![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
Con-Albanian name: (should not be included)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good Night/Laku noc/Добра ноќ Tomica1111 ( talk)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
If you don't have another note, how about to nominate the article for CE? And you are doing it right? Tomica1111 ( talk)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)
Amen & Thank you! That's what I've been talking about.
Wisco2000 ( talk) 07:18, 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)
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)
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)
Here is what is on my collage:
- Stone bridge (we both agree on)
- Kale (we both agree on)
- National Theater (we both agree on)
- statue of the warrior
- Archaeological museum
- fountains in the Vardar
- Porta Macedonia, (can seen from the square)
- Extratall ( talk) 16:20, 9 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In according to the following reasons:
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
Con-Albanian name: (should not be included)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good Night/Laku noc/Добра ноќ Tomica1111 ( talk)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
If you don't have another note, how about to nominate the article for CE? And you are doing it right? Tomica1111 ( talk)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)
Amen & Thank you! That's what I've been talking about.
Wisco2000 ( talk) 07:18, 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)
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)
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)
Here is what is on my collage:
- Stone bridge (we both agree on)
- Kale (we both agree on)
- National Theater (we both agree on)
- statue of the warrior
- Archaeological museum
- fountains in the Vardar
- Porta Macedonia, (can seen from the square)
- Extratall ( talk) 16:20, 9 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In according to the following reasons:
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)