Talk:Skopje

Usage of "Macedonian"

There is a push to remove the usage of "North Macedonian" from Wikipedia by certain editors for ideological or personal reasons, and replace it with "Macedonian", even in geographical references where the reader has no way to know whether the reference is to the country or the region. I did what is often done in such cases, and, so as not to cause conflict with any editors, paraphrased the text so there is no need for "North Macedonian" to be used. But, because I was the one to do it and certain editors have a personal bias against me, it seems we are changing the stable version of the article in order to force adjectival forms everywhere, and have that form be "Macedonian" even where it makes no sense. --Antondimak (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. There is a push to remove the usage of "Macedonian" from Wikipedia by certain editors for ideological or personal reasons, and replace it with "North Macedonian". The worst of those editors is you. There is no reason to remove "Macedonian" in cases where it has been used before, and there is no need to use "North Macedonian" in cases where it hasn't, because, as you will finally have to get it through you head, we can use both. Obsessively messing around with these, as you have been doing, is disruptive. Go and find something else to obsess about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We can use none if that's the issue, I have no obsession with "North Macedonia". In my edit which you reverted, I didn't use "North Macedonia" even once. Specifically when referring to "the <something>est <thing> in North Macedonia", especially when it's something geographic (railway connections, highways) there is no way for the reader to understand whether you're referring to the country or the region. The phrase "daily trains also link Skopje with other Macedonian towns" could also mean "daily trains also link Skopje with other towns in Macedonia" (region) or "daily trains also link Skopje with other towns in North Macedonia". The phrase in the stable version of the article was "daily trains also link Skopje with other North Macedonian towns", which is unambiguous. Since there are users with an ideological opposition to "North Macedonian", I changed it to "daily trains also link Skopje with other towns in the country", which is also unambiguous. This was reverted in favour of the ambiguous version. This is but one minor example of the problem. --Antondimak (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

For anyone else in the discussion who could be given the wrong idea by your comment, I don't and haven't been replacing "Macedonian" with "North Macedonian" anywhere. I'm just defending the stable version of the article (which used both terms appropriately) from an ideological attempt to change all instances of "North Macedonian" to "Macedonian", introducing ambiguities. In fact, at this point I'm defending my attempt to compromise by giving in to the demand to remove "North Macedonian" by paraphrasing the text in a way that it remains unambiguous. --Antondimak (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I had to intervene and restore the last stable version [1] as there is no WP:CONSENSUS for the recent edits. If editors feel their edit is right, they should discuss it here and gain a new consensus before restoring these edits back to the article. Last, everyone is reminded that the article Skopje falls under WP:BALKANS discretionary sanctions and editors should avoid edit warring. Until the dispute is resolved, none should make further edits of this kind. Edit warring only weakens your positions; doesn't make them stronger. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you accidentally restored a version in the middle of edit warring. This is actually the last stable version. The controversial change was made on 19 February 2022, changing what had been stable for years. --Antondimak (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, the version I restored is because the edit in the said paragraph (about towns), wasn't in line with WP:MOSMAC. However the other edits in the paragraph about economy, such as "Macedonian GPD" wasn't really against MOSMAC, which (fortunately or unfortunately), permits the use of terms such as "Macedonian Economy" even though the economy is about North Macedonia, and not about the economy of the broader region of Macedonia. If you still believe that the recent changes to GPD's paragraph may cause confusion, let me know and I will revert them, or at least the first instance of that word, for purposes of resolving issues of ambiguity, if you are happy with that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I don't think this is ambiguous, which is why I didn't change it back to "North Macedonian". I do think this interpretation of this specific part of MOSMAC goes against the spirit of the RFC (which, if you remember, showed (by analysis of reliable sources) that adjectival references to the country should be "North Macedonian", and both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" could be used in edge cases where there is no clear reference to either the country or the culture). I think it would be better if we used neither "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" in these cases to avoid controversy, as I did in my edit, but again I don't think it's ambiguous in this case. --Antondimak (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Venus Punica's dating

The Venus Punica presented in the article dates back four centuries before the stated one, on the photo. It is dated in the second century BC (NOT AD) and this is the paper on this link provided (second page, second paragraph): http://periodica.fzf.ukim.edu.mk/fab/FAB_02_(2012)/FAB%2002.22.%20Ončevska%20Todorovska,%20M.%20-%20The%20Statue%20of%20Venus%20Pudica%20from%20Scupi.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnvss (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Magnvss: You perhaps did not read the linked article as carefully as needed, since on p. 355, the author clearly states: "The statue of Venus from Skupi was produced in the 2nd century AD by a leading sculptor of the Praxiteles school." Any other dates in the article refer to the historical lore of Venus, dating to the 2nd century BCE, but the statue itself is dated to the 2nd century AD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Proto-Albanian theory in the name section/POV pushing

The names section implies that the city acquired it's Slavic and Turkish variant from Proto-Albanian, the idea that Skopje comes from Proto Albanian is one fringe theory that is not accepted by anyone really. This is blatant POV pushing as the theory has a huge number of problems.

> It was adopted into the Slavic form following Proto-Albanian phonetic rules. Thus Scupi became "Skopje", and later "Üsküb" (Ottoman Turkish: اسكوب) for the Turks

This part also uses (https://web.archive.org/web/20090512232543/http://www.skopje.gov.mk/EN/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=46) as a citation despite this citation not having any mention of Skopje coming from Scupi. This is pure and blatant pov pushing.

The difference between Škup and Skopje is immense but the difference between Aromanian and Greek Skopia/Scopia is far more similar which is a much more probable way in which slavic Skopje/Skopie developed than from Proto-Albanian considering Greek and Latin were the official languages of the Eastern Roman Empire, if both Skopje and Shkupi developed from the same proto language the similarities would be far higher. There is no need for pushing fringe unaccepted theories in the naming section which imply the issue is settled which it is not.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean the Middle Ages section of the city says that the city was sacked by the Slavs in the 6th century and uninhabited until the 7/8th century when it was again settled by the Byzantines after which it fell to the Bulgarians. Who would these supposed proto-Albanians have been and where and at which time would they have lived for the Slavs to adopt a naming convention from them? Skopia > Skopie > Skopje is a far more logical evolution then Scupi > Shkup > Skopje

>At that time, the region was threatened by the Barbarian invasions, and the city inhabitants had already fled in forests and mountains before the disaster occurred. The city was eventually rebuilt by Justinian I. During his reign, many Byzantine towns were relocated on hills and other easily defendable places to face invasions. It was thus transferred on another site: the promontory on which stands the fortress. However, Scupi was sacked by Slavs at the end of the 6th century and the city seems to have fallen under Slavic rule in 595. The Slavic tribe which sacked Scupi were probably the Berziti, who had invaded the entire Vardar valley. However the Slavs did not settle permanently in the region that had been already plundered and depopulated, but continued south to the Mediterranean coast. After the Slavic invasion it was deserted for some time and is not mentioned during the following centuries. Perhaps in the late 7th or the early 8th century the Byzantines have again settled at this strategic location. Along with the rest of Upper Vardar valley it became part of the expanding First Bulgarian Empire in the 830s

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find support in the City of Skopje citation either. I can't access the Matzinger source to see what that says. --Local hero ^talk 04:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to argue the actual merits of the case, that would essentially be original linguistic research. We should just go with the sources published by linguists. However, I want to point out that the Greek and Aromanian names are identical, it's just that Greek usually uses a form of romanisation that makes it look different. The Skopje < Skopie transition is also probably purely a matter of spelling, as Greek "ia" was already pronounced as "ja", in these contexts, by that period. So it would essentially be /Skopje/ < /Skopja/.

Skopje doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Matzinger source. Just some general discussion of the Balkan sprachbund and Albanian phonetic rules on Latin loans. I would assume the original editor took those rules and came to the conclusion that Skopje follows them, but that doesn't seem to be right. I don't think the rules in that section even explain Shkup < Scupi. --Antondimak (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If the Matzinger source does not seem to mention Skopje in the citations then should the whole paragraph about Skopje being introduced into Slavic from Proto-Albanian be removed? Perhaps a quatation be added if the citation is even relevant to the city of Skopje or it's etymology? The reason i bring this up is because there is constant POV pushing on similar pages, for example in the Struga page there was an ongoing edit war and vandalism which claimed the name of the city came from the Albanian word "Shtrunga" when the citations where checked none of them even mentioned the city of Struga and all of them agreed the word Shtrunga was of Aromanian origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Struga&diff=prev&oldid=1094128703) I am weary in case citations are again misused for similar causes.

I personally agree that Skopje is a matter of spelling, in Bulgarian it's Skopie but the i and j are pronounced pretty much the same, i think the reason there are no citations or research even done on this subject is because Macedonian and Bulgarian Skopje/Skopie being adopted from the Greek/Aromanian Skopia/Scopia is a given, it is essentially the same word used in both Greek and Slavic which is why i even with my limited understanding of linguistics cannot fathom how the evolution of the word would be Shkup>Skopje essentially the word would go from Latin to Proto-Albanian to Slavic and still end up sounding exactly the same as the Greek/Aromanian name of the city?

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If it's not in the source, and it's the only source backing the assertion, then yes it should be removed. --Local hero ^talk 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Everything unsourced, especially when contentious, should be removed. The user who added it is an IP so I don't think there's a way to contact them.

About your final question, it's not for us to decide whether the derivation sounds plausible. Historical linguistics can be complicated, and early Albanian is a quite mysterious language. So it could theoretically be possible, but nothing seems to back it up. --Antondimak (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Matzinger study does mention Scupi -> Shkup being an Albanian development actually. That basically the name wasn't acquired from Slavic. Anyway, Skopje/Shkupi used to be mainly a Muslim town going by earlier sources. TheCreatorOne (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How exactly is it a fringe theory ? The most ancient name of this town is Scupi which was the Roman era name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scupi , the Albanian name developed from the ancient name obviously Scupi -> Shkupi , duh. This is also what the study of Matzinger says. TheCreatorOne (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the latest version of this added to the article, I'm not able to find anything backing this in the limited preview available for Demiraj's book, so a quote would be helpful. The other source is a dissertation and I don't find the wording so explicit that Shkupi came *directly* from Scupi, just slightly confusing use of "<" and then that the best explanation is the phonological developments of Albanian. --Local hero ^talk 02:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent defter information addition

Hello. I am skeptical of the Ottoman defter information (from Kristaq Prifti in Studime Historike) just added to the article. Are there really no Turks recorded in the data? I find that very hard to believe. --Local hero ^talk 20:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If you are skeptical about it, you can find other sources which contrast Prifti, add & compare them, but you can't remove it. Per WP:RS: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources The sources used for the name section are tertiary, generic guide books which contradict linguistic bibliography. I replaced them with Ivan Duridanov's Hydronymy of the Vardar Basin. It is considered to be a classic textbook in toponymy of the region. If there are other linguistic sources which support something different than Duridanov they can be added as well.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Side comment: I removed from the lead the statement about Neolithic habitation in the region. It made it seem as if the site is being continuously inhabited since then. As almost everywhere in the Balkans, some finds which date to the Neolithic era have been found. This isn't exceptional in itself or a sign of continuous habitation. Secondly, Scupi is attested for the first time by Ptolemy. It may have been a garrisson before that era, but there's no other information about it and the sources which are cited state the same thing: Of their early history , next to nothing has been recorded ; nor have they attracted due attention from the scholar or the excavator.3 Yet both , it will be argued , were surely legionary garrisons for a time in the reign of Augustus . (Syme 1999).--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide the quotes supporting the additions? The link does not provide any preview. --Local hero ^talk 03:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Local hero: Quotes related to Duridanov or to Prifti? --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, for Prifti. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Për të riprodhuar me korrektësi përmbajtjen e Defterit të Regjistrimit të vitit 1831, në këtë punim, popullsinë e kazasë së Shkupit dhe atë të Karadagut po i përshkruajmë veç nga njëra-tjetra. Por, meqë në defterët e tjerë, të cilët i përkasin po këtij regjistrimi të vitit 1831, Karadagu trajtohet si pjesë e kazasë së Shkupit, në përfundimet që janë nxjerr për popullsinë e përgjithshme të kazasë së Shkupit në vitet 30 është përfshirë edhe popullsia e Karadagut. Sipas Regjistrimit të vitit 1831 kazaja e Shkupit, kishte gjithsej 22 260 meshkuj, të ndarë në: 9 660 myslimanë, 11 700 të krishterë (raja), 900 romë. Popullsia e përgjithshme e kazasë së Shkupit sipas regjistrimit të vitit 1831 llogaritej në 44 520 frymë, të ndarë sipas përkatësisë etnike-fetare në këtë mënyrë: - 19 320 myslimanë shqiptarë (me një numër të vogël nëpunësish turq); - 23 400 të krishterë: shumica bullgarë-maqedonas, një pjesë serbë, katolikë shqiptarë e vllehë; - 1 800 romë. Popullsia e kazasë së Karadagut (Mali i Zi i Shkupit) sipas regjistrimit të vitit 1831: Sipas këtij regjistrimi, Karadagu, i klasifikuar si kaza më vete, kishte gjithsej 4 282 meshkuj, të ndarë në këtë mënyrë: - 2 722 ishin myslimanë; - 1 452 ishin të krishterë; - 108 romë. Popullsia e përgjithshme e kazasë së Karadagut arrinte në 8 564 frymë, të ndarë nga pikëpamja etnike-fetare në këtë mënyrë: - 5 444 myslimanë shqiptarë; - 2 904 të krishterë: bullgarë-maqedonas dhe katolikë shqiptarë; - 216 romë. If google translate provides any confusing translation, I can translate the relevant part manually.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene but the quality of Prifi's neutral historical interpretation has been heavily criticized in scholarship. B. Gregoric for example doesn't hesitate to include him among those “national” historians that reproduce a stereotypic pro-Albanian narrative. I'm afraid such works should be used with heavy precaution. Moreover, why should we overemphasize such interpretations by presenting them in a table ? Alexikoua (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out @Alexikoua:. In addition to that valid point, I've looked far and wide for information on the 1831 census numbers for Skopje and all I can confirm is the number of males by religion (9,660 Muslims with 11,700 Re'aya, 900 Gypsies, and no Jews or Armenians) Mehmet İnbaşı (2014) Kemal Karpat Dragi Gjogiev (2018); yet none of these sources manage to extract ethnic information.

Further, Musa ŞaŞmaz states:

• "The population in the census of 1831 was divided into five main groups (Muslims, Re'aya, Gypsies, Jews and Armenians)."
• "In general, the population of 1831 was given in the form of a summary as Muslim and non-Muslim."
• "Until the census of 1881/82, despite occasional allusions to ethnic groups (as in the 1831 census), Ottoman official statistics classified the population only according to religious affiliation". - is Prifti really making definitive ethnic determinations from "occasional allusions" in the 1831 information?

It is problematic that only Prifti seems to be drawing ethnic conclusions and that it isn't clear from where he draws these conclusions.

This all being said, I don't find this information fit to be added to the page and will restore it to its previous version. I'd suggest WP:RS/N or an RFC if someone wishes to add it. --Local hero ^talk 03:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Climate

I don’t think you can designate a city with 483 mm per year on average, humid subtropical דולב חולב (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It was called subtropical as a result of consensus for what to call Cfa climate, but not all scientists agree.

Trewartha has specific criteria for subtropical climates that Skopje or Lugano won’t fit in it, they can be simply called temperate.PAper GOL (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@PAper GOL Not if the RfC fails though; and its current state does not look too good. Uness232 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know.

I just wanted to clarify the matter.PAper GOL (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Pjeter Mazreku

Pjeter Mazreku reported in early 17th century (around 1620's or so I believe) that the town was mainly Muslim/Turk , and that these were of Albanian origin, the rest being Asiatic. And that it also contained some Jews, Serbs and some Greeks. The word 'Turk' was used as a word for a Muslim back then, didn't neccessarily imply an actual Turk. Same word he used for Prizren that it was inhabited by Turks/Muslims, who are mainly Albanians . TheCreatorOne (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)