Talk:Sali Butka

Untitled

I would invite everybody to calm down and not edit-war. Please discuss in talk page your edits, before reverting one another. --sulmues (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the relevant source states [[1]] that he was a 'minor' nationalist figure I see no reason to hide that. @Sulmues, you need to provide specific references that he was not a 'minor'.Alexikoua (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The participation in the Congress of Lushnje, a Congress that reinforced the Albanian nation by giving full independence (after recognition of USA and subsequent accession in League of Nations) is by itself a sign of a no minor nationalistic figure, and is referenced twice. In addition, he has fought much more than the Topulli brothers, but the Communist propaganda tried to play it down. I'm not an expert on him though, I have to admit. --sulmues (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you have to convince this author [[2]]. Your approach is simply wp:or based on personal experience. Unless you don't bring something that clearly says what you claim I'm afraid that he is still a 'minor' figure.Alexikoua (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against depicting him how much nationalistic he was, but the expression "minor" is per se an indication of non notability. --sulmues (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also brought out of the lead his destruction of Moscopole, but kept Alexikoua's wording. Alexikoua, you need to understand that in 1916 there was WWI and he is mostly considered as a patriot that started to fight the Ottoman Empire in 1906 and then as a Congressman. Sources about his destruction of Moscopole are very vague to be put in the lead. --sulmues talk contributions 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Todorova emphasizes this specific historical event and gives some detailed descriptions on Butka's activity that time (priest executions etc.). But the present form is still ok to me, he is mentioned as nationalistic figure on lead.Alexikoua (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moscopolis was already half-vanished in 1916, even less a metropolis. It was never in center if attention during WWI. Korca was the center of the region on that period as it is still today. Calling it a "prosperous metropolis" is just an emotional description rather than an informative one. I'd suggest you rephrase it.Mondiad (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why it is described as an 'once prosperous metropolis', meaning exactly that the town wasn't a contemporary metropolis but was in some period prior to the events committed by S.B..Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that, but this is how you read it if you know the story already. The sentence states: invaded in 1916 the once prosperous metropolis of Moscopole and lead to its destruction. For a reader which just reads for the first time it sounds like it was a metropolis until Butka raided it, and Butka was the cause.

I would rephrase it to invaded the town of Mocsopole, a well-known (or once prosperous) metropolis during XVIII century,....
And the town was not destructed, the same is in place today. Butka did not have any grudge with the town, rather with the people. Why don't you mention the Venizelist army which was holding the town (and Korca as well) prior to Butka's arrival?

Mondiad (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a tiny village village exists today isn't an argument to deny Butka's acritivity, who (verbally taken from the source) "raized the city". If you feel that more info is needed go ahead.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)