Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Prekaz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The image File:Uck kla logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Be weary of the information that is presented in this article.

In the opening of this article it says that the Jashari brothers were killed together with 60 other albanians, the author does not mention that the Jashari clan was wiped out leaving only a little girl alive.

25 of the victims were women and small children. There is no such thing as an unintentioned massacre of so many noncombatants in a war fought with groundforces. Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5D91230F933A25750C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The article is outragously one sided.--Durim Durimi (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 0

What you forgot to mention about those "60 other Albanians" is that most of them were sick-minded terrorists belonging to the terrorist organization known as KLA who killed innocent Serbian civilians and attacked Serbian police. Another thing is that KLA is the one guilty for murder of civilians, Serbian police saved Albanians civilians who surrendered, but Adem together with other terrorists didn't allow his family members and civilians to leave, he even killed his own nephew. Terrorists attacked police and knew that police will find them so they decided to kill their own families with them by not allowing them to leave until deadline expired, so that everything could be published as a massacre. Another clear prove that KLA is guilty for this is that Serbian police saved all civilians who surrendered. --Forsena (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop reading serbian propaganda. Show me the source of your statements, please.

Is this your typical UCK combatant? http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs1.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs24.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs2.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs3.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs22.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs5.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs10.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs6.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs11.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs13.htm --Durim Durimi (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is your response, then PATHETIC. First of all where do you see Serbian propaganda? I just told you the facts. The source is BBC itself [1] sick minded terrorist Adem and his brother with other KLA psycho terrorist members were the only one responsible for the murder of those civilians. You sent me couple of pictures that could even be Serbian civilians. No proves, just pictures that could be from First Chechen War too. They have nothing to do with Prekaz massacre as far as I can see.
But these are clearly KLA massacres with clear proves including date, and KLA uniforms.
This is what sick minded terrorist idiots Adem Jashari, Hamez Jashari and other KLA members did until Serbian police stopped them:

http://www.kosovoliberationarmy.com/

As you can see the site includes large number of proves of ethnic cleansing of Serbs from their land, Kosovo-Metohia. These are not just pictures, they contain exact date, description, sources, victim names, locations names of the KLA terrorists etc.
In the pictures you can see what they did, they decapitated heads of innocent Serbian civilians, attacked, wounded and murdered young children even babies (in Prizren), burned Serbian villages, expelled, killed and attacked Serbs, destroyed HUNDREDS of Christian churches etc etc. --Forsena (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no proof whatsoever about UCK themselves destroying churches. Second of all, those pictures of dead serbs are men of battle ready age. Sure the decapitation was a little to much but you can not compare it with the policies of the serbian state to wipe out the albanians. Get your facts straight and understand what you leaders have done and convinced you of.--Durim Durimi (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The above I just read from user Durim Durimi is the worst hate speech I heard for a long time. Of course there is proof UCK bombed churches, everyone knows it, but it doesn't matter because the whole world saw the videos of large number of sick-minded Albanians (Albanian people) destroying and burning 200 churches in just two days, the churches that date back to 10th to 14th centuries that are the symbol and proof the Kosovo-Metohia land was always Serbian, before Albanians even existed. If you are still asking for proof see this [2] I bet Albanian civilians didn't have bombs to attack the church. You simply can't deny it. Second, as you can see none of the cases above [

http://www.kosovoliberationarmy.com/] had any connections with the military, for God sake they are only innocent civilians children, babies, old people and women, you're trying to ignore it. The description is very detailed with arguments even from USA. The thing that shocked me more than anything I've read on Wikipedia was that you think that decapitation of the Serbian civilians was just "little to much". Policy of the Serbian state to do what? Pure terrorist UCK propaganda Hahahah... what about the fact that even now every year more and more Serbs are expelled, attacked, killed, injured, Serbian villages and churches destroyed in Kosovo-Metohia? What leaders convinced me? What are you talking about? Our leader is an idiot, we have the worst government we could imagine and you tell me they convinced me in something? I can't wait that our leader and government changes... --Forsena (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you please drop the rhetoric and focus on improving the article. This is not a forum to discuss the Kosovo War or this battle. I'm tempted to blank the entire section. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose to give this article at least two sides of the story.

This is the source i am thinking of using amongst others that i will present later on.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5D91230F933A25750C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

But for now i want to discuss the relyability of the main source on this article. Is a wartime article named "Belgrade's official version of events" really that reliable? The main source of this article was made in the beginning of the Kosovo war. Countrys in war filter their information, and this article does not suggest otherwise.

I suggest that this source should be used with caution. I dont think we should throw it away because it is one of few if not the only article that tells the story of Prekaz from the serbian perspective. We should use a reliable source to compare events and only use the statements wich the two sources agree on.

Are you ready to work with me or not? --Durim Durimi (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You should probably know there should be no POV or two POVs on articles NPOV must be mantained... Sources are Human Right Watch and BBC news so I really don't see the problem... --Forsena (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, speak english. Whats a POV, and how can you see an article named "Belgrades official version of events" as reliable?

The only part of the article that comes from human rights watch is this piece of text: "At dawn of March 5, 1998, the KLA launched another attack on police patrol in Donje Prekaze". This is serious bussiness, you have to search your soul very deeply before you deny what has happened in Prekaz.

Here is an article that gives a little more unbiased view of the events that took place in Prekaz. What do you think about it?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5D91230F933A25750C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

To further proove that your source is in fact biased you have here an article written by BBC two years after your BBC article was published.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674056.stm


Wikipedia is NOT a a place for serbian propaganda. Are you ready to work with me or not, because i will fix this problem with or without you. --Durim Durimi (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

References used in the article

I want to discuss about references used in the article:

1. Kosovo killings: Belgrade's official version of events, this article is not a BBC article at all, as you can see in the title of the article where it say: Kosovo killings: Belgrade's official version of events, on the page's footer it says: Source: Tanjug news agency, Belgrade, in English 2156 gmt 11 Mar 98, so it means that it is a literal translation from Tanjug News Agency (a news agency from Belgrade). So does using this article as a source, break the NPOV? Using Serbia's POV to write a NPOV article?

I think that using the NY Times article and the BBC article regarding the event (as Durim Durimi mentioned above), is in fact the most accurate, grounded and that maintains NPOV than Kosovo killings: Belgrade's official version of events (an English translation from the Tanjug news agency).

The very same article (Kosovo killings: Belgrade's official version of events) is also being used in the article regarding Adem Jashari (as I'm discussing even there about the same concern), it seems that somebody is trying to push his/her POV on these articles.

2. Humans Right Watch, the website is outdated, I don't know what is written on it even that I spent time browsing HRW's site for a while and couldn't find anything.


If you have anything to add, please discuss in here, otherwise I'm going to restructure the article and make it neutral, thank you.--kedadi (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1.It is highly important to show other side, which is posted on BBC. There is nothing wrong there. As BBC published it, it is reliable. And it is clear that it is Official Yugoslav version of event. Why to delete it? It will be POV without that. And regarding other source, conclusions like "In Milosevic's Serbia this is, of course, an all too normal policing action." are not neutral. Even if it was so. You may add source, if you want, but Belgrade version will stay, in all Kosovo related article. That is only possible way to obtain NPOV.
2. Human Rights watch changed their archive. You may remove empty link, i will find it, but it is boring, so i can't now! :) It is report, on 10-04 1998. P421_51838. --Tadijataking 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Start of the war (NPOV)

No one mentioned the attack on Serb border guards by Albanians........ no one mentioned that this happened before the Prekaz attack (Verbatimdat (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree. More information should be included in article. It is not NPOV like this. --Tadija (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
What the attack on Serb border guards has with the killings of civilians? --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Info is sourced and detail. I will agree on its removal if you can give me some good counter-source... Otherwise, it is just IDONTLIKEIT... --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am not that IP, if you were pointing at me... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
P.P.S. Are you questioning data that Jashari and his group where terrorist's officially? At least, at the time? I know that he is "hero of Kosovo", but c'mon, we have soooo many sources for that, that i hardly think we should question that data... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
When reverting he probably questioned the representation of sources."On 14 December 1998, unidentified gunmen killed six young Kosovo Serbs in the Panda Bar in Pec. The attack was considered to be in revenge for the killing of 30 UCK members who had been shot while crossing the border illegally a few days earlier. i.e source misinterpretation.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, fixed... --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(unintend)They're not connected i.e the Panda Bar attack can't be considered the aftermath of Prekaz.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

HRW Report

What is the cause of this rampant abuse of the human rights report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.145.1 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts of that IP (he's a banned user btw) don't help much either regardless of the semi-vandalism status of his edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Restored neutral sources, that clearly indicate terrorist status of Jashari gang. If you question them, we should agree here. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
@IP Please stop the reverts. The banned user ones can be somewhat justified but now discussion is somewhat better.
"unless widely used by reliable sources" --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an actual quote from a Russian politician and that's the most that can be said about terrorists and freedom fighters.[3]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No, KLA WAS INTERNATIONALLY REPORTED AS TERRORIST ORGANISATION. THAT IS FACT. THAT WILL BE IN THIS ARTICLE. ALL OF THOSE CAN STAY BUT AFTER SOME ACTIONS I WILL RESTORE DATA THAT WAS LOST. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Caps lock. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Terrorists and freedom fighters are POV labels that depend on the faction you're quoting. These labels make neutral writing very difficult. Depending on the label the aftermath section would either say that 100.000 protesters marched for freedom fighters or terrorists or martyrs.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, its not POV when we have sources for that. And we do. And this is not Russian source, it is group of authors, and of then, none is Russian. At the time of this event, Jashari's where regarded as terrorists by US, UN, Russia, and Yugoslavia. Therefor, this was attack on terrorist gang. That is essential data for understanding of this event. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That was not according to the Serbian statement, but according to the HRW report. Stop falsification... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
And that was according to Illyria, Albanian-American newspaper. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The source says In late March coordinated demonstrations in Europe's capitals and eight U.S. cities brought more than one hundred thousand people onto the streets. The part about Illyria is 20.000 demonstrate for toughter action by the U.S. ran the headline of the special issue of Illyria i.e source misinterpretation.

2)HRW says According to the Serbian police, the attack on Donji Prekaz was in response to KLA attacks on nearby police patrols i.e source misinterpretation.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK for demonstration, but not OK for HRW. Only one sentence is according to the Serbian police. "According to the Serbian police, the attack on Donji Prekaz was in response to KLA attacks on nearby police patrols." And thats it. Everything else is by HRW, witnesses, etc. P.S. I used revert for vandal Majuru, who never participate in discussion, and just reverts things per IDONTLIKEIT. What do you propose for HRW error? --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Prekaz(e)

I didn't give the issue much thought before Majuru moved it back but there seem to be no sources that use Attack on Prekaze unlike Attack on Prekaz. Btw any other move will be viewed as BRD i.e. ANI.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, very strange move, Evlekis, i was questioning this move also... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was based on the English name, Prekaze, obviously even media outlets get things wrong; such is life. I'm not going to oppose the restoration. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There's only WP:COMMONNAME and that determines the titles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

  • Which source says there were "18 militants"?
  • Is a military conflict infobox, which emphasises the notion of opposing military units, really appropriate for wiping out a village? "Yugoslav victory", indeed. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP, but if you really must know The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Warfare p. 496 states that 38 militants were involved and all were killed in a military engagement in the village, alongside civilians. 23 editor (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Prekaz. 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) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty International

We had some plagiarism here, but I put quotation marks for further attribution. The source clearly places an emphasis on Amnesty International's statements. Removing it as POV actually seems more like projection. The passage continues: "Testimonies collected by human rights groups and journalists indicate several cases of extra-judicial executions and unlawful killings from excessive force." El_C 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a source that quotes another source (Amnesty International here). The author of the quote you kept and marked as the quote in the article simply stated her opinion and drew her own conclusion one that is dubious. I find that to be her POV. We would need to see original AI report, although AI does throw accusations around with ease. I would just like to add that words like "massacre" are not very helpful either (first paragraph), there was a gun battle in Prekaz, people died on both sides. 91.148.95.226 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a reliable published source, and its quoting directly from Amnesty International, so it's not so much an opinion as it is the facts on the ground. Whereas you are removing sourced content, so you should try to gain consensus for that. El_C 09:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the relevant page, so everyone can read it themselves: https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=-OhPTJn8ZWoC&q=%22all+evidence+suggests+that+the+attack+was+not+intended+to+apprehend+armed+Albanians%22#v=snippet&q=%22all%20evidence%20suggests%20that%20the%20attack%20was%20not%20intended%20to%20apprehend%20armed%20Albanians%22&f
I still have an issue with a word "massacre". I find it to be slightly wrong description of a firefight. Like I said both sides had casualties. 212.178.239.108 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
BBC uses the term, they are a reliable published source—what you find is original research; you can't remove the BBC source to conform to that point-of-view especially, with no edit summary even(!). That's not acceptable. It's time you added rather than removed sources. El_C 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake with edit summary but not that big of a mistake to get accused of edit warring so easily. As for the BBC article - yes the wording is strong and very POV, even if it's from the BBC. 212.178.239.108 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wording strong according to which source? Please read No Original Research. Look I have no dog in this fight, I came here because I declined the request on RFPP, but you clearly have a strong point of view on this. I just want the reliable sources to be represented. What sources do you wish to see represented? Because you cited none. El_C 11:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think words like "massacre" in this article are OK then I have nothing else to say. 212.178.239.108 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
What point of view is that based on? What sources? I think if the BBC thinks it's okay, then yes, it has merit. El_C 11:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about attack, and not memorial that was built years after that. Also, galleries should be deleted per WP:IG and WP:NOTGALLERY. I left one image in the body. Just to mention, this page is on my watchlist years before your newest account appeared. Also, admin @Ivanvector: reverted this gallery because it was blocked sockpuppet edit. So, per all of that, i have removed gallery from this article. Its also a bit inappropriate anyway to have gallery in such an article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"My newest account"? Are you referring to several editors from Serbia I and other editors reported (and all were found socks by administrators) the last six months? Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
What I don't get it is why you resucitate months-old discussions when you don't have a toe to stand on in terms of a counter-argument. You've been on en.wiki for quite a while and you damn well know the rules. When multiple users revert an edit made in violation of WP:Gallery, a general guideline applying to all articles on en.wiki that was established through community consensus, that's the end of the discussion. My guess is you get a rise from trolling people on the internet. 23 editor (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Gallery is removed per WP:IG and WP:NOTGALLERY. @Ktrimi, i dont recall any report you ever made that make anyone blocked. On the other hand, i do recall very clearly that you have been blocked several times during those 6 months. Also, if you are planing to deliberately report editors from just one specific country, that is very very bad idea that will not help us to make neutral and proper encyclopedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Prekaz Memorial images RfC

In this article's "aftermath" section, should there be:

  1. a gallery of images of the Adem Jashari Memorial in Prekaz (e.g. [4]), or
  2. only one image of the memorial leading the section (e.g. [5])?

Please comment below. Do not add or remove the gallery until this discussion concludes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think that we cannot have "agreement" here about this. WP:NOTGALLERY was actually created in order NOT to have this kind of conversations and consensus about things that obviously dont need agreement. Also, whatever, that leaves no place for edit warring, no matter what. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that global consensus tends to supersede local discussions, however Ktrimi991 has suggested (see edit summary) that there are exceptions to NOTGALLERY that apply here. I'd like to know what those are. As far as moving the images to other pages, they are all already uploaded to Commons so if consensus is to remove the gallery, a {{commons category}} link ought to suffice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I propose to ask from @Ktrimi991: to elaborate then. If he engaged in edit war he must have at least several proper exceptions. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: WP:IG says "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject". The policies in this case are vague. Some editors choose to delete galleries only when it suits their POV. The article describes a massacre, its miseries and consequences. The pics that were in gallery were there to illustrate these aspects. The proposal of two editors was to delete gallery and leave only one pic that did not cover all aspects and was not sufficient to give a better understanding of the event to readers. However I placed some pics that cover all aspects of the event throughout article. I agreed to Anastan's and 23 editor's proposal to delete the gallery. The discussion was too long because some certain editors chose edit warring and their usual accusations and closed the door to civil discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
It was YOU who chose edit warring, as you have 9 reverts since April, and this is only you 2nd comment on talk. So, stop misrepresentation and false presentation please. Your gallery is not helpful for explanation of this event, as it represent the memorial built after, and NOT the very event that happened. Even now, we do not need individual Steel in memory of Smajl A. Jashari, that is ireleevant, as we would then use pictures of others also. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not "my gallery". I have explained in edit summaries the reasons why I reverted. I asked 23 editor to explain his motivation on talk, I asked you several times to be civil and reverted socks from Serbia that have targeted my edits. I can not discuss with an editor who reverts me in several articles in the same day. That happens all the time. You used edit summaries of your reverts and this talk page to repeat your gibberish that I am a sock and other usual accusations. You always close the door to a civil discussion. I will wait until the report you filed (the result was an editor from Serbia blocked) is achieved and then file my request for interaction ban. I should have filed it months ago but very busy in real life and with some projects and activities with Wikimedia in Albania and Kosovo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Your false interaction ban will not allow you to continue POV pushing and to use Wikipedia as propaganda. Unfortunately for you, i am not the only one who can see your edits here, so its actually irrelevant will we interact or not. I would actually prefer not, but someone else will react, as you can see on your block log and talk page, filled with other people's comments. You also DIDNT revert any socks from Serbia, but you were edit warring, so stop with false, false representation. If you dont comment actual content of the article, and reply to my comment in 24 hours, i will remove image in question. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, i dont care at all about you or this article, so, on the other hand, who cares about this false representation anyway. I dont want to deal with political lies, and as the gallery is gone, your attitude is irrelevant now. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ktrimi991 and Anastan: that's enough edit warring over who is edit warring. You both are, and you're both going to stop now. Your argument is distracting from the conversation about whether or not to include the images and in what form, and if you continue you will be blocked from editing. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I will give a reply with a few simple words to this warning and your accuse on one of your recent edit summaries on your talk as I have finished with this page, I explained my position on gallery and do not want to start a new discussion with you or anybody else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep the gallery. WP:NOTGALLERY is often misrepresented in this case. The original intention of that policy was to ensure hosts, marketing and branding companies didn't come in wholesale and set up shop to display their wares, using images to advertise and sell their products, and to stop the social media crowd create pages with no content, hence the general push-back against it. Images galleries are OK, if there is sufficient encyclopedic content in the article to back it up, i.e. to provide context for the images, and the images are well formatted and properly commented. They add beauty to article, and in a product which is severely lacking in beauty. scope_creep (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTGALLERY isn't the only argument that has been presented against inclusion now and in the past. The gallery has marginal relevance to the subject of the article at best. 23 editor (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Observation: Ktrimi991 suggests that there has been consensus to place some of the images throughout the article, and that they tried but other editors reverted. That seems to be the state of the article now, although all of the images are appearing in the aftermath section, at least for me. The "house attacked by Serbian police" image is placed in the "operation" section but the long infobox is pushing it down the page. Two questions: 1) is this placement of the images acceptable (and if not, why?) and 2) would it be a good idea to convert the Kosovo War campaignbox into a bottom-of-the-page navbox instead? It is a large, awkward box on may of the short pages it appears on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I shifted the image to the left to deal with the campaignbox problem. This can be a temporary solution, if other editors disagree. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Image of Steel in memory of Smajl A. Jashari is not acceptable, as it is irrelevant. Then we should add all memorials, and we are talking about aftermath, so the Memorial hall is more then enough for an aftermath section. Smajl Jashari is not important in any way to have picture of that stele in the article, as i already said numerous times. :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Why, @Liridon:? This is not just vote, tell us your reasons. :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Anastan: because to document an event, photos are a great value, not just in this article. In other side, 5-6 images would be normal for an article of this size.--Liridon (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The only images I see that can be helpful to readers are File:Varrezat ne Kompleksi perkujtimor Prekaz.jpg and File:Adem Jashari Memorial in Prekaz January 2013 13.jpg. The rest are all eyes-sores of construction sites. 23 editor (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
We already have four images in article @Meatsgains:. So, per your argument, we do not even need gallery after this. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Narrowing it down from 10 images to 3 in the Aftermath section would be an improvement. 10 images is excessive - no disagreements there. Meatsgains (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation

The section "Operation" finished with the sentence:

"In response, the UN security council turned to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter without authorizing the final measure of the chapter which was military intervention. Mortars fired on houses, and snipers shot those who fled."

It is obvious that the last part - Mortars fired on houses, and snipers shot those who fled - does not belong here, but probably two paragraphs higher, just before or around "In the ensuing violence..." But I'm not exactly sure where it should be and I feel also that for such a sentence there should be a source. The HRW report quoted as source 8 has lots of testimonies, but doesn't speak exactly about snipers, for example. But it could be used to give a better description of the violence which ensued. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Prekaz/Archive_1&oldid=1260669508"