Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission

Army

OppositeGradient. National armies do not work on the basis of "ethnicity". Furthermore, if they did, then not even today's Serbian army would be "Serb" given that minus Kosovo, ethnic Serbs still barely compose 80% of the population. Prior to 2006, there was one central military comprising soldiers and staff from Serbia and Montenegro. If you believe this to be incorrect, please find your sources and make the corrections at Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ) first. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy The sources explicitly state that the troops were Serbian. This is a concrete qualification and a sub-set of the term Yugoslavian. I would strictly stick to the sources, not to synthesis. Unless you have other reliable sources to clearly indicate that the forces were not Serbian, then please roll back the article to the version backed up by sources. Being Serbian implies being Yugoslavian, but the other way doesn't and violates the provided reliable souces. OppositeGradient (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, you've made a number of errors in your statement and your summaries.

• Error 1. There is no source for the lede of for the subject of the article, it is simply darfted in a way as to refer to state forces, and as such, the name of the state between 1998 and 1999 was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and this was a union between Montenegro and Serbia.
• Error 2. The belligerents are divided into three: a) Serbian police, a division separate from the Montenegrin police; b) Serbian paramilitaries, irregulars independent of government control, and Yugoslav army. Since we are talking about the vague term "forces" in relation to how they serve the central authority, Yugoslav is correct - and Serb is wholly wrong because it suggests that some non-existent Montenegrin army was in fruition.
• Error 3. Being Serbian does not imply being Yugoslavian. In the case of the paramilitaries, they were composed of ethnic Serbs from throughout the region, Bosnia and Croatia as well.
• Error 4. Just because some sources may choose to simplify, it does not make it synthesis if we apply the correct form. After all, Serbian military if linked does not land on the correct target.
• Error 5. How did Serbia, a landlocked entity come to have a navy which engaged in the NATO war?

Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy The soldiers were Serbians (ethnic definition) and also mostly part of the army of Yugoslavia (taxonomy of military troops). As sources indicate, the term Serb is the most concrete and realistic term to identify the troops. You can add an extra clarification on the army, but you cannot rollback the source-backed ethnicity. All sources indicate the troops were Serbian, for the occurrences, you can search for "Serb" or "Serbian" inside all the references (quite numerous mentioning of the Serbian forces). In that context, I agree you have a point on the official name of the army (Yugoslavia), however you words are likely not reliable in assuming the soldiers were not Serbian (your synthesis vs. reliable sources). If you would like a consensus, please rephrase in the most appropriate way the sentence "Serbian soldiers, primarily members of the Yugoslavian army". Once you rephrase this sentence in the way you feel reasonable, then please roll back the original version (clearly specifying the Serbian ethnicity) and insert the new lede sentence (adding official army name). OppositeGradient (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not generalise or simplify at the expense of accurate information simply because persons drafting the sources do the same thing. During the course of the conflict, the terms Serb and Yugoslav were being used interchangeably. You need look no further than your lede sources, asides what you have spotted you also have in October 1998: Under President Clinton's leadership, NATO authorizes the use of force against Serbia if Milosevic does not halt the atrocities being committed by the Yugoslav military against civilians in Kosovo. But of course, Montenegro was bombed as well, and this is another reason NATO bombing of Serbia redirects to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and not the other way round. Your second source doesn't mention "Serb military" in any form, but does state "Combined Yugoslav Army and police forces mounted an operation against the village of Racak in mid-January 1999" in the "A Tense Environment" paragraphs, page 51[1].

If you would like more sources to use "Yugoslav military", New York Times, Irish Times, CNN, HRW, Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, OSCE, Fox News. Soldiers in turn are part of the military, see BBC, Irish Times, NY Times, etc.; some exclusively use "Yugoslav", others mix and match which means they are inaccurate. It is complete synthesis to assume that where "Serb" is being mentioned it implies ethnicity because there are no statistics on troop ethnicity. But to give you an example of one non-Serb, take Zoltán Dani. Just think how wrong it would be to state that "a Hungarian soldier shot down an F-117A in 1999" when Hungary was supposed to have been a NATO member at the time. It is wholly incorrect and inappropriate to refer to Zoltán as a Serb soldier or a Hungarian soldier, he was a member of VJ and thereby a Yugoslav soldier. I hope you now see the ridicule behind your reasoning. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the sources are very clear in stating that the forces are Serbian, I would soon revert them to "ethnic Serbian forces of the Yugoslavian army". Unless someone provides other reliable sources indicating that the forces are not Serbian (i.e. that they are Croatian, German, Jamaican, etc ...). Till then, the version of the article stays as sources dictate. It makes no sense to further discuss personal synthesis contradicted by multiple sources. OppositeGradient (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You are attacking the straw man. You argue your case as if someone implied Yugoslavia and Serbia were two different countries. Besides, my above post clearly explored the sources not only to find that they do not support what you claim, but in cases where they do, the reasoning behind it. Read the last part on Zoltán Dani or click the links provided, all should be within headline or opening lines of report. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Dani is irrelevant to this discussion. The troops engaging in war and committing atrocities in Kosovo are globally known to be Serbian (very well sourced and witnessed). If you would like to imply that those soldiers were not Serbian, then bring an equal number of reliable sources stating "The troops participating in those events were NOT Serbian". For the rest I already added the reference to Yugoslavian army, which should close the discussion. Further pushing to revision history might be considered a violation of WP:NPOV. OppositeGradient (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No Opposite. The Kosovo conflict was fought between the rebel KLA and the security forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The latter was represented by Vojska Jugoslavije (Yugoslav Army). During that time they were accused of committing many atrocities and there are no statistics and frankly it is a non-event to explore every single accusation and to ascertain that within the army, no single atrocity was attributed to persons from Montenegro, or the near 20% from the remainder of Serbia identifying by another ethnicity. We take the affiliation and leave it at that; if you know the person to pull the trigger in one village somewhere in Kosovo was Serbian, that doesn't mean the KVM officials hold some form of evidence that breaches to the October agreement were carried out specifically by ethnic Serbs, they blamed the force at top level. To switch Yugoslav soldiers for "Serb" even if your principles hold true would still violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. Anyhow, this is the wrong article to be proposing such a radical shift. The main articles to try to launch this daydream would be Kosovo War and Military of Serbia and Montenegro. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Then revert the article to the original case, provide sources that the troops were [NOT Serbian, AND Yugoslavian], instead of [Serbian, AND Yugoslavian]. You should first seek consensus by other on the the argument that troops are not Serbian, e.g. you can create a RfC. Until then you have no right to remove sourced content and revision history. Please do not engage in edit war against reliable sources, since you have absolutely no right to disrupt this article. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to correct errors. The author of the article from what I see used "Serb forces" when drafting the article as some form of collective term for all state institutions regardless of ambiguity. As for ethnicity of troops, that is not even encyclopaedic or relevant, reports merely refer to the conflict between the KLA and the state, period. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The article now is fixed with a neutral statement "ethnic Serbian armed forces, mostly affiliated to Yugoslav army", which is the most realistic description of the Serbian troops, and [which you seem not to care] is BACKED UP BY MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is now fixed with the facts.

I will remind you anyhow that this article is only about the Kosovo Verification Mission, not the military engagements or their aftermaths. They all have their own articles. If you read the OSCE publication, it states: ...receive weekly information from relevant FRY/Serbian military/police headquarters in Kosovo regarding movements of forces..., which simplifies FRY and Serbia, and military with police. That was their task. As regards atrocities, these could have been carried out by any one of three pro-state bodies: Serbian police, Serb paramilitaries, or Yugoslav army. But as I said, for each there is its own page. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Tell me why I should not report this case to ANI?

• 1) You arbitrarily removed the term Serbian, despite being supported by multiple sources.
• 2) You arbitrarily removed a text indicating Serbs forces committed human right violations towards local population reliable source, a serious book published by UN Government. You claiming "this source is not found", which makes no sense because how can a published book be not found??? It took me 20 seconds to find 4 of the source occurrences online.
• 3) You arbitrarily repeatedly reverted the page to your personal synthesis, despite clear contradiction by sources and talk page discussions.
• 4) I offered you consensus to add the official army affiliation as "ethnic Serbian troops, primarily affiliated with the Yugoslav army", but you did not listen to any consensus proposal. Apparently, your aim is to remove the fact that the troops were Serbian, despite multiple sources.

I would leave a day for you to reflect and reason. If you still insist on this disruptive behavior, I will go straight to ANI, since you left me no other choice and I would not follow you into an edit war. OppositeGradient (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer each question:

• 1) Why did I remove the term Serb despite it being supported by multiple sources.
• Answer. This is an article about the KVM which had the task to supervise the situation with regards state forces, this as is not even challenged happens to be Serbian police and Yugoslav army which on my last edit I added in parenthesis to the centralised term, FR Yugoslavia security forces. There is no source per your claim which states that their task concerned "Serb forces" per se. Besides, I have explained through a pile of sources how Yugoslav forces is also used and is indeed more accurate since Serbia happened to be a federal partner at the time.

• 2) Why did I remove text indicating Serb forces committed violations towards population, source from US government etc. which you found in four seconds?
• Answer. The US State Department website is not a reliable source on partisan affairs, it differs from journal publication. Even so, as this article is about the KVM it only needed to be stated that atrocities towards the Kosovo Albanians resumed once the officials departed. As for who dunnit?. The answer is one of three: Serbian police, Serbian paramilitary, or Yugoslav army. The term "Serb forces" is vague as it does not imply which if the two possibilities it refers to if indeed it was either and not the third. When I clicked it, it was dead. I see if works now, so it can be restored subject to correct information.

• 3) Why did I revert a page to my personal synthesis despite clear contradiction in sources?
• Answer. The army and troops having been part of VJ is a fact that is not only supported by all sources, reliable and unreliable, it is not even challenged by anybody other than you. Obviously I welcome you to provide me with a source to show that the VJ was divided into Serb and non-Serb regiments, and how atrocities committed in specific incidents were attributed to a Serb-only line of command. When you consider that the last Commander General Ljubiša Jokić was a Montenegrin, your argument collapses.

• 4) You offered me a consensus of "ethnic Serbian troops, primarily affiliated with the Yugoslav army", so why did I not listen?
• Answer. Very kind of you personally but why look for consensus if you know you are right? All I can see here is that you are desperate to include the word "Serb" to the point that you are prepared to ignore the sources I posted to you above, most of which were published at the very time. At the moment, your last edit "Serbian forces, primarily the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's security forces (Yugoslav Army, Serbian police), in addition to Serbian paramilitary troops" clutters the lede. Second of all, it erroneously groups Yugoslav Army and Serb Police as ostensibly ranking below the imprecise "Serb forces". Furthermore, even if you removed "Serb forces", you'd still be saying "Serbian paramilitaries" and these are not mentioned in the main sources. To mention them will also unleash a barrage of complications since there was more than one organisation (e.g. White Eagles, Scorions, etc.). We need to keep it simple. I've looked at other articles and find Serbian and Yugoslav used frequently. I think that to be the best solution. For the other part down the bottom, if we keep to "state loyalist forces" then it wahses up all ambiguity.

--Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I insist and will insist that the troops be called as the reliable sources say. In this case sources explicitly refer to the troops as "Serb forces". Nevertheless we can use "Serbian and Yugoslav" forces, even though sources do not claim the presence of [Yugoslavian, but non-Serbian troops]. Consider I am ignoring this last aspect, as a sign of my effort to achieve consensus. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, neither was the VJ split into divisions according to members' ethnicities, nor is "Serb forces" published in any source in such as way that it precisely refers to persons of this ethnicity. It is largely a general term. If you read into the alleged Armenian genocide of 1915, you'll most encounter "Turkish troops" as the perpetrator, yet according to Armenian records the orders came from the top (three Pashas, none of whom were of full Turkish descent) and the acts were carried out largely by Kurdish militias (acting for state of course) with support from the multi-ethnic but Muslim Ottoman army. That is not the reason modern-day Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the genocide, but it is commonplace to refer to the authorities as Turks even if they were not always so, mainly because the Empire was founded by Turks and this nation was the driving force behind the state. The situation with the former FRY is very similar, with the state often referred to as "Serbia" in those reliable sources. But just as you wouldn't use English troops for matters concerning the British Armed Forces simply because they are the most populous, the same applies here. Unfortunately the ambiguity in many sources that refer to "Serb forces" per se is such that we can never be sure which grade of force? Police? Amry? is being accused, this is why it is best to stick with top level naming. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The term Serbian forces is a very clear term supported and used by multiple reliable sources. It is an unambiguous term and means armed forces of Serbian ethnicity and is a precise umbrella term for all the troops (Yugoslav army, Serbian police, Serbian paramilitary, etc...) involved in combat against the local population and resistance. In addition, the reliable sources prevail towards original research and personal synthesis. Therefore, undoubtedly the only meaningful and correct categorization of the forces is Serbian forces, because the reliable sources call them so! As such, it is technically a dead end for further discussion. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A close look at the source

Here you are, the wording of the source magnified, [2]. It is not reliable anyhow since it is a partisan government account rather than an independent report. Furthermore, its reference to the non-existent Serbian Army (yes, capitalised) shows that the person writing clearly did not discern. A reliable source would tell you whether the acts were committed by paramilitaries (if so which), back by police, etc. and not the oversubscribed "Serb army". Even "Serbian government" is used in place of Yugoslav authorities. The man whose head the west paraded during and after the conflict was the President of Yugoslavia, nor the functionaries that served the federal Serbian government. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OJ, you know that original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Therefore, the article will reflect the given reliable source. An official US government report is considered very reliable. The term Serbian Forces is also very logical, it means the forces were Serbian (characterized by ethnicity), the same like German forces is used to refer to troops of the Third Reich. You are walking towards a dead end with your endless original research and synthesis. I recommend you simply accept the reliable sources. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the Military of Serbia and Montenegro article is WP:OR? You believe Montenegro had a separate army from Serbia? And you do this based on a source that simplifies rather than distinguishes indisputable facts? And worse still, you feel that falsehood can be transformed into fact based on a U.S government publication? Good luck in your goal to have Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ) deleted as a hoax on the strength of your source. Otherwise you are wasting people's time with this sheer desperation to name "Serb forces". --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No your whole argument is WP:OR! The reliable sources call the troops as Serbian forces, because they simply were Serbians! Multiple sources use the term, it is crystal clear and there is no ambiguity here. Calling the troops Serbian Forces does not mean they do not officially belong to the Yugoslav army, not does it mean they could not sing in Serbian, nor does it mean they do not look like Serbians, etc ... all those are WP:OR and personal synthesis. It simply means that, following the evidences on their ethnicity, the sources refer to them using the term "Serbian forces" in order to clearly specify that they were Serbians. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything has already been explained to you about the reliability of the source, and the dynamics of the internal structure of the FRY. So if you now feel I am doing wrong, please do as you originally stated and take the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

 Question: . Should we refer to Yugoslav forces or Serbian forces? Or could we just use the non-controversial State loylist forces?

What is the background? Kosovo was a part of Serbia, and Serbia was within Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) - Serbia and Montenegro as one country - during the period of this article (1999). The Kosovo War saw the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) wage war against the state forces of the FRY. The state forces were split into three categories: Yugoslav Army (unified), Serbian police (federal, Montenegro had own force), and Serbian paramilitary forces (volunteers made up mainly of ethnic Serbs and some non-Serb participation).

What is relevance of article? Briefly, international assessors were deployed to monitor that state forces adhered to the protocols of an agreement from 1998. When this failed and the representatives left, fighting resumed and state atrocities occurred more rapidly against Albanian population.

Is this about one specific operation and its aftermath? No, for each chapter of the conflict, there should be a corresponding article which goes into detail on which entities were invovled, for example Ljubenić massacres names Serbian police and paramilitaries, and Battle of Junik names Yugoslav Army. As such, articles of this nature require a comprehensive term to include all concerted forces which answered to the central government, leading us to the seminal question of this thread.

What do sources say? It varies.

• If the source discerns then it will specify not only Serb from Yugoslav but will clarify which force was involved in which incident. For example, the Washington Post reporting on Bosnia in 1995 names the Scorpions.
• Sometimes sources can be anecdotal as to simplify all institutions from the FRY as Serb, such as here where the US State Department refers indiscriminately to Serb government, Serb army, Serb troops, etc. and sources may even refer to then-Yugoslav President Milošević as Serbian President [3] even though this office at the time was held by Milan Milutinović.
• Some sources report from the top when aiming for an all-inclusive term, and use the term "Yugoslav" ahead of forces, troops, army, military or government such as New York Times, Irish Times, CNN, HRW, Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, OSCE, Fox News.
• On the whole, a great many that use one will also use the other, they are often used interchangeably as you see here in this source.

So as you see this is not a neutrality matter because no editor contests the core activity being reported, we simply cannot agree on which all-inclusive term to use. Please list your views and reasons below. Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from other editors

Sources are not defined in that, actually contrary, so we should not use Serbian forces. That was only one military part of that state, so using that would be actually error and not historically correct. I would propose Yugoslav army or forces, as that is very accurate in historical sense. Paramilitary forces are of course different, with stable sources, but even that, paramilitary forces should not be connected with nationality, but with state. As for example, we already have Paramilitary forces of Pakistan, Paramilitary forces of China, Paramilitary Forces of Colombia etc, so that too should not be Serbian but Paramilitary forces of Serbia and Montenegro. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The foregoing opinion by Anastan "counts" as a Third Opinion, so your request has been removed from the list at the Third Opinion project. Since more than two editors have now weighed in on this question, additional opinions are not available under the Third Opinion project. If additional dispute resolution is desired, consider the other types of dispute resolution described in the dispute resolution policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

Noted. Many thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on OSCE communications equipment ending up in the hands of the KLA

Did the OSCE communications equipment scandal ever-get properly investigated and resolved?

if-so, perhaps it should be here too, even-if only portrayed with both sides of the accusation & response, if i remember correctly, a claim that some equipment was stolen? was released at one point, but people found it difficult to believe?

. *shrugs*