Talk:1924 retreat from Chefchaoun

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article.

Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Casualties in the infobox

How many casualties? "Unknown" seems to lack a source, so I have removed it for now. Is there sourced information available we could use? With an inline citation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree The aftermath section of this article states that the Spanish "lost 800 officers and 17,000 men," with another source estimating casualties at 20,000. The infobox of this article has been sourced by the body, and this is how the page existed since its creation by @عبدالرحمن4132, but it was only until recently that Aihotz decided to remove the sourced content, replace it with WP:OR and accuse me of "vandalism or anti-encyclopedic attitudes" after I contested their unwarranted blanking. Skitash (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why the sourced content is removed and seems impossible to the user, @Aihotz. They could've provided another source without removing the other one. This seems like Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

The Spanish did suffer heavy losses in this war; what's so surprising about it? عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Which statement should be added to the infobox exactly, with which citation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, it was already added. Special:Diff/1259312082: "17,000 killed (including 800 officers) or 20,000 casualties" with the sources "David S. Woolman, p. 140-141" and "Tony Jaques, p. 226".

Aihotz, do you have access to these two sources, have you looked at the cited pages? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

(and عبدالرحمن4132, have you seen the cited pages?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree

Quoting David S. Woolsman from the book Rebels in the Rif, Abd El Krim and the Rif Rebellion, page 140, it states the following:

Desperately fighting their way forward, and aided toward the last by bombing planes and relief columns from Tetuan, the Span�ish finally stumbled into Tetuan on December 13, almost a month after they began their forty-mile retreat. The victorious Rifians pursued them to the outskirts of the city, and on the last day alone shot down more than 500 of Franco's rearguard Legionarios. It is doubtful that the extent of the Rifian casualties will ever be known, but according to Walter Harris, the withdrawal from Chaouen cost the Spanish the lives of 800 officers, including the popular General Serrano, and 17,000 men. Arturo Barea put the Spanish casualties at 20,000, plus an immense amount of matériel, including a small hospital left intact at Chaouen.

@Aihotz If you have another source for another number of casualties, you can add it, but don't remove the other source. This helps maintain neutrality. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Traduced from Spanish and referring to losses of this battle and the entire month that it occurred : “Our statement is corroborated by the number of casualties during the month of September, which, apart from those mentioned above, reached a figure of 2,806 (28 officers and 751 troops killed; 10 chiefs, 127 officers and 1,890 soldiers wounded)” [1]

And it is only an example of many. Aihotz (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

“The withdrawal of Xauen alone cost two thousand casualties”[2] There is disparity in the data, right?[3] Aihotz (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

So? None of these two sources you provided refute anything. I can provide a lot of sources that state otherwise. Whatever you think of that number, it doesn't matter. You can't just remove it because you feel it doesn't make sense (which in my opinion does not correspond to reality). This is clearly Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

I don't have any issues with that number so long as you don't remove other sources stating otherwise. Keep in mind during the Rif War, Spain suffered massive losses; I don't see any reason to try to minimize them. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these two sources you provided refute anything Are you sure of what you say? I can refute again and again the data you entered. I have collected dozens of references that disassemble the data you are struggling to keep. It would be a zero-sum game. Don’t you think?

Apart from that, you continue to engage in false and insidious personal accusations (I might suggest the same of you). But I will overlook your attacks (although I shouldn’t) and I will stick to the issue and try to reach a reasoned and reasonable consensus

I sincerely believe that we will be very difficult to find out the number of deaths. Not even approximate. In this particular case, these are not the typical discrepancies between "opposing sides" in a conflict, and moreover there is such a disparity between some sources and others that it seems most reasonable not to reflect any in the infobox and if in the article’s “aftermath” section. Aihotz (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You still removed sourced content just because it seemed unlikely to you. That's clearly Wikipedia:No original research from the reason you provided in the history section, although you could've avoided that by providing it alongside the number. This is Wikipedia, where you maintain neutrality, where we show both claims (whether you find it ridiculous, that doesn't matter). I don't care the number of sources you provide or whatever you think of the number of casualties; removing sourced content is not a solution here in Wikipedia.

moreover there is such a disparity between some sources and others that it seems most reasonable not to reflect any in the infobox and if in the article’s “aftermath” section. Okay so? That's pretty normal when it comes to historical battles; of course there's going to be disparity.

I don't need to argue over this anymore. Once again, I don't mind your numbers, but I'll still add mine to ensure neutrality. Removing one and keeping the other will not solve this issue. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You don’t want to understand anything. You’re closed in band. You keep on making more and more bizarre personal accusations. It is obvious that you only want to show that 20,000 died because a source says so even if it is totally contradictory with other sources as valid that assure that the Spanish side had 2,000 casualties.

Let me explain, I am not removing the data that your source supports. I propose that this data and those I have pointed out, and others we may find, be reflected in the section "aftemath" (as hitherto), not in the infobox, preceded by "according with". I leave it for today. If you agree with my proposal or want to make another, let me know. Aihotz (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but everything you said was not true. What bizarre personal accusations are you talking about? I keep constantly saying that I don't oppose your numbers, and you're welcome to add them if you want. I'm not trying to create the impression that I want my numbers only in the first place.

I am not removing the data that your source supports. Then why did you remove the data in the first place in the infobox? You could've put yours in the article. The infobox is supposed to summarize the article, so there's no reason to remove it because we have data that mentions casualties. If not, this would be left unknown or removed.

And since @Daniel Case told us to invite other users, I'd like to invite @Skitash @R Prazeres, and @M.Bitton. I apologize for the ping. I really don't know a lot of people involved in Moroccan history. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:@ToBeFree Thank you for the invitation to participate. So far, I have tried to debate with someone who is obtuse in this discussion, closed in band and not willing to dialogue in a constructive and purposeful debate. Only to attempt, for whatever reason, to reflect possible incorrect data. I have no particular interest in discussing an a priori minor issue (especially when the outcome of the battle is clear): the number of casualties or losses in a battle. But I have a commitment to the seriousness and rigour that in my opinion should govern this encyclopedia. A seriousness and rigour that must be far from a partisan vision. I wish to leave the matter at home, but only if the data appearing in the article is clear and contrasted. Right now it is the opposite. As I have said elsewhere, the user who repeatedly tries to reflect figures of deaths that did may not occur has misinterpreted and confused the concepts "casualties" and "losses" with "killed in action". Anyone can have a misunderstanding, but not in an encyclopedia. I have corrected that error of interpretation. I think it’s up to him or them to find accurate sources that support their clearly insane death toll. I think until he/they can prove it, the most appropriate thing to do is to introduce only the concept of "casualties" (which is what is used in the infobox of this war, Rif War) and try to break down into KIA, MIA, WIA and prisoners of war. Therefore, I am in favour of looking for more accurate sources. In Spain there are sources that speak of 2,000 casualties, of which 1,700 would be dead. Just search on Google and even better on Google Scholar. But I repeat that for now, the most correct thing in is to eliminate the number of deaths which in my opinion does not correspond to reality. A death toll that the sources on which they rely do not support. Aihotz (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Better said, I do not have access to the book of David S. Woolman (does the initiator of this article have access to the book?), so I can’t know if it gives that number of killed in action. The death toll given by Tony Jaques (book I/We all have access to) is in contradiction with other texts I have accessed on Google. Not to mention that it is merely an entry from a dictionary, not a detailed study of the Rif War or this battle in particular. And above all, a single source is insufficient, especially when according to the data provided by Jacques, Spain lost more soldiers in this battle than in the entire Rif War. As I read, Spain has never given the number of official deaths in the 1924 retreat from Chefchaoun. As if it had happened in the case of the “Disaster of Annual” (Battle of Annual), named that way for the battle in which more Spanish conscripts died during the Rif War. Aihotz (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is worth making it clear that I have no special interest in this subject, political or otherwise. Nor, as another user maliciously infers, has anything to do with "I don’t like Wikipedia". Quite the opposite @عبدالرحمن4132. I simply reiterate that in Wikipedia all statement, in this case the number of deaths, must be supported by a number of reliable sources free from error or misinterpretation and not in open contradiction with others. Aihotz (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that one or both of you take steps to bring other users into this discussion, especially since, as I have now posted formal notice on this page, this dispute comes under a contentious topic area (I wish, as I have many times, that the entire Maghreb (or at least Algeria and Morocco) were designated a CTOP, but that's not the present reality). You don't need to open an RfC, at least not yet; I think posting a notice at, say, WT:MILHIST, now that I've added project banners, should be enough to attract some editors with experience in discussing this sort of thing and reach a consensus. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

responding to a ping. I don't quite get what the issue is about. The two sources that have been removed do support the numbers that have been attributed to them:

1. The first says the disastrous trek cost up to 18,000 Spanish lives.
2. The second says Desperately fighting their way forward, and aided toward the last by bombing planes and relief columns from Tetuan, the Spanish finally stumbled into Tetuan on December 13, almost a month after they began their forty-mile retreat. The victorious Rifians pursued them to the outskirts of the city, and on the last day alone shot down more than 500 of Franco's rearguard Legionarios. It is doubtful that the extent of the Rifian casualties will ever be known, but according to Walter Harris, the withdrawal from Chaouen cost the Spanish the lives of 800 officers, including the popular General Serrano, and 17,000 men. Arturo Barea put the Spanish casualties at 20,000, plus an immense amount of matériel, including a small hospital left intact at Chaouen.

@Aihotz: I noticed that you mentioned WP:BURDEN in this edit while removing the inline citations. How is one supposed to satisfy BURDEN if one's citations are removed? With regard to the Spanish source that you cited above: it seems to be about the number of casualties during the month of September. How is that relevant to the retreat from Chefchaoun (which started in November)? M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I don't quite get what the issue is about It’s very simple to understand: some of the information given in the article may be incorrect. Quite incorrect even.

it seems to be about the number of casualties during the month of September. How is that relevant to the retreat from Chefchaoun (which started in November)?

True, the source I quoted is about the withdrawal from Xauen but the number of casualties it gives refers to a month and a half before. However, even though I am working and cannot devote much time to the matter, I send another reference.

Article very critical of the Rif War. Translated from Spanish, it says:

"In December 1924, with the dictator taking over in Africa, the withdrawal from Xauen would bury 2,000 more dead in the Rif cemetery." [4]

It also provides a crucial fact: during the entire war there were "25,000 soldiers killed". During the whole war. In the Disaster of Annual alone, 13,000 from the Spanish side (Spanish + Moroccan) officially died (modern estimates, which are perhaps those taken into consideration in the article I quote, say up to 18,000). Add the death toll of the withdrawal from Xaouen, battles of Arruit and Igueriben and many others. And deduce that many of the dead from the Spanish side were Moroccan troops.

According to the two sources above, the Spaniards had 17,000/18.000 to 20,000 killed in the withdrawal from Xaouen. I’m sorry but the accounts don’t work out. Even more, bearing in mind that the Battle of Annual is always presented in the literature on the Rif War as the battle in which Spain had more conscript soldiers killed. In such literature the withdrawal from Xaouen always occupies a very secondary place. And many times they do not even give figures of killed in action because they do not consider it relevant. I begin to believe, as a hypothesis, that the sources above may be in themselves an exaggeration or misinterpretation. They could have confused 1,700 and 2,000 with 17,000 and 20,000. Both figures are often repeated. It’s too much coincidence. Do you understand now that one and a half quotes are not enough to support a data that may be incorrect?

I think we should continue to look for more complementary sources. And until then, leave things as they are. Aihotz (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If I understood you well, you don't agree with what the cited sources say because you think that they made a mistake.

I can a see a couple of issues with that: 1) if you have reason to believe that's the case, then you need to substantiate it using reliable sources. So far, you presented a source that puts the figure at 2,000, which is good, but definitely not enough to discredit the others. 2) the above sources are not alone in citing the 17,000 dead. Micheal Clodfelter, whose book is widely used for various battles, also says about 800 officers and 17,000 enlisted men were killed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What if it is really a figure that one author wrote and some others have repeated literally without contrasting with others? So far all the three sources presented are of authors not Spanish or Moroccan (countries involved in the war along with France). In the literature on the Rif War in Spanish (which is what I have consulted so far) I have not found any (and I have consulted dozens) that supports neither the number of deaths nor the magnitude of the disaster nor the very importance of the Retreat from Xaouen. As I said before, it is relegated to a secondary fact. Quite the opposite of the case of Annual or even Arruit. And when it is mentioned, figures ranging from 1,700 to 2,000 (or even less) “casualties” (not always KIA) are repeated again and again. Some sources even emphasize that the Spanish side clearly avoided "a second disaster of Annual" in open contradiction with the three sources that you point out. It is easy to search on Google or Scholar Google and write "Retirada de Xaouen (or Chaouen or Chefchauen) 1924, bajas (casualties)”.

The Rif War was and is terribly unpopular in Spain, and "El Desastre de Annual" (The Disaster of Annual) is a subject known and studied in depth by authors of all political signs and epochs. The Retreat from Xaouen is not even remotely. And it’s been a hundred years. It makes no sense to think that information is being withheld or the death toll minimized. Therefore, it seems to me that we should either continue looking for more sources (the most rigorous option) or write directly in the article that there is a large (not to say huge) discrepancy in relation to the number of deaths. What do you think? Aihotz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The second option (adding content to the article) is the best, but to do that without engaging in WP:OR, I suggest you list the various estimates that you found in the reliable Spanish sources. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

How can I highlight one figure or another when the disparity between three sources that repeat a figure and all the literature I consulted in Spanish on the subject speaks of figures at least ten times lower? Making an exaggerated parallel it’s like writing that according to many authors consulted between 50 and 60 million people died in the Second World War and according to others, three so far, between 500 and 600 million. It seems wrong to write that in an encyclopedia that aspires to be serious, rigorous and respected.

Not to mention the fact that in the infobox of the Rif War it is indicated that the Spanish side had 50,000 "casualties" in the whole war and according to these three authors 70/80% of the Spanish deaths in the whole war occurred in a battle considered very secondary or almost marginal according to others.

I’ll leave it for today. If you want to answer, I’ll read it tomorrow. Aihotz (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

All the more reason to list the Spanish sources here, especially if they are offering some background in how they reached those numbers. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we can probably just restore Woolman's figures for now: Unknown for the Riffians, and 17,000–20,000 for the Spanish. It's used by Schlomo Ben-Ami in The Origins of the Second Republic in Spain, one of the most authoritative works on the Primo de Rivera dictatorship—good enough for me.

I suspect some of the reason that Annual is known a lot more than Chaoun is that the former preceded the revolt that put Primo in charge, whereas the latter defeat was made up for in 1927 with less domestic political turmoil. More historically significant to my eyes at least.

There's a new full length biography of Primo de Rivera coming out in January ([5]), hopefully there'll be details there or a citation trail to chase when we get our grubby hands on it. Meluiel (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

References