@Empathictrust. Section Return to Albania and early 1480s uprisings contains too many information not directly related to Nicholas. Please "consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic" . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Good advise, thank you! I wanted even to expand the section by adding more on Gjon Kastioti II's campaign to the south, but now I realize I'd better take the scissors and cut off some loosely relevant information (maybe paste it in another article). I'll reedit the section. Empathictrust (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Don't paste irrelevant information into another article before careful rewording because irrelevant text is also BIASed. Uninitiated reader could conclude that ethnicity and nation-state building played significant role in this events. Ethnic Albanians were in exile while "Turkish army" or non-Albanian Ottomans were in "Albanian country". This was not an ethnic issue or nation-state issue. Almost all of Ottoman soldiers and nobility were local ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Vlachs .... It would be against WP:NPOV to introduce 19th century nationalistic perspective to 15th century events.
- I will be bold and remove irrelevant text part by part with minor rewording of the rest. If anybody disagrees please present arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 1- Of course I won't paste "irrelevant" information to another article, I just put across the idea and the possibility that the "irrelevant information" of this article might and really can help improve other article where this information really belongs. (i.e. Gjon Kastrioti II, Ivan Crnojević, a new article for 1480s uprisings etc).
- 2- As additional problems of the article, you have pointed out the alleged "nation-state building", the "ethnic issue" (especially the Albanian one, if I got it right) and the "nationalistic perspective of the 19th century".
- 2. a) I haven't implied any nation-building in the article, that's why in my DYK proposal: "...that the Albanian lord Nicholas Dukagjini, the son of Pal Dukagjini, returned from Italy to his homeland in 1481, together with Gjon Kastrioti II, to regain his family's lands, conquered by the Ottomans?" I have explicitly written "to regain his family's lands" (his family's, not his nation's) and that's why in this version of the article: [2] (section "Return to Albania and early 1480s uprisings", before our irrelevance-removal campaign) important parts of the uprisings are Vlatko Hercegović and Ivan Crnojević, who weren't Albanians, all according to the sources, because everything happened mostly on common interests basis; the idyll of nationalism and nation-state building was still weak. And if you wanted my opinion on these allegations you made, I just believe Dukagjini were simply politically opportunistic.
- 2. b) Ethnic issue? It was more about religious, political and merely power issue than ethnicity. But that Nicholas was Albanian it is a fact (as sources say at least). And sources say that the Ottoman conquest triggered massive emigrations. We're talking about mid-15th century and if you believe that "Almost all of Ottoman soldiers and nobility were local ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Vlachs ...." present your references and we can include it in the article if it seems relevant. As for the sources I have they all mention simply "Ottoman forces" or the "Ottomans" or "Ottoman army". To stay on topic: Hadım Suleiman Pasha who was the leader of the Ottomans in these uprisings, is referred just as an Ottoman pasha, if you have sources for his ethnicity just mention them. As far as I know, the local leaders and the Balkan people of this time in general were mostly concerned on religion, that's why they married in between them (i.e. Serbs with Albanians). Anyway if you see any sentence formulation in the article that presents something that isn't true according to the references provided, you and anyone can edit and correct it.
- 2. c) 19th century nationalistic perspective? All the sources of the article are of XXI and XX century, we discussed previously about their reliability... I engaged in a time-consuming quotation of almost every citation I included in the article and tried hard to include every view I found in English and other foreign languages, still there's a view of this nationalistic perspective. I'm truly sorry for that. I have just presented facts of credible sources. But if you think that the return of Nicholas to Albania, or that the uprisings that occurred in Hercegovina and Zeta not only in Albania, or if the mentioning of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača and I. Crnojević is an Albanian nationalistic perspective, I just don't know what to do.
- As for this edit [3], you and the source could probably be both right and I think a symbiosis of both reasons is more plausible, but what you have removed is a written fact, while your comment is your opinion/belief. The edits are supposed to be justified on sources' basis, am I wrong? And moreover, if you are to remove irrelevant information, please beware of the narrative form of the text and the sentence's structure. The conjunction "and" in between the sentence "Gjon Kastrioti II, was fighting the Ottomans in Otranto and together with his cousin Konstandin Muzaka sailed to Albania in four Neapolitan ships", just is left out its function. How can Gjon sail to Albania, at the same time (since "and" is used) he is fighting the Ottomans in Otranto? Empathictrust (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- "irrelevant information" of this article might and really can help improve other article where this information really belongs. - I agree with you. I already emphasized "consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic". What is irrelevant for this article will of course fit in another (I think most of it would best fit into the "new article for 1480s uprisings").
- Ethnic issue. I am sorry for not being clear about bias issue. I didn't blame you for this bias. It is not hard to AGF in case of your editing and it is easy to recognize very honest approach in your edits, until now. I stated that the text which I removed as irrelevant was biased, so it should be carefully reworded before it is pasted in another article. I propose to focus on this article and not discuss bias of the removed irrelevant text. If you create new text abot 1480s uprisings and paste removed text there, we can continue discussion there. We should stay on topic both on article pages and article talkpages.
- I don't mind returning this portion of deleted text, although I think it is absurd to claim that Nicholas took advantage of Naples when Naples transported him and other soldiers across the sea to attack Ottoman Empire who was Naple's enemy. But if you insist, I will return it. Please confirm. Please feel free to copy edit any mistake in the sentence's structure I made.
- Thanks and all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, understood. No need to return the deleted edits, I simply rearranged that sentence. Moreover have made some further and last edits to the article. Shortly explained the focal point of the uprisings (coastal region of Vlora and Himara) and concluded with a synthetic sentence of these uprisings' importance. That is a fact, well noted in Italian sources and I should add that is the main reason of Nicholas Dukagjini's notability, so I hope you won't oppose its insertion in the article. Wish I'm done with this; I'll further answer your concerns regarding the article's DYK nomination after some sleep. All the best, Empathictrust (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Nice job.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
|