Talk:Kosovo War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

FkpCascais (talk | contribs)

4 user groups
72,705 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 143: Line 143:


I'm unclear who are meant by 'mujahideen' if they are ethnic Albanians. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm unclear who are meant by 'mujahideen' if they are ethnic Albanians. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

:It is refered to the ethnic Albanians and Arabs from Middle East and North Africa that fought in Mujahideen units in Bosnian War. [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:56, 2 February 2017

Ibrahim Rugova and other LDK members

Whoever listed the LDK leaders: Rugova, Zemaj, Krasniqi as part of the war, please provide substantial references. This is a false claim! Rugova was not involved in the war, even after the NATO air campaign he was hosted by Milloshevic in Belgrade, with his own request. This comes up from the Milloshevic's trial transcripts and video. The so-called Kosovo Defence Minister A.Krasniqi was killed in 1998 by KLA members in Tirana, before the main conflict even begun. How could he be a belligerent? Zemaj was the only one that participated at a certain point, but under regular KLA format. His divergences with KLA leaders that led to his alleged assassination came after the war.
If I.Rugova and other LDK leaders who did not support the war, came to support KLA and NATO intervention at a certain point, like all Albanians did, that does not make them belligerents. Rugova/LDK stance might be subject to a separate section withing the article due to its complexity.
--Mondiad (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mondiad, sections covering Rugova and FARK, would I think be an asset. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: I have prepared a subsection for Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo and FARK during the war. I was thinking of adding it under the "Reaction to the war" as 6 (in front of "Casualties" which would shift to 7), or inside the "Reaction to the war" as 5.3. Regarding the title, I was thinking "Democratic League of Kosovo and FARK". Any suggestions? --Mondiad (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mondiad, difficult to say without seeing the text, this is partly a 'sequence' matter and partly weight, I suggest you put it where you see fit and see reactions. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done.--Mondiad (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor ce's and think there might be room for a few more 'tidies'. Initial reaction is that I'm not sure it is in the right place (reactions to the war). I can't see an obvious place for it to go and wonder whether it should have its own section, though where in the sequence I'm not sure.Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he knew he was gay so he said so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.239.249 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosovo 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serb or Yugoslav?

this conversation took place in response to these edits, inc prev and next, and whether to refer to 'Serb' or 'Yugoslav' troops, decisions etc. I am moving it here as a permanent record. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pincrete. I'm well aware of what sources may use in connection to the Kosovo war, however this doesn't make them trump the tangible points. To see how and why sources can be anecdotal and often are (e.g Russian troops instead of Soviet), I refer you to a previous discussion where I took part here. Note the sources I provide. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. For imstance this source uses "Serb withdrawal" and "Yugoslav forces" interchangeably. --OJ (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OJ, I'm aware of the ambiguity in the two terms and dangers of using either,(one suggesting something too specific/ethnic, one too broad which is only understood by those who understand how the term changed meaning during the 'breakup'). I find the logic of the 3rd opinion bizarre, but so be it. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm all ears (or eyes!), I'd like to read why you found it bizarre and I'm certianly in favour of exploring further options. If you reply here, I'll keep watch. --OJ (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OJ, the 'Russian/Soviet' example is clear, the former is a commonly used, but imprecise, metonym for the latter and it doesn't cause any confusion to use the more 'correct' form. It is less clear in the post-USSR world since 'Russia' is both a constituent state of, and the general metonym for the federation.
In the case of 'Yugoslavia', there is possible confusion for the reader, since the term is used both for the lonstanding, multi-region socialist republic, and also the only elements of that republic to NOT secede (ie Srb + Mnt + their territorial 'satellites', notably Kosovo). This use was short-lived and widely disputed, even the WP article has FRY as a redirect to Srb + Mnt.
I don't have a clear answer, I agree that sources often use the two terms interchangably for this period, I agreed with your '3rd op' point that where specific units/paramilitaries were involved, it was possible to designate them correctly. I didn't quite agree that this is wholly a non-pov issue. The claim to the name was a part of Srb+Mnt's claim to be the legitimate inheritor's of the older republic's rights and territories.
I don't think article writers of this period were ignorant of the difference in meaning of the two terms, but presumably thought it insignificant. Political writers commonly use UK or GB to mean 'the UK of GB and NI', but no-one misunderstands that a GB proposal or action, also involves the junior partner NI, (in this example there is of course a simple solution, - 'British').
My own preferred solution would be to use the term used by the source, with clarifying text within the article, if nec. (which I think there is at present).Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several good points. On the whole, I'm in agreement. There are a handful of solutions here. "Serb forces" in scare quotes is one, but that is sloppy. A repetition of the passage in question in quotes has more credibility, but this too would be done for avoidance reasons. A simple caveat such as the Kosovo footnote may well be a solution and a tidy one at that. Here it would only need to be added to the first mention and then it can be used indiscriminately throughout the rest of the article in question. I certainly take your point about the confusion Yugoslavia causes since the vast majority of people in the English-speaking world associate this name with the pre-1992 country. There are actually a fair few solutions though each one needs to be looked at case by case. For example, in Kosovo war where it is said that NATO and its opponent government reported separate figures for soldiers killed, here it naturally needs some form of link to VJ, but with regards who spoke for VJ, I believe the answer would be to use Belgrade as a metonym. After all, it is common to speak of "Washington said to Moscow, etc.", and it is totally unambiguous to the point the reader need not even concern himself with the logistics. At this moment, I don't have time to go further but I am sure there are things we can do. Thanks for your new insight, leave your suggestions and we will arrive at a solution. --OJ (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OJ, I don't disagree with anything significant here. To compound difficulties, the legal status of various components altered over time, and were/are often disputed. An extremely inelegant solution would be to use FRY, however that is also open to being confused with FYR and did not gain much general use. There is already a mention in the lead of who FRY were. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd at least require a parenthesised addition (commonly referred to in publication by the metonym Serb forces), and on from there. --OJ (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Don't use the terms "Yugoslav" or "Serb" when referring to military groupings. If you are referring to the Yugoslav Army, then use VJ. If you are referring to police forces, use MUP. If you are referring to nationalist militias or paramilitaries, use "Serbian nationalist militia" or actually name the militia/paramilitary group in question, i.e. Scorpions, etc. If you are referring to government delegations, use Yugoslav, i.e. "the Yugoslav delegation", as these individuals were representatives of a countyou are called Yugoslavia. Problem solved. 23 editor (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite that simple, paramilitaries and other specific groups, yes you are right, name them. Sometimes 'generic' terms are used (by sources), Serb/Yugoslav forces, Serb/Yugoslav authorities, sometimes alternate terms by the same sources. Just as importantly, the use of (FR of) Yugoslavia was short-lived, and is not generally understood by most readers to mean the much smaller, inheritor of the name (ie Srb+Mnt+). If reasonably 'sound' sources use 'Serb' do we alter it for consistency, and if so do we explain in some way why our text doesn't match the source? Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made myself more clear. If the authorities were federal, use Yugoslav. There is no way of getting around that; that is simply what the country was called. If they were from one of the two republics, i.e. Serbia or Montenegro, use Serbian or Montenegrin. And yes, there should be a note saying that Western media organizations used the generic term "Serb" to refer to all forces fighting the KLA, albeit imprecisely. 23 editor (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 23 editor for any force that is specifically named. Pincrete's points on the wider problem are also valid, and there is no silver bullet for this obstacle. Let's look at the dilemma when choosing a comprehensive term for Serbia/Yugoslavia on Kosovo 1998-99 related issues:

  • If an editor wishes to be official and unimpeachable, he could use Yugoslav but this can create confusion as many people's general perception of Yugoslavia is the pre-1992 bigger country.
  • If an editor wishes to be clear and keep this simple, he may refer to the metonym Serbian but this is at the expense of accuracy, especially with regards readers slightly more knowledgeable in the subject.

Pincrete rightly states that following sources is a safe option. The two problems here are that sources can be interchangeable (so which shall we use?), and even if the source is using one unsparingly, it won't overcome the problem which we have established.

Would the two editors to have commented so far agree to the avoidance trick or using terms such as government forces, state troops or terms to this effect? --OJ (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

{{subst:trim|


| combatant1 = Kosovo Liberation Army KLA
Mujahideen

{{Collapsible list

A small addition needs to be made. In the combatants table, the Mujahideen flag needs to be added. According to the July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes page, Mujahideen fighters took part in the Kosovo War.

}} TryDeletingMe (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The border incident article does not actually say that "Mujahideen fighters took part in the Kosovo War", so we need RS, preferably with numbers and this needs to go into the text before we would add any flag or text to the info box. The presence on another article of a similar assertion is not sufficient to include here.

BTW, the border incident article seems to be unclear about what it means by "Mujahideen", the usual meaning in the 'Yugoslav' context is fighters from (distant) Islamic countries, mainly Arab ones. The border incident article says:

Serb sources assert that the first mujahideen began arriving in Kosovo in the spring of 1998, mainly from Bosnia and Herzegovina. By that summer, about 240 mujahideen were present in Kosovo and northern Albania. Most of these were ethnic Albanians, but the group also included several dozen Arabs from the Middle East and North Africa.

I'm unclear who are meant by 'mujahideen' if they are ethnic Albanians. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is refered to the ethnic Albanians and Arabs from Middle East and North Africa that fought in Mujahideen units in Bosnian War. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F763340095