Talk:Struga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Struga[edit]

,,Struga nje nder qytet shume te bukur qe ka maqedonia Eshte nje qyte i vogel por fale natyres per liqenin e ohrit eshte nje qytet shume turistik si per stinen e veres edhe te dimrit Banojne nje numer jo shume i madhe por shume jane dhe shume krenare qe jetojne ne qytetin e Struges.

Block quote

Sa per liqeni eshte nje bukuri e pa zakonshme qe egzistone . Fakti qe eshte shume i madhe ai ka dale jashte maqedonis nje pjes jo shume e madhe e cila ndodhet ne SHqiperi Ka shume fshatra turistuk por nje nder me te bukrit qe egzistonen ne maqedoni eshte Fërngova e cila ndodhet ne male me nje pamje shune te bukur te pa zakonshme . Ka rreth 3000 banor po jane shume te ndershem dhe te respektueshem .

Shkrojti "Fatos Musai"

Matrix, stop vandalizing the article by calling Miladinovi "Macedonians". They never called themselves Macedonians, and always called themselves Bulgarians, and therefore they are Bulgarians. Mr. Neutron 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they did? Were you there when they said it? Illbehereallday 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian language is official[edit]

See here!. 36000+ Albanians out of 63376 people, more than 20% and Albanian is official! Mr. Neutron 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but as the Macedonian is primary language at national level, I'm suggesting a compromise, in the intro we would mention the Macedonian as the primary language, and in the Name section we would put both the Macedonian and Albanian. What do you think? MatriX 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonian and Albanian are official, there is no such thing as "primary" and "secondary" official, stop reading Macedonist Daily!!. Mr. Neutron 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that there is a such thing as "primary" and "secondary" official, that was said by the U.S. and EU envoys that contributed in the Ohrid agreement (see talk on the Republic of Macedonia article, I hope you remember it). MatriX 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are both official languages, stop vandalizing! Mr. Neutron 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohrid Agreement: 6.5. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language Mr. Neutron 17:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgot to write the whole text: is also an official language as specified below:... and it is strictly said that it can be used just is limited circumstances.

Check also this:[1]:

Question: U.S. reaction to Macedonia Prime Minister’s rejection of request from Albanian community to designate Albanian as the official second language for Macedonia? Is this a violation of the Ohrid Agreement?

Answer: The Government of Macedonia is in the process of preparing a language law that addresses Ohrid Framework Agreement provisions for the use of languages other than the Macedonian language. - so, as I said a hundreds times in the last days, the Albanian language is not yet accepted as the official second language for Macedonia. MatriX 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miladinov Brothers[edit]

There has been some edit warring going on about whether the ethnicity of the Miladinov brothers should be mentioned in this article. I propose to discuss it here instead, since the energy wasted on edit warring could be spent much better on improving the article and removing red links. In my opinion the brothers should be mentioned here, because they are the most famous sons of Struga, it should be mentioned that they were poets to explain the Poetry Evenings, and that they were Bulgarian because... I don't know. I think their ethnicity is not relevant to Struga, and it is already discussed in the article about the brothers (where of course it is relevant). The only reason I can see to put it here again is to piss off the Macedonians (or FYROMs, if you'd like to piss them off even more), which is not very encyclopedic (-: Preslav 06:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and what about the context in which Bulgarians obviously used to live there. That implies it indirectly. Their ethnicity is not really questionable, so I don't see what's the problem with them being mentioned with it. If someone is getting pissed, maybe he should not edit. This is a simple fact -> we work with facts -> facts should be presented. If it does not suit his personal bias, it is not our consideration. --Laveol T 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland101[edit]

Please do not make ridiculous excuses to purge mentions of Bulgaria from the article. It is not irrendentist to state the name of the country which Tsar Samuil ruled. He was crowned as Tsar of Bulgaria afterall. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to include the nationality of every Bulgarian that ever lived or was assosiated with Macedonia. If someone wants to find out about Samuil or others they can click the link. The fact that a couple of editors feel the need to include "Bulgarian" wherever possible has irredentist connotations of "Greater Bulgaria". As it implies the incorrect belief that "Macedonia is Bulgarian because all Macedonians were Bulgarian therefore Macedonia should be part of Bulgaria". This sort of propaganda does not belong in an encyclopedia. Ireland101 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not get paranoid about simple historical facts. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it to higher status[edit]

It is a beautiful city. Albanian and Macedonian editors should work together to bring the city to a C level at least in the next future. --Sulmues (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Struga. 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) 17:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Struga. 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) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Hello @Botushali Struga is a city near a large mass of water, being a Slavic word for riverbed as my sources provided and there being a riverbed, how is this not the etymology which I did source and used multiple sources which you can see on google books with snippits. Surix321 (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used had no links; the only one that did seemingly did not even mention the city with the quote you provided. Anyways, as far as reputable RS sources go, they claim Struga to derive from a Proto-Albanian term that consists of one of the earliest borrowings from Albanian into South Slavic (strunga - Sheep pen). Don't forget the whole Struga region is great for livestock, but what's important is that Curtis and Hamp are some of the most reputable linguists in this field and they agree with this view. Botushali (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can add links if you would like, however the single source does not mention a vlach Albanian relation for this word and does not mention the toponym at all using the word Strunga. This source doesn’t speak about the toponym itself and more so speaks about the word, which Curtis speaks about (word), I added sources which also speak about Struga more so for the meaning in Slavic languages which is obviously related to water mass names as toponyms in Poland also have Struga on coastal cities like this one. Surix321 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Curtis appears to be discussing a term not this specific toponym. Also, the Gashi source does not even mention the town of Struga, so the statement "The contemporary Albanian term, "Shtrunga", has also been borrowed into Vlach/Romanian languages as Strunga" should be removed as irrelevant. --Local hero talk 05:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for any mention of the name of the city in either Skender Gashi's work, that of Curtis and the most recent citation the pdf about sheep milking techniques, the PDF makes NO MENTION of either Albanians, the city of Struga or the relationship of Strunge to the Albanian language. The term strunge is only used in reference to Vlachs, Romanians and Czechoslovaks. In other words not a single citation used to imply an Albanian origin of the etymology of the city is found in any of the sources used. As far as i can tell Skender Gashi is the only one talking about the root of the word "shtrunge" but he makes no references to the city what so ever. Also the source by Qemal Murati states that the earliest known term we have know from the 14th century referred to the name "Struga-e". If the term evolved from Shtrunge as the Albanian editors imply in what timespan did this happen since the term "struga-e" are at least 700 years old, there would be no time for the word to evolve from "shtrunge" to "Struge" in 700 years. GoofyMF (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Gashi source accordingly. Surix321, if you wouldn't mind adding those snippet links for your sources, that'd be helpful. --Local hero talk 22:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, give me a few minutes. Surix321 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For 1, which explains that riverbed is Struga in the Slovenian language is here which isn't really trying to explain that the city of struga comes from this but helps affirm that the word is in many Slavic languages and especially for the word riverbed, which is the same case with Macedonian. Dušica Ilin explains that the city got its origin from the arrival of Slavs, and the word means riverbed (source) the quote is "СТРУГА се наоѓа на западниот дел на Охридското Езеро , на 14 - иот километар од ОХРИДА . Што значи што Старото име на Струга е Енхалон , јагула . По доаrањето на Словените градот го добива името Струга , значи : корито на река .", it doesn't let me link the snippet showing the text however if you type the title of this book with Struga in cyrillic, it will provide the snippet, Sorry for that one. The others weren't really important, mostly covering the word in other Slavic languages. Surix321 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so the Ilin sources provides a clear etymology of this specific town (definitely belongs in the article), while the others sources establish the toponymy of "Struga" in Slavic languages. --Local hero talk 03:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surix321 i have found "appears at present. Anna Comnena speaks with warm admiration of the hundred channels into which the water was drawn off, with embankments and covered watercourses communicating with one another, by means of which the river Drin at length was formed. It was from these works that the place obtained its name, for struga in Bulgarian signifies “a dike, or arm of a river.”
on Albanianhistory.net the quote is from Henry Fanshawe Tozer who visited the Balkans in the 19th century
http://www.albanianhistory.net/1865_Tozer/index.html
this proves the Slavic hypothesis GoofyMF (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@surix321 i have found the source of the article a book here is a pdf the page is 198 https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/download/ResearchesintheHighlandsofTurkey_10102987.pdf this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the etymology is Slavic not Albanian GoofyMF (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great Work, GoofyMF for finding this source, if you’d like you can add it to the article. Have a good day! Surix321 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i see the etymology has been edited and has enough reliable citations no need to edit unless someone else starts disputing it again, have a good one yourself
GoofyMF (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Gashi discuses a general term and so does Curtis and this is the "reliable" source? I'm the one pushing a POV by adding two alternative etymologies but the Albanians aren't when they're only using an Albanian source which doesn't even mention the city? Absurd GoofyMF (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add all possible etymologies (see Preveza)
Albanian and Slavic. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberated, annexed or seized/captured.[edit]

Let's use neutral terminology. Annexed and liberated have certain political and ethno-national connotations, while captured/seized is rather more neutral. As for the Macedonian sources, there things are somewhat biased in this case.Jingiby (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d argue ‘annexed’ does not have ulterior connotations, but I’m fine with ‘seized’. We need to remember it was an armed occupation and various paramilitary groups in the local area also resisted, because for certain parts of the region’s population, a Macedonian partisan takeover was far from ideal. ‘Liberation’ is therefore out of the question entirely. That’s inaccurate and non-neutral - in certain cases, a term like ‘liberation’ is fine because it is in accordance with the demographic situation and the actual historic reality for the local population. In this case, a term like liberation is not suitable in the slightest. Botushali (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Botushali We also need to remember that the Macedonian Partisan movement was comprised by people of different ethnicites.
Quite frankly your point is completly disproved by the article itself i.e the testimony of Ajredin Memedi. Albanian partisans and ethnic Albanian Macedonian partisans participated in the liberation/taking of the city. Kluche (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albanians who fought on the side of Yugoslav partisans are considered widely by fellow Albanians to be traitors. The majority of the Albanian population in modern Macedonia largely supported the Balli Kombetar, hence why there was so much resistance to the efforts of the partisans. Liberation is an entirely inappropriate term and completely against WP:NPOV - not sure why you are pushing something that is quite clearly against wiki policy... Botushali (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why that is relevant. You clearly implied with your previous statement that Albanians did not participate in the liberation/taking of Struga, which I have refuted.
I have failed to see where exactly the term 'liberation' is against NPOV. And if you haven't read my comments on this talk - I'm fine with 'take' or 'taking'. Kluche (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see why that is relevant to the conversation, perhaps you shouldn't involved yourself in this discussion. You put forward the claim that the Macedonian Partisan movement was multi-ethnic, which is true to an extent. However, most Albanians - and I'm sure Turks amongst other groups - strongly opposed the Macedonian partisans. Albanians by far and large did not want to be under a Slav state and still do not, so the term 'liberation' implies they were freed. In reality, the time of the Balli Kombetar was a very favourable political climate for Albanians. To many of them, the conquest of Macedonian partisans was not a liberation. The term liberation takes the POV of some of the population of Macedonia, but not all, so it is not neutral. It has connotations to it, and if you cannot understand that, then that is your problem. Nonetheless, multiple editors are in accordance with 'seized'. 'Took' is far too elementary. Botushali (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to take into consideration that the Tito-Šubašić effectively legitamised the Partisan movement, and the descisions of AVNOJ, all prior to the taking of Struga.
'Multiple editors' - that is a striaght up lie, only one editor has currently agreed to it.
'Took' being 'too elementary' is subjective. Kluche (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Took' is elementary compared to 'seized'. We're writing academically-sourced information, not children's books. Jingiby seems to be fine with seized, as am I, that's multiple editors. Stop messaging for the sake of messaging, if you have nothing valuable to contribute, please refrain from clogging the conversation. I have no idea what the Tito-Subasic business has to do with the local population not wanting to be part of a Slav state; in fact, you cannot "liberate" a settlement that is controlled by a group which has the backing of the majority of the population - that's not liberation. Either way, the term 'liberation' is strongly avoided in Wikipedia, particularly in Balkan topic areas. Botushali (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And 'captured' is also commonly used. 'Took' is also used.
The Oxford Languages definition of 'multiple' is "having or involving several parts, elements, or members." The Oxford Languages definition of 'several' is "more than two but not many." Ergo, it's not multiple, but two.
With the Tito-Šubašić Agreements, the Partisans are recognized as legitimate, there by their actions are on restoring the sovereignty of Yugoslavia. And I'll say again - there were participants from Struga in the Partisan briagdes acting on the capturing of Struga, so it's illogical to say that there was absolutely no public support for the movement. Kluche (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate according to who? The Yugoslavs themselves, that's who. Doesn't legitimise anything, a forceful occupation is not a liberation. Sure, there was some sort of public support, but not enough to call it a liberation. Also, once again you've written an unnecessary comment where you're defining a word that in general terms means more than one. Again, please stop clogging the conversation with useless, unneeded comments that serve absolutely no purpose apart from going off-topic and disrupting the topic at hand. Thanks in advance. Botushali (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby You have failed to flag the source in the previous edits, so my logical conclusion was that it was alright.
I'm fine with either 'liberated' or 'took' (the city). I'd argue that 'took' is the most neutral NPOV form. Kluche (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annexation in the international law, is the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. The case here is different. Jingiby (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - therefore, the term 'seized' should be used. 'Captured' seems to imply more temporary connotations. Botushali (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your revert, please see WP:BIASED. If we say "According to Memedi...", it's perfectly correct to use "liberated" in the sentence in question. --Local hero talk 02:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Local hero I completly agree - it is very clear that Memedi meant "liberated". This also does not break any rules. Kluche (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Local hero, according to WP:BIASED, they must be RS sources. The source in question is from https://opserver.mk/makedonija/osmi-noemvri-osloboduvanje-na-struga/ - some sort of blog post. In fact, I am tempted to remove the source outright because it simply is not RS to the standard that we generally prefer in this topic area. @Kluche, it breaks rules, stop interjecting with useless comments, please. Botushali (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be from a Macedonian news agency, not a blog. Opserver.mk is cited on other articles. --Local hero talk 04:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Botushali here is a much more reliable source - https://kanal5.com.mk/struga-odbelezha-77-godini-od-osloboduvanjeto/a502266 having both a statement by the mayor and Memedi. I'm pretty sure that the current source text is similar (if not exact) to the one here: https://mia.mk/osmi-noemvri-osloboduva-e-na-struga/ (I have seen MIA being used a lot in regards to it's reliability) as it has the same author, however you need to create an account in order to see the news. I'll get to creating and verifying the second link I sent as soon as possible. Kluche (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those check out as RS... Botushali (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Attribution is usually linked to the factuality of an event, not to how it is perceived. In general I agree with Jingiby's initial comment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". --Local hero talk 19:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And if Wikipedia begins to be filled with statements that are not supported by historical reality, but by personal positions, manipulations or outright falsehoods, why and who needs it? Jingiby (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can go debate fundamental Wikipedia policies elsewhere, please stay on topic. --Local hero talk 19:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terms such as liberated or freed are a bit too loaded if you ask me. Recaptured on the other hand is NPOV. There are some sources which say the Balli Kombetar liberated the city from Serbia, but I don't think we ought to use that kind of language here. Alltan (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand this, however this specific instance in question lies within a sentence that is "According to Memedi". Thus, anything within this sentence is attributed to him. He describes it as "liberation" and, as per WP:BIASED, we should use that term in that sentence. Note that I didn't revert the other change from liberated to recaptured. --Local hero talk 19:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, the source is not RS, so this conversation is not needed right now. Botushali (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Struga&oldid=1204379772"