Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The arguments for deletion are that the article was created in block evasion and that the material is already covered elsewhere. These are good arguments, but there is also a significant account of uninvolved keep and move votes who note that the depth of coverage is greater than elsewhere, and that the article is well sourced. Let us live with this, and possibly return to the deletion question in a year. Move can be proposed at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878[edit]

The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is already present in its neutral form at this article.--Zoupan 11:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. 23 editor (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a WP:POVFORK is not WP:IDL. 23 editor (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has placed for deletion at least 15 articles without any real rationale. How can you conclude to POVFORK if the talk page is empty? There are references provided.--Mondiad (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because this subject is already covered in a neutral manner in more then one place. Having references is not a problem for POVFORK. --Axiomus (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - blocking a user who has multiple accounts does not mean automatically to delete his/her articles. The article is referenced. The material is not huge and there is no POV. As much as the nominator might consider it "questionable", it talks about the ethnic cleansing of Albanians from south Serbia during 1878-79. If the topic is also covered at Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims as a section, here is more detailed and specific to 1878-79 cleansing of Albanian population only.
Also, I don't see the nominator making any comment or adding any discussion at the respective talk page. All this hurry to delete the user's articles after he was blocked is questionable.--Mondiad (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When article is POVFORK, there are no need for any further discussion. Also, this articles was made by blocked sockpuppet, and it would be deleted anyway, as created in violation of the block. after all, POVFORK should be deleted. --Axiomus (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As users already mentioned, article is WP:POVFORK. --Svetisrdj (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag The complaint seems to be that it is a POVFORK of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and should be redirected to a certain section of that, which this is described as the "main article". The section in question is disproportionately long, so that the better course might be to merge the long section in that article here (leaving a summary). Both articles have a feel about them that involves a lack of NPOV, but that ought to be capable of being cured by editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
POVFORKS should not be cured by editing, POVFORKS should be deleted, and main article should be cured, if possible. Section in main article is everything else but too long. If nothing else, that too should be deleted. --Axiomus (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a proper redirect is found at Expulsion of Albanians and Turks from Serbia (1877–78).--Zoupan 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be deleted. The redirect that you found is itself a redirect to Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims, so you haven't really found anything.--Mondiad (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you support forks doesn't mean it should be kept? That section is far more neutral and comprehensive that this one.--Zoupan 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in all the other cases for this series of nominations. If there are issues with the article - tag it for improvement. If it's so POV that it's beyond any hope - explain why, what sources can be used to counter existing, etc. etc. Saying "article is questionable and highly POV" just doesn't cut it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the article is poorly written, tendentious, one-sided, even in its title, and contains information already covered by related articles. Sideshow Bob 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see my revised opinion below) as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. Little evidence that this topic, as formulated here, is discussed in reliable sources. The events of 1877-8 are complex. There were wars in which Balkan peoples and states fought against the Ottoman Empire. There were movements of population that can, depending on POV, be discusses as Muslims fleeing the prospect of live under Christian government, Ottomans returning to the metropole, people fleeing scenes of active fighting, or, as here, ethnic cleansing. Because of the competing perspectives, historians tend to discuss the events ad population "displacements" or "movements", and to discuss them with great care and in the context of the complex breakup of an empire and formation of new nation states competing for the allegiance of populations with complex identities. I think the present article needs to be deleted as a poorly sourced, unsalvageable POV-pushing. But my fundamental point is that to write an article on the topic as understood by creator required the use of cherry-picked sources and the use of fringe and unreliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Select choice of sources used to describe one side of a complex issue from a specific POV. --T*U (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and replace contents. Changed my !vote in order to get on with things (and get rid of the current text), see my comments under "Suggestion" towards the end of this discussion. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:BATTLE. Clear battleground article created by a banned user. The material covered in it is covered in much more neutral fashion in other articles. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Separate article is needed for this topic. Much of the material which i and a few other contributors wrote in the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article in the section Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) can be transferred in whole to here as it is very detailed and sourced (i urge editors to consult the article and relevant section to which i refer to). Instead in the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article, the section Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) can be shrunk to a paragraph so it is in line with the rest of the article regarding proportion (which i can do, though first i want to see what the outcome is here regarding this article's future), as that article often combines these persecutions in one article in a truncated form, but has links to separate articles explaining the amounts and level of persecutions of particular groups ethnic cleansings and so on (no one is saying that those articles should be deleted). A separate article on the topic is needed in its own right as it was a substantial event that impacted and shaped the region which a large proportion of modern day Kosovar Albanians being descendants from these refugees. We do not bury the expulsions, or ethnic cleansings etc within other articles about wars say of World War One and Two of the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide and the Holocaust etc yet that is what some editors in here are inferring regarding this topic and the events around it. While other editors who are, have also written that there is little literature on the topic and have either overlooked research on the matter or not looked into it much at all. I will also note regarding myself that i am very well versed regarding this topic (and the persecution of Balkan Muslims as a whole and of Muslims in general) and have access to large body of Western academic literature regarding this topic especially regarding making the article such as this better. Moreover this topic is somewhat problematically titled. During the war of this period, it was Albanians from the Sanjak of Niş specifically that were expelled and the contents of this article deal with that matter and the title should refer to that matter so there is no confusion. As the article title stands: The Expulsion of Albanians 1877-1878 is too generic and can be open to other possible "interpretations". The article title needs to be more concise and to the point with something along the lines of Expulsion of Albanians from the Sanjak of Niş.Resnjari (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You proposition is very POV as you compare this event with the Holocaust. I am afraid that you are not neutral person to comment this, just having in mind that you call Sanjak of Niš Sanjak of Niş. Articles must be neutral and subjects must be presented as they really happened, and not as you or someone else wanted to happen. Wiki should not have political agenda. --Axiomus (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Wait, are you claiming that my neutrality is in question due to me referring to the Sanjak of Niş because Niš is spelt the Turkish way. Note that when the events of the expulsion of Albanians from this region occurred between the years 1877-1878 it was still sovereign Ottoman territory where Ottoman Turkish was the administrative language, not Serbian and nor Albanian and so on. It was the Berlin congress which gave sovereignty to Serbia. All subsequent spelling of names containing the word Nish (and here i give the phonetic spelling) in its official Serbian variation Niš that uses diacritics is to be used thereafter its incorporation into Serbia. We are dealing with the events of 1877-1878 while the area was still Ottoman sovereign territory. As for the matter of the Holocaust, i in no way have said that these events are on the level of the Holocaust, as many from that view point would also say the same thing regarding the Armenian and Greek Genocides too. However i am not here to debate such matters. I referred to those articles as they are the most prominent examples on Wikipedia and my point was that their content is not subsumed within the article content of another and instead at times contain similar themes regarding population expulsions, ethnic cleansings and so on. Please refer to WP:civil for more before making serious claims about the character of a editor. Note the discussion here is about the viability of this article.Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already have article with proper NPOV title, but, Gregory, if we must replace text and title, then we DONT NEED this FORK article. --Axiomus (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No we do not have an article already that specifically discusses these events in their own right apart from this one which has been placed up for deletion. Like i said before, we don't subsume topics like the Greek Genocide within the article about say the eastern front between Turkey and Russia in World War one, but instead have a separate article on its own that gives it the attention and depth it deserves. The sources out there exist for this topic. All ones needs to do to is search.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with you scraping all of the current wording of this article as it stands. It was written not in the best prose or the careful attention needed regarding the issue. All of that content from the Persecution article would be transferred here. That section on these events over there is already a article within a article and takes away from the overall article. This article would remedy that with scope for some small expansion, if need be. Nonetheless I would disagree with you on the content of the other subsection being WP:PLAGUE. There is no dispute between Serbian or Albanian historians regarding the course of events that occurred. When one looks at the Jagodic journal article or those who have access to Sabit Uka's works (like i do and they are much more detailed than Jagodic's works based on the Serbian archive also) will notice that these historians in their entirety have used both Serbian government and other sources from the period (like Serbian eyewitness accounts) regarding the events that followed and are in agreement and do not contradict each other. Serbian sources to date (though i stand to be corrected here and please do if you are aware of the sources) do not discuss the population numbers pre-war, only the numbers of refugees that reached Ottoman Kosovo after the war. It is the issue of refugee numbers who reached Kosovo post-war were the academic disputes have been or focused on. As such in the persecution article where the subsection dealing with these events is, all important academics giving different numbers and their positions are outlined in full so for there to be neutrality. As for the name i like your suggestion especially this one: ......... of Albanians, Sanjak of Niş, (1876–78). I would still opt for having the word Expulsion instead of Displacement as it was part of Serbian government policy to expel the region of Albanians. I can add that to the article based on academic sources, if it is kept. Dietmar Müller has referred to these events of expulsions of Albanians as ethnic cleansing after all. But title change matters can come later, first lets see what the outcome is for this article though. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"expulsion" is an intrinsically POV word, especially since we are talking about the slow-motion dismemberment of a the Ottoman conquest empire by a nation/state/people that had been conquered by the Ottomans. It is, of course, true that some (proportion unknown) of Muslims left voluntarily rather than live under Christian rule. That the Ottoman Empire practiced forced conversion (scale disupted,) forcible incentives to convert (gains in legal and fiscal rights), and the and forcible movement of large populations (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) to secure borders and/or break up concentrated populations deemed likely to rebel. We do not usually speak of the "expulsion" of Imperial populations to the metropole at the end of empire, although, of course, some (difficult to measure) proportion of these people fit that description. I really think we need a neutral title. Like Displaced.....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I understand where your coming from Gregory. However what you cited there about conversions is not what the article is about (though a interesting article to be started about the conversion of the Albanians would be the place to cover that). I do agree that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a slow motion event when one looks at it in terms of centuries, but when those moments of dissolution on its shrinking peripheries occurred such as wars, events proceeded more rapidly and often violently. Yes there were voluntary population movements of Muslims (as some did not want to live under non-Muslim rule), but that was not the overall reality regarding these types of events and western scholarship on that matter has covered it in depth in recent times. Nonetheless regarding this article and the events around it, the events were violent and state directed with even examples of Serbian generals like Jovan Belimarković refusing to carry out such orders from Belgrade to expel Albanians. It is also clearly recorded by the Serbian side (you can consult the Jagodic article as a sample) that local Albanians fought Serb forces house by house, village by village and put up stern resistance to the Serbian army's entrance into these regions. Displacement infers that that these people were shifted from their area of residence which is true. However Expulsion indicates that there was intent in that displacement, and it came from the most highest levels from Belgrade. There are other debates on such wording for example say like the Armenian Genocide. Turks would refer to it being just massacres, one amongst many of which their numbers where counted amongst the dead. However and correctly so, Armenians and most of the scholarly world calls it Genocide because there was planned intent by the perpetrators in the actions they undertook to commit that massive ethnocide and to not refer to those events Armenians Genocide is to dilute the severity of what occurred. So to have displacement overlooks this matter. However Expulsion more concisely refers to these events. Sometimes the severity of a matter cannot obscure what occurred for the sake of not offending, if the events have been covered within literature that do not point to just displacement. Otherwise if we have displacement, we would also need to the the word Violent in front too for the sake of neutrality. Otherwise what type of displacement was it ? Anyway, i think i jumped the gun of the title matter, first lets see what outcome will be for thise article first.Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Title A far closer analogy would be the Pied-Noir , not a perfect analogy, just closer, surely, than the Armenians, an indigenous, conquered people whose fate was sealed by the fact that they had not converted to the hegemon's faith. I am not opposing the use of "expulsion" in parts of the text where it is apt. I oppose the use of the word in the title of this complex event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The analogy to the Pied-Noir would be closer regarding this Albanian population if they were a colonial installation. Regarding the Albanian presence in the Toplica and Morava regions, Serbian historiography presents them all as migrants of the late 18th century and Albanian historiography for the most part as all local. Both positions are part of the wider contested Kosovo historiography. Western scholarship such as that of Noel Malcolm and especially Frederick Anscombe [1] has been scathing of both positions and have referred to it being parts of both. Back to the example you gave, though there was the Oran massacre, the Algerians did not expel the Pied-Noir. They left on their own accord. This Albanian population did not leave on their own, yet were driven out and that is according to the Serb sources of the day. In regards to the Armenians the main similarities is that like they, this Albanian population group was exposed to population expulsions by another ethnic group and those were not ad hoc actions by the military forces that carried them out. There are also numerous examples and precedents on Wikipedia regarding similar titles about violent and forced population movements with the word Expulsion (there were none with the word Displacement). For example: Expulsion of the Acadians, Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, Expulsion of Cham Albanians, Expulsion of the Moriscos, Expulsion of Poles by Germany, Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo, Expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Portugal, Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily, Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE, Expulsion of Asians from Uganda, Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait, 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt, Expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union, Flight and expulsion of Poles from the USSR. Regarding this event the Albanians did not leave willingly and were forced to leave. The historical record (Serbian sources in particular) is clear about this. Expulsion sums up what occurred, or otherwise we can also use the term Ethnic cleansing instead as has done academic Dietmar Muller for this event. Still first lets see what happens with this article first about its survival. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, too much text. Wikipedia:TLDR. Instead of long pov monologue, try to address only the subject in question. You are very very POV, as your comment address some questionable fake political agendas and lies as fact. They are not facts. They are only one sided POV, and must be treated like that. --Axiomus (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Whether you read my comments above or not is not a concern. I made the case for retention of the article as others who had a keep for the article had not. As Wikipedia is about good faith please refrain from referring to my comments as "POV" or "some questionable fake political agendas and lies as fact". These events occurred and are first of all attested in both the Serbian state archive and Serbian eyewitness accounts from which both Serbian and Albanian academic research draws upon for examining the events that took place. You have NOT presented any source (apart from name calling) that challenges or in any way calls into question the research done by Jagodic (a Serbian academic) yet alone Sabit Uka or others (also some Serbians too). Please once again consult the policy WP:civil. Almost all of it of what i wrote (in addition to little adjustments by other editors) is at the persecution article on this matter has been called by even editors of a Serbian background such as Zoupan as "neutral" in here. The transfer of that text to this article suffices and leaves room for expansion if need be. In the end, its the administrators who will make the final call. If they decide its a keep, then that text from the persecution article which is neutral will be transferred in whole to here, with a shortened version placed over there.Resnjari (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Axiomus, Certainly the text here, and even the text at the article I suggested replacing it with, are highly WP:POV, sadly unsurprising in the Balkans. The "main" article cites POV sources, including the notorious unreliable Justin McCarthy (American historian). I do think the topic is notable, and am now wondering whether it is better to just blow this up. I am deeply troubled by the number of highly unreliable, POV articles at Wikipedia on subjects related to ethnic strife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is the text at the other article POV ? Most of the contents for one are based on Western peer reviewed scholarship and on the research done by Serbian academics ! Albanian scholarship was not even used (in what could be considered the controversial parts) due to placing Serbian sensitivities (yes i actually thought about that when i wrote it and why i stuck with the Serbian) about it being Albanian regarding the events that occurred. My question here is this to the editors who keep claiming that it is POV. Did these events occur or not ? Do you have a source/s that disproves the reality of these events occurring? Is the Serbian archive of which Jagodic bases his research and other academics (excluding Mc Carthy) have also somehow been called into question. As for Mc Carthy i have stated in the talk of the persecution article that other western peer reviewed academics have noted Mc Carthy to be problematic regarding Armenian issues, however when it comes to his research of Muslim populations and their persecutions, they are considered to have merit by historians Donald Beachler and conservative historian Daniel Pipes [2]. Nonetheless, that section in the persecution article about these events when citing Mc Carthy only refers to population numbers and is juxtaposed amongst other academics who also offer different numbers. Serbian historian Dusan Batakovic is also there too whose works like the Kosovo Chronicles have been described as nationalist by Anscombe. However he is there in the numbers section as he has given a number regarding the matter in his chronicles book and is a prominent Serbian historian. Do we remove him too? Beyond that, like i said the events that transpired are not in doubt by either side as they draw upon the Serbian archive. Things happened and there is no point in sugar coating them. At one time, the persecution of the Ottoman Muslim article was up for deletion because it made some editors uncomfortable. Common sense prevailed and it was kept and has been expanded and continues to be done so. Muslims persecuted Christians and Christians persecuted Muslims and that happened a lot for the past 200 years in the Balkans. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it has articles on many topics. In the end it will be the determination of the administrators about whether this article is to be deleted. My preference is that it stays and there is room for expansion as reach on this topic is expanding and comes into the public sphere.Resnjari (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I still support the text replacement and move to a neutral that I mentioned above, in the hope that the article will move towards NOPV over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with scrapping all current text within this article (due to reasons already outlined) and moving in whole all text from the persecution article to here (need to know whether this article survives though before i spend that time and energy doing so). Regarding the Mc Carthy/Batakovic matter some additional words can be added so the reader knows that the numbers given by those two academics are to be taken with caution with Beachler and Anscoombe references added for those two academics. Beyond that as editor Zoupan (who is of Serbian heritage) and who is the other editor who contributed to the section in the persecution article has said here it is neutral. The events are not disputed, only the numbers of refugees that reached the Ottoman Kosovo vilayet (province) and all numbers are given in the persecution article respectfully and in neutral fashion. Having this article exist allows for scope for small expansion here or there if need be instead of clogging other articles with it and creating article within a article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: I have problems understanding how one can !vote "Strong Keep" and at the same time agree with scrapping all current text and changing the title of the article. For me, that sounds like "Delete". It reminds me of My grandfather's axe. There seems to be close to a consensus that the article with the current title and the current content has to be removed. Then there is the question about whether there should be another article with another content and another title, covering roughly the same historical event. But that is a completely different discussion, a discussion about whether there should be a content fork from Persecution of Ottoman Muslims#Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) or not. That discussion could best be held at Talk:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, preferably as a RfC. But first things first: Let us delete this article, which not even those who !vote "Strong keep" wants. --T*U (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment:Very easy to explain. Current wording of this article was done by an editor/s who where NOT familiar with events and scholarship of the expulsion that occurred. Examples of this include Shahid Pasha who is referred to as a "collaborator" with a citation to Blumi. Blumi does not use that word and that sentence in the Wiki article is based on manipulation of the source. That particular Shahid was from the Jablanica area (in essence all of modern day Medveđa municipality) enlisted in the Ottoman army and as most Albanians had fled across the border he urged some villagers in the area to no longer resist the Serb army and made assurances to Prince Milan to that effect. In return some number of Albanian villages have remained ever since and comprise the contemporary Albanian population of Medveđa municipality. My point is the current text in this article has been written by an editor who lacked expertise of the subject matter. Others made no effect to remedy this situation and have just opted for deletion as the ultimate solution. I was not aware of this article's existence to have done something about it and i admit i have come late to this discussion due to a personal illness i had in recent times that made me inactive on Wikipedia. One might also ask of me why when i wrote most of the text in the persecution article did i not create a new article for these events in 2014 ? I was active mainly in Albanian Wiki and was not creating new articles on other Wiki's. This article NOW exists and can remedy certain issues need to expand the article. The content in the persecution article needs additions like the Shahid stuff, expansion of Serbian policy considerations not cited there (although cited in Blumi's works, especially and interestingly the economic factors). Also not cited in the persecution article is that a part of this refugee population was resettled by the Ottoman authorities(due to the strain and disruption in Kosovo) in the Bafra region of Turkey and the Albanian presence there is still substantial due to these descendants [3]. And also about how these events are treated in the contemporary Serbian schooling system ([4],see paragraph 11. article by Zoran Janjetović). I have already identified just a few gaps. These can be added to the persecution article. But then again, that section will grow and in essence become the main focus of the persecution article which it already is (it is an article within an article). Instead, by having and retaining this article it allows for room to expand (and will from a important supplement to the wider topics of the Russo-Turkish war of which the Serbian-Turkish wars were part of). Its a very simple process. Firstly, the entire scrapping of the content of this article. Then the text from the persecution article gets transferred here (deemed neutral by the other editor who contributed to it of Serbian heritage Zoupan) and a small condensed form can be placed over there. These other additions can then be added with a important reading section (of sources) to this article. It also allows for the article to be expanded as new scholarship comes to the fore. As for the title, my proposal was to have it more concise by including Sanjak of Niş in it. Instead of playing games about deleting this article then restarting it or talking about fork this or fork that, lets have certainty. Moreover, no one to date here has placed any doubt to the events of this matter and there is more than enough scholarship out there to warrant a separate article. I say this to the admins however, for me to undertake these changes (which will take up some time and energy) certainty needs to be given as to whether this article will be retained. Creating these types of articles on Balkan related matters will always have some editors wanting their deletion and one cannot always be on a merry go round. Whatever the outcome, all the best to everyone. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. I still find it wrong to mix these discussions into one, but since you insist, I have the following suggestion: I will change my !vote from "Delete" to "Rename and replace contents", the formula used by E.M.Gregory. I suggest you do the same. Then this deletion discussion probably can be closed quickly, and we can get on with other things, like renaming. Just to be clear: I support moving the text from Persecution of Ottoman Muslims#Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78) to this (preferably renamed) article, but only provided there are clear plans to expand it. I do not see the need for making a content fork as the text stands now. I know, however, that you are quite good at expanding articles and finding reliable sources. If you are prepared to do that, I will support a separate article on the theme. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I am not wrong Resnjari isn't for changing title. Please don't misinterpret other editor's comments. Best regards. Berti118 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are wrong. Resnjari was actually the first to suggest a title change here: "The article title needs to be more concise and to the point..." --T*U (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the article should be renamed, instead of starting from scratch; move-merge into a new, neutral-titled article (including Turks and Albanians), from the section at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, then summarize that section.--Zoupan 10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed! I fully agree with you, but it seems that some editors feel that there is a difference between on the one hand, deleting this useless article while creating a new one and, on the other hand, changing the title and the content of this article. I don't care as long as the result is the same; that the current POV article disappears. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify regarding the title matter. During the wider Russo-Turkish war of which the Serbian theatre was one part, the Montenegrin one was the other. Of the conflicts that ensured with the Montenegrins, Albanians and Slavic speaking Muslims left the towns of Spuž and Podgorica (now a city and capital of Montenegro), while after Ulcinj was also incorporated into the Montenegrin state, a sizable number of Albanians also left the area with most ending up in Shkoder city and/or its environs. These population movements where both forced and not forced regarding Montenegro. Regarding this population movement in Montenegro, it is cited in scholarship though not in a extensive manner unlike the events that occurred in the Sanjak of Niş (at best in an article it would only have two to three sentences citing it if placed within a Wikipedia article). It is this factor which i had mind regarding the title matter by making it more concise. Nonetheless, having Sanjak of Niş within the title assists in it being distinguished from the Albanian population movement that occurred in the Montenegrin theatre of the wider Russo-Turkish war. Still as the title stands i am not fussed and actually may be holistic and warranted as it caters for the Montenegrin theatre too (which might need to be in the article) about Albanian population movements due to the war. Regarding the addition of the word Turk to the title, i understand where your coming from Zoupan, as the urban population of Pirot was Turkish, as were some small elements of Turkish populations living in Niš, Leskovac and Vranje (which Jagodic also notes had a Albanian origin where part of that population flow alongside the Albanians). Nonetheless, this article relates to the population movements of the Albanian population and most scholarship relates to that population, its expulsion and the legacy of that movement that was the genesis for the emergence of the Serbian-Albanian conflict. If editors working on Turkish Wikipedia articles want to start an article about Expulsions of Turks during this war, that's fine and they can cater for that ethnic group regarding Bulgaria and partially Serbia with a wider focus there. I do acknowledge that in the persecution article in the section regarding these events, in the sentence relating to demography that the urban Turkish (and Turkified Albanian element) is cited, however not much information if at all is given regarding their exodus from the area or what happened to those populations due to limitations of the scholarship. Did they settle in Kosovo Vilayet or other Ottoman areas???? Uka did an extensive study on these families descended from those settlements (and others too of the wider Albanian population and their ancestral villages) also and where they settled in Kosovo. None are found from Pirot and the ones from Niš, Leskovac and Vranje is difficult to untangle as to which might be from Albanian turkified families and or actual Turks due to those refugees settling in the wider urban and rural Albanian environment of Kosovo back then.
I will also note that where populations were exposed basically the same forms of expulsions and other forms of political violence in the same locality (or geographic space), separate topics exist in Wikipedia to cater for the ethnic group that underwent that experience and rightly so (see: Armenian Genocide and Assyrian genocide and not lumped into one (in say hypothetically: Armenian and Assyrian Genocide). Also regarding starting from scratch, there is not point. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that can be edited and the current wording can be replaced with the neutral text from the persecution article thereby solving in a stroke all POV issues existing with the current wording here. I say this because going by other topics on Wikipedia that get exposed to it being deleted and then the disputes about which article needs or should be revived may pose problems, as there may be some editors who oppose this article just because it may make them uncomfortable. There is no point spending months and endless amounts of text on all sides about going through such a process and wasting time for everyone. Best a decisive decision occurs here on the part of the adminstrators instead of musical chairs like repetitiveness of disruption and disputes. If this article is retained, i can make the adjustments. Anyway it was me who wrote most of the stuff at the persecution article with important additions from Zoupan and all that text is acknowledged as neutral. Also as extensive scholarship does exist on the matter and as i have cited few and further gaps that need to be catered for, the article currently exists and can be accounted for and expanded. Another concern i have with deletion is that the remaining text on the persecutions article also spur some editors in future to say that that section regarding these events takes up space in the article overall by being WP:undue. It might give the rationale for it being "slimmed" down to the point that this very important event that has shaped the Kosovar Albanian community (and about understanding the wider issues pertaining to Albanian-Serbian relations) is subsumed to the point of obscurity of a few sentences. The persecutions article is a complicated article (and unique in its own right when ones looks at it) as it combines multiple events of expulsions and ethnic cleansing during the Ottoman disintegration process over time, though significant occurrences of those events have their own articles where the subject matter gets treated in depth (i.e: Ethnic cleansing of Circassians, Navarino massacre, Siege of Tripolitsa). I refer admins attention to the policy WP:WHENSPLIT and to note that this article is meant to fulfil the parameters of that policy and that its retention is not Wp:cfork, but somewhat WP:SPINOUT. Anyway whatever the outcome. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many words, but I really cannot see any arguments against my suggestion in my answer to you above. Or maybe you did not see it? I suggested that you change your !vote from "Strong keep" to "Rename and replace contents". I have changed my !vote similarly. How about it? --T*U (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (blocked sock account of Rolandi+) Yes, the topic is covered at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, but here it can be more detailed. This article needs some expanding so the historical events will be shown exactly as they happened. Also, an important number of 'Delete' votes were based only on the fact this article was created by a blocked user. This is not a reason to delete encyclopedic material. It is strange how some people here call it a "displacement" and not an "expulsion".Berti118 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yet another pov-fork by the same disruptive sock-master. Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Expulsion_of_Albanians_1877-1878&oldid=1078523570"