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. il 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 this article at least dropping the The at the beginning of the title would be best so it becomes Expulsion of Albanians 1877–1878. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)