Talk:Peasant Revolt in Albania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Prince Wilhelm of Wied and his gendarmerie fought under flag of Principality of Albania. The rebels fought under Ottoman flag (source and inline citation provided in the text of the article).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict does not say one single word about flags. Since this is very complicated situation (Albanians with Ottoman flag Vs. German prince and Duch gendarmerie with Albanian flag) I propose to avoid any flag in infobox because it could mislead readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It's reasonable to have the flag for both sides, it might be also helpfull to note that they desired Ottoman rule. It's not the first time an Albanian movement used the Ottoman crescent, for example the Albanian pashas, even the ones that fought against the Sultan (Ali Pasha) used this flag.Alexikoua (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I added flags for both sides and explained pro-Ottoman position of the rebels.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Peasant revolt"[edit]

That this was some sort of egalitarian minded peasant revolt seems to have been the thesis promoted by Enver Hoxha (who may have wanted to cover up an episode of opposition to Albanian nationalism by conservative Muslims as part of his zeal to smooth over religious distinctions). A lot of more recent authors have disputed this, arguing it was in fact driven by Muslim clergy for pro-Ottoman reasons opposing Albanian nationalism and some with motives that included things that were far from "egalitarianism" such as the desire to keep the land advantages they had under the millet system that favored Muslims (and overall Sunnis). This is clearly contentious. Propose move to "Revolt of Haxhi Qamili"? That way we dodge making an assertion that the revolt was either "peasant" or "Muslim" and stay neutral on that matter--Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Albanian authors nowadays may use phrases like "(pro-Ottoman) revolt of Haxhi Qamili" (Albanian: kryengjitjes (pro-osmane) te Haxhi Qamilit), which does fit with this proposed name in English.--Calthinus (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt would be much better per WP:AT in terms of precision.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I would support that title too. --Calthinus (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That's far better and neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This whole story in mid-1914 was not at all a homogenous, well organized movement with one single goal and objective. Pro-Ottoman sentiments were just one amongst others, one of the main causes indeed, but not the only one. Supporters of Esat Toptani, ones revolting against the foreign prince, those claiming the Ottoman rule back, and those who only wanted more rights for the Islam, peasants unhappy with the social and economical conditions were all there. To my view, adding Pro-Ottoman to the title would be more biased than the current version mentioning 'peasant', since no doubt, they were peasants. The historiographers typically fit the events in the chronology starting from the Central Albanian Republic of Esat that was dismissed in February 1914, then this revolt came covering the exact same regions, then Esat returned to Albania in Oct 1914 to take over the power from the senate of the winning haxhiqamilists, practically restoring his former republic. For this reason, the Central Albanian Revolt, without any debatable term (peasant, pro-ottoman, islamist, etc.) would be the neutral solution. This is how German and Hungarian wiki fixed this, too. Pasztilla (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Re Haxhi Qamili: He initially was indeed one of the main figures of the revolt, this is why the haxhiqamilistët term in Albanian, but again, the movement lacked a strong and megalithic leadership. Later on Qamili together with Musa Qazimi, mufti of Tirana led the rebels in the Tirana district only, around Elbasan Qamil Haxhifeza was the master, and finally when the rebels victoriously entered Durrës, Mustafa Ndroqi was considered their leader and got elected as the president of the senate. Pasztilla (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The current name is not wrong because it is actually commonly used in English language sources, including the source presented in the article which is published by CUP. Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt received support of 3 different editors who think it is better than current one. I think it is much better than the name you proposed which is inappropriate and factually incorrect at least for three reasons:
  1. The revolt was not isolated to central Albania and rebels captured rest of Albania too, ie Vlore and Berat
  2. You are wrong when you try to connect this revolt with Republic of Central Albania and it would be wrong to misleed readers to associate it with republich which existed before this revolt and could not stand behind it. Even if you are right that they restored it afterwards (I am not certain if it was restoring or establishment of new unrecognized entity) that was only provisional government planned for merging with the Ottoman Empire.
  3. The revolt was, of course, deeply and mainly pro-Ottoman, as article says based on RS.
  1. The Ottoman Empire organized and supported it. As soon as Great Powers installed German prince to govern newly established principality, the Ottoman Empire sent agents to encourage a revolt, hoping to restore Ottoman suzerainty over Albania.
  2. The peasants were "willing listeners to Ottoman propaganda" per work published by CUP
  3. The rebels offered the throne of Albania to the Ottoman war minister, Izzet Pasha
  4. The rebels fought under Ottoman flag--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Pasztilla thanks for your input. But I think Wikipedia is doing a bit of a double standard here presently. On the one hand "nationalist" revolts are portrayed as just that even though many who participated were just peasants hoping for better days. As for this one, I have done some searching and I have not yet come across a paper that does not describe the revolt as either "(Sunni) Islamic (chauvinist)", "Pro-Ottoman", "Pro-Turkish" or some combination. Given that Constantinople was the (Sunni) caliphate, the three terms approach synonymy at times; indeed it's noted that people who are now viewed as Albanian nationalist heroes include Sunnis like Isa Boletini who was quite unhappy about this at first. There are plenty of points I could add in addition to what Antid said. The "peasant" crap is absent from papers that are not written by Enver Hoxha and cronies or based on their work, that is. Modern Albanian and Albanological scholarship seems to have totally dismembered the "egalitarian peasant" thesis, here's Jonilda Rrapaj: They went so far as to describe as “revolutionary” and progressive (anti-feudal) what in fact was a reactionary Muslim uprising (known as Haxhi Qamili uprising)... The rebels requested a return to Ottoman rule or at least an Ottoman Prince to lead Albania instead of a Christian Prince, the use of Ottoman Turkish as the national language, and the use of the Ottoman flag.”
Near hilariously, a revolt that was in part supported by people who were trying to preserve their feudal land privileges (based on the millet in sharia), is somehow "egalitarian". Unless you have multiple modern sources that back it, giving any credence beyond historiographical discussion of Hoxha's bullshit, intended to prove the "truth" about the revolutionary nature of Albanian peasants and that religion had "never" divided Albanians (both bull), seems massively UNDUE. The only source saying this I've seen is Elsie (rip), who is more moderate than Hoxha's thesis although he doesn't seem to have researched the revolt specifically (also he says the Melami were "committed to social equality" but nearly all Muslim and Christian sects have some sort of theoretical reverence for "equality" but that is a poor predictor of the reality).
Though I don't think we can't use them, primary sources also had reports about Sunnis attacking Bektashis, an episode where a priest, before being attacked, was interrogated on whether he was "Albanian or Ottoman" (note the disjunction), and now we have on the page how the presence of Albanian nationalism seems to have hindered the spread of the uprising in Elbasan-- cementing the view that this was a pro-Ottoman and also anti-Albanian (nationalist) revolt.
On a side note, as per Haxhi Feza (or Haxhifeza) if you wish, it's notable that he got disillusioned and quit, and Haxhi Qamili sentenced him for it. I've added it to the page. Important thing to note when discussing his role.
As for the name, any of the three names (Haxhi Qamili revolt, Central Albanian Revolt, Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt) is acceptable to me, but I'd like to raise a few points.
  1. . Haxhi Qamili revolt is the preferred name in Albanian literature right now, and if that does not become the name, it should be stated in the lede to help people find more info about it.
  2. . Central Albanian Revolt is misleading not only because Vlore (although locals didn't support the uprising) was taken by the rebels Berat is easily "Central Albania" imo, but also because there were swathes of Central Albania which were either ambivalent or even opposed the uprising.
  3. . Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt might be seen as a bit vague, though I still support it if that is what the majority supports as the name does fit. --Calthinus (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You got me wrong, I wasn't saying that the current "peasant" is good, I was only saying that "pro-ottoman" would not be any better in my oppinion. Besides, you don't have to convince me that Osmanism was one of the reasons, I know that and I also said that. All I am saying is that it was just one of the few main motivations (Osmanism, anti-Wied, etc.), the revolt was a mosaic and we will fail if we promote only one of the mosaic tiles to be part of the name. Using a proper noun, let it be the area or the person the revolt is linked to seems to be a much better idea. That said and reading Calthinus, I also change my previous view around naming it Haxhi Qamili Revolt, HQ being the emblematic figure of the events, and I also think this would be a good solution and way more neutral.
„The revolt was not isolated to Central Albania”. It all depends on the definition, but debating that the main theater of the events was Central Albania, the centers of the rebels Shijak, Tirana and Elbasan, just because on 1st Sept they also entered Vlora is not something I am eager to handle. It is although safe to say that South was under Greek/Epirote occupation and North was not supporting the revolt.
„You are wrong when you try to connect this revolt with Republic of Central Albania”. I am not doing anything like that, authors do on the basis that it was Esat Toptani who gave guns and ammunition to the peasants of his latifundia in Central Albania and when he was arrested and exiled on May 19, two days later on May 21 his armed men started the rebel in Kavaja. When on 26-28 May the International Commission of Control was negotiating with the rebels, they said that the main reason of the revolt was the dismissal of Esat, „the martyr of the islam faith”. This very same Esat was presiding the Central Albanian Republic earlier that year and was taking over the power from the rebels in Oct.
„The Ottoman Empire organized and supported it. As soon as Great Powers installed German prince to govern newly established principality, the Ottoman Empire sent agents to encourage a revolt, hoping to restore Ottoman suzerainty over Albania.” Source and proof? Jelavich, Jacques and others mention that there are theories about the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Italy or Serbia (or all the four) backing the revolt, but I undertand none of these is proved and they remain a theory. Even if it was true, not sure I understand why it would imply that the revolt was exclusively pro-ottoman? The fact that the rebels cooporated with the epirotes would imply that the revolt was pro-Greek? I don't think so. There is more proofs that the Turks indeed supported the Grebenali Affair that happened in Jan 1914 in Vlora.
„The rebels offered the throne of Albania to the Ottoman war minister, Izzet Pasha.” Ok, now I'm sure you think of the Grebenali Affair where Izzet's name was brought up. After the victory of the revolt being in question here the rebels offered the throne to Mehmed Burhaneddin Efendi, one of the sons of Abdul Hamid II.
„The rebels fought under Ottoman flag.” Absolutely. And they reaved and burned latifundia. And their main claim was the abdication of Wied. And they wanted an Albanian alphabet with Arabic letters. Sometimes they said, they are okay with a Muslim prince, they do not want the Ottoman Empire back. And so on. Mosaic.
„there were swathes of Central Albania which were either ambivalent or even opposed the uprising.” True. Same statement applies to the Central Albanian Republic, I am not supporting to rename that article either.
Finally, I am not inventing the wheel here. Kryengritja e Shqipërisë së Mesme is also a term used in Albanian historiography. Pasztilla (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
OFF: Are you interested in antique times, too? I am not editing enwiki too much, and unsure how to handle this: Talk:Apollonia_(Illyria)#City foundation in 588 BC. Sorry for bringing it up here. Pasztilla (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:AT "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Not Albanian language sources.
  • Regarding Elsie, he extensively studied this event and in one of his works he clearly refers to it as "an uprising of pro-Ottoman forces" (link)
If the rebels fought under Ottoman flag, with their demands being total amnesty and return of Albania under suzerainty of sultan of Ottoman Empire(per RS used in the article), offering to Ottoman war minister or to the son of the sultan to lead the provisional government planned for merging with the Ottoman Empire - I can not think about more pro-Ottoman uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I made my point, I cannot add more. Again: I did not say Osmanism was not one of the main reasons, I only said mosaic, mosaic, mosaic and I was supporting either Qamili or Central Albania being part of the name, as this would be less biased. So I am not entirely sure why you coming up always by pushing the Osmanism, we should discuss instead what is against Haxhi Qamili revolt or Central Albanian revolt. In terms of English language sources, here above Calthinus brought up what Albanian historians use, this is why I added argument for Central Albanian Revolt. But, Central Albania as the theater of the events is there in English sources, too. Same Robert Elsie that you are referring to also called the revolt "Muslim uprising in central Albania, in particular against Prince Wilhelm zu Wied" and "rebels, mostly illiterate peasants", "throughout Central Albania", and so on (BiogrDictAlbHist 376–377.). Miranda Vickers, Edwin E. Jacques, Owen Pearson all mention Central Albania and anti-government nature of the revolt, other things like Islamism, Osmanism, etc. are randomly mentioned. Edith Durham herself, witnessing the events, used these words: "insurrection is rampant throughout Central Albania" (insurrection = anti-government). Bernd J Fischer keeps referring to it as simple as "insurrection" in the Zog monography. Etc. Pasztilla (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Even the "Muslim revolt" is much more acceptable to me than osmanist. Pasztilla (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You linked Elsie's page and tell that he calls the revolt "an uprising of pro-Ottoman forces". Sources should be handled more carefully. You again mix up the Central Albanian revolt with the Grebenali affair taking place in January 1914 in Vlora. Elsie calls the Grebenali affair a "pro-Ottoman uprising" on that page which is in line with what I said above. In terms of the revolt being in question here Elsie on the same page mentions: "unrest in Central Albania", "Muslims ... uneasy about the fall of their Muslim Ottoman Empire", "Whatever the reason was for the uprising", "direct threat to the administration of Wied", "Muslim rebels". Pasztilla (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Pasztilla (just to clarify when your refer to "Osmanism" is it Ottomanism?). The revolt overall was driven by Muslims wanting to preserve Islamic unity of the Umma and not ending up under an imposed foreign Christian monarch or partitioned under a Christian Greece or Serbia. The revolt's overtones and aims are Muslim and the movement was spearheaded by Islamic clerics with conservative Muslims as peasantry participating in addition to the elite. The scholarship in the end highlights overwhelmingly this was done for Islam, and the Sultan who was also caliph (the unitary symbol personified for Muslims of the time), but not for the concept of Ottomanism (apart from some in the elite). I would support the article being renamed as Muslim Revolt in Albania, Muslim Uprising in Albania or even Revolt of Haxhi Qamili, but not the POV Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt.Resnjari (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OFF: Sorry, my bad, I'm Hungarian and in the Hungarian historiography the word oszmanizmus is used which comes from the Turkish Osmanlicilik, but yes, this is interchangeable with Ottomanism that is used in English for the same. Pasztilla (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, cool, thanks for the clarification. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Resnjari. Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt is a POV title that is not based on academic studies. Based on academics such as Shpuza and Buda that have written extensively on the event and are the sources where non-Albanian scholars base their work, Revolt of Haxhi Qamili is the only title that is appropriate. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Pasztilla, Ktrimi991, i am more inclined toward Calthinus' very first suggestion in the article being called Revolt of Haxhi Qamili. The Haxhi Qamili title steers clear of issues or replicating history wars' type debates currently been done by Albanian historians, so any additional words like "pro-Ottoman" etc and we cross into POV territory. Best to avoid that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Pasztilla (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay it looks like the consensus is shifting to Haxhi Qamili Revolt so I will support that. Pasztilla I was gonna post a long reply to you but unfortunately I lack the time -- I dropped you an email with someone I know who had actually mentioned that about Apollonia to me before, so I hope that might help. Also, Resnjari I could never agree to "Muslim Revolt" on any grounds (tbh a bit surprised you suggested this), that's far worse than "Pro-Ottoman" as it implies that the revolt was somehow "representative" of Islam, Muslims or the Albanian incarnations of them. It wasn't: many (probably most?) Muslims in Albania opposed it, and many Muslims fought against it. If that was included in the title, the reader would instantly associate, mistakenly, the revolt with Albanian Muslims/Islam. I have seen pro-osman(e)/pro-Ottoman (Albanian and Hungarian are much more faithful linguistically here, idk why English uses "Ottoman") in both the English-language and Albanian-language literature, but to be fair, there were some good points brought up here about neutrality -- Albanians have also used dumbabes for the revolt, which is hilariously non-neutral (translation: want-Daddy-ist, because of the motto "duam baben, Turqine"). Koszonom. --Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus, I probably should clarify on what i meant as these articles can be a bit much sometimes. The revolt overall had the Muslim religious element there, obviously not all but it was there and one of the main things binding the different interest groups, the peasantry, clerics, the local elite in this rebellion. For example support for the sultan did not outright equate support for a Young Turk government. By then relations between (Muslim) Albanians and the Young Turks had soured immensely due to their polices. The sultan though was still a figurehead that transcended all the shenanigans of the era as his role of caliph (-in a traditional sense not the bs of recent years). In the context of possible partition by Serbia and Greece, Prince Wied -someone unknown and appeared to be for locals another instrument of European machinations hosted upon them, the Muslim factor (with a return to the sultan for security) along with clergy was the main factor that these interest groups coalesced to prevent worse fates which they got a taste of during the Balkan Wars. The Young Turks also knew how too work upon those concerns by sending Izet Pasha an Albanian to reassert control etc etc and claim the rebellion for the Ottomans. Anyway, the Haxhi Qamili title works best here.Resnjari (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that "pro-Ottoman" was vague as there were internal divisions among Albanians (Sunni ones that is, obv the rest wanted nothing to do with either) on whether to support the Young Turks the Sultan or whatever (Kosovars revolted against the Young Turks in favor of the Sultan). OFF: As usual I agree on the contribution of the "Muslim element" to the preservation of the territorial integrity of Albania, while also noting the Catholics and Orthodox who fought and died to preserve it-- especially Catholics in Malesia who contained Montenegro and also won some of the major first battles against the Turks, and the Orthodox from Korca and Dangellia in the US who persuaded Woodrow Wilson to intervene when Serbia and Greece tried to partition Albania again after WWI. But I really hope you're not suggesting that Haxhi Qamili and his friends are somehow the same as the "Muslim element" (kinda vague as the Bektashi element in fact behaves quite different from the "Sunni element" vis-a-vis Istanbul) that helped sustain Albania's territorial integrity -- much the opposite, as far as I've read, they had a tactical alliance with North Epirus. Makes sense-- why wouldn't they want to get rid of Albanian Christians who might demand their civil rights, given that their shtick was a return to the laws that privileged Muslims (abolished by the Porte in fact)? I wouldn't equate the "Muslim element" or even the "Sunni element" with what was essentially "Sunni (chauvinist) rage" that their privileges were getting eroded and "kauret" would be in gov't positions. --Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus, With the elite yes it was mainly the issue of privileges for them (with a dose of sectarianism), and that's how the young Turks tired and somewhat were able to exploit the situation. Its a tried and tested means throughout time, exploit the peasantry to keep gains at the top by making them think that their interests are the same of the higher ups. Clerics were involved in a way to rally people to this revolt, using the sultan as a symbolic means, thus having its Muslim overtones/element. It doesn't mean that these were ISIS like fanatics. It was an appeal of wanting something they knew back, instead of something they rather never knew until 1912-1913 such as forced population movements, massacres, village burning etc during the Balkan wars. Those wars left their mark on the people, Europe did little and their solution was the unknown Wied, the conditions were ripe to exploit the fears of the peasantry of what happened in the Balkan wars. Of course Albanians from all religious backgrounds contributed to the establishment of the state, but it was fragile and creating a sense of safety in a region that has and still sees Albanians as something unwanted has haunted the Albanian Balkan space ever since. Anyway for this article, the Haxhi Qamili should be the one as its neutral. For other editors who want "pro-Ottoman" in the title, we don't name articles for example as the Greek pro-Russian Orlov revolt, even though most of the enterprise was Russian inspired, planned, funded and also fought by them alongside local supporters, etc. Otherwise the article would be POV.Resnjari (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari Well we have no idea what the peasants involved thought due to sourcing issues. It's just as likely they were motivated by "unease" as fear of being ruled by "kaur scum", we have no idea-- no one made the ISIS analogy, a much better one for the latter possibility, though still imperfect one, of the sentiment would be modern white pride movements in the US, although this doesn't perfectly map as increasing globalization does not equate to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (this also illustrates why I would oppose the "Muslim" name-- we don't call those things "white movements", they are "white supremacist/chauvinist movements"). Don't forget these were a lot of the same sorts of people who had earlier revolted against the Porte because the Porte was granting Christians rights and centralizing. Rrapaj and Pahumi write well about the tension in the League of Prizren -- between the progressives led by Frasheri (a Bektashi, not a Sunni) who sought an autonomous Albania where all would be equal, and the conservatives, who wanted the league to be called "the league of true Muslims" and defend only the rights of Muslims, regardless of ethnicity. One can't whitewash (no pun intended) the role of those who fought not for Albania, but for Islam, and at the expense of other Albanians of different faiths-- those who tried to make the League of Prizren about Islam, who contemplated taking up arms against the Latin alphabet in 1909, and who may have even made alliances wiht the enemies of Albania -- the same states that were ethnic cleansing Albanian Muslims elsewhere!-- in order to seize power. In truth there's usually multiple causes to any event though. Anyhow on the name, I think we should just move it already as there seems to be no opposition, just interesting discussion.--Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
lol, ok agreed. Calthinus hopefully the more research is done into this the better to remedy much on this interesting revolt during a precarious period in Albanian history. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the reason why some authors call the revolt "Islamist", not "Muslim". Pasztilla (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Depends how Islamist is defined. The word from a 1970s-present connotation is different to what it meant back then which was not used for these events. In some circles on the right these days there is a tendency to place the present day definition of Islamist retrospectively. I rather avoid that here. Best.
  • I object renaming this article to vague Haxhi Qamili title because it does not meet WP:AT criteria. Recognizability – nobody would recognize this revolt titled with Qamili's name, while everybody would recognize it if it is titled as "Albanian Pro-Ottoman" because anybody who is familiar with the topic, but not necessarily expert in it, know that Albanians revolted against their government. They carried Ottoman flags and demanded return of Albania under suzerainty of sultan of Ottoman Empire. That is why "Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt" would be natural and precise name. Yes it is descriptive name because there is no commonly used name in sources on English langauge. Albanian langauge works of Shpuza and Buda are irrelevant for this discussion. Elsie clarifies that the plot of pro-Ottoman Albanians began in 1913, which does not mean that 1914 revolt was not pro-Ottoman. On the contrary. There is nothing POV with titling this revolt with its recognizable, natural and precise descriptive name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The event has many names, the Revolt of Haxhi Qamili is recognisable and not POV, increasingly used in scholarship when dealing with this event. The proposal to have "Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt" is POV for reasons outlined above. As i said with the Orlov example, and this can be said of many revolts relating to Serbs or the Greeks, we do not do POVish additions to names of those revolts as being Serbian pro-Russian or Greek pro-Russian this or that. Reason being because even though it would be a recognizable, natural and precise descriptive name (due to it being reflective of content within the article) as many of those events were instigated, funded etc by Russia and local forces against the Ottomans; overall it would be POV, so we don't go there.Resnjari (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  1. You said: even though it would be a recognizable, natural and precise descriptive name...overall it would be POV . Please be so kind to carefully explain why instead of repeating and throwing POV accusations around regarding the proposed title suported by multiple editors. I sincerely apologize but I fail to understand what is exactly POVish in the proposed title "Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt". Who revolted? Albanians. What did they want? To return of Albania under suzerainty of sultan of Ottoman Empire.
  2. I specified at least three out of five WP:AT criteria for "Albanian Pro-Ottoman revolt" which is recognizable, natural and precise descriptive name. What criteria support Qamili version?
  3. What is exactly Greek rebelion you had in mind? Did Greek rebels requested unification of Greece with Russia, carrying Russian flags? If not, why do you use comparison with Greek rebelion?
  4. Speaking of WP:OSE arguments - There are, of course, plenty of articles about pro-Foo rebellions or anti-Foo rebelions, ie: Philippine revolts against Spain or 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The last one (2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine) has been determined after numerous move discussions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have explained, and so have others. To paraphrase you said in your previous comments to the effect that Albanian historiography ought to be ignored, yet that is the main historiography which focuses on this event. The name there being used is in essence the Revolt of Haxhi Qamili. I am well aware that Albanians were involved in the revolt, however not all Albanians were as has been pointed out by other editors, so having Albanian in the title is an issue considering that Albanians also opposed it. on the pro-Ottoman matter i invoked other examples (and i was refering to Ottoman era rebellions) because they don't use pro-Russian in their title though those people who partook in the rebellions where very much connected to the Russians (and in those rebellions the aim was to throw off Ottoman control, what was to come after was not the focus -Russian control, reconstituted Byzantine Empire etc). For this article, the Revolt of Haxhi Qamili is the least problematic title and not POV. I am also fine with the current name too.Resnjari (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid you misinterpreted my position. Please do not repeat such misintrepretation in future. I never said that Albanian historiography ought to be ignored. I regularly use works of Albanian historiography in my editing wikipedia. Here is what I said: Per WP:AT "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Not Albanian language sources.. The wikipedia policy i quoted was basis for my position re Albanian language sources (or any other non-English sources). Almost all sources used in the article are English langauge sources, so your hipothesis about Albanian language sources as the main historiography which focuses on this event is incorrect.
You refused to reply to my straightforward questions about WP:AT criteria that support Qamili version. How can you and anybody else expect that this article should be renamed if you did not present a single WP:AT argument for your position? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I paraphrased you, and i said that in my comment above. On wiki AT, on sources in English, all you have done is cite Elsie that's fine however its a page on his website, not something he has published in journal or book meeting wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The policy notes that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." is in reference to published scholarship. In English language scholarship what is the most used name for this revolt by scholars? Regardless of inner workings off the revolt the pro-Ottoman thing is new for its name also causing issues with WP:NDESC in it being POV.Resnjari (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You continue to refuse to reply to my straightforward questions about WP:AT criteria that support Qamili version and to carefully explain what is POV in "Albanian Pro-Ottoman Revolt".
  • On the other hand you insist that I should present commonly used name for this revolt in English language sources although I already stated that that I proposed descriptive name because there is no commonly used name in sources on English langauge except maybe the current title which nobody supports.
I think I gave fairly clear reason for my position and I do not have anything else to add to it now. I understand that you are not satisfied with my position, but you can not expect me to be somehow obliged to keep it discussion with you as long as you are dissatisfied, while refusing to reply to important straightforward questions in the same time. Unless somebody present valid arguments grounded in wikipedia policies this will be my last comment on this page. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
You made reference to sources, so then i turned my attention to that matter. Your the one wanting change so you noted a lot of history, ok however the name of the event is the issue. As you made reference to English language sources (ok, fine) and based your arguments on that, i pointed out that the Elsie source provided is not a published one, but on his personal website. If we are going to make changes of the sort and we stick by policy scholarly sources then are a very good starting point. Find them that use "pro-Ottoman" as a term to name this event and we can take it from there instead of having this unproductive back and forth.Resnjari (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I already draw your attention to the fact that the only source cited so far, the homepage of Elsie, refers to the Grebenali affair taking place in January 1914 when using the "pro-Ottoman" term. Please respect this. The Grebenali Affair does not have any connection at all to the revolt breaking out in May 1914 that we are talking about here. I also listed a few authors here above, none of them calls the revolt "pro-Ottoman". A source has to be cited for backing sour standpoint I think. Pasztilla (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I already replied that Elsie clarifies that the plot of pro-Ottoman Albanians began in 1913, which does not mean that 1914 revolt was not pro-Ottoman. On the contrary.
  • All English language sources are screaming "Pro-Ottoman". Many of them are used in the article. They describe Pro-Ottoman forces inspired by pro-Ottoman propaganda during pro-Ottoman plot, Pro-Ottoman Albanians/Muslims/Peasants..... wearing Ottoman flags and requesting return of Albania under suzerainty of sultan of Ottoman Empire. Every single source is clearly portraying this revolt as Pro-Ottoman revolt in Albania. None of them connects it strongly to Qamili who was only one of its leaders. If you insist on source which directly names the revolt as pro-Ottoman, here it is: The Islamic Quarterly. Islamic Cultural Centre. 1998. p. 279. ... pro-Ottoman peasant revolt in Albania... 
I addressed every single concern you brought and replied to all questions. If you insist to rename this revolt to Qamili version somebody will have to reply to my above questions about what WP:AT criteria are better met by Qamili version and what is POV in this revolt in Albania being "Pro-Ottoman". All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Elsie source you cited was something he wrote on a page on his website (and it was not an extract of something published as with some other content on the site). I did a bit of a search on this issue to see if English language sources were indeed "screaming" on this matter as you infer. So far its one source, the Islamic Quarterly that refers to the event with those terms. Other names for this event in the English language are: "—— Peasant Uprising, 1914-1915 BT Peasant uprisings—Albania ——" [1], [2], [3] (Library of Congress -covering a span of years); "peasant revolt" [4] (Encyclopedia Britannica); "Muslim peasant uprising" [5] (Barjaba). If anything the word uprising seems to be a a thread for the naming of the event.Resnjari (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator your points about the fact that we do use "Pro-Russian" etc for things in Ukraine and so on are well taken in my opinion. And you're also right, aside from Hoxha few sources would dispute that it's pro-Ottoman. Similarly the Orlov revolt isn't a good comparison since Greeks weren't requesting annexation. But-- Pasztilla is also right, it picks out one aspect of the uprising and elevates it above others. It's a bit more complicated than what's going in Ukraine in terms of forces at work imo.--Calthinus (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
You replied that indeed, but you are mistaken. First the pro-Ottoman plot, and I am saying this the third time, is the Grebenali Affair taking place in Vlora in Jan 1914. Plot is a secretely planned action, plot is not an uprising. The plot is the Grebenali Affair. Besides this the only relation that Elsie draws between 1913 and the revolt we are talking about here is this: „The uprising began in mid-May 1914, but had its origins in 1913, when the newly independent government in Vlora founded the Albanian National Bank. Important concessions were made to Austrian and Italian financial interests and the rebels, mostly illiterate peasants from the regions of Shijak, Kavaja and Tirana, were afraid that their land would be bought up and taken away from them.” (A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History, pp. 376.) Can you point out for me where is the pro-Osmanism in this statement?
All English language sources scream "Pro-Ottoman". I would say not exactly. You could not bring up even one (again: Elsie talks about the Grebenali Affair). Unfortunately I cannot access the Islamic Quarterly link you provided. Pasztilla (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I took the time and listed some terms and statements from the most common monographs of the Albanian history (not all of them obviously).
Pearson, Albania and King Zog, 2004, pp. 65–79., „Turcophile insurrection”, „Esad pasha partisans”, „Moslem peasants… fearing that the King, as a Christian, intended to suppress the Islamic faith… and even shipping them to Turkey on account of their religion”, „insurgents”, „their demands chiefly of a religious character”, „asked for the appointment of a Moslem member of the Control Commission”, „restoration of the Turkish suzerainty”, „demand for agrarian reform”, „rebels were unwilling to reconcile themselves with his [Wied’s] government”, „could not recognize him as their lawful sovereign”, „they demanded exemption from military services and taxes for ten years … on these conditions they agreed to recognize the King and the Albanian flag”, „insurgents”, „the insurgents offered Zogu a powerful position in the cabinet of their proposed Central Albanian Republic”, „driving out the foreign tyrant”, „Esadist insurgent movement”, „Esadist central Albanian insurgents”
Jacques, The Albanians, 2009, pp. 356–357., the title of the chapter „The Alienation of Central Albania”, „uprising among his Toptani relatives in the Tirana region”, „hoisted the Turkish flag and announced themselves in revolution against the government”, „Essad Movement”, „Muslim peasants”, „who feared that they were going to be massacred by the European prince, or even deported to Turkey”, „armed resistance”, „much of central Albania was fighting against the Durrës government”, „insurgents”.
Fischer, King Zog and the Struggle for Stability in Albania, 2012, pp. 9., „insurrection dragged on”, „Moslems had been stirred up against the Christian Prince and Wied’s reliance on the conservative landowning class alienated the peasantry”, „insurgents”
Vickers, The Albanians, 2013, pp. 79–81: „Bosnian Muslims of Bazar Shijak who believed that Prince Wied intended to deport them to Turkey”, „central Albania rose in revolt”, „insurgents”, „peasant disturbences”, „Ottoman agents further convinced the peasants of Shijak that Wied was anti-Muslim”, „Young Turks”, „called for a Muslim prince”, „insurgents set up a Senate for Central Albania”, „sent a delegate to Istanbul to offer the Sultan the crown of Albania”, „there were still those who supported the idea f the reunion of Albania with the Ottoman Empire”,
Zavalani, History of Albania, 2015, pp. 156., „rebel movement in central Albania demanding a return of the sultan’s regime” [that’s all by Zavalani]
This is what I kept saying since the beginning. This is a chaotic mosaic of aims, goals and motifs. The most descriptive and most general term I see everywhere is „insurgents”, „anti-government”, „anti-Wied” and my initial position about „Central Albania” either. I think that promoting either pro-Ottoman or Islamist, either egalitarian or anti-feudal from the above mosaic, and wipe away those few terms in which there seemingly is a consensus is POV. A consensus in the sources, not among us. Pasztilla (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that earlier you warned me not to figure out an imaginary link between the Central Albanian Republic and the 1914 revolt, although I was just echoing what historians had put down, by seeing the figure of Esat Pasha in the background of both. Now you seem to tie the Pro-Ottoman plot in Vlora with the Central Albanian uprising, but I am not aware of any study or paper that brought up such connections. Pasztilla (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Situation Wied had to face with[edit]

Now I see a listing of internal and external problems Wied had to face with and I see three items with which I see problems.

  1. „the International Commission of Control and foreign advisers who still had great deal of authority”, all the sources, incl Wied's aide-de-camp Armstrong's diary mention that Wied was completely ignoring the ICC, even sending them back to Vlora right after his arrival, and it was one of his biggest mistakes. Being completely inexperienced in politics and diplomacy and Balkans affairs, he should have relied on ICC, but he didn't do so. In the 2014 volume of Südost-Forschungen there is a paper, titled Die Intenrationale Kontrollkommission Albaniens und die albanischen Machtzentren (1913/1914) that based on archive documents discusses the history of the ICC in great details and concludes that the international body did not have authority whatsoever and they were unable to deal with the internal/external situation.
  2. „The resistance in Northern Epirus, which was finally given a special administration by Protocol of Corfu”. Protocol of Corfu was a piece of paper, nothing else, it didn't provide any respected administration. It was only signed by the Great Powers and the Përmeti cabinet in June 1914 (Wied came on 7th of March), but the Greeks and Epirotes never accepted it. True, on May 17 when they met the representatives of the ICC at Corfu, they inclined to agree, but that was the end of the story. Even Harry Lamb, the English member of the ICC told that the protocol was completely irrealistic and it was going to end up at the scrap-heap (see Pearson 2004, p. 64.).
  3. „the fighting between forces under control of Essad Pasha Toptani and the Provisional Government of Albania”. This is a time anomaly. Qemali's government resigned on 15 Jan and de iure handed over the rule to the ICC on 22 Jan. There were no fightings between Esat and Ismail Qemali's forces by the time Wied arrived to the country. Pasztilla (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Your first two forum-like observations are not related to the text of the article. Please avoid comments like that in future. Wikipedia is not forum. The first one even contradicts itself. Re time anomaly, the text about struggle between Esad and Kemali chronologically comes in the end of 1913 when Wied was already chosen as prince, but not yet came to Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not getting this. What is forum like and what is not related to the text of the article? You are definitely unfriendly and are not to the point. Please avoid this in the future. Pasztilla (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject." Your observation that Wied was completely ignoring the ICC, even sending them back to Vlora right after his arrival, and it was one of his biggest mistakes although the ICC ... did not have authority whatsoever and they were unable to deal with the internal/external situation looked like particularly forum like observation with zero potential for improving of the article. I deeply and sincerely apologize if I was wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically on English wiki at least we have a convention that you're not supposed to simply discuss the topic without talking about improving the mainspace page on the talk pages. That is a rule, but you didn't violate it imo ("wikilawyering" is also against conventions, of course, though I notice some people editing Balkan topics are quite fond of doing it...). Anyhow, I have nothing against modifications to the page based ont he points you brought up. --Calthinus (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Ohhh, I brought these up exactly with the intent of improving, Just I don’t want to edit before discussing it. Pasztilla (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I know haha (tbh I have observed every single person on this page except Ktrimi maybe violate WP:FORUM so it's far from a biggie). On some pages that's a very good idea. But I see nothing wrong with fixing what you brought up. Just go ahead. If there's any issues I'm sure you'll be pinged back here. --Calthinus (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus, Pasztilla, Source on Wied being duped on the Northern Epirus thing, as per Austin [6] p.91. which may interest both of you.Resnjari (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Protocol of Corfu was signed and ratified by the Albanian government. The fact that the Albanian state was in a state of anarchy and couldn't guarantee it's implementation is another issue that can be mentioned.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It appears that O’Brien, Tara Ashley. "Manufacturing Homogeneity in the Modern Albanian Nation-Building Project" sheds light on the issue: p. 68: ... These events reveal a lack of Albanian nationalism and national consciousness etc. and the overall disagreement among Albanians for the creation of an independent Albanian state and the return to the pre-1912 status-quoAlexikoua (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Corfu protocol was exemplary of an age of European imperialism and gunboat diplomacy. To quote Austin According to Greek sources, the agreement met with the unreserved approval of the Prince of Wied. Wied, as noted, had arrived in Albania with virtually no idea what to expect, and one of the orders of business was to deal with events in southern Albania. under the leadership of George Zographos, the Greek Epirots had succeeded in establishing an independent Northern Epirus. Under pressure from all sides, including Greece, Zographos agreed to negotiate a settlement, and the end result was, in effect, full autonomy under the purely hegemony of Prince Wied. Albanian historians argue, and not without foundation, not only that Wied did not know what he was doing, but also that the agreement was forced upon him by Greece and the Allied Control Commission. The scholarship speaks for itself. I can introduce Psomas here on national identity if you want to go there (pp. 263–264, 272, 280–281. [7]). The events of the Balkan wars and the imposed Northern Epirus debacle caused Albanians to want to assert themselves as a cultural unit, first with an attempted revival of the status quo by some which was thought would provide safety and later during and after WW1 to govern themselves. Wied lost whatever credibility he might have had due in part to the protocol, one that the international community did not recognise as valid after WW1 (Austin p.94). For a leader like Wied who was not viewed as legitimate, uprisings like this one at times follow on.Resnjari (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The uprisings both in Northern Epirus and in central Albania indicate that there was a lack of Albanian national consciousness in the region. No wonder Wied left the region the following September. The article should be focused on the desire of the local population to return to the pre-1912 status: they had no desire to be part of a newly-established Albanian state (O'Brien p. 68-70).Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Psomas, notes other issues. Its not that there was no Albanian consciousness per se, it was not the main identity marker for many. And yet in the space of a few years (as per Psomas, pp. 263–264, 272, 280–281.) that changes rapidly during and after WW1. On the Northern Epirus matter Orthodox Albanians where the factor that led to the region staying in Albania (as per Psomas).Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Psomas says nothing about the Muslim revolt that succeed to overthrow the leadership of the newly established Albanian state. After all this Muslim uprising was at the very core of Albania. The article should be further expanded based on O'Brien's detailed study.Alexikoua (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Psomas doesn't but others do. It seems excessive to argue that there was a total ack of Albanian national consciousness... no desire to be part of a newly-established Albanian state. If that's so, where did Albanian nationalists come from. The West? The moon? Of course there were large parts of the population that adhered to identities that were rival to the Albanian one; authors have written plenty about this. This isn't exclusive to Albanians -- as Ploumidis notes, there existed Orthodox Greeks who were loyal Ottoman citizens and supported continued Turkish rule. In Albania Catholics and Bektashis (~25% of the pop'l together and more than 25% of the territory since both were mostly rural) largely identified as Albanians as they had no other option, viewed themselves as the "most Albanian" and associated independence with freedom from Sunni rule. Orthodox and Sunnis had other options, so among both groups there were internal divisions, with the more progressive folks going "Albanian" and the more conservative and older ones sticking to their millet identity instincts. Many authors have noted these things. Psomas says as much for the Orthos in the south, Pahumi says so for the Muslims in the Central and Northern areas. The clash was especially evident where the alphabet was concerned -- the Bektashis and Catholics nearly universally supported the Latin Albanian alphabet, whereas the Sunni clergy opposed it, and part of the Orthodox clergy did too, with the Sunni and Orthodox flocks being split on the issue according to their political instincts. The opposition of conservative Sunnis in the North was so great to the alphabet (and the Albanian nationalist movement it symbolized) in 1909 that they contemplated violence against its users -- and then that was executed during this revolt. I can drop many cites here if necessary. In Korca and Gjirokastra and across the south, Bektashis and Orthodox (the latter often going against the directions of their priests) demonstrated in favor of the Latin alphabet.
There were also regional differences-- Carcani notes that the Muslims of Elbasan were Albanian patriots unlike those from near Tirana who were more conservative, and similarly Psomas notes that the Christians of Korca and surrounding regions (I'd add Kolonja, Dangellia) were highly nationalistic (Albanian that is), much more so than those near Gjirokastra and Delvina. Carcani also notes the progressiveness, nationalism and contributions of Elbasan's Orthodox from the city and Shpati. It's a losing battle to argue that Albanian identity was universal -- but it's also preposterous to argue it was absent. The page and others should reflect the complicated situation. Thanks for the O'Brien source, that's useful. --Calthinus (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break, segue to mainspace section proposal[edit]

Alexikoua I agree that O'Brien's study could be useful to the page. Actually I had an idea for everyone (tagging everyone Resnjari Pasztilla Ktrimi991 Antidiskriminator Vargmali for good measure Herakliu from the past of this page) that since the nature of the revolt is so heavily disputed, we could have a section presenting all the different viewpoints for the sake of NPOV and also informativity. Included would be :
1) The view of the revolt as having been due to the lack of sociopolitical legitimacy and general weakness of Wied. Resnjari brought some stuff up here. If this can be added in a non-synthy way that'd be great.
2) The Enverist view, partially adopted by Elsie later, of the revolt as a "peasant" revolt. For NPOV it is also important to balance this with the later excoriations of this thesis (by Rrapaj and various other authors). It's also good to explain the context of this view in Albanian communist historiography and the attempts to neutralize religious difference.
3) The view of the uprising as having arisen due to lack of or opposition to Albanian national consciousness. I'll rsp to Alexikoua more about this above, but O'Brien does say so, and others (Carcani etc) allude to it. It was a divided situation where some Albanians (typically of a more "progressive" bent, as Pahumi skillfully explains) identified as Albanian nationals and others as Ottomans and this played into the revolt. The situation with the Sunnis (progressive Albanians vs. conservative Ottomans) also existed for the Orthodox as Psomas notes though that may be slightly off-topic as he's talking about the far south.
4) The role of Muslim clergy and sentiments by a jealous Muslim elite guarding its privileges in the uprising.
5) On a related but not equivalent note, the view of the uprising as Ottoman/Turkish inspired/conducted. I believe Antidiskriminator alluded to (some sources saying? Didn't catch these, maybe you can specify). I think if sources say this it should be added to the page though I note the dispute between him and Pasztilla about this above.
6) If sources talk about what Resnjari said about a desire for stability that can also be mentioned.
Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus, Pasztilla, I came across this Elsie source though it has not been used in the wiki article. Even though its an entry about Haxhi Qamili, it has a few interesting sentences about the motivations and concerns of the peasantry involved [8] which are barely covered in the wiki article. Of notice (and i am paraphrasing Elsie here) is that the establishment of an Albanian national bank not being understood by the illiterate peasantry who interpreted it as some foreign conduit that could take their land. In this context it made them reactionary, distrustful of Albanian independence and Wied, making them want to restore the sultan and previous status quo. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This is what I also cited in the section above when answering back to Antidiskriminator, but to be honest I did not come across any other author that would draw a link between the National Bank affair and the mid-1914 revolt. First, the National Bank had mandate over the area governed by Qemali, that was roughly the Vlora region; central Albanian peasants living in Toptani's Central Albanian Republic must have had little concerns about it. Besides the initial fears around the National Bank didn't come true: Wiener Bankverein and Banca Commerciale d’Italia didn't buy up the lands of the poor at low price. If even such direct connection existed, it must have been overly indirect, also considering the time span (the bank was set up in early October, the revolt broke out almost 8 months later). The National Bank was indeed a rather suspicious thing, people around Vlora, Berat and Fier were indeed griping, but it was all over after Qemali's minister of finance, Abdi Toptani resigned. It was one milestone on the road for the Qemali government to fall, but being a reason for the mid-1914 revolt...? I think we have to mention this in the article as a theory attributed solely to Elsie. (And sorry for not reacting yet, Calthinus, busy days.) Pasztilla (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It's all good, everyone here snubbed me :). Resnjari could you quote the page? It's not letting me access it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
pp 376-377 Pasztilla (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok somehow it works for me now. I guess I'll begin working on a section that compares teh different interpretations of the uprising when I get some time in life.--Calthinus (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Pasztilla, my bad i must have overlooked it above. The discussion got to big and its a bit hard to remember what's what and who's who. But a mention would be ok, even if its Elsie who noted it by making an attempt to deduce some of the peasantry's views during those events. No snub, Calthinus i agree with what proposed above. On context and other related issues like that of Austin regarding Wied and the N.Epirus thing which was happening at the same time, only a sentence in the background would do just for context, only do what when time permits. Work life balance is very important, Wikipedia can always wait. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari apologies about the discussion, I definitely contributed to the length of it. Elsie is a great scholar but sometimes he might've got... "creative" on specific points of analysis, let's say. There were a couple times reading it that I saw linguistic arguments in his analysis that seemed really bold to me. Noel Malcolm is similar (he argues Albanian can't come from Thracian based on morphological patterns but... given how little we know there could easily be morphological differences among Thracian dialects). But he's still worth noting in a section that compares different views. I'll return to this ... months later probably. Lots of work to be done to fix this mess, lots of work needed elsewhere too. The snub comment was tongue-in-cheek, don't worry haha :). --Calthinus (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
lol, Calthinus, as much as i agree on Elsie i reckon a mention would be ok. Scholarship these days has attempted to look at the common folk (like Elsie does in this instance) and their concerns which is a good sign from the old days of arm chair historians looking at the higher ups and their motivations while sidelining the rest. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah sure a sentence would be okay. I'll type up a draft for a section in... a long time. It'll happen. --Calthinus (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)