Talk:Cheta (armed group)

The members of the chetas were called chetniks.

In the case of members of Albanian çetas (çeta) no. I doubt members of Greek chetas were called chetniks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah actually at the moment I'm looking for a source saying that. Vickers doesn't. The source that cites it doesn't specify either. The -nik suffix is Slavic in origin and highly productive in Slavic languages and although some others like Albanian and Yiddish use it in select domains (i.e. Albanian fisnik, kreshnik, etc), it isn't as automatic and productive for them. Perhaps we can just say it's obvious for speakers of Albanian? --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Ktrimi991:, do you by any chance have Vickers' book on hand? I can't find the page numbers for the discussion there so my sourcing is subpar at the moment. --Yalens (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yalens I will try to find what we need. Also Resnjari maybe can help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the international commission report from the Balkan Wars cited in this article. Reading through the pages, its in reference to Slavic guerilla groups fighting the Ottomans. I haven't heard the word Chetnik used in an Albanian context in the Albanian language (or come across sources) it being a word for an Albanian guerilla fighter belonging to a Ceta. The word from early in the 20th century has often been associated with Serbs, although prior it may have had more of a Balkan pan-south Slavic usage -this is just a guess on my part but something to look into for additional sources and info for the article. In the end we may have to clarify the Chetnik part as being a mainly Serb associated term. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that might be best, to clarify it as mostly associated with Serbs as it became such definitely by today. Thanks for your help @Resnjari:. --Yalens (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Different Slavic nationalities

The expression different Slavic nationalities is not clear. At that time there were only two distinct Slavic nationalities in Ottoman Macedonia: Bulgarians and Serbs. Macedonians (and Montenegrins) did still not developed neither strong, nor a stable sense of national, but only of regional identity. Clarification is needed in that sentence. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I said different Slavic nationalities as in the source, Vickers, it does specifically mention three -- "Serbians, Bulgarians and Macedonians" -- but as I understand it whether the latter had a national movement at that time is disputed between Bulgarians and Macedonians as I understand it. Attempt by me to dodge controversy. Somehow whenever I try I always seem to screw up, oops. Do you have another wording you think is better for the situation? --Yalens (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens:, the prevealing academic consensus (Britannica for example) is that the Slavic Macedonian activists at that time, had Bulgarian ethnic identification. Vickers is slightly pro-Macedonian. Maybe insted of different Slavic nationalities is better to write pro-Bulgarian and pro-Serbian Slavic activists. Jingiby (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

PP. By the way, some of that Macedonian Slavic activists changed the side from Bulgarian to Serbian and visе versa. Some of their leaders were originally born in both Bulgaria and Serbia. Jingiby (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(I thought there were also pro-Greek activists of Slavic background too?) While Vickers gets accused of conflicting biases, her book was specifically on Albania(ns), so it seems fair that her word takes less precedence for non-Albanian-related affairs in Macedonia than in-scope sourcing. I would drop Misha Glenny but I don't have him on hand atm. So long as whatever fix you make is sourced and all that wikiful stuff you know I won't obstruct you. --Yalens (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC) PS Question: Did Bulgarians call cheta members "chetniks"? --Yalens (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Aromanian chetas?

@Jingiby: There is now reference to "Greek, Aromanian and Albanian formations" on the page. A curiosity of mine-- are there sources discussing Aromanian formations that weren't totally subsumed under one of the larger national agendas in the area (Bulg, Greek, Alb, Serb)? A curiosity of mine. --Yalens (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yalens: Following the revolts in the Empire in 1903, Romania, with the support of Austro-Hungary, succeeded in the acceptance of Vlachs as a separate millet with the decree (irade) of May 22, 1905 by Sultan Abdulhamid, so the "Ullah millet" (the millet of the Vlachs) could have its own churches, schools etc. Sources for the separate paramilitary activity of the Vlachs `(i.e. Aromanians) then are available. For example this citation is clear: It was not difficult for the CUP to gain support among the Muslim population in Macedonia, which was deeply disturbed by the presence of the European reformers in Macedonia and the activities of Bulgarian, Greek, Serb and Vlach armed bands. It is from the book by Handan Nezir-Akmese: The Birth of Modern Turkey. The Ottoman Military and the March to WWI, I.B.Tauris, 2005, ISBN 1850437971, p. 52. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! --Yalens (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Albanian chetas

Please keep NPOV. Neutrality requires that main space articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, etc. Jingiby (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Djks1, this article is not on Albanian çetas'. Otherwise we must describe all the mentioned above ethnic çetas' activities in this article. However that will be superfluous info. It is better to add an internal link about Albanian revolutionaries activity to the See also section, as I have done. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, I agree. Djks1 (talk)