Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 13 June 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albania High‑importance Expulsion of the Albanians (1877–1878) is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kosovo High‑importance Expulsion of the Albanians (1877–1878) is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. {{WikiProject Former countries|class=stub|importance=|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=}} Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Montenegro This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is nationalistic mess

This article is very bad, and need detail work. Also, all locations must be translated. This article needs a lot of work to make it normal... --Axiomus (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate from what this article needs to be translated from? Serbian academic sources have been used that are in English for the expulsions. Albanian sources have been used only for the aftermath section. Please elaborate on how there are issues with the Serbian sources. Otherwise those tags will be removed.Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Names of places must not be in Albanian or Turkish. Attitude toward this event is one sided and very POV, without proper international view. Also, several events are made up. All of those are presented as conquest, while it was liberation. Very bad article. I will fix it, sentence by sentence. --10:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus: you say that "several events are made up." Please elaborate which ones in here? The article is very much referenced and much of it if one has a read consists of Serbian scholarship regarding the main events. The article in no place uses the word "conquest" and also no use of the word "liberation". For Orthodox Serbians it was viewed as a liberation and for Ottomans and its Muslim populations it was viewed as a conquest. That is not relevant to the events of this article and both sides had differing views and both sides still in a way do. This article is about a forced population migration and the content needs to relate to that. By the way, changes that you might do regarding such things have to be based upon wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources. Regarding names, that is not POV. I have used Sanjak of İşkodra and Sanjak of Niş because these were the names used by the Ottoman Turkish authorities for two territorial units (i.e Sanjaks ) that were in their territories at that point in time. It becomes Serbian thereafter in 1878 as the Niş Sanjak disappears and the İşkodra Sanjak shrinks. Serbian names were in local usage at that point in time amongst part of the population, but the official name of territorial unit is to be used, as referred to by that particular country that it was part of at that point in time for neutrality purposes. That was Ottoman Turkish, not Albanian or Serbian. In Misplaced Pages there are the guidelines on naming conventions, see: WP:NCPLACE. In Wiki articles, the name of what a place was known at that point in time is used such as in the one on Giuseppe Schirò which lists his birth place as Pianna dei Greci and not Piana degli Albanesi (current name) etc. I will also refer you to Serbian scholar Miloš Luković (who is cited in the article as a reference) uses the premise by using the Ottoman Turkish names for the cities prior to them becoming Serbian. I recommend that you acquaint yourself with that. He has done so as to be neutral and in that content and so have i regarding here. The Sanjak of Niş and İşkodra were Ottoman administrative units, not Serbian ones. Serbian ones created after 1878 should have Serbian names as that is what their official name was such as Novi Krajevi or new areas and is cited in the article. Moreover i have not used "Albanian names". If i had done so for these cities: Niš, Vranje, Leskovac, Prokuplje and Kuršumlija you would have found the following: Nish/i, Vranjë/a or Vrajë/a, Leskofc/i or Leskoc/i, Prokuplë/a (and also Orkup/i) and Kurshumli/a. Please point out exactly were i have used the following since you make an accusation there in that comment of yours. Unless you have found some actual issue (regarding sources etc) with the article, these tags you have placed in the article will be removed as they would constitute a form of WP:TAGBOMBING. Resnjari (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus: i was thinking about what you said and Frantz has covered the Austro-Hungarian reaction, Tanner has the British reaction and Malcolm has the Russian reaction (in particular consul Jastrebov's statements to the Ottomans about keeping the refugees and not letting them back). If others too think like a sentence each on these needs to be there (regarding international reaction to these events) i can include them later in the week with appropriate referencing. However for tonight, i have completed all which i said in the in depth discussion that was had in the proposed deletion discussion and thank editors who brought up a few things which made me look for more and strengthen the content of the article when i did undertake this enormous task. Best everyone.Resnjari (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus:, i added in a International and local observations/reactions to events section to cater to the concerns you raised in your comments. In it, it has the views of the Great Powers representatives in the region and also the views of prominent Serbs regarding these events. Have a look. I have put considerable effort into making sure that the sources are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. If there are further issues just state them so they can be addressed. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of template

I do not want to interrupt the discussion above, so I am creating this new section to say I have removed the {{translate}} template from the top of the article. That template is intended for articles where the entire text or a large part is not written in English. Axiomus, if you think the article is in broken English, you can use {{cleanup-translation}} instead. But personally I do not think there is a problem with the English itself. So you may want to select some other templates such as "tone" to bring it to the attention of other editors. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor Style

It is not normal even for academic texts to have footnotes four to five times the size of the article itself.

In an encyclopaedic entry it is ludicrous. These footnotes should be edited to one to two brief clauses each (to best summarise the content of footnotes as they now stand) and links given to online integral reference text for those who want to explore further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.146.38 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason why they are given is because there were editors in the past who called into question the very happening of this event (reduced now to POV, though that specific editor has not come back in anyway to continue with the matter). There was also an attempt to delete this article from existing in Misplaced Pages. The adjudicator involved was neutral on the matter at the time (and the reason for that was at the time there being little sources) and that its future would be considered in a year. Since then i have written much and have addressed those issues and the article is heavily referenced. Until this article's future is placed up again for consideration, those inlines can stay.Resnjari (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Page title and moves.

Zoupan and Ktrimi991. I am not fussed over the titles that both of you each refer. However since a similar page is called The Expulsion of the Albanians a differentiation needs to occur. i'll offer a few suggestions on my part. For that article in addition to that title that the word memorandum is added so it becomes The Expulsion of the Albanians (memorandum). But as there might be objections for that article, at least we should drop the The at the beginning of the title for this one so it becomes Expulsion of Albanians 1877–1878. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not have any objections for your suggestions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

See what Zoupan says. If he agrees we fix both up. Two birds with one stone. Best. Resnjari (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way I urge Zoupan to explain their edits. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it a movie? No. Is it a document? No. Why is the article still called with this awkward title then? Also, the "The Expulsion of the Albanians" was not a memorandum. "1877–78 expulsions of Albanians" is as descriptive and accurate as it gets.--Zoupan 19:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a memorandium. See you after some days. I have to work with Albania Wikimedia projects. I have been working with them for over six years. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't. As already explained at the talk page, the text is called various things, but it is incorrect to call it a memorandum. Note that it was not presented to the government, nor was Čubrilović a professor at the time. Thank you for reinforcing all of this.--Zoupan 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Guys, something can be worked out. For this article, removal of the word The at the beginning as its unnecessary. Almost if not all articles dealing with population expulsions on Misplaced Pages begin with Expulsion of.... . Having the year first may be confusing for a person looking up the article as the year may no be the first thing that pops up in their head when they do a search. I am for the article just being called Expulsion of Albanians 1877–1878. Its plain, its simple and has no unnecessary words. On the second article about the Cubrilovic thing, i do agree that Cubrilovic was not a professor at the time, however the talk/document became influential in later times amongst some higher ups (i.e 1980s and early 1990s). There needs to be some kind of qualifier alongside the title in brackets. At the very least the neutral (document) would do as it distinguishes it sort of. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You know that redirects pop up in search, right? "Expulsion of X" is appropriate for World War II articles. I would still say "1877–78 expulsions of Albanians" is the best name. Your suggestion is not supported by WP:AT guidelines.--Zoupan 04:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Expulsion of..." articles are not limited to World War Two related content and there are multiple articles that have "Expulsion of" in their titles that are from different time periods. I also looked at the WP:AT guidelines and am trying to work out why my suggestion in relation to this article is not supported by the guidelines. All i called for is the removal of the word "The". Elaborate and point to which of the guidelines in that policy so i know what you mean. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Petar V. Grujić (18 September 2014). KOSOVO KNOT. Dorrance Publishing. p. 390. ISBN 978-1-4809-9845-2. The Expulsion of the Albanians - Memorandum "The Expulsion of the Albanians," is a memorandum prepared and written by the noted Bosnian Serb scholar and political figure Vaso Cubrilovic (1897- 1990).
2. Vasiliki P. Neofotistos (14 March 2012). The Risk of War: Everyday Sociality in the Republic of Macedonia. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-8122-0656-8. Some of the key elements of this policy are listed in a memorandum entitled "The Expulsion of the Albanians" and presented by Serbian university professor Vaso Čubrilović in March 1937 to the Communist leadership in Belgrade
3. Ethem Ceku (17 December 2015). Kosovo and Diplomacy since World War II: Yugoslavia, Albania and the Path to Kosovan Independence. I.B.Tauris. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-85773-953-7. Its antiAlbanian component had grown more extreme until Vaso Čubrilović, in his 1937 memorandum The Expulsion of the Albanians, advocated ethnic cleansing by means of pressure, mass deportation and murder.
4. Stjepan Mestrovic (2 August 2004). The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism. Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-134-88260-1. Perhaps one of the most Nazi-like statements is the 1937 memorandum by Vaso Cubrilovic entitled "Expulsion of the Albanians," and presented to the Royal Yugoslav government

"Departure"

I don't know what the hell Ktrimi991 is playing at but this article is about an expulsion. The "departure" that he likes to restore (and to which I gave up) is not the reason for the action to be seen as "ethnic cleansing". If expelled, the population fleeing has no choice but to depart. As for the rest of his edit, I am sorry but I haven't got a clue how he is trying to improve the article by parroting "characterized as ethnic cleansing" when the atrocity in question is an unambiguous breach of international law. In other words, either it is or it isn't. Ethnic cleansing is not "characterized" or "described" as such, it is classed as that. My use of rollback was accidental, I had wanted to use the summary but I clicked the wrong place. --OJ (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how you don't understand you must use the talk page when you are asked to argue your changes. This explanation was everything you had to give. Best regards! Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll assume it is all cleared up now. Thanks. I thought the nature of my contribution as a copy edit didn't need any explaining but we got there in the end. Sorry for the blunt text, I have struck out the worst part. Best regards. --OJ (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Motives

@WEBDuB: has been adding "collective guilt" as a motive, although several editors (@Resnjari: and I) have opposed that. "Collective guilt of Muslims for attitude towards Christianity by the Ottoman authorities" is not only POV but it also is misleading. It is part of Albanophobia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not my point of view, but the motives and arguments of the Serbian authorities from that time. This is part of a wider expulsion of the Muslim population from the Balkans after the liberation of the territory from the Ottoman Empire, not albanophobia per se. WEBDuB (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That Albanian civilians were guilty of actions committed by Ottoman authorities is Albanophobia, not motive. Serbian authorities declared that Albanians were savages but we will not add to the motives list "Albanians were savages". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose ethnic cleansing is ""liberation"? That aside, I see no issue with edits of WEBDuB's that have portrayed the Serbian POV but labeled it as such -- but they should be balanced by discussing also other relevant POVs, including Albanian, Turkish and Bulgarian. Furthermore, edits that portray the idea that Albanians gained a majority in Kosovo only in the 19th century and had never had it before are frankly provocative, reliant as they are on Serbian literature that was used to justify ethnic cleansing. It also seemingly implied to the reader that Serbs had long previously been the majority -- false, due to Kosovo's long Bulgarian history before Serbia ever ruled, and also a simplification as it obfuscates the presence of autochtonous Albanians in the Gjakova region who never migrated during Ottoman times but had always been there.--Calthinus (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, i am not against adding content related to the topic. However i reverted you because what you added has nothing to do with the topic. Take for example the Dubravka source (for those interested here is the whole PDF: ) you added, you cited page 261. Where does it say anything about these specific events, time period and motive? In fact that page discusses the 20th century and the Albanian-Serb conflict, not before. So how is that applicable to events of the 1877-1878? Its why you got reverted. Even with the Cohen source, and on second glance i will correct myself that he has passed RS after looking around on other wiki threads, even so where does he say anything about these specific events and motive in the source you used? I have access to these all sources, and apart from English i can read Serbian.Resnjari (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Albania articles
• High-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles
• Start-Class Kosovo articles
• High-importance Kosovo articles
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• Stub-Class Serbia articles
• Unknown-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• Stub-Class Montenegro articles
• Unknown-importance Montenegro articles
• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles