Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kosovo War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Supported by
Albanian 7, since you've added several countries that supported Serbia to the infobox, can you provide the citations from the sources that indicate that the support was institutional, rather than consisting of volunteers? Alaexis¿question? 06:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Even institutional support would not make these countries 'combatants'. They need to be actively and openly militarily engaged for that. I have reverted Albanian 7's additions as that sourcing is not provided.Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Sides
@NormalguyfromUK: Greeting. The countries that participate/have participated in the conflict are always listed, no matter how much it "overloads" the infobox (see War on terror). Likewise, we already have x examples where NATO members are always added by name. I don't understand why this article is sui generis. Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOX. Botushali (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would rather leave it as it is, because NATO participated in Operations Allied Force and a military conflict was also made, so I would rather leave it that way. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not possible. You want to "sneak" something that is not in use anywhere else. I will return your edit, and if you want it to remain, you will have to provide valid reasons. Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is actually no rule either way as to whether all the NATO members who were active should be included. The alliance operated as such - not as individual member states, so the case could be made for inclusion or exclusion - personally I'm neutral, especially as the list is 'hidden'. Pincrete (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not possible. You want to "sneak" something that is not in use anywhere else. I will return your edit, and if you want it to remain, you will have to provide valid reasons. Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Too Big
This article is really unwieldy and there are several sections that could be condensed/spun off. there are a lot of sections that go into what is probably excessive depth when there are articles that cover the issues more specifically. Humok (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Racial theories behind attacks on Serbs?
Top NATO commanders in this war had and have racial theories about Serbs. Should we add that? I see it is a common topic in articles about wars in Balkans. Even wider. This is one of the examples. But there are many more. Movies, articles, statements, adds...
General Clark 2020s “Serbs are notorious for not being loyal to one another,” Clark continued. “At NATO, I had three enemies: Serbs, wishy-washy Europeans and the Pentagon.” Everyone laughed...
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/ 178.223.51.73 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Such an addition would need to be supported by a secondary source establishing that such quotes are evidence of NATO commanders having "racial theories". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Secondary source? Like scientific article? Would we be able to get it considering wide corruption in scientific community regarding Balkan contemporary politics and history? There is also wide spread self censorship culture in academic community in fear of being labelled pro-Serbian etc... This statement is clearly on the level of behaviour theories about different races that was behind certain ideologies. It also comes from top general of force whose action led to mass war crimes against Serbs and almost complete destruction of Serbian, Roma and Gorani communities in Kosovo and Metohija. Proofs are all around us. Where can I read what kind of proofs are needed on Wikipedia? It seems that rules apply for certain agendas. Also, how can I prove that academic community is not able to comprehend facts clearly due to fear or corruption? Thanks 178.223.51.73 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- OP is falsely accusing a group of people for having "certain ideologies" and "mass war crimes" and fails to provide any facts. There is nothing "racial" proven by Your article. All You do is taking anything out of context and molding it into something it isn't to suit Your opinions and convictions. "Many articles" "proofs all around" "open Your eyes" will be in fact not provided as they are just manipulatory slogans. Here You go: Historical negationism#Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav wars and Bosnian genocide denial, this should help. YBSOne (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Secondary source? Like scientific article? Would we be able to get it considering wide corruption in scientific community regarding Balkan contemporary politics and history? There is also wide spread self censorship culture in academic community in fear of being labelled pro-Serbian etc... This statement is clearly on the level of behaviour theories about different races that was behind certain ideologies. It also comes from top general of force whose action led to mass war crimes against Serbs and almost complete destruction of Serbian, Roma and Gorani communities in Kosovo and Metohija. Proofs are all around us. Where can I read what kind of proofs are needed on Wikipedia? It seems that rules apply for certain agendas. Also, how can I prove that academic community is not able to comprehend facts clearly due to fear or corruption? Thanks 178.223.51.73 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)