Talk:First Balkan War/Archive 1

Archive 1

- splitting of Balkan war sections

I do not agree that the first and second Balkan war pages should have been split as it creates quite a number of problems, repetitions etc.

I have yet to see them split in any serious treatment of Balkan, South East European whether from third parties or particpating party historiographies.DaveHM 11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

infobox

This page is screaming for a {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. I don't know the subject well enough to do a good job, but I could start one if nobody else does. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The table of battles

What does "side" mean? Zocky | picture popups 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

Shouldn`t we settle on chiefs of staff of supreme command only?

There is a contradiction in the dates. It says the Treaty of London was on May 17 in here but on the Second war it says May 30. And on the event calendar it was May 30.

Treaty of London

There is a contradiction in the dates. It says the Treaty of London was on May 17 in here but on the Second war it says May 30. And on the event calendar it was May 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckx (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? The treaty was illegal and it never incorporated anything to Serbia. Serbia invaded the lands and conquered them. Simply Neutral (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wars involving the Balkans vs. Category:Balkan Wars

Category:Balkan Wars is itself a category within Category:Wars involving the Balkans.— Robert Greer (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"The territorial aspirations of the Balkan states" Map

The territorial aspirations of the Balkan states map is totally inaccurate

To Serbia leaves outside Northern Albania (with Durazzo) which was inside the per-war agreement between her & Bulgaria and also most of Vardar Macedonia which was the reason going to war with Bulgaria in 1913

To Bulgaria leaves outside Western Thrace and especially Salonika which was one of the main reason entering both the wars

To Greece leaves outside any portion of Asia Minor which was the reason of a prolonged war 6 years later and instead includes near all Albania which is just inaccurate.

To Romania leaves Silistra outside which was the very reason Romania went to war in 1913 against Bulgaria

It's more of an ignorance fantasy. Having so many major errors must either replaced (if there is any better) or removed. Anyone to disagree? --Factuarius (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edirne not Adrianople

Is it not inappropiate and incorrect to use the ancient name of this Turkish city, instead of its offcial and proper name at the time? Edirne is and was the correct name of the city for many centuries at the time.

I have no problem with that however most sources I think reffer to the event as the siege or battle of Adrianople.--Avidius (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, until the early 20th century, most Western sources continued to use the ancient/medieval names for many places, not only Turkey (Philippopolis for Plovdiv, for instance), hence the events taking place there are more associated with that name. The "Battle of Edirne" doesn't ring a bell, while "battle of Adrianople" does (albeit mostly the wrong one). Constantine ✍ 07:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when "Western" references are the standard and only measure here? Edirne is a European city, and Ottomans were a European power at the time. Countless sources also mention Edirne. Besides Wikipedia is not just another source, reflecting the personal prejudice and preference of a single author, here we have a chance to correct wrongs. This seems to be more etno-nationalism under the guise of sophisticated factuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.158.17 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannot understand what you really say about "ethno-nationalism". I found not a single map of the era to say Edirne instead Adrianople and even latter at '30 or '40. Every history book of that period mention Adrianople. Every today's book of that war mention Adrianople. Even Erickson's book (The Ottoman Army in the Balkans 1912-13 of 2003) mention Adrianople although is heavily relying on Ottoman's documentation. Hall's book also. Everybody mention Bitola as Monaster, Thessaloniki as Salonika, Plovdiv as Philipopoli, Skopje as Uskub etc. Opening an "ethno-nationalistic" fight over the names here between Serbs, Turks, Bulgarians and Greeks is pointless, leading to an endless editing war, and some hundred hours of discussions just to accept as a moratorium what we have now. Trust me. We have already enough problems to follow the armies' operations on the today's maps because every name in the maps (villages, mountains, rivers) have a totaly different name today. What you proposed is to take us in a trip to Babel and conflicts and I cannot understand why you might want it, if you opposing ethno-nationalism.--Factuarius (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Since when "Western" references are the standard and only measure here?" Well they are to the extent where English is a Western language, and English-language histories, reports, maps, etc refer to the city as Adrianople until the 1930s. It has nothing to do with prejudices, merely with using the best-known form in the English language, as per WP:MOSNAME. As for the rest, I agree with Factuarius. Constantine ✍ 13:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Does this article really need all these maps? There allready are articles dealing with the ethnic composition of the Balkans with the same maps used there so i think their presence here is unnessecary.--Avidius (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way i don't know how well known this E. Stanford is but his map doesn't look realistic.--Avidius (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to you about the maps. But a Bulgarian fellow editor (Jingiby) deleted a phrase about Bulgarian people being not a majority over the combined areas of Thraces and Macedonia and instead put an ehtnological map. Maybe is better to leave it without ethnological maps but it's better to achive a consensus to rmv them. I don't want to rmv his map by myself and starting an edit war with him, but his deletion of the phrase without stating the reason and the adding of the map indicates his certain point of view. If everyone agreeing to leave that kind of maps outside the war's article I have no reason to resist in removing the Stanford's map also, which is by the way the most well known English Chartographer of his era. --Factuarius (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Kilisse battle -Bulgarian forces-

The total force -not only the compatants- of the Ottoman 1st Army according the Ottoman's tables was 115,000. The total figure of the XV Corps was 29,000. So the rest 86,000 of the 1st Army was not the compatants was its total force. The 64,000 men you excluding represents the 60% of the total Bulgarian force of the 1st & 3rd Bulgarian Armies. That's not discent although there are no present of Turk editors in the discussion we cannot leave it like that. What you propose? --Factuarius (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My source is the Volume II to of "The war between Bulgaria and Turkey" it is very detailed I will explain latter because I don\t have time now.--Avidius (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people's nationalism is unbelieveable and there is no knowing how far they will go. This was one of the worst ever pages on Wikipedia and still seems good enough to be deleted permanently. Albania got it's state after this war, so why does it not mention them? They fought too, just because they were not a part of the so-called "Balkan League" (which was a Greater Serbia project where Serbs could not fight alone). Albanians were the ones who forced back the Ottomans back to their present borders and not one Albanian commander is mentioned in the info-box. Nor does it mention how Kosova was illegally given to Serbia, and how Serbia was never de-jure in charged on Kosova, Kosova never belonged to Serbia - it was occupied and then annexed into Yugoslavia where it was a federal county with Serbia and Croatia etc. Simply Neutral (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Albania got it's state because Austro-Hungary persuaded Germany, and Italy persuaded England and France in that. Each of two hopping for herself to achieve control over that state. About “Albanians were the ones who forced back the Ottomans to their present borders”? Did they also take part in the battle of Ghataldja? Didn't know it, provide reference and rise the quality level of the article. About Kosovo etc, this is a war article, not another playground for a match between Serbs and Albanians over their historical rights there. About “deleting permanently the article”, why not? if by this will make it simply neutral. --Factuarius (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Skopje - liberation?

About the First Balkan War changes. I agree with you about not giving too much detail on what Serbian interests were when retaking southern lands. However, liberation is a very shady term. Its use is not universally welcome when rival populations reside in the same place. Used correctly, it requires a noun object following from. As such, one is liberated from something and that thing is the outgoing authority. So Slavic people in Skopje were indeed liberated from Ottoman rule if only to have it replaced with Albanian discipline. Looking at it that way though, any change of government can be seen as liberation to anyone except to those affiliated to the ousted party, majority or minority. The trouble with using "liberation" for an Albanian Skopje is that it implies that the city itself supported Albanian rule and history itself has recorded that this was not the case. Today, there are over 100,000 Albanians in Skopje, but the city has over half a million people. The percentage of Albanians have grown. The encyclopaedia Britannica in 1911 clearly shows that the main population of Skopje was Slavic, and that these were Bulgarians and Serbs. I now realise that those former Bulgarians/Serbs' descendants became ethnic Macedonians. To use "capture" has no negative connotations. Better still, it can be rephrased to say that successful Albanian insurrections won over Skopje; or that Skopje changed hands from Ottoman to Albanian rule etc. I know that many events have "liberation" as part of their title, and I do oppose them as well. Here where it is not such a major issue, I feel we can resolve such an issue with simple discussion. Evlekis (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

The point is that as you put it, this city would have been impossible to liberate in any case, since neither Albanians nor Serbs, nor Bulgarians could liberate the city since no one was a majority during the era, (if someone adds the non Albano-Bulgaro-Serb population into the city). More important, if we apply your argument to the rest areas of the European parts of the Ottoman Empire (Macedonia and Thrace) then there was not a single liberated area during the war either from Bulgarians Serbs or Greeks, being all “captured” according to your definition of liberation. I suspect that no Bulgarian Serb or Greek editor is willing to accept such a rationale (since among others it is also contradicting to any known bibliography). --Factuarius (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well personally I never use the term "liberate" when referring to a historical transfer of power. But in fairness there is everyone elses description of the word. The only way to resolve the matter here is to tag the text for a citation. Although my family is not Macedonian-Albanian (we are Slavic), I have never once heard the transference of Skopje from Ottomans to Albanians as a liberation. It would be very interesting to find any kind of non-Albanian source at all which describes this event as liberation. It seems laughable to be honest with you. The demographic structure has not changed a great deal, only the population itself. I mean whether the absolute majority calls itself Macedonian whilst their great-grandparents identified as either Serb or Bulgarian doesn't detract from their Slavic character, nor the fact that Bulgarians and Serbs took part in the first of the wars as part of the Balkan League (allied). Besides, I know for a fact that Serbs did outnumber Bulgarians with over 50% there even if Bulgarians were a majority in more eastern areas of modern Republic of Macedonia. It's only what you declare. Shall we tag it? Or would you already have links to sources describing it as a liberation? Either way it doesn't matter, but it will definitely set a precedent to how we handle other events before and after this one. Evlekis (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

What I told you is that by accepting your arguments, then there was no liberation during that war anywhere in the Balkans and that's a problem with any other editor and ethnicity except yours and you. And thus I am sure that this will be a source of many problems among all the other editors in the article. I understand your difficulty about, but you must also recognize the results your arguments will generate all around. I have asked you who could then liberate this city and you answered that you generally opposed “the term liberation when referring to a historical transfer of power”. You must understand that that's not the case with the other editors here who will not understand why will they have to change their country armies' role from liberators to conquerors just to solve the delicate problem you have with the Albanian revolution (which is understandable). You also said that the majority of the inhabitants were Slavs, but unfortunately there was not such nation, state or army then (or now) and as a consequence after the war, Bulgarians insisted the city and the area to be ceded to Bulgaria and the Serbs to stay under Serbia, thus a new war had broken. By going back and forth trying to deal with the problem that no majority existed at the time is a dangerous acrobatic way to solve it. The matter is not what the present inhabitants believe their ancestors were, but what their ancestors believed they were, and during that time they believed that were Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Turks and others. To understand it think the opposite: If the Serbs after a century identify themselves as something else, do we have to omit any liberation word from their history? Consider the problem your position creates to the rest of the editors, to understand my point that no one will accept a favor about it, not because he didn't understand your problem, but because it is not possible to accept the revisionist consequences your opposition to the “term liberation” has in the respective history, which is the essence of the issue here. I mean because “those former Bulgarians/Serbs descendants became ethnic Macedonians” we cannot change the history of all the other Balkan states backwards by making them conquerors. Or to baptize a revolution conquest. --Factuarius (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear from an academic viewpoint that the term "liberation" is usually (although not always) a value-laden judgement, reflecting the ideological interests of the conqueror. By definition, therefore, the term is POV and unacceptable unless there is a clear situation of unqualified liberation of the mainstream population from a fairly recent military occupation (such as the Allied liberation of France from the Nazis). Xenos2008 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To Xenos: Could not understand your position: So the Albanians liberated or conquered Skopje during their revolution in 1911? --Factuarius (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all. Liberation and conquest are not antonyms, it is possible both theoretically and physically for power to change hands with an act being both conquest and liberation, and neither one nor the other. The libertaion vs conquest is largely Noel Malcolm manure. Conquest involves defeating an opponent outright to take (or retake) lands. Liberation only concerns the population of the territory. Thus, an internal insurrection by a population can liberate itself by conquering the opponent (eg. Kosovoar Albanians with the help of the outside world). To get the opposite effect: a land can be passed from one ruler to another with no regard for the local population (eg. the official transfer of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire to Austria-Hungary in 1908 - which led to the Bosnian Crisis). The latter territory was not conquered by Austria-Hungary, and the Hapsburg takeover did not liberate the 90%+ Slavic population. I use the word Slavic advisedly. My next point is that regardless of whether Serbs and Bulgarians identified separately, there was always (and still is today) the overtone that these were Slavic nations and that both were originally involved in campaigns which aimed to create Pan-Slavic entities. The fact that this did not happen regarding Bulgaria was a result of side conflict with Serbia. As for Bosnia in 1908, there was no arguing as to which direction the people wished to go (although there was something of an internal split). Then there is your error regarding Skopje. It was not the subject of dispute after Balkan War I. Yes, Skopje is today the capital of Republic of Macedonia. Yes Skopje is also on the territory of Macedonia, but so too is land currently within Albania. Skopje was a part of the Vilayet of Kosovo and that was not disputed by Bulgaria. It had been the wider region of Macedonia - outside of Kosovo which had gone to Serbia/Montenegro and the part of Macedonia which had gone to Albania - which caused the two way dispute with Bulgarians on one side and Serbs/Greeks on the other. That was the cause of the second Balkan war. As for Bulgarians/Serbs becoming Macedonians, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what people saw their ancestors to be. If this had been the case, then there would have been no such concept of Slavic, nor any convention or campaign aimed at uniting the peoples. It is widely known that during that period, members of the population freely amended their ethnicities to suit their conscience: this even sometimes involved crossing over to a population whose language was not related to your parents'. If being Serbian/Bulgarian (especially in these lands which were extreme reaches for both nations) were so fixed, no Macedonian identity would have arisen - but it did, and largely to rival Serbia and Bulgaria. But even then they accepted being a Slavic nation. All this rhetoric of being descendants of Alexander the Great is a modern development originating from the right and using the shady findings of ethnogenesis. Kiro Gligurov, Macedonia's first president, did say however that Macedonians are a Slavic people. As for my arguments, well I'm afraid you haven't heard those yet because I haven't presented them yet. I only stated that Skopje being liberated by Albanians is laughable, nobody would think of it as a liberation. I said that I wasn't keen on using liberation so freely across Wikipedia and I meant it. One man's liberator is another man's invader. But I don't suggest never using it. I simply suggest we do one of two things: one, take matters into our own hands and decide what is and what is not liberation; or two, use it only where we can find sources. As I said before: to have been a Bulgarian in West Thrace (modern Greece), the eventual ruler of his land becoming Greece was in some sense a liberation, in that he was then liberated from the Ottomans. When a victor uses it however, he sees anything coming to him as a liberation - free from the former oppression; even outsiders are free, so long as they accept our conditions. So, the term is 101% relative. My own argument is this: a territory is not liberated when power changes hands, but a population living within it is: so Skopje's Albanians were liberated when Albania briefly took Skopje. I think we are all missing the wider picture, Skopje was part of a wider region which temporarily fell to Albania. It is the entire region which needs to be taken into account. Coming from the west, it is very likely that Albanians were a majority within the lands they took: after all, these included present-day Albania where Albanians were a super-majority. So rather than remove liberate, why not remove Skopje to expand the whole area taken (eg. of which Skopje and other places were a part). Nothing wrong with that, and I am not promoting any form of usage which can only be applied to "my race". Check my history, you'll see no POV-promoting. Evlekis (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Settled --Factuarius (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First things first. Factariaus and Evkelis are one and the same user - definate sockpuppets. They are also socks of Cinema C and Brutaldeluxe. We all know this is one and the same user. But I will tell you this knowing you are all one person. Skopje if in Albanian hands is clearly LIBERATED. Skopje like western Macedonia is traditonal Albanian territory (ie: Albanians both outnumber Serbs/Macedonians and they have lived there longer). Albanians are reponcible for the look and format of all the towns in west Macedonia as they are in Kosova and the area outsdie it. Today, Albanians in Macedonia are 50% (one whole side of the river and many on the other side). Then, when you consider having Turks, Roma and others in Skopje, Macedonians cannot be a whole 50% of the city. Then something else, those Macedonians all moved in over last 50 years because in 1912 the town had 30,000 and now it has 700,000. Just because it was made their capital in pseudo-country Yugoslavia. So if Skopje isn't liberation, then Tirana isn't either. Thankyou. Simply Neutral (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You caught me again Sinbad Barron. Now I have to create new accounts..Since I am short of ideas can I use some of yours? --79.166.35.77 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC) <--Is that OK?-->--Factuarius (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. My opinion is that in the article is better to avoid such maps because I believe that a day will come when the article will have 20 or 30 of them. But for the time being it is impossible to leave only one (the one you left) of somewhat pro-Bulgarian view showing even eastern Thrace having a Bulgarian majority. It is necessary to give also a second opinion about, from a very well known cartographer of the era, enough serious as to influence a major treaty. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is funny how this map tries to make the Greeks a majority in Eastern Rumelia when according to the census of 1880 out of 815,952 72,3% were Bulgarian,19,4% turks,2,5% gypsies and all other ethnicities 5,9%. No wonder the congress of Berlin is considered a crime by many contemporaries.--Avidius (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny indeed. Even the Gipsies were more --Factuarius (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as the map is from a reliable source (Stanford is seemingly fine), there should be no reason to remove it. Nobody is using it to try to deny that Bulgarians formed a majority in Plovdiv and the south (Eastern Rumelia), and all of the census information is available for everyone to see. Evlekis (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Divisional Strength

Hi Cplakidas. Nice work. But you removed the minus (-) characters from the units. The minus character indicates that the unit has one or more of its sub-units in absent (for divisions usually one regiment). I understand your possible position that this is hardly known to the average reader but we have to find a solution about, because the removal is affecting seriously the phenomenal strength of the Otto's units. If you don't think a good idea to create a notice about, we must put them back at least for those who know or who will understand the meaning. Regards --Factuarius (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't sure what the minus actually meant. I had considered "understrength", but also that it was some leftover from copy-paste (and went with that one). You are right of course, the information must be re-added. The minus however is - evidently - confusing, so I'll add "(understrength)". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "understrength" expression is a little relative. What is understrength in let's say Bulgarian terms is not for Otto's terms. Thus an understrength Bulgarian division could be of 15,000 men, 3-4,000 men more of the full organizational strength of an Ottoman Division, which is considered understrength having 5-6,000 men. So I think it's better to just say "minus regiment" although some of them also lacked part or all of their organizational artillery. Cheers, --Factuarius (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Greek fleet's influence in the Thracian operations

Hi Cplakidas. I think you misunderstand my yesterday's edits about, possibly because of my faulty presentation of Erickson's analysis. What Erickson says in his Conclusions Section of his book, is that the Greek naval supremacy costed Ottos also another third Corps in their battles (in addition to the two previously explained -XV & IV). So this (the Corps that failed to come) was the third Corps that the presence of the Greek fleet had neutralized on behalf the Ottos 1st Army. Erickson in his analysis of the Otto's defeat, at the end of his book, identify the Greek fleet as the most significant reason for the war's outcome and as for the Thracian campaign he is reasoning his analysis by explaining how the Greek fleet eliminated those three Corps from the Eastern Army's order of battle. So this "third" Corps was the third that was eliminated not the third Ottoman Corps which was indeed there as subunit of the 1st Ottoman Army and took part to the operations. Because I am sure that your edit will lead to misunderstandings a fixing is necessary. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't get what you meant there. Fixing it right away. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but i think that Erickson is getting a little bit too biased . First because the war was decided in Thrace since the heavy fighting there continues to the last day of the war while most of while most of the fighting in Macedonia ended months before it. Also the Greek fleet may have distracted a few corps it was only TEMPORARY and also the Greek fleet prevented as many as 60 000 Turkish soldiers that were meant for Macedonia to join the Ottoman Army in Thrace. So i wouldn't be so sure that the Greek fleet won the Balkan War.--Avidius (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)--Avidius (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article claims that. Its contribution however was undoubtedly great for the rapid early successes of the Allies. If the Ottomans had transported even 100,000 more men into Europe at the beginning of the war, things' might have gone differently... Let's not forget that the navy was the reason why Greece was desired as an alliance partner in the first place. Constantine ✍ 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Distracted a few Corps"? I understand what you say as a debate between you and Erickson about reasoning the war's outcome. I am not feeling the obligation to take a part.
• "as many as 60,000"? No as many as 112,500.
• If I am sure that the Greek fleet won the Balkan War? No I am not, Erickson and (Bulgarian's 2nd Army Commander) Ivanoff are.

Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So Erickson is defeating his own thesis because he acknowledges that 112,500 more men were available to fight in Thrace because of the Greek fleet. I am not sure that is positive for the war .Did you ad this to the article?--Avidius (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The figure is mine by just multiplying 9*12,500 the nr. of men an Otto Division had to have. Erickson is giving no number. Buy the book worth every euro.--Factuarius (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman troops in Thrace 8th of October

Eastern Army

I corps
staff - 150 men; 1st division - 5744 men; 2nd division - 10731; 3rd division - 11386; total - 27963;

II corps
staff - 80; 4th division - 6800; 5th division - 6361; 10th cavalry regiment - 221; telegraph section - 69; 3rd pioneer tabor(battalion) - 533; total - 14064;

III corps
staff - 110 7th division - 13846; 8th division - 2677; 9th division - 9399; Karahisar division - 3717; 8th cavalry regiment - 625; 3rd company from 3rd pioneer battalion - 181; total - 30555

IV corps
staff - 95 12th division - 12525; Izmid division - 8764; 7th cavalry regiment - 364; total - 21749;

two independent cavalry brigades - 4035;

Eastern Army total - 98273;

Forces in Adrianople 1st provisional - 8000; 11th division - 8000; 10th division - 10000; total - 26000 + 907 officers = 26907;

Total Eastern + Adrianople = 125273

Forces in Instanbul and San Stefano total - 31472

etc etc

Best read it for yourself if you can translate it [1]

I've read it. But I found their strength according to the Turkish Gen. Staff study of 1993. So I put both the numbers in the article with the exception of the Istanbul-S.Stephano forces(?) nowhere else mentioned and must be possible from units that latter came to the theater from Asia Minor or just error. See the article for the analytical figures. --Factuarius (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the Instanbul- San Stephano figures are correct because it is after all the Ottoman capital it has its permanent garison which is numerous enough. The thought that the Ottomans have all their troops around Edirne and on the Bulgarian border and nothing else seems strange.Also saying that the bulk of the Bulgarian Army 340 000 men was pitted against 115 000 is not the same because the Bulgarian divisions include a number of logistical and administrative personnel that the the Ottoman divisions do not so its like trying to compare apples to oranges.--Avidius (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for Sofia but Athens had no garrison during the war. Anyway there is no source except the Bulgarian one that mention 31,000 troops in Chatalcha-Constantinople before the named battle and we have now three, including the Official Turkish. Must mention part of the garrison troops or units not present during the outbreak of the war but latter. To me is illogical to have battle 100 km outside your capital and to have 30,000 to stay inert just behind, but that's only a thought, what matters is what the sources say. --Factuarius (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Bulgarian forces 340,000 in Thrace + 48,000 in Macedonia doesn't makes 600,000 only 388.000. The Bulgarian army is presented to have already enough "logistical and administrative personnel" in the article. --Factuarius (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is called a reserve force for instance according to the Bulgarian order of battle for the Second Balkan war the 6th division was hold in reserve initially. Armies do not throw all their units in an all or nothing style battles.--Avidius (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Turks had also reserves. In every battle. Erickson is giving analytically every single of them. Give battle, to give you the reserves. But says nothing about the 31,000 in Instanbul- San Stephano although he is giving every single regiment or Division he says nothing about such a large (31,000 men) force there. 31,000 are 3 full Turk Divisions, was it possible to lost track of them? --Factuarius (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me where Fetih and Selimie divisions were at the start of the war because my book says they were in Instanbul together with parts of other units.Surely the 1993 book must say where the divisions were.--Avidius (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the "Ottoman Order of Battle for Thrace October 17, 1912" table (p.83) these units are not present. If they indeed took part in the war (I have to check) must had been on their way, or under construction since these were Redif not Nizami (active) units. As units they were part of the First Redif Inspectorate (they where 6 such). --Factuarius (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The map of Stanford

This map is simply wrong. Many of the territories marks as Greek-populated were not. The decisions of the Berlin Congress were not based on justice or ethnic borders but simply a part of the diplomacy between the Great Powers.

Many areas shown on that map as Greek were clearly of vast Bulgarian (and on places Turkish) majority. For example the territory of what is now Pazardzhik Province; I haven't heard of Greeks in Batak, Perushtitsa, Velingrad and hundreds of settlements notes there. Furthermore that map contradicts to the other one of Ravenshtein - the ethnic composition cannot change like that for 8 years. --Gligan (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To head off another revert war, I'll repeat here what I said in the Talk:Treaty of San Stefano: the map's correctness is not that important (obviously it is skewed to a pro-Greek POV to an unrealistic extent). What is more important is the fact that such a map circulated at the time, and obviously claims were made using it as a basis. It is a historical document, which depicts one of the many and wildly conflicting ethnological representations of the Balkans that circulated at the time. Since there is no "definite" ethnological map, if we include the other contemporary maps, this must be included as well. A more explanatory caption should be added, to the effect that it does not represent the accurate situation. IMO it is at least indicative of what the more fervent advocates of the Megali Idea would claim (if they had had the chance), as I've seen it in several older books claiming to represent the "true extent of Hellenism", and as such historically valuable. Constantine ✍ 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case you must note in the caption below that it is not ethically accurate because the map is really ridiculous. --Gligan (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source that claims that this map was really used for solely political reasons, it would be appropriate to be mentioned. Actually I wonder if there is any perfectly painted ethnographic balkan map, especially if we are talking about 19th cent..Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The question you should ask first is if there is a source claiming that this map was used at all during the Congress of Berlin. Otherwise from a scientific point of view it is useless. We might as well find a map that shows Thessaly inhabited mostly by Bulgarians with some Greek and other minorities. By the way I have seen many maps from that period and this is the only one that shows Eastern Rumelia having a Greek majority and it was made one year after the April Uprising and the Constantinople conference. It is clearly political. Now the supporters of the Megali idea might wish it had a demographical value but it has little to none of that.--Avidius (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is reference and maybe more than one, but Avidius will claim "being POV" and the second "being unreliable because is from a blog" and a another endless discussion will start ending again in an edit war and some time will all of us ended banned. So better to get over that sooooo boooooooring serial in the current consensus, I accept the Avidius edit. But I want both of you to know that this map was indeed the map used in the Congress of Berlin right or wrong, and thus it's the only ethnographic map that ever mattered in the history of the Balkans and I am sure that you understand that well because among others this is so much evident in the final agreed borders. As for Avidius comment, the E.Rumelia integration changed nothing of the influence the map had because E.Rumelias borders also was shaped upon that same map. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The maps of the Allied operations

Two other examples proving that the map is generally correct: [[2]],[[3]].--Avidius (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The first map is ridiculously misleading and pro-Bulgarian (and Bulgarian), the second is very accurate showing exactly what I am saying to you. --Factuarius (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no major difference between the three maps so you are being misleading.--Avidius (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are lying as always, everybody can note the movement of the Greek army from Salonika towards Kavalla stopped just outside the city in the second map. In the Bulgarian map there is the same movement with the opposite direction (from Kavalla to Salonika) showing it as a Bulgarian operational movement! (which according to the second map and to the reality it would be impossible). Whatever you say is just an imaginative map as the skirmishing episodes some months later occurred in Pangaion (west of Kavalla) known as Pangaion incidents and the battles around Serres (under Bulgarian occupation) and Sidirokastro (to the south under Greek occupation) occurred just before the 2nd Balkan War indicates. --Factuarius (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And you as always show your lack of knowledge because in the first map the demarcation line between the Armies can be seen very clearly and to ware Greek occupied territory streched unlike your map. Also it is natural that the the Bulgarian movement was from North to South and West( Kavalla) to East (Salonika) because the Bulgarian 7th division and parts of the Rhodope detachment advanced from those direction before the Greeks had a chance to go anywhere east of Salonica. However it is very amusing to see you trying to hide your bias by disregarding the whole map just because it doesn't show one single Greek advance towards Kavalla which happened after the shown Bulgarian movement to Salonica.--Avidius (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And you as always are showing your bias, because the 7th Bulgarian Div. moved to the direction of Salonika from North to the South and not from Eastern to the Western. The Bulgarian map is discredited by itself without my help since among others is showing the Greek army going to Ionnina from Eastern (Thessaly) instead from South (Sterea), or showing the Greek army to stop to Kozani instead of just South of Monaster(Bitola) some 300km northern, or showing the 7th Bulgarian Division going from Salonika to Dedeagach by..foot although is known that went there transporting by the Greek fleet. Is a ridiculous map full of pro-Bulgarian "errors" unlike the second you mentioned which is a very accurate map having nothing to do with the Bulgarian. --Factuarius (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary the first map clearly shows(perhaps you are blind) hat troops were transported by sea from Salonica to Dedeagach but not all of them were. Second i told you that part of the Rhodope detachment advanced from East to West also the second map shows Bulgarians advancing on Salonica from three directions including east something which you conveniently neglect.So don't worry in the near days i will try to edit the image in accordance with your "objections"--Avidius (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

From three directions? with what? with thoughts? The Bulgarians had only one Division outside Eastern Thrace, the 7th Rila closely operating with the Serbs in the Vardar Valley. --Factuarius (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

MONTENEGRO Why is Montenegro left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.39.123 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Factuarius seems to think he owns the article and does not aloow anyone else to edit it. Despite the obvious lack of knowledge on subjects like the IMRO organisation and the such he insists on reverting every single edit performed by any other editor. Since I'm obviously not allowed to edit the article and any other Point of view but the one exposed by the editor in question is not welcome here, I've put a Neutrality tag on the whole article. I've tried requesting citation for some dubious (if not to say incorrect) statements, it was reverted. I tried to clarify the IMRO situation, I was reverted again; for God's sake, I tried to remove some "the"s where they were not needed according to common English grammar, but I was denied even that. As of now, it seems Factuarius is acting as if this encyclopaedia is actually a battle field, which I hope is not the case. It's not about winning, it's about having info from all sides and as neutral as possible. What he does is continuously labelling one side as the "bad" guys and completely ignoring any other point of view. --Laveol ^T 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Generalizations upon generalizations. You are only accusing me for "lack of knowledge about IMRO" and still you declare the entire article as POV. This is not a surprise from you since it appears that this is your main job in WP: Going around putting POV tags everywhere you don't like what you see. Well, this is not your encyclopaedia either. Here the "I don't like.." is not enough. First you put back every edit you did previously and after that you declare the article POV. Every single of those edits was fully explained but you insist not to discuss it, you only revert them. As for the IMRO, re-read the WP article and if you don't like it go and make the necessary changes. And after completing your job there declare it also POV. --Factuarius (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is: You obviously know nothing of the whole organisation. It was a revolutionary one. The aim of revolutionaries is to liberate a certain something. Why the hell would they make a revolution if not? Even the sentence sounds lame as of now: united, liberating and revolutionary organization - is that even English? Second, IMRO was already split into two prior to the war. It was already a left-right wing movement. And do not tell me to look at the article since you've obviously missed on that. Third, I put the pov tag and explained it and then started editing again. Further - what do you mean by Majority? Since we're obviously Europeans and we do actually distinguish between Absolute and Relative majority. It's not just simple majority. Bulgarians were the most numerous ethnic group in the region. They did not form an absolute majority in all of the smaller regions. So, they were a majority, but not the majority in some regions (of the whole region). If you cannot back it up with a reliable source, do not add it. It's too weasel to fit in and goes with the general flow of all your addition. Making one side look bad (you did not deny that) is what your additions aim and it is not ok. Not when we're trying to build an encyclopaedia. Wars have two sides (usually) and they're not us against the bad guys if you aim at neutrality --Laveol ^T 15:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stanford's map

Let's clear this case on this article at least. Stanford's map is from the year 1878 or even earlier. That's 35 years at least prior to the events described in this article. It's not I don't like it or something like that. I do' actually believe that, although the map is wrong to start with, it has its place in certain articles, cause of the way it justifies some expansionist agenda from the late XIX century. But it's simply not relevant to this article. What I did is simply searched for the two maps that most closely correspond to the time of the events. It's those two (and even one of them depicts a "reality" 15 years prior the war). Any objections. And by objections I mean real ones. --Laveol ^T 11:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you I must admit that I find your argument pure hypocrisy. You, Kostja, TodorBozhinov and Gligan, this very moment are going in every article in WP editwaring to remove that map. You say that it is old, but you also removed it from the San Stephano and Berlin treaties articles although at the time the treaties were signed it was barely a year old. Enough with that hypocrisy. It is purely an "I don't like it" argument and you guys are winning nothing with such attitude. --Factuarius (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say, lies don't get you anywhere. I'm not part of those discussions anymore. And I'm not against adding it where it is relevant. It is not relevant here. Any constructive comments from you. I'd just suggest you tone it down and stop calling this a hypocrisy, because it is not. If you want to know what is actually a hypocrisy, why no read the article for a start? If you don't know the words in Greek, that is. --Laveol ^T 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are part of that tag teaming with Kostja, TodorBozhinov and Gligan trying to kill the map from every article in WP using pure editwarring policies which is what you are doing also here. Check again your previous edits. What you mean "anymore"? If you are "not against adding it where it is relevant" why don't you try to add it in those "relevant" articles. Enough with your hypocricy. --Factuarius (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles where it's relevant do not include this one as it's 35 years out of date. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. Kostja (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see conspiracies, I see pure tag teaming, pure edit war and pure hypocrisy. What you see? --Factuarius (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

When making threats, please, make sure them to be right. The other discussions include User:Athenean. the fact is he does not participate in this discussion, cause I suppose, he, too, finds the image irrelevant to this particular article. I've seen no arguments presented by you for the inclusion of the map. You only go on ranting when you see things are not going your way. I'm actually quite willing that we proceed with dispute resolution as I'm fairly confident POV pushing aand edit-warring to put an irrelevant to the subject of the article map are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you agree, we might go on with the process (although, you have to now that the chances of your version prevailing are quite quite slim). --Laveol ^T 18:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I' not against including this map where it's relevant (Berlin Congress, Balkans and Demographic History of Macedonia, though not the San Stafano treaty) as long as its clear pro-Greek character is mentioned. In my opinion, Factuarius, it was dishonest of you to mention the important fact that Stanford was biased in Greece's favour and used an extremely broad definition of Greek when you introduced this map. Kostja (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice Kostja. Have you ever count your reverts in removing the map in those articles you supposedly are not against it? And "but not in San Stefano"? why? The map was barely one year old then? Is it because the article is sacred for the Bulgarian nationalism? Or what? --Factuarius (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was against this map when it was being pushed as a neutral map by a famous historian. Now that its pro-Greek character is confirmed I support its inclusion with a clarification where it's relevant. This doesn't include this article for the above mentioned reasons.

The treaty of San Stefano article is not the subject here (we can discuss it there), but suffice to say that it doesn't fit any of the criteria for inclusion of the other articles. Kostja (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Treaties

In the original agreement Bulgaria acknowledged unconditionally all Serbian claims north of the Sar mountains and Serbia did the same with all Bulgarian claims east of the Struma. Both did it UNCONDITIONALLY the was no talk about any particular towns or regions. So to claim that the Serbians didn't know that Bulgaria has a claim and wants to acquire Adrianople is completely illogical after all its not Istanbul and even if that was true Serbia was BOUND by the treaty to respect the Bulgarian claims in Thrace.--Avidius (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius have you read the source given? You accuse me without read it. Thinking that it is mine words; well you are wrong. I accepted your edits although the txt was fully referenced because I find your sensibility about that understanding, but on that one I am not going to accept its removal, is sourced and it will remain. Read the source. --Factuarius (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is written in a book published in 1918 (during WW1 nontheless) doesn't mean it is right.--Avidius (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

...and Hypocrisy

I am sorry Factuarius but when you are going to stop being hypocritical? So, you can mention the significance of the Greek navy for the outcome of the war, but cannot mention the significance of the Thracian front and the indisputable fact that the major battles were fought between Bulgaria and the Ottomans in Thrace? Why is that if I am allowed to ask, of course.

Considering the Bulgarian majority in Macedonia, see Erickson, p. 41, table 2.1 Population of the Ottoman Balkan Vilayets. --Gligan (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you have moved the citation above but still I insist to be clearly states that the major battle of the war were between the Bulgarians and the Ottomans. --Gligan (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gligan with this.I remember when the article stated that in the battle of Luleburgas the Turks were 130 000 and the Bulgarians were 108 000 Factuarius deleted it claiming it was impossible. Latter I was very surprised to read in Erickson(which is otherwise his favorite source for both Balkan wars) the same numbers for the battle. What is this if not cherry picking?--Avidius (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact when my exams pass I will make a table with the data about the population in European Turkey based on Erickson's book because the "liberation" of that area was the cause of the war and the book of Erickson is one of the main sources used in the article. --Gligan (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Last Warning

Avidius, Gligan, Kostja and Laveol:Either stop tag-teaming and edit warring or I am going to report you both four. That's the last warning. Period.--Factuarius (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't make threats. All changes here have been justified, if you don't like them, use real arguments to context them. You understand Wikipedia regulations rather poorly to accuse of tag-teaming. Kostja (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And you stop with unilateral POV-pushing without discussions. Why we have to be edit-warring, what are you doing? When you see that there are problems with your edits, go on that page and discuss, and if you edit the article that means that you are edit0warring yourself, so don't forget report yourself as well. --Gligan (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, you do not own the article. The fact is that when things don't go your way you start ranting against other contributors. Well, in most cases I'm quite moderate and I can easily agree on similar topics with other editors, such as User:Athenean and I cannot agree with what you're doing. You simply do not allow anyone else to edit this article. And now 4 users have different issues with it. You can't get us all blocked only for not sharing your quite radical views. Sorry. Another fact is that you usually get some kind of support from other editors (one in most case). This time there is no one to back you up. Don't you think this might be cause you're doing something wrong? --Laveol ^T 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius, Gligan, Kostja and Laveol

There is a problem with an ongoing tag-teaming edit war here: Specifically, four very well known for their extreme pro Bulgarian activity in the past users User:Laveol, User:Gligan User:Kostja and User:Avidius by using either falsified references or just “don't like it policies” and edit warring in a series of articles trying to impose a clearly pro-Bulgarian POV or just to remove any to the contrary edits there. For most of the other editors, this was just a usual problem and they were trying to live with it, but recently they created an unbearable climate here, using massive edit war, false accusations and common policies in order to remove anything they don't like from the article. I believe someone must take action here before the situation goes out of hand. Below are their last actions and a detailed explanation of my position that I as the only editor not compromising with their activity became a target of their attacks and malicious treatment. These are their last actions:

User Gligan falsely accused me both in the talk page and in his edit summary for being hypocritical because according to him I removed the sentence of an author named Hall about “the significance of the Thracian front for that war”. Accordingly, he reverted the deletion of those two sentences with their refs. But as his edit was a blatant revert of my 2:42 edit he must surely have noticed that I didn't remove them, I only transferred them from the end of the chapter to the very start of that chapter, using the original expression of the source, and as the original author also had them (the first one in the page 45 as the first sentence in his "Western theatre" chapter and the second one in page 22 as the first sentence in his "Thracian" chapter) since both of those sentences are more of generalities about those fronts and thus their position is more appropriate in the lede of the chapter. Accordingly, since he surely knew from my edit summary that I didn't remove them, it is obvious that he purposely lied about the removing just to rv and thus edit warred just to edit warring without any other logical reason.

User Gligan, also, purposely lied about the number of the Bulgarian population in the Ottoman held Macedonia, in being a majority both in talk and in his edit summary. In the talk page he linked Erickson's page book 41 starting a talk chapter with the title “...and Hypocrisy”. According to him, the table of the populations in that page clearly indicates that the Bulgarian population was a majority in Macedonia. But he clearly lied because this very table was actually saying exactly the opposite, indicating that the Bulgarians were not a majority both in the total population figures as well as in every single province of the Macedonia area. Despite that, he reverted my 15:11 edit wherein I had mentioned that “the Bulgarian population was not a majority in Macedonia” by writing in his edit summary “back to NPOV version; you don't OWN the article”. Since it was he himself who introduced the table in the discussion it is sure that he had noticed that what the table said actually was the opposite of what he claimed, but he chose to lie just as an excuse to revert my edit, by falsifying the reference.

User Kostja reverted my edit about the number of the Serbian army that participated in the siege of Adrianople, saying in his edit summary that “The number of troops is important”. Since his edit was a blatant revert of my edit of 14:32 he was aware that the reason of my edit was that the number of those troops was already mentioned just some lines before, as I had explained in my edit summary, and thus it was just an unnecessary repetition. Accordingly, he purposely chose to ignore the obvious logic that we cannot repeat a number in every line here and there and thus his edit was an edit warring just for edit warring without any other logical reason. User Kostja also helped Laveol and Gligan to escape breaking the 3RR in their POV-pushing effort in falsifying Erickson's data table about the Bulgarian population in Ottoman-held Macedonia by reverting two times the article's sentence saying the opposite although by being active in the discussion (where the link of that table had been added) he had obviously noticed that the Gligan's claims were just a falsification of the mentioned table. He also helped User:Avidius in removing the sentence "to win for Bulgaria territory the acquisition of which had never been foresee by their mutual treaty" although all the paragraph was fully referenced and although the need of the addition of this sentence had been fully explained to my edit summary after Avidius' revert.

User Avidius reverted twice a sentence although it was fully referenced, and proceeded to Kostja revert in the totally unnecessary repeating about the Serbian forces that took part in the Adrianople siege although it was mentioned some lines before and thus he also reverted my edits just for reverting, without any logical reason and without any word of explanation in his summary (13:35). He also reverted other material although fully referenced, with brief summaries like “not true” or “far from a fact” while he gave no explanations about these reverts in the talk page.

User Laveol put a POV flag in the article without opening any discussion in the talk page before, and impressively enough, after that, made a series of 9 edits with the last of them starting in his summary with the words “I don't like..” which is evident of his general attitude. User Laveol has a long standing mania in putting flags without any discussion in articles where their contents are not enough pro-Bulgarian (sometimes as much as five) causing problems in many articles in the past. He removed a map from the article using as a justification the date of the map, (1877) although just days before he participated with User Kostja, User Gligan and User Todor Bozhinov in an intensive edit war in the Eastern Rumelia article for removing that same map despite the fact that in that case, this map was barely one year old at the time that state was created. Consequently I found his reasoning for the removal of the map in the current article not honest and obviously hypocritical and his general activity obviously disruptive.

From the above it is clear that all four Bulgarian editors worked in common trying to harass any possibility of editing the article with material contrary to their POV, by lying, falsifying references, removing referenced material and using hypocritical excuses, or no excuses at all and maliciously using a series of reverts to technically avoid breaking the 3RR in order to push their POV. Accordingly it is also necessary to examine the case of their last massive edits as a possible tag-teaming activity. --Factuarius (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh really but when hall uses Greek and other sources you don't accept his word because " he is pro Bulgarian". it is quite clear for anyone who has been following the discussions here that you are pushing your own POVs regardless of all other editors so spare me your accusations.--Avidius (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is full of Hall's references and what you say is answering nothing of what I said here.--Factuarius (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Truth is that you have been cherry picking from Hall branding him as blatantly pro Bulgarian and dismissing the content that doesn't suit you even if Hall has used non Bulgarian sources for it.--Avidius (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on editors. Personal remarks will get you nowhere. As well as avoiding any proper discussion. I refuse to be drawn to any personal fights here. Personal problems do not belong on the article's talkpage. --Laveol ^T 13:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, don't behave like a child. I have explained above that I have seen that you have moved the sentence above and reverted my edit. As for the other issue - if you will mention the role of the Greek fleet as a factor of the war, it should be mention the role of the Bulgarian army as a factor - the largest army which fought the biggest battles. I also saw somewhere either in Erickson or in Hall that the battle of Luleburgas (or Lozengrad) was the major battle in European soil between the Franco-Prussian war and WW1 and I will include it when I find it.

As for the Bulgarian majority, you can see in that table that the Bulgarians were the largest ethnic group in Macedonia, so that is what i mean by majority - the largest group.

To them

Some of you know from the past that it is my decision not to address problems of conflicts to admins believing that this kind of problems cannot be really solved that way, or can only be solved temporarily. And that even after some of you had e.g. clearly break the 3RR (some times by two or three times in a matter of hours). But what happened yesterday is beyond any tolerance mainly because your action was based clearly upon lies and false personal accusations. I thought about that and I decided not to take any farther action on what I believe you did except to explain my position here in the discussion page, mainly because of the long common participation in editing that article with User:Avidius. But I want to state that this is the very last time I tolerated such a situation. If you believe that I am wrong I will transfer my rationale to the ANI as to clear the issue there. --Factuarius (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Major Issue in the article

The map by Stanford might be introduced in the article, but not at the expense of the Britannica map which is a much more trustworthy and recent source. Stanford's well known pro-Greek views must be clearly explained. About the ethnic composition of Macedonia, according to both sources, the Bulgarians were a relative majority - largest ethnic group, but below 50%. This is more accurate than writing simply that they weren't a majority. If you don't like it can be replaced with a statement that they were the largest ethnic group in Macedonia. The treaty between Bulgaria and Serbia gave to Bulgaria the territory east of Struma, so the Serb statement contradicted the treaty. The references on page 22 and 45 are different, therefore your argument for removing it is a case of WP:I don't like it Whether the article is POV is still being discussed so don't remove the tag. Kostja (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I told you that I don't have any problem with the Britannica map. It is only of poor quality and is showing almost the same with the German one. In your edit warring fever cannot understand the obvious, it is purely aesthetic reason not nationalism. If they show the same then there is no reason to have both, and the coloured is better although older.
• I explained that to you in the Macedonian Strangle article. It is unrelated with the spirit of the entire paragraph. The spirit is that they choose to create an allegedly neutral organization exactly because they were not a majority. If they were they would not fight for an autonomous state, they would fight for a unification. What the paragraph trying to explain is why they tried to create a neutral organization with an autonomistic agenda generally speaking for the "Macedonian people" and the reason was because they were not a majority that was the reason behind every policy of them. And that policy created a major problem later and now with your neighbouring country both in Bulgaria and Greece!
• You are wrong about the treaty, Adrianople was not part of that agreement, check again. That among other caused the first problem in their relations with Russia who had overview the Serbo-Bulgarian agreement from the start. Check it before edit warring.
• These two sentences in the text, together with their refs are not yours, are of Avidius who has the book unlike you as I suspect. He put them there in a somewhat changed way which is not entirely accurate in their spirit to the original. There are no other relative sentences in those pages. Only these two I put in the start. To avoid future conflicts I choose to put them word-by-word. If you don't believe me and you don't have the book ask Avidius and stop edit warring. --Factuarius (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have the book. The two sentences are from page 22 and 45. The first one is: "The Bulgarians and the

Ottomans would fight the major battles of the First Balkan War in Thrace." and the second one:"The western region of the Balkans, including Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia, was less important to the resolution of the war and the survival of the Ottoman Empire than Thrace was." They fit together which is why I added the first sentence to the second. I don't see exactly why you consider the two sentences the same thing or why you decided to arbitrarily delete the second one. Kostja (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So according to Factuarius and Alexikoua Hall can be used to reference nearly the whole article, but not the statement that the Bulgarians fought the major battles in the war? "I don't like it" is simply not an argument. Kostja (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article is not POV and you know that. It's says what really happened in every possible detail having an enormous number of refs and every word of it became extensively discussed in the past. Currently there is no discussion about the POVness and you also know that. Come here and say: that, that and that is POV, and we will discuss it one-by-one with sources and logic. Until then stop edit warring for nothing specific. --Factuarius (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And, as already explained, that's a major OR. Do you have an exact ref that they were not a majority? I see a ref saying the contrary. It's your own interpretation of your own assessment of the situation as you wish it was. Bulgarians were more than either Greeks or Turks or Jews. They were not more than all of these together and what does this make them. The sentence is out of place in the article but you insist on it staying there to enhance the flow you want to give to the article. Sorry - I'm removing it again. Plus, you've not given an explanation as to why the irrelevant Stanford map should be there, instead of one that has data of a more recent period. And no more threats, please. Either take any action or stop threatening all other editors to do so. As I already said, I'm willing to get to Dispute resolution on the map issue. Since things don't seem to be working for you, this is the only option you could possibly endorse. The question is: Why don't you like the idea? --Laveol ^T 12:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and IMRO was not United, ok?! Just revolutionary is fine. What you continue to revert-war over is not in English. Ok?! Sorry, but I really start to feel what you're doing is not done in good faith. Sorry, but your action are just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'd suggest a small brake from editing, a thing I've tried in the past and really seems to help. Otherwise, I just can't see all this coming to a good end. --Laveol ^T 12:16, 19 January 2010

(UTC)

!!!!!!You must be kidding about the OR. Your argument that by seeing the table you referenced and make the calculation is "original work" is by itself ridiculous and it makes me wonder how far you can go to push your POV. Your argument that Stanford's map is irrelevant is equally ridiculous: It is not representing the low countries. The IMRO was "united" and "revolutionary" by its name. If you like to change its name and its documented program you are late by a century. BTW I never understood why are you really opposing to that but ..anyway. --Factuarius (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, now. Didn't you read what I said? At the time IMRO was not united. It was split into 2 fractions. Is that clear now. And the sentence makes no logic in English. How hard to understand was that? What should It is not representing the low countries mean by the way? Why are you doing the utmost to avoid the discussion on the topic? The map was already old at the time of the war. There are more recent maps. I just put there the two most recent ones, ok. Since we have maps from the early XX century, why should we add ones from 1876 or 78 or whatever? --Laveol ^T 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You answered nothing about the ridiculous argument relating your OR accusations. Open a dictionary and see what "irrelevant" means. Then you will understand what I mean "is not representing the low countries". What maps of XX century? there is only one, the Brittanica but it is of very poor quality and is showing the same as the very better and coloured of the 19th century, that's all cannot understand? Or you just want to have only two maps showing the same? Your argument about Stanford's oldness is obviously hypocritical since you edit warring to remove that same map in other articles when it was barely a year old. Stop kidding me with ridiculous and hypocritical arguments. --Factuarius (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The map doesn't belong in the San Stefano article for entirely different reasons, unrelated to this page. The maps here are for the purpose of showing the ethnic situation prior to the war. The map by Britanica is indeed of low quality but it is from a highly respected source so it takes precedence over a dated, clearly biased map. The argument that color map and the Brittanica map show the same information is nonsense. Ideally, two independent ethnic maps of the same region should be the same. These two maps are also close to other maps from the same period, so it's not as if they're some exception (unlike Stanford). Kostja (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that the map from 'Vidal-Lablache atlas' creates also major issue by adopting a pro-Bulgarian view. So, I dont see why the article should contain only a pro-Bulgarian ethnographic map [[4]]. Alexikoua (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The exact quote is "still subscribed to the view that Macedonia was Bulgarian territory. For example... the Vidal Lablache atlas, all contained pro-Bulgarian ethnographic maps of the Balkans".Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At last

Finally Factuarius has shown his real aim - to turn the Article in his own POV glorifying the "brilliant" operations of the Greek Army which despite it's small size and the small forces it faced was somehow the one that weakened the Ottoman Army and made victory possible for Bulgaria and Serbia.--Avidius (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Not me" the only westerner author who wrote a (big) study about the Ottoman Army in that war. The only westerner author who ever had access in the Ottoman archives. The only one who knows what really happened to that army ..with the exception of Hall's brochure off course.. --Factuarius (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Erickson that looks like a joke:"the Ottoman field armies survived, and in Thrace, they actually grew stronger day by day. In the strategic point of view these victories were enabled partially by the weakened condition of the Ottoman armies brought about by the active presence of the Greek army and fleet."

So on one hand we've got the weakening of the Ottoman Army supposedly thanks to the Greek army (which fought only 7 divisions against it) on the other hand the Turkish Army in Thrace was constantly getting stronger(and who had to beat it? The Bulgarians naturally, not the Greeks). Congratulations Factuarius you are indeed turning this article into a joke.--Avidius (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another attempt by user Factuarius to claim the article as his own

In page 62 of "the Balkan Wars  : adventures of war with cross and crescent." the author states(after he has described the Serbian operations in Macedonia): " I must turn now to the Bulgarian army which after all was the most important part of this united attack.There were as a matter of fact three Bulgarian Armies and it was my bad luck to be appointed to the Second Army,which was entrusted with the siege of Adrianople ...." Afterward there is a general description on the course of the Bulgarian Army's advance.

Now every person who has a basic understanding of English is capable of comprehending that the author here is talking about the general situation of the war and not about the attack on Adrianople. Also on page 58 :"Meanwhile the Greeks were attacking ports ... advancing north to join hands with the Servians ... BUT IT WAS UPON THE SERVIANS AND BULGARIANS THAT THE FATE OF THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION DEPENDED ... " afterwards he continues to describe the serbian operation around Kumanovo.

Here we have another example of Factuarius trying to prevent the use of sources that don't share his own position on the matters of importance. Such obstructions are contrary to the spirit of the good faith of most editors--Avidius (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the details of this particular dispute, however I will say this to both sides: Generally speaking, primary sources, such as Gibbs & co., are best avoided. It is far preferrable to stick to contemporary, secondary sources in articles such as this. Athenean (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the above that it's more appropriate with subjective statements like that to say something like 'according to Gibbs and Grant "..."' instead of boldly writing "it are fact!".--Ptolion (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No you again lying as with your previous ref with Hall in which nobody can found a word in the ref page from your sentence. The real text here says:

• "I must now turn to the Bulgarian army, which after all was the most important part of this united attack. There were, as a matter of fact, three Bulgarian armies, and it was my bad luck to be appointed, with most of the other correpondents, to the Second army which entrusted with the siege of Adrianople."

Unfortunately for Avidius I managed to find the entire book. And I found that he again lied. And he is lying because I know that it is impossible to someone to read wrongly the text because cannot be more clear. And because I know that he knows very well that the only "united attack" the Allies did during the war was that of the common attack the Serbo-Montenegrin forces made against the Scoutari fortress and the common attack the Serbo-Bulgarian forces had executed against the Adrianople fortress. Which is the only "united attack" Bulgarian army executed during the course of the war. In which battle it had indeed "the most important part". And since that, he already know that, he purposely lying pretending he is not understanding the meaning of the paragraph. What other "united attack" had the Bulgarian army during the war Avidius except the Adrianople? Which is the reason (although he claimed that he transferred the sentence word-by-word) he lied again because he actually changed the original word "was" "was the most important part of this united attack" with the word "belonged" trying to deceit the editors and the readers that the sentence is meaning the entire war. Something that is totally illogical because in that case the author would had use the word "war" e.g."the Bulgarian army, which after all was the most important part of this united war" not the expression "the Bulgarian army, which after all was the most important part of this united attack". Not to mention the very next sentence saying that he was entrusted as a correspondent "with the siege of Adrianople" If he was honest he would admitted his wrong, the fact that he still insisting, is the more evident proof that he purposely lying about. --Factuarius (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You think you'll be able to manipulate anyone with your lies Factuarius? Well I am afraid that the book is available here [5] and all editors can see for themselves that the author meant the war in general and not the battle of Adrianople. Anyway your attempts to misinterpret sources the same way you hid the numbers from Erickson about the Luluburgas-Bunarhisar battle will fail again.--Avidius (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say the full paragraph say:"I must now turn to the Bulgarian army, which after all was the most important part of this united attack. There were, as a matter of fact, three Bulgarian armies, and it was my bad luck to be appointed, with most of the other correpondents, to the Second army which entrusted with the siege of Adrianople.". I was sure that you had found the entire book, but you choosed to ref not the book's link but the book's title, although the book was free to download it and it's sure that you didn't found the sentence in the Google books where has no preview at all, but you downloaded it. Why you ref only the title and not the link? And why while you ensure us that it was a word-by-word "copy" you changed the word "was" with "belonged". Is there any reader that he will read the real and full paragraph and will understand that with the words "this attack" the author is speaking for the entire war? Please refrain from generalities and answer on what I say.--Factuarius (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Better synthesis of the article

This article requires an order and cohesion in the words and deeds, this badly written, and references harmonizes not what the text means or seeks to explain. Ccrazymann (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A heated debate over what?

It has fallen to my attention that in the previous couple of days much has been said in rather intense tone; lot's of personal insults, threats and other non-flattering things. However, and I took some time to read the discussion, it's not very clear what the fuzz is all about. You see, wikipedia's system of watching the last edits doesn't really help when they're so many.
My general observations:
1)For one I would like to ask my compatriot Factuarius to be less intense, and more polite if he can, because in the proccess he loses much of his right by being rude.
2)The map of Stanford is irrelevant how? The year has nothing to do with it, ethnologic composition didn't change from 1878 to 1912. Yes it is a propaganda map, but isn't that true for the other? And if it can be claimed that one map is neutral, that's must be commonly agreed, by all sides. Until then, either all maps are in, or all out.
3)Hall is an American with a pro-Bulgarian view (simply due to his occupation). He also is very sloppy in his book. Erickson is an American with a pro-Turkish view (again largely due to his occupation). Erickson is more scientific in his research, but also makes several errors, mostly on details. Neither of these authors are to be completely trusted. Pre-1920 authors are also not to be trusted, or used at all for that matter, because they are bias and lack the general picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xristar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Since we where advised by User talk:Athenean not to use primary sources, may I ask why is Jacob Gould Schurman's book listed with the sources and apparently used extensively during the creation of this article?Is it because he was an ambassador to GREECE at the time?--Avidius (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the book, is free on-line and you will find out that is full of primary and secondary references. Nowhere says I saw this, they told that. That's the difference between a primary and a secondary source per WP. --Factuarius (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Book was published in 1914 by an author who clearly took part in the events as an ambassador to GREECE and as a primary source it is not that different from Philip Gibbs Bernard Grant's book and they at least were with the Ottomans at some point of the war . This looks like the usual double standards nothing more.--Avidius (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sick enough of generalities. And I am also running a parallel dialogue with you in the BW article. You told that in your previous message and I answered you that the book is full of primary and secondary references (although of 1914) and is free online and you can check that. Nothing more to say. --Factuarius (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius, if you disagree with some part, be specific, and do not make generic accusations. Factuarius, you're not succeeding in anyhting by being so aggressive let alone that Avidius has a point.--Xristar (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

continuous wp:idontlikeit removal of sourced&verified content

It's more than obvious that this book:

• Wilkinson Henry Robert. Maps and politics: a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia.. University Press, 1951

Says on page 131:

still subscribed to the view that Macedonia was Bulgarian territory. For example... the Vidal Lablache atlas, all contained pro-Bulgarian ethnographic maps of the Balkans

It's about this map [[6]]. The link for verification is here [[7]].

It is disruptive to remove this part, making extraordinary assumptions [[8]][[9]][[10]]. Since the source says that this map is pro-Bulgarian we have no reason to remove this claim from the map's caption. Alexikoua (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As the quote above shows, the source doesn't say anything like that. The book states that most maps at the time regarded most of Macedonia as Bulgarian. The author then calls this "pro-Bulgarian" and gives some examples, including this atlas. From this can be seen that, first the Atlas is not called pro-Bulgarian by the source, second, it's not clear whether this map is one of those called pro-Bulgarian, and most importantly, that this is just the author's interpretation of maps that show Macedonia as mostly Bulgarian. Therefore, the caption must be changed to indicate that, according to some researchers, maps like this one are pro-Bulgarian. Of course, this is also true of most other maps of the period, so why should this one be singled out? Especially as the author doesn't regard the atlas as inherently pro-Bulgarian (it's not clear what other maps the Atlas contained, after all). So it's best to leave this caption out of the picture, as it is misleading. It would be useful, however, to add this statement to the Demographics of Macedonia and Macedonia (region) article, where it is useful in context of the many maps there. Kostja (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Its no need to go into wp:or conclusions, or even to explain what the author realy meant by saying that this map was 'pro-Bulgarian' or part of a pro-Bulgarian atlas. Since the author describes it as 'pro-Bulgarian', it should be stated as such. Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And the author doesn't say anything like that - there is no evidence that this particular map is pro-Bulgarian. It's not WP:OR, when "pro-Bulgarian" is used the very next sentence after stating that most maps portrayed Macedonia as Bulgarian and the two sentences are linked with the "for example" particle. So either must this be removed or replaced with: "Some historians regard maps which portray Macedonia as Bulgarian (as this one) as pro Bulgarian. The caption as it is now is as a dubious source interpretation. See, for example: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources. Kostja (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to read again the quote, since you misunderstood it:

...the Vidal Lablache atlas, all contained pro-Bulgarian ethnographic maps of the Balkans

This is excactly what the caption says.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The source actually says: "still subscribed to the view that Macedonia was Bulgarian territory. For example... the Vidal Lablache atlas, all contained pro-Bulgarian ethnographic maps of the Balkans". The caption says: " part of the pro-Bulgarian[8] Atlas Général Vidal-Lablache". The second statement doesn't follow from the first: you can't declare an Atlas because it supposedly contained pro-Bulgarian maps (not to mention that the term is used in a completely different context, as I showed above). Again, this is just an interpretation of the source, which contradicts guidelines of using sources. Kostja (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the image's caption we can't add entire pages, only brief descriptions. What you claim can be added in Macedonia Demographics, on a relevant section. Moreover, I also see that you agree with the authors conclusion, pro-Bulgarian is still pro-Bulgarian. Please respect the authors' conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't excuse the addition of information which is misleading or taken out of context. The context here is that "pro-Bulgarian" means "like most maps of the region, regarded Macedonia as Bulgarian". Nothing about the atlas being pro-Bulgarian. I'm certain you wouldn't agree if I added "like most maps in the period" to the caption?

The guidelines about using sources - see above - state: "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.". This passage is open to multiple interpretations, is not clear (we are missing the second part of the sentence, for example) and seems to be a passing comment. Therefore it isn't a desirable source for this article. Kostja (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally find all these assumptions extremely pov, since the author says pro-Bulgarian it should be stated. Also the author doesn't say anywhere 'like most maps of the period', that's clearly wp:or in order to support a pov conclusion: that the author doesn't really mean exactly what he says.Alexikoua (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry but I find this sort of disturbing. I clicked on a link that was coming from a specific search "Atlas Général Vidal-Lablache+map+bulgarian". Hint: You could've omitted the part with the search ;) Clearly the person adding the quote was searching for something similar. Which is not bad by itself, but making such conclusions basing yourself on such a quote is far from ok. The text as it is is hidden not only from me, every other editor and every single leader, but from the actual editor who pasted it here. Making assumptions on a highly contentious issue like this one, basing yourself on a sentence and a half, is not acceptable. I get the impression the author had something else to say, but I cannot make sure since I have no access to the book. From what I gather nobody here has read it and therefore - use it as a source. Sources are to be read and the info from them - incorporated into articles. Such random quotes are not up to any standards. --Laveol ^T 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you mean that I have not access to the book, but I'm sorry to disappoint you. Also I don't understand what's really your argument here: the fact that you don't have access to this is not an argument against a word by word verified statement. That's why libraries exist.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, you still haven't replied to my objections. This passage is certainly open to multiple interpretations. Your continuous assertions that the atlas is pro-Bulgarian are not backed by the source - an Atlas can contain pro-Bulgarian maps without being pro-Bulgarian. And the fact is that what the author meant under pro-Bulgarian is unclear - most of the context is missing, after all - to make this interpretation even more unsuitable under Wikipedia's rules of using sources. Kostja (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Albania

Can someone check if the prov. gov. of Albania was officially involved on this war? As far I know it wasn't (after November 1912 when the Albanian independence was declared)Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This might help[11]. Although, more information is needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Shkodra

Siege of Shkodra is left out from the table on the bottom of the article. It was one of major battles which resulted with many casualties, especially on the side of Montenegro. I propose to include this battle in the table and to double check number of casualties of Montenegro written in infobox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption: I think "amistice" should be "armistice" in the caption of one of the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisokj (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Outbreak of War:Serbian/Bulgarian Treaty

It really cannot be taken as accurate or a NPOV to say that the Serbian declaration of war was to prevent the creation of an Albsnian state, when in fact the negotiations between Serbia and Bulgaria for a Treaty dividing Macedonia and Kosovo between them had started in autumn 2011, well before the Albanian rebellion of 2012 (and feelers for this treaty had begun as early as 2009). Moreover, from the sources available to me there is no mention of anyone feeling threatened by the Albaniand, but plenty about Serbian and Bulgarian territorial ambitions (given that Serbian forces had occupied Tirana, Durres, and Berat in southern Albania by May 2013 it is very difficult to imagine why they should have been concerned about Albanian potential).

Nor is it correct to say that Serbia and Bulgaria agreed a division from Kriva Palanka to Ohrid. Bulgaria agreed that in case of victory it would recognise Serbian claims north of the Shar mountains (i.e. Kosovo). Serbia recognised that in case of victory it would recognise Bulgarian claims south of the Kriva Palanka-Ohrid line. The remainder was described as "disputed territory" and if the two sides could not agree among themselves, they agreed to put it to the arbitration of the Tsar of Russia. --Markd999 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberation/conquest

Reliable sources are quite clear on this point; they generally say that Kosovo was conquered or invaded or occupied in 1912, not liberated. (Strange that a "liberated" country would later be so rebellious).

Kosovo remained Ottoman territory until it was conquered by Serbian forces in 1912. Serbs would say "liberated"; but even their own estimates put the Orthodox Serb population at less than 25%. The majority population was Albanian, and did not welcome Serb rule, so "conquered" seems the right word. But legally, Kosovo was not incorporated into the Serbian kingdom in 1912; it remained occupied territory until some time after 1918. Then, finally, it was incorporated, not into a Serbian state, but into a Yugoslav one. And with one big interruption (the second world war) it remained part of some sort of Yugoslav state until June 2006.[12]

It is unfortunate that attempts to improve neutrality attract reflex reverts. bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Both "conquered" and "liberated" are somewhat loaded words, and both are best avoided. One man's "conquest" is another's "liberation", just like one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". Noel Malcolm is far from neutral on this issue and is also best avoided. I would suggest more neutral wording such as "take" or "take over". Athenean (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Both liberated or occupied/conquired POV terms should be avoided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Occupation" and "occupied" are legal terms, quite neutral and not POV. The same applies for "annexation", "annexed". SV1XV (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

I think there's an error in the date given for the Greek capture of Thessaloniki. The city was formally surrendered on the evening of the feast day of the city's patron, St.Dimitrios, on 26 October OS/8 November N.S., Greek troops occupying it the following day.Mickmct (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

100 years!

The First Balkan War ended 100 years ago today. 69.171.187.84 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Balkan War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718062057/http://www.haf.gr:80/en/history/history/history_2.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_2.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Greek infantry 1912.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)