Talk:First Serbian Uprising

Comments

There is nothing about the first capital of modern Serbia, Kragujevac. Nothing about the first constitution that was founded in Kragujevac, and all other "first" things in Serbia that were founded in Kragujevac (The First Gymnasium, The First University "Licej", The First Parliament, The First Library...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.246.195 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Leader

Was Karadjordje chosen the leader on February 2nd or 14th in 1804 ? The page on First Serbian Uprising says it's February 14th. The page on Karadjordje says February 2nd. Can someone confirm the date, please ? -- PFHLai 17:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

That would probably be the same day, just different dates according to Julian and Gregorian calenders. If I'm right, the 14th would be the correct date to use. Zocky 04:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zastava 1ustanak.jpg

The image Image:Zastava 1ustanak.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

People

Should Sima Milutinović Sarajlija (a fighter and a scribe in the Praviteljstvujušči Sovjet during the Uprising) and Dositej Obradović (the first minister of education in revolutionary Serbia) be mentioned in the People section (considering the fact that Vuk Karadžić is mentioned)? Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

There is a serious problem with the Belligerents list in that the Serbs and the Ottoman Empire were initially on the same side against the Dahija. Only when the Dahija had been defeated did relations between the two begin to break down and up till then the Serbs were no so much rebels as Ottoman loyalists.Dejvid (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting date

The starting date of the First Serbian Uprising is problematic. The Uprising against the Dahije broke out in February, the Dahije being defeated by 25 July. It was only after this when the Sultan turned on the Serbs. The Serbs and the Ottomans negotiated for a year, when in August 1805 Hafuz Pasha was dispatched to destroy them. The Serbs won, and then captured several towns from the hands of the Ottomans. Serbian historiography includes the uprising against the Dahije as the beginning or prelude to the uprising. Is there any objection of removing the Dahije from the infobox (now present at the Uprising against the Dahije), as they were not belligerents in the uprising against the Ottomans?--Zoupan 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Its not only Serbian historiography which treats the uprising against the Dahije as integal part of the First Srbian Uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Rumelian

Exactly what is Rumelian in the sidebox? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Banner of Pashalik of Ioannina based on Ali Pasha's medalion.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

1863?

why is the "skull tower" picture in this article, not existing until decades after the event? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan The caption was wrong, that's when the drawing was made not when the Skull Tower was built. Aeengath (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The first Christian population in Ottoman history to have risen up against the Sultan.

According to the article "The Serbs were the first Christian population in Ottoman history to have risen up against the Sultan, their uprising ultimately became a symbol of the nation-building process in the Balkans, inspiring unrest among neighboring Balkan peoples." citing Glenny, M. (2012). The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers, 1804-2011. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-101-61099-2. This comment does not take into consideration the Orlov Uprising of the Greeks in 1770. The Orlov revolt (Greek: Ορλωφικά, Ορλοφικά, Ορλώφεια, lit. 'Orlov events') was a Greek uprising that broke out in 1770. It was centered in the Peloponnese, southern Greece as well as in parts of Central Greece, Thessaly and on Crete. The revolt broke out at February 1770 following the arrival of Russian Admiral Alexei Orlov, commander of the Imperial Russian Navy during the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), at the Mani Peninsula. It became a major precursor to the Greek War of Independence (which erupted in 1821). This is a out of context comment as the reference of Glenny extents his research timeline from 1804-2011 to the whole history of Ottoman Empire. I recommend to change the comment to mention that "The Serbs were the first Christian population in the 19th century to have risen up against the Sultan." or that "The Serbs were the second Christian population in Ottoman history to have risen up against the Sultan, after the Greek Uprising of 1770. Ianbak (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ianbak, There were many revolts against the Ottomans in Greece here and in Serbia here even before the Orlov revolt; what makes the Serbian uprising the first of its kind is that it evolved into a war a independence. Glenny is not the only one to reach this conclusion "in 1804, Serbs organized a rebellion (the First Serbian Uprising), becoming the first of the Balkan peoples to begin a drive for real independence against the Turks" also "The Greeks achieved the first independent Balkan nation-state, but the first triumphal rebellion against Ottoman rule occurred among the Serbs." and "This was the first national uprising against the Ottomans among the peoples of Southeast Europe followed by the Greek Revolution" Best, Aeengath (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Aeengath. From your reply I assume that you agree that the statement is wrong since, as you very well cite, there were other rebellions before the First Serbian Uprising. Glenny's statement is based on the concept that the First Serbian Uprising was triumphal, meaning that it created a short lived independent state. If we want to state the facts then this was "The first Christian population in Ottoman history to have risen up against the Sultan and succeded in creating a short lived independent state.". I think in general, and not as a Greek, Glenny's statement is diminutive towards other christian population that have risen against the Ottomans but without reaching any kind of independence. Thank you for your time and our discussion. I hope we can better state the facts without any bias for or against other nations. Ianbak (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ianbak I agree, updating the lead, thank you Aeengath (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Referencing

I'm addressing the concern that I didn't yet cite the tidbit about Wallachian involvement. Yet I can't help notice that this article's standard of referencing is ridiculous, with standardized formats at the very least inconsistent, when not randomly disregarded, with sources "cited" with no page number (the whole book is a reference?), and with books that are entirely dedicated to the topic being cited for just one or two tidbits (would you be able to pass that as referencing in an academic paper? no? good thing Wikipedia is here for you). The most annoying thing about this is that the sort of half-assed, purely perfunctory, work done on "sourcing" this article is the hardest to fix, because many readers, being themselves just as callous and lazy, will just assume this is somehow legit work. Dahn (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Also, given the stereotypical and antiquated phrasing that pops up here and there, one can be reasonably sure that this article plagiarizes from Jelavich. Dahn (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Censors and editorial voice

It appears that Aeengath has made a habit of stealthily imposing his own views in this article, with no or minimal commentary as to why he is doing it. The most annoying part is when he actually removed cited references to an episode he doesn't want mentioned, namely the Wallachian involvement on the Ottoman side (which was significant enough in at least one battle of the campaign, and is mentioned with even more sources in the article on John Caradja); the info then appeared unverified, presumably in preparation for its total removal. Now he apparently labels the source used as unreliable, which is hilarious in an article that is otherwise very poorly and incompetently sourced (see the above section); to be clear: the source is a top vetted scholarly one -- yes, it was published under the Ion Antonescu regime, but by scholars critical of Antonescu (see detail on this in the Dan Simonescu article, which also notes that the editors of the journal supported Balkan cooperation). It is also the kind of source that is expected to cover this level of detail.

As his only minimal concession, Aeengath has agreed that Wallachian "volunteers" should be mentioned as participants in the revolt. However, this is grossly misleading, a toned-down, Disneyfied version of what the sources say happened, and obscuring the real agencies at work.

I am also struggling to understand why Aeengath is performing these tricks on the readers. Does he fear that mentions of Wallachia in two or three contextual and qualified sections, and at a relevant place in the infobox, are overfocused? Does he believe that Wallachia, as a client state, did not have its own agency -- when, strangely, he seems to claim that the pashaluks, actual provinces of the Ottoman Empire, did? Does he want to obscure this apparent moment of tension in what was by-and-large a solid friendship between Romanians and Serbs -- and, if so, does he not understand that this army was one of professional soldiers, answering to a Greek prince? or that Wallachians of the period often fought each other, let alone various surrounding factions? And why would the article need to reflect these peculiar qualms, instead of just spelling out the facts? Dahn (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dahn First thank you for removing that contentious material. As for the remaining content that you want to add in the infobox: Great Banate of Craiova / fighting under / Wallachia / fighting under / Ottoman Empire (from 1813). I removed it because it was missing a citation and Wikipedia policy requires "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports content" see WP:WTC. It is the same with the various Pashaliks and leaders missing a citation that I also removed. Following WP:MINREF, "material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". I added the tag following one of your six refs in the article because "all content in articles must be verifiable" and the source you added for those refs "Contribuțiuni la istoria românilor din Peninsula Balcanică. Românii dintre Timoc și Morava" is inaccessible. These are Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:VERIFY and WP:INTEGRITY. I have searched on my end but have not been able to find anything in Bibliography about the Great Banate of Craiova being a belligerent on either side or about John Caradja being a leader of the First Serbian Uprising under the Ottoman Empire (I have added a to that one). I am not against adding Wallachia or any other co-belligerents, we just need to follow WP:POLICY. Please provide inline citations to verifiable reliable sources that directly support your edits, this way we can start improving this article. Thanks and have a nice day. Aeengath (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Aeengath: You are simply disingenuous by this point. Every info you keep removing or twisting is cited with an inline citation, at the proper place in the text. Enough, or I shall have to request arbitration. Dahn (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding an additional inline citation about the participation of "several hundreds of Caradja's Romanians" even though from the same unverifiable source; even if this came from a RS I do not think it can support the insertion of "the Great Banship of Craiova as a co-belligerent on the Ottoman side". Wallachia and the Banship of Craiova were territories under Ottoman suzerainty at that time and were expected to provide troops or support to the Ottoman Empire when called upon, just like Bosnians, Albanians..etc While Wallachia may have had some interactions with both the Ottomans and the Serbs during this period, it didn't take a direct role in the conflict on either side. Barbara Jelavich does not mention it in her reference book, There is also no citation showing that John Caradja took part to the First Serbian Uprising as a commander. This looks like WP:OR and the fact that you “won't bother providing and translating quotations” as you stated in your edit summary is not helpful and might get your edits challenged again. Please follow WP:PG. Thanks and have a nice day. Aeengath (talk) Aeengath (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Where do you get the nerve to call it "unverifiable"? Unverifiable by whom? Was it not published? And of course other sources may not mention it: other sources don't mention the Timok campaign at all, yet, lo and behold, Veljko managed to die during the Timok campaign, and, lo and behold, the troops that killed him included Wallachians. Once we, unlike Jelavich (whom you plagiarized in writing this article), go into that level of detail, it becomes idiotic and anomalous not to mention that fact, even as it is mentioned in the article. It is by no means "OR" if it is mentioned in a published source, just because you haven't read the source (just like I can't read many of the published sourced in Serbian that are presented here and taken at face value). It is also not "contentious material" if the contention is that you haven't heard of it -- your weird disputes with published sources are of no relevancy to what goes in the article, since the implication behind that would be that you are yourself a published reliable third-party source, and not some guy on wikipedia. Are you sure you even understand how wikipedia works? Dahn (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also: I find it annoying that you keep pretending that the argument here is "John Caradja took part in the campaign". He did not personally take part, but he was the commander in chief of all Wallachian troops (few as they were in that day and age), and is clearly mentioned as the agency behind sending the hundreds of soldiers. This, may we note, is presently one of the select few articles that advance the unequivocally stupid claim that commanders are only those present on the battlefield. The article on World War II clearly mentions Hitler in the infobox as a "leader" -- to name just one example. Again, you are holding this article hostage to your very very peculiar whims. Dahn (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should dwell a bit on the absurdity, or plain misdirection, of claims that Wallachia, a client state, had a status similar to "Albanians and Bosnians" in this regard. I don't even know where to begin: there were no "Albanians and Bosnians" with their own agencies, there were Ottoman citizens in regular pashaluks, i.e. within the very core of Ottoman territory, under unmitigated Ottoman control. The peoples themselves did not have agency, not even in Wallachia., let alone in "Albania" and "Bosnia" (none of which actually existed as political entities at the time). So why go for this evident bait-and-switch, where I am expected to discuss vague ethnic qualifiers as somehow similar in nature to a client state?

As for the client state: it had its own army. It was a pitifully small army, and it was evidently under the ultimate command of the Turks, but it was an army. Wallachia was under no obligation to participate in each and every military conflict of the Porte -- what Ottoman suzerainty actually did to it was to eliminate most military requirements, precisely so that the Phanariotes, even as the nominal lapdogs of the Turk, would still have no standing army to work with, should they get any ideas. This is precisely why the fact of a small Wallachian participation, while easily disregarded by many authors, is not just expected to be included in a more thorough review, but also historically significant on its own.

Lastly: I commented on how editors of the article have obsessively striven to remove all mention of Wallachia's carrying water for the Ottoman overlord; this removal was done silently for the most, but at times it was "explained" away under the evidently ridiculous assumption that Wallachia had no agency of its own (we get a repeat of that absurdity just above). In my comment, I also mentioned that the editors in question keep at it even as they keep in mentions of the pashaluks, who had even less agency than Wallachia -- a paradox that went "invisible" until I dropped mention of it. What was the "solution" to this paradox? The editors removed the pashaluks from the infobox, even though their presence there was justifiably encyclopedic (so was Wallachia's, to be sure). Who even imagines this is a good way to write articles? who actually believes that we are under any constrains not to mention plain, verifiable, facts? Again: who claims to have been designated as the editorial voice here? Dahn (talk) 13:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)