument Maktruth (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is most certainly no such argument. We can only report what each side has to say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maktruth, you didn't change it to be neutral, you changed it the way it seemed neutral to you. And you do not need to have documents on anyone rejecting any "ethnic identity" claim, because that is crystal clear. Everyone does. About the identity, just go in "I say we change it to Alexandria" in Talk:Macedonia (terminology) --Michael IX the White (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, the information before hand had a Greek bias and used Greek documents (most of them blogs and etc). I believe what is presently there is neutral, and seeing that no one has complained about, I think they agree. Also, I wrote it (before rewording by other members) so to state I am not TRYING to be neutral is simply false. Did you hear about the MAT airline and sheep embargo by Greece on Macedonia :D Maktruth (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No protests

[edit]

I understand that this is one of the few (if not the only) nato summit that had no protests in the street. The police contained all the protests to lecture halls and cinemas where anti-nato propaganda films were screened. This is not mentioned in the article. Is it true?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Bucharest summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Bucharest_summit&oldid=1218943325"