Talk:Expulsion of the Albanians (1877–1878)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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

"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: [1]) 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)

@Calthinus: This is a charge of relativizing and justifying war crimes. A shameless insult, prejudice and personal attack. We should not make hasty conclusions and insult others, we should talk about the article and references. I did not even quote the claims of Serbian nationalists, but historians who criticize them. It is necessary to explain the political and historical context. Of course, there is no justification for crimes, I only try to explain in more detail what arguments and excuses were used by those who carried them, in order to make the article more precise. Serbian political elites never said: “we hate Albanians”, but: “we hate Turks (=Muslims) who occupied us”. This is part of a wider expulsion of the Muslim population from the Balkans after the liberation of the territory from the Ottoman Empire. This aspect is not mentioned in any single place. Morally and historically, that is a cynical excuse, of course. But if the article is about expulsion, it is necessary to write about those who have done it WEBDuB (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WEBDuB I am assuming good faith here. However you must stop doing a few thi gs. (1) do not call the Serbian capture of Nish and surrounding regions "liberation" as this is extremely insensitive to Albanian, Turkish, and even Bulgarian viewpoints. For Albanians this was the event where 100,000 of Albanians was ripped from homes they had inhabited since the Middle Ages (yes -- RS confirm this -- see Maynard, Genis, Uka), raped, sometimes killed, and dispossessed, reducing them into poverty as they were placed into Central Kosovo (a pivotal moment in Kosovo's demographic history). (2) When writing of something that is an aspect of the Serbian POV, do not state it as a fact. In some cases you were very good about this and I noted that in my previous post. However in the info box [| you were not]. That any group has "collective guilt" and must be punished is an important thing to establish as we all learn on day one of NAZI-101 : Intro to Genocide Preparation. That is why you have to make absolutely clear that you are not asserting this collective guilt as a fact. As a fact it is total bunk: most of Nish's Albanian Muslim population had converted from Catholicism under duress just two centuries prior, and was quite poor still (Muslim populace does not equal the Muslim elite who did benefit). I know it sounds like I'm being harsh but the reason I'm saying this is that I'm the one here who actually thinks you have something useful to add to the page, but you need to do it in a way that doesnt cause it to explode. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I did't mention liberation anywhere. Furthermore, the whole article is an Albanian POV. Two things must be mentioned and explained in all Serbian-Albanian conflicts. Islamophobia and Kosovo Myth. I would put Islamophobia as a key motive for this expulsion. Not only the Albanians were expelled after the Serbian Revolution, but the the Muslim population at general. The situation is the same in other regions of the Balkans after the liberation of the territory from the Ottoman Empire (I think we should consider merging articles). It's really a collective guilt and the alleged revenge for attitude towards Christianity by the Ottoman authorities. Kosovo Myth is important for the political platform of Serbian nationalist. Myth was often used to create a Serbian victimization narrative and to represent the Turks and other islamized nations as someone who stole the territory. It should not be mentioned as the only truth, but as a motive and excuse. Even many Serbian historians and university professors advocate this theory. This aspect is not mentioned in any single place, but it is crucial. --WEBDuB (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, you make good points. WEBDuB regarding this: Furthermore, the whole article is an Albanian POV. I take it this is more a WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. Nothing said here so far has called into question a source, an academic etc used in the article. You do realise that the source used for events of the war and expulsion is Milos Jagodic, a Serb academic and his research is based on Serbian state archives. The source used in the article is accessible, RS and in English. See, i could have used the four books written by the late Sabit Uka, a Kosovan historian from the Yugoslav period whose research is also based on the same Serbian archival sources just in a much more expanded fashion. Thing is, i thought that would be unfair for readers, especially those who are of a Serbian background who can't read Albanian, and whose books are not even accessible for even most Albanians today. I sourced my Uka copies via the Library of Congress through my university library via international loans and photocopied them here where i live. Anyway with Uka i used him only for the post-war situation which is not contentious. I look at your comment here and you refer to the Serbian revolution. The events of 1877-1878 took place many decades after the Serbian revolution. Yes i'm aware some Albanians lived slightly further north from Nis (the Jagodina area) along the Morava valley (Uka mentions this) and left after the revolution. That said, this is not the article for that and the ones where it might be relevant would, at the very least be the article on the Serbian revolution. In relation to revenge toward the Ottomans etc, this is the view that became widespread mainly post 1878 independence via the education system and the teaching of the Kosovo myth to pupils etc which became a major motive for Serbia during the events of the Balkan Wars that affected its behavior toward Muslim populations it encountered. Nonetheless for here, Jagodic cites the motives for the 1877-1878 expulsion of the Albanian population quite clearly (something which even Uka does not cover his works!). See the Prelude section. In sum, it ranged between wanting a homogeneous country, wanting a future base to expand toward Kosovo and Macedonia, whereas others didn't want to have a Caucasus style situation. Anti-Muslim sentiment was not part of the paradigm (unless you have a RS source that states so and so person in power or some military person involved had this or that view that affected these events, or this is what the population thought of the time period, etc). Absent that, adding Islamophobia is [[[WP:OR]].Resnjari (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Including the Kosovo Myth on the page is not only fine, I'd welcome it -- but what you were doing was not only that. I won't revert it if what I see is adding just that in a neutral tone with citations that clearly specify the connection of the Kosovo Myth and this event in the environs of Nish.--Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, WEBDuB, Ktrimi991 the Stojanovic source with the correct page number is fine as it mentioned the event. Even after the discussion here, there was a use of "liberation" in an addition to the article [2], but the sources attributed to it and the various paragraph or page number did not say this. Anyway this source Islamski faktor na Zapadnom Balkanu u geopolitičkim koncepcijama zapadnih sila i islamskih centara moći is a Serbian military journal. My basis for removal is that it does not cite the event on the purported page, i.e 75 when the edit [3] was made. Here is the source for those wanting to look further into it [4], [5]. This source Albanci u Srbiji i Jugoslaviji od 1912. do 1941. godine is problematic. Looking at page 2: [6] it recycles previous themes about the waves of Albanian colonisation i.e "Почетак албанске колонизације Косова почиње још у 16.веку апрви масовни таласи колонизације наилазе у 17.веку"; it talks about liberation wars i.e "Ослободилачки ратови Србије против Турске"; it makes the fringe claim that Albanian colonistion i.e Albanians flooded the Nish Vilayet in the early 19th century i.e "Од пресудног значаја у томе је чињеница да је албaнска колонизација управо током прве половине XIX века из косовског вилајета преплавиладелове нишког вилајета". It makes other problematic and unreferenced claims. It claims that in the aftermath of the war, it was the Muslim population who did not want to remain in Serbia and share equality and rights with citizens of another faith, i.e "Исламизирано становништво није хтело да остане у новој држави и да се изједначи у правима са грађанима друге вере." According to the source the Serb state tried to liberate the Muslim population and really wanted to protect that population i.e "С друге стране исрпске власти су настојале да се ослободе муслиманског становништва, мада је Србија по одлукама Берлинског конгреса требалода заштити муслиманске мањине и њиховоимовно стање." It places blame on the radical evictions ("Радикално исељавање") on the high ranking commanders. Just that page alone conflicts with other studies (i.e Jagodic) which citing the Serb archive notes that the political and military class, including even the future monarch, wanted to remove the population prior to the commencement of hostilities. There was no stance held that it was about 'liberating' the Muslim population. Additionally there is victim blaming toward the Muslim population that they did not want to live under the new regime. Again the archive and academic sources state that Albanians fought hard to not leave and even after the war wanted to go back sending petitions etc. Beyond this, no references provided especially when it makes contentious claims. Also no clarity if this is a self published source or not and the credentials of the author are not clear. If anything this work harks back to the older generation of Serbian historiography that had numerous issues with nationalism and so on.Resnjari (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, stating facts from this one [[7]] would seem to be of the genre not of explaining (pro-expulsion) Serbian points of view, but instead trying to convince the reader of their objective truth. The use of "colonization" for Albanians in Kosovo and by extension Nish is extremely problematic, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that an Albanian Catholic population existed in both areas before the Ottoman conquest. Furthermore, there was Albanian (and Serbian) movement into Kosovo in the Ottoman Empire, but calling it "colonization" is categorically false -- in fact, a substantial part of the Albanian Muslim population was forced against their will to move to Kosovo from the mountains of Northern Albania, and also forcibly converted to Islam, in the 17th century. Much of the rest of Albanian movement into Kosovo was driven by population pressures and escape from the lawlessness of the region (also the cause of the culture of bloodfeuds arising as a way to maintain deterrence for crimes in an area that was deprived of serious governance)-- these were both caused by a conscious Ottoman policy described by Piro Misha. Whereas before Ottoman rule and in its early phase Albania was a prosperous link on the Via Egnatia, after struggling to suppress incessant Albanian rebellions and overtures to the West, the Ottomans used a policy of fragmentation, divide and rule, and destruction of internal roads in order to keep Albanians destitute and reliant on Ottoman rule for stability. Far from the days of the Via Egnatia bringing to lucrative trade with Venice and Naples, in 1900 it took two days, Asdreni remarked, to walk the 40km "road" between Durres and Tirana, and if you went without weapons, if you survived it was because the bandits decided you weren't worth the price of a bullet. Meanwhile, the Ottomans treated Albania as territorial cannon fodder, a source of frontline soldiers, and also a tax farm, multiplying taxes in some regions by 27 times to "punish" revolts (this did not happen anywhere else in the Balkans). Nowhere was this worse than Norht Albania, where the supposed "colonizers" fled from precisely during the period of 1600-1900-- yet they are the "colonizers"? Come back if you have serious scholarship, please. --Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, i agree with your sentiments there. To many issues with the Albanci u Srbiji i Jugoslaviji od 1912. do 1941. godine and nothing has been said here by other editors toward addressing the concerns raised here. As such, best it stays out.Resnjari (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Title

I notice that the article title "Expulsion of the Albanians, 1877-1878" is not consistent with the lead, infobox, and other references to the event, which call it the "Expulsion of Albanians". Unfortunately, I cannot tell what the reliable English media like to refer to the event as. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this topic can speak to that? Regardless, this article should either be renamed or the body should be tweaked to standardize the one of the phrases "Expulsion of the Albanians" or "Expulsion of Albanians". Mysterymanblue (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)