Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 bizzi

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)

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