Talk:Albanian revolt of 1912

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture[edit]

I think that it is not good to insert picture Mehmet Ruhi Arel, Askerler (Soldiers), 1915.jpg with description of askerlers (soldiers on turkish language) from 1915 in the article about events from 1912. Also author of the picture is less than 70 years old and I am afraid there is copyright violation too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The author is more than 70 years dead. Sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Corovic[edit]

An interwar Serbian author isn't RS, so please replace the source. Corovic seems to have been a nationalist (Thus, in the presented historical analyses, one could have noticed that the Serb scholars of the ecole national, like Vladimir Corovic, advocate that the Bosniak national body is made primarily of ethnic Serbs) and as such his works included views like This will to live, this resistance to the hardest blows, this capacity of reviving an almost inanimate organism, constitute one of the greatest qualities of the Serbian people and The much disputed Red Croatia actually existed, but the Serbian tribes from the interior, with more aggressivenes and vitality, narrowed its frontiers and finally submerged the country i.e his work is an outdated and POV source it. Of course if there is any accuracy to be found in his work there must be some other source that verifies the alleged events.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reliable sources, why has Bogdanovic's widely reviewed and regarded as part of the nationalist Serbian movement work been used? All of its uses can be avoided as many sources mention the events, but for future reference:
Reliability of the source depend on the context. Deleting Ćorović as source and inserting another source which claim the exactly the same as Ćorović is only a proof that Ćorović in fact is a reliable source, so please return deleted details into this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make OR deductions, not to mention that I couldn't find any sources that verify Corovic(the English-language sources have been used to replace Bogdanovic). --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. If you replaced Bogdanović with English sources claiming the same as Bogdanović that means that he is a reliable source in this context, so you should not use POV excuse to delete him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"@ZjarriRrethues: Don't delete cited addition of other users. That can be seen as tendentious editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the flaws in Corovic's scholarship outlined by modern reviewers (e.g., here), the use of Corovic as a source for any contentious statement is strongly deprecated. Please find a reliable modern source for the statement; there must be some modern historian who's made such a comment. I'll give you ten days. DS (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ćorović article says he "was a 20th-century Serbian historian, member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts". That certainly gives high level of credibility. I do AGF but taking this in consideration please be so kind to provide a link to verifiable source for your statement. The one you provided does not work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added that source too and please don't use wikipedia as a source. That being said being a member of any institution doesn't grant automatic reliability nor is any such institution automatically reliable. That being said there are many sources that use a much stronger wording than the one quoted like Zogic's Vladimir Ćorović: Pan-Serbianism, Bosnia and Bosniaks, so in the next 10 days please find a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source (official site of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts) which confirms that Vladimir Ćorović was a member of Academy. That certainly gives him very high level of credibility. This is not an article about Bosniaks or Bosnia, so you can not proclaim him non-reliable based on him being criticized about Bosnia issues. If you believe he is noot RS you are free to go to RSN. Otherwise I don't think he can be proclaimed as non-reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't dispute that he was a member, but pointed out that being a member of such an institution doesn't grant automatic reliability and such institutions aren't automatically reliable. That being said I can't/won't contribute anything else to this discussion. As DS said you have ten days to find a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need. Ćorović is reliable source whose credibility can not be disputed with him being criticized about Bosnia issues. I think you failed to present arguments that Ćorović is not RS. If you still intend to dispute the reliability of Ćorović you should go to RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unintend)Then after 10 days I'll remove everything attributed to Corovic and btw only one of the sources quoted mention him in relation to Bosnia (the one quoted by DS doesn't even mention Bosnia). Repeating a point ad infinitum doesn't raise its validity. As DS suggested you should look for a source in the next days. In the meantime you may want to read about Corovic's propaganda works that acted as the origin of the anti-Austrian sentiment in Serbian historiography[1]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DS presented the link to a blank page. You claim that he is criticized because of Bosnia and Austria issues. You did not present any argument that Ćorović is not reliable source in the context of this article. Therefore, if you delete text of this article which is properly sourced by Ćorović it would be disruptive tendentious editing, unless you can present link to RSN consensus about it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He presented the same link that I used when I started the discussion (Thus, in the presented historical analyses, one could have noticed that the Serb scholars of the ecole national, like Vladimir Corovic, advocate that the Bosniak national body is made primarily of ethnic Serbs). I suggest you do what DS suggested, instead of repeating ad infinitum that Corovic, a Serbian nationalist author who a)used his works to promote the idea of Greater Serbia([2] , and b)has been widely criticized and regarded as POV, is a reliable source. Enough said. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpeted the source because the link you presented actually says that Corovic is "famous Serbian historian" who in his work actually explained that it was Vuk Karadzic who supported Greater Serbia in his article "Serbs all and everywhere". You again failed to present the arguments that Ćorović is not RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)A famous historian that wrote a work on Greater Serbia (in favor of it actually if you read the book itself or reviews of it). Btw [3] (A prominent role in this movement was played by Moljevic and other supporters of the Serbian Cultural Club, a political organization whose leading figures included Nikola Stojanovic and Vladimir Corovic, Bosnian Serbs who two decades previously had rejected Great Serbianism in favour of Yugoslavism but were now the most hardline of Serb nationalists.) There are 9 days left before he is removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The link you brought again contains the criticism of Ćorović because of Bosnia. You again failed to justify your opinion that Corovic should not be used in this article. If you are not satisfied because you failed to gain consensus for your ideas on this talk page then you should go to RSN instead of repeating the same arguments.
  2. Even if you are right that Corovic and Bogdanovic were Serbian nationalists whose works presents "the Serbian perspective" of the events, that still does not mean they should not be used in this article. On the contrary. It is very important to present all significant views. Especially Serbian (if any unattained editor doesn't understand why I can explain on request). I already quoted Albanian nationalists like Hasan Pristina and Luigj Gurakuqi almost ten times in this article. Removing a couple of sentences supported by sources with Serbian perspective and leaving those with Albanian perspective would be against NPOV.
  3. Your claim that he wrote a work titled Greater Serbia because he was Serbian nationalist who was in favour of Greater Serbia is incorrect. I found many reviews of Corovic's book. All of them emphasize the following: Osnovna Coroviceva zamisao bila je da pokaze kako se od srpske drzavne ideje i misli o narodnom jedinstvu doslo do ujedinjenja juznih slovena. U knezevini i kraljevini Srbiji video je osnovnog nosioca te ideje, pa stoga pod naslovom knjige nije podrazumevao velikosrpski drzavnu organizaciju, vec njenu veliku i nezamenljivu ulogu u stvaranju Jugoslavije.. The main point translated to English is: "The main point of Corovic's opinion is that idea of Serbian state evolved into idea of South Slav's state (Yugoslavia). ..... the title of the book does not present Greater Serbian state organization but its role in creation of Jugoslavia". Here is a source which clearly emphasize something that can be easily found about Corovic: U političkom pogledu Ćorović je bio nacionalista-Jugosloven. Proučavajući tokom radnog veka istoriju južnoslovenskih i balkanskih naroda bio je ubeđeni zagovornik ideje čvrstog, nezavisnog Balkana i snažne jugoslovenske državne zajednice u njegovom središtu Translated: He was Jugoslav nationalist. .... he was in favor of strong and independent Balkans and strong Jugoslavia as its center. Conclusion: He was not Serbian but Yugoslavian nationalist who was not in favour of Greater Serbia but in favour of Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia no author described as an extreme nationalist is considered RS. I also never said that they present the Serbian perspective, which of course would be valuable if we were dealing with perspectives, but we're dealing with events that only Corovic mentions i.e as he's not RS, we won't mention them at all as long as no RS confirms them. Of course I'll remove Prishtina, Gurakuqi and almost all sources you've added too as they're not RS. For the sake of decorum I'll wait until the end of DS's deadline and then remove everything based on Corovic; afterwards I suggest you stick to RS. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote is again incorrect.
  1. On wikipedia no author described as an extreme nationalist is considered RS. - This assertion is incorrect in many ways. First, there is no universal reliability, it depends on the context. Additionally, the autors whose reliability you dispute were not "extreme nationalists". On the contrary, Corovic was internationally orientated (even described as Yugoslavian nationalist).
  2. I also never said that they present the Serbian perspective' Yes you did. diff
  3. Of course I'll remove Prishtina, Gurakuqi and almost all sources you've added too as they're not RS - Don't remove any source from this article unless you can provide consensus here or on RSN about them.
Please don't use this talkpage instead of RSN. My opinion is that you obviously don't have arguments for your point so going to RSN would be another waste of time and energy. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antid, why do you insist on using unreliable Corovic as a source? Majuru (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Antid. has been given a deadline by an admin and RSN deals with authors that are disputed not with outdated ones that are outrightly labeled hardline nationalists (i.e there doesn't exist any ambivalence regarding RS) . Antid. instisted that I mentioned a Serbian perspective (that's a quote from an author on a work of Bogdanovic not my comment), although I didn't use the terms or imply that this is a case of perspectives. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again incorrect:
  1. You did mention a "Serbian perspective" in your comment in which you mentioned a "Serbian perspective" diff when you quoted an author on a work of Bogdanovic.
  2. I think that your claim that "RSN deals with authors that are disputed not with outdated ones that are outrightly labeled hardline nationalists" is incorrect. Will you please be so kind to present a link to the policy which support this claim of yours?
This is a content dispute in which all users are equal, regardless if they are admins or not. Unless you present valid arguments for your point (or consensus reached here or on RSN) you should not mention any deadline for removal of the sources written by two 20th century historians both members of academy. Untill now you failed to do it. -Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that Corovic is labeled as a hardline nationalist author, who promoted biased historiography, which indicates concisely that he isn't WP:RS as such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Regarding /Prishtina/Bogdanovic/Gurakuqi there won't be any major content changes, but they'll be replaced with RS (the parts attributed to them can be verified in other sources). --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The link you presented refers to questionable sources: "with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" which can not be applied to regularly published works of two 20th century members of academy. You again failed to support your claims and justify your idea to remove Bogdanovic or Corovic. Don't remove any source from this article unless you can base such removal on consensus here or on RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albanian revolt of 1912. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Prishtina[edit]

Why are you removing the part where it says Hasan Prishtina was gonna declare independence ? It even says in the text that he wanted to declare independence.

Also , why did you remove the part from Aubrey Herbert, this revolt did defeat the Ottoman Empire and instigated the Balkan Wars , wich is the opinion among many historians for example. TheCreatorOne (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albanian_revolt_of_1912&oldid=1212135301"