Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars/Archive 1

POV

This article is example of pov article. It is taking Albanian side.--SLAK (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) One of examples is that mentions that Albanians were only nation on Balkan without status of nation. Is is ordinary lie. There are many other problems.--SLAK (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The example has been corrected. What are other problems. Can you be more specific? --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Background section in the article is another example of the article being written in favor of Albanian view of events. I added this content to the Background section but it was removed by a person from Albania :

"Through several centuries of Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, Christian population in areas surrounded by Muslims shrank. Serbian population in today's Kosovo, in majority before Ottoman conquest, found itself a minority in late 19th century. The neighboring Albanian tribes accepted Muslim faith and were favored by the occupation authorities. "

This sheds light on inter ethnic and inter confessional conflicts before Serbia regaining control over Kosovo, which were root cause of war crimes against Albanian civil population.188.2.25.65 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Turkish names

Ferizoviç was regular name of the city in that time. Just like Constantinople before Istanbul. For example, if we are talking about siege of Constantinople, we cannot say "siege of Istanbul". In this case, city name was Ferizoviç before Serbian rule.--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some references are very problematic. First of all is Leo Freundlich. This artical is practicly based on his book "Albanians golgotha"[1]. This book is compilation of his articals that were publish in Wien during the war. All his articals are what he heard from others and he was never present to anything of what he write. For example he is speaking about some 15 year old girl that was killed in Nis fortress becouse she throu bomb on serbian soldgers... Book is full with some propaganda articals that are for some novel and not for the Wikipedia.

First, Leo Freundlich was not novelist, he was newspapers editor. Second, book "Albanians golgotha" is not compilation of his own articles but a "compilation of rare news reports which seeped out of Kosova at the time of the Balkan wars".[2] Is there any reliable source that questions the credibility of those reports?--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same story is with Lazër Mjeda. He was sending propaganda reports also.

Who denies him? Who qualifies his reports as propaganda?

Reference 4 is only artical but nobody sign it!

It is article from Danas, independent Serbian political newspaper, not from some unknown yellow press.

Second very problematic source are Kosta Novakovic and Dimitrije Tucovic. They were politicions and they were publishing articals and books with goal that they could have some political benefit. Kosta Novakovic published that 120.000 civilians were killed during the war and today historical Dubravka Stojanovic (she specialiesed this topic) is saying that during whole war were killed 20.000 by all armies.

Kosta Novakovic was a politician, but he was also a eye-witness as a Serbian soldier during the Serbian occupation of Albania. Maybe his numbers are overestimated but he could be quoted as a example of a highest estimated number. On contrary, modern-day Serbian historian Dubravka Stojanovic could be quoted as a example of a minimal estimated number. Regarding Dimitrije Tucovic, he is serious and often credited source for the Serbian-Albanian conflict in the Balkan Wars.[3][4][5][6]

This type of articals should be based on some documents or serious historians. It is violenting basic rules of Wikipedia. [[7]] --Alexmilt (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what are you suggesting to improve this article? --Mladifilozof (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, all Propaganda must go out. Imagine how would the history of WWII look like according to Nazi propaganda-references? Or how would be history of Yugoslav Wars if we take as serious reports that was on TV screens during the war. Or imagine Serbian history if we take as references books of Deretic!? This is not how wikipedians are working.--Alexmilt (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate parallel with "Nazi propaganda" in this article could be only official Serbian denials. But it is good to cited that also, not as propaganda but as example in proper context. --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references: If the sources diverge significantly then it is reasonable to question some of them. But if all the sources agree with each other, then there is no reasonable doubt that some of them are incorrect.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Picture of Albanian prisoners is very problematic.

File:Albanian prisoners in Belgrade.jpg

In that time Albania was not a state and they didnt had any army. Helmets or caps, that they are used are bigger than normal Albanian national cap. It looks like they are Turkish solders. As solders of Ottoman empire they could be evan Serbs that were mobilised to fight for Ottoman empire!? When somebody looks this picture have impression that this are ordinary Albanian people, taken in custody, just because they are Albanian and now after Serbian victory they have to march on streets of Belgrade as losers of war like the whole war was product of Serbian hate toward Albanians. If this solders were Albanians by nationality, they were solders of Ottoman empire. This picture should be describe as "Turkish war prisoners are marched through Belgrade 1912". But evan than it has nothing with massacres, because massacred people can not march. This picture should be in page about First Balkan War.--Alexmilt (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have references for your claims, then this is only your original research. This image has its valid source and description. And just for information, Albania was a state in emerging and it has its armed forces. Other question is if we do not want to use this picture in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was there Albanian army in that time? So army was formed after 28. November 1912. They need fight, and than they were capture, and than they were taken to Belgrade (aprox 500km on very bad roads) in december (winter in Belgrade and weather on picture looks fine). --Alexmilt (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was not Albanian regular army, but there was Albanian volunteer army in that time. Major fighting for Kosovo vilayet was in October, during the autumn.--Mladifilozof (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Name of this page should be changed into "War crimes in First Balkan War" (like page War crimes in Manchukuo)and than it should be listed all war crimes that are known. For numbers of killed people and exact case it must be used some credible source, not propaganda.--Alexmilt (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to "War crimes in First Balkan War" merge. All other editors on the page, (now me included) already agreed to that. This is bias, pov pushing and inappropriate to have like that. --Tadija (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree merging an extensive article "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" with non-existing "War crimes in First Balkan War". Is there any specific reason why we can't have two or more separate articles on war crimes? Or you will also suggest to merge Armenian Genocide to "War crimes in First World War" and World War II persecution of Serbs to "War crimes in Second World War"?--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are non comparable! Balkan wars are not = with Second World war! And yes, there is a reason. It is not neutral like this, it is full of bias, and it must be expanded with both side views. There was a lot of things that lead to this one. --Tadija (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a suitable name. I would add though the Massacres committed by the Greek army and the "andartis" paramilitaries in Southern Albania (Chameria included.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You comment is meaningless as you didn't explain why you think it is suitable. It is POV fork like this, as you can see. --Tadija (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadija, sign your comment please. I think it is suitable because the article is about how Albanians were massacred by the Serbians in the Balkan War, hence the name of the article. And please provide an explanation in the talk page for your strage revert where you call user:ZjarriRrethues a vandal. He took that template off, because there is no discussion abou the neutrality, unless the neutrality that you are disputing here is the name of the article. You are in odor of breaching WP:Civil with that anyways, so please be careful. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zjarri removed tags from multiple articles in editors past, this is not the first time. Article is disputed, so that move it regarded vandalism under that circumstances. --Tadija^speaks 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed for what? For the name? That tag has been around since January 2010. Can you make a list of the things that you, yourself dispute? --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O, my friend, i am sorry, but i cannot type all of those again. You may see above, or below. :) Or just forget all of those, and just go and sign my guestbook! I will have time for this article in few days. Be good and well until then. :)) --Tadija^speaks 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Aleximilt entered the tag in January, entered a discussion with Mladifilozof above, and Mladifilozof answered. You have produced nothing productive in the talk page for that matter and the POV tag is staying here because you want me to keep it and sign your guestbook and that's it? Did I understand correctly? --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you dont want to, then you are not my friend! :( :) I remove the tag for now. When i have more time, i will explain everything very clearly, so you will understand. It is disputed anyway, but as i cannot explain all over again now, it's ok. Good night, Sulmues. --Tadija^speaks 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge into a new page, which should incorporate all sides' war crimes. As it now stands, it invites bias, original research and expressions of personal points of view.-The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are Editors ?

Wow, just stumbled into this articles while searching for more Balkan Wars info. I don't remember when was the last time I saw so much bias at one place. Kind of funny this article is presented. Victimizing Albanians will not go far with people who actually know the subject of Balkan Wars. But then again, politics rule these days. Who cares about history and what actually happened.

Another thing. Considering all known Austro-Hungarian propaganda and bias against Serbia at that time we should exclude sources like New York Times. It clearly says on the image : Say Hungarian Reports. You must be kidding me right ? Putting such source in an article like this on Wiki ? Hungarian reports ? Be wise people. No one buys it except people with no knowledge of history whatsoever. Is this the goal of Wiki ? To present propaganda as facts to ignorant viewers ?

I will come here in couple of days to edit some things. Will even register just for this. Have quite substantial collection of journalist letters from the spot but I wonder if it is worth retyping considering what I just read here ? Again, where are the Editors ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.91.71 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Report of International commission says (page 148):

We have repeatedly been able to show that worst atrocities were not due to excess of regular soldiery, nor can they alway be laid to the charge of the volunteers, the bashi-bouzuk. The populations mutually slaughtered and purused with ferocity heightened by mutual knowledge and the old hatereds and resentments they cherished.
— Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War, page 148 [8]

To use above mentioned report to state that armies of Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro commited series of massacres is absolute violation of NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the same report wrote that massacres were commited by:

Ottoman armies while retreat
Bashibozuk (bahibozuk, kachaks, chetnicks, komitadjis, ardanti,....)
Population (mostly christians of all nations against muslims of all nations)
armies of Balkan allies

Failing to state above mentioned conclusions from report in the text of article is violating NPOV because it is obvious that report clearly stated that in Balkan wars (and after Balkan wars) (like in all modern time wars) all sides (and not only armies and irregulars, but mostly population) commited war crimes. Using Carnegie report and at the same time avoiding to state this facts is violation of NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice this article is on the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars not on Massacres of Civilians during Balkan wars. Up to now in Carnegi report there are references which state clearly that Albanians were killed by regular and irregular(chetniks) Serbian and Montenegrin troops and they are correctly cited in the article. If you claim that according to Carnegi report Albanians were killed by Ottomans armies or other populations you are free to bring them here, inline citation (exact phrase) and page number(in the report) and we will change the article accordingly. Up to then you are just trolling, as usual.

Citing the Carnegie report page 149

The orders given to the Slav armies were perhaps a trifle less barbarous. It does not, however, follow that there was no intention of conquering the territory without maintaining an alien population there. "Orders of extermination" were not given, orders to the contrary were indeed given [see below]. But in private conversations the same idea is constantly met. What proves that it was not a mere mode of speaking, is the fact that the Turkish population suffered at the hands of the Bulgarians, and the Albanian population at the hands of the Servians as well..... As to the Servians, we possess authentic evidence in the shape of a letter from a member of the Servian army, published in the Servian Socialist paper Radnitchke Novine, of October 9/22. The contents of this letter resemble only too closely the letters of the Greek soldiers. True, the reference here is to an expedition made to repress a revolt. "My dear Friend," writes the soldier. "I have no time to write to you at length, but I can tell you that appalling things are going on here. I am terrified by them, and constantly ask myself how men can be so barbarous as to commit such cruelties. It is horrible. I dare not (even if I had time, which I have not) tell you more, but I may say that Liouma (an Albanian region along the river of the same name), no longer exists. There is nothing but corpses, dust and ashes. There are villages of 100, 150, 200 houses, where there is no longer a single man, literally not one. We collect them in bodies of forty to fifty, and then we pierce them with our bayonets to the last man. Pillage is going on -everywhere. The officers told the soldiers to go to Prisrend and sell the things they had stolen." The paper which published this letter adds : "Our friend tells us of things even more appalling than this ( !) ; but they are so horrible and so heartrending that we prefer not to publish them.

Citing the Carnegie report page 150

On September 20 last (new style), the Servian army carried off all the cattle of the Malesia of Dibra. The herdsmen were compelled to defend themselves, and to struggle, but they were all killed. The Servians also killed the two chieftains of the Liouma clan, Mehmed Edem and Djafer Eletiz, and then began pillaging and burning all the villages on their way: Pechkapia, Pletza and Dochichti, in lower Dibra; Alai, Beg, Machi, Para, Oboku, Klobotchichta, and Solokitzi, in upper Dibra. In all these villages the Servians committed acts of horrible massacre and outrage on women, children and old people. In the town of Dibra itself the authorities published an order to the effect that the bazaar was not to be opened on Sunday or the inhabitants to come out of their houses on that day. Forty-eight notables were arrested. When the Servians saw that the inhabitants of the pillaged villages, of which a list has been given above, had come to reclaim their cattle and were surrounding the town, they had the notables brought out of prison and killed them in the most shameless way.

Citing the Carnegie report page 150

The following villages, with a mixed Albanian and Bulgarian population, were pillaged and burnt Lochnani, Lissitchani, Gitoche, Dibrichta, Harlichte, Dessovo, Gradechnitsa, Ptchelopek. Many Moslem families from these villages,including women and children, were pitilessly massacred. On entering the village of Portchassie, the regular Servian army led all the husbands outside the village, and then brought the wives thither to exact money from them in the shape of ransom, if they wanted their husbands set at liberty. After the ransom had been paid, however, the wretched men were shut up in the mosque, which was then blown up with four shells.' In the village of Sulp, seventy-three Albanians suffered a horrible death, and forty-seven others from the village of Ptchelopek were basely assassinated.

Citing user

To use above mentioned report to state that armies of Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro commited series of massacres is absolute violation of NPOV. Antidiskriminator 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Aigest (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aigest. All above mentioned accusations from pages 149 and 150 are not reported by Commision, like you tried to present, but they are part of the report containing citations from non-neutral sources and newspaper articles (German Reichpost, communist Radničke novine...). All those accusations were commented with this sentence in report of Carnegie commision:

Citing the Carnegie report, page 150:

"The Commission was not able to verify those statements "

So it is obvious that those statements were not reported by Commission and Commission was not able to verify those statements. Your comments about me being a troll are harassment and personal attacks. This is talk page about article, not myself. Please stop harrasing me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the official text of Carnegie report, but apparently you can not understand what is an official document. Aigest (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ad hominem comment about me personally and my ability to understand something or about my editing? If it is comment about me personally and my ability to understand something, like I see it, then it is again ad hominem attack and again harassment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I comment over this issue. Carnegie commission was not a witness of the events since it was created after those terrible things took place. Its report is based in what they could collect, see and heard after they visited the areas. As the collected documentation they used the letters of the regular army soldiers (see Greek soldiers letters in massacres on Bulgarians for eg) and the various reports of the events (newspapers, telegraphs etc). They also contacted people and asked them about the events. In the end they presented their findings and that was the official document sent to the Great Powers. That official document was accepted as valid by policy makers and used extensively by scholars later describing the events and nowadays none puts in doubt its claims' authenticity, so it's a WP:RS to be used in various articles. If you feel that not there is also WP:RSN when you can address your concerns. And another thing...try to not break down the sentences loosing their meanings the whole sentence is "The Commission was not able to verify those statements, but there are no reasons on doubting them, in view of all that has been seen and heard."link Aigest (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To verify - To substantiate or prove the truth of something.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

As this article is already merged into Serbia in the Balkan Wars, i dont see what is real problem here except empty nationalistic tensions. It was discussed and agreed about this. It is POV fork like this, per all posts above this one. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this looks like a pov fork. Already the title "massacres" indicates that this is one of the usual political articles pushed by people who insist on documenting how oh-so persecuted they are. We have lots of these. Excessive use of the verb "to massacre". Also, List of massacres in the Kosovo War. Some people clearly still think Wikipedia is a free propaganda platform. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab blame the scholars and the media about the wording not wikipedians who wrote the articles, because if the sources use that wording and you consider that propaganda you should read WP:OR. The first quoted part is from the Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars and it does use extensively the word massacres and I don't think that the international commission was composed of people who insist on documenting how oh-so persecuted they are. Btw provide arguments about the tags you added.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling something as propaganda doesn't make it so unless sources prove that it is propaganda.

Oberschall, Anthony (2007). Conflict and peace building in divided societies: responses to ethnic violence. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 9780415411615. Retrieved 1 November 2010.
Rezun, Miron (2001). Europe's nightmare: the struggle for Kosovo. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 25. ISBN 9780275970727. Retrieved 1 November 2010.
Bieber, Florian; Daskalovski, Židas (2003). Understanding the war in Kosovo. Taylor & Francis. p. 17. ISBN 9780714683270. Retrieved 1 November 2010.
Bacevich, A. J.; Cohen, Eliot A. (2001). War over Kosovo: politics and strategy in a global age. Columbia University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9780231124836. Retrieved 1 November 2010.

I don't want to create a large sources list so these 4 are should suffice, but if anyone continues to label the fact that these were indeed massacres as propaganda I'll add all the sources and then ask for assistance on the appropriate administration boards to deal with the IDIDNTHEARIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Maybe text needs more to be worked on. But it is a issue much written about in the world. Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars is a very sensitive issue. I would only add that there is a text quoting Trotsky, where he mentioned also Macedonians being part of such killings. So, not only Serbs were involved. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs, Montenegrins etc. redirecting this to the article about Serbia would be attributing actions of others armies to the army of Serbia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you Zjarri and Anna, completely misunderstood my sentence. None of us say that this was not the massacre, although it may be disputed, we just say that it is unacceptable to stay like this.

Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
ARBMAC Final decision

So, to follow this, article cannot stay like this. It will not be deleted! It was already merged, completely, in Serbia in the Balkan Wars. This will be redirected into article that is under the same subject. Also, some parts should be added to Albania during the Balkan Wars. Also, administrator from above told you that this is obvious political article. Please, stop with sabotage. You are welcome to contribute in this, but on the right locations. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be expanded to include all the events, but there's nothing pov. If you want to dispute any of the events described, list your sources and arguments, otherwise please don't quote irrelevant policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the merge. Obvious content fork. Athenean (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to point to the obvious. In every dispute in WP there are Serbian editors together with Greek editors vs. Albanian editors.

For the record, this page was created by a user named Mladifilozof and he asked me for my collaboration. I offered him to help, I am really not that informed in the issue, but it is super-clear there is no propaganda in the article. If there is, please bring them forward, but do not troll quoting ARBMAC sentences in a way that is both irrelevant and missleading. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what a content fork is? Athenean (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this obvious content fork. Can you at least bother to explain. Until now your argument were: this is a POV fork. No arguments whatsoever! BTW, I looked it up, what you are doing is WP:BITE and WP:POINT. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now, it is not possible to WP:BITE an editor who is throwing around wiki-acronyms like you do.

as for the pov fork, don't get me wrong, these incidents are worthy of inclusion, but I object to them being paraded around as "massacres" out of context. Discuss them within context at the Serbia in the Balkan Wars article. Once coverage becomes too long for inclusion, it will become arguable to very carefully create a WP:SS sub-article, without losing context. What we cannot have are "faction" articles covering aspects of a war that makes one side look like barbarians and the other like victims, besides counter-articles by the other faction that creates the opposite impression. This is what we mean by "pov forks". I am sure it is easy to cherry-pick facts that makes the Albanians look like innocent victims of the bestial Serbs. I am just as sure that the opposite effect can be created by cherry-picking in a different way. Our policies are in place to prevent such stunts. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The entire way this article is written, beginning with the opening sentence is deep, deep into POV territory. As long as most of this material is included in Serbia in the Balkan Wars, this article is nothing more than a POVFORK. Anna, please read and understand WP:POVFORK and stop pretending to be a victim., Athenean (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it looks that Serbia in the Balkan Wars is a content fork of this article. The topic of this article (massacres on civilian population) is different from that of Serbia. The right place for it could be in Massacres in Balkan wars (1912-1913) where this topic might be covered for each population who suffered during 1912-13. Aigest (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, thanks for clearing that out for me. This way at least I know what you think is wrong with the article. Just for record, the current article was created a year ago while Serbia in the Balkan Wars was created two days ago. On the other hand Serbia in the Balkan Wars does not have much more information other than the current article, so this one is a fork.

Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars claimed that Albanians were victims of the Balkan Wars. You can see from the numbers who were victims. There is no doubt about that. About making one side looking like barbarians, that is not a good argument. Serbs did create an Anti-Albanian propaganda at the time, they were writing institutionally Albanians are beasts, they sleep on trees and have tails and they did massacres on Albanian population. Dimitrije Tucovic wrote about this at the time. But, this article should not be only on Serbian massacres, but also on other massacres on Albanian population during the time.

This is not cherry picking! You cannot change history (in fact you can, but that is another story).

Serbia in the Balkan Wars is a different topic that would cover information about Serbia during that time, not Albania and Albanians. Why should an Article about Albanians be merged into an Article about Serbia.

—Anna Comnena (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doesn't matter. As i am afraid that you didn't understand me once again, so i will not try to explain, once again, that we will not delete any information from here for now. We will just move it to right location. And per your post, i will propose to move some content from this to Albania during the Balkan Wars also. So, Article about Albanians will be merged into an Article about Albania. That will be even better! And your main problem is fixed. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the new article apart from the massacres and the serbianization parts has nothing about Serbia in the two wars.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i added {{expand}} template. Although there is material about Serbia, apart those two you mentioned. Anyway, it will be expanded, no question about it. I will do that, in few days, if none other. Hope that we agreed now. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "German atrocities against Jews in World War II" should be in the article "Germans in World War II" and not in the article "Jews in World War II". (The titles are imaginary.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that the same editors that complain that the article on Albanian nationalism is written so as to make the Albanian nation look bad, here defend to the death an article whose sole purpose appears to be to demonize the Serbian nation. Double standards, anyone? Athenean (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting enough to see a supposed experienced wikipedian to be so blind in acknowledging that actually Serbia in the Balkan Wars article was a fork of this (even created one year later than this one:)) one not the other way round. Old blind reverts theme with new variations. Aigest (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another editor who has no idea what a POVFORK is. The scope of Serbia in the Balkan Wars is far greater than the scope of this article, therefore it is this article that is the POVFORK, not the other way around. Since Serbia in the Balkan Wars mentions all of the massacres described in this article, what it is the point of this article's existence? There isn't. It should be merged. Athenean (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I disagree that this article is FORK, although I agree that it is violating NPOV rule because main source of information for massacres are proalbanian Leo Freundlich who is not reliable source because he only published collection of unofficial Austrian, Hungarian and Italian (all of them having big aspirations toward Albania) antiserb propaganda articles from various newspapers, or quoting parts of report of commission that were written by undoubtedly probulgarian and antiserb members, Miukov and Brailsford, Iakovos D. Michailidis, The Carnegie Commission in Macedonia, Summer 1913 ^[1] but not main parts of the report that said that most of atrocities (with casualities among all nations) were commited not by regular soldiers (of all Balkan allies and Ottoman Empire too) but by civilians (of all nations)[9]. Taking this in consideration and main conclusions of the reports, article Serbia in the Balkan Wars does not cover whole topic of article /Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars from two reasons: 1) some massacres of Albanians during Balkan Wars were executed outside of territory of Kingdom of Serbia 2) most of the massacres (according to main part of the report of Carnegie commission) had nothing to do with regular soldiers of any country. Instead of merging I propose to put NPOV tag on the article, to avoid all controversial sources (Leo Freudlich or Carnegie commision), to delete text based on this sources, and to expand this article based on credibile and reliable sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we will move to then to Albania during the Balkan Wars. As i explained. And i suppose that with that, all other is ok? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it is no OK. Do not remove anything without prior agreement. What you are doing with your new article is WP:FORK. This article is valid. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is focused on massacres committed on Albanian population during Balkan Wars. That was a special case, with special focus. The article's main column is "Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars". This article needs more work, I agree. I will work on it. You are welcome to help! —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anna Comnena that this article should not be moved to Albania during Balkan Wars, since it does not cover only territory of Albania, and I agree that this article needs more work and I am also willing to help. On the other hand I understand desire to move this article because there was no ethnic group on occupied territory of Ottoman Empire that was not massacred during Balkan Wars and it does not seem right to pick only Albanians and write separate article only about massacres of Albanians, regardless (un)reliability of the sources. But there simply is no other alternative then work on article and further expanding it. Maybe later we will know more and decide to leave it as it is, delete it or move it. Now, it simply needs more work, not moving or deleting. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be. It will be moved to the Serbiasia in the Balkan wars also. As you didn't propose any other solution then oppose, and also didnt mentioned that it is POV fork, as article was ALREDY MERGED, i am afraid that your post is not hekpful. Maybe some more? :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly with merging it onto the article Serbia in the Balkan Wars. (Moving it somewhere else, as proposed, does not make sense. This is a section about Serbs murdering Albanians.) It's already so badly sourced and written and with such blatantly biased statements -from both "sides"- that it is simply a low-quality Wikipedia article. Let's merge it and, if content improves, we can judge if it merits, as a matter of independent notability, to stand on its own as a separate article. As it now stands, it invites bias, original research and expressions of personal points of view.-The Gnome (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is propaganda article. --Alexmilt (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This is a seperate event. Shouldn't be included under Serbia in the Balkan Wars. Looks like nationalists are trying to cloud the fact that Serbs murdered innocent Albanians in cold blood. How dare Alexmilt say it is a 'propaganda article'. If you do not like the truth, don't read the article. It must not be moved or merged.

References

^ Comment of Carol Brown, NYC college, published in NYT on May 13, 1919

Official report sent to the Great Powers?

"In December 1913, the official report was sent to the Great Powers with details of the slaughter of Albanians in Luma and Debar, executed after the proclamation of the amnesty by Serbian authorities. The report listed the names of people killed by Serbian units in addition to the causes of death: by burning, slaughtering, bayonets, etc. The report also provided a detailed list of the burned and looted villages in the area of Luma and Has."

Link to the source of information for this text again leads to controversial Austrian (!) "Leo Freundlich, the following "Official Report to the Great Powers" published in December 1913" with copy of the text from the daily newspaper Corriere delle Puglie, Bari, XXVI, 354, of 21 December 1913. Since it is obvious that it is not any state report, but Italian (very much interested in Albania that occupied it after few years) newspaper article that cited official report that nobody has ever seen, I propose to delete above mentioned text based on this source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator please read WP:OR or source your deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is this source "Dole in Dibra: Official Report Submitted to the Great Powers" that is referenced in the article that I am talking about. It is named as Official report sent to the Great Powers although it is again Austrian Leo Freundlich and citations from Italian newspapers. Both Austria and Italia occupied Albania after few years and this can not be suitable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are more than reliable. You claiming they are not is not enough. Leo Freundlich was a publicist living in Vienna. And, yes, I did read on several Serbian blogs and websites (mainly nationalist circles like serbianna.com) how they "discredit" him. Please, unless you have a non-Serb annalist talking about Leo Freundlich, let just leave this point and move along. You offered to edit, great! —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not referred to "nationalist circles" trying to "discredit" Leo Freundlich because there is no need for that since he discredited himself from being reliable neutral source about Albania [10] (Robert Elsie, non-Serb annalist stated in this link that Leo was not only a publicist living Vienna, but politically very active member of parliament, participated in war with Austro-Hungarian forces in Albania, joined service of Ahmed Zogu, king of Albania who appointed him to be consul of Albania in Austria, as his personal friend, promoted Albania's trade relationship....). It is obviously wrong to leave above mentioned text of the article stating that there was "Official report sent to the Great Powers" because there was no such report, since it was only text in Italian newspaper with referenced link to Leo Freundlich book. Please, unless you have a neutral source of information talking about massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars I will have to delete informations based on non-neutral Leo Freundlich and move along. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. This is the document signed by Austria, Russia, Germany, USA, France and Great Britain. Do you want to change history, fine. Write a book. But you cannot change historical evidence. Also, Freundlich is a reliable source, what you are doing is called WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Regards! —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me report of Carnegie commission and I was referring to Leo Freundlich.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Comnena, I provided non-Serb annalist talking about Leo Freundlich, like you requested. This is talk page of the article, not myself. Your comments with accusations that I want to change a history and historical evidence, and proposals for me personally to write a book with rest of advices are harassment. Please stop harassing me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting Robert Elsie's text. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" Leo became a member of the Reichsrat... Emmy and Leo Freundlich were both politically active,... Leo Freundlich,.....as a soldier with Austro-Hungarian forces in the country in World War I. He later joined the service of Ahmet Zogu (1895-1961), subsequently King Zog of Albania (r. 1928-1939), as honorary consul of the Kingdom of Albania in Vienna. In this capacity, in the 1930s, he was involved in promoting Albania's trade relations..."[11] --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless the fact that (non-Serb annalist) Robert Elsie wrote all this informations about Leo that clearly show that he discredited himself from being neutral and credible source for informations about Albania, it is obvious that text I wrote on the beggining of this subtitle is not text from any Official report... like it is written in the article, since it is clearly referenced to be Robert Elsie's text taken from Leo Freundlich book. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second Luma massacre, after Balkan Wars and great rebellion in September 1913

"The second Luma massacre was committed the following year (1913). After the London Ambassador Conference decided that Luma should be within the Albanian state, the Serbian army initially refused to withdraw. Albanians raised a great rebellion in September 1913, after which Luma once again suffered harsh retaliation from the Serbian army. A report of the International Commission cited a letter of a Serbian soldier, who described the punitive expedition against the rebel Albanians"

Since second Luma massacre was not commited in the Balkan Wars (and title and topic of this article are massacres in Balkan Wars), but after great rebellion raised by Albanians in September 1913, this paragraph should be deleted since it does not belong to this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corriere delle Puglie

@ Anna Comnina, please read the refferenced source at the end of the page before you accuse other users for vandalism. It is clearly written that the text of "official report sent to great powers" was taken from Corriere delle Puglie, Italian newspapers text from December 1913. Unless you can provide link to such report, it is only newspapers article writing about report, not report itself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format. Danas is a reliable source by any standards. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intervene but we have a wwi era newspaper, in this case Italian. Not to mention that Italy that time was involved in the Albanian political scene and supported anti-Serb policy. Antidiskriminator's minor correction seems necessary. Also note that the specific source is primary (published the same period, maybe a month or even weeks when the events happened) something that makes Antid's argument even more strong.Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex, please read the source. There is nowhere info about any newspaper. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anna Comnena, it is, as I explained to you, at the end of the webpage is written: "From the daily newspaper Corriere delle Puglie, Bari, XXVI, 354, of 21 December 1913, reprinted in: M. D. Skopansky Les atrocités serbes d'après les témoignages américains, anglais, français, italiens, russes, serbes, suisses, etc. etc. (Lausanne: Librairie Centrale des Nationalités 1919), p. 148-161. Translated from the French by Robert Elsie.". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Novaković, Dimitrije Tucović and newspaper articles

were communist revolutionaries and opposition to the government in Serbia. Their political anti-government position makes them non-neutral source. They are used as source for very important claims in the text, like estimation of 120.000 exterminated Albanians by army of Kingdom of Serbia during Balkan Wars.

Since Kosta Novaković and Dimitrije Tucović were communist revolutionaries and non-neutral persons I propose to delete text based only on them as source of information.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is newspaper article Otpor okupaciji i modernizaciji that is written by unknown author in small daily newspaper and therefore not credible source for using in this article. By the way, this newspaper article from unknown author claim that there were 20-25.000 Albanians massacred during Balkan Wars. I propose to delete this article from list of sources, because it is not credible source of information.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence WP:RS "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." is very clear. In case of article "Otpor okupaciji i modernizaciji" published in small newspaper "Danas" by unknown author, it is clear that it is not published material with reliable publication process and that there is no author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question. Therefore this source is not reliable and should be deleted from sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Robert Elsie took the text from the newspaper. The report was not sent by the newspaper. That is absurd. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Freundlich hidden in Howard Clark's book "Civil resistance in Kosovo"

"The goal of the forced expulsions and massacres of ethnic Albanians was a statistic manipulation before the London Ambassadors Conference which was to decide on the new Balkan borders."

Non-neutral Austrian politician, Austrian soldier and Albanian diplomat, Leo Freundlich and his book with collection of newspaper articles is used basis for large portion of the text in this article, either directly, or trough citations in other books. It is not right to avoid the fact that source of information is Leo Freundlich by sourcing another book that used Leo as source of information. It is Howard Clark's book "Civil resistance in Kosovo" that uses citation from Leo Freundlich book about statistics and Serb bayonets:

This is how in the 1913 report by Leo Feundlich (1875 - 1954) describes what followed: “How have the Serbs understood the declaration of their monarch, which is not even half a year old? The thousand and thousands of men, women, children and old people who have been slain or tortured to death, the villages marauded and burnt to the ground, the women and young girls who have been raped, and the countryside plundered, ravaged and swimming in blood can give no answer to this question. The Serbs came to Albania not as liberators but as exterminators of the Albanian people. The Ambassadors' Conference in London proposed drawing the borders of Albania according to ethnic and religious statistics to be gathered on site by a commission. The Serbs have hastened to prepare the statistics for them with machine guns, rifles and bayonets. They have committed unspeakable atrocities. The shock and outrage produced by these crimes are outdone only by the sense of sorrow that such vile deeds could be committed in Europe, not far from the great centres of western culture, in this twentieth century. Our sorrow is made all the heavier by the fact that, despite the reports which have been cabled home for months now by the journalists of many nations, and despite the impassioned indictment launched to the world by Pierre Loti, nothing has been done to put an end to the killings.Leo Freundlich citation

Since it is obvious that source of this information is again non-neutral Leo Freundlich, I propose to change the source for above mentioned sentence about statistics from Howard Clark to Leo Freundlich.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make or deductions about the reliability of the sources(WP:RS)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my personal deduction but following rules on wikipedia. In WP:RS is clearly written that: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since Leo Freundlich is not third party source, but Austrian politician and soldier and diplomat (Robert Elsie about Leo Freundlich), he can not be considered as "reliable, third-party" source, since Austria had its significant interest in Albania and in less than a year started a First World War and occupied Albania with Leo Freundlich being a soldier occupying Albania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Freundlich was part of Albanian propaganda. In that time Albania was Austrian puppet and they were forcing indipendence of Albania. He should be deleted as source. --Alexmilt (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is your opinion. WP:RS seems to disagree with you in this point. However about Antidiscriminators latest edit, although it is not correct. I will not change it, until I find another source. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

New Elsies' discovery about Freudlich

link

"In Albania’s Golgotha, the author makes reference to another work that I had never heard of, the “Albanian Correspondence,”...What is the “Albanian Correspondence”? Every day from the spring of 1913 to August 1914, Leo Freundlich gathered information about critical developments in Albania and distributed this “latest news” from the Balkans to official circles in Vienna, mainly ministries and institutions of the Austro-Hungarian government. If you will, the “Albanian Correspondence” could be regarded as the first Albanian news agency. Aside from the news articles he assembled, Freundlich was in contact with numerous well-known figures from Albania, among whom were Ismail Qemal bey Vlora, Syrja bey Vlora, Dervish Hima and Fan Noli, and he published many of their letters and messages in the “Albanian Correspondence.” With the help of his many contacts, Freundlich became a spokesman of the Albanian question in the Austro-Hungarian capital. ... . In his book, Großmacht Presse (The Press: a Great Power), Vienna 1920, the conservative publisher Joseph Eberle (1884-1947), editor of the Catholic newspaper, the Reichspost, refers to the “Albanian Correspondence” as being one of many “purely Jewish correspondences,” as he states. Such news agencies served as lobbyists for various political issues."

Any suggestions how to improve this article? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken Serbian soldier kissing two Albanians

"Leo Trotsky, one of the leading figures of the Russian revolution, was sent as a journalist to cover Balkan Wars in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. In his report sent to Kiev newspaper “Kievskaya Misl” he writes about many "atrocities committed against the Albanians of Macedonia and Kosova in the wake of the Serb invasion of October 1912". Among other instances he tells a shocking case of drunken Serbian soldiers torturing two young Albanians. "Four soldiers held their bayonets in readiness and in their midst stood two young Albanians with their white felt caps on their heads. A drunken sergeant – a komitadji – was holding a kama (a Macedonian dagger) in one hand and a bottle of cognac in the other. The sergeant ordered: ‘On your knees!’ (The petrified Albanians fell to their knees. ‘To your feet!’ They stood up. This was repeated several times. Then the sergeant, threatening and cursing, put the dagger to the necks and chests of his victims and forced them to drink some cognac, and then… he kissed them...", shows an excerpt from the report."

I propose to delete part of above mentioned paragaraph describing kissing of Albanians by drunken soldier, because it is not describing massacre of Albanians in the Balkan Wars.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I choose that part in an arbitrary way. It shows the horror of the situation. But if you think there is another better example, I do not mind if you replace it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is somewhat relevant to the article.Stop trying to downplay the massacres commited by Serbia just because of your love for your country,this is not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mazower about Albanian casualties during Balkan wars

I recommend to users interested in history of the Balkan to read excellent book written by Mark Mazower:

Mazower, Mark (2001) [2000]. "Building the nation-state.". The Balkans, From the End of Byzantium to the Present Day. Great Britain: Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-8421-2544-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title= and |month= (help)

In the former Ottoman districts of Kosovo and Monastir, in particular, the conquering Serb army killed perhaps thousands of civilians. Despite some Serb officer's careless talk of “exterminating” the Albanian population, this was killing prompted more by revenge than genocide.
— Mark Mazower

Mark Mazower has written extensively on Balkan history. His book The Balkans: A Short History, that was later reprinted as The Balkans, From the End of Byzantium to the Present Day, won the Wolfson History Prize (prize that "promotes and encourages standards of excellence in the writing of history for the general public"). I propose to write above mentioned sentence in the body of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any scanned pages?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to publish scanned pages of recently published books on wikipedia? I don't have scanned pages. I have a book that I bought in Adrion (it costs 1.600 lek and is worth every single lek of it). If you need anything from this book just say and I will find it for you, or if it is allowed to publish scanned pages of recently published books, I will scan it for you. (Was it you who promised to scan for me a page from some book with original document with signature of Skanderbeg on cyrilic in 1426?)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, scanning is absolutely forbidden!! Aigest (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobic Propaganda on a big scale

If Serbs killed so many Albanians on Kosovo, in all those wars, why are there no Serbs there now, but just Albanians. I have never seen such an abhorent way of justifying your genocide upon Serbs in 1941 and 2004 on Kosovo, just obnoxious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.206.8 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many Serbs were killed in this genocide? Do you have a number? How many houses were burnt? Property damaged? Numbers? Find the numbers and check because there should be another article for that. Not this one. --Mondiad (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mondiad, we'll get to this in the coming year. At the moment lets get a few outstanding articles out of the way. This one will require a big job with all of us devoting a good deal of our time. You can kind of also get the idea of what the arguments will be. Its like with the Holocaust deniers or Armenian Genocide deniers. Any way peer reviewed material will only get this fixed. Just look for material in the time being. That goes for all Albanian editors for now.Resnjari (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot can change in 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradanin (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.57.157 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of course, a mess, and I am an Albanian by the way. It actually reflects the fact that no historian has written about it seriously, so it's just based on memories, without much research by serious historians, who for some reason refuse to write about it. --MorenaReka (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some peer reviewed material out there though i cannot address this at the moment due to a few other articles preoccupying me at the moment.BestResnjari (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Little to explain. Nowhere near 120,000 Albanians were killed and the source that says they were is a branch of the now-defunct Kosovo Information Center, the media wing of the KLA. The removed walls of text were directly copied and pasted by a now-banned sockpuppeteer from Robert Elsie's website and a book which Elsie published, which is a big no-no. Now please revert yourself. 23 editor (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 editor Your sudden deletion of half of article has not "little to explain". Of course I will not revert myself. I will rewrite text with other words than those used by Elsie. I will check the sources and if your claim about number of victims is proved true I will make the relevant changes. You could rewrite article or ask on this page for someone to do so but you didn't. This smells like another attempt of yours to delete content you don't like. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less what percentage of the article it is. It could be 95% and it still wouldn't make a difference. If the copied-pasted text was in the original German, which is in the public domain, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but because Elsie's English-language translation is more recent, the text in question is a clear COPYVIO. It needs to be removed. Full stop. You could try to reword the text, but then you would be in violation of WP:PRIMARY because without a historian or third-party observer to qualify the content it falls under the category of original research. I'm not even going to bother repeating myself when it comes to the KLA source. This "smells" [sic] like you know absolutely nothing about how how en.wiki works. 23 editor (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at this -- Elsie's book is not the only source for the removed text-- there was also Mark Levene's Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938. Published by Oxford, looks scholarly : [[12]]. It needs page numbers though. That being said the way the information is organized as it is isn't really good, with a large number of one sentence paragraphs and listing of the names of the victims, which although it's not bad to remember them, it really doesn't belong on the wiki article. Additionally-- can't we just use the German version if copyright is really the issue here? --Yalens (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor It does not "need to be removed". I know "about how how en.wiki works" enough to prevent you from deleting content you don't like. @Yalens, I will rewrite the whole article because COPYVIO is not the only problem there, it will take some days though. The German version is good, Levene's work too. However, as I said before 23editor's problem is not copyright violation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be removed ASAP as a clear copyvio. By claiming the opposite, you once again demonstrate how unfamiliar you are with en.wiki's rules and guidelines. Relying largely on the German-language text of Freundlich's book, even if it won't constitute a copyvio due to its age and the language barrier, is still WP:Primary, and will thus violate WP:OR. The book's age also makes it a less-than-ideal source. 23 editor (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Levene, there is Banac as well on Luma [13]. Levene refers to the events in Luma as genocide which is not cited in the article. This article will need some kind of future overhaul. There are a few more sources that look at violence done against Muslims during the Balkan war published recently. For next week though. Also were going to have to decide which examples we are going to have cited like in a quote box kind of a thing like they have done with the Armenian genocide etc, where they use old missionary statements or eyewitness accounts etc.Resnjari (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources

I understand that Fa alk is keen to expand this and other Balkan-related articles, and that is a good thing, but most of the content of any article should be based on secondary, reliable sources. Most of the recent additions to this particular article have been cited using reports from contemporary newspapers (some of them more reputable than others) and the petitions of contemporary Albanian special interest groups. This is a violation of WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, the latter of which warns users against basing vast swathes of an article on primary sources.

The reliability of some non-contemporary, secondary sources used here are frankly dubious as well. Ibrahimagic, for example, is a physician and poet, not a historian, political scientist, etc. [14] Les Shaw was an Australian lawyer who represented Australian Croats charged with terror offenses in the 1970s and later became the community's spokesman (see Batarelo, p. 76 ) Spahija was a language professor at a community college in the US [15] He was also a novelist [16] During World War II, he fought with the Balli Kombetar and was exiled, later becoming the secretary general of a Zogist organization in Greece. I fail to see what any of these individuals' qualifications are to write about military history and/or wartime atrocities. In addition, I would also like to once again kindly ask Fa alk to refrain from citing "George W. Cesarich", which was the pen name of the Ustasha propaganda minister Vilko Rieger (see Tomasevich 2001, p. 345) ), who fled to the US after WW2. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback, I will do a better job. Happy new year, friend! --Fa alk (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Epilogue" and Dimitrije Tucović

A discussion about an editor erroneously changing quotations for the Tucović quote ended up in my talk page. This turned into a discussion about the "crematoria", which has nothing to do in amy user TP, see User talk:TU-nor#Back down. I feel forced to bring the problem back here where it belongs and at the same time take a closer look at the content.

Currently, some of the refs have been removed as non-RS, which is fine. What is left, is a quote from The South Slav Journal, vol. 8, 1985, including the words "there were barbarian crematoria". In one of the removed sources, Ibrahimagić gives the same text as "those were the barbaric crematoriums", the word "those" pointing back to the Albanian villages that were "reduced to ashes".

There is a huge difference between "there were" and "those were" in this context, the first indicating that there were actual crematories in use, the second indicating that the burning of villages with women and children turned those villages into crematories. It is this second interpretation that seems most probable, so let us try to find out what Tucović actually wrote. The original text is in page 109 of this facsimile, also to be found in this pdf of a 2011 reprint: To behu u isto vreme varvarski krematorijumi u kojima je sagorelo stotinama ţivih ţena i deca. With the help of Google translate, this should give a translation like "These were, at the same time, barbaric crematoriums in which hundreds of women and children were burned."

I will do some changes to the text in order to reflect this: removing the words "in crematoriums" from the introductory sentence, changing the quote from "there were" to "these were" and adding the original source. --T*U (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TU-nor, i came across this source: [17] which quotes Tucović in his Serbo-Croatian. It’s by historian Vladimir Dedijer, whose credentials seem very strong (see bio). I thought this might be better then placing the original facsimile as a ref, which might fall under WP:PRIMARY and then we might never hear the end of it by some who don’t want Tucevic cited at all in the article. The original Tucović source might be a good addition as further reading resource in the External links section.Resnjari (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, but please check that Dedijer's quote is accurate. Just in case! --T*U (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I fixed the the diarcritics from ț (Serbo-Croatian does not use it) to Ž (as given in Dedijer). I came across a lot of RS for this topic. I am going to start adding it bit by bit. TU-nor, i appreciate your engagement and edits for this article. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! As for my engagement, it is purely accidental – a by-product of repairing some POV edits elsewhere... Anyway, see you around! --T*U (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

by some who don’t want Tucevic cited at all in the article

I am appalled by this implication. It might the lowest and most dishonourable comment which I have seen on Wikipedia. Sometimes comments reveal more about ourselves than we ever wanted.

On the other hand, the intro sentence abotu the whole crematory deal is still not proper. Tucović is not talking about real events (somebody building crematoriums and whatnot), which I can see even more clearly from the native version of his work. Please fix it (I could do it, but I will not, for now). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: The article is not mentioning crematoriums anymore, except in the direct quote. I am sure you cannot mean that the burning of villages is not real events. Or do you? --T*U (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tucović also wrote that the Serb soldiers burned hundreds of Albanian women and children alive refers to the crematorium business. P.S: I shall make a copy of this discussion for further use and my lectures. It is a fine example of manipulation with sources and lack of Wikipedia:Civility. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Comment of Carol Brown, NYC college, published in NYT on May 13, 1919

[1]