Talk:Battle of Kolubara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A fine article, but you should mention the timely arrival of French artillery ammunition (75mm shells) and frentic attempts to shorten theese shells in time for the counterattack. This was done in Kragujevac war factory. The shells were 2mm too long (by some mistake) for Serbian guns. I think this was also an important factor in this victory.

Veljko Stevanovich —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2005-09-30T17:29:08

WP:NPOV throughout article. Heavily slanted to Serbian POV.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Please do not roll back other peoples edits to correct ip vandals, just revert their specific changes.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, have done so Shipseggsbasket (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed Tag[edit]

The article contains de Neutrality Disputed Tag, but the Talk page does not show specific reasons for it. Please note NPOV Dispute policy, which strongly discourages driving-by tagging and recommends the disputes to be discussed on the talk page, pointing to specific issues. Since no such discussion is shown, I think it is fair to remove the tag. M.Campos (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly drive-by. See my comment above. I'd have thought even a cursory read of the article would make it clear that it is heavily slanted to the Serbian perspective. If it`s really necessary, though I can go through it line by line and add tags. If you want to make a contribution, identifying some quality references in English would be a big step forward. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intended to be offensive with "driving by tagging".

You are pointing at one major problem: the information are not sourced.

I propose the following proceedure, which I believe matches fully the WP policies: if you have factual errors to point out, you may chalenge the information. The bourden of proof lays on whom placed the statement, and if no credible source is stated, you may remove the chalenged point.

If you believe the problem are not factual errors, but the bias lays in emphasis given to specific points, or in language used (as often happens in controvertial articles), you are welcome to rewrite the text and present it here on talk page for discussion.

I am afraid the line by line approach is the only way to have the article improved. Tagging is a kind of last resource when an agreement cannot be achieved, and is higly unsatisfactory to the reader. If there is no discussion about in the talk page, he does not even have the opportunity to understand which are the disputed points. The whole text, even the parts that are correct stay under suspicion, being almost useless. (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm on the verge of putting it up for WP:AFD. As far as the article shows, it could be pure fiction and we wouldn't know. The other-language articles are similarly unsourced or poorly sourced. Have a look.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if You don't know anything about this battle, how can You say it is POV? Yes, I'm a Serb, but I don't see what it is POV. However, it does require reliable sources. I have a book in Serbian about Serbian campaign in WWI, but it probably won't help. -- Bojan  20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the only sources of information are from one side, that's pretty much the definition of Point of View.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well if you don't know and haven't heard of any others, what makes you sure that it is a PoV and not a NPoV, even though it does come from one side of the conflict? You're the one disputing it's neutrality... try searching troughout austrian sources(i understand that not understanding the german might be the issue), i see no problem there... If there are only listed serbian sources and no ppl from austria is objecting to them, wouldn't you at least allow it that it might be true? --PrimEviL 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
In any case, since I placed that tag in February, I've managed to find a few potential sources (see the diff), but still, very few statements are attributed to sources (in any language!) I don't want to rush to plaster {{cn}} all through the article, but that may be the appropriate way to address its lack of attributions if nobody steps up to tackle it. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think you should place citation tags where they are necessary, then I will add the sources. OK? -- Bojan  07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start at it. I see at ISBN 0760319375 an assertion of casualty figures (much as given on the article) were for the entire campaign, not just for this battle. Perhaps that's the source of the dispute we can see in the edit history.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

After the Battle of Cer, the Serbian army retreated to the right bank of the Kolubara river.

We should expand this part of the article. After Battle of Cer, under pressure of Allies, inferior Serbian army crossed Sava river and underwent Srem operation. Serbs conquered Zemun, but final outcome of Srem operation was Serbian retreat. Then, Austrian and Serbian forces waged indecisive Battle of Mačkov kamen. In September 1914. Serbian and Montenegrin army attacked Bosnia and entered in Srebrenica, Han Pijesak, Glasinac. Montenegrin army even came near Sarajevo, but in October 1914. Austrians repeled both Serbian and Monenegrin armies back into their countries. From this point Battle of Kolubara begins. -- Bojan  18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Got refs? Srem doesn't link to an operation. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Sources for this is book of Nikola B. Popović: Srbi u Prvom svetskom ratu 1914-1918 (Serbs in the First World War 1914-1918). Also, a Slovene website also mention Srem operation (Sremska operacija): Sremska operacija (september) – neuspešen napad srbskih sil preko Save - Srem operation - (september) - unsuccessful offensive of Serbian army across Sava -- Bojan  04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the former, citation is:
  • Nikola B Popović (1998). Srbi u Prvom svetkom ratu, 1914-1918 (in Serbian) (1. izd ed.). Beograd: DMP. OCLC 43261088. 

LeadSongDog (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Bojan  05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But what is not yet resolved? I think {{sources}} is sufficient -- Bojan  19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting circular. The way the process works is first identify the sources, second verify their reliability, third include the content. What we're trying to do is starting from step 3, going to work on step 1, and still haven't touched step 2. It's made much worse by the fact that few if any of the sources have translations available into English, German, or Hungarian, any of which might help to reduce the skepticism as to their reliability or objectivity. Here's a workable approach: in each citation add a quote=yadda yadda yadda (English: blah blah blah)

At least this will reduce the difficulty in testing assertions.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be hard work, but I'll try. -- Bojan  20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

m8, we(he) don't have any reason to question those books, as biased as that may sound... frankly, i've never encountered any(and i realy mean - ANY) source depicting this battle differently... i understand your concerns, but i don't beleive there's any need for it... first of all, i doubt that bokicak would cite any speculable book written in serbia, secondly, you're the one that's opposing the written history in serbian sources... wouldn't/shouldn't you be the one searching for sources of "the other side" or neutral ones(british, french, etc)? take care. --PrimEviL 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at it the other way. A new reader comes along, sees the assertion, wants to learn more. Where does (s)he go? Even if averthing said was correct, this is supposed to be encyclopedic, meaning it should be a tertiary reference. Without citations, it becomes primary, and wikipedia doesn't do primary. (Lots of other places for that, including wikibooks.) Anyhow, I've chased down a number of English sources. See Further reading. As they are cited, these can be moved to inline references.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
it apears to me that you're trying to imply that BokicaK or myself have actualy participated WWI and this battle and we're trying to evocate our memories? :D seriously mate, everything i know about WWI(balcan warfare) is read from either history books in school(every history book in serbia is - as far as i know - written by a redeemed historian) or collection of biographies of 4serbian vojvodas(most notably the one about Zivojin Misic, the commander of the 1st army at the time) or, maybe, some other book... therefore, as far as i'm concerned, the neutrality of this article is hardly disputed, primarily because there is not a single thing that could be potentialy disptuted... your fear is simply based on the fact that the majority of the sources are serbian, but, let me ask you, don't you find that to be most natural thing? regards --PrimEviL 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
ROFL. This isn't about fear. In fact I have little sympathy with either side and don't much care what's said in the article if it meets encyclopedic standards. We are writing for a world-wide audience of English readers, not just for readers of Serbian in Serbia. Verifiability is a core policy, not a guideline. All readers should be able to verify that what is said comes from reliable sources. They are not expected to learn a new language to do that. We avoid relying on primary sources that may be difficult for readers to access (paper-only archival sources, etc.) Just because you or I trust a source doesn't mean a specific reader does. Indeed, the reader of wikipedia may not even know the source's publisher, let alone the author: why would they trust them? Please, just put your energy into making the article better. When the statements are backed up with suitable citations, I'll be more than happy to remove the tag.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I just consulted the "World War I: Encyclopedia", by Tucker and Roberts, page 643, and I was able to confirm most of the information stated in the article. There were also some differences, which I revised according to that source. That book and the Popovic one cover near all the article content. The only exception are the Potiorek plans after the fall of Belgrade, so the "citation needed" note remains there. If that specific information is chalenged, I will revise it or remove it. But the "Unsourced Tag" is no longer justified and I removed it.
Popovic book in Serbian is a valid source. According to WP:NONENG (which is part of the very same WP:V mentioned above), the source in English is preffered (but not mandatory) "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". I am not aware of such source in English(and I had hard time searching for it), but if someone know it, and wish to revise the article according to it, he is always free to do it.
I think now we filled all the conditions to remove the "POV tag". If someone desagrees, he is welcome to state his arguments. But please, be specific. Just putting the tag there, without stating accurately what is being challenged does not help at all to improve the article. It is also not fair to the user, since it casts shadow of doubt on also on those data that are correct and suitable sourced.M.Campos (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Getting there, anyhow. Still relies too heavily on one modern English source, though. I've cleaned up the cites a bunch, that may help. Something by an Austrian or Hungarian author in English might help to balance it.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have access to some Austrian or Hungarian source, please help improving the quality of the article by including information you find there.
But please note once we attended what you asked to remove the tag (source in English), you increased the your demand to a completely new level. If you say that the article could beneffit from more numerous and diversified sources, I fully support it and invite you and other readers to contribute. But that is a different thing that saying article breaches NPOV policy.
Your argumentation does not contain any concrete claim that false information were included, relevant data omitted or biased languleage used. Just leaving the article with an ethernal "Neutrality Disputed" tag is not an acceptable solution nor for me neither, I beleive, for Wikipedia Project. I would really like to avoid that, but I am afraid we will have to go through the dispute resolution process if you insist in keeping the tag without substantiating your position. I am removing the tag. M.Campos (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


It appears that sr:Колубарска_битка was the first wiki article on this topic, then it was copied and extended elsewhere. Unfortunately the oldest content there seems to have copyvios from this source (The Serbian royal family website) that it didn't cite.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion diff for dismissal of the copyvio.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas von Krìszèw[edit]

The Austrian commander Nicolas von Krìszèw is a hoax. Therefor, I undid the edit of 10 March 2008 diff

See also: it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Nicolas von Krìszèw (in Italian) --MaEr (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


They are wrong! Austro-Hungarians lost that number of soldiers (KIA+WIA+MIA+POW) IN THE WHOLE 1914. which means they include losses at Battle of Cer, and Battle of Drina, the latter being a battle of similar size, or even biger than this battle, but less known in Serbia as it ended in a draw (it encompasses all the actions after Cer that Bojan mentioned and more). And the number is from a Serbian source (Savo Skoko and Petar Opačić: Vojvoda Stepa Stepanović) that allegedly used an Austro-Hungarian source (Lezter Krieg by a group of Austrian authors) for their casualties (on the other hand, British historian Cyrill Falls puts them at ~ 215.000 for the whole year, but it is unclear where he got the number). In the whole 1914 the Serbs lost ~ 170.000 soldiers (all sources agree on this). As for the Serbian casualties in the battlebox I really dont know how this number was compiled —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kolubara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Well-written Symbol support vote.svg

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article, as a whole, is well-written indeed. I made a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.
1. Instead of having a note that contains the Serbian and German translation of "Battle of Kolubara" considered writing that in the lead as that is standard structure on virtually all battle articles.
2. Instead of starting of with "was fought between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in November and December 1914, during the Serbian Campaign of World War I" consider changing it to "was a major battle of World War I that was fought between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in November and December 1914, during the Serbian Campaign". The point of this change is letting the reader know it was a battle.
3. "leaving it to be captured by the Austro-Hungarians" - When followed up by the previous sentence, there is no need for this addition.
4. "Petar Bojović, Stepa Stepanović, Pavle Jurišić Šturm and Miloš Božanović commanded the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Užice armies, respectively" - To avoid a peacock or POV discussion I'd recommend removing the "respectively" part.
5. "He was given permission in September to launch another invasion of Serbia provided that he "not risk anything that might lead to a further fiasco." - This whole sentence should be changed to "He was given permission in September to launch another invasion of Serbia on the promise he did "not risk anything that might lead to a further fiasco".
6. "the Serbian Army managed to prevent the Austro-Hungarians from taking the railroad for a time" - Considered replacing "for a time", as it appears somewhat unprofessional, with "for a certain period of time".
7. "who were already significantly demoralized due a lack of cold-weather clothing and ammunition and exhausted by the long retreat towards the Serbian interior" - The "and" addition between "clothing" and "ammunition" should be replaced with a comma as it's not the last point mentioned.
8. "but the scorched earth tactics employed by the Serbs during their withdrawal complicated the Austro-Hungarian advance" - Consider replacing the word "the" with "further". At this point in the article, we have heard of a number of Austro-Hungarian advances.
9. "This gave them an advantage over the Austro-Hungarians in that it placed them in control of all roads leading to the city of Kragujevac" - This is just a suggestion, but I would replace "in that it" with "as it".
10. "The Austro-Hungarians reached the Kolubara on 16 November" - I'm aware the lead and the photo directly to the right of this section, refers to the Kolubara River as "Kolubara", but since this is one big ass article, I would recommend changing "the Kolubara" to "the Kolubara River".
11. "the Austro-Hungarians back and over the course of the next 5 days" - Because the number five is between 1-9 it should be written in words per WP:NUMERAL.
12. "Further south, the Austro-Hungarians attacked the Serbian 1st Army. During the assault, they made the mistake of attacking its stronger right flank" - Because this is a B-reference to a battle in a section that is about the main battle the "During the assault" part should be changed to "During this assault".
13. "The Austro-Hungarians made a renewed attack against the Serbian 1st Army on 21 November" - When you start off with "The Austro-Hungarians made a renewed attack" you don't have to include the "Serbian" part as it's obvious the Austro-Hungarians was not attacking their own 1st Army.
14. "but Potiorek chose not to pursue the retreating forces and gave them the chance to make an orderly withdrawal" - This is not clear! Did he purposefully give them a chance to retreat or did his decision not to pursue simply enable them to make a sufficient retreat?
15. "The Serbian people withdrew alongside their army and many retreated to Niš, where news of Belgrade's fall was greeted impassively as "it had been expected since the beginning of the war" - The paragraph should not being at "it" but at "expected".
16. "Potiorek knew that he could avoid a serious reversal on the battlefield by preventing the Serbian 1st Army from reaching the watershed of the Kolubara and Morava rivers, but the Serbs were confident" - Saying the "Serbs were confident" is, perhaps true, but nevertheless non-neutral. Considered changing it to "but the Serbs did not buy his bait". Or something that comes off more neutral.
17. "Meanwhile, the Austro-Hungarians attempted to consolidate control around Belgrade. On 7 December, they attacked the right flank of the Serbian Army in the city's outskirts" - If you're going to end a sub-section like this it would be wise to mention a word or two about the result of that battle.
18. "it failed to knock Serbia out of the war, it failed to induce Bulgaria to join the Central Powers and it failed to convince Romania to stay neutral" - This whole sentence should be changed to "it failed to knock Serbia out of the war, induce Bulgaria to join the Central Powers, and to convince Romania to stay neutral".
19. "Potiorek, on the other hand, was relieved of command on 22 December for "this most ignominious, rankling and derisory defeat" - The quote should not begin at "this" but at "ignominious".
20. It's true that the noble German middle name of "von" is never capitalized, but when it's the fist word after a period, it should be capitalized. This mistake occurs a few times in the "Serbian counterattack" and "Aftermath" section.
  • Verifiable with no original research Symbol support vote.svg

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The article uses book sources and Harvard references. All the books cited has either OCLC or ISBN numbers and all the source-information required.
  • Broad in its coverage Symbol support vote.svg

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

This is a long article that's very broad in its coverage. It stays focused on the important details and addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Neutral Symbol support vote.svg

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral with a few non-neutral comments pointed out in the "Well-written" section. But even so, the article is neutral and does not include personal statements or opinions.
  • Stable Symbol support vote.svg

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable and its content does not significantly change from day to day. Its not the subject of edit wars or content dispute (the latest dispute/heated discussion is from 2008 as shown on the talk page).
  • Illustrated Symbol support vote.svg

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

This article contains seven images. The images specific size and location throughout the article is very nice placed. All images are uploaded and from Commons and contains the necessary copyright/information text.
  • Pass, fail, or hold? Symbol support vote.svg
With the article meeting the GA-criteria and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor errors/suggestions I'm of course going to pass it. Excellent job guys; I was really entertained by reading the article and its really of a professional standard. It might even pass for a potential FA-nomination in the future. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Serbian soldiers marching through the countryside, c. 1914. is not a photo of serbian infantry[edit]

This needs to be updated correctly. This is a picture of Otoman army or similar. It should be replaced with photo of serbian infantry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)