Talk:Lorenc Antoni

I have struck one remark made above. Yes it was sarcastic but Majuru and I are known to each other here. Also, it should not be thought that this has been the only conversation on the matter. For anyone reading, I point out that discussion on translations and alternative names for subjects having lived in Yugoslavia has taken place here and the talk can be continued if anyone wishes to add to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I don't see the point of Cyrillic use here. Macedonia was under Ottoman occupation and Turkish language was the official one. Every newborn was registered by the Ottoman state, but in addition to this fact personal names were registered to belonging churches. Orthodox persons were registered in Orthodox churches, hence the use of Cyrillic for orthodox names, however Lorenc Antoni was a catholic so no Cyrillic to him, but Latin letters. There is no argument for the use of Cyrillic in this case. I think I made myself clear. Aigest (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

You made yourself clear but your doctrine is wholly flawed. Antoni lived out his entire life with no vivid memory of the Ottoman Empire and that country in turn played no part in his notable life. It ceased to exist when he was three and he lived out the remainder of his life in Yugoslavia less only the initial years which were Kingdom of Serbia. He was also associated with regions lying in Macedonia and Serbia both of which used Cyrillic on all documentation. Suffice it to say that Antoni was a life-long Yugoslav subject, he'll have completed army service, he'll have been medically registered, he will have had an identity card and entitlement to a passport. It is not the Cyrillic itself that is important so much as showing visitors to the article how the subject's name was written in his native land. I don't want to dwell on it because a conversation is soon to take place which will standardise what we print, for whom and in what shape. So don't worry about this article for now, if you'd like to take part in the debate, please contact User:ItsZippy. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Plus it wasn't occupation, it was the Ottoman Empire, a legal state will full recognition across the world. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

(edit conflict)

That is not completely right, Aigest. Religious institutions did take care about registrations of the population in Serbia and Yugoslavia, but it was until 1946. According to 1946 Law state institutions took over registrations from religious institutions and recorded every citizen using official language and script. During Ottoman Empire there was Office of Population Registers (Ceride-i Nufus Nezareti) established in 1831, using Ottoman script (used until 1928 in Turkey). Evlekis is of course right about Ottoman occupation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Sorry guys to disagree with you but, going by this logic (state registration) we would have (in wikipedia articles) Ottoman names for every single person who lived under Ottoman Empire and as we know this is not the case.

P.S. On a related note I disagree with you also on Ottoman occupation definition. There was an occupation, thus the liberation wars. eg Napoleon occupied much territory outside original France and although his conquest were approved by other states the term is occupation, the same goes for eg in "Sudetenland" before WWII etc. There was an Ottoman occupation and this is how it is referred that period in Balkan by historians see. Aigest (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Just to clarify: My comment was reply to your claim that only religious institutions were in charge for registration of the people. I did not have intention to support any position in this discussion. Therefore I am not part of "guys" from your comment. Occupation issue is irrelevant for this talk page anyway.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Correct. And if the Ottoman Empire were merely an "occupation" then Lorenc Antoni would have been born in the Serbian Empire legally for that is what his birthplace was prior to Ottoman takeover. Regarding the naming issue, we have a universal policy here that when a subject is born or has lived a significant portion of his life in a state where his name will have been rendered differently, our task is to present it. Not being an expert on the Ottoman Empire, I have no idea exactly what role Turkish played in everyday life particularly in areas not heavily populated by Turks. According to what modern Turks say, the Ottomans administered the region but did not impose their language across the whole state. Of course it needs more reliable verification than that but if indeed it were the case that Turkish was the No.1 language and applied to every citizen, then you are entitled to add the Ottoman name to each subject if you know what it was. The fact that one's translation may not be on an article where it belongs is not an indication that it doesn't belong, it simply suggests that it has not been added yet. And where it is added in some circumstances, another editor needs a good reason to remove it, and an argument such as "oh but XYZ doesn't have his name in ABC-language despite being born in 321-land" cannot be considered. It is negligible. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I noticed a number of references using the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lorenc Antoni. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526034744/http://www.unmikonline.org/photo/coverage/coverage_feb03.htm to http://www.unmikonline.org/photo/coverage/coverage_feb03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211070113/http://kosovo.birn.eu.com/en/1/70/4101 to http://kosovo.birn.eu.com/en/1/70/4101/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Reply