Talk:Kosovo War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

IJA (talk | contribs)

4 user groups
30,154 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 119: Line 119:
An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.178.255.32&diff=prev&oldid=665352022]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though ''(in general)'', semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.178.255.32&diff=prev&oldid=665352022]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though ''(in general)'', semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::I reported for violation of the 3RR already. I respect everyone's right to edit Wikipedia, but it'd make life a lot easier if only registered users could edit sensitive articles such as this. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:41, 3 June 2015

russian intervention

i wrote up a section on the pristina airport incident, i used a BBC article to source the data

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

but didn't include it in the references as i'm a lousy editor, feel free to include that

gosh i'm not trying to start a fight here, i just thought i should add that part.

RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?

NAC: There is no consensus on whether to leave the first paragraph, citing high Serb morale, as is, or whether to remove or alter it. Since there is no consensus, no change to the article is required. If there is another RFC, perhaps it can be better publicized. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Conform this version)
  1. ^ Nardulli, Perry, Pirnie, Gordon, McGinn. Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999. p. 54.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ The Strategic Triangle by Helga Haftendorn, pag 364
  3. ^ The Balkans Since the Second World by R. J. Crampton, pag. 275

The given sources do not support the statement that the Serbian forces had a high moral during the Kosovo War. The paragraph is misleading and should be removed. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the paragraph, you will see it never says what you claim it says. Are you sure you are at the right paragraph? Cause I see there was some confusion already. ([[1]] [2]). FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Agreed. There has been extensive cherrypicking trying to show that everybody was happy during the Serb invasion of Kosovo; nonetheless, the most reliable source we have discusses this at length (and quotes Serb military sources), showing that quite a lot of soldiers had serious moral concerns about what they were ordered to do. We should stick to what reliable sources say, although that means going back to the original version of the morale section, or toning down the first part of the current version, rather than removing the entire section. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see nothing wrong with having a paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces. IJA (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. The paaragraph is sourced by 3 reliable sources and quoted almost verbatin. FkpCascais (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The topic of the troops' morale most definitely is a notable part of the article, and therefore at least merits a paragraph. And if unreliable sources are the worry, perhaps there could simply be a qualifying statement added: "In the opinion of <author of source>, morale was high, but <other author> states it wasn't" etc. Also, I normally wouldn't be this pedantic, but since multiple editors made the mistake, the word in the sense you all are using it is spelled morale, not moral, a word with an entirely different meaning.DNA Ligase IV (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

  1. Subject to the provisos mentioned by DNA Ligase IV above (that opinions/impressions/contested material should be attributed), I see no problem with the material, however at present the first para's claims are presented AS FACT, while the second is presented as 'other sources reported'. This contradiction should be fixed ('Many sources claim'/other sources reported?) … … btw block-quoting in this section seems neither necessary nor justified … … also, 'Weeks before the end of hostilities, David Fromkin has noted that etc.' is confused in its phrasing and tenses, and therefore unclear (David Fromkin noted that, shortly before/in the weeks immediately prior to the end of hostilities etc. ??) … … also at present wording makes it unclear as to whether DF is making these claims, or the sources, or DF IN the sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International Reaction

Israel did not approve of NATO attacks and sent humanitarian aid to Serbia. If you look at the page Israel-Serbia relations you'll see sources there. 68.204.211.76 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point, does the article say Israel DID support NATO?Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a nursery really "dual use"?

From the section, "NATO bombing timeline":

" So-called "dual-use" targets, of use to both civilians and the military, were attacked, including bridges across the Danube, factories, power stations, schools, houses, nurseries, hospitals, telecommunications facilities and, controversially, the headquarters of Yugoslavian Leftists, a political party led by Milošević's wife, and the RTS television broadcasting tower."

I'm not here to cast judgement on the actions of either side, but I think that it would be helpful to explain why a nursery could be considered "dual use"?

If a nursery was indeed struck by NATO, I would like to know, was it: -struck because NATO planners thought it could have been of use to the enemy, and if so, what use? -was it struck by accident? -Is this propaganda from NATO opposition? -Is this pro-NATO propaganda whitewashing over a terrible tragedy?

I can see how a school or hospital could be considered "dual use" - for example, a school is a large building, and if located in an area with a high concentration of the enemy, it could well be used as a HQ/outpost/logistics point etc. - but specifically using the word "nursery" (which is pretty similar to a school) implies that a nursery was deliberately targeted for a specific, nursery-related, reason.

Not specifying a reason could make it sound like NATO was deliberately attacking nurseries across the country for nefarious purposes. Does the author think that NATO was fighting the long war and eliminating the next generation of enemy soldiers? Or did the author want to paint a picture of his own (ie: author reads about civilian targets being hit, but instead of writing "civilian", he writes "hospitals, schools and nurseries").

I'm sure there were plenty of tragic incidents of civilians and civilian buildings being involved in collateral damage, but which ones were targeted deliberately? And if so, for what reason?

Not knowing the facts, I cant say whether NATO did right or wrong in targeting any civilian structure, but just throwing in a comment that NATO bombed nurseries, without giving much further info other than mentioning the term "dual use" kinda leaves some big questions hanging.

The editor even goes so far as to end his sentence with a short list of apparently "controversial" targets...

Either more detail about NATO targeting policy is needed, or more detail of specific incidents involving the bombing of nurseries (or, as I suspect, one single nursery) OR the section should be amended just to say "civilian targets" without specifying type.

Peace, out.

94.175.244.252, the list of targets doesn't even appear to be sourced, nor any distinction made between intentional/inadvertent targets.Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. Fixed. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties controversial - cit needed

A recent edit put this in the lead [3] (scroll down), I modified it thus [4] (again scroll down). I've now put a 'cit tag' as the source is far from perfect (a BBC World service Iplayer file, which certainly does not justify the original text and hardly justifies mine). I would have thought the claim that civilian casualties were (continue to be?) a controversial element of the NATO bombing, could find a better source, though I cannot do so at present.Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "rampant" are unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And linguistically incorrect, and not in the source, thus removed. I retained the sense despite the weak source as I suspect the reduced assertion is reasonable and a better source for it is possible. Aside from the weak source, the text refers to 'Yugoslavs and Albanians', which in context refers to a nationality and a constituent ethnic group of that nationality. My involvement with this page is marginal, but I'm simply leaving this note here in the hope that someone can fix.Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a good source to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Larry, having had a quick look, the source is a good general overview of the war, but doesn't cover this specific point.Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Robinson and Clark quotes on pp. 114-15 perhaps demonstrated the controversy over civilian casualties? Here are some other sources that might be of use: a HRW report, section IV of this article, which specifically mentions controversy amongst scholars, or perhaps pp. 779-80 of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have modified and slightly expanded thus [5]. Using some of Larry's refs and moving the original iPlayer ref. to External links. Whilst no ref speaks EXACTLY about 'controversy of civilian deaths', there whole content is discussing possibilities of war crimes etc. in relation to those deaths.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? IJA (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[6]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though (in general), semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reported for violation of the 3RR already. I respect everyone's right to edit Wikipedia, but it'd make life a lot easier if only registered users could edit sensitive articles such as this. IJA (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F665360325