Talk:Great Retreat (Serbia)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Yes, yes, i am not against it too, however place the google search showing the 20 mentions on googlebooks etc so there is no doubt.Resnjari (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gentlemen, here is what comes up:

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)

thank you. Aeengath (talk) 03:08, 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Thank you all Aeengath (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References about Serbian brutality in the First Balkan War in this article

@Resnjari: One reference should be enough since this is not the subject of the article. Four was already way too many and way unnecessary but five is getting ridiculous please create an article about Serbian brutality in the First Balkan War if it does not already exist instead of adding references about it here. This will only contribute to creating more edit wars for no good reasons. Thank you. Aeengath (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, well i am going to expand it in section by a sentence as there is bit more to it then that highly condensed sentence shows.Resnjari (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: why expand on the justifications? then the section about the attacks will have to be expanded, detailed and we will get dragged in another tit for tat. Don't you think it is unnecessary? everything is already said, all that suffering is sad enough the way it is... let's not add to it. Aeengath (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, there is not ti for tat. The sentence as it stands is insufficient for one (its does not relay properly what sources state) and it uses WP:WEASEL words like "perhaps". Actually the refs that do talk about revenge do not characterize it in maybe terms. The ref Kramer, p142 does not even refer to revenge attacks at all, so its original research. You removed Tallon as a extra source, but Tallon is quite detailed and one of the other sources talk about the reaction from Albanians in Kosovo, so it should not be a ref for that sentence about Albania. So technically the info the refs contain have not really been used to portray what they say within the article. Anyway i am in the process of writing. I'll keep you posted.Resnjari (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, i rewrote the sentences, they now convey what the sources say. I removed the Kramer ref (as outlined previously). Have a read of both the sources and sentences. It should be fine now and covers that area in a limited, but succinct manner. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not agreed. Try to seek consensus for any new edits on the subject, as we have nicely done the last time. The second sentence is not needed. The rest can be explained in less words. I shall undo you. We need to find a middle solution here on the TP. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, don't get into an edit war. Also not agreed to whom? The previous sentence had one ref (i.e Kramer) that has nothing to do with it. Whereas not having Tallon is why ? Saying there are to many refs is does not suffice and the cobble many things to the one sentence. In fact one of the refs is talking about Kosovo and not Albania. At the very least the sentences should conform to what their sources say. Otherwise its a hogpodge of original research and using weasel words like "perhaps" when the sources do not. If you think what i added is bullshit, all sources are available and you can check and compare the sentences. All sources are RS as well.Resnjari (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A single /undo/ which was explained and announced on the TP is not EW. Please do not spin. Weasel words can be fixed. We are not talking about that. There is no original research and you did not improve the article with your edits. The second sentence is not needed, as the same thing is explained in the first one. It looks like justification of attacks. It is minority view, therefore it fails per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We do not need to 2 sentences about pasha and his guys. That is spam and not due weight. Pretty much the same was claimed by fellow editor Aeengath. Stating that "I do not like" the content which you have added is just sad. Then again, you once freely claimed that I do not like that information about massacres of civilians be added to some article. No further comment. Regardless, you still have no consensus. Plese be kind enough not to ignore that and focus on the problems with your edits and not something secondary. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, its not sad. How is it a minority view? I don't understand. You mean those attacks were not done for those reasons. If so where or who says that? The Essad Toptani stuff (which i did not add) is undue weight at that size. Plus a sentence on that is unsourced too. Nonetheless what happened in Kosovo and Albania regarding the retreat did happen. Albanians had their reasons and it was not "perhaps". Remember, the Serbian retreat happened through dense Albanian populated territory. The article ought to mention something about that interaction, especially as Albanians were responsible for the sizable number of Serb casualties - this part is also not contested in scholarship. Propose something if you think it can be better said. Sources are there. I am not talking about massacres of Albanians here. Those edits were by Fa'ik, not mine to this article.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all authors claim that the attacks were motivated because of SA's previous actions. Most general histories of WW1 do not claim or mention it. Guess why? Yes it should be mentioned, but not with such wording and lenght, it's not neutral or per due weight. Two editors have told you the same thing, we do not need and will not go in circles here. I was not talking about that editor at all. [1] Sources are here but for stuff which should not be there. If you want all sides represented, then you should add the info. that the Serbian army previously targeted Albanians as revenge attacks because a lot of Alb. were Ottoman soldiers and the general trend in the Balkans at the time was to equalize other Muslims with Turks (nothing good for the Balkan people etc.). I do not see that information in the lead of the article you mentioned. There is no precise information how many Serbian soldiers fell due to sniper attacks. Sources usually give descriptions as figures are hard to determin. Most certainly much much less compared to deaths due to cold weather, lack of resources, sickness etc. The article is mentioning the interaction and context is given in the lead and article body. That is more than enough. We do not need 2 sentences about motivations of Albanian tribe members and other paramilitary, not at all. All of your additions are not improvements. You should revert yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You say general histories don't mention it, but then you don't provide the names of the scholars or their works. I am not going to go on your word unless you provide something substantive here. The sources provided in the article for the matter at hand are histories of the Balkans who have written about this topic and have included content about Albanians, the Serbian army and their retreat. Those interactions resulted in some severe consequences for the Serb army during their retreat. Now you say you can word this better, and shorter while still keeping to what the sources say, so do it. I await to see what you come up with. Ball is in your court. Prior to my changes, the sentence had one ref (Kramer) which had nothing to do with that sentence, another ref that was about Kosovo and not Albania, and an extra ref i added was reverted because there were already to many refs! Yet that ref was applicable, more so then probably most of the others. On the massacres of the Albanians article, yes from memory there was opposition to the Tucevic quote, because a editor had used a unreliable source to cite it etc. So i then found a reliable source. I fail to see what that has to do with here. Its two different articles.Resnjari (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• The effort being spent here is not worth the dispute (@Sadko: I really think that you should focus on articles like the one about the coronavirus pandemic in Serbia, a topic that has actual, real value). We agreed to have a sentence about the attacks on the WP:LEAD. A brief expansion of what is written on the lead in a section is something pretty normal. If someone could search in Serbian bibliography about interpretations of those events and official figures, it would be interesting.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

1) No, that is not how a debate is to be done or what TP is for. You added some material, other editors are opposed to it. You ignore other editors and go in circles. That was not the context of that diff, at all. 2) Thank you for your idea, but I shall edit whatever I like. 3) The current position of sentences about local snipers and pasha and the rest is pretty odd, to say the least. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Resnjari:Once again, which important or relevant information is to be lost with this change? [2] And Once again Wikipedia:Stable version - The stable version is the most recent revision of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What info is "important" is not decided by editors' POV but by what reliable sources say on the topic. Read WP:Cherrypicking. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That was not my question. Once again, which key information or sources have been lost with [3] And Once again Wikipedia:Stable version is ignored. There is no cherrypicking, none at all, that is just a smoke bomb. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Lost? Expanded on is more like it. Anyway i will something on casualties regarding disease, which should have been added yesterday.Resnjari (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I am guessing nobody is really interested in a consensus or leaving the article in peace ....but I cannot speak about what someone else thinks or feels, just like it is impossible to speak about the motivation of Albanian tribesmen in 1915, we can only speculate, is it worth mentioning? yes and this was already in the article since I rewrote it last November, nobody complained about it.

My main objection to be adding more details, sources..etc about the motivation of Albanian tribesmen remains the fact that this is not the subject of the article, the Serbs were being forced out by the armies of three countries, a force of more than half a million men, not by tribesmen. Again it is worth mentioning? yes, it's already there! Aeengath (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC) ps: I found the comment about coronavirus pandemic in Serbia to be highly inappropriate. Aeengath (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Three armies did force out the Serb army, but that retreat was through dense Albanian populated territory in both Kosovo and Albania and interactions between the army and Albanian people overall were not friendly at all. Not covering that part properly by consigning it to one sentence, considering that sources state that the rate of army casualties were high because of Albanian attacks and the environment does a disservice to the topic. Also having the Kramer ref for that content did not suffice as it had nothing to do with it, while excluding Tallon, a RS source also made no sense. On Albanian highlanders, the sources do not treat it as speculation, and us treating it that way when they do not is original research (WP:OR). If its speculative, you need to have RS sources that say that, so the "perhaps" can carry weight when used.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok so let's see those new additions that have been imposed on us without discussion: The new text: "snipers shot at Serb soldiers and both factors contributed to more than a third of all deaths among the retreating army" The first reference: "When the Serb army was fleeing the advance of the Austro-Hungarian and German troops and had no alternative but to reach the Adriatic Sea via Albania, the Albanian popula­tion attacked the troops and many Serbian soldiers lost their lives." Is this a fictitious reference or am I missing something here? The second reference is from a book called "Identity and Territorial Autonomy in Plural Societies" where the Serbian retreat occupied two sentences. The quote says" Of the 500,000 men during the retreat over the Albanian mountains in the winter of 1914-15, over a third succumbed to the elements or to Albanian snipers" according to google books "this work examines the effects of territorial solutions to the safeguarding of cultural identities", not really the work of an expert on the subject, also about that 500,00 men reference here is what DiNardo has to say "At the start of the campaign, the Serbian armies numbered anywhere from 250,000 to 270,000 men" Finally since I mention DiNardo and his book called "Invasion, The Conquest of Serbia, 1915" 212 pages, a very detailed book used by many, there are two mentions of Albanians: "Austro-Hungarian prisoners... died from starvation, exposure, and mistreatment at the hands of the Serbians, Montenegrins, Albanians, or any combination of the three" and "The terrain was mountainous, the weather cold and snowy, and the Serbians were attacked by Albanian tribesmen. Eventually, however, the Serbian columns reached the Adriatic coast." I am going to leave it there because this shows that maybe just maybe some people are not being entirely honest here (but I am no mind reader!) Aeengath (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You have written most of the article without anyone else interfering in the process and not dragging every edit you made to the talkpage. I was merely following WP:BRD. Its disingenuous also say not "not honest". Mojzes is RS. "fictitious" on what basis? Further, the chapter by Majstorovic is in a book of academic papers collected in an edited book. It is RS. I fail to see how "this work examines the effects of territorial solutions to the safeguarding of cultural identities" somehow precludes it from usage or means it is not WP:RS or WP:SECONDARY. If you so wish, add additional info from Nardo about Montenegrins and other Serbs being responsible for the casualties. That's fine. However, the Albanians involved in attacks within Albania were mainly highlanders. Nardo and Tallon (which you reverted me previously) are both in agreement on that. On numbers, note that the lede sentence says "Out of around 400,000 people who set out on the journey," sourced to Hall, p.279. (which you added) gives a large figure, Majstorovic gives 100,000 more. Either way not all of those were army personal, but the group that set out was large and casualties the retreat experienced were sizable within Albanian populated areas due to the elements and attacks. I did not add refs about numbers related to the size of the group. Nardo just gives a specific figure on troops. How you want to reconcile numbers from like and Nardo, i'm all ears. By the way i am restoring the Majstorevic ref, its removal is not warrented. I am ok with the changes made.Resnjari (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are various details which are not the first and primary problem. The first and primary problem is that you are ignoring 2 editors and pushing the text, instead of coming up with a solution and than adding the text. Those tweaks are supposed to make opposed editors feel "comfortable" with the PUSHED version and material. Now, we have 2 long sentences about motivations and beliefs of local Albanian population. One for Albania and one for the territory of Kosovo. Who cares about that if they come to read about the great retretat? This is severe breaking of basic Wiki guidlines. Furthermore, a part of your comments can be seen as Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not ok with Aeengath's changes. The nationalization of historiography is long surpassed historiography. The retreat of the Serbian army is the retreat of the Serbian army, not the retreat of the Serbs as a nation. Serbia had a strong anti-war movement in WWI. Serbs were both fighting and not fighting in WWI. Likewise, Essad Pasha's alliance to Serbia was political. His origin is irrelevant in regard to his political goals.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has become bizarre. Adding OR material that opposes what scholarship says is a big mistake. So is removing content because "nobody cares about it" too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking closer at Aeengath's edits, i had to correct the bit added by the editor as Judah writes about Kosovo, and Albania was listed as a province in the article and as a part of Serbia which is incorrect. Anyway i agree with Maleschreiber and Ktrimi991 here.Resnjari (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit conflicts

I'm just trying to get a grip on the recent series of edits and reverts. Sadko, can you confirm that the information/sources you removed in these edits, where you said this was undue for the lead, were still found elsewhere in the article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Most of it is/was. A part which was not was later talked about on the TP. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point to keep going, I have used over 20 books and references to write an article as clear and fair as possible and suddenly 3, 4 maybe 5? editors come out of nowhere and start making changes and want to push their agenda. Is this something planned and organised? I don't know but I am not interested in their edit war. this is beyond sad and really shows the limit of Wikipedia as being a reliable source. Aeengath (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath: Wikipedia is a more reliable source than Britannica exactly because it doesn't rely on one editor's editorial judgment. It's not a limit, it's an advantage. You wrote an article about a historical event that happened mainly in Albania and you had largely omitted how the people who lived in that country responded to that event. No more than six sentences were added in total to the main body (roughly 120 sentences) of the article about their stance. That is 4% of article. Why is it POV-pushing to have a very small paragraph about the outlook of the natives? My contribution to the bibliography was H. Afflerbach (2015), The Purpose of the First World War: War Aims and Military Strategies. The extensive analysis he puts forward about the alliance of Essada Pasha to Nikola Pašić paints a political framework that enriches our historical understanding, it doesn't make it poorer in comparison to the older revision you had written where Essad Pasha appeared as an ally of Serbia but without any historical context for the readers to understand why that was. I'm not being dismissive of your work and nothing substantial you have written has been removed, but articles improve over time as different perspectives are put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies, Aeengath, and Maleschreiber: You clearly still do not understand how Wikipedia works. I know thay you have good faith. This is a classical case of content pushing, ignoring other users and ignoring consnsus. Not to mention the problem of something being due/undue. That is not how things should be done, and fair warning were given. I understand that Aeeengath is surprised (to say the least) by this sort of behaviour, which is nothing new when it comes to some subjects. Adidtional motivations and content are not relevant for the subject and borders with spam. Nobody has anything againts 2-3 sentences (and we mostly had them), but this is simply far too much on so many levels. And take a look where the content is placed. Not to mention agreesive behaviour on a newbie and other editors. [4] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sadko, I'm sorry--were you talking to me? I don't know how Wikipedia works? Drmies (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hell no, it was a message to our new editor Maleschreiber. You started the section, therefore I just tagged all participants. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry people, I'm off editing the French invasion of Russia, can you believe they forgot to mention the motivations of the Cossacks who were hacking at Napoleon's rear and flanks during their retreat? also worth checking out how little they mention how local people responded to the event.Aeengath (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because there is a lack of interest in that article. The sources for additions here are RS and consist of only 3 sentences that are buried deep in the article. The end process resulted in the Kramer ref being removed -as it had nothing to do with it, weasel words like "perhaps" removed when none of the sources used them or something similar and the inclusion of RS Tallon source. These are improvements, a reader now at least knows what was happening with Serb troops and Albanians during the retreat. After all it did happen in Kosovo and Albania, areas of dense Albanian populated lands.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not the one who should determine what is enough. That is supposed to be a joint effort. You have an example of that in the discussion above this one. That's why we have TP. No, they are not improvements and the material is placed in a random place and it looks like it came out of nowhere (which just proves my point). Those additions were not agree upon. That is all very secondary and undue. Basic information were/are given with NPOV. This case is a great example how aggressive editors push newbies aside. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And you are the one to determine what is enough? My comment was in the context that those few sentences could be much more. Look i agree it is a joint effort, but i was kind of dismayed when Tallon (RS source) was reverted by @Aeengath, while the source (Kramer) he had added from some time back had nothing to do with the sentence. The rationale for removing Tallon was there was to many sources! Well i added one that was relevant. Then there is the "perhaps" issue when none of the sources discuss it that way. Look, i didn't bother to make any serious edits here before as i thought @Aeengath was doing ok, until that revert. Then i looked at it all and thought time for my input via edits. Sadko you also got a admin involved and it ricocheted back on you. What is added is RS and a few sentences buried deep in the article. @Aeengath, isnt a newbie, the editor has been around for some time now.Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that is only your impression. I for one am discussing on the TP during the whole dispute, that is how it's supposed to be done, which you know as well, but just choose to ignore. Those are not the primary concerns, but details for the most part. At the initial moment of content pushing, two editors have clearly told you they are not okay with the newly added content. What did you do? Carried on all the way. That is indisputable. This sort of behaviour borders with Wikipedia:Tag team and it's textbook disruptive. One should discuss about the sources and the content in general first, and only then focus on the details. For example In Albania, Albanian irregulars sought revenge for the severe treatment of Muslim soldiers by the Serbian side during the Balkan Wars. Balkan wars were pretty much Balkan Christians opposed to Turks and other local Muslims. It is mind boggling to include such thoughts.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

These conflicts are often hard to solve, and the only way that I know how is to do little things and reach agreement on the talk page, one way or another. So, Maleschreiber, you are talking about this edit? Who reverted this, and why? (I assume the content is in fact in there, and the book is reliable enough.) BTW, "the area he controlled", was that already verified in Pavlović 2014? If not, then that text should be placed after that note, of course. Just asking. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sadko, this is the second time in a row when you are talking to me when what you say makes no sense at all to me. If you do not understand how to do indents, how to structure talk page comments, then please read Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread. In the meantime, your insults, even if they weren't supposed to be directed at me, are rubbing me and others the wrong way and they are poisoning the atmosphere. You asked me to come here and help figure out what the right way forward is, and this is what I get? Let me remind you of this notification. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are there, the content has been added. This is now going around in circles.Resnjari (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari, I don't know what precisely you are referring to, but it is not an answer to my question. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, my bad, the comment was directed to Sadko. There was an edit conflict when i was adding so i copied my edit and pasted it after when i went into the talkpage again. Seems i misplaced it by a sentance. Regarding me, the edit that got me to check things through was this [5]. Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The area he controlled is verified in Afflerbach (2015). I was referring to the general approach to the content about Essad Pasha because after this edit, previous content about his involvement was removed because it was considered to be extra details as if there's a content limit about any given subject. My main methodological disagreement with Aeengath has to do with his approach to the subject. I haven't removed any of his content. He has written the article solely through the perspective and the narrative of the Serbian army, but the events of the article were the result of the interaction of the Serbian army with a)its local ally, Essad Pasha b)its local adversaries, Albanian irregulars c)25,000 Austrian prisoners of war that were dragged in Albania (they figure nowhere in the article), d)the Italian navy that waited to transport the Serbian army to safety e)the Central Powers that were pursuing them f)the Montenegrin army that was supporting the Serbian army during its retreat. The Austrian captives in particular were handed to the Italian navy. Many of these people died of typhus and cholera in Sardinia where the Italian army interned them. An article that covers the stories of all those who were part of these events is a better article and provides a much better understanding of the events themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, you only answered one of my questions, and a whole bunch of questions I didn't ask. So, "the area he controlled" is not verified in Pavlovic? Then that information was not entered in the proper place. I also asked you when it was reverted but you didn't answer so I had to look for it myself: Sadko removed it in this edit, with an edit summary I don't understand: "double entry, neutral wording, the whole ethnic group can not be blamed for actions of a small %". The edit did not blame a whole group for the actions of a small percentage--in fact that is exactly what the information said, and the wording was neutral.

Sadko, that edit of yours is puzzling, and barring a good explanation it should be restored. Maleschreiber, if you're asked three questions but you answer only one, and a host of questions that I didn't ask, it is going to be very difficult to move this forward. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: 1) I fixed the placement of my last comment. It was posted like that by mistake; multi-tasking is taking its toll. Thank you for pointing that out. 2) As for the edit in question - the same sentence was repeated twice. I have added that the attacks on retreating army and civilians were done by part of Kosovo Albanians, which, in my book, is neutral and far better. Another option could be - Kosovo Albanian irregulars. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see--and now I see the duplicate matter as well (which was restored by Ktrimi991, with a puzzling edit summary, and then removed again by N.Hoxha, just to keep matters complicated), and subsequently tweaked by Maleschreiber--who reworded it in such a way that I thought the content had been removed altogether from the article because the terms I searched for had been changed. After one more tweak we arrive at our current version.

So that's a dozen or more edits and reverts and tweaks I had to search through to figure out that this particular phrase was not the problem. Can I ask you all to list precisely which edits, which sentences, which removals are the problem? And I need all y'all to be concise, and to not muddy the water with lengthy explanations. Let's have no more than three specific edits/sentences/removals, with no more than one sentence of explanation please. Not a back and forth, not a discussion--just a few diffs, one per editor. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:You asked me if the bit about Essad Pasha and Durrës is verified in Pavlovic. It's not and I also didn't add Pavlovic. The citation is taken from Hofflerbach (2015) which is the source I added. There was no information about the area Essad Pasha controlled before I added Hofflerbach (2015).

The edits I was referring to are these two [6][7]--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Three problems

1. [8] This shouldn't be removed again. The article should be enriched with the perspective of the locals in whose home territory these events took place and in which they played an active role.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
2. As of now we have four sentences in the paragraph (it's undue), the problem/s could be solved with: 1) Combining the first and the second sentence. 2) Reworking the third sentence in order to sound more NPOV and not like a justification. 3) I'm okay with the last sentence on Essad Pasha Toptani. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
3. please give diff or sentence, brief explanation, and sign

Problem 1

• Maleschreiber, regarding this edit (which was reverted by someone who is not interested in discussion), I assume you mean you disagree with Sadko's "all key information kept, the same points made in less words"? That content is in the article now, so I assume you're happy? Sadko, I presume that this edit indicates you're OK with the content as it stands? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm ok, the article could also use some further expansion on some other topics but there's no need to hurry.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• I am fine with the article as well. The bits on the Albanian population and their role in this event are 3 sentences and minimal when compared to the whole article. Having it as one sentence did not cover scope of that aspect properly, especially as the Serb army retreated through dense populated Albanian land in Kosovo and Albania.Resnjari (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• I am not ok with it, it's just that I did not want to go back and forth on the article page any more. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the modifications that were made, the article seems to be more NPOV now. N.Hoxha (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• I find these additions problematic. One, they refer to "Albanians" as a whole, but that seems unfair. Which Albanians? Armed bands? The whole of society (doubtful)? The way it is currently written it makes it seem as if all the Albanians in Kosovo participated in the attacks. In addition, I see an attempt to justify these attacks. This get us into the whole Balkan tit for tat mess. Yes, some Albanians doubtless desired revenge. But then, was Serbian rule in Kosovo oppressive because the Serbs wanted revenge for four centuries of oppression under the Ottomans, many of whom were Ottoman Albanians? Where does this end? Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

RS sources outline what they say and the sentances reflect that. They talk of the Albanian population, you bring nothing to contest that that was not the case. Unfairness as a reason is strange too. If we we start using unfariness as a reason to exclude RS sources from Balkan topics, there would be no articles left. Moreover the way that section is currently written is in line with RS source material. If you have problems with the scholars who wrote it, contact them or the publisher and take it up with them.Resnjari (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

Whose idea was it to rename this article the Great Retreat? I can't imagine that's the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. AFAIK Albanian Golgotha is the Serbian common name and there isn't one in English. Perhaps a descriptive title like Serbo-Montenegro evacuation to Corfu would make more sense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I was supportive of the idea and still am. "Albanian Golgotha" is often used but not as much as "Retreat over Albania". Your descriptive title is okay as well (Serbian evacuation to Corfu). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus this happened a while back. Aeengath outlined the reasons in this thread: [9]. I also thought the reasons were fine and agreed. No one else bothered to participate, so the move happened.Resnjari (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with a descriptive title like Retreat of the Serbian army to Corfu.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But it wasn't only the Serbian army that was retreating. It was also the Montenegrin army, militiamen, as well as tens of thousands of civilians from those two countries, not to mention Austro-Hungarian POWs Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I always thought that the bulk of the Montenegrin army remained in Montenegro until January 1916, but if you think that they had a larger participation I'm ok with a move to a title that reflects that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The evacuation of both armies was part of a joint effort, with the Montenegrins guarding Serbia's western flank and giving the Royal Serbian Army enough time to leave Kosovo and Macedonia and head west towards the Adriatic. Yes, the Montenegrins arrived in Corfu a few weeks after the Serbians, but it's the same historical event. Would anyone object to Serbo-Montenegrin evacuation to Corfu? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear @Aeengath:'s take on this. I'm okay with your suggestion, and my guess is that you plan to expand the article? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is mostly withdrawal of the Serbian army and title should be Retreat of the Serbian army to Corfu. Whether there are civilians, prisoners or Montenegrins among that army does not change this main fact. Everything else will be written in the article. Maybe it could be an additional article about Montenegrin withdrawal. Mikola22 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the name suggested by Males and Mikola22. As far as I can see, the Montenegrin actions are treated in scholarship as helping or joining the retreat of Serbian troops (and maybe civilians). Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with the current name. @Aeengath showed (see thread: [10]) how it was consistent with other similar names dealing with this kind of subject matter and that event is also known by this name in English. Changing the pagename to Albanian Golgotha would be confusing , as Leo Freundlich wrote a book with the same name that gave details of Serb massacres during the Balkan wars.Resnjari (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current name is the most suitable one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that the current name is good enough, maybe when more content about Montenegrins is added we could move the page to what was suggested above. But for now I think it's ok N.Hoxha (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) Is "Great Retreat" really the most common name in the literature? I don't have a strong opinion on this, just asking. Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion for a pagemove here [11] initiated by @Aeengath (who rewrote much of the article). The editor made the case, @Sadko agreed, i agreed too. No one else bothered to participate and @Aeengath moved the page. That was some time back.Resnjari (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Template change

I think that the template military conflict is confusing, I propose to change it to military operation which seems more appropriate. The reason being that the retreat was not a battle being fought (since the Central Powers chose not to chase the Serbian army across Albania) but a strategic withdrawal of the army (along with government, parliamentary deputies, journalists, theatre actors, writers, and thousands of civilians plus Austro-Hungarian PoWs). Aeengath (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I also wanted to ask you if you know whether the Austrian POWs are included in the given 200,000 civilians or whether they are counted separately by the bibliography in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:Ok Great. The Austro-Hungarian PoW are counted separately, I'll add all those numbers w refs in the new template, it will be much easier than w the current one. Aeengath (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead part which Sadko removed on 11:36, 8 June 2020 is in fact Sadko's own consensus proposal for the lead back in April, which I implemented on 16:44, 1 April 2020 with the summary adding Sadko's talkpage proposal, which Sadko himself then accepted and said on this talkpage Brackets added. I'm okay now with this middle-ground solution. So, the edit which Sadko is now removing and which became the object of removal by several different editors is a compromise proposal whose last editor was Sadko himself. Coming to this again 2+ months later and reverting the result of a consensus procedure which you accepted is incomprehensible to me @Sadko:. @El C: the protection of the article is a good measure.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was not finished and moderation ended without any result. That can be seen from the TP. Do not blame it on me, please. You have mentioned me by name six times so far, which is not healthy for any discussion. And if that was the case, so what? I am a freethinking man and I am keeping my full right to change my opinion. Note that I have left the same information in the body - which was never fully agreed upon and there was no consensus. That is good faith on my part, regardless if you realize it or not. There is zero doubt that this piece of information is not relevant for the lead, as it is of tertiary importance for the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole part that once again tries to justify the crimes and tragedy of the Serbs is a serious POV and WP:GEVAL, which is misinterpretation of sources. Paul Mojzes described attacks as “revenge for revenge”, while Ramet and Judah discussed ethnic relations from 1878. No source confirms that “revenge” was the ONLY motives for the attack. Such claims are inadmissible, because they are non-encyclopedic and seriously violate the Wikipedia's core content policies. I don’t see the conclusion of the debate about the disputed part on the talk page. It is especially wrong to mention such unsupported claims in the lead. That all is WP:WEIGHT, as well as WP:MOSLEAD.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And if that was the case, so what? I am a freethinking man and I am keeping my full right to change my opinion. You can change your opinion, but you can't change an existing consensus in which you participated and specifically were the last person to edit&propose it, by removing it 2 months later. You start another discussion with another proposal and then we can discuss about it. Side comment: The lead doesn't mention any "revenge".--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that was not the case. Please do not spin. Our moderated debate stopped with you and me listing/explaining our view of main problems (under Problem 1, Problem 2) and it was never continued. Therefore - there was no consensus or endgame, as many editors were not supportive of any of this content introduced and kept as an integral part of article. I only stepped back for some time to reflect.

Having that "explanation" in the lead is just laughable. We can and should debate about the body and current formulation, but having this info. in the lead is just mind-boggling for anyone with a shred of objectivity. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Problem 1/2 is a different debate. The part of the lead was accepted by you: Brackets added. I'm okay now with this middle-ground solution. and then you made this edit. I don't know what made you go from the "middle-ground solution" to "mind-boggling for anyone with a shred of objectivity", but consensus procedures require editing consistency. If you want to, you can always propose a change in the stable version based on reliable sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

1) You are repeating yourselves. 2) Problem 1 and 2 are parts of the same lengthy debate, which is quite clear. 3) There is no "stable version", considering that the current version had severe opposition not that long ago. "Stable version status" would require at least 2x time without disputed edits made. Per WP:Stable version It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. 4) Wiki guideline on lead section is quite clear. That piece of trivia is irrelevant for it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This was the stable version for the past months - a version which you supported then as a "middle-ground solution". Since April, this version has been the lead - the definition of a stable lead. Two months later, you tried to remove it. You could either give us your alternative or try to remove it again when the full protection ends. At that point, I will have to report you. You can't call the stable version a "middle-ground solution" in April and then try to remove it June in an editing sequence in which your edits are followed by reverts from other editors who weren't even active in any discussion. I don't want to recycle the same arguments, so ping me if you want to suggest an alternative lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Two months" is a stable version? Come on. Do not abuse that "argument" as it is not doing you any good, on the contrary. Read again - WP:Stable version. Go ahead, report me for making a bold move and improving the article and discussing about it, that would look great. :)

It seems to me that you are set to have the current version by any means necessary, which points out to an emotional reaction rather then a rational one. Lead should be cleaned off information which are not important enough, as those "motivations" are very much explained in the article body, which should be the next step for this discussion.

Please, who can really think that motivations of local tribes for their guerilla warfarce actions - is notable enough for article lead? For example, Serbo-Bulgarian War does not mention that Serbian king had a big ego and wanted to cover himself in glory which led to dismissal of every senior officer and his eventual demise on the battlefield. Numerous other cases like that can be presented. It simply makes no sense and it's a move/action founded in Wiki guidelines and reason and it is not pointed against anybody. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed the brackets as a compromise, I now think that this was a mistake as this material is affecting the integrity of the lead and the quality of the article whether in brackets or not. Aeengath (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely unimportant for lead, I've never seen anything like that for my many years as Wikipedia editor and frankly I can't see why are you debating so much about something which is so obviously trivial for opening paragraph!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not lede worthy The lede is meant to provide a summary of the article, not go into details. This can be discussed in the body of the article, but is not appropriate for the lede, where it is difficult to provide sufficient context given brevity requirements. Khirurg (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Unimportant and not lead worthy. This is just pushing POV. I agree with the comments above. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources are obviously misinterpreted. The current version is a perfect example of the WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think it is the best and most NPOV and UNDUE solution for the currently controversial: Between November 1915 and January 1916, during the journey across the mountains, 77,455 soldiers and 160,000 civilians froze, starved to death, died of disease or were killed by “local Albanian irregulars as a result of existing ethnic conflicts” or something similar. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course the sources have been cherry-picked, and not only that, but the content was forced into the lead by mere force, while consensus and other editors and their arguments were Stonewalled, which is continuing till this moment. There are other means to get that in order, but I think that your version is much more WP:NPOV and it could be the middle solution we are looking for. ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You've added some extreme WP:POINT edits, which are both misleading as bibliography doesn't support and are also irrelevant to this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be great to keep improving this page without finding it locked again, out of 35,244 bytes of content I have contributed +21,051 not counting the images and maps that I scanned and uploaded, that’s about 60% fo the content of this page, I think I have used the most respected, accessible and uncontroversial sources in the english language. Could we find a way to work together to keep improving it instead of editwarring? I took out the mention of specific enemies from the lead since it seemed to be the main source of controversy. It is still addressed and debated in the body where it should be.Aeengath (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a great edit and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate the efforts of Ktrimi991 and Aeengath to make good changes. The cited sources were misinterpreted. The authors did not discuss the Great Retreat, but the conflicts between Serbs and Albanians starting from the 19th century. Mentioning only one event, without the whole aspect, is a serious NPOV and POINT. To conclude, no one said that the attacks were just revenge, but only one part of a long-running conflict.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath: What do you think about current edit war and the version we have already discussed? I will not repeat myself, I've already explained why the previous version is a serious policy violation and misinterpretation of the sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Aeegath wrote a neutral version, it was accepted via WP:SILENCE and then you tried to change that. There is a consensus, we'd better stay there as that is the only version we can agree upon.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, well said.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop with edit war and start with a civil discussion. The last version was approved by Aeengath and via WP:SILENCE. Please do not change anything until Aeengath answers.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I only changed the lead to a more neutral version, not that section. Personally I am more concerned about readability, I think that it can be improved with fewer repetitions of words and of course citation overkill. think both “versions” are far from ok… but I don’t think it will be impossible. Staying on the topic seems to be the hardest part.Aeengath (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that there is "consensus" about that? Which figures are we talking about? Recent edits are showing the opposite. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Section about contact with local Albanians

Using my very first version as base mixed with the latest and I hope with better "readability" I propose the following:

In Kosovo, local Albanians hostile to Serbs, acting in revenge for the repression they endured following the incorporation of the province into Serbia and Montenegro three years earlier, mounted guerrilla actions to pick off weak detachments. When reaching Albania Essad Pasha Toptani, an Albanian leader and former Ottoman General, who was a Serb ally, provided protection where this was possible. Where he was in control, his gendarmes gave support to retreating Serbian troops, but in more isolated place and as the columns moved to territories in the north, where Essad Pasha’s authority did not hold sway, attacks by Albanian tribesmen and irregulars became commonplace. The previous two Serbian Army invasions into Albania, one in 1913 and the second in May 1915, as well as the Serbian brutality in the First Balkan War, made many of the locals ready to take their revenge on the battered soldiers retreating through the mountain passes.

Aeengath (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is good in my view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks right to me. :)Resnjari (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's good.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Serbian brutality" is not okay, as it may seem to uneducated readers that the whole course of war is one of war crimes, which was absolutely not the case. It's not WP:NPOV, please suggest other wording. Furthermore, distinction should be made - Serbian army, not just Serbian. Another point, we don't really need the dates, like May 1915, it can be just plain years, which would make the sentence shorter and nicer. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is we do not want to go too much into details as the retreat needs to stay the central topic of the article, in truth many sources, like Dinaro hardly mention contact with local Albanians.

here is another version:

In Kosovo, local Albanians hostile to Serbs, acting in revenge for the repression they endured following the incorporation of the province into Serbia and Montenegro three years earlier, mounted guerrilla actions to pick off weak detachments. When reaching Albania Essad Pasha Toptani, an Albanian leader and former Ottoman General, who was a Serb ally and the one central authority left in Albania, provided protection where this was possible. Where he was in control, his gendarmes gave support to retreating Serbian troops, but in more isolated place and as the columns moved to territories in the north, where Essad Pasha’s authority did not hold sway, attacks by Albanian tribesmen and irregulars became commonplace. The Serbo-Montenegrin troops brutal actions in the First Balkan War, when the Albanian had sided with the Porte against Belgrade, made many of the locals ready to take their revenge on the battered soldiers retreating through the mountain passes, continuing the cycle of revenge with killing and looting. Aeengath (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks good - it's per facts, written neutrally and it's concise, the way it should be, with all the key information presented. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a bit in case more feedback. I also want to move this paragraph up at the beginning of the Retreat section instead for more visibility.Aeengath (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If (when the Albanian had sided with the Porte against Belgrade) is removed, it'll be neutral.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that part not per facts? Yes or no? We need to clearly show that the events in question (and later back and forth, which is continuing all over to modern times) were not motivated by sheer bloodshed but because of reasons of different allegiance in the war/s. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not a "fact" and it wasn't an argument at the time too. This particular part of was a subject of dispute in other edits too, so there's not going to be a consensus about it. Thus, we should remove it and use this version or use the previous version.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I heard Sarko’s argument and I added that info as I think it is needed it’s not a POV but a fact. In a way, they were forced to, they had no choice. This is not to excuse the violence and atrocities but to give context.

The Albanians hoped to follow a course of neutrality and non-engagement, but found this impossible as the Ottoman army collapsed faster than had been anticipated, and the Balkan allies marched deep into Albanian territory. Following the old dogma, 'Better the devil you know', the Albanians fought with the empire against the Balkan armies.

Aeengath (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It says nothing about Kosovo in particular, nor does it says that the Serb army massacred Albanian civilians in Kosovo because of the war. There is an extensive bibliography which shows that the massacres happened as part of a deliberate campaign in order to annex the region successfully. We have chosen to not expand the issue in this article, so we can keep it short by excluding it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, almost identical responses from several editors in a short period of time may indicate WP:CANVAS. The number of arguments cannot change the fact that policies are being violated and sources are being taken out of context.

Most importantly, how many sources that primarily describe the Great Retreat mention the attacks of Albanians and their motives? (WP:UNDUE) The authors didn't discuss this event in general, but incidents as part of a long-term conflict. This is a perfect example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Paul Mojzes described attacks as “revenge for revenge”, while Ramet and Judah discussed ethnic relations from 1878. No source confirms that “revenge” was the only motive for the attack. If we want to include the motives mentioned by the authors, then we have to explain the whole context. I would suggest returning the introductory sentence or some modification thereof: The existing wider Serb-Albanian conflict, that started in 1878, also affected the Great Retreat of the Serbian army. Otherwise, in order to be neutral, we should leave an explanation that the attacks took place, and remove the controversial part about the alleged motives. At least until better sources are found.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

when the Albanian had sided with the Porte against Belgrade, the problem with this is that it's not mentioned in any of the sources used for that section. It's original research. It's why i agree with your first proposal @Aeengath:, as the content of each sentence can be accounted for in the RS sources used for the section. As for Dinaro, he covered aspects that others have not; there is nothing to indicate in his research that what the others stated was null and void. If there was, then i am willing to part or in whole reconsider this section. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: You're right, I should have added the source of that sentence, it’s by the same author Miranda Vickers. The full quote is this:

Serbian historiography attempts to excuse such atrocities by arguing that they were provoked:

"During the border fights which got under way two days before the declaration of war, the Albanians used deception, raising false white flags; this led to significant losses on the part of the Serbian army and provided a motive for subsequent reprisals” However, this same account also tells of the peaceful and constructive role the Albanian population played during the Serbian advance through a part of Kosovo: "A local leader, Sadik Rama, who had close ties with the Serbian Consul in Pristina during the 1912 uprising, contributed to the Albanian's peaceful conduct during the Serbian Army's march through Drenica and Prekoruplje. To his credit, the settled Albanian population in 150 villages did not fire a single shot, and some 400 rifles were gathered at the monastery of Devic without the use of any military force.”

In truth the Albanian population were paying the price for having sided with the Porte against Belgrade.

Aeengath (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: To answer your question how many sources that primarily describe the Great Retreat mention the attacks of Albanians and their motives? very few, most of the sources deal with the Serbian Campaign, the Eastern Front or World War I, but that doesn't mean we should not mention it. Dinaro which is the main source for that article mentions it here:

The terrain was mountainous, the weather cold and snowy, and the Serbians were attacked by Albanian tribesmen. Eventually, however, the Serbian columns reached the Adriatic coast.

Aeengath (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. The main source mentions attacks by Albanians, not revenge.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I did find one, I'll keep looking:

The weather, terrain and poor roads that had hampered Mackensen’s armies now became the main problem for the retreating Serbs. The Serbian occupation of Albania had led to widespread resentment, and many Albanians took up arms – some of them purchased from Serbian deserters, as described above – and attacked the columns as they trudged along the mountain tracks.

Aeengath (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ok, a suggested change "Albanians had sided with" to "Albanians had fought with" which is what they did. Also the bit about locals may need a additional qualifier like "Albanian locals" or local Albanians", otherwise that sentence comes of awkward as to who are the locals. Also that Sadik Rama guy seems to have played a significant role in the retreat through a sizable geographical area in Kosovo. Maybe a sentence on him, (if Toptani gets one too?)Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A qualifier is need for this bit in the sentence "the incorporation of the province", add "from Ottoman rule". Otherwise a reader not familiar with the region may wonder as to whom or what the previous geopolitical status was.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote is about the First Balkan War and the advance of the Serbian Army into Kosovo not the Retreat, Sadik Rama would make good material for the First Balkan War though. Like I said to @WEBDuB: most of the sources used for this article about the topic: Serbian Campaign, the Eastern Front or World War I, hardly mention the episode so we should really avoid adding more to it, it’s easy for readers to follow wikilinks instead to find more about it. Aeengath (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, ok for Rama, i am not fussed over it. A few things, a lot of readers are not familiar with the Ottoman state being called Porte. Replacing Porte with Ottomans makes it more clear. Another area is that the article makes no mention of the Ottoman Empire. So when it says Kosovo was incorporated into Serbia and Montenegro, incorporated from whom? Because following sentences make mention of Ottomans etc but its not stated from the outset that it was the Ottoman empire was the other side. At the very least, the addition of "from Ottoman rule" after "the incorporation of the province" would clear it up without having to go into details or have an extra sentence for context.Resnjari (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to mention that it was incorporated from the Ottoman Empire, then you should also mention that Kosovo was actually re-incorporated territory previously invaded by the Ottomans. But there is no need to go so dubiously, Aeengath already has a problem in trying to stay on topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok for replacing Porte with Ottoman Empire, re: "incorporated from" I think linking it to Treaty of London (1913) instead could be more concise. Aeengath (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Its dubious when not mentioned. Kosovo went from half a millennium under Ottoman rule to being attached to modern Serbia and Montenegro. Its says as much in those sources for the section. Many a reader is not knowelage on the Balkans and may not know. Best to cover all bases as the sources for that section do mention it. Its only 3 extra words "from Ottoman rule".Resnjari (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it’s only 3 words but I just feel that the info is unnecessary to the article on top of need WP:BECONCISE We already have the Serbian army retreating from Austro-Hungarian, German and Bulgarian armies, trying to connect with Franco and British forces, hoping to reach Greece, we just added Albanians from Kosovo and Albanians from Albania, Do we really need to bring the Ottoman Empire into that? Aeengath (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, but those 3 words -and its just 3 words- make it concise. Otherwise there is a whole lot about Ottomans down below (which we already have brought into the picture), but what is not clarified above is who Serbs/Montenegrins fought before/what was Kosovo previously under in terms of administration. Not all who read this topic have a Balkans background. Only 3 words make all the difference without having to add a zillion other sentences. Also Porte ought to be Ottomans, again same reason to do with the readers. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not, details (OE and related stuff) are and can be better covered in World War I. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about adding details, just three signifcant words. Its improtant that the article has clarity as its the first sentance of that section. Moreover the sources attached to that article do mention it, so its not something like original research that i ask to be added.Resnjari (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok let's see how to integrate it, the phrase will need re-work a bit as it's quite a mouthful... Aeengath (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In Kosovo, local Albanians hostile to Serbs, acting in revenge for the repression they endured, following the transfer of the province from Ottoman to Serbian and Montenegrin territory, mounted guerrilla actions to pick off weak detachments.[1][2] When reaching Albania Essad Pasha Toptani, an Albanian leader and former Ottoman General, who was a Serb ally and the one central authority left in Albania, provided protection where this was possible.[6] Where he was in control, his gendarmes gave support to retreating Serbian troops, but as the columns moved to territories in the north, attacks by Albanian tribesmen and irregulars became commonplace.[4] The Serbo-Montenegrin troops brutal actions in the First Balkan War, when the Albanians sided with the Ottomans against the Balkan armies,[7] made many of the locals ready to take their revenge on the battered soldiers retreating through the mountain passes, continuing the cycle of revenge with killing and looting.[8] Aeengath (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aeengath: its good. Small trim, if it want to go down that road. Make: "when the Albanians had sided with the Ottoman against the Balkan armies," read "when the Albanians sided with the Ottomans against the Balkan armies,". Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok cool @Sadko: are you okay with this version too? @WEBDuB: the reference about Kosovo Albanians is going in the Kosovo section and the other one in the Retreat section so it actually works pretty well I think. Aeengath (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References