Talk:Štip

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name Issue[edit]

Can someone change the name of this city because it's not Štip but Shtip. Š is not used in Macedonia as a latin letter any longer but "sh", it's in the passports and identity cards too. This needs to be fixed for all Macedonian cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AL3X TH3 GR8 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paeonian?[edit]

Can somebody explain where did the information about the Paeonian origin come from? Because all I ever knew or could find is that first mention of a settlement here is during the 1st century AD as a Roman fortification, and believe me, I am an expert on this town :) Capricornis 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source for this so feel free to put a 'fact' tag or even remove the text. --Laveol ^T 11:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything about Paeonian capital, but definitely some Paeonian stuff :) Capricornis 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the Stipeon article though - it could surely put the info in this one as well. I doubt it could expand to a whole article. --Laveol ^T 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right there, I found next to nothing about it, but that doesn't mean somebody better than me in research will not find something in the future :) Capricornis 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ansiklopedia Brittanica 1911 and Turks in Shtip (İştip)[edit]

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century.

After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia .

At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. The third, or southern, group is centred around KAILAR, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. THE TURKISH RURAL POPULATION IS quiet, SOBER and ORDERLY, PRESENTING SOME OF THE BEST CHARACTERISRICS OF THE RACE . -- 3210 ^(T) 07:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stip is the best forever:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.51.14 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Strumica people, stop changing Shtip to second largest city in Macedonia, the last census is from 2002 and that is the ONLY official information about the size, and in that census Shtip IS THE LARGEST city in Eastern Macedonia, get over yourselves![edit]

Capricornis (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the history section (moved from User talk:Laveol)[edit]

da ne se hvashtame pak za gluposti, znaem se kakvi hora sme ot dosta vreme. tazi statia az ia napisah originalno cialata, no kato vizhdam dosta tvoite prysti sa ia editirale sys mnogo weasel words and statements vytre. Shte to go ostava izrechenieto za 'osvoboditelnata' bylgarska voiska, no 'communist partisans' namqsto Macedonian Liberation Army si e chista weasel propaganda. She gi editiram tezi chasti, no da ne pochvame 'lame revert war' kakto kazvash 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You could've actually tried writing in English. I still understand the language. And, no, the statement will stay according to the source. They were communist partisans. --Laveol ^T 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i speak fluent bulgarian (and 5 other languages), and I address people in their native language when I know it. No, the source is flawed; it is written in an era when communism was demonised by the west. Those 'communist partisans' were the Macedonian National Liberation Army, as you can readily see from the available wikipedia articles. refrain from changing it back, or we'll have to go through an admin for this

Capricornis (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't speak fluent Bulgarian. The Macedonian Liberation Army, of which the source says nothing, is a communist resistance, wasn't it? This is what the article says. And the source is a modern book. I think you just don't like it. Provide valid reasons for your statement, please. Maybe another source. --Laveol ^T 18:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and refrain from editing while logged off. --Laveol ^T 18:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do speak fluent bulgarian, as my 100s bulgarian friend would tell you. I am not griping with your source, but with your interpretation. My version is much more clear and accurate. And what do you mean by editing when logged off? You gotta be on wikipedia to edit :)))

Capricornis (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an interpretation, but what the actual source says. What you're warring for is an actual interpretation and OR. I see that you like YOUR version, but that's not a valid reason to neglect sources. I'm yet to hear on your opinion on the National Liberation movement not being a communist resistance movement. Oh, and as you might notice I don't know what your speaking level of Bulgarian is. I can only say that you're not good in writing. And that this is the English langauge wikipedia. --Laveol ^T 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked you to stop editing logged off, cause an IP, which no doubtably was actually you made some quite messy edits and edit comments recently. Don't call other editors peasants in a pejorative way and most certainly you should not tell them to fuck off. + you asked for a source in English on the statement. I provided you with one and yet you continue to remove it. --Laveol ^T 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try to deflate your ego a bit and stop making blanket generalizations. The IP I use is a proxy for a university of 20,000 people, plenty of other editors (yes, Macedonians too) who use it. Sometimes I just don't notice I was logged out. Does that satisfy your sensibilities? I haven't called anyone peasant or fuck off, that is your overactive imagination playing tricks on you again. Capricornis (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the statement, I am simply presenting the fact that it is much more informative and encyclopedic to say the 'Macedonian National Liberation Army' liberated the city, as they were the only 'communist partisans' operating in Macedonia at that time, which you could have realized yourself by reading the article on MNLA. Capricornis (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that a third-party source says that it was actually the Bulgarian army that did it. And that the communist resistance took part? And you're telling me that another person made the same edits as you did from the same computer as you and that was actually not you? And the IP did edit my talkpage in the same manner as you did (starting a thread at the top of the page). And there's no need to play on the lines of civility here. Again.

I am not understanding what are you hinting at? Please speak plainly and directly as I am not good in reading between the lines. Do you understand the concept of a 'proxy IP'? Everything that comes out of any computer on-campus (30,000+ of them) is seen as the same IP, as we all connect through our private pipe to the backbone, your page edits notwithstanding. As for the liberation, I do not contradict that the newly ally-converted Bulgar army took part in the liberation. What I consider misleading and non-encyclopedic is the use of generic 'communist partisans' when we know that those were the Macedonian National Liberation Army, as there were no others. Hiding that fact constitutes weasel language. Capricornis (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a source for you that states that the Macedonian National Liberation Army liberated the city by itself, while the Bulgars didn't even learn about it until the MNLA told them. And this source is available online from google books, so that anyone can verify it. Exact text: "The Liberation of Stip. —Liberated on November 8, 1944, by units of the 50th Division's 13th, 14th, and 19th Brigades. ... The Bulgars learned of the liberation of Stip only after 10:00, when the staff of the 50th Division sent.." - http://books.google.ca/books?id=eV7hAAAAMAAJ&q=%22liberation+of+stip%22&dq=%22liberation+of+stip%22&hl=en&ei=Nh3TTNfFFZCjnQfe7vAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA Capricornis (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That book is the edition of a wartime diary of some Yugoslav fighter. Is the snippet you quote from the actual diary content, or from an editorial background explanatation by a modern historian? If the former, it would be a primary source of unknown reliability (we don't even know if the diary writer had first-hand knowledge of those events or was only reporting from the hearsay of the day.) As for how to describe those "Liberation Army" units, the established label under which these are primarily known to English readers is Yugoslav Partisans. Neither the fact that they were communists, nor the fact that in this instance they were represented specifically by one of their Macedonian units is of primary importance to the English reader when introducing them here, in what is after all only a passing remark. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More: about Laveol's source, Williamson (2004) [1], it's from Osprey Publishing, a publisher of cheap illustrated militaria booklets, directed at readers interested in things like nazi uniforms or military insignia. Normally not reliable sources about actual history. Moreover, I cannot (on Google at least) verify that it even mentions Stip anywhere. Given Laveol's spotty record when it comes to citing sources, I must insist he explains what exactly it says, and where. – There also do seem to be reports from the Yugoslavian side that the Bulgarian propaganda of the day falsely claimed the role of liberator of Stip, when in reality they hadn't even taken part in the fighting [2]. No idea how realiable this is, but I'd say any source that doesn't explicitly speak to these claims and refute them in concrete terms will be of little value here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your involvement FP. I agree this is not the main point of the article (which I wrote from scratch btw ;), however I do find it very disturbing that bulgarian POV finds its way to all Macedonian articles sooner or later (not to defend Macedonian nationalist who try to do the same, but with much less skill and determination). I could not find any more sources on the internet mentioning this event, what do you think would be the proper wording of this sentence, according to the sources/reliability we have so far? Capricornis (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Delčevo - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Štip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]