Talk:Great Migrations of the Serbs/Archive 1

Placement
An edit dispute seems to be in place regarding the placement of the allegations of dispute. I don't think it really matters as long as we do include them. Can I urge discussion between opposing editors here. Evlekis (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.


 * I find it ridiculous that some people want Malcolm's allegations to be the second or third sentence in the article. It's WP:UNDUE and shows a clear agenda.  --Athenean (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. The problem is that so far we have absolutely no English language sources which could be deemed reliable to support the events of the article. Believe it or not, that unoriginal "finding" by Noel Malcolm was the very first source to appear on the page. The topic of Serb migration is of low importance to the English speaking world, they took place centuries ago and for one to simply deny them is not dismissed as pathetic in society at the same level as those denying the holocaust or Stalin's Great Purge. Not being an expert myself on any of these issues I can neither defend one position nor the other. I do respect that all subjects have alternative views, that evidence can be manipulated and that actual irrefutable occurances can themselves be open to misinterpretation regarding their purpose. Also disputable can be the chain of occurrences which led to the principal event. Now I find it very difficult to believe that the Great Migrations were conjured up in the 19th century as an instrument of propaganda. From what I can gather, the migrations were happening over centuries. The point of interest to pseudo-historian Noel Malcolm is a letter which induces the Serbs to rise and confront the Ottomans which Serbs are alleged to have taken as an invitation to relocate to Hungarian territory. But how this can be relevant I don't know: invited or not, we know well from census information that many Serbs who today remain in Croatia (ie. those along Bosnian border) are descended from those who settled on those lands as a result of migrations, in addition to many of the Serbs in Vojvodina, Romania (Timişoara) and Hungary. These people had to come from somewhere within Ottoman administration. Why not Kosovo? But then did they all come from Kosovo, and if not, how many did? Did none leave Kosovo? And did they particularly arrive in large numbers in 1690 and 1737 in their new settlements. Does Malcolm himself have evidence that the demographic structure within Kosovo pre-1690 and post-1737 remain the same for Serbs? 47 years is living memory for any generation. These are the questions which need answering and the entire article is severely lacking in any sources at all, so far we only have two which are both inserted to support the denial of the Great Migrations. The source I found which mentioned the Great Migrations in English is listed on the section above this one, but it is from a source which does not look reliable. I still don't know whether to add it to the article. Evlekis (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.


 * The source you mention above is not WP:RS, unfortunately. Websites in general aren't, and this one particularly so.  I find it surprising that this article mentions no source other than Malcolm.  Type "Great Serb Migrations" in google, google scholar, and google books.  Usually that's enough to get the ball rolling.  I will try that myself, too.  --Athenean (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Before speaking about an author it is better to actually read other scholars opinions not ours, unless we are professional historians with an editing background (which I doubt) we should be based on their opinions:


 * One of the major critics of Malcolm, Thomas Emmert here
 * Malcolm reply here
 * Other Malcolm critic Christian A. Nielsen here
 * Malcolm reply here
 * and enough on Noel Malcolm to shut him up forever here

Summarizing, according to Habsburg (Malcolm) and Ottoman (Anscombe) sources that didn't happened.

Moreover Malcolm accused Serb historians of 19th century of deliberately falsifying the meaning of the letter. Up to now none has contradicted Malcolm that the original letter he used is false and his translation is not true. The general accuse was more a personal attack (pro-x, anti-x) but mysteriously his attackers remain silent about this fact. Now tell me if you still think that letter was not "erroneously" translated by Serb historians in XIX century and this is the origin of the myth. Moreover you should also know that according to the archival documents Habsburg, Ragusa, Papal etc Patriarch Arsenije was not even in Kosovo in the time of the uprising and he did not took part on the uprising. But hey, who needs facts, Malcolm is anti-Serb and that's all.

P.S. you should remember that Habsburg archives include, Austrian, Hungarian, Slovenian, Croatian etc all from Austro-Hungarian empire, hope you see a point why all archives except, minor (see Malcolm arguments) and dubious(forged) Serb archives, maintain that didn't happened(who needs a translated copy of the letter if you have the original version anyway?!) Yea sure it was a conspiracy, wake up guys. Aigest (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, had Malcolm actually proven his fantasies to be true, there would be no question of the migrations never having happened. Serbs themsleves wouldn't have believed in them. Just as it was once thought the Earth was flat, and one was demonised for disagreeing, you now have sattelite images to prove it is not the case. More to the point, nobody believes it to be flat any more. There are works on the Great Migrations but 99% come from Serbian sources. But as you once said, acknowledgement is one thing and historical study is another. Perhaps the quasi-historian Noel Malcolm did carry out some original research. The problem here is that one will assume that if a historian happens to be Serb, he/she will present a case favourable to Serbs; but the truth is that if he/she happens to be a historian, then he/she will require evidence. This they have. It just happens that shill Noel Malcolm's works are primarily published in English and the whole subject of Great Serb Migration is not a major issue to people in the English speaking world. Other international historians publish in their own languages so they too may be hard to find. Either way, no critic of Malcolm is silent on issues he raises; there are countless publications which refute his every word left, right and centre. If anything, he is the one who fails to address the matters presented to him by critics. They can have their shouting matches in these journals/newspapers week by week if they choose, but one thing remains in place: the critics have the final word. Evlekis (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Ev did you read the above critics and responses? Aigest (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed I did Aigest. Did you read the literature I provided about him? That is to say the piece you conveniently removed. It may come as a surprise to you but I recall having read those posts quite some time ago. In the notes to the link I gave, you'll notice that Nielsen did reply to Malcolm's 18th May piece. But why should we worry when this was all ten years ago? These bandits continue to attack each other to this very day. If you're like me, you'll soon get sick of it and denounce them all as shills. Unfortunately, a historian is no less controversial than a reporter, a watchdog agent, a humanitarian worker, an international observer or an "eye witness" testifying for the prosecution in a kangaroo court hiding behind a "UN" logo. As with the website I displayed some time ago, their "findings" can only be acknowledged by the less knowledgeable observer. How they toy with evidence and produce statements wholly out of context is a skill which is instrumental in hoodwinking the audience that they have uncovered the facts which support their preset thesis. I am now not being specific in describing Noel Malcolm, but this applies to all historians in general. Think about it, imagine there were nothing political involved from the onset; only a yearning by innocent individuals to establish what did and did not take place, why then would there be a conflict in version of events? And if Malcolm had "dismantled Serb myths" as he likes to put it, why haven't the Serbs accepted this? After all, if you dismantle a television set then I won't be able to watch it. As it is, his "findings" have never altered the position of anyone. It may only have influenced some who had never previously heard of the Great Serb Migrations. Now if you argue that the split in acceptance/rejection of Malcolm's "findings" runs down an ethnic line which also separates Albanians from Serbs, then it must surely stand to reason that those who believe in Malcolm would have done so anyhow. As such, they didn't need him to enlighten them on something which they believed they "knew" in the first place; and denial of the migrations is by no means a recent outburst either. The sentiment has been like a virus among Albanians for many generations, infecting everyone who comes into contact with a carrier of the disease.
 * Now Serbs with a worldwide interest in their image abroad are more familiar than anyone with the level and content of propaganda directed against them, something common with all nations with a few paranoid citizens! As such, no Serb (trust me on this one) cares much for Noel Malcolm. This is because they know that nothing Malcolm publishes is original, the man only writes in English what Rexhep Qosja has already written in Albanian. So if you would like to see Malcolm's "findings" refuted if not attacks on his character, then look for Serbian publications which criticise Qosja. I can assure you that there is no shortage of those. Malcolm in turn has never addressed an issue that Qosja hasn't, and has never been seen to disagree with him either. Regarding Malcolm's (or should I say Qosja's) claim that the migrations were conjured up in the 19th century, I have discovered that the migrations of 1690 and 1738 have been mentioned in Serbian literature from the previous century. So myth or not, its belief among Serbs predates the time given by Qosja/Malcolm, and more importantly, it predates the reawakening of Serb nationalism. Why am I discussing this, I don't know. I have got no problem with using Noel Malcolm on this article because it is being used sensibly. I don't like to see his interviews with newspapers used, particularly with Kosovo because they contain factual errors. But here, all you are saying is: scholars deny the event etc. and as such, Malcolm's book fits the bill. Just as long as nobody tries to rearrange the text to state that "the entire event is a myth and here is your evidence..." Evlekis (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Maybe you didn't get my point. I was pointing to the discussion in general. Since there is no published source in English it is imperative for this article to have something translated. The work above of Popovic etc. They should have some kind of argument and evidence or not. So when writting the article we have a clear view of both works. As I have mentioned above up to now the only known works speaking in detail for it are Malcolm and Anscombe (both of them denouncing it as a myth) while we need urgently a detailed work supporting the article. Aigest (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Apparently it is all right according to WP policy to provide foreign language sources, particularly in the absence of local language publications. I'm curious now how some obscure subjects seem to sit on languages remote from the source of topic. By the way, I was not opposing the references to Malcolm & Anscombe. Believe it or not, I am not an advocate of the scholars who promote the chapter as truthful; I actually have no firm opinion of what may and may not have took place. Like you, I am not a historian either; we are just enthusiasts. But two subjects – as is evident from my edits – are of great inrerest to me: one is power, one reason many of my minor edits are on world leaders past and present; and the other is conflict. Now the latter is one I try to keep away from, you see here firsthand what it means to be lured into it! Nobody intends it at first but then before you know it, you are at war! Fortunately for us, it is all talk based with no warring on any article. But getting back to conflict, it may surprise you that just about every single recorded event is plagued by alternative views. The Srebrenica and Račak massacres have both caused observant scholars to either deny them outright, or place question marks over large parts of the accusations thus radically altering the events. Likewise the Serbian claim on the Klečka massacre has provoked controversial feedback. Outside of our catchment area you have many publications in denial or doubt about the Armenian Genocide. Everyone knows about Holocaust denial; but you also have sceptisism and denial on the Halabja bombings in Iraq on the Kurdish settlement, as well as the entire Anfal campaign. Even Stalin's Great Purge of 1936-38 has been questioned by some, including Belgian communist Ludo Martens. Today, there is a radically alternative explanation regarding events in Zimbabwe from the Zimbabwe government, its alles and other non-affiliated sympathisers. It is everything. To every one of these scenarios, I never take the word of any side outright; but believe that the real answer lies somewhere between the two most extremely opposed testiments. You see Aigest, one nation makes a claim; someone then "proves" the claim to be false. You cannot truely prove the investigator to be "false about being false", all you can do is question the evidence. And dubious evidence from all angles is the source of the heated debate in the Holocaust question as well as all other examples given. But as I said once before, so minor is the subject of Serb migration and for what it was worth, it is not even important. Serbia de jure gained the majority of Kosovo in 1913 in an agreement involving the then-Great Powers. Whatever nonsense the Karađorđević clones produced then, was enough to win support from the powers. Today the Serbian claim on Kosovo is based on a continuity which ended a very short time ago by comparison; neither Medieval Serbia, oppressed by Ottoman Serbia nor Yugoslav Serbia matter now. Serbia feels that the Kumanovo Treaty has been violated. Anyhow, what do you suggest we do if we fail to find English sources on the Great Serb mythical relocations? Evlekis (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

We should use other sources, which should be published ones dealing with the topic. I have no problem to use any source, I am only stopped by the language. Although I can understand main western languages(English, Italian, French, German, Spanish not in same level of course:)), I am afraid I am of no help when it comes to eastern languages:(. As I understand the detailed version supporting Great Migration is in Serbo-Croatian. If you find that sources in Slavic it is fine by me, but it's up to you to translate it:) Aigest (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a polyglot then! Fair play to you. I see from your user page that Albanian is presented as a language at native level. When it comes to origin of modern day Albanians, I always generalise in one way. If there are approximately seven million in the "homelands", it would be around 3.5 mil in Albanian republic, and 3 mil scattered across the former Yugoslavia (Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Central Serbia) with about another half million between Greece and Italy. So there's about 50% chance that an Albanian will speak one of our Slavic languages. As for Serbian and Croatian, I assure you that if you happen to speak one of them you will never require a translator to communicate with a speaker of the other! But if it's translations you want, I am sure we can arrange that. How do you go about translating a source on WP? That's the question; I am not 100% familiar with all WP guidelines. Evlekis (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Well English and French came from the school, Others came from TV;) I don't know about translation, never tried it before, but if you can locate and translate such sources than you have my support. I doubt we can find an Albanian willing to translate from Serb sources in this topic. Unfortunately in wiki too many forget the concept of wiki itself (collect published scholar work) and try to make propaganda, while others can not understand that there are other POV's which sometimes have the same value with the exact opposite POV. Aigest (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fully capable of translating. I do speak Serbian/Croatian as my parents came from Yugoslavia (though I am born in the UK). What I meant was, once I translate it then what do I do? Evlekis (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

We can put here in the talk page full citations (text, page number, book or article publish data) while the translated text will be used in the article itself with a usual reference (book, page number, beginning of sentence) It is important to have full citations here so anyone doubting it will have the possibility to check it out. Aigest (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see at some time soon if I can get round to doing this. I'm about to go on holiday for a few weeks to Bulgaria/Macedonia; I'm not sure whether I'll find such books there, who knows? But I better let you know in advance, thoese writings will only give the account as is presented on the article/websites in general. You won't find books specially written to counter Anscombe & Malcolm. Although they have written books to question the evidence, their replies (as you know) have come in the form of short separate publications and other verses, which as you also know, have led to chains of exchanged attack. So the article will simply remain largely as it is: Serb migrations - questioned/disbelieved by some scholars. Evlekis (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I would prefer the work of Popovic if that is possible, I think you can find it in a public library in Macedonia. I think he is much more detailed than just a generic description. So we can have both detailed versions here. Aigest (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Macedonian libraries are a bit full up with their own version of history concerning themselves and their alleged links to Alexander the Great. That's the nonsense I have to listen to from the majority of people there. I will look for Popović books. Evlekis (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Hope you find it. Have a nice holidays ;) Aigest (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this was serbia magratio and how my comments are deleted from the post the pictures and the drawings found in the books of that magration are Albanian Orthodox not Serbian the picture clearly show you Albanian Orthodox dressed on national clothing and with national flag the two headed eagle on black and red so stop making lais for a pay check from Serbia and alow for facts to be posted and research Albanians and you will see that they are not Serbian Zyfer Rusi (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Majuru
Please stop your disruptive behavior. I did not "removed" anything from this article. I just moved data that you included from article introduction to separate title that speaks about number of migrants. Is there any valid reason why this single estimation should be in the article introduction and not under "Number of migrants" title? Inclusion of that sentence in the way you done it disrupted the main introduction text and completely disconnected the story line. If you want that info about number of migrants is included in introduction part then this should be done with a completely different sentence that saying that number of migrants is estimated between 20,000 people and 37,000 families. PANONIAN 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Migrations in the 14th and 15th centuries

 * --Z oupan 13:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Confusing sentences in the lead
What is meant by the last two sentences in the lead? To me it sounds like it means the great migrations made Serbs a nation, in addition to an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:50A8:E10:D91E:5D4 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of migrants
'Before the Turkish recaptured Belgrade in 1690, the last group of Serbs had crossed the Sava and was making its way north. Along the way, sections of the population remained in Srem, Backa, and Baranja, while others continued north to Buda and Szentendre. Patriarch Arsenije III claimed that 30,000 people had followed him (on another occasion the figure was 40,000), undoubtedly an exaggeration, although there are no testimonies that might provide a more reliable estimate'. Information from book (The Serbs) from Serbian academician Sima Ćirković, page 144. So this information should find its place in the article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Background
'''Some Serbian historians, citing a document issued by Emperor Leopold I in 1690, claim that the masses were "invited" to come to Hungary. The original text in Latin shows that Serbs were actually advised to rise up against the Ottomans and "not to desert" their ancestral lands.''' Sima Ćirković in his book "The Serbs" ie in Croatian translation of his book, (page 94). "Pokušavajući zaustaviti nepovoljan tok događaja, car se u lipnju 1690. u svojstvu ugarskog kralja manifestom obratio balkanskim kršćanima, pozivajući ih da ne napuštaju svoja ognjišta, da se dignu na oružje i pridruže carskoj vojsci" "Trying to stop the unfavorable course of events, the emperor addressed the Balkan Christians in his manifest as Hungarian king in June 1690, urging them not to abandon their homes, to raise their weapons and join the imperial army. According to Srpsko Kulturno Društvo Prosvjeta, the influx of Serbs to the Habsburg Monarchy, constant since the fall of Serbian Despotate in the late 15th century, gained more momentum following the Statuta Valachorum act of 1630, by which the Habsburgs encouraged their settlement in the Military Krajina region. The source cited here does not speak about this, source is actually a translation of Statuta Valachorum. So this information should not be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , what sentence do you think should be removed? The first or the second one in bold above? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Second: According to Srpsko Kulturno Društvo Prosvjeta, the influx of Serbs to the Habsburg Monarchy, constant since the fall of Serbian Despotate in the late 15th century, gained more momentum following the Statuta Valachorum act of 1630, by which the Habsburgs encouraged their settlement in the Military Krajina region. The source does not say it, source is translation of the "Statuta Valachorum" law. The proof is source itself . Mikola22 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am removing it then. In any case, the claim was credited to Srpsko Kulturno Društvo Prosvjeta, making it sound unreliable for a reader when opposed to Western sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mikola22 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that there are 2 different documents issued by Emperor Leopold I in the same year? The first one advising Serbs not to desert their ancestral land - and the second one that allowed them to cross the border and settle in Hungary?--N Jordan (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition about Catholic Albanians
Your addition here does not really make any sense in English as it stands. Trying to decode it, I will assume that the "and" in includes and Catholic Albanians is supposed to mean "also". The word "and" can not be used that way in English. It will have to be "includes also C.A." or perhaps better "also includes C.A.".

Also: The relative pronoun "which" normally points back to the last noun mentioned. The suggested text therefore states that the Habsburg Monarchy includes Catholic Albanians, which I guess is not what was meant.

Also: I think the verb "settle" may be used both as a transitive and an intransitive verb, but to settle in a village and settle a village in the same sentence is not good English.

I have suggested what I believe to be a better wording. --T*U (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Besides the Serbs, this migration included Catholic Albanians, the Klimente, who settled in three villages by the Sava River in Srem". This is information from the source, and you edit this information as you think is most correct. Mikola22 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)