Jump to content

Talk:April Uprising of 1876

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

i have added a couple of citations regarding the numbers killed as the original (30000) was exaggerated and obviously from a biased source. Many of the other facts are also unsupported. I will try and add some more balanced input, especially analysis in the last section of the article. Suicup 10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, your claims of thirty thousand are unsourced and unreliable. My information is the generally accepted number. I gave 2 sources for my figures, you gave NONE. I wonder who to believe?Suicup 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the April Uprising, which became the major event in later Bulgarian natiaonlist mythology, was a complete failure as a revolution" It was never intended to lead directly to a liberation, this was completely unfeasible. The aim was to draw the attention of European society, in which it succeeded.

Merge from Cherry cannon

It is proposed that the article Cherry cannon be merged into this article, as the Cherry cannon article is short, unlikely to grow and applies primarily, if not entirely, to this uprising. --Bejnar (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging. --Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging. RedSkunktalk 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with added references, 8 January 2009. --Bejnar (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation Section and Russian Involvement

The article lacks any mentioning of the extensive Russian involvement in staging the April uprising with the intent to cause severe casualties on the local Muslim population and as such justify Russian intervention. The fact is that Russian was behind the chain of events and Bulgarian agents were used, it is wrong to portray this as a spontaneous Bulgarian uprising having in mind that it was not even supported widely by the Bulgarian population it self. REF: Turkey in Europe. by Baker, James lieutenant-colonel., 1877 and Dr.Hamlin Head of the American Christian Mission in Turkey. There a lot of sources on the matter. Key point of Baker’s claim is that the so called massacres of Bulgarians which was made famous by Gladstone is perpetrated Russian agents dressed as Turks to gain pretence to start another war with the Ottoman Empire to gain territory. This discovery by Baker debunks the whole of Gladstone’s speech.Hittit (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source abouth this statements. Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible as for example: a review article, monograph, or textbooks. It is better than a primary research papers. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised, while the editors should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. Jingby (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A direct quote from 1877 Newspaper: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1366097 The Brisbane courier. I can find the original book from 1877 if necessary Hittit (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this materials are primary sources out of order. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. I advise you to read: Смърт и изгнание: eтническо прочистване на османските мюсюлмани 1821 - 1922, Джъстин Маккарти, Издател: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 2010, ISBN: 9789540731087 or the same book in english - Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, by Justin McCarthy, Princeton, N.J.: Darwin, 1995. This would by a reliable secondary source for example. Jingby (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jingby (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the book of Justin McCarthy and yet I fail to see a reference to it in the articles regarding the April Uprising. My point being in order to achieve a netural stand poit on historical events it is necessary to explore different sources and triangulate. Maintaining that the reason for the April Uprising is based solely on some notion for the liberation of Bulgaria (claiming that the instigation and prepartion was in the hands of Bulgarians them selves is also missleading) ending in an a mindless slaughter of Bulgarian population is bias and untrue version of history. Russia used the situation in her advantage, most relevant figures in these uprisings were Russian trained agents sent to Bulgaria with a mission. Hittit (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, esspecially this one abouth the Russian trained agents sent to Bulgaria, was ridiculous. Regards. Jingby (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what ever reason you might want to exclude Russian involvement in the April Uprising, however you know that such events are hardly the result of public enthusiasm particularly when the Bulgarian middle-class population did not support an uprising. Your other comment on the use of primary sources does not seem to be a problem when quoting the Russian collaborator MacGahan who spend years trying to become part of Russian nobility in the 1870s prior to his preposterous accusations of Turkish massacres in 1876…ou yes and his long time friendship with Mikhail Skobelev prior to the Russo-Turkish War in 1877 seems only elevated his status as an independent journalist and war correspondent. Have a nice day! Hittit (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak and suppression

I don't know why all mention of muslims being killed in the ethnic tensions was removed, so I've put it back in the "Outbreak and suppression" section. It is relevant to understanding the nature of nationalist/sectarian uprisings. M-Henry (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness Account

How can someone find the following quote trustworthy? None of the Muslims call themselves Mohammedan, any person who is somewhat familiar with the Ottoman society would know that. Also, there is nothing of such sort of a belief in Islam; on the contrary, Islam prohibits very strongly murdering of any non-Muslims unless there is no other way to stop their violence, given that they are violent, let alone children and women that are non-combatant. Last but not least, no one can ever bu sure of Paradise according to Islam.

I am not saying that such things did not happen; what I am saying is that the quote is not reliable.

"The reason is simple. When a Mohammedan has killed a certain number of infidels he is sure of Paradise, no matter what his sins may be ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.248.222 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sentence

Can someone with the right expertise and adequate grasp of English correct the following the sentence please? There both grammar and logic ( In Europe? ) problems here. Thanks.

"In Europe, in the eighteenth century, the classic non-national states were the multi-ethnic empires such as the Ottoman Empire, ruled by a Sultan and the population belonged to many ethnic groups, which spoke many languages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of editorialized and inadequately referenced content

I have deleted this content [1] because it is not properly referenced and it seems to have been placed there for editorializing purposes (to imply something that is not actually claimed). The text has Zahari Stoyanov's Memoirs of the Bulgarian Uprisings as a source, but there are no page numbers given for the claims. Also, there is no indication from the text that this alleged protocol resulted in any actual "slaughter of civilian population, arson of property and homes, seizure of assets" and so on - yet the insertion of this text at that location implies support for the claims by McCarthy, support its content does not actually provide, so this is editorializing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]

You can read it at section pp 136-137 "ПРОТОКОЛ на ЗАСЕДАНИЕТО ОТ 17 АПРИЛИЙ, СТАНАЛО В ПАНАГЮРИЩЕ ПОД ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛСТВОТО НА ГЕОРГИ БЕНКОВСКИ" e.g., 11. П. Как трябва да са отнесем с турското население в селата? О. Въстаниците, без да губят време, тряба да ги нападнат и чрез огън и меч да ти накарат да стоят мирни. the text goes on with more details. Zahari Stoyanov carries some serious weight in Bulgarian history. Also see the list of signatories of the protocol; (Подписани) В. Петлешков Н. П. Стоянов Ив. Соколов В. Соколски Н. Караджов — Коммиссари Хр. В. Търнев Г. Нейчов И. Мачев П. Грую Г. Бенковски П. Волов — Апостоли Г. Икономов Hittit (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is still editorializing synthesis. You have provided no sources that says that the protocol resulted in any "slaughter of civilian population, arson of property and homes, seizure of assets". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]

The source itself is clear, and the reference is made to it as what is in the documents and discussed among the plotters of the rebellion. Hittit (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Питат апостолите: съгласни ли сте да се дигне знамето на въстанието на 1-й Маий?
О. Да; съгласни сме, но предварително трябва да се извести за това на 25 Априлий.
2. П. Нужно ли е да са изгорят градовете: Одрин, Пловдив и Т. Пазарджик?
О. Да, трябва да са изгорят.
3. П. Нужно ли е да са развалят железниците и телеграфическите жици?
О. Да, нужно е.
4. П. Трябва ли да са съсипят градовете: Карлово, Златица и Ихтиман?
О. Да.
5. П. Трябва ли, или не, да са горят селата?
О. Да, трябва.
10. П. Какво поведение трябва да държим към ония турци от смесените села, които са съпротивят на нашите желания?
О. Клане и съвършено разорявание на техните жилища.
11. П. Как трябва да са отнесем с турското население в селата?
О. Въстаниците, без да губят време, тряба да ги нападнат и чрез огън и меч да ти накарат да стоят мирни.
След като изгорим Татар Пазарджик, чрез какъв начин ще можем да спомогним на българското население в тоя град?
По кой начин трябва да изгорим Ихтиман, ако не можем да изпратим свои агенти в тоя град?
Половината жители от селата Мухово, Василица и Декрал (?) трябва да нападнат на черкезките села, находяще са между Мухово и Василица; а другата половина трябва да нападне на Ихтиман, който ще да са предаде на огън и грабеж...Kostja what is not clear to you in the source that you need to delete the text? Hittit (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence that any of the points of this plan were implemented. So you're violating the rule of undue weight by trying to include plans which may or may not have happened. Furthermore you're using a biased tone to describe the information provided in the source. Also there is no evidence that the attack on Strelcha was part of this plan. Kostja (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the documents recording the planning of the rebellion and referenced as such. This provides NPOV and relates to the background and planning of the organizers, shows their aims. Why you want to object to this?Hittit (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why I've reversed your edits. Again, placing these plans for which there is no evidence that they were carried out gives them far too much weight. Furthermore, when they're placed alongside claims about massacres carried out by Bulgarians (which are also given far too much weight considering there is no primary source to confirm and no one has been able to name a place where they happened) they serve misleadingly as a source of proof for these claims or in other words a synthesis of sources which is not acceptable. And there is of course the biased tone in which the whole statement was written. Kostja (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source is solid Zahari Stoyanov, list of rebellion leaders present during these meetings that plan the rebellion is solid (you have all the main characters behind the rebellion), the meeting protocols were signed by the rebellion leaders them selves. The sources describes the original discussions, planned tactics and goals. The fact that the rebellion failed and the rebel bands did not manage to kill and burn to the extent planned does not take away the fact what they planned and had the intention of doing. Why you want to remove this unless to push own POV? Hittit (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that plans were made does not mean that were going to be carried out. This is basically speculation. Furthermore there were certainly part of the plan that could be carried out and there is no evidence that they were carried out. Kostja (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article wording is editorializing: "editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources" [2]. It first mentions sources saying Muslims were killed, without much specifics and with greatly varying assessments of numbers killed, varying from almost no civilians to the extreme viewpoint of Shaw "that many more Muslims were killed during the April Uprising than Christians" (given that some 10,000+ Christians were killed this statement seems extreme to the point of fringe unless the viewpoint is being inaccurately presented). It then goes on to cite content in which members of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee decide on possible or hypothetical future actions, some of which are violent actions that could be taken against Muslim civilian populations if they oppose the uprising. Having these two things together implies to the reader that the latter are in some way directly responsible for the former having happened - however no sources have been presented that say this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.[reply]

As records show these discussions took place during the planning of the rebellion then this can be moved to the "Preparation" section, thus removing any arguments for interpretation issues. Hittit (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the final sentence in the "Preparation" section "There is no evidence that this plan was implemented" the source used states "Тоя протокол, или по-добре катехизис, не можа да се тури в действие във всичките параграфи, понеже въстанието го превари десят деня по-напред" that the plan could not be implemented what comes to all paragraphs as the rebellion broke out ten days premature. It does not conclude that there is no evidence, as we know the rebellion broke out and spread and there were clashes.Hittit (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on April Uprising. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_Uprising_of_1876&oldid=1204917087"