Talk:Principality of Serbia/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:CoaSerbia1835-1882.PNG
Image:CoaSerbia1835-1882.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Principality of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926213417/http://www.canvasopedia.org/images/in-Img_Balkan-3.gif to http://www.canvasopedia.org/images/in-Img_Balkan-3.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed for the semi-independent status of Serbia
A contemporary secondary source states that Servia (Serbia) was a province of Turkey. Please provide a reference to back up the claim that Serbia was semi-independent. The relevant source is:

Start date
Well, 1815 for a start date is obviously incorrect, so we'll need to fix it. We have two potential candidates:
 * 1817 - the Assembly of Princes adopts Miloš Obrenović Supreme Prince of Serbia
 * 1833 - Ottoman edict declares Princedom of Serbia autonomous within the Ottoman Empire (something like medieval vassalage)

Both are applicable, and 1815 is surely incorrect. --PaxEquilibrium 09:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was the pretence of Ottoman Suzereinty kept up and why was it so common?
Whilst I recognise, of course, that the Principality of Serbia was to all intents and purposes independent, nonetheless it still recognised Ottoman suzerainy and paid tribute. I've noticed his was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Cretan State and the Principality of Samos.

What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a very good question which deserves to be briefly explained (using sources) in this and other related articles. Maybe some parallels could be drawn to the modern events? I think that a part of the answer is probably that period 1878—1908/1914 was only the initial phase which preceded annexations which started in 1908 (Bosnia and Herzegovina). That phase was necessary because it would be impossible to annex territories which became former Ottoman territories in the 19th century like it was done with former Ottoman territories captured in period after Battle of Vienna 1693. Other Great Powers would complain plus the population of former Ottoman provinces would not readily accept it since they struggled for independence from the Ottomans, not to be annexed by other Great Powers. Anyway, it is necessary to research the sources in order to provide appropriate answer to this very good question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

But it went further back than 1878, Serbia and Samos for example had tributary status from the 1830s, and Egypt was effectively autonomous from around the same time-but none of those territories bothered to declare themselves fully independent-which begs the question: why? The Ottoman Empire was in a weakened state and was hardly likely to come down on them hard if they tried to do so. it was, after all, the 'sick man of Europe' of the times.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is very complex issue. A part of the answer is what is simple and already well known: The competition among the Great Powers prevented them from destruction of OE and annexing its Balkan territories during 19th century . It does not matter if it is 1878 or 1830 in question. Starting from the end of 17th century it was clear that OE can not keep its Balkan territory. Since the end of 16th century OE was under constant pressure of Austrohungary and Russia. Great Powers did not want Balkan people to have their own strong nation states, or to be united in one strong Balkan multinational empire (which OE, or later Yugoslavia actually was). The stories of freedom and independence of Balkan people and their nation states were used by Great Powers to mobilize Balkan people to fight against each other which was always a struggle for the interest of some of Great Powers. The creation of autonomous provinces or states was only a phase before the full annexation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Terorist propaganda
I erased this piece of shit Šiptar propaganda, they can lie to one another how ever to publish it like a fact is unacceptable. In mentioned time Serbs were majority in Kosovo and significant part if not strait half of population in what is todays center to north Albania, not to mention other minorities like Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlachs, Ashkalije and others that "mysteriously" don't exist anymore. Anything drug cartel "country" publishes as official is as questionable as Al-quaida or Boko Haram. In the first decades of the principality, the population was about 85% Serb and 15% non-Serb. Of those, most were Vlachs, and there were some Muslim Albanians, which were the overwhelming majority of the Muslims that lived in Smederevo, Kladovo and Küprili. A foundation goal of the new state was the homogenization of its population. As a result, from 1830 to the wars of the 1870s in which Albanians were expelled from the environs of Nis, it has been estimated that up to 150,000 Albanians that lived in the territories of the Principality of Serbia had been expelled.


 * .... wow.--Calthinus (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated addition of the text authored by Shinasi Rama
There are repeated attepmt to insert text based on work authored by Shinasi Rama. Rama is not historian. His speciality is politics. This link shows that he is not only scholar whose speciality is politics, but politician, a co-founder of the Democratic Party of Albania. He also served as a Political Advisor and as the Spokesman of the Provisional Government of Kosova in the US. He also was the Political Advisor of the Kosovar Albanian Delegation at the Rambouillet Conference. After the war of Kosova served as a Senior Political Advisor to the Prime Minister of Interim Government of Kosova.. Since this author is "not regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" which is request of WP:RS, the assertion about " A foundation goal of the new state was the homogenization of its population." based on work of this author will be removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * His profession is political science. Are you alleging a conflict of interest? Is he still a member of the PD? --Calthinus (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your own link shows he has a PhD from Columbia University in Political Science. --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With a focus on Nationalism. --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I clearly explained that he is not historian and that he is involved in politics in very contested area. The assertion about genocidal nature in the foundation of modern Serbia based on Rama corresponds with Albanian nationalistic mythology.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He is a credentialed expert with a PhD from Columbia University and please be aware of WP:BLPTALK, as you have zero evidence whatsoever that the man is a propagandist of . He currently resides in New York, and does appear to have been involved in politics at the time the treatise was published, while your own link demonstrates that at present, he is not in a political role but instead faculty at New York University. That a new political party in a newly democratizing society sought the assistance of a Columbia-credentialed expert in building democracy is not a valid reason to discredit him. --Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rama is not a historian, but a politician. His work on this is not WP:RS (having a good publisher is not enough) + his statements/views can be clearly seen as Albanian POV, which is all fine, but not for Wikipedia. If we can't use Dušan Bataković, who has a PhD in history, we can't use a nationalistic politician for important claims about history. No politicla involvement? You have no WP:Consensus.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On page 135 Rama rants that "Serbs have given Europe the fork" which in fact is/was a popular Serb joke from the anti-war movie Pretty Village, Pretty Flame. A lot of bitterness and POV in this book, by your regular politics professor. Historians do not write such... Anyway, not NPOV, not reliable.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV != RS. Do read WP:RS. It is not about POV, it is being peer reviewed and yes having a good publisher. He is a topical expert, a political scientist with a topical focus on nationalism with a degree from one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, and employed by another one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, so attempts to discredit him have fallen flat. Not sure why we are talking about a Serbian film (which I have seen) but sure. The Rama text was inserted and stayed on for over a month, it became consensus. The proper thing to do if you dislike it, is to find another RS that gives a different approach to the matter. For example, discussing how Serbia was far from unique in focusing on homogenization as that was the fad of the day in the 19th/early 20th century. There are plenty of sources that say as much, this one is the quickest to grab [ https://ostblog.hypotheses.org/790], if you want to add that. Ultimately one can use Biondich, maybe Glenny, etc. --Calthinus (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Shinasi Rama is a Clinical Professor of Politics with the International Relations Program at NYU. The fact that as a student activist in 1991 (almost 30 years ago!) he was a signatory for the foundation of Democratic Party is not a reason to claim he's not RS. Also, this is a living person and highly respected in his field. Don't write comments about him being connected to Albanian nationalistic mythology. If I see that again, I'll ask for the comment to be striked.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)