View source for Talk:Skopje

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|b}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=21:07, 17 July 2010
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Skopje/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=374016462

|action2=PR
|action2date=00:49, 23 July 2010
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Skopje/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=374397236

|action3=GAN
|action3date=17:20, 3 February 2011
|action3link=Talk:Skopje/GA1
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=411809856

|action4=PR
|action4date=04:39, 30 June 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Skopje/archive2
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=436855361

|topic=Places
|currentstatus=GA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Cities|capital=y}}
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Illyria|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
}}
{{merged-from|1555 Skopje earthquake|9 September 2022}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Skopje/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=  }}

== 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.


[[User:GoofyGoofyson|GoofyGoofyson]] ([[User talk: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'''
:[[User:GoofyGoofyson|GoofyGoofyson]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Antondimak|Antondimak]] ([[User talk: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/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? 
::[[User:GoofyGoofyson|GoofyGoofyson]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Antondimak|Antondimak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TheCreatorOne|TheCreatorOne]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TheCreatorOne|TheCreatorOne]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|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. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 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]]: {{tquote|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.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk: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: {{tquote|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).--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 11:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::Can you provide the quotes supporting the additions? The link does not provide any preview. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 03:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Local hero}} Quotes related to Duridanov or to Prifti? --[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sorry, for Prifti. Thanks. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tquote|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.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk: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 ? [[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 01:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for pointing this out {{ping|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) [https://www.scribd.com/document/243121318/The-City-of-Skopje Mehmet İnbaşı (2014)] [https://www.academia.edu/27913581/OTTOMAN_POPULATION_1830_1914_Demographic_and_Social_Characteristics_By_KEMAL_H_KARPAT Kemal Karpat] [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Europe_and_the_Black_Sea_Region/6ZV9DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1831+ottoman+census+skopje&pg=PA214&printsec=frontcover Dragi Gjogiev (2018)]; yet none of these sources manage to extract ethnic information. 
:::::::Further, [https://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12575/64088/13523.pdf?sequence=1 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. --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 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  [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk: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 climate classification|Trewartha]] has specific criteria for subtropical climates that Skopje or Lugano won’t fit in it, they can be simply called temperate.[[User:PAper GOL|PAper GOL]] ([[User talk:PAper GOL|talk]]) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:PAper GOL|PAper GOL]] Not if the RfC fails though; and its current state does not look too good. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I know.
:::I just wanted to clarify the matter.[[User:PAper GOL|PAper GOL]] ([[User talk: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'' . [[User:TheCreatorOne|TheCreatorOne]] ([[User talk:TheCreatorOne|talk]]) 10:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

== Outdated titles over the results of every article related to any place of North Macedonia  ==

I don't think I'm the only one who has seen it but when searching in Google,in the first results over every article which is either related to a town a village or any other place in the country(Skopje included), there's always a small title which refers to them as (Town/village(etc) of Republic of Macedonia)!!!, according to the prespa agreement the name of the country has been changed and since 2019 the term Republic of North Macedonia/ North Macedonia is applied officially and for all uses, why the writers of these articles are still not updating them? What is the point of keeping these outdated results? Regardless of their personal bias and favoritism they should follow the law and not try to violate international agreements in favor of their personal ideologies. Is Wikipedia sacrificing it's accuracy in order to please the wants and ideas of it's every editor instead? Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia not a little online cafe where everyone can impose his views to the public as an official global truth no matter how much inaccurate they may be. That's really a shame and perhaps this is why many people have stopped considering Wikipedia a reliable source anymore. [[User:Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica|Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica]] ([[User talk:Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica|talk]]) 17:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I will respond in good faith, even though this sounds like a forum post and is not directly related with this article. On Wikipedia, we follow [[MOS:MAC]], not the Prespa agreement. For events before 2019, the former official name can be used. What is outdated in this article about the country's name? By the way, Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for Google's outdated results. [[User:StephenMacky1|StephenMacky1]] ([[User talk:StephenMacky1|talk]]) 17:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
::I know you're using the name Macedonia for events before 2019, however I'm not referring to that, I'm referring to the resulting titles that appear over Wikipedia articles related to North Macedonia. Skopje appearing as the "Capital of the Republic of Macedonia" with the current meaning is definitely not something restricted only prior to 2019!!! And secondly, you're obligated to use international agreements and treaties in order to describe a country and it's current status otherwise you're just spreading misinformation on purpose and people should definitely know about it. [[User:Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica|Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica]] ([[User talk:Marenguista di Napoli d&#39;Attica|talk]]) 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
:::We have no control over that, Google does. You will have to send them feedback. [[User:StephenMacky1|StephenMacky1]] ([[User talk:StephenMacky1|talk]]) 20:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

== Population of urban Skopje ==

Why was my edit removed? I updated and CycloneYoris casually removed my detailed update of Skopje urban population which is 422k without the villages based on last census [[Special:Contributions/77.29.165.55|77.29.165.55]] ([[User talk:77.29.165.55|talk]]) 01:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:I removed it because it was not supported by any reference. You need to provide a reference when adding new content. See: [[Help:Citing sources]] and [[WP:Verifiability]] for further information. <small>[[User:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b>]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:purple">''talk!''</b>]]</sup> 02:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::So add source yourself? What source is there to be added the census results are linked click on it and do math yourself. U wikinazis find it more simple to remove edits rather than to fact check a common sense statement. Open census result and read it. If it bothers u link the census result and the end. Now u edit it back u nazi [[Special:Contributions/46.217.61.29|46.217.61.29]] ([[User talk:46.217.61.29|talk]]) 21:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
::Click on each municipality and it says how many villages there are now combine each village number and remove it from total population and come talk to me when u do the math okay u b1tch? And when u done doing this i will remove your edit because how dare u do math and do not quote a link from someone else writing the number on different website. [[Special:Contributions/46.217.61.29|46.217.61.29]] ([[User talk:46.217.61.29|talk]]) 21:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:The urban population should be the sum of the populations of the urban municipalities that make up the City of Skopje. If I'm not mistaken, this is 9 out of 10 (Saraj being the only rural municipality in the city). --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 19:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::No that is not how it works. Urban population means living in city border. Some of those Municipalities have villages nothing to do with the city. Saraj is villages so is Butel so is Gazi Baba. Ljubanci (example) in Butel municipality isn't city of skopje it isn't urban skopje is it now? [[Special:Contributions/46.217.61.29|46.217.61.29]] ([[User talk:46.217.61.29|talk]]) 21:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide this "city border"? Macedonian municipalities are classified as urban or rural, but you are correct that most of the "urban" ones in Skopje also have village settlements which would not be urban. So, a calculation can be made at the municipal level (i.e., all 10 minus Saraj) or at the settlement level (excluding all village settlements). --[[User:Local hero|<span color="blue">Local hero</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Local hero|<span color="dark yellow">talk</span>]]</sup> 21:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes i can provide city border. It's called do your own research. Click on each municipality and u will be given a map and text of which settlement is what. Aerodrom municipality is in the city with exception of Dolno Lisce which is a village. Centar municipality is entirely in Skopke city. Butel municipality has 4 villages and 4 neighbourhoods in Skopje city. 
::::here is a map if this is too hard for u to understand 
::::https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB
::::see where it says "lubanci, ljuboten, vizbegovo and radishani" yeah that isn't city border [[Special:Contributions/77.29.151.173|77.29.151.173]] ([[User talk:77.29.151.173|talk]]) 12:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)