Talk:Skopje

Deleted image as source falsification.

The main Bulgarian forces entering the city on November 14, while their first units entered it on 13th. Skopje was seized by Bulgarian troops, while the Partisans went to support them.

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, the image rights was deleted by you as a source falsification. I provide here correct citation from the first source as follows: Livanios pp. 134-135:

"Military realities, however, made this incident look very ironic indeed,for Skopje was liberated by Bulgarian forces, while the Macedonian Partisans remained in the surrounding hills, and came down only to celebrate their entrance to the city. Similar scenes occurred in many other towns of Macedonia and Serbia, pointing to the fact that, from a military perspective,the Russians were right: the Bulgarian army was the only force capable of driving the Germans quickly out of Yugoslavia."... "For information on the military situation in Macedonia and Serbia and the role of the Bulgarian army see FO 371/43608, R17271, 24/11/1944; FO 371/44279, R16642,14/10/1944; FO 371/43630, R19495, 24/11/1944; WO 208, 113B, 12/9/1944. These sources, which contain intelligence reports from BLOs, confirm the decisive role of the Bulgarian army in the liberation of Skopje, Nis, Prilep, and the Morava Valley."... "The successes of the Bulgarian army certainly did not come as music to British ears either. Thus, it was with a sense of disappointment that the Foreign Office received reports stressing that the Bulgarians ‘have been doing very well against the Germans’. George Clutton minuted on this development in unequivocal language, which clearly reflected the British determination to prevent Bulgaria from becoming an officially recognized co-belligerent state. ‘We do not recognize the Bulgarians as co-belligerents, so we soft-pedal references on these successes’. Nevertheless, he felt obliged to justify his views on moral grounds: ‘There is a tendency in Great Britain to regard Bulgaria as having been hardly treated, but she has black and treacherous record.’The BBC was accordingly instructed not to boost the Bulgarian contribution to the war. Thus, although the American and Soviet radio correctly attributed the liberation of Skopje to the Bulgarians, the BBC ignored their vital role, infuriating Sofia."

Can you explain what was falsified. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You cited a second source in the same image caption, which explicitly contradicts the first one. Adding that as a footnote as if it provided additional support for your statement is blockable disruption. BTW, weren't you history-wanking over exactly this issue on this talkpage just a few years ago? See Talk:Skopje/Archive 2#The part about WWII, especially the conclusion of that thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the second source Palairet p. 212: "Take the capture of Skopje in November 1944. According to Apostolski, Skopje was “liberated” by the Macedonian army, led by its 42nd division. No Bulgarian troops participated, even as observers, but Bulgarian official sources insisted that the Bulgarians liberated the city, and that Yugoslav or Macedonian units provided a mere “resistance movement. Once the city had fallen, Stoychev, a Bulgarian general, appeared there, wanting to organize a victory parade. Apostolski refused to let him, and access to the city was also barred against Damyan Velchev, Bulgaria's foreign minister. Livanios however, relying on British official sources writes that Skopje “was liberated by Bulgarian forces, while the Macedonian partizans remained in the surrounding hills and came down only to celebrate their entrance to the city.”

If I see here is no falsification. More, specialized academic authoritative (Cambridge University) sources support the added information. Jingiby (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I remember this discussion. Then you insisted on this variant but the sources told another story. 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 in Macedonia. Despite these facts, the contribution of Bulgarian troops is still much debated in the Republic of Macedonia for political reasons. See: War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: occupation and collaboration, Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3615-4, pp. 751–752, and Multinational Operations, Alliances, and International Military Cooperation Past and Future, William W. Epley, Robert S. Rush, Government Printing Office, ISBN 0-16-079422-6, pp. 82–83. Lets be objective and keep reliable info and stick to the more authoritative sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these two sources mentions Skopje, and you have still failed to acknowledge that you were blatantly mis-citing Palairet. What you need to read is not merely the sentence where he quotes Livanios (your first source), but the sentence at the end of the same paragraph, where he explicitly contradicts him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The context of all sources is clear: the Yugoslav partisans played a minor role by expelling the Germans from Macedonia and Eastern Serbia unlike the Bulgarian Army. They entered Skopje, Pristina and Nish after the Bulgarians. Palairet only has clarified that Bulgarians followed the withdrawing Germans in Skopje and most probably the last Germans were leaving it on one end, when the first Bulgarian detachments entered Skopje on another. And the image is also not misinterpreted. Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't read what Palairet actually writes. Your reading comprehension can't really be that poor. It's also still plain obvious that the only reason you want that image included is to celebrate your tedious nationalist hobby-horse (seriously, for how long have you been obsessing over this POV agenda of yours, ten yeers or more?) Cut it out, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Cut it out is not an answer. Excuse me, where is the falsification? You simply has deleted the image becouse you dislike it. The image is real and the sources are exelent. Wikipedia articles on history must rely on secondary academic sources. Palairet is a tertiary source, but Livanios is secondary one. It is exelent source: specialized in Macedonian question and from Oxford University Publishing, thought, you are not objective in the case. By the way here is the book The Eastern Front, 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts from Karl-Heinz Frieser, issued by the Oxford University Press in 2017. Check pp. 1096-1097, please. No sign from Yugoslav partizans by the battles for Skopje, but only Bulgarian army operations. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, the chef of the British military intelligence on the Balkans, General Walter Oxley informed the British Head Command, the Ministry of Defense and the Headquarters of the combined Allied forces in the Mediterranean about the capture of Skopje in the following way:... "Skopje was seized with little German resistance after Bulgarian concentric attacks, while the Partisans 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... The Russians recognized the bravery of the Macedonian guerrillas, but believe they have little value against the organized Greman resistance..." According to Bulgarian and Soviet military sources, the capture of the city was is as follows: On 13 November, at 18.30, the intelligence squadron of the Second Infantry Division of the 4th Bulgarian Army was the first detachment to enter the city. Meanwhile, the Germans were quickly withdrawing from Skopje under the pressure of Bulgarian troops advancing to the front. A Second Infantry Division of the First Bulgarian Army entered the city after the intelligence squadron. Thus, on the 13th of November at 23.00, the Bulgarians seized the southern and south-eastern areas of the city, and by midnight they enter its center. In the battles participated also the 12th and 3th brigades of the Yugoslav partisans which supported Bulgarian entry on the flanks. Source: Bulgarian-Yugoslavian political relations, 1944-1945, Georgi Daskalov, Kliment Ohridski University press, 1989, p. 114 - remarks under line: here and here:. Can you explain me please, how to change the description of the image to be more neutral. I suggest you the following, more neutral option for the text under the photo: The main Bulgarian forces entering the city on November 14. Their first units entered it on November 13th. Skopje was seized by Bulgarian troops, supported by the Yugoslav Partisans. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You have still not apologized for falsifying Palairet? You are really not helping your case by droning on and on and on. Tedious. Needless to say, I see no reason to include the image at all, and I also see no reason to have any more discussion with disruptive elements like you. Discussion is over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you just do not wish to see it in the article, because you dislike it. I did not falsify anything and I am not disruptive element too. I just do not comment the personal opinion of Palairet in the part he is suggesting a hypothesis, but without supporting it with credible sources. I hope you are assuming good faith while interacting with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate source falsification, really? The image absolutely has context as well as the sourced text so I see no reason for removal except bias. I'm bitterly surprised to see such arrogance and personal attacks carried out by an admin. Thank you for ruining the good atmosphere and the constructive discussion by leaving it - it seems you prefer not to talk sources but discuss other editors. A coward move at the least. --ShockD (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the source? Then you should know that Palairet is saying the exact opposite of what Jingiby and you were claiming. Now, I talked sources (as I did before). You can now go and first read sources, then talk about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And what is this opposite Fut.Perf.? Above are a lot of sources confirming the 2 sentences written by me - directly or indirectly. Also in the article are 4 sources more supporting the described circumstances. In their context your position is not fair. More, you could change the text if there was something incorrect according to you, but you simply deleted the picture, the inscription and the sources. Your comments are inappropriate, maybe even offensive. Jingiby (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't apologized for lying about what Palairet wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not lie, you are wrong. Jingiby (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, these days, the source of Palairet is inaccessible to me in the Google books. I transferred the picture and the sources from another article where I have put them before. The quote that I gave from him was written on a file on my PC, the one I wrote earlier. I did not have a clear memory of what was written in the whole text below, but I'm sure it was not the opposite of what I wrote under the picture. If someone has access now, please quote to compare things and to discuss the issue. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so earlier? I'll refresh your memory once I find the time. You could have asked me right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's what Palairet says: after contrasting the conflicting accounts by Apostolski and Livanios, he concludes with his own estimation that "[t]he most likely actuality is that the Germans made little effort to hold Skopje, which was not of use to them once their withdrawal had been secured, and that Apostolski’s men and the Bulgarian army both rushed in from different directions, without mutual liaison." This is the sentence immediately following the ones you cited further above in this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This additional opinion is interesting. I agree that the Germans made little effort to hold Skopje, which was not of use to them once their withdrawal had been secured. However the idea that both sides rushed in Skopje from different directions, without mutual liaison is based mostly on Palairet own estimation. He seeks most probably neutralization of the opposing views of both sides. As a whole his opinion, I think, does not contradicts sharply to my comment: "...Skopje was seized by Bulgarian troops, while the Partisans went to support them." Nevertheless, Livanios is more precise. He is relying also on British military sources claiming that Skopje was seized by Bulgarian forces. Per Livanios' study, American and Soviet radio also attributed the capture of Skopje to the Bulgarians. Because of that I am more inclined to add slightly greater objectivity to this claims. To compare different primary sources, I will search now, what the Germans have written on this issue. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Karl Hnilicka: Das Ende auf dem Balkan 1944/45 – Die militärische Räumung Jugoslaviens durch die deutsche Wehrmacht, Musterschmidt, Göttingen 1970. (= Studien und Dokumente zur Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Band 13) - Karl Hnilicka: The end on the Balkans 1944/45 - The military evacuation of Yugoslavia by the German Wehrmacht, Musterschmidt, Göttingen 1970. (= Studies and documents on the history of the Second World War, Volume 13) and especially III. Die militärische Räumung Jugoslaviens durch die deutsche Wehrmacht 1944/45 - The military evacuation of Yugoslavia by the German Wehrmacht 1944/45, has described the situation, including has collected the opinions from different participants in these events. On p. 90 for example is given the opinion of General Helmut Friebe:..."Zwischen Kumanovo und Skoplje — ebenso zwischen Veles und Skoplje — wurden nochmals zwei Aufnahmestellungen bezogen, an die sich die Bulgaren aber nur zögernd heranfühlten. Der Grund war das offene Gelände, in dem die Bulgaren offensichtlich nicht zu kämpfen gewohnt waren... Etwa am 13. 11. 44 wurde Skoplje geräumt. Die Vardar-Brücke, die den Nordteil der Stadt mit dem Südteil verband, sollte ursprünglich gesprengt werden. Auf Bitten der Stadtväter, die sich für den ungestörten Durchmarsch der letzten deutschen Truppen verbürgten, ließ der kommandierende General sich dazu bestimmen, von der Sprengung der Brücke abzusehen. Als Dank wurden die letzten durchziehenden deutschen Einheiten mit Feuer von den Häusern und Dächern überfallen, wodurch Verluste an Menschen und Material eintraten. Ich selbst war bei diesen letzten Teilen und kann den Wortbruch bezeugen..." Rough translation: "Between Kumanovo and Skopje - as well as between Veles and Skopje - we have hold two positions, to which the Bulgarians reluctantly felt. The reason was the open terrain, on which the Bulgarians obviously were not completely ready to fight ... On 13.11.44 Skopje was left. The Vardar Bridge, which connected the northern part of the city with the southern part, was originally to be blown up. At the request of the city fathers, who vouched for the undisturbed passage of the last German troops, the commanding general was determined to refrain from blowing up the bridge. As thanks, the last passing German units were attacked with fire from the houses and roofs, causing loss of people and materials. I myself was in these last parts and can testify on these events ...". Also on pp. 91 and 95 is the opinion of the author Karl Hnilicka: "Die Bulgaren entwickelten ihr Vordringen zu einer großangelegten Offensive gegen Skoplje, was für die Heeresgruppe E wiederum die Gefahr heraufbeschwor, abgeschnitten zu werden. Die Lage war ernst. Die Erlebnisberichte, die diesen Zeitabschnitt schildern, und die in großer Fülle vorliegen, drücken oft tiefe Niedergeschlagenheit aus." and also: "Südmazedonien war planmäßig geräumt und auch bei Skoplje und nördlich davon verlief alles wie am Schnürchen. Skoplje wurde in der Nacht vom 13./14. 11. 44 geräumt. Obwohl die Bulgaren heftig nachdrängten, gelang es ihnen nicht, die planmäßigen deutschen Absetzbewegungen zu stören. Ganz Mazedonien war am 16.11. 44 geräumt." Rough translation: "The Bulgarians developed their advance into a large-scale offensive against Skopje, which in turn gave rise to the danger for Army Group E of being cut off. The situation was grave. The stories describing this period are abundant, and often express profound implications as despondency." And also: "South Macedonia had been evacuated systematically and in Skopje and to the north of it all ran like clockwork. Skopje was evacuated on the night of 13/14/ November 44. Although the Bulgarians fought hard, they did not succeed to countermine the planned actions. All of Macedonia was evacated on 16/11/44." As far as I see, after having read the pages 89-100, there is no indication of the Partisans and their activity by the capture of Skopje.Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have checked Livanios again. This is another citation from him confirming the same thesis: p. 135 remark 77 under line: "...It is perhaps of interest to note here that the British historiography on Yugoslavia also downplayed the critical role of the Soviet and Bulgarian armies in the liberation of this country, and appears to support the view that Yugoslavia was liberated by the Partisans alone. The fact that Belgrade was liberated with the help of the Red Army, and Skopje by the Bulgarians, is rarely mentioned. It can be said that the political situation in the 1960s and early 1970s, when in Western Europe Tito commanded a fair amount of admiration, as an example of non-Stalinist communism, was a not negligible factor for such an overrated assessment..." Jingiby (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The opinion of Spyridon Sfetas from Aristotle University in Thessaloniki on the same issue in The Bulgarian-Yugoslav Dispute over the Macedonian Question as a Reflection of the Soviet-Yugoslav Controversy (1968–1980). DOI: 10.2298/BALC1243241S. He wrote on p. 247 as follows: "The Yugoslav leadership was aware that the Soviet army had liberated Belgrade and parts of Serbia in October 1944. During his hasty visit to Moscow in September 1944, Tito had asked Stalin and Molotov for military aid,17 since the Yugoslav partisans were unable to defeat the well-equipped German forces in Serbia, where the royalist chetniks of Draža Mihailović had influence. Stalin had granted Tito’s request in order to gain ground in the new Yugoslavia, but he insisted that the Bulgarian army, already under Soviet control, should participate in the military operations in a bid to free this army of the stigma of being a fascist army. Indeed, the Soviets contributed heavily to Belgrade’s liberation in October 1944, and Bulgarians, though undesirable for the Yugoslav partisans, fought in the battles for the liberation Skopje in November 1944." Jingiby (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

"Renaming"

About this [1] edit by 203.106.220.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that claimed that Skopje was "officially renamed" to "Üsküp" and back again during its history, and implied that we'd have to retroactively call it Üsküp when dealing with its Ottoman era: neither of these contentions is correct. A "renaming" is when a speech community decides to start calling a place by a different name than before. None of the local speech communities in the area ever did that in the case of Skopje. The place has been called "Skop(l)je" by the local Slavic inhabitants for as long as Slavic speakers have existed in the Balkans, before, during, and after the Ottoman era. And it's been called "Üsküp" by Turks for as long as Turks have known of its existence, again before, during, and after the Ottoman rule. The only thing that ever changed is which language community locally held political power. As for our practice in using historical name variants, that is entirely a matter of what present-day reliable English sources do. If there was a clearly predominant convention in the modern historical literature of retroactively using "Üsküp" for the Ottoman era, then we might opt to do the same; otherwise WP:MODERNPLACENAME recommends using the established modern name throughout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Saraj Municipality.svg (discussion)
• Coat of arms of Čair Municipality.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language names

I think Üsküp as the Turkish name of the city should be added in the lead section as it was historically a major language in the city and it has retained importance in some contexts. Also, our foreign language policy in the lead section does not require inclusion of official languages and there are some notable cases where historically and culturally significant languages are listed as well, such like:

• Kiev: non-official Russian and Old Church Slavonic are listed;
• Dubrovnik: non-official Latin is listed;
• Luxor: non-official Saʽidi Arabic and Coptic are listed; and
• Nice: non-official Italian, Latin and Greek are listed.

Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the current names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any). PS. All alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead as here. There is a different section: Other names of Skopje. Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Skopje has had other historical names like Skoplje during the Yugoslav interwar period and during the Bulgarian period of WW2 the name was spelt as Skopie. Those are not in the lede but catered for in the toponymy section. So is the Turkish name. Skopje today has small communities of Serbs and Turks, but they do not reach a 20% threshold. On Turkish language and historical usage in Skopje it was mostly an administrative language and a franca lingua of most Muslims in the city, it was not the language of the home. Albanian was and it is cited via RS in the wiki article. Albanians today in Skopje around the 20% mark and due to the new language law making Albanian the 2nd official language of the country that is the reason it was placed in the lede.Resnjari (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind the Turkish name being in the lede (this was also the English name of the city for far longer than Skopje -- so there is an English argument here too that is being ignored -- see also Kiev not Kyiv, although Kiev survived longer than Uskup). But Resnjari and Jingiby, I want to redirect your attention to another more troubling mess I found on this page and just removed. The page until I fixed it had the old Paeonian name Scupi claimed to be coming from the (typically Christian) Greek episkopos -- this is absurd as at the time the city was founded by Paeonians, there was virtually no Greeks there, nor is Paeonian anything closely related to Greek aside from also being Indo-European. Worse, the sourcing included not only a 1854 source, but also a Byzantine one, and, it gets better, Ptolemy. There was also one 2005 source involved -- judging by the quality of other sources I didn't check it but it may still deserve a look.--Calthinus (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the Turkish name being in the lead, seems to be supported by WP:NCGN. Or we can just keep all alternative names in the relevant section and use the "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])" line. --Local hero ^talk 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Far as I know, the earliest people in Skopje Valley were the Triballi. Later the area was populated by the Paionians, but in the 3rd century BC, the surrounding area was invaded by the Dardanians. I am not sure about the first name of the settlement and its origin, but I can check it. Jingiby (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: the Turkish name is already in the lede. So is the ancient name of the city Scupi. I fail to see why these names should be repeated over and over again. The Albanian name was added in the first sentence because Albanians are 20% of the city population and importantly Albanian became an official language after Macedonian in the country in 2019. The Albanian name takes precedence above all other variations of the city name after the Macedonian name which comes first.Resnjari (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am against this as adding the Turkish name will open up a can of worms. If the Turkish name is to be added due to its historical connection, shouldn't the Yugoslav name for Skopje (Skoplje) be added as they too also have a historical connection? If it has to do with regional languages, shouldn't the Serbian/Bosnian (Skoplje), Romani (Skopiye) and Aromanian (Scopia) names be added? It looks like a simple addition but it complicates the page even more. ThreatMatrix (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Turkish name is already in the lede referring to a historical context, so is the ancient name. The first sentence of the lede has names of the biggest communities i.e Macedonian and Albanian of Skopje whose languages are official in the country. I think its this aspect that some other editors wanted other names included. However as you point out @ThreatMatrix it will cause clutter and so on. The rest of the names from different small communities are dealt with in the toponym section. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari, Jingiby and ThreatMatrix. I'm against adding the Turkish name in the lead for the same reasons as mentioned above.--Udha (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Count me in, too! Albanian in the first sentence is fine. Latin and Turkish name are already in the lede. Even that could be considered giving too much weight for historical names, but I am fine with it. Placing it one more time – and in the very first sentence – is definitely WP:UNDUE. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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 [2] 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