Talk:Battle of Čegar

Military history: Balkan / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Temporal screwery

The battle is listed as having occurred on 31 May, 1809. Which is all fine and dandy unless you read the article on Stevan Sinđelić, who supposedly lead the Serbians in the conflict, which says he died in 19 May, meaning he'd have been dead for 12 days by the time of the battle and I don't think corpses can be generals. I would set things straight myself but I honestly had no idea this battle even happened before today.Kongurous (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a discrepancy in calendars. The Serbs didn't modernize their dates until 1928, and Russian calendars from 1800-1900AD were off by 12 days, so the same rule probably applies to the Serbs'. 173.206.21.161 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Both armies annihilated"

Is there a reference for this statement? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what the problem is. The Turks lost 4 times as many people as the Serbs even had on the battlefield, that should at least be mentioned, I mean for fuck's sake, don't you see the double standard here. In the article Battle of Kajmakcalan, you specifically referenced and pointed out the fact that the Serbs had high casualties (which I had absolutely no problem with by the way, even though in the battle of Kosovo article when I pointed out heavy Ottoman casualties you erased on the pretext of being redundant) Its ridiculous, you're allowed pointing out heavy casualties in certain battles but when I do the same (in battles where the casualties are very relevant to the outcome of the battle), you erase it. Blatant double standards.

Wrong again. I specifically referenced a Serbian victory at the Battle of Kajmakcalan. Casualties should be listed in the appropriate column. Only YOU feel the need to indicate casualties in the Result section of the template. Only YOU have indicated heavy casualties in the Result section of a battle template, not I. I am only interested in facts from reliable, third-party, published sources[1]. Only YOU have some sort of agenda to either enhance or diminish some ethnic groups on wikipedia, as indicated by your edits. Continued statements of "Your blatant dislike for me and obviously, my people.", will be reported to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you have some sort of huge problem with listing causalities on the results page then why, instead of referencing it, didn't you erase it like you did in this article or the Battle of Kosovo? Personally, I think you would have erased it if it suited your beliefs, opinions, etc. and you know it as well as I. Either way, I erased it.

And I assure, I have absolutely no will to enhance or diminish certain ethnic groups. For reasons beyond my knowledge, its you who seems to stalk every Serbian battle page on an (at the very least it seems) hourly basis making edits.

To conclude, I've decided that I truly don't give a fuck, I won't revert the "results" on this page anymore. There you fucking go.

Images

"Bitka na Čegru-reljef". Историја кроз фотографије и слике. Krstarica. p. 86..--Zoupan 12:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]