Talk:Pirot rebellion

Deleted sources and tag.

Why academic sources in English and neutrality tag were deleted? Jingiby (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how an IP POV-warrior's addition of low-class (non-academic) sources only mentioning it in passing have any weight whatsoever? This article deals with the 1836 rebellion in the Pirot area, not 1835–37 rebellions in the wider area.--Zoupan 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done you a favour (since you had no interest in reading up) and created Berkovitsa Rebellion (1836) and Belogradchik Rebellion (1836).--Zoupan 04:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Check Cambridge University Press Chalcraft, John, Popular Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, ISBN 9781107007505, p. 95. According to it Nish and the surrounding area were populated with Bulgarians during the 19th century. More, the Pirot rebellion is mentioned as Bulgarian one. Jingiby (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Deleted sources:
• Chalcraft, John. Popular Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 110700750X.
• Burg, David F. A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from Antiquity to the Present. Routledge, ISBN 9781135959999.
• Király, Béla K.; Rothenberg, Gunther Erich. War and Society in East Central Europe, Brooklyn College Press, distributed by Columbia University Press ISBN 9780880331302.
• Mark Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period — The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850), Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 11, No 2 (May, 1975), pp. 103-146.
• Evans, Stanley George. A Short History of Bulgaria. Lawrence & Wishart, 1960.
• История на българите, том 5, проф. Георги Бакалов, Димитър Зафиров, TRUD Publishers, 2003, ISBN 9545287527.
• История на Българското възраждане, Автор: Иван Стоянов, Издателство: Ивис, 2010, ISBN: 9789548387811
• Историческата съдба на македонските българи, Свидетелства за българското възраждане в Македония. Димитър Райков (Македонски Научен Институт, София, 1997 г.)

(edit conflict) Jingiby, please don't edit war. Your source, John Chalcraft, is not a Balkans-expert, and while he does claim Nish was "populated by Bulgars", he has one sentence regarding the Pirot rebellion, that it broke out in 1836 (!). This is zero depth of detail, and could hardly be used to override monographs already in the article. If anything, this behaviour of yours is unproffesional to say the least. The Pirot area was indeed inhabited by Serbian-oriented Orthodox Christians. Already in 1806 the area was included in Serbian Revolutionary operations. The titular vojvoda of Pirot was Marinko Petrović, Pirot-born. The region was included in Prince Miloš's planned nation-building; he had since his ascent had ties with the Ottoman nahiyas to the south; he supported Pirot activity during the Greek uprising; he suggested to the Russians during the 1828–29 war that he rise up Timok, South Morava and Nišava; when the Ottomans disputed the Edirne treaty (which gave Serbian border posts at Stara Planina) he intended to rise up all of the Niš and Vidin pashaliks, as he had discussed with folk leaders there; furthermore, he intended to revive the medieval Serbian state, which indeed included this region. For now, the neutral "Orthodox Christian population" suffices. Bulgarian and Serbian views on anthropology in the Torlak and Shopluk population understandably differs (btw, Vuk Karadžić included the Pirot area in the Serbian linguistical and ethnographic area long before the rebellion), therefore neutral wording is best used.--Zoupan 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but unless I'm missing something, all non-Serbian sources get deleted. Why is that? --Laveol ^T 09:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds really fine, but read the article. Every sentence is about Serbs and Serbia. Nowhwre are mentioned neutral terms as Orthodox Christians etc. All info contradicting the Serbian views and backed by non-Serbian sources was deleted, together with the sources, themselves. Jingiby (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnological map by Professor Constant Desjardins (1787‒1876). This map bears the title „Serbia and the districts in which Serbian language is spoken". It was issued in Belgrade in 1853. The author states that his map had been put together according to Serbian authors. Per this map, the area where Serbian language is spoken stretches approximately northwest from the line: Prizren-Pristina-Prokuplje-Nis. Pirot falls outside.

I have another information confirming the undoubted mass Bulgarian presence in today Eastern Serbia:

• On all ethnographic maps from 1840 to 1870 there is no dispute as to where the ethnic border between Bulgarians and Serbs passes. This is even the case for the Serbian maps. The border passes northwest from the line Skopje - Nis, i.e. Pirot is in Bulgarian lands. Such map of Serbian origin, which bears the title „Territories inhabited by Serbians” and forms a supplement to the book: „History of the Serbian People, edited by Dimitri Davidovic from 1828 confirms that: The source is reliable and specialicized: Andrew Light, Jonathan M. Smith, Philosophy and Geography II: The Production of Public Space, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998, ISBN 0847688100, p. 241.
• According to Engin Tanir from Ankara University in his thesis for the degree of master of arts in history, called "The mid-nineteenth century Ottoman Bulgaria from the viewpoints of the French travelers", he claims on p, 70: citation: The district of Nish was at the western end of the Danubean Province. It was subdivided into six districts which were Nish, Pirot, Leskovac, Vranje, Prokuplje and Iznebol. According to Ami Boué, who traveled through the region in 1837, Nish was a Bulgarian district and both in the town and in the country Bulgarians formed the great part of the population. Nevertheless, Cyprien Robert claimed that Serbians formed half of the town population. In the Pirot and Leskovac districts, Bulgarians were the main ethnic group, especially in the villages disseminated on the valleys. In the district of Prekoplie, the main ethnic group was Muslim Albanians. According to Boué, Albanians were placed in the Nish sub-province by the Porte to counterbalance the Christian majority and to prevent periodic Bulgarian rebellions.In Vranje, Bulgarians and Muslim Albanians were equally distributed. Turks lived mainly in the chief towns and formed a small minority in the whole of this sub-province. Bulgarians, Serbians and Muslim Albanians were the main ethnic groups.
• Per reliable and specialicized source as "Burg, David F. A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from Antiquity to the Present". Routledge, ISBN 9781135959999, under the title: Peasant risings in Ottoman Bulgaria 1835-1837, the Pirot rebellion is described in details, as well as the whole population in today eastern Serbia, which is designated as Bulgarians.
• According to Mark Pinson's, "Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period — The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850)," published in peer reviewed journal Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 11, No 2 (May, 1975), pp. 103-146, he claims in Ottoman usage during the period of the Tanzimat (1839-1876), the district of Nish was included in the area designated "Bulgaria" and describes all rebellions in the area, including Pirot rebellion (1836), as rised up by Bulgarians.
• On the other side in Bulgarian historical literature the Pirot rebellion is pointed as Bulgarian rising in Pirot area, that was inhabited predominantly by Bulgarians at that time.
• I will also quote part of the speech of the Bulgarian revolutionary and later premier of the country at the end of the 19th century - Stefan Stambolov. His speech was hold in the Grand National Assembly in Veliko Tarnovo after the Bulgarian liberation in 1878: "Where are they, gentlemen, where are our dear towns Nis, Pirot, Vranje and Leskovac? - they are given to the Serbs". Duncan M. Perry, Stefan Stambolov and the Emergence of Modern Bulgaria, 1870-1895, Duke University Press, 1993, ISBN 0822313138, p.37.

Zoupan, this article must be changed. It is far from NPOV and reflects only the modern Serbian view. If I see, all other editors agree with me. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am readying some interesting material. Stand by, and don't edit war.--Zoupan 10:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, turn the article to NPOV and add deleted sources and responding texts. I hope you ageree that your last edits were not correct. They even contradicts with some contemporrary Serbian views. This citation is from a study supported by the "Bolyai János Research Scholarship" of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences with authors G. Demeter, Zs. Bottlik, Kr. Csaplár-Degovics. It is called: "Ethnic Mapping on the Balkans (1840–1925): a Brief Comparative Summary of Concepts and Methods of Visualization", p. 73: Citation: ...The Serbian newspaper, Srbske Narodne Novine (Year IV, pp. 138 and 141-43, May 4 and 7, 1841), described the towns of Niš, Leskovac, Pirot, and Vranja as lying in Bulgaria, and styles their inhabitants Bulgarians. In the map of Davidović nor the Sanjak of Novipazar neither Kosovo was described as Serb. The fact that his work has been published at the expense of the Servian State and that it was translated in French means, that his work was bearing the full approval of the Servian Government of that time. Macedonia, but also the towns Niš, Leskovac, Vranja, Pirot were also situated outside the boundaries of the Serbian race. The map of Desjardins (1853), professor in Serbia represents the realm of the Servian language just as the scientists, who had not been influenced by Pan-Serbianism, did think in the middle of the century. The map was based on Davidović‘s work confining Serbians into the limited area north of Šar Planina...

I got it! A real NPOV! "The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800s-1900s, February 2003, Katrin Bozeva, Department of History, McGill University, Montreal. Thesis to fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, pp. 66-67: Citation:: "A recent trend in national historiography presents many social rebellions in the Serbian and Bulgarian lands as early attempts to obtain independence from the Sublime Porte. In 1836, the Christian land tenants of Pirot and Berkovitsa rebelled against the Ottoman ill-treatment of the local population. Despite the accusations of the local governor, the vojvoda of Berkovitsa Haji Sherif, against Milos (whom he suspected of sending Serbian troops in the region to back the rebels), the uprising had no national objectives and was clearly directed against the local Muslim landlords who were mistreating their Christian subjects. Milos, who by 1838 had spent much effort seeking an official title from the Sultan, even refused to associate his name with the disturbances. Ylt is as well to recall that, in their nascent phases, the uprisings of the nineteenth century tended to have social causes. Mass national movements were only to be developed when conditions permitted. There is no evidence that earlier conflicts between the Ottoman administration and local Bulgarian and Serbian populations "were national in any sense at all."

Please Zoupan use all non-Serbian sources provided there, included deleted by you, to rework this article to NPOV, gaining a consensus. I hope you do it in the next days.Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree with the logic that Serbs and Bulgarians should not be mentioned and instead to be referred to as Orthodox Christians just because the rebellion of Serbs and Bulgarians against Ottomans was not national but social. That kind of logic is self-refuting. This rebellion had nothing to do with Orthodoxy either. Following this logic, the rebels should be referred to as socialists. I don't know much about this event, but a quick look at the sources show that there is a consensus in all works that prior this event and especially after it, many Bulgarians emigrated from Bulgaria to the region of Pirot, and that many of them joined Serbs during this rebellion. OR attempts to proclaim all 1836 rebels as Bulgarians and territory of Southeastern Serbia as historically predominantly Bulgarian-populated land based on the late 19th century sources or situation are not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

: Map called: „Territories inhabited by Servians”. It forms a supplement to the book: „History of the Servian People, edited by Dimitrije Davidovic, and translated into French by Alfred Vigneron, Belgrad 1848.” This map has originally appeared in Vienna in 1828, where it was published at the cost of the Serbian State. It shows the ethnological boundaries of the Serbian people. They are marked in southeast with a red frontier. According to this map present-day Kosovo, Southern and Eastern Serbia and Sandžak were not populated by Serbs.

I think, Serbian and Bulgarian points of view, as well as, that of another neutral researchers, cited above have a place in the article. We can not deny the fact, that in this area lived Serbs and Bulgarians, but the reasons about that earlier conflict between the Ottoman administration and local Bulgarian and Serbian population was obviously not national, but economic. In my opinion, even the Serbian state policy at that time, had still not accepted the idea, that Pirot area was populated by Serbs. Contemporarry Serbian press, mentioned only Christians and Bulgarians there. Check for example: Новине Србске: Нишки устанак 1841. Secondary sources above confirm it. I also have uploaded another official Serbian map from that time. According to this map present-day Eastern Serbia was not populated by Serbs then. Despite this facts Zoupan has deleted the Bulgarian view, and every source that is mentioning the words Bulgaria and Bulgarians from the article. In my opinion Bulgarian presence in Pirot area at that time, and even today is undisputable. By the way, all non-Serbian sources were deleted from article by Zoupan too. This is ridiculous and resembles vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Another dated source about only Bulgarian Christian character of the region's population in post 1836 period (after this event) does not bring much to this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has deviated from an informative one, with neutral wording, to a pro-Bulgarian one, in the intro. I have reverted to the stable version and will be re-adding all worthy additions made by Jingiby. There is no need adding a tertiary "encyclopaedia", nor searching for "Pirot 1836 Bulgarian" at Gbooks and copy-pasting hits here. I presented countless monographs which obviously outweigh this strange credit-taking. Will be posting up more.--Zoupan 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Article's neutrality is disputed. There was a long discussion. Nothing was stable. A lot of non-Bulgarian academic publications, confirms the text. Do not use Serbian sources in support of the neutrality of your thesis, please. Jingiby (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Do not remove the tag on disputed neutrality. Do not delete neutral sources and sourced content. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am really interested in how you went from It sounds really fine, but read the article. Every sentence is about Serbs and Serbia. on 19:10, 10 May, when that was not the case (nor was it explained how), then went on a Bulgarian rampage? Isn't it obvious that there are flaws in this "neutrality" of yours? I have not removed the neutral sources describing views on national identity. The rest needs to be gone through (Demeter et al. was generalized). Again, I don't get how Burg is the least reliable, and you would think he is? I advice you to discuss this ethnic/national nomenclature matter, not edit-war. Thank you.--Zoupan 04:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

From the page history I see that @Zoupan: have removed all non-Serbian sources which caused @Jingiby: to add the POV template. First you need to stop edit-warring and start discussing the changes. From what I see the current revision (after removing of the non-Serbian sources) represents only the Serbian view point. --StanProg (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, i.e. all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. In this connection, I intend to point out in the current text of the article, that this is the Serbian point of view. I propose also to add the Bulgarian point of view, backed by academic sources and then to add the views of independent researchers. Someone opposed? Jingiby (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The differences in the viewpoints is the ethnicity of the peasants and the involvement of Serbia. All this can be combined (no need for different sections of the viewpoints) and just with one sentence to indicate the difference between the historiographies in Bulgaria and Serbia regarding this rebellion. --StanProg (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

? You haven't put forward these differences. "Serbian-oriented" is not an ethnicity. As for treating Miloš as a 'commander and leader' for the Ottomans, and describing it as having taken place in "Ottoman Bulgaria" (which is really a term for Bulgaria in the Ottoman period), you clearly want to disassociate Serbia from the rebellion (when in fact it's central to the rebellion). I have added tons of monographs. Please suggest changes here before edit-warring. I am really interested in this Bulgarian point of view, could you go over the basics on how it differs from the "Serbian"?--Zoupan 23:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

They were not pro-Serbian oriented at all. Only Serbian sources claim that. And this view is not NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Kyril Drezov, who is lecturer at the Keele University since 1996, co-founder and core researcher of the internationally acclaimed Southeast Europe Unit there, as well as a leading expert on Balkan politics: the modern Serbian Balkan researchers, are at the level of the early 20th century Serbian nationalist scientists. He claims also, that at the turn of the 20th century, after had gained in 1878 these territories (between Nis and Pirot), Serbia had succesfully assimilated the local transitional Bulgarians and turned its attention to Macedonia. Per Drezov, even the population between Belgrade and Nis was transitional between Serbs and Bulgarians in the early 19th century. For more: J. Pettifer, The New Macedonian Question, St Antony's, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0230535798, p. 53. Jingiby (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jingiby You just refuted yourself. If your POV is correct "the modern Serbian Balkan researchers" do not even exist because they are actually "transitional Bulgarians". If you intend to insist on your POV I advise you to go to RSN and try to gain consensus that works of modern Balkan researchers are not reliable if their authors are Serbs. Until you receive such consensus, the work of Stojančević will be restored. Do not worry, although he was a member of Serbian Academy, he was probably some transitional Bulgarian who descend from Bulgarian ancestor Stojanča. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I continue to insist that the Serbian point of view is the only one, presented in the article. Drezov cites also a British geographer, Professor Henry Wilkinson's book Maps and Politics a Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia. Liverpool University Press, 1951, pp. 105; 149. Wilkinson summarized dozens of ethnographic maps put forth by European scholars, ethnographers and cartographers which depicted the demographics of the southern Balkans. From the maps included in Wilkinson's book it is appearent that up until the late 19th century the Slavs of today Eastern Serbia were regarded universally as Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's how this looks from the side: Serbian POV and sources all equal to NPOV while any other POV or sources are not NPOV. Of course anyone could play the "my sources are credible and yours isn't" game but it doesn't take one to be an expert to see that there's something inherently wrong with such statements and behavior. Like the majority here, I support representing all points of view and sticking to the neutral character of Wikipedia. --ShockD (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not exactly Serbian POV, but modern Serbian POV. Even the Serbian author Milan Savic in his book "History of the Bulgarian people until the end of its state" issued in Novi Sad wrote, that at his time (1878 when the area was ceded to Serbia) the whole territory east from Nis, i.e. today Eastern Serbia, was Bulgarian populated. Jingiby (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In relation with the above discussion, I suggest that in the article should be added also the Bulgarian point of view, as well as that of contemporarry European observers and modern foreign historians on that uprising. Also deleted sources must be added again. Facts as the visit of the Serbian prince in Pirot 40 years later, and other similar writings, having no relation to the article should be removed. And there was not a Pirot rebellion on its own. Zoupan deliberately divided the article, creating three distinctive articles: about Berkovitsa rebellion and Belogradchik rebellion. The distance among those cities is 20-30 km. and the fact they are in different countries today had any impact at that time. The peasants from Berkovsko, Pirotsko and Belogradchik first came up at the end of 1834 and the beginning of 1835, and 16 villages in the area rose up. These villages are in both countries today. In May 1836 the rebellion again flared up, this time in Pirotsko, Tsarobrodsko and Dragomansko as the most massive character gained in Berkovsko. These cities are in both countries today. I.e. this was one rebellion in that small area, divided today between Bulgaria and Serbia, but the article must be only one. Creating a lot of articles about one past event, inspired by subsequent political and nationalist reasons is a nonsense. The historical data demonstrate that before the establishment of their sovereign states ordinary Serbs and Bulgarians had only a vague idea of their national identity. The peasantry was accustomed to defining itself in terms of religion, locality and occupation, not in terms of nationality. Any other ideas? Jingiby (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed - Per sources. The sources treat them as different topics.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Qestion - Which sources? For example Burg, David F. A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from Antiquity to the Present. Routledge, ISBN 9781135959999, does not. By the way, what about restoring all deleted Bulgarian and English sources with supported by them different info? Now this article sounds as translated from Serbian Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No doubt you noticed that sources used in the article, some of them secondary sources authored by experts and written precisely about this topic, explicitly refer to this event as Pirot rebellion. Some of them are even named after Pirot Rebellion. No doubt you know to perform easy google books search and see dozens of sources about this event as a specific topic. No doubt you know that one tertiary source you brought which is not about this topic but about general topic of all tax rebellions does not prove your point. Nevertheless, you continued to write huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. That is not constructive. Same goes for implication that sources or wikipedia authored by people of Serbian nationality are somehow of lesser value. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the last sentece is absurd. For example I respect you and your opinion. Would you please, look at that artice Niš Rebellion (1841). In my opinion, it is well balanced one and is very similar to this case. Jingiby (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ops, I see now it was changed in the last days! Sorry. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence is not absurd. You wrote Now this article sounds as translated from Serbian Wikipedia and you repeatedly insist to add sources which are non-Serbian. This kind of speech implies bad characteristics to sources or wikipedia articles just because of Serbian nationality of their authors. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Maps above are made by Serbian scientists from the first half of the 19th century and are acceptable to me, despite the nationality of its authors. But I think, there is some bias to Bulgaria on Serbian Wikipedia today. For example this article Срби у Бугарској claims, even the forfather of Bulgarian national revival, by the way born in the same area (Chiprovtsi) - Petar Bogdan was a Serbian. Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That is additional absurdity. You try to refute assertions based on the modern Serbian scholarship implying they are unreliable because they are Serbian authored with the irrelevant post-1836 map authored by early 19th century Serbian author. I propose you to drop the stick. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstand me. My opinion is: all scientific opinions supported by academic scholarship should be included here: Serbian, Bulgarian and foreign ones. Not that at the level of forums, blogs, etc. I prefer the English language sources published by foreign Universities to have more weight, as more neutral in comparision to Bulgarian and Serbian. Jingiby (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Your statement that reliability of sources depends on the nationality of authors shows that I perfectly well understood you. Have you presented a single source which refutes reliability or neutrality of sources used in the article? No. What is the basis of your position that Serbian authored sources are less reliable than "foreign ones"? Just because of their Serbian nationality people are doomed for life? Less reliable, neutral or valued than any other "foreign" people (who by the way paid almost none attention to this event when it comes to its in depth analysis)? Ideas that humans are subdivided into distinct groups based on their nationalities which make them different in their social behavior and innate capacities so they can be ranked as inferior or superior always make me sick.

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. One tertiary source and comments full of prejudice towards certain wrong nationality of people who authored sources used in the article about this topic are invalid to support your proposal for merging Pirot Rebellion with two other articles about two other rebellions. This will be my last comment in this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If the nationality of the sources is disregarded, although they are not of neutral POV, an article should be based on sources that do not represent minority views and it must be not difficult to find such sources outside a certain nationality. The removed sources refuted some of the content as their view outweighs the rest in terms of publishers and authors. Note that in the current sources an untrue affinity is claimed for Prince Obrenovic making them unreliable. He was an ally of the Ottomans in the rebellion.--77.85.26.74 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he had promised to help the rebels, but broke out his promise and remained loyal to the Ottoman Sultan. As a consequence, the Serbian prince suppressed the rebels and punished the fugitives. Jingiby (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Antidiscriminator, Serbian sources must be accepted as undisputable in this case. However, I believe that when there is a discrepancy in the claims of two parties, they both must be listen and then a third party to become an arbitrator. This is the most normal practice. Jingiby (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I will not change the text, but I have added two tags and vour notes under line. They explain the alternative views on some from disputed issues, and are supported by reliable sources, written by neutral researchers. Jingiby (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)