Talk:Skopje 2014

Proposed merge with Eye Bridge and Art Bridge

Bridges are not important enough to have their own pages; those pages are simply reproductions of the text there. There is an article already on another bridge in Skopje: Stone Bridge (Skopje), but that bridge was built on Roman foundations in the 1400s, while these are new. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 19:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason for those articles to exist, at least in their current states. There's no additional information found on those articles that isn't found here. --Local hero ^talk 21:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I too agree with your proposition. The Stone Bridge is a historically significant monument of Skopje, while the new bridges are purely aesthetic, undeserving of having a page of their own.—Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, i would say that i disagree. We can say a lot about those bridges, and more important, list all those statues (and people) on them. And say something about each of those. I am against the merge. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be separate articles for these bridges, just that everything currently on the articles is copy-pasted from this article. So, there's no point for them to exist unless they are expanded. It doesn't look like the creator of the articles, or anyone else for that matter, will be doing that. Therefore, I think they should be deleted. --Local hero ^talk 05:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

All would depend on the coverage each bridge or object receives. If it should have enough secondary notability then it is fine to articles on them. The Big Hoof! (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kitsch Claim

There is only one link that works which is used to bolster the claim that "The project has been criticized for constructing nationalistic historicist kitsch." In fact, the citation is located at the end of the sentence after that, "Skopje 2014 has also generated controversy for its cost, for which estimates range from 80 to 500 million euros." and does not even include the "500 million euros" figure. I read the entire article, and it does not describe the whole project as being kitsch. There is an unsubstantiated (beyond the contemporary art magazine writer's own opinion) that "Since one may note that as kitschy and as laughable Alexander the Great on a horse in the 2011 Macedonia might be to a critic’s eye [no particular critic specified], we need to bear in mind that it serves a purpose for the political elites: people will always experience monuments like this one as authentic and deeply emotional. When building the nationalistic superstate symbols, there is no place for ironic distance. Benjamin wrote: Kitsch is always sincere." The author of the article is referring to an Alexander the Great statue while also saying that it is done in all sincerity. There is no mention of anything else in the project as being kitsch. Besides that, "The project has been criticized..." is definitely an example of "weasel words", as no person, or organization is named. I had originally changed the sentence to read, "The project has been criticized by Modernists for constructing what they consider to be nationalistic historicist kitsch." I felt this was an improvement, because I got rid of the weasel word claim by adding "by Modernists" which is what the authors of that contemporary art magazine that was cited are, and I added "what they consider to be" to point to the fact that not everyone accepts the claim that Skopje 2014 is indeed "nationalistic historicist kitsch". The original sentence made it appear as if this claim is universally believed, when in fact it was never claimed and only hinted at in an article by the author and nobody else. As such, I will remove the offending sentence. --Riction (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that support the kitsch assertion. A simple google search produces plenty of hits that also include:

• Rush, Peter; Simić, Olivera (25 September 2013). The Arts of Transitional Justice: Culture, Activism, and Memory after Atrocity. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-4614-8385-4. ... reshaping the capital's public space has been criticized by many as irresponsible and as tending to produce amateurism and kitsch.
• huffingtonpost.com: Skopje Is Macedonia's Capital Of Kitsch
• spiegel.de: Macedonian Makeover: Europe's Flailing Capital of Kitsch
• rferl.org: Urban Renewal Or Nationalist Kitsch?

... It is easy to conclude there is nothing wrong with kitsch assertion so boldly removed text should be restored.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not married to the exact wording using the term "kitsch" ("reactionary esthetics" or something of the sort would do for me too), but we should certainly not gloss over the fact that the esthetic stance of this project has been strongly and unanimously decried by the huge majority of international observers, a fact that, from what I've seen, is quite clearly observable in the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Still, since the term "kitsch" is used in so many sources, it is maybe a good idea to keep it in some kind of non-emphasized form, i.e. "the esthetic stance of this project has been strongly and unanimously decried by the huge majority of observers, some even referring to it as kitsch".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion Over Nothing

There appear to be some totalitarian dictators in the Wikipedia community who revert certain things. The only reason I can think of is that they do not want the material to be read. Many things reverted have citations. It just appears that these citations go against the mindset of the people who would revert the article. If more reversions are made to content that adds to the article and cites sources, I expect a reason written down as a reply to this. It appears that many people are partisan and do not want to allow other views to be seen. As one last note, I should say that even the article for the Theory of Evolution includes talk of Creationists and the article for global warming includes talk of climate change denial. So the extreme desire of some to erase all reference to people actually liking the new Classical architecture of Skopje (instead of needing this city to blindly follow others down the same well-trodden Modernist path) is almost comical. To the autocrats on this page, I ask you, is allowing another opinion so anathema to you? --Riction (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice piece, thanks for sharing. The reason for the revert, however, was mostly the unexplained removals. Here's a breakdown:

1. I don't have a problem with the "project has been both lauded and criticized" addition, just try to find a source that supports what you've written in those two sentences (i.e. nowhere in the source, from what I could see, does it state that some see the Classicism as overly nationalist/sentimental). If your goal was really to show that some people like the project, as you state above, then your edit should've stopped there because none of the rest supports your supposed cause.
2. For the sources you added about the 'Greek heritage' sentence, the BBC one does not discuss Skopje 2014 at all. The book source also does not seem to mention Skopje 2014.
3. The Las Vegas part can stay, I suppose, but I'd like to reword it.
4. The wording about the lack of monuments depicting Albanian figures at first works in either way, in my opinion.
5. The kitsch statement can stay too. It's just curious that, if you're really trying to show the side that likes the project, you would add this.
6. You removed a whole section about a part of the project from the article; simply removed it without explanation.
7. You replaced a more-specific category with a broader one; once again no explanation. Is this not taking place within the Republic of Macedonia?

Therefore, most of your edit needs to be reverted back. --Local hero ^talk 13:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian Identity

I think that some Macedonian nationalists, in order to advance their idea of a distinct identity, believe that the modern-day Macedonians are direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians, while not Greeks, Slavs, or Albanians. I think it is suffice to say that Macedonians who worked on Skopje 2014 claim to be distinct from the three aforementioned people-groups. Blacklister3000 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well find some reliable sources backing up your belief and then feel free to add it to the article. Right now it sounds like speculation. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofMacedonia.org, a website that supports the Macedonian position, most likely developed in North Macedonia, states on their front page: "History of Macedonia (HistoryofMacedonia.org) is a scholarly research dedicated to the 2500 years long history of Macedonia and the Macedonian nation. We are Macedonians, not Greeks, not Serbs, not Bulgarians, not Slavs. Our ancestors conquered the Persian Empire and ruled the known world for centuries before Rome was a power. Our forefathers fought for free and independent Macedonia more then 100 years ago, and against the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian aggression. Here, we proudly present 25 centuries of our rich history beginning with its roots in Ancient Macedonia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklister3000 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)