Talk:Niš

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
{{subst:trim|1=

Niš evolved from the toponym attested in Ancient Greek as ΝΑΙΣΣΟΣ'' (Naissos), which achieved its present form via phonetic changes in Proto-Albanian and thereafter the placename entered Slavic. {{cite book|title=The Indo-European Languages|last=Rusakov|first=Alexander|publisher=Routledge|year=2017 The Proto Albanian claims of name Niš are pseudo historic, push for political agenda and aspirations towards claims of greater Albania ambitions. I please the mods, admins to remove these claims and possibly lock of this article off of future attempt of pseudo history.

}} SerbGhoul (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please get consensus before requesting a change. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred Who's is supposed to be a part of that consensus? FootballFan986 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
 * {{re|FootballFan986}} Generally speaking, editors who are interested in the subject and participate in the talk page. There is a request for comments process to bring in more editors if there is a stalemate. I will say, however, that the positions of newly-created accounts may be discounted in the discussion, especially if their only participation in Wikipedia is in this article or closely-related articles. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred Thank you so much for clarification. I will seek help from more experienced Wikipedia editors. FootballFan986 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred Why do we need to get consensus to remove Greater Albanian nationalist propaganda from a wiki page about a city in Serbia, when the disputed content was added without any consensus in the first place? And why is the disputed content STILL VISIBLE even though IT IS DISPUTED? StopAlbanianNationalistPropaganda (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit War
In this 2022 source, a historian from (conveniently) the University of Niš unambiguously refutes the hypothesis that the city's current name is derived from Albanian. It is derived from Greek. WP:RSAGE suggests that newer sources take precedence over older ones in academic and scientific fields (such as linguistics). Moreover, WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary sourcing, and these fleeting mentions in sources which don't specialize in the etymology of Serbian topoynoms don't fit the bill -- certainly not to be worded in WP:WIKIVOICE.

A closer examination of the source quotes and urls (where they are provided) shows the editor(s) who added the passage in the first place took liberties with what is written in the very sources they cited, to the point where the resulting paragraph verges on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The onus is thus on proponents of this dubious passage to argue why it should be included, not vice versa. Discuss, don't edit war. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The content you removed per "WP:STABLE" is the stable version and has been so since 2021. If you want to make changes you have to propose them here, you can't remove sources and content. The content itself isn't "dubious" and it's not "extraordinary". It's certainly based on reliable academic sources, unlike the article from Serbian media which complains that wikipedia is promoting .--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Side comment: What is interesting about the article from Serbian media about wikipedia and Naissus is that the authors/editors didn't even read what wikipedia and the sources discuss. For some reason, the article claims that and   The surreal moment in this situation is that nowhere in the article is it stated that the toponym "Na(v)issos" is of Albanian origin. The saddest part about this situation is that the audience of this tabloid will be mislead to believe that wikipedia is promoting "Albanian propaganda" that Na(v)issos is of Albanian origin, when in fact the section starts with the statement .--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber Navisoss is of Celt origin, addapted by Greeks. There are no traces of Albanian population in Niš in 5th centiry when Serbs settled the city for the short time. The lingustic strech of Niš derived from Nish mentioned only once in a source article ant that under the probability.
 * Second, exclusion of source from University of Niš is a form of bias.
 * I would not comment the free interpretation of the newspapers and your statement of the "so called Greater Albania" as Albanians themself have are of Niš on the "auchtotonos" chauvinist flag Pixius talk 10:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More tabloid media (mis)information: The article History of Niš has a sentence that It is another article which doesn't claim that the toponym is of Albanian origin and it's had this particular sentence since at least 2020. This tabloid piece spread false information to its readers that wikipedia "in recent weeks" promoted a view which it doesn't even discuss in any way, shape or form . --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The evolution of the name Naissos->Nish with Albanian phonetic "laws" is supported by every single linguist concerned with Albanian and Paleo-Balkan linguistics (the period before Serbs moved from Ukraine to the Balkans). Among them are Hamp, Georgiev, Katicic, Matzinger, de Vaan, Joseph, de Veemer, Rusakov, Prendergast etc. Loma's "discovery" has been claimed by him for at least 2 decades, but it has not been taken seriously by non-Serbian linguists. It seems that AB is relying too much on the "historian from (conveniently) the University of Niš" and his "discovery". Unless high-quality linguists of recent years are shown to oppose what high-quality linguists such as Matzinger (2013), de Vaan (2009), Prendergast (2017), Rusakov (2017), and Curtis (2012) say, it is just a waste of time. As for the "wp:stable" argument, the content has been there since 2021, and has been opposed only by "newbies" and the now topic banned Antidiskriminator and Sadko. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike what AB claims, not a single academic claims that Naissos/Nish "is derived from Greek". The toponym Naissos is of Celtic origin, and evolved into Nish in line with Albanian phonetic "laws". That Naissos->Nish is in line with Albanian and not Slavic, Greek and Latin phonetic "laws" is sth everyone with even some very basic understanding of linguistics knows (ss->sh/š combined with nai->ni). That is not Albanian nationalism. On the contrary, Albanian nationalist authors have always tried to reduce the importance of evidence that suggests that the "homeland" of the Albanian language or its central core is to be found in the inner Balkans (Dardania) rather than in Albania. It is almost the opposite of Albanian nationalist narratives. Hence some Albanian authors claim that "Proto-Albanians moved to the Nish area in Late Antiquity" without any kind of evidence. More time should not be wasted with this as the content is backed by top quality sources on Albanian and Paleo-Balkan linguistics. Any more removal of the content needs to get admin attention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ktrimi991 it so not by every single lingust as these lingust you mention cross-reference each other. In reality there are 4 of them plus several other PhD thesis referencing to those new interpertations. What is intetesting, all of these produce direct transformation from Naissus >> Nish without phonemic change.
 * Also your use of word "conveniently" and "discovery" shows your bias and i would assume WP:NOTHERE Pixius talk 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw the article and was curious to see what is going on here. accusation, like trying to make a connection between some newbies, allegedly banned editors and the editor making a request, is very bad for your Wikipedia reputation and it's not productive. Let's try and be productive - should we completely remove the overemphasized theory or trim down as much as possible? — Ranko Nikolić (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Južne Vesti is not a tabloid. That is only your fantasy. It's a respected regional portal covering topics and problems of that region. Europe has a bunch of interned portals of this type. They also do investigative journalism and detailed reports of citizen's problems. Not to mention columns, great comments, reports on economic issues, culture, news from the region, cooperation with BBC Serbia. And it has been used on Wikipedia so far without any problems. The fact that they reporting on nationalistic narratives is something we should all support and root for.
 * 2) Loma is an academic who has published his works all over Europe. Claiming that he or his work is " fringe" is pure nonsense and unless you have some very strong evidence, you should remove your claim, because it's based on bad information and nothing more. His paper is credible and it is enough to remove the current version and, let's face it - NARRATIVE/theory.
 * 3) There was obviously a lot of work done to mention "proto-Albanian" (whatever that might be, because there is no consensus in academia) as much as possible, in the etimology section as well on the article about history of Niš. Not to mention that there are contradicting views and sources claiming otherwise, posted in the section.
 * 4) The fact that editor writing as Ktrimi991 was quick to "translate" what is called in academia "proto-Albanian" to "Albanian" is a great slip on your side.
 * 5) If some imaginary proto-Albanian or proto-Avars or proto-Marsians lived in modern-day Niš in ancient times is completely irrelevant for the etymology section.
 * 6) Nonetheless, the section could be: 1) Completely removed as original research and theory. Wikipedia's role is not to promote and overemphasize linguistic theories, but facts. 2) To trim down to one mention (it is possible that... but there are conflicting views). Posting long comments which have very little arguments and a lot of subtle
 * Most sources that are used in the article says "Albanian" rather than "Proto-Albanian". It is a matter of choice because Proto-Albanian and Albanian are the same language, just two historical phases of the same language. The content is well-sourced to 10 academics, there is nothing to "trim down" i.e. remove some of the stuff you do not like. The evolution of the toponym Nish and what does that mean for the pre-Slavic history of the city is discussed in zillions of top quality scholars. We go by sources, not by editors' onw conclusions or desires. Do not remove well-sourced content again as it is disruptive. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What Loma writes is already in the article because what the author proposes is that the toponym is of Celtic origin. There isn't any debate about the toponym reaching Slavic via some form of Proto-Albanian. The discussion is about the timeline of Proto-Albanian earliest presence in Nish. It is significant for readers to understand the context of the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ktrimi991 as far as i have got it the name is from 3rd BC, then it was the Roman garrison, later city, until destruction by Huns in the beginning of 6th century. Serbs settled in 540. Then Bulgarians in 809 etc, etc... Now, I am not a lingust, but change Proto-X language to X language in 1000 years is a bit off Pixius talk 20:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(unindent) Hence some Albanian authors claim that "Proto-Albanians moved to the Nish area in Late Antiquity" without any kind of evidence.. I agree with this. Ismajli's claim that Proto-Albanians might have moved relatively late in antiquity should be removed. Since Niš lies well to the east of traditional areas of Albanian settlement, the claim falls within WP:EXTRAORDINARY and should be removed, since the source (Ismajli) is not at the level required. It also has nothing to do with Etymology, so that's another reason it should be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The opinion that Proto-Albanians/early Albanians lived in Nish has been supported by Hamp, Georgiev, Vermeer etc, it is not even remotely "extraordinary". Some accounts were blocked for content removal, 1RR has been imposed on the article and more waste of time is not helpful. There is no "original research", "extraordinary" or "nationalism" in that paragraph of the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mediation from Celtic to Slavic through Albanian does not imply any kind of "settlement" in the area. None of the linguistic sources you mention make any claims about Albanian settlement in Niš in "antiquity". And no serious scholar would make such a claim, since Albanian is not even attested in the region until the medieval period. The only source that makes that claim is Ismaijli. This has all the red flags of a nationalist "we were there first" type of dispute. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, Khirurg be careful when talking about Ismajli and other editors, or the lack of civil discussion will be pointed out to admins. Let me kindly remind you that you were blocked some months ago for making claims about me and another editor. If you have any evidence that there is any kind of "a nationalist "we were there first" type of dispute" report it to admins. The sources discuss the area where Proto-Albanian/early Albanian was spoken and the origin of the Albanian people, and mention Nish as evidence. That is what 10 academics cited in the article and many others say, it is not up to editors to judge whether it is "correct" or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time (and the obligation) to post here quotes from all the academics cited in the article. One of them for instance, Vermeer All these facts ( and others ) taken together suggest, first, that the southern part of what is today Serbia ( including Kosovo ) was linguistically speaking partly Albanian and partly Romanian for a time , and , second , that at the time the Slavs reached south Serbia and Macedonia, Albanian was so important in the area that toponyms geographically as far apart as Nis and Stip were transferred to Slavic through the intermediary of Albanian rather than directly from Latin or Greek . Read the rest of the sources carefully and that's all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about "Albanian settlement" in Niš (not "Nish") in antiquity in the source, or any other source except Ismajli. Khirurg (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that we need to read carefully the sources we are discussing. your comment that  is incorrect e.g. in Prendergast (2017) p.80:  and most other sources follow the same narrative. Ismajli (2015) argues the opposite: that the predecessor of Albanian wasn't spoken up to the Danube (Drobeta-Turnu Severin) but in fact . Ismajli (2015) in the article is the counterweight opinion against continuous Albanian presence in Nish from the Iron Age to the Migration Period. I don't know how this could be read as supporting the opposite of what the source discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ismaijli clearly states there was Albanian settlement in Niš in late antiquity, which is both WP:EXTRAORDINARY and not backed by any other source. And also nothing to do with etymology. Khirurg (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Etymology and phonology are not the same thing. I think that it would be very difficult in the context of RfC to put forward a convincing argument that Ismajli (2015) falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY in the midst of similar or stronger statements:
 * Prendergast 2017
 * Curtis 2012
 * Vermeer 1992 --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So does every source in the article, and they place it at a much earlier period and piece it to a much larger geographical region. In fact, Ismajli is the most conservative of all sources of the article. The information concerns Niš, and the reasoning why the view that the toponym was transmitted to Slavic languages via Albanian is so widespread must be explained in historical linguistics. I do not see the problem in stating relevant historical context for linguistic purposes in the etymological section of a city. After all, it has be explained somewhere in the article, and this is the most fitting position. Botushali (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The relation between Proto-Albanian and modern-day Albanian and its origin is still a matter of debate in academia, with more existing and cotradicting theories. Choosing whatever theory you like or proclaiming all of them to bear "scientific truth" is naive.


 * Not only is Albanian/Proto-Albanian given WP:UNDUE weight in the "Name" section, some of it is also falls under WP:SYNTH.


 * For example, reference no. 17 claims "The contemporary form of the name of ancient Naissos, an important place in Dardania which is now called Niš, is best explained with the help of the historical phonetics of the Albanian language". That is not per given text.


 * Another example, this source clearly states that the first mention of Albanins as an identifiable ethnic group took place in the 11th century, not even a 1000 y. ago; talk about ancient national past. That aside, source used by this dissertation is one Selami Pulaha and his almost 40 years old work. This scholar has rather limited notability. I see no international papers in respect journals or membership in any relevant European academy of sciences.


 * And yes, we very much need citations for all the newly added works, because the material might easily be out of context or simply incorrect.


 * I would kindly ask editor writing as Ktrimi991 to tone down and engage in the discussion in a civil manner.


 * All of this needs to go as it is very much undue for "Name" section, by definition:


 * Nish might indicate that Proto-Albanian was spoken in the region in pre-Slavic antiquity.[13][18][16] Per Eric P. Hamp the name of Niš is clearly Albanian in shape.[19] According to Ismajli (2015), when this settlement happened is a matter of debate, as Proto-Albanians might have moved relatively late in antiquity in the area which might have been an eastern expansion of Proto-Albanian settlement as no other toponyms known in antiquity in the area presuppose an Albanian development.[20]. — Ranko Nikolić (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understand what Proto-Albanian refers to; Proto-Albanian refers to the ancestral tongue of the modern Albanian language. It is basically the same language in two different historical periods - Proto-Albanian would undergo developments to ultimately become the Albanian language of today. Therefore, there is no academic debate on the relation between Albanian and Proto-Albanian; they practically are the same language in different eras. Implying that there's any debate about this is just outright outlandish and clearly indicates that you need to do more reading on the topic. Nonetheless, the first attestation thus far of medieval Albanians under their current ethnonym was indeed in the 11th century, but I'm not sure why that's relevant to the topic at hand. Ultimately, the sources used here really do not need to be discussed. They are well in agreement with WP:RS and quite clearly say what has been written on this article. It's come to my attention that this recent trouble seems to have been stirred up by rather ridiculous news "reports" from Serbian media that make some absurdly incorrect claims and show a high degree of Anti-Albanian sentiment and Albanophobia. This information was long-standing prior to this current TP and should without a doubt remain on the article due to it's total and utter relevance to the etymological section. Wikipedia editors shouldn't attempt to argue against the general academic consensus - it's a pretty fundamental rule here. Botushali (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The laws of linguistics and science are not that simple. Just because something is relevant doesn't means that we should keep it. The part which I quoted is completely undue. Introducing wider themes, personal ideas of discriminsation, "long standing information card" (one year, maybe) and other side comments and everything else is just going offt. I shall assume good faith and think that is not intentional. The material needs to be deleted because it has no place for it because it's undue, as I have previously explained in great detail. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let us talk about incorrect things you said, Ranko Nikolic. The relation of Proto-Albanian and Albanian is not disputed. It is clearly the ancestor of the Albanian language. Try to find one linguist that denies that. Yet unattestet, mainly reconstructed by the Russian Linguist Vladimir Orel, which worked over 20 Years on his book "Albanian etymological dictionary". Try to find one linguist, that denies Proto-Albanian at all. Proto-Albanian is something neutral under linguists and has nothing to do with nationalism or something related to that. The thing is that you mention that the Albanians were first mentioned in the 11th century. But the attestion of a language does not say anything about the "age" of the language. I find it funny that you deny so many sources, that were made by neutral linguists. The Proto-Albanian presence in the triangle Nish-Sharr-Shtip is is undoubtedly relevant. Most of the sources are neutral and reliable. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum nor a place for debates, whatever "wrong" you think I said or not. Once again - the information about alleged proto-Albanians is given undue weight in a section where the material is not suppose to be placed in the first place. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to like that Proto-Albanian was present in Nish, do you?
 * It is undoubtedly relevant how the etymology of the city name developed. The etymology of a city is usually on the top of the page. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, @AlexBachmann,the thing that we do not like is having nationalistic propaganda in support of greater Albania on a wiki page about a Serbian city, which was added by a bunch of Albanian nationalists with questional motives quoting questional sources. Multiple users who are in this discusion are strongly involved in creating content about Albania and Albanians, which shows that they are very much biased and I do not see the point of disscusing why the Albanian propaganda and lies should be removed with the people who push said propaganda in the first place. We are not gonna argue and discuss anything with people like this, we just want lies, missinformation and blatant falsifications off of Niš wiki page StopAlbanianNationalistPropaganda (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Administrator's observation. When a new account with an obviously partisan name shows up accusing other editors of pushing propaganda, the agenda, POV, and non-neutrality of the new account are beyond obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred when an administrator of wikipedia refuses to remove edits that were made by members of Albanian wikipedia team who cannot possibly be neutral or unbiased in this matter and asks that a consensus is made to remove disputed and pseudo-history "facts" that were put on the page WITHOUT any consensus or agreement in the first place, that shows in the best light possible the biase, double standard, and uncredibility of the abovementioned admin. Since you made comments about my username,I must ask you if you think that spreading any propaganda (Serbian or Albanian) is good and should be encouraged by wikipedia as a website, and if it serves to increase the credibility and respectability of wikipedia as a source of information and knowledge? StopAlbanianNationalistPropaganda (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I see a discussion above about the merits of sources used for the origin of the name, which is really the only thing that should go into the determination of what goes into the article. I also see a lack of consensus on a change; and the general rule is to maintain status quo ante, which includes (for better or for worse) the Albanian origin story. I do not see, and have not been pointed to, any evidence which shows that the text entered the article in a manner so improper as to warrant immediate removal.If you'd like to focus on the merits of the sources, that discussion will continue here. If the only basis for your removal requests is an alleged "Albanian [W]ikipedia team", that discussion will be removed to another venue. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Add "Nish" to lead
I'd like to add Nish and Nis to the lead. It's not only the Albanian name, its also commonly used in English and French works. "Nish Serbia" has almost 40.000 hits on Google Books. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to prove that "Nish" and "Nis" are indeed "common names" and not just misspellings or simplifications. For example, "Sao Paulo" has many Google Books hits, but still we do not write "São Paulo also known as Sao Paulo".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean it's right in the article. The name is historically rendered as Nish or Nissa in English. Mišić (2010). Лексикон градова и тргова средњовековних српских земаља. p. 188.
 * Let's dismiss Nis and talk only about Nish and Nissa instead as long as I'm not finding anything else. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any issues to that? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add the content if anyone doesn't intervene. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This information lacks prominence for inclusion in the lead. It suffices to state this in the body. —Alalch E. 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Nish Serbia" alone has 40.000 hits on Google and Niš about 200.000. (~20%!). More than 10% use the form (Nish) and therefore it is inappropriate to remove it from the lead. I would be fine with removing Nissa. I have proven that the name is needed and that it indeed is not a misspelling. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A potentially historically accepted but now non-standard spelling (and uncommon in serious publications) in the first sentence is not the type of important information that needs to be presented to our readers in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 21:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is explicitly mentioned that it is a historical name and is even used nowadays a lot. Now, your argument "serious publications" is really shaky since you don't definde what is a serious work and what not. Is a travel guide serious? I don't think so. I haven't seen one including the name Nish.
 * See Syvota. Any attempts to remove the name because it sounds similar to the Albanian name will fail. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You had restated what is already included in the body to provide some extra depth for the 'Name' section. Repeating this in the lead fails MOS:LEAD as it is just reiteration, without summarizing. This information placed so prominently, and then also repeated, does not provide our readers with what they need. Ultimately, these kinds of decisions are a matter of editorial discretion and are somewhat subjective. I don't support this addition for the reasons I've stated, but someone else might. One should look toward forming a consensus, which will require more editors to become involved. —Alalch E. 21:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, a significant amout of sources use the form Nish even if it is already included in the convenient section.
 * WP:NC(GP) states following:
 * "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."
 * In this case, ~ 20 % use this form. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Foreign means foreign relative to English, not relative to Serbian. The standard English spelling is Niš. Nish is nonstandard, regardless of how many Google hits it has. Many nonstandard spellings are common, but as an encyclopedia we prefer the standard ones. —Alalch E. 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is appliable to the article name but not for the lead. Niš is nowadays that standard spelling but Nish is also common and historically significant. I don't see a problem including it to the lead. And please focus on my points. First you argued that not many "serious works" use it, now you are dismissing the amount of hits on Google Books. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there was an English-language dictionary mentioning Nish as an outdated spelling, as is the case for Lyons this would be sufficient evidence for me that it's historically significant. I don't think that Лексикон градова и тргова средњовековних српских земаља really verifies that Nish is an outdated, but historically significant, spelling as opposed to it just being a modern nonstandard spelling. I would not trust this book on English language usage. I also don't like to base these types of decisions on Google results. Ultimately, I'm not trying to change your mind. We are not going to agree, and that's fine. Input from more editors will be needed to get resolution on this matter. For all the reasons I've stated, I think it's better that the lead does not mention this spelling.—Alalch E. 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, Britannica lists Nish and Naissus as alternate names. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locating that. Good enough. I support the current state of the first sentence that includes Nish.—Alalch E. 23:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How about sometimes refered as Nish? I'm glad we've reached something. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors routinely "mechanically" remove any uses of refer from the first sentence per WP:REFERS, despite using it sometimes being justified. If we phrase it that way now, in all likelihood, someone down the line will just change it to something else simply to avoid using this verb. But I'm not really opposed. I am also glad.—Alalch E. 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I find that "sometimes spelled as" is more appropriate than "rarely" because it's not that rare. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing how modern English dictionaries don't mention it (as far as I can tell), depite there being that and that number of Google results, and from my personal experience, while I wouldn't call it "rare" I'd say "more rarely" is an accurate way to describe usage here; more accurate than "sometimes".—Alalch E. 23:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Let us let it stay how it is. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dictionary.com mentions Nish and a 2003 editions of Webster's (ISBN 9781842053881) does too. I'll rework it not to say "rarely". —Alalch E. 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlexBachmann The form "Nish" is a spelling for the readers, Naissus as Roman historic name and it does not reflect the use of the word.
 * Mind it is not phonetics representation but how would yoi read it in English Pixius talk 10:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We were kind of done here. Nish was added and Naissus was not. Does your comment attach to a particular change in the article? —Alalch E. 11:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nish is indeed how it is phonetically pronounced, however, it is also the form that is used in the English language as mentioned in the works above. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023
The first settlement on the territory of today's Niš was founded by the Celts in the 3rd century BC, and the city itself got its name from the river Nišava (Naissa), which the Celtic inhabitants called "Fairy river" (Navissos). The city and the river have never changed their names since they were named, and the meaning has remained the same: Niš—Vilingrad, Nišava—Vilinreka.[4]

Various conquerors left behind their own version of the name of this city: Roman Naissus, Byzantine Ναισσός/Nysos, Slavic Niš, Turkish نیش (Niş), German Nissa[3], Arabic Talnasi.[5] Sources also record the name Naica. 93.87.119.12 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2023
Change quoted Name section: ''The town was named after the Nišava River, which flows through the city. It was first named Navissos by Celtic tribes in the 3rd century BC. From this term comes the Latin Naissus, the Greek Nysos and the Slavic Niš.[7] Other variations include: Νάϊσσος, Ναϊσσός (Naissos), Naessus, urbs Naisitana, Navissus, Navissum, Ναϊσσούπολις (Naissoupolis). In Old Serbian, the town was known as Niš (written Нишь and Ньшь). The name is historically rendered as Nish or Nissa in English.[10]

Niš evolved from the toponym attested in Ancient Greek as ΝΑΙΣΣΟΣ (Naissos), which achieved its present form via phonetic changes in Proto-Albanian and thereafter the placename entered Slavic.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Nish might indicate that Proto-Albanian was spoken in the region in pre-Slavic antiquity.[13][18][16] Per Eric P. Hamp the name of Niš is clearly Albanian in shape.[19] According to Ismajli (2015), when this settlement happened is a matter of debate, as Proto-Albanians might have moved relatively late in antiquity in the area which might have been an eastern expansion of Proto-Albanian settlement as no other toponyms known in antiquity in the area presuppose an Albanian development.[20] The development of Nish < Naiss- may also represent a regional development in late antiquity Balkans which while related may not be identical with Albanian.[16][21]''

Change to (for reasons of pseudoscience and cherry picking:

''The town was named after the Nišava River, which flows through the city. It was first named Navissos by Celtic tribes in the 3rd century BC. From this term comes the Latin Naissus, the Greek Nysos and the Slavic Niš.[7] Other variations include: Νάϊσσος, Ναϊσσός (Naissos), Naessus, urbs Naisitana, Navissus, Navissum, Ναϊσσούπολις (Naissoupolis). In Old Serbian, the town was known as Niš (written Нишь and Ньшь). The name is historically rendered as Nish or Nissa in English.[10] BugzJuice (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition
@Aleksandartasic2828: Every change you want to do will be presented here first. The Albanian development of Nais>Nish is scholarly consensus. A. Loma has been criticized for trying to explain the development through dubious sound changes in other languages, completely ignoring the Albanian language. The climate edit is okay. You may restore that. If, however, disruption continues, this will be taken to the admins in the future. Shtip indeed also follows Albanian phonetic rules, however, Šabac does not. Nor does Kruševac. Pointless argument. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you normal, you have deleted climate data about my city. I left about that think, that some sources claim that about name, since we do not care about it at all. I have to take you to the admins since you are writing about Albania in article about Niš, SERBIAN CITY, WITH 0 PERCENT ALBANIANS, CITY WHERE NOTHING HAS CONECTION TO ALBANIA. I spent a lot of time editing climate data and you deleted it just because you can? This wikipedia is Albanian thing? So sad. Aleksandartasic2828 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, immediately calm down and stop with WP:personal attacks. Here in English Wikipedia, we communicate in civilized manner without insulting each other. If you are not able to present your arguments in an appropriate manner, you should not edit Wikipedia.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should ask what was insulting in my answer? Aleksandartasic2828 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remove "according to some sources" because there is no serious source out there that disputes this fact. Unless there's been discovered a ground-breaking theory about the phonetical development of Nish, this can't be included. I also do have to remind you that phonetical development does not equate to etymology. The etymology is Celtic, not Albanian. And while we're here, Albanians have been living in Nish until 1877, when they were expelled. You're right that there is no Albanian presence in Nish today, but historically, that statement would be incorrect. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets stop this nonsense. Ok, put the article about proto albanic, but let people decide themselves. There are a lot of historians who do not agree with that, as I added. This is relevant source since professor Ljubomirovic is professor on University of Niš, and he said that in an interview. Aleksandartasic2828 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets stop this nonsense. What nonsense? I will remind you again that no one disputes the fact the the name is of Celtic origin. Words change over time. In every language. For example, Berat used to be called Belgrad. Phonetic evolution is responsible for this. The same thing happened with Nish and Stip. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense is the way how someone thinks world works. There are different opinions, put at least two of them. No problem from me. I am ok with you, you kept different opinion. Aleksandartasic2828 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aleksandartasic2828 Listen, I'll give you the option to self-revert right now before I report you. The only thing that is stopping me is the fact that you didn't remove the content regarding the Proto-Albanian sound changes, so minimal sign of WP:GOODFAITH.
 * Per WP:UNDUE the content you have added is not relevant here. In scholarship, it is a evident consensus the Nais developed to Nish via Albanian sound changes (per Hamp, Georgiev, Katicic, Matzinger, de Vaan, Joseph, de Veemer, Rusakov, Prendergast etc.). Aleksander Loma, who proposed a different theory recieved very hard criticizm, the sources you have added are not reliable and therefore to be dismissed from the page. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any content from others, you are deleting my content WP:VANDAL. There is not evident consensus because there are provided sources for different origin. Be respectful please, I am not deleting anything (actually I should because sources are not correct, but I am respectful and tolerant to others. Share love, not hate. Wish you all the best and enjoy the evening  Acatsc2828 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not competent to say that Aleksandar Loma should not be mentioned. Why should Hamp be mentioned when he is on Albanian post stamp? Maybe he is not neutral at all. WP:UNDUE . Please respect all historians with phd. We need different opinions, not only one. Acatsc2828 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am, in fact, sharing love, not hate. Otherwise, I would have reported you by now. Hamp is a top-notch linguist who studied not only the Albanian language, but also Celtic languages. He's a reliable source and is recognized as such.
 * Alone the heading of the first source "Niš, Vikipedija i prekrajanje istorije - ko svojata poreklo imena grada" makes it extremely untrustworthy. Please, you in fact have made some contributions that helped the article - I do not want to report you. Either you or I will remove the quote.
 * Anzuerkennen ist, dass die serbokroat. Form Nîš weder aus einer griech. noch einer latein. Grundform stammen kann, da zum Zeitpunkt der Ankunft der Slawen ca. um 550 wohl mit einer monophthongierten Grundform */Né̜sus/ zu rechnen wäre, die slaw. **Něsъ bzw. **Nesъ ergeben hätte.
 * Translate that in Serbian/English for you. This is a quote from Joachim Matzinger (Die albanische Autochthoniehypothese aus der Sicht der Sprachwissenschaft). He is one of the most known linguists in the Albanian language. He explicitly rejects a Latin transmission. By the way, Albanian nationalists tend to dislike him since an article has shown up. [1 ] AlexBachmann (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a scholarly source. Per WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I don't see why it should be excluded. It appears to be an attempt to suppress information that is "inconvenient" (to put it mildly) for some people, but that's not how wikipedia works. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This dispute is part of an endless cycle on Balkan topics of what is WP:RS or not without any proper oversight from an administrator over many years. Are concerns being raised because one of the sources is affiliated with SANU? The same arguments against the Instituti i Historisë "Ali Hadri" Prishtinë, which is widely used on Wikipedia can also being made. Are concerns being raised because Južne vesti is potentially too tabloid? The same argument can be made for Bota Sot, which is also widely used on Wikipedia. Are issues being raised because there is already an "academic consensus" on the topic? Does that mean then that Etymology is the only science that doesn't evolve? While trying to enforce WP:RS, one must always be mindful of whether their removal is in line with WP:NPOV. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfourtanetly a lot of Serbian bias on wikipedia that is only added that fits their view points or nationalistic narratives and I don't know why this is allowed on wikipedia ? I have tried to add a lot of information from serious researchers about history of Dardania but it's immediately removed. Why is invented history that has no evidence allowed on wikipedia ? TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Naissus -> Nish is most definitely an Albanian development but certainly not the only one. Ulpiana -> Lipjan in Kosovo, Scupi -> Shkup in Macedonia. these Are Albanian developments too.
 * This is not a Slavic development, there is no evidence of any Serbs in that territory until the 13th-14th century or so so how can it be a Serbian development ? Bulgarians when did they arrive there ? Did they find Albanian speakers or Latin Speakers ? I vouch that this is an Albanian development , the only Albanian nationalists that dislike Matzinger btw are the ones that want to keep the origin in Albania but I don't think such arguments are strong at this point , Matzinger however still believes Albanian was in Albania since 300-400 AD . TheCreatorOne (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not like Albanians found Albania / Montenegro empty , there are some evidence of mingling with people there and vice versa such as the town name Ulqin in Montenegro and many of the town names etc in Albania do not suggest transmission via Slav , also the name Albanoi, which interesting enough is also found in Scupi, if anything Albanians would be a mixture of different ancient Balkan people possibly. TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Albanian historian Pulaha also supported Naissus -> Nish being an Albanian development as do many Albanian historians actually. Albanians were expelled from that area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878
 * There lived historically Albanians there. TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that the newspaper interview with Prof. Lubomirovic about the name of the city be dropped from the article. Apart from the fact that the tone of the newspaper's article is not politically correct, it does not say anything different from what Alexander Loma has said in his study, and his opinion is stated in the article in Wikipedia here. Moreover, this newspaper itself is not a very reliable source of information in this case (ancient etymology). Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Juzne vesti is not tabloid. Here we are talking about professor Ljubomorivoci, not about people who write for Juzne vesti, because that are his words, not words from any kind of journalist. Historian who, for his work, got on postmark in Albania is very reliable. Keep all different reliable sources. WP:UNDUE Acatsc2828 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tabloids are not permissible in wikipedia. I removed Loma and some comments about Loma by Matzinger because they go beyond the scope of this article. Loma's argument itself was miscited because Loma doesn't just claim that the name is of Celtic or Thracian origin. The article already states that the name is Celtic. As such, there is no reason to have a separate attributed statement by a specific author for a claim which is already handled in wikivoice in the article. Loma does not claim that the name might also be of Thracian origin. In itself, this wouldn't present any contradiction in the article. The consensus in relation to Albanian refers to the toponym's transmission not to its etymology. The toponym Naissus is not Albanian and it's not Illyrian or para-Messapic-like. Loma's claim is that the same PIE root which was present in Celtic was also present in Iranic languages and as such the name might be Iranian which leads him to claim that the Triballi (a Thracian people) were of Iranic origin: This is a WP:FRINGE claim which doesn't appear anywhere in bibliography outside Loma and it belongs to the corpus of bibliography of Serbian academia and the push for Caucasian theories in relation to Albanians. I removed it and it can't be brought back to the article because there is nothing in bibliography which suggests that ancient Iranians lived in the Iron Age Balkans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a solid consensus here on tp that Loma is WP:RS and his work here was cited through academic publishing not through a "tabloid".Theonewithreason (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Naissus -> Nish
In that same area you have a lot of Albanian toponyms, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877%E2%80%931878 , there are much more from the medieval period which shows the territory was inhabited by Albanians. Most scholars consider this toponym to be an Albanian development, that it might not be identical with Albanian is nothing but an invention, considering most scholars hold it to be Albanian firstly, Matzinger also holds it (even if he is unsure his word isn't the be and all), secondly Slavs didn't expand into this territory until very late actually which makes that Naissus -> Nish is supposedly a Slavic development impossible. First expansion we see are the Bulgars in 900 AD or 800 AD or so, the Serbs didn't occupy it until the 13-14th century or so... and I am pretty sure they mention Albanians there and in the neighboring Llapi region .... this toponym is definitely not a Serbian development. TheCreatorOne (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The toponym itself is not Albanian, but Albanian was likely spoken in the region during the Roman era and this is what explained the adoption of a likely Albanian form by Slavs. This is what Matzinger supports as well. Albanians who lived in the Sanjak of Nish until 1878 are Albanians from Kosovo and northern Albania who had moved in the late medieval and Ottoman era in the region. They're not Albanians who lived there since the Roman era and there is very strong evidence from aDNA studies that the region was completely Slavic by 800-1000 CE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant Albanian development, I know Albanians moved there during Ottoman era but going by placenames Albanians were there before Ottoman era, how and when these Albanians got there is another matter or what happened to them. Are you saying Albanians moved back there , would this of happened during Bulgarian Empire ? Those areas were invaded by different people and pillaged and who knows what happened to all the people there, so it makes a lot of sense that Albanians as a people survived in the mountains of the Western Balkans too of course. TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, can you show us these aDNA studies and what people are they linked to ? TheCreatorOne (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Slavic tribes came to the Balkans in 6th and 7th century and this is widely accepted theory. Slavic tribes settled most of the Balkans. On the other hand, it is not widely accepted that Illyrians, Dardanians and other Balkan tribes are ancestors of modern day Albanians. No one can deny the presence of Albanians before expulsion 1878. So is proven with toponyms like: Đake, Kastriot, Arbanasce, maybe Kondželj in Toplica region, because Albanians came in Kosovo, Toplica, Jablanica and Niš after Great migrations of Serbs 1690 and that is not a secret. Most of those Albanians then were converted to Islam because Turks wouldn't settle new, non-muslim people in this empty area, so that imply that Albanians were settle here later than Slavs.
 * I think that we have to talk about facts, or facts that are widely accepted. I don't say that my statement is 100% true, of course, but it is simpthomatic that English Wikipedia is overwhelmed with quazi-proto-Albanian toponyms, name derivations etc. in Serbia and Macedonia and all od those statements aren't widely accepted. Needless to say how theory of Albanians as descendants of Illyrians is scientifically and historically disputed. Savča018 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * None of this relates to how the toponym evolved from phonetic changes in Proto-Albanian. WP:NOTFORUM. Botushali (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)