Jump to content

Talk:Skopje/Archive 2

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

Albanian name

Enough of the edit warring, it's not getting anyone anywhere. Work it out here, all of you. -Bbik 01:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't see the point to have Albanian translation of 'City of Skopje', what purpose does it serve at all? English and Macedonian are enough. It is being edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)



Since at least one person seems confused, even if it is an IP edit rather than any of you previously edit warring, and since there's no discussion whatsoever talking place now that the page is fully protected, I'll list the two sides as I understand them. Anyone, feel free to correct me, and all of you, come and work out a solution so this warring won't happen again. Having the page be fully protected (indefinitely, might I add) because of a few words is stupid.

Pro-Albanian name: (should be included)

  • The Albanian population in the city is greater than 20%.
  • Any language spoken by at least 20% of the total population is considered an official language of the country.
  • Any language spoken by at least 20% of a given community is considered an offical language in the relevant municipality.
  • Albanian falls under both of these categories, and is therefore an official language in Skopje, and Macedonia.
  • Possibly a policy that states minority languages should be included when they make up more than 15-20% of the population. (Does such a thing exist? I vaguely remember seeing one a while ago, but can't remember where. For all I know, it may have been some sort of essay-recommendation instead, but hopefully if such a policy exists, this will bring it into the open. If it doesn't exist, either ignore or delete this bullet point.)

Con-Albanian name: (should not be included)

  • Albanian is only official as a secondary language alongside Macedonian.
  • The city is not part of Albania. *
  • This is not the Albanian wiki. *
*Struck out per request below.

Any reasons I've forgotten? Any comments people have in addition to the reasons? Based on the reasons I've seen and listed here, it looks like the Albanian name definitely should be included, but this is the time/place to give reasons to the contrary. -Bbik★ 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please strike the first and last one down. German is official in Switzerland yet the country is not Germamy, and second, this isnt the ethnic Macedonian wiki either. Mr. Neutron 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. The first and last of which group? Or do you mean the first of the Pro, and the last of the Con? And, where have I called Switzerland Germany (or Macedonia Albania)? Is it perhaps a confusion with the country versus the language?
As for "ethnic Macedonian wiki" (??), I assume you're refering to the point that this isn't the Albanian (language) wiki? The only reason I included that is because I've seen that argument used to "justify" the inclusion or non-inclusion of things in the past. I personally think it's a particularly stupid/useless argument, but I added it to try and make the list complete. It's up to those of you with strong(er) opinions one way or the other to determine the validity, relevance, and importance of the arguments. -Bbik★ 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant first and last con. Switzerland/Zurich is an example of a city outside Germany where German is official. Mr. Neutron 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've struck them out, since it looks like those two exact arguments haven't actually been used here yet. However, I don't want to remove them entirely, because I'm sure that if I do, they will be used. At least this way it's shown that they've been considered, if still deemed unworthy. -Bbik★ 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Added back the Albanian name. The city's own website is in both Macedonian and Albanian. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

length of article

this article is very long. much of can be trimmed down or put into its own article. the landmarks section is far too long. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

sandwiched text

WP:MOSIMAGE says: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.. There are small parts of sandwiched text. Is it possible to settle this without making any damage to the text?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah it's possible, but do you have an idea how to do that? As I understood you talk about the pictures in the landmarks, history and education sections. Right? Greetings Tomica1111 (talk)
Yes I do. Those are only a couple of sentences. Maybe to slightly reduce the size of the pictures? Or even better to reduce the size of descriptions under pictures: Several historicist new buildings planned along the river Vardar. The plans of the "Skopje 2014" project have been widely criticised for their conservative esthetics....A triumphal arch planned in the city center, part of the so-called "Skopje 2014" project Btw, so-called is word to watch [5].--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Frescoes

What was the reason to choose fresco of Demetrius of Thessaloniki and not Meister von Nerezi 001.jpg which is from the monastery within Skopje municipality, if I am not wrong? The latter is the proof that "...the Byzantine east played a much more formative role in the development of renaissance art than Vasari was prepared to concede" as it is hinted in the part with comparations with Giotto. I would like that my questions are not understood as condition for pass criteria in review, but only as friendly questions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

First about the sandwiched test, I have done what I could, if you have an idea go ahead and edit it. And about the frescoe, I have information that the frescoe now is in the national museum of Skopje and Macedonia, but maybe you are right. I understand your questions and proposals and I will accept it. Tomica1111 (talk)
My question was not focused to its location, but to its meaning. Is Demetrius of Thessaloniki is he some kind of city saint?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, Saint of the City is Virgin Mary. Tomica1111 (talk)
If we consider long section about churches maybe it is better not to insist to much on religious but on artistic aspect and to put Nerezi? Any comments from other users interested in this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I already put Nerezi, but if there are other opinions, we can easily change it. Tomica1111 (talk)
This version that I found on fr.wiki looks more beautiful to me?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Changing it. Tomica1111 (talk)

BMW and economy of the Skopje

Don't get me wrong, but is it possible that there is no better picture for economy section of Skopje article than BMW cars sales building? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an idea for other picture. If you have you can see in Skopje's Commons and change it. I didn't put that picture there, it was non-ilustrated section, but some user did it. Tomica1111 (talk)
I tried to find something with no success. :( --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The best I could find was this one of NLB Tutunska Banka. Do you guys think it's better than the BMW Building? --Local hero talk 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mmm... to be honest I really don't know. The both are fine to me. Let it be your choice. Tomica1111 (talk)
Okay, I put the Tutunska Banka one. The BMW Building seems to be more suburban anyway. --Local hero talk 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Upps I nearly forget. It's obvious that we should update the climate chart. It's from 1990. Can some of you find some reliable source to do that? Tomica1111 (talk)

Photo album

The photo album should include better pictures. The gallery in the section about the landmarks contains nice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

By my opinion the picture in the infobox is just fine. If you think that should contain better, you should try make your own collage :) ! Greetings Tomica1111 (talk)
Thank you Kiril Simeonovski for participating in discussion about this article. Your comments are of course more than welcomed. During peer review of this article one user stated: "Generally image galleries are discouraged, as a category on Commons is the best place for excess, relevant images." The articles about Paris, Rome, Belgrade.. do not have this kind of photo album. I think that it is better not to lose energy on something that will probably be taken out of the article during its preparation for FA.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, my first impression of inserting a such album in this article was to copy the same as in most of the articles about other cities in the Balkans. However, you seem to be right, since a photo album in the infobox does not tweak the article to better one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Various question aimed to properly review the article

Is it possible that Paeonians founded the city in 4000 BC if on the page about them stated that they moved from Thrace to Vardar valey in the Classical Greek period which corresponds to most of the 5th and 4th centuries BC?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

mmm... That's what the source says. The source is from the official city website. But at the page Paeonians, says that in the time of Classical Greece the inhabited most of today's Republic of Macedonia, but not that they moved at that time. Tomica1111 (talk)
I am sorry. I probably misunderstood it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
After 500 years of rule in the area the Ottomans were finally ousted in 1912 by the Serbian army during the first Balkan War. The Ottomans were shortly expelled from the city on August 12, 1912 by the local Albanian population when 15,000 Albanians marched on Üsküb. The Turks, already weak from other battles against the united front of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria during the First Balkan War, started to flee. - The chronology of this events should be improved. First there was Albanian Revolt of 1912 then there was agreed projected Albanian Vilayet then there was First Balkan War. Not the other way around like in this article. Is there possibility to provide inline citation for "local Abanian population" from Skopje capturing Skopje in 1912? Is there possibility to double check the name Üsküb (Kosovo) vilayet since Kosovo vilayet does not mention Üsküb vilayet as name of the province?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Reworked your requests. See if it is ok. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk)
I will continue my review tomorrow. Thanks for cooperation. Добра ноќ. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 3 Februapy 2011 (UTC)

Good Night/Laku noc/Добра ноќ Tomica1111 (talk)

In the lead is written only in Macedonian. But in the section names it's written in those three languages. The Latin name Scupi is maybe the native name of the city, and the Ottoman Turkish one was the name that stayed there for 500 years and with that name the city was well known through whole Europe at that time. And yes those are English to Macedonian transcriptions. Tomica1111 (talk)
Thank you for very good explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, every New Year and Christmas, there is a big manifestation on the Main Square which is decorated. That's a big cultural manifestation and it's connected with the section. I can't find better picture anyway. I think it's fine. About the see also and further reading sections, I can't tell which articles will be included there, and for the further reading we should fine sources. Tomica1111 (talk)
No problem. I have plenty of ideas, but I hope that we could maybe use some of them when we attempt to promote this article to FA. There are plenty of good articles without those sections. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Vuk Branković last Serbian and Christian prince that had Skopje under control during medieval period until it fell under Ottoman control in 1392, for the next 520 years. Rolling back Byzantine rule across much of the Balkans, the Ottoman Turks finally conquered Skopje in 1392"
Vuk Branković and his princedom were not under Byzantine rule, if I am not wrong? The same is valid for most of the Balkans that was fragmented after death of Stefan Dušan, before Ottoman conquest?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I changed the sentence more properly. And also added the See also and Further reading sections, if you have some other ideas you can add it in those sections. Do you really think we can promote the article even to a FA? If is possible I would be glad. Tomica1111 (talk)

I don't know. I am not experience enough, yet, to judge it. But I would love to. Right now I am focused to review the nomination for GA. Regardless of criteria, and class level, I think that most imporant thing is to improve the quality of the article. And I think I see a lot of possibilities for improvement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. And about the climate chart, I wrote, but you didn't notice. We should update it, because it is from 1990. Do you know where we can find a good source? Tomica1111 (talk)

I noticed it but I thought you asked localhero about it. Sorry, I have no experience with charts. On sr. wiki they used this link as source, but I think that we should maybe consult somebody with more experience about it. Climate is not something that dramatically changes so I don't think that existing chart is heavily outdated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, or maybe we can use this source [6] It is used on es wikipedia and it's just fine on me, but still I don't know how reliable is. Tomica1111 (talk)
The link to that source does not work in my (chrome) browser.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) says: It can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in a list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. There is no paragraph that precede list in the Skopje#History_of_administration section. Additionally, I think that paragraphs with only one sentence should be avoided, not to mention whole sections like Skopje#Government. Maybe it would be good idea to avoid separate sections for History of administraton and government and to leave them within one section? That way we would avoid sections with only one or few sentences, and it would be easy to add one paragraph that precede list?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it better now? And try the link now [7] Tomica1111 (talk)
Thank you for improving the list within administration section. The link to website about climate now works, but here it says that it is for period 1961-1990? If that so, no use of it. I still do not think it is a big deal, but if you want it to actualize it maybe the easiest way is to ask somebody who deals with such things.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let it stay as it is. Tomica1111 (talk)

I was watching the article for Belgrade, which is a FA, and saw that we there is a lack of some sections in Skopje. For example the Nightlife. I would try to write it. Tomica1111 (talk)

I am not sure about it because, if I am not wrong, Skopje has some other things that which make Skopje famous for that Belgrade don't have. Like Old Bazaar, cuisine, vine, old mosques.... My personal opinion is that different cities have different things to promote in articles on wikipedia, though Skopje's night-life may be some kind of brand that is unknown to me and I apologize if I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "An ethnic Serb ruling elite dominated over the rest, continuing the repression wrought by previous Turkish rulers." The source that is quoted says something different: "Serbian rulers initiated policies that could have been inconceivable even under the Ottoman regime... aimed to destroy all signs of regionalism, .... or nationalism". No mention of Turkish rulers or continuing repression wrought by them. Not only that source does not state Turkish, but many of the Ottoman rulers in Skopje (and Istanbul as well) were not Turks. Therefore I propose to change Turkish to Ottoman and to replace "continuing the repression wrought by previous Turkish rulers" with "...initiating the repression, inconceivable by previous Ottoman rulers, aimed to destroy Macedonian nationalism."? Am I right that this way it is matching referenced source? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I change the sentence by your proposal, according the source. And about the nightlife, you can see this, I hope you understand Macedonian [8]. Skopje has a stunning nightlife, there are the kafanas, but also the bars and the discos. :) Tomica1111 (talk)
I don't have anything against night-life section supported with RS of course.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are many broken links or bad links in referenced sources, like links to census results, voena bolnica, national bureau of statistics, institute for radiology..., yahya kemal coledge, Hospital Philip II, ref num 19 (a brief account..). I propose thorough checking and repairing the problematic external links. It would be good to use webcite or similar archiving sites, but in further work before nomination for FA not right now since it is not an easy job.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed some of the references, but there is a problem with the Voena Bolnca (I can't find the official website) and when it comes to the National Bureau of statistics and the reference num 19 (which is part of the website skopje.mk) seems that they have problems with their web sites and there is not allowed access. What we do now?! Tomica1111 (talk)

Don't forget that the "Voena bolnica" was renamed to "Opšta bolnica na grad Skopje" (Public hospital of the city of Skopje).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it. Tomica1111 (talk)
There are still some problematic links. It can be seen using external link tool here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the section names in the article are discussed here and would like to propose inserting of one about the Old Bazaar, which is surely one of the greatest landmarks of the city. Recently I tweaked the section about the nightlife in the city, but got stuck in few sentences. It is written that a club was ranked fifth in the Southeastern Europe without note which club attained it. Mentioning the names of the most popular clubs and restaurants is another thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kiril Simeonovski, I think that your proposal to add section about the Old Bazaar as is worth considering. Is there a source to prove that it is one of the greatest landmarks of the city for somebody else but me and you?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Definetelly I think should be Scupi, because it reflects the Latin ortography of the city. And about the copyedit, I don't know ... Tomica1111 (talk)
Why are you concerned about WP:COPYEDITORS?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I really don't know it works! :s and about the economy questions in which context we should put them?
About CE guild: If I understood well, it is quite simple. The article is applied for copy editing and one of the members perform copy editing. If nobody have anything against it I could apply this article for ce?
The existing economy section mostly deals with problems (lack of foreign investments, brain drain, unemployment, bankruptcies of formerly national companies...) after "abandoning the Communist system" and "the closure of the Greek border". I simply feel that economy section could be slightly expanded by mentioning more of the economy that really exist in Skopje like Skopje Stock Exchange, Oil Rafinery, Vinery (Skovin) and Titan cement plant, maybe only as annex of the sentence that describes what factories exist in Skopje?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody against, you can apply the article. And ok I will see what can I do with the economy section tomorrow. GN :) ! Tomica1111 (talk)
And I think that it is better to wait till we finally furnish the article before its application for ce.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, and yeah you are right about CE. Tomica1111 (talk)
Yeah, I replaced some of the references with better ones. As I can see now we have just one dead reference and that's the reference under 19. I tried to find a replacement, but I could't. We can search for replacement, or we can simply remove it, because we have another source for that sentence. Tomica1111 (talk)
Since that is significant claim (the year of Ottoman conquest of Skopje) that may be challenged I propose to support it with reference to another source which is verifiable. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the reference with a new one. Now the only broken reference is about the Voena bolnica, but the official website is out of service. However, I think is not so important reference, Am I right? Tomica1111 (talk)
I think that you are right. The section about health is maybe even over referenced, so I do not think that removing the reference to Voena Bolnica should be any problem.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have another note, how about to nominate the article for CE? And you are doing it right? Tomica1111 (talk)

I do not have anything to add but maybe somebody else has. "I will wait for further interventions for 24 hours and then apply this article for CE.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed that User:LibStar, an experienced user who significantly participated in editing of the artricle, added the "very long" tag at the beginning of the article. Also, the peer review says "Generally image galleries are discouraged, as a category on Commons is the best place for excess, relevant images." Although all images in image gallery are relevant, it looks like there is consensus to remove it because "a category on Commons is the best place for excess, relevant images" (Niagara, Kiril and me). I am wondering what would LibStar think about the "very long" tag if we remove image galery?--Antidiskriminator 14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that if we remove the image gallery in the Landmarks section, the article imagery will be lost, I think when people are reading the text they like to view pictures in it. What I think is that we can remove the gallery in People from Skopje and write the names of 5 most notable citizens of the city. Tomica1111 (talk)
Also we can delete the Emblems section, because however exist separate articles (Flag of Skopje and Coat of arms of Skopje). What do you think? Tomica1111 (talk)
You maybe have a point here. Image using policy says: "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Basicallly I agree with you that this galery probably meets this requirement. I would really like to hear what LibStar and other interested users think about this issue before we decide how to proceede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
As I can see also the large table with churches, makes some extend to the article. We can make the church text in prose style with choosing the most notable churches, and add particular images in the gallery. What you and other users think? Tomica1111 (talk)
First of all, I would really like to thank you 1111tomica for your efforts and proactive attitude. I think that your proposal can solve the size issue and basically agree with it, though it is maybe wrong to put churches into landmark section. Jerusalem, Istanbul, Rome.... have separate religion section. Maybe we can also create a short religion section and put the most notable religious building there?
In my opinion, some images are doubled. The Church of Saint Kliment is already present in the picture within infobox and in table with churches. There are already two images of Mother Theresa's house, two images of Ristic's house, third image of stone bridge, second image of millennium cross, third picture of Macedonia square and second and third picture of Kale fortress (one with monument which was under reconstruction and one at sunset, neat but with no additional informative value). I don't think that gallery should be any bigger. I would also like to remind other users what Kiril said about Old Bazaar being "surely one of the greatest landmarks of the city". Transforming the big table with churches into one short section with only a couple of church images remaining in the article, the one in short religion section and the other within shortened gallery (with one Old Bazaar picture added and several duplicates removed). Would that be enough to reach consensus to remove "very long" tag?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The city is not famous of its churches and has never been, so detailing the section about the churches is not much significant. I must notice that some of the churches aren't in the city area, and another interesting point is that the city has more mosques instead as a result of the Ottoman rule. Inserting a new section about the Old bazaar is indispensably.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have done the best that I could. Who thinks he/she can do it better let it try. Tomica1111 (talk)
Well done and don't get bothered as result of the comments above, because we all hope to collaborate and expand the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No, In fact I am happy that you give me critics, that's how I become better and the article of course :) Tomica1111 (talk)
Exactly. I think that you Tomica1111 really did a good job here, and thank you for that. I think that article now is both shortened (requested by LibStar) and obviously contain much more about Old Bazaar, mosques and Ottoman influence than before Kiril wrote his comment. I think that solves all open content disputes on the level requested for "decent" or good article, but certainly not on the level which would mark the article as unstable. I think that article is on "decent level" demanded by criteria for good articles. The only remaining issue is CE. I see that User:Local hero is native speaker of English. Maybe he can copy edit the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I'll work on it today and tomorrow. --Local hero talk 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I propose that rest of us non-native English users leave the article now until Local hero informs us tomorrow that he copy edited the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to all users that brought this article to GA status. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We made the GA goal, thanks to everybody :) ... especially to Antidiskriminator and Local hero, but I hope we are not stopping here and going for a FA :) ! Tomica1111 (talk)

The part about WWII

The WWII section needs editing. I edited it before, but user .--Laveol reverted it. Here are the issues:

1. Plagiarizing and misrepresenting a reference: There is/was a section in the article that was incorrect (before my edits). The statement read: During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University.[39]

This sounds like Bulgaria was generous to the people of Skopje. But, if you click on the reference, this is what you get: Bulgarian rule of Macedonia used every pressure to convince or coerce the inhabitants into thinking they were Bulgars and, for most Macedonians, the experience ended any with to be ruled from Sofia. Bulgaria opened as many as 800 schools in Yugoslav Macedonia and sent teachers and priests to ‘Bulgarise’ the people. Bulgaria also endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. The general policy of the Bulgarian occupation authorities was to win over the inhabitants … with generous treatment… This evidently failed.

So, there are two problems here. First, this sentence is copied verbatum from the reference (third sentence above), constituting clear plagiarism. Second, the spirit of the reference (when read in full) is that Bulgaria wasn't opening schools out of generosity, but it was a repressive measure that backlashed. The way the sentence was in the Wiki article misses the entire point of the reference. I added that. Laveol reverted that.

2. I also added an extra sentence or two about the Holocaust in Macedonia, with links from the US Holocaust Museum (showing pictures of the Holocaust in Macedonia). The sentence reads: "... the entire Jewish population of Skopje was deported to ... " Just that, they just got deported? After several hundred years of living in Macedonia, they just got deported? User Laveol removed that with the reversion. The article as it stands overlooks an important moment in history, and it deserves more than a sentence.

3. The article goes on to say: One month after the communists took power in September 1944 in Sofia, three Bulgarian armies reentered occupied Yugoslavia.[41] On November 13, units of First and Fourth Bulgarian Army, as well as, detachments of the Macedonian National Liberation Army seized Skopje.[42][43][44]

What do the references actually say: 41: On 8 October, the 1st and 4th Armies occupied Seb Macedonia with Partisan permission. 42: A Bulgarian reference. 43: By the late autm of 1944, however, the Germans could no longer hold their base in Macedonia and they had to evacuate Skopje on 13 November, bringing covert operations against ‘Old Bulgaria’ to a momentary halt. 44: A Bulgarian reference.

So, the first (#41) reference states the Bulgarians entered Macedonia (not necessarily Skopje) *after* getting permission from the Partisans, which is what I wrote. The way the text reads, it makes one think the Bulgarians liberated Skopje and the Macedonians tagged along for the ride. The third (#43) reference doesn't say anything that backs up the statement that the Bulgariane entered Skopje in November 1944. And the other two references are bad scans of Bulgarian books (not really impartial nor something most users can understand).

Wisco2000 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have tweaked it a bit to reflect some of the remarks here. Interestingly enough, now that I look at it, the text looks a lot like what you wrote. I am talking about the part about Bulgarians trying to win over the population. My initial objection was to the removal of the part about the Bulgarian armies re-entering Skopie. Remember, your edit summary was "the statement that is removed was not supported by a single reference that was listed there". So it was a bit misleading, as you had made other changes as well. And I really think that the sources are well-represented for the statement. Is Skopje actually in Macedonia? I guess it is. Plus, the Georgi Bakalov reference clarifies this to the point. And Bakalov is no Bozhidar Dimitrov or something but the most respected scholar in Bulgaria.
I really fail to say where you wrote "with Partisan permission". Are you sure you really did it? --Laveol T 05:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, your Bakalov reference also doesn't say that any Bulgarian army entered Skopje in 1944. It's not in the text, and not on the map on the referenced page. All three references, references 43, 44 and 45 don't support the statement that two Bulgarian armies entered Skopje. That's the issue. There is a massive disconnect between the references and the statements made there. Please take out the statement and the references. If you look at what references 43, 44 and 45 say, you'll see that they have nothing to do with Skopje (this is an article about Skopje, not about what the Bulgarian armies did in November 1944). Not trying to be funny or anything, I just don't think it's relevant here, if you were to write a statement based on what the references say.

Plus, most wikipedia users don't understand Bulgarian, you shouldn't rest so heavily on that.

69.201.171.94 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It says they entered the city on November 13. See here. It is presented in all kinds of other books. Should I paste them all here. I know you do not like the fact but it is a fact nevertheless. --Laveol T 08:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You dear sockpuppet, do not understand Bulgarian, this is shure. The Bakalov reference clearly states on p. 567:[9] ...По изричните изисквания на главното командване Първа и Четвърта армии подновяват настъплението си и преминават към преследване на хитлеристите към Скопие. На 13-ти ноември части на двете армии, съпътствани от формиравания на югослевската съпротива влизат в главния град на Македония... In English: On the explicit requirement of the Head Command First and Fourth Army continued their advance and the Nazi's persecution toward Skopje. On November 13, units of the two armies, accompanied by detachment of Yugoslav resistance entered the main city of Macedonia . Jingby (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence: All their efforts of gaining the support of the locals, however, failed, when on 11 March 1943, Skopje's entire Jewish population of 3,286 was deported to the gas chambers of Treblinka concentration camp in German-occupied Poland, is pure POV. Nearly the half of the Army and Police-units which participated on the deportation were local inhabitants, i.e. Macedonians. More, unlike some other Nazi Germany allies or German-occupied countries, Bulgaria managed to save its old-territories entire 48,000-strong Jewish population during World War II from deportation to concentration camps. Bulgarian authorities deported under German pressure the majority of the Jews (non-Bulgarian citizens) in the areas of Bulgarian occupation zones in Greece and Yugoslavia which were under Bulgarian administration during the war. The process of loosing the pro-Bulgarian sentiments by the locals during the War, was based on other facts and more complicated. More on this issue here: [10]Jingby (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1. I forgot to log back in, that doesn't constitute sockpuppetry. 2. You have 15 bans under your belt, Jingiby. Your current attitude doesn't help. 3. I understand Bulgarian better than most users on Wikipedia. You may want to use English references in the English articles, since most people reading the articles in English probably don't speak any Bulgarian. 3. The link that you put up doesn't contain the sentence on the page of the book when you open it. This isn't an issue of understanding Bulgarian. It is not on the page. Could be elsewhere in the book, could be in a different book, who knows. 4. There were multiple issues with all of your references (plagiarism, misrepresenting, lack of relevance), not just one. Please don't ignore those.

Wisco2000 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, you need a glasses:[11]. Jingby (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me state the same thing again: there are problems with ALL references. Your statements are not robustly backed up. You distort facts and leave out information. You add irrelevant info in places it doesn't belong. Who cares if the Bulgarians re-entered Skopje in '44, what's the big deal other than stroking your ego? If it's such a big deal, why is there only one reference, a Bulgarian one, with one sentence about it (and you referencing it on the wrong page)?!?! You got invaded by the Soviets in Sept 1944, you weren't running the show anymore.

Wisco2000 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is substantially referenced. Do you have anything to add or you will continue going in circles? So, when the Bulgarians had sided with the Germans, they were running the show, but when they switched sides, they were not? And more, it is important to note they invaded the city, but it is of no importance that they also liberated it? How convenient. --Laveol T 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First, to equate the partisans and their efforts since October 11 1941 with the last minute change of sides (when Bulgaria was occupied by the Soviets) is laughable. There is no mention of that. And yes, the partisans chose not to be with the Axis powers, Bulgaria did. Second, you have ONE source that speaks to any "liberator" function of the Bulgarians in 1944, and it is a Bulgarian one, something most people can't verify or understand. There are TONS that don't mention the Bulgarians in such capacity in 1944, and TONS that speak of the role of Bulgarians as occupiers. That's cherry picking. If your statement was a well accepted truth, you wouldn't be struggling with backing it up with references. Third, it's pretty obvious what's going on here: the Bulgarians opened schools (but let's leave out that that was a Bulgarisation tactic), they are not mentioned when the Jews got deported, and they liberated Skopje (no mention of the partisans or anyone else). If that's not blatant POV, dunno what is.

Wisco2000 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is getting really silly. Go ahead and read the section again. I am not going to respond to silly comments anymore. And before that I asked you if Skopje was in fact in Macedonia, since two of the sources already present here say that the Bulgarian armies went on to liberate Serb Macedonia. I provided you with the first book that speaks of the same that I found with a simple search. You could link the whole section to the article on history of jews in Macedonia, if you are up to any constructive edits, that is. --Laveol T 16:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is another source. Yes, it was that hard to find. Do we need to put 15 sources on a single simple statement? --Laveol T 16:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

another one. Happy now? --Laveol T 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More, on a series of maps from Army Group E, showing its withdrawal through Macedonia and Southern Serbia, as well as in the memoirs of its chief of staff, there is almost no indication of Yugoslav Partisan units, but only Bulgarian divisions. Despite this facts, the contribution of Bulgarian troops is still much debated in the Rebublic of Macedonia by political reasons. War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0804736154, pp. 751-752.; Multinational Operations, Alliances, and International Military Cooperation Past and Future, William W. Epley, Robert S. Rush, Government Printing Office, ISBN 0160794226, pp. 82-83. Jingby (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And now, one lie more, on Ref. # 44 ^ Bulgarian-Yugoslavian political relations, 1944-1945, Georgi Daskalov, Kliment Ohridski University press, 1989, p. 114 remark under line here and here:...В друга своя публикация той (Михайло Апостолски) е принуден да направи известно отстъпление, като посочва, че предните части на 1-ва армия влезли в Скопие на 14 ноември 1944 г., след като вече е освободен от ЮНОВ. (Апостолски, М. Погледи врз. . ., с. 253.) И тук той премълчава, че първата освободителна част влязла на 13 ноември в 18,30 часа в опразненото от противника Скопие под натиска на фронта на българските войски е конно-разузнавателния взвод на втора пехотна дивизия на 4-та армия. За непосредственото освобождаване на Скопие се включва и отряд от втора пехотна дивизия на първа армия. Той принуждава прикриващите хитлеристки сили да отстъпят и на 13-ти воември към 23,00 часа овладява южните и югоизточните райони на града, а до полунощ освобождава и неговия център.... Do you need a translation on this manipulation of the Macedonian historian Mihailo Apostolski and the second Bulgarian invasion of Skopje? Jingby (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

...In another his publication he (Mihajlo Apostlski who previously denied any Bulgarian participation in Macedonian liberation) was forced to make a retreat, stating that the avantgarde of the 1st Bulgarian Army entered Skopje on November 14, 1944, after it having been liberated from the Yugoslav NLA. (Aпостолски, М. Погледи врз. . ., с. 253.) Here he again ignores the fact, that the first unit, which entered on November 13 at 18.30 Skopje, left from the Germans under the pressure of the Bulgarian army, was the intelligence platoon of the Second infantry division of the 4th Bulgarian army. For the liberation of Skopje contributed also detachments of the Second infantry division of the First Bulgarian Army. They forced the withdrawing Nazi detachments to retreat the city and on November 13th at 11 p.m. took under their control the southern and the southeastern areas of the city. At the midnight they seized also its center... Jingby (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Bulgaria declares war on Germany

In late August 1944 the Bulgarian government of Ivan Bagrianov began secret negotiations with the Allies aimed at making a separate peace. They repudiated the alliance with Nazi Germany, declared neutrality, ended all anti-Jewish laws and began the withdrawal the Bulgarian troops from Macedonia. Through its Macedonian born Minister of Internal Affairs Alexander Stanishev, the Bulgarian government tried to negotiate with the Macedonian partisans about the establishment of a Macedonian state outside the framework of the future Yugoslavia. Both negotiations failed.[1] A new government was formed on 2 September 1944, which declared its support for democratic reforms and ordered the withdrawal of German Army troops from Bulgaria. However, on 5 September, the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Army was ordered to offer no resistance. Within three days, the Soviets occupied the northeastern part of Bulgaria. On 9 September the Fatherland Front of Bulgaria in Sofia deposed the government through a coup d'état. The Bulgarians changed sides and joined the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of September 1944, Ivan Mihailov, in coordination with the Gestapo, tried to make a final effort to impose his influence in Macedonia. Unlike the leftist resistance, the right wing followers of pro-Bulgarian IMRO considered the Macedonians to be Bulgarians, and did not support the existence of a future Yugoslavia. After 1941 the Germans kept him as reserve variant, if the relations with Bulgaria are going worsen. Mihailov was transported in a special convoy to Skopje, where the Germans hoped that he could form an puppet Independent State of Macedonia, with their support, on the base of IMRO and Ohrana. Foreseeing that Germany was going to lose the war and the appreciable progress of the Macedonian Communist National Movement, he refused. In the anarchy the old, pro-Bulgarian authorities, continued de facto the government on the base on their relations with the Germans Army, the Bulgarian divisions and the Yugoslav Partisans during September - October 1944.

Nazi Germany hastily sent small divisions to invade Bulgaria at several points of entry, but these were quickly repulsed. The Bulgarian divisions stationed in Macedonia found themselves in a much more difficult situation. German troops had closed round them, while their command was being nonplused by the high treason of some staff officers, who had deserted to the German side. The withdrawing Bulgarian troops in Macedonia, surrounded by German forces, fought their way back to the old borders of Bulgaria. Josip Broz made use of the opportunity presented by Bulgaria’s isolation from the international community to form relations with the new pro-Communist authorities. A military alliance between the two countries was established at a meeting on September 23, 1944 in Sofia, in addition to which the Yugoslav side requested Bulgaria’s definitive attitude regarding the decisions of the ASNOM. The conclusions included the demobilization of Macedonians from the Bulgarian army, whose implementation required a second meeting in Craiova, Romania, on 5 October. The latter meeting with Soviet intercession marked the beginning of closer relations between Yugoslav Partisans and Bulgaria. It was followed by demobilization of the Macedonian recruits, who formed as much as 40% - 60% of the soldiers in some Bulgarian battalions.[2] As a result they were later recruited in the MNLA.

Under the leadership of the new Bulgarian pro-Soviet government, four Bulgarian armies, 455,000 strong in total, were mobilized and reorganized. Three of them, consisting of around 340,000 man,[3] reentered occupied Yugoslavia in the early October 1944 and moved from Sofia to Niš, Skopje and Pristina with the strategic task of blocking the German forces withdrawing from Greece.[4] In Macedonia they operated in conjunction with the fighters of the Macedonian National Liberation Army, but this cooperation did not proceed without difficulties.[5] From October 8 to November 19, the Stracin - Kumanovo operation was held and Kratovo, Kriva Palanka, Kumanovo and Skopje were taken. At the same time the Bregalnica - Strumica operation was led, and the Wehrmacht was driven from the villages of Delchevo, Kocani, Stip, Strumica and Veles.[6] Southern and Eastern Serbia, Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia were liberated by the end of November.[7] On a series of maps from Army Group E, showing its withdrawal through Macedonia and Southern Serbia, as well as in the memoirs of its chief of staff, there is almost no indication of Yugoslav Partisan units, but only Bulgarian divisions. Despite this facts, the contribution of Bulgarian troops is still much debated in the Rebublic of Macedonia by political reasons.[8][9]

Jingiby,, two things:

1. According to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Anything challenged or likely to be challengedPolicy shortcuts: WP:CHALLENGE WP:CHALLENGED

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable.

Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.

So, it is your responsibility, as someone that added these things in the first place, to provide reliable evidence. Therefore, your attitude with things like "you need glasses" etc is inappropriate. You need to provide the evidence.

Second, let's see what's your latest and greatest evidence: 1. Bulgarian-Yugoslavian political relations, 1944-1945: При търсенето на - скопие 13 ноември 1944 - не бяха открити съответстващи документи. So, no documents found for whatever you were searching. 2. Bulgarian-Yugoslavian political relations, 1944-1945: При търсенето на - конноразузнавателният взвод - не бяха открити съответстващи документи. So, no documents found for whatever you were searching. 3. War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Quote provided has nothing to do with Skopje, Bulgarians liberating it, etc. This is an article about Skopje. 4. Multinational Operations, Alliances, and International Military Cooperation: There is no mention of Skopje. In fact, there is no mention of Skopje in the whole book (Няма намерени резултати в тази книга за Skopje). This is an article about Skopje.

Again, you're references are not useful.

Wisco2000 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Laveol, the fact that you are having a hard time finding sources in English to back up the claim that Bulgarian forces liberated Skopje is because it's a minority view. That's the reason why I deleted it previously. This is what wikipedia says on that subject:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. ... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

Cheers,

Wisco2000 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is really funny to look on your desperate attempts to manipulate not only the article, but even the sources. However, there are also several Russian sources which are waiting on your manipulative comments: for example the Russian Academy of Sciences [12]; the Institute of military history [13]; Russian Academy of Sciences again: [14], regs. Jingby (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

People, this is a WP:COATRACK debate. This is an article about a city, not about the history of WWII. Cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


Amen & Thank you! That's what I've been talking about.

Wisco2000 (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you? But the current version has the sentence you wanted to remove from the start. Do you actually read the articles you wage edit-wars on? --Laveol T 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


I was referring to the edit done at 06:19, 9 September 2011, immediately after the comment on Coatracking was made.

Wisco2000 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's how were liberated Skopje and Nish according to the British military intelligence on the Balkans: General Walter Oxley informed the British Head Command, the Ministry of Defence and the Headquarters of the combined allied forces in the Mediterranean in the following way:

"... Skopje was seized with little German resistance after Bulgarian concentric attacks, while the Partizans stood on the surrounding hills. They went down in time to support the entry into the city. The Bulgarians detained the POW-s, but they gave the taken from the Germans weapons to the Tito's detachments. Nish was seized by the joint efforts of four Bulgarian and one Tito's division. The latter had only two guns and the artillery support was given entirely by the Bulgarians. The Russians recognized the bravery of the Macedonian guerrillas, but believe they have little value against the organized Greman resistance..." [15];[16]. Jingby (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, so we've settled that. The entry into the city was done by both forces together, at more or less exactly the same time. Weighing up the relative military merits of which force did how much is entirely irrelevant to this article. The only remaining task is how to package this information so that (a) it occupies as little space as possible in the article (because it's basically just an insignificant footnote to its history), and (b) it doesn't confuse readers too much (because the change of role of the Bulgarian side is confusing to outside readers). This must be treated in no more than one sentence. Everything else is ideological history-wanking by nationally obsessed agenda editors (as usual). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Laveol T 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Във и извън Македония - спомени на Пандо Младенов, стр. 276, Македонска Трибуна.
  2. ^ Участие на Българската армия във Втората Световна война, Официална страница на Военна Академия "Г. С. Раковски".
  3. ^ The Oxford companion to World War II, Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot, Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0198604467, p. 134.
  4. ^ Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-45, Nigel Thomas, K. Mikulan, Darko Pavlović, Osprey Publishing, 1995, ISBN 1855324733, p. 33.
  5. ^ War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0804736154, p. 168.
  6. ^ История на Българите: Военна история на българите от древността до наши дни, Том 5 от Istoria na Bŭlgarite, Georgi Bakalov, TRUD Publishers, 2007, ISBN 9546212350, стр. 560-569.
  7. ^ Dr. Ivan Yanev Bulgaria's Foreign Policy During the Second World War as Reflected in Bulgarian Historic Literature 1938-1944 Варна, 2006 Издателство "Литернет" [1]
  8. ^ War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0804736154, pp. 751-752.
  9. ^ Multinational Operations, Alliances, and International Military Cooperation Past and Future, William W. Epley, Robert S. Rush, Government Printing Office, ISBN 0160794226, pp. 82-83.

Climate chart

The temperature data in the table "Climate data for Skopje" is not consistent with the source cited at the bottom of the table. The temperatures given for each month look more like the record highs and lows than the averages highs and lows. If you believe the table, Skopje must have a VERY extreme climate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.40 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. A piece of vandalism that unfortunately slipped through yesterday. Some people keep vandalizing these charts rather regularly, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

I removed the current collage because I had not realized it had been changed until now. I do not love the current one because it mostly depicts things in Skopje that were constructed within the past year or two. A couple of them, in fact, are still not completed. The one I had reverted to, however, isn't great either. A perfect collage, in my opinion, would include the Fortress, the Stone Bridge, the Millennium Cross, the Old Bazaar, and a very recent picture of Macedonia Square since it has changed immensely in just the past couple of years. The new national theatre, since it is a reconstruction of the old one, would also be acceptable in a collage about Skopje. Thoughts? --Local hero talk 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Local Hero, I agree the old collage is not that great, for example, the pictures are not that clear and very outdated. The collage that I made features all the main landmarks of Skopje, landmarks that foreign tourists are most likely to see when they visit the city. I know many are new landmarks, but lets face it, they have become prominent in the city.

Here is what is on my collage:
- Stone bridge (we both agree on)
- Kale (we both agree on)
- National Theater (we both agree on)

Now you said that you would prefer a photo of Macedonia square, however a photo of the whole square in the info box does not make much sense because the photo would be very small and readers would not be able to get a good picture of the area. Instead, I have focused on prominent monuments in and around the square that are zoomed in so that readers can get a good view. They are:


- statue of the warrior
- Archaeological museum
- fountains in the Vardar
- Porta Macedonia, (can seen from the square)

A photo of the whole square would only make sense if the photo was larger (like a panoramic view) and it could be located in the actual article where it would be better displayed. Same with the old bazaar, it would be displayed better if it was a larger panoramic photo in the article instead of a tiny photo in the infobox.

-Extratall (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I support Local hero's action to replace collage with previous version, and I also agree that the previous version should be improved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
^^^ Can you please discuss your reasoning for using the previous collage instead of the new one? Extratall (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You've got a good point about the Macedonia Square image probably being too small. But take a look at File:NYC Montage 2011.jpg, for example. The Times Square picture is small and not much detail can be seen but it is still included because it is perhaps the most well-known part of the city.
I think the collage should definitely have an image related to the old bazaar since that's where most of Skopje's history has taken place.
I do not find the fountains in the river to be an important landmark. Though, one could be captured in an image along with the Stone Bridge.
I also do not support including the Archaeological Museum because it has no significance yet. Perhaps in several years if it amasses a decent collection, it could be considered a major piece of the city.
I understand the inclusion of Porta Macedonia and the Warrior statue. I suppose with these two, there may be no room for the Millennium Cross, which I think ought to be included because of its location on Vodno and for being visible in most of the city. --Local hero talk 05:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the previos collage (though it should be improved) because:
  1. the new collage is focused on buildings that were constructed within the past year or two and
  2. because it is not NPOV because those buildings are promoting non-Slavic ancient Macedonianism.
The old collage should be improved because:
  1. it is also not completely NPOV because there are two picturs of Christian topic and none of Muslim (Muslim Albanian and Turkish population is sustantial in Skopje).
  2. it presents the central square that doesn't exist anymore.
My proposal: I find it absurd not to have picture of Old bazaar, fantastic 15th century complex which deserves to be rubbed in the nose of every reader as soon as they open this page. Modern parts of every city in the world looks the same, especially at night. But there are few cities that can boast to have 15th century old town with still functional restaurants built in 15th century. I am surprised that it is not more advertised by Macedonian and Skopje government. I gueess that it is politics issue again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Local hero and antidisk., I find the proposal of showing monuments from the old bazaar area as reasonable. Antidisk, I cannot accept your belief that we cannot show monuments that according to you are promoting "non-Slavic ancient Macedonianism". It seems that you don't agree with the construction of these monuments, rather than whether to display them in the infobox or not which is a totally different issue. These monuments have become prominent in Skopje's skyline no matter what ideas they seem to convey. Anyway, this is what I plan to do: I will take a look at my personal photo archive (I have over 100 photos from Skopje) and see if I could find some things from the old bazaar that could replace the archaeological museum, and perhaps replace the photo of the fountain in the river if I can find something with the same dimensions/shape. Please give me a few days (the most) as I am really busy at the moment. Extratall (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I never said that none of newly constructed monuments can be presented in the collage. I was opposed to recently added collage because 6 out of 7 images were images of newly constructed buildings . One or two are enough, regardless of the idea they are promoting.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, great. The bottom image of the Fortress is fine, as is the one of Porta Macedonia. The Warrior statue is also good, but if you've got a picture that includes the fountain portion as well I think that'd be a preferable option. The national theatre image is okay, too. I think the Vardar fountain picture could be replaced with the Millennium Cross or the clock tower in the old bazaar. The Stone Bridge panorama is great but maybe a panorama of the city could be put there and an image of the Stone Bridge could be put in the archaeological museum's place. Just some thoughts. --Local hero talk 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, just a little change of plans. I added a photo of the 15th century Kapan Han (with some surrounding buildings) to the collage - it looks awesome (thanks to your advice)! Now here is the problem: I am looking at the whole collage and it looks like a collection of antique structures. How would you guys feel if I also add the MRT Center? It serves as a major telecommunications tower, it is the tallest structure in the city, and one of the most modern in the country. This way it will balance the feeling of modern/old in the collage. Extratall (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the Kapan Han idea. Which image did you switch it for, so I can get a better idea of what it looks like now? The MRT Center is, at least in most shots I've seen, ugly (though this image makes it look pretty good File:SkopjeMTV.jpg). It is the tallest building in the country but I don't think it looks modern. I think the Soravia Centre is among the best examples of modern architecture in the city. I don't think a modern structure is necessary in the collage, especially since Skopje doesn't have many significant ones.
If you put the Kapan Han in place of the archaeological museum, then I would just change the Vardar fountain image for the clock tower or the Millennium Cross.
Also, I have always loved this image, File:Aladja Moschee01.JPG, of the Ishak Bey Mosque. --Local hero talk 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Local hero, please give me a chance lol. The photo that I have of the MRT center is really great, this is the only building in Skopje that comes close to a modern skyscraper, it's the tallest building in the whole country, so I really think we should include it. I replaced the fountain in the Vardar with it. I replaced the Archeological museum with Kapan An. That is the best I could do and I wouldn't change anything else. I will upload it now. Extratall (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just throwing some ideas around to see what you guys think. Thanks for doing these collages because I personally don't have many good Skopje photos and what we've got on commons isn't the best. --Local hero talk 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
My modest opinion:
  1. I agree that Kapan Han picture is very nice.
  2. I also agree with Local hero that Skopje is not famous because of its modern buildings structure, so I would avoid both Soravia and ugly MRT Center (which is presented on very nice picture).
  3. This version of collage has daylight picture of Kale fortress which is much more useful than night one.
  4. Skopje is not famous religious center so I would avoid any religious object in collage, including Millennium cross.
  5. Alexander the Great monument is part of the fountain and should not be presented without it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the new collage. Good work, Extratall. That photo of the Kapan Han is terrific. --Local hero talk 13:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Population figures: Skopje vs. Sarajevo

Before everybody keeps edit-warring about this, can people please, please, please come here and tell us they have thought through what they are actually comparing? Remember that the population figures of an urban area are not necessarily the same as those of a city's administrative unit. From what I can gather, Sarajevo seems to have fewer inhabitants within its administrative city limits, but more in its whole urban area. So now, please let us know which of these figures you think a comparison ought to be based on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The wording is "largest city in the former..." So, I take that to mean city population and not metro or urban area population. I think most other readers would see it this way as well. In this case, Skopje is the third largest in the former Yugoslavia. We could, of course, add another sentence, or fit it into this sentence, about Skopje's place among urban areas of the former Yugoslavia. --Local hero talk 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring over Albanian name, again

@Herakliu: the last time the issue of the Albanian name form in the lede came up, the conclusion was that while the Ohrid Agreement appeared to mandate co-official status for Albanian in the city, there was no concrete evidence from reliable sources that any practical implementation of such a status had in fact taken place in Skopje. If you have reliable evidence that this has changed, please list it here. More importantly, however, your demand to add the name to the lede sentence status rests on a mistaken premise. It is not the function of our lede sentences to serve as a symbolic badge of recognition of this or that language's political or social status, or to satisfy the rights or feelings of this or that local population group. The official status (or lack thereof) is therefore quite irrelevant here. Your demand that because the language is official the name "MUST be presented in the incipit" is simply a non sequitur. The only actual criterion for inclusion or non-inclusion is to what extent our English-speaking readers are likely to come across any given name variant out there in real life. A single transliteration in the primary official language of the place is usually useful (as this is what you will come across on road signs, in some maps, etc.). The Albanian form has no such prominence for anglophone readers. Anything beyond that is treated in the dedicated "toponymy" section.

This said, I warned you yesterday on your IP user talkpage, and the same warning still stands: no matter whether you think you're right or not, you definitely need to stop the edit-warring, or you will find yourself blocked very soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice circumlocution to essentially say that, indeed, you said nothing! You lie knowing to lie, and that makes your position even worse. Practical implementation has been:
1) enforced since many years
Skopje, Centar: http://prikachi.com/images/622/8309622w.jpg (Try to guess in wich language the paint sprayed part was written with). http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2084/48274145553773118753414.jpg https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7484/16116678529_2ac4123e6a_b.jpg
2) even if it wasn't enforced, doesn't change the fact that Albanian language is an OFFICIAL LANGUAGE in Skopje, therefore in any case the use of the Albanian toponym is not only justified, but it would be uncorrect to not do so! Herakliu (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Albanian name

why isnt the albanian language official in yhe articel?? It clearly says in the Ohrid agrement that if it is over 20% it will be used as official and it is [[17]]Internationel00 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Internationel00 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See multiple talk sections just above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on Skopje. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Albanian toponym

In according to the following reasons:

  • Given the Ohrid Agreement, specifically paragraph 6.5: "Any language spoken by more than 20% of the population of Macedonia is an official language of Macedonia. Any official language may be used to communicate with the central government. Any official language may be used with a local government if that local government's area it is spoken by at least 20%." and paragraph 6.6: "in municipalities where a community comprises at least 20 percent of the population of the municipality, the language of that community will be used as an official language in addition to Macedonian." [1]
  • Given the presence of Albanians in Skopje is quantified as 20.4% [2][3]
  • Given that the Albanian toponym is written in the articles of Wikipedia of all other towns and cities of Fyrom where there's a substancial presence of Albanian population (making it not clear why Skopje should be an exception)
  • Given the rule is enforced in all sphere of life, from parliament to passports to bus tickets etc.etc. since many years (even in some places with very little to no Albanian presence) http://prikachi.com/images/622/8309622w.jpg http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2084/48274145553773118753414.jpg https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7484/16116678529_2ac4123e6a_b.jpg
  • Given the important and historical presence of Albanians in this land since hundreds of years, population that constituted the majority of the demographics of the city of Skopje barely 100 years ago before the influx of Aegean Macedonians and Macedonians coming from other regions of Fyrom [4]

I proceed with the addition of the historical Albanian toponym of the city of Skopje (Shkupi) in the incipit of this article. Herakliu (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's funny to notice that this section I personally wrote is to this day undisputed (I don't see how it could be otherwise), and still the historical and OFFICIAL Albanian name keep getting erased from the incipit. I took care of it again. Herakliu (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note

  1. ^ [2]
  2. ^ [3]
  3. ^ [4]
  4. ^ http://www.telegrafi.com/fo/1908.jpg
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skopje/Archive_2&oldid=1144316384"