Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 2

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

Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive1, Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive3

Oh, so you're admitting that they call themselves the "Republic of Macedonia" now. Good. --Jiang
Ok that just proves you are a troll and nothing more. There is not a single place in my text that I denied they call themselves that. My main objection comes from the PoV that one cannot just call themselves whatever they wish ignoring everyone else. I see you didn't like it much when I called myself Jiang. Why is that? How is what I did different to what FYROM is trying to do? Why should Macedonia be indiferent to what FYROM decides to call itself? Finally, It has been explained to you, that the term FYROM is not disputed, yet the term Macedonia is. Regardless, you keep using the disputed term in places where the undisputed one can be used without causing any confusion. Why do you insist doing it? You are really just changing it without giving any valid reason. That's why I call you a troll. There can be no other reason behind what you are doing, other than craving for attention. Since I am new to this I will need to ask others how people deal with things like that, but I assure you your fun will be over soon. 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm of Greek heritage and find the current article to be acceptable. The main issue is that many Greeks are unhappy with the term Macedonia being used by non-Greeks in any context, as they see it as an attempt to rewrite history as the "Macedonians" attempt to co-opt Greek history and make it their own (not a completely unfounded fear, as there are some Republic of Macedonia nationalists who claim that Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language that they term "Macedonian"—despite the fact that no Slavs immigrated to the region until centuries later and overwhelming historical evidence that he spoke Greek). However, it is a fact that this group of people has chosen the name "Macedonians" for themselves. Whether that choice is justifiable or not, it would be unacceptably POV for us to say that their use of the name is illegitimate. All we can do is mention that there are others who think that choice is illegitimate.

As far as FYROM goes, it's really kind of a silly compromise. Nobody on either side particularly likes it (the Republic of Macedonia prefers that name, and Greece would prefer they pick a name that doesn't include the word "Macedonia" at all), and it's kind of odd to refer to a country in terms of what it used to be. Many Greeks solve this by calling the country Skopje, after its capital (many maps published in Greece will show the northern neighbors of Greece as being "Albania, Skopje, and Bulgaria"), but obviously we cannot use that solution.

That's odd. You accept calling it "Republic of Macedonia" Which is the name one side is using, but not "Skoje" which is what the other side does. This onesided approach is what probably infuriates me more. Way to be taking sides...

So in summary I'm fine with the current way we handle it: mention their constitutional name first, but mention up front that this name is controversial. It will irk some "Macedonians" who would prefer we use their name unqualifiedly (or relegate mention of the dispute to some less prominent portion of the article), and it will irk some Greeks who would prefer we don't "allow" them to use the name, but there's no solution that will satisfy everyone. --Delirium 11:28, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Of course there is a solution. Use the name both states agreed with and mention that in "FYROM" they use "ROM" as their name but in Greece they use "Skopje". In the end one of those names will prevail. It has to. Until then I can't see why this Encyclopedia needs to take sides. As I have said numerous times, no-one has the right to call themselves whatever they like. I have signed some articles here under different names that I assumed just for the purpose of showing how chaotic and misleading irresponsible naming can be. Funny how everyone proetsed me calling myself "Jiang-with-a-dot" but have no problem with FYROM calling itself whatever it likes regardless if another state considers it (and other states agreed with it) identity theft. I hope at last someone can see the reason in this.

The "Macedonians are not the Serbs and the Bulgars in FYROM!! The Macedonians are Greek People for 3000 years !! ---Vergina 12:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I protected this page because i dont have the energy or mental strength to keep reverting polemic versions done by several users including one childish enough to name himself Jiang-with-a-dot. Aparently discussion is going nowhere so i decided for this. Muriel 17:28, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Could you enlighten everyone WHY you had to revert the page back? The last version was not offensive to anyone. The current version is offensive to Greece. I thought you had to have some idea on the topic before you edit a page, surely. You told me you had no clue about the subgect or the facts. I would expect an admin to abide by the rules and show less bias towards users than anybody else. You are not doing that.
Now let's also see something interesting from the wikipedia rules:
  • "Admins should not protect pages when they have been involved in the edit war in question (either by actively editing the page or by expressing strong opinions on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you."
Way to go for breaking every single one of those rules, Muriel Gottrop. 17:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another sysop weighs in

Let's not fight over this. The country plains wants to call itself "The Republic of Macedonia". Whether anyone else, particularly Greece, will accept or "recognize" that name, is another story.

Is this dispute similar to the Taiwan problem? The government there decided to call itself "The Republic of China", and initially claimed sovereignty over the mainland as well.

Or is it related to the wrangle ovur Cyprus?

I'd like to see some compromises suggested, or at least some reasons given for the various terms - otherwise, I guess we'll have to keep this article protected like the Silesia article. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I don't think the country minds calling itself FYROM since it agreed to do so outside its borders under pressure or not. They have tettitorial claimes towards Macedonia, which is a province of Greece since 1914 and has been populated by Greeks for thousands of years now. The issue is complicated and it would take forever to discuss it, but reading the last half of this page may give you a better idea, I suppose. There are two facts. Their constitution calls the country "Republica Macedonija" but they are internationaly recognised under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It is very easy to say that anyone has the right to call themselves whatever they like, but apparently Muriam threatened to block me when I called myself "andy" not to mention she doesn't like Jiang-with-a-dot one bit.
Anyway, the name was and is under dispute. The solution for the two states (Greece and FYROM) was met and both agreed that the name of the state outside it's borders would be FYROM until another compromise was met. This Encyclopedia claims to have found the compromise and calls it "Republic of Macedonia" which as you see, is one of the disputed names. It only respects ONE side (the FYROM one). The last edit by Jiang-with-a-dot did not offend anyone, yet Muriam chose to revert it to a version that offends Greece and on top of that protect it. Regards, 18:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
FWIW, it's unrelated to the wrangle over Cyprus: that one's exclusively a Greek-Turkish dispute. This is a dispute over who has claims to the term Macedonia. Greece claims (an scholars agree) that Alexander the Great and the other ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, participated in Greek culture, and were located originally in Macedon, an area approximately coterminus with the modern Greek region of Macedonia (the northern portion of the country). Thus they consider it odd that a Slavic country would call itself Macedonia, since the Macedonians were not Slavs, but Greeks. So Greeks object to the term Republic of Macedonia, the term Macedonian language, and any other terms that attempt to apply Macedonia to Slavic culture, since Slavs didn't immigrate to the region until around the 3rd century AD, well after the decline of the Macedonian Empire. In short, Greeks see it as an attempt by Slavs to rewrite history and co-opt a portion of the history of Greece as their own. --Delirium 19:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Role of the UN

Somebody wrote that:

The UN IS the naming authority. The UN IS the only recognised international authority.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but there are others who do NOT recognize the UN as an authority - let alone the "only" authority.

By the way, there's a movement to MAKE the UN an authority, and we really need an article about that movement, since it relates to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. If enough countries were to put their weight behind these two proposals, the UN might emerge as a sort of global goverment.

Right now, however, the UN has no recognized authority whatsoever. The only time people pay attention is when (a) the Security Council votes a unanimous resolution and (b) some country like the US decides to try to enforce it.

Anyway, there is clearly a controversy here. So let's make a description of the controversy part of the article: write about the controvesy, rather than trying to "settle" it. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I think the UN has authority over its members, and at least FYROM applied for a membership and got it on the premise of being called FYROM, not ROM. Cheers, 18:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and courteous reply. The two main disagreements are now clear:

  1. whether FYROM has the "right" to call itself the Republic of Macedonia
  2. whether the UN has the authority to dictate a settlement of the issue

Perhaps what we Wikipedians should do is NOT take sides on either of these issues but rather DISCUSS in Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia (or both!) the fact that there is a dispute about the name of the government. --Uncle Ed 18:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, I think Jiang-with-a-dot's last edit was doing exactly that. Can you have a look at it and comment on whether it manages just that or not? 18:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm getting way too confused. Are there two different people called "193" and "Jiang-with-a-dot", or what? Maybe I should just take a break... --Uncle Ed 19:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I made it clear why I created the user Jiang. (with a dot). Didn't I? Anyway, I am refering to this edit: [1]. Thanks, 19:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't know why I was confused, what do you think? Well, Ed, maybe it's because he had two identities. What do you mean, Uncle? Well, my boy, apparently he was talking to himself? Like you and me? Wow, I thought we were the only ones who did that! No, there others, Eddie. Golly, Uncle Ed! --Uncle Ed 19:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just to clear the confusion, possession of the article was on the account Jiang-with-a-dot, which was not the account I was on at that time I made the comment, thus I said Jiang-with-a-dot's edit and not "my edit" so you could spot it easier. If I wanted that account to be anonymous I would have used another IP either mine or via a proxy. I used the same IP because I wanted to make a point. I am kinda dissapointed that people didn't get it ;)

Not to be biased in my own favor, but I think my last edit does a better job describing the dispute neutrally than the current version: [2]. Thoughts? --Delirium 19:22, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I ll try to make another example. The following quote is ambiguous:
"The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of Macedonia's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece."

Macedonia never became independent of Greece. Of course I am talking about the Greek Province, but why should I bother specifying it if nobody bothers to do so about FYROM. For the vast majority of Greeks, Macedonia is in Greece and partly in the Monastiri/Vitola area. I don't understand why is it bad to use FYROM instead of the ambiguous "Macedonia". It even saves up some bandwidth. Thanks. 19:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now is this article at Macedonia? It should be clear that the Province of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are very different. We are not calling it simply "Macedonia". It is the Repulblic of Macedonia. --Jiang 22:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Who is we? The above is from the article regarding "Republic of Macedonia". You are using the term "Macedonia" (just that without the FYRO OR RO prefixes) in places where FYROM could have been used to describe the state. Also, I don't see why not use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of just "Republic of Macedonia" since the former is the only non disputed name between all sides. I know I am repeating myself, but I am not sure if you are a troll or have problems understaning the word "disputed". 22:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think I like Delirium's version just as much as my own version. I won't object if anyone reverts, although my chin might quiver a bit... :-( --Uncle Ed 19:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Aha - it looks like sanity is prevailing! Thanks to everyone who is helping to sort this issue out. Give yourselves a pat on each other's back. :) Martin 20:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A relatively minor point: I'm not sure "FYROM" is, technically, disputed. A 1995 Greek-FYROM bilateral agreement was reached in which the country agreed to use FYROM as its international name, at least on a temporary basis, in return for Greece lifting trade sanctions. Thus, officially at least, all countries accept "FYROM" as an undisputed, albeit temporary, name. Or that's my understanding anyway. --Delirium 20:14, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Current version is reworded (by Jiang) so this isn't an issue anymore. Carry on! --Delirium 20:16, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

If the current edit is the final, it is a very poor attempt by Jiang since it uses the disputed term "Macedonia" in many places were the undisputed term FYROM could have easily been used instead. 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What was the name of this area before it joined Yugoslavia? Rmhermen 22:47, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

It was part of "Vilayet Kosovo", and was initially named "Vardarska Banovina". Tito called it "Macedonia". 22:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The name Republic of Macedonia identical to Greek name Makedonia is a Slavs Theater in FYROM. Vergina 23:22, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FYROM is not "Macedonia" and the Turkey is to day also not "Byzant"!! Vergina 23:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we understand the objections now, but we still can't take one side or the other. Even if it is true that the country is misusing the name Macedonia, it's not our place to decide that. We can, of course, report on the dispute. --Delirium 01:14, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

The article as it stands takes a perfectly correct and neutral position on the dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the name of the country. It should not be changed further. It states that the constitutional name of the country is Republic of Macedonia, that it is known internationally as FYROM, and that Greek nationalists object to the use of Macedonian symbols by the Rep of Macedonia government, all which are true. An encyclopaedia does not need to say more than that. Incidentally this dispute was resolved by the 1995 agreement - it is only ultra-nationalists like Vergina who are keeping it alive. Adam 02:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been completely resolved: the Greek government continues to informally object to even the name FYROM, since it contains the term Macedonia, and that name is considered a temporary measure, with no permanent solution in sight (Greece absolutely refuses to accept any name containing "Macedonia" as a permanent solution, and FYROM absolutely refuses to accept any name not containing "Macedonia). Greece has been making moves related to the issue as well, including renaming Thessaloniki International Airport to Macedonia International Airport and stepping up publicity of the Vergina finds to counteract the growing association of the adjective "Macedonian" with people from the country in question. And for their part, a great many residents of the country in question continue to object to the term FYROM, and the government is not altogether happy with it either (they mostly gave in to get the economic sanctions lifted, as the use of Greece's port of Thessaloniki is integral to FYROM's economy). --Delirium 02:44, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I guess that is all true, but the fact is that the "temporary" agreement is now eight years old and there seems to be no actual, as opposed to rhetorical, conflict going on. Most of the early 90s crisis was caused by electioneering between Papandreou and Mitsotakis: now that Greece thas a fairly moderate government nationalist rhetoric has died away. Adam 03:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also I think the article Vergina Sun is redundant and ought to be deleted: the same topic is covered much better at Vergina. Adam 03:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article actually does take sides and is not neutral. As you mentioned, the two sides reached an agreement in 1995 in which the state is supposed to be called FYROM until a permanent agreement is met. The article does not use that designation when refering to the state. Instead, in many places it uses the disputed term "Macedonia" (without the Former Yugoslav Republic of) which favors the FYROM side, or the disputed term "Republic of Macedonia" to describe the state out of the contxt of its constitution. For example from the article: "The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of Macedonia's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece.", should be changed to "The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of the state's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece.". No one has yet to explain why this bilateral compromise is not used in the article instead of a biased, disputed term. 11:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The use of the term "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia is opposed by most Greeks, and the article duly notes that. The fact remains, however, that the country's official, legal, constitutional name is Macedonia, and that is what an encyclopaedia must call it. Greeks do not have a right of veto over what the country calls itself, nor over what the rest of the world calls it. Most of the world believes that Macedonia is a geographical region, part of which is the Republic of Macedonia and part of which is the provinces of northern Greece. In 1991 Greece had real grievances against the Skopje government. But the 1995 agreement prevents the Republic of Macedonia using Greek symbols such as the White Tower and the Vergina Sun, and prevents them making claims on Greek terrirory. Greece therefore has no real claims against Macedonia except the name. Devoted friends of Greece (of which I am one - see my articles at my Userpage) need to gently but firmly tell the Greeks that it is now time to get over this reactionary and pointless obsession. Adam 12:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The page should aim for NPOV, not (Greek POV) + (Macedonian POV) / 2

  • The CIA factbook and other sites with diplomacy concerns (like NATO) refer to it as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (some use lowercase "former")
  • News outlets (BBC, CNN, etc.) mostly call it "Macedonia" except for perhaps Greek sites, the BBC also uses "FYR Macedonia" in one map graphic specifically showing it in relation to neighbor states and the former Yugoslavia.

Given news usage, I think the page is more or less fine. So, could we please talk about something else. This is really getting old and I don't even care about one side or the other. Daniel Quinlan 12:09, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

"NPOV" in this case is to say that the country's name is "Republic of Macedonia" and to say also that this mightily offends the Greeks. Those are both factual statements. Adam 12:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How is this neutral since it assumes one side of the argument for the rest of the article? You have still not stated WHY you object to the use of the non disputed name FYROM which has been agreed by both sides and at least officially does not offend anyone. As far as "Republic of Macedonia" being the constitutional name, this has nothing to do with statements the likes of: "Macedonia remained at peace through the violent nationality conflicts...". What is wrong by saying "FYROM remained at peace through the violent nationality conflicts..."? In case you haven't noticed, one side supports that Macedonia is only in Greece, in which case you outright take sides against it by using the disputed name like that. The state itself agreed to this compromise, not to mention they changed their constitution because it was implying territorial claims towards its neighbouring countries.

Forgot to sign ;) 13:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I sure I'm ignorant of geography. I kind of vaguely knew that the ancient Greek land of Macedonia might not be exactly the same thing as the modern region that fell out of the back of the truck when Russia unloaded Yugoslavia -- but I had no idea people would fight so much about it!
What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet... --Uncle Ed 15:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The region FYROM covers has very little in common with the ancient Macedonian state. And IIRC Yugoslavia was never that close to Russia.
What's in a name? I thought I demonstrated this this really well. Didn't I? ;) 15:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I did a little web browsing, and found this little gem:

Macedonia, now known as The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), was once the Kingdom of Macedon, ruled by Alexander the Great (355-325 BC) [3]

Any comments? --Uncle Ed 16:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about "the above information is wrong" for a comment? :)
Any historian will be able to verify for you that Ancient Macedonia shares very little area with FYROM and that Macedonians were not Slavs. So the area covered by FYROM was never the Kingdom of Macedon. A very small part of it (to the south) used to be, but even when the kingdom of Macedon came to streatch up to near India, the area of FYROM (and notably Skoja) was not part of it. Maybe these people copied one of wikipedia's older versions. ;) 17:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is with the unilateral renaming? Please move this back, Ed. Rmhermen 17:01, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I can't see how it is unilateral renaming. Many users commented possitively towards this direction. Check this talk page and the archive. Cheers, 17:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have read all the talk. And there is no archive. So far 193 and Vergina want it moved. Approving of the previous version: Adam, Jiang, Delirium, Ed (at various points -before moving), myself although this is the first time I mention it. Rmhermen 17:46, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
(I removed my name from this list - I have no opinion on the matter). Martin 19:02, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well there was an archive but something happened to it. Search through the page history and you will see that Jiang made one which now seems to be gone. Adam, and Jiang still haven't commented on how using a disputed name is better than using an undisputed one. Delirium I think has agreed that FYROM is undisputed. 18:01, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just managed to locate the archive here: [4] Hope that helps. 18:08, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the archive. Rmhermen 21:19, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

List of Open Issues

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!

What the name of the country is

The definitive nomenclature for this country will be agreed following current negotiations at UN level !!!Vergina

I have no idea what the country's name should be, but I've heard 2 different stories about what it officially is: FYROM and ROM. Does anyone know what these guys call themselves, and whether anyone else "recognizes" this name? --Uncle Ed

These guys call themselves "Republika Macedonija" but agreed to be called internationally "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). 19:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Macedonia is a geographical and historical region of the Balkan peninsula (see Macedonia) -- so let's not confuse the name of the REGION with the names of any countries or country parts over which that region extends. It's kind of like China, which includes the communist mainland and the democratic island of Taiwan. It's "one China", but there are two de facto sovereignties. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How to describe the naming dispute

The little I've heard is that Yugoslavia broke up around 8 years ago. Most of the parts then declared themselves to be "independent countries", but M had a big problem with Greece because of its use of the word Macedonia in its name. There was, I heard, some sort of deal or bargain or "agreement to disagree" whereby mostly they got called "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" -- however, I have no idea whether this means it's their "official name" or what. Any details on the in's and out's of this dispute? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think renaming the article without a poll was inappropriate given the dispute. I considered a poll, but given the number of sock puppet accounts that have been created regarding this issue, I felt it was better to look at actual usage, which is usually "Macedonia", plain and simple. Daniel Quinlan 20:54, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
I move the article back to the original location. Sorry, Ed. I think we need to figure this out first. Daniel Quinlan 21:03, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

It was agreed that for internal purposes, they could use ROM but for international purposes they would be recognised under FYROM. Greece had genuine concerns as it was proved and ruled by the UN since the constitution of the new state included territotial claims towards Greece. "Makedonia" is a Greek word after all and the historical area is indeed almost entirely within Greece. FYROM was called Vardarska Banovina before 1945, and many claim that it was renamed to "Macedonia" purely to create a foundation for Tito's territorial claims. Cheers. 19:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The language and even the history are immaterial. Greece is not the language police. Many new countries, provinces, states, etc. are named after ancient locations and people with little or no connection to the new country. You may personally think the country should be named something else, but your passion for the issue is so great that I wonder if you're able to think about this with any dispassion or neutrality. Sorry, but it frankly seems like an obsession for a few of the people who have participated in this discussion. Daniel Quinlan 21:07, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Umm excuse me, but if I let my passion lead me isntead of my logic, I would be asking for them to be renamed to "Skopje" or "Vardarska Banovina". It is obvious you have no idea what the real issue is. Greek nationalists oppose calling the state FYROM. As you see FYROM is the only name I asked to be used. Why? Because IT WAS THE NAME AGREED BY ALL SIDES AND I RESPECT THE AGREEMENT unlike you. I AM biased against "Macedonia" being used anywehre to describe that state. I am Macedonian myself, and I was really shocked when I heard that Macedonians kicked the Kossovo Albanian refuges out of FYROM and into Albania during the Kosovo war. I assure you these "Macedonians" were not the same as my people. Even so. If you DID read anything that I wrote, you would see that I have no objection calling the country FYROM regardless how much I don't like that name. My state, and indirectly me, have agreed to use it, so I have no issue with it being used. But then we have some outsiders who for some reason disregard this agreement, and that is the problem. You, jiang, and adam are the problem. Not me. You are obsessed with using a name that offends one side rather than use the name both sides agreed upon. God knows for what reason. Also if you believe that history and language is immaterial, you should not be editing this encyclopedia since obviously facts don't seem to matter to you. 22:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)