Maleschreiber (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
During the journey across the mountains, between November 1915 and January 1916, around 70,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians froze, starved to death, died of disease or were killed by hostile, local Albanian irregulars (who resented Serbian repressive policies towards the Albanian population during the Balkan Wars). [[User:Aeengath|Aeengath]] ([[User talk:Aeengath|talk]]) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
During the journey across the mountains, between November 1915 and January 1916, around 70,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians froze, starved to death, died of disease or were killed by hostile, local Albanian irregulars (who resented Serbian repressive policies towards the Albanian population during the Balkan Wars). [[User:Aeengath|Aeengath]] ([[User talk:Aeengath|talk]]) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I've made the necessary changes according to your proposal. The only thing I changed was ''Serbian repressive policies'' to ''repressive policies of the Serbian army''. The Serb people cannot be held accountable in general for the actions of the Serbian state.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
:I've made the necessary changes according to your proposal. The only thing I changed was ''Serbian repressive policies'' to ''repressive policies of the Serbian army''. The Serb people cannot be held accountable in general for the actions of the Serbian state.--[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] ([[User talk:Maleschreiber|talk]]) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Brackets added. I'm okay now with this middle-ground solution. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #000000;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 23:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:45, 1 April 2020
Serbia Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Albania Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Military history: Balkan / European / World War I C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edit warring by Hrvoje1389
I have warned User:Hrvoje1389 about edit warring by repeated removal of content on this article. Just letting other "watchers" know. Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning. I would also like to thank you for stalking me and for pushing pro-Shqip propaganda and anti-Serb sentiment. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- User talk:Pincrete, thank you for the info. Hrvoje does not explain why he is removing the content apart from refering to the section (to paraphrase) as new content that should be discussed regarding addition to the page. I am not sure if Hrvoje has looked through the history revision page, but the background section was older content and i restored it some time back after it was deleted by an IP (without explanation). Hrvoje needs to provide better explanations as to why that section is not needed. wp:idontlikeit editing does not help the matter on clarification. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- User talk:Hrvoje1389, usually in many similar situations, other editors would take the matter to one of the wikipedia forums for edit warring or something else. Unlike those editors who do that, there are editors in here who are willing to discuss the issue (as you yourself keep saying to discuss in your edit summary -when you have done multiple removals of content). For other editors engaging here on the talkpage first off, it would be good to for them know what your concerns are regarding that specific section. Is it content based ? Is it going against some wikipedia guidelines/policy ? Something else ? In doing so we can move forward and have a discussion instead of it revolving around something vague like "pro-Shqip propaganda and anti-Serb sentiment". Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant or not significantly relevant information
although interesting the section about the Balkan Wars of 1912 should not be featured here, maybe in a dedicated page? the event which lead to the Serbian army's retreat through Albania was the invasion of Serbia by the central powers not the Balkan Wars. also there is no need to have a chapter about the reason of start of the First World War here, a link should be enough. Aeengath (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
New Background Section
Replaced the background section with a new one to be able to place the event within the context of the First World War, and more specifically within the Serbian Campaign. According to all the sources I read (and included in the list of references) it is after the great loss of that last battle in Kosovo that the retreat was decided, therefore I also added a Prelude section. Since I removed it from Background I added a mention about the Balkan Wars within the Retreat Section with a reference to an excellent book about crimes during that period. I also found a great map to illustrate the different front lines, I intend to add a timeline later on and better resolution pics. I hope everyone likes this new edit, it will need polishing! feel free to comment! thanks. Aeengath (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Moving page
Serbian army's retreat through Albania (less than 10 mentions on googlebooks) does not include the civilians and does not mention Montenegro where the the largest contingent retreated through. I propose to move this page to Great Retreat (Serbian) (more than 20 mentions on googlebooks), as this is how this event is referred in most english language books and news articles, and redirect the current title there. just like the French Great Retreat, the Great Retreat (Russian) and even the American Great Retreat any objections? Thanks Aeengath (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Before you undertake the pagemove, could you provide the google search weblinks just so editors can see. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The idea is solid and I find your arguments reasonable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Great Serbian Retreat
in books 18 mentions;
in news article 16 mentions;
on google -wiki About 2,000 results
Serbian army's retreat through Albania
in books 9 mentions;
in news article 0 mentions;
on google -wiki About 536 results
I think moving this page could improve the traffic to it. Best
Aeengath (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aeengath, all good. I'm cool with a pagemove to the title you suggested. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Grasping at straws
The recent addition of a sentence asserting that the VKS pillaged and committed atrocities during the period covered by this article coincides with the creation of another article titled Massacres of Albanians during the Great Retreat. But I'll focus on the recent edits to this article. The merits of the other article will be discussed at WP:AfD.
The sources used to cite this particular assertion in this article don't say what the accompanying text claims they do.
- The first source , a less than impartial student paper, states: "In January 1915, under the direction of Hasan Prishtina, the rebellion was extended up to Gjakova’s highlands (Rushiti, 2003:169); from where Serb forces were forced to retreat leaving behind the traces of crime committed against the civilian population." Vague language, but in any event, this is clearly referring to the atrocities committed during the Balkan Wars, hence the "leaving behind" part. No mention of atrocities during the retreat.
- The second source says: "The entry of Bulgaria into the war on the side of the Central Powers tipped the stalemate between Austria-Hungary and Serbia into Austria-Hungary’s favor. First Serbian and later Montenegrin forces were compelled to retreat and seek shelter in neutral Albania. This created animosity between Albanians and the retreating Allies, significantly increasing violence between Albanians and Serbs who were viewed as invaders." Again, vague language. No mention of who committed the violence in this instance or where it occurred.
- The third source is the only one that explicitly mentions violence and/or pillaging committed by the VKS, but it does so as part of a source overview of a Kosovar high school textbook. High school textbooks aren't considered WP:RS as per WP:TERTIARY.
If this is going to stay up, reliable sources that explicitly make this assertion are needed, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sources are indeed questionable, to say the least, as are those recently added to related articles. There is a bunch of them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is completely ignored as well. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Amanuensis Balkanicus: I can handle that once I start my day in a proper way with a proper cup of coffee, but as someone familiar with the Balkan Wars and WWI history you probably know that neither Hoti, nor Gruda or Kelmendi or Shkreli were hostile to the Serbian army for no reason. So far the article doesn't explain that. It just says that Albanians were hostile to the retreating Serb troops for unknown reasons.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Context can be given within the article body, not lead. It is irrelevant for the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be a whole paragraph, but it is important because if the Serb army wasn't denied resources and held under constant skirmish attacks the Great Retreat wouldn't have been that much of a subject in historiography. The distance they covered is small even in heavy winter. The hostile population made it a very difficult journey. That is a central feature of the subject here.
- Context can be given within the article body, not lead. It is irrelevant for the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I can prepare a proposal in a sentence or two and we can edit it here on the talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I added content from the body of the article to the lead. It discusses the desire of local people for revenge. On massacres, the army and locals exchanged acts of violence but, as far as I can see, no reliable source mentions any particullar massacre or similar crime. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Maleschreiber: I would like to see your version. We can work on the draft jointly here. The last edit, made by @Ktrimi991: should be taken in to consideration, and it has some nice sources. I have no problem with giving context (no doubt that it is needed), but it must be done carefully as it can not be long, it should give the basic information and not stray off the topic. For example two sentences about Essad Pasha Toptani are irrelevant and not okay for the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- A lede without Esat? Of course I agree. Tbh I added him as I expected you to want him "for balance". You do not want him in the lede, honestly it is great. With or without him, it is good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Copypasting the same text from the body to the lede is poor form. Better to wait and see Maleschreiber's proposal. Khirurg (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are zillions of FAs and GAs that use the same words in the lede and other parts of the article ("copypasting"). However, the only important thing is to mention the background of the hostilities between the army and locals that you initially claimed had no source. The wording or the length is not important to me. @Maleschreiber can handle this very well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is true but it does not make it more legit; it's not a good practice. Space for explaining that background is limited when it comes to lead as it may easily go off-topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are zillions of FAs and GAs that use the same words in the lede and other parts of the article ("copypasting"). However, the only important thing is to mention the background of the hostilities between the army and locals that you initially claimed had no source. The wording or the length is not important to me. @Maleschreiber can handle this very well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Copypasting the same text from the body to the lede is poor form. Better to wait and see Maleschreiber's proposal. Khirurg (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- A lede without Esat? Of course I agree. Tbh I added him as I expected you to want him "for balance". You do not want him in the lede, honestly it is great. With or without him, it is good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- During the journey across the mountains, around 70,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians froze, starved to death, died of disease or were killed by hostile, local Albanian irregulars between November 1915 and January 1916. The hostility was fueled in particular by the repressive policies of the Serbian army towards the Albanian population during the Balkan Wars.
Bibliography:
- Ramet (2006)As early as October 1918, some Serbian soldiers in Kosovo sought revenge for the attacks the Serbian Army had suffered at the hands of Albanians during its retreat in 1915 which had been in turn, a revenge for the repressive treatment which Serbian authorities had meted out to Albanians after the Serbian conquest of the province in 1912, which had included the forced conversion of Albanians to Orthodoxy
--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- For me it is great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would go with several minor weaks - The hostility was predominantly fueled by repressive policies of the Serbian army towards Albanians during the Balkan Wars.
- Thank you Maleschreiber. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is good.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Let's wait on 2 more editors involved in the discussion before adding. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is good.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- For me it is great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally I don't see why we should be mentioning the motivations behind the actions of local tribes, in the lead section of this article. Aeengath (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have nothing against adding the sentence which was introduced on the TP in the article body. That is an even better solution, as it may be the intro sentence, and a bit more material could be added. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Either the reasons of hostility between the two sides will be added to the lede, or the reasons of the deaths among Serbian troops and civilians will be removed from the lede. Choose the option you prefer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. This is the talk page, not "I'm giving you two options page". cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Either the reasons of hostility between the two sides will be added to the lede, or the reasons of the deaths among Serbian troops and civilians will be removed from the lede. Choose the option you prefer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The motivation for the attacks by Albanian tribes is already mentioned in the article body here (I know I'm the one who wrote it), nobody is threatening to remove that part but it is irrelevant to have it in the lead section, just like we do not need to presume that Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia because it wanted revenge for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (but it is mentioned in the first paragraph).
"The previous two Serbian Army invasions into Albania, one in 1913 and the second in May 1915, made many of the locals ready to take their revenge (perhaps also in retribution for Serbian brutality in the First Balkan War)." Aeengath (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Aeengath: I used Sadko's proposal for the lead. If anybody thinks that a better one can be written, we can discuss it even further. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please wait :@Maleschreiber:. As I have previously said, I want to hear what @Amanuensis Balkanicus: and @Khirurg: have to say, as they have been involved in our discussion. Please revert yourself, for now.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Since I still think that this information does not need to be part of the intro, but since I also think that it would be good to find a compromise, I propose to mention it between brackets: During the journey across the mountains, between November 1915 and January 1916, around 70,000 soldiers and 140,000 civilians froze, starved to death, died of disease or were killed by hostile, local Albanian irregulars (who resented Serbian repressive policies towards the Albanian population during the Balkan Wars). Aeengath (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've made the necessary changes according to your proposal. The only thing I changed was Serbian repressive policies to repressive policies of the Serbian army. The Serb people cannot be held accountable in general for the actions of the Serbian state.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Brackets added. I'm okay now with this middle-ground solution. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)