Talk:2015 Kumanovo clashes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Kumanovo clashes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Balkan / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force

North Macedonia High‑importance

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Name

I dont think 2015 Kumanovo shootings is an appropriate article name for this incident. Most articles titles "(insert location) shootings" refer to incidents where an individual (or a small group) has massacred civilians. This is not the case here where there is a group of militants fighting the government of macedonia. Al Jazeera has called this a battle, which it is given that it is a pitched conflict between two armed opposing groups. I think the article should be titled as such. See here [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore given the connotations of the word "shootings" in article names such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting use of the term in the context of this articles title would lead to NPOV issues (this being an engagement of an conflict rather than a massacre of civilians).XavierGreen (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: Firstly, would like to apologize about the complaint you made of me threatening you. If that's the way you understood it, I am truly sorry. But changing the name of a new article is a bit too far for me, without a discussion. As for what you wrote, I can only say that I don't see a case here, and I Oppose you're demand to change the article's name. If there are editors that do see your case let them express their thoughts here so that we could make a consensus on weather to change or not the name. Furthermore, about Al Jazeera, all I can say is that a news article title can not have effect on Wikipedia's title; plus I think they're referring to a 'gun battle', rather than a 'battle' as in war. There's no war, FYI. - Phill24th (talk). 23:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an ongoing low level insurgency since 2014 at the latest, so yes there is indeed a military conflict ongoing. There were previous attacks by the same group in Skopje in 2014 and goshince in april. I would also note that you yourself changed the name of the article from 2015 Kumanovo clashes to the present title without even leaving an edit summary as to why let alone explaining why on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you can find sources for these claims you're more than welcomed to share them here. - Phill24th (talk). 23:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an insurgency and not a single event. This is the 3rd major incident with Albanian rebels in the last 8 months.Mudos (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC (9 May 2015)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that Kumanovo clashes should be used because its most widely used in sources. AlbinoFerret 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the the title of this article be Battle of Kumanovo (2015), 2015 Kumanovo shootings, or 2015 Kumanovo clashes?

Comment: I support the original title, the one I have made - 2015 Kumanovo clashes. The reason is simple. Kumanovo shooting would mean there was a minor incident, where a lone wolf got into some building and started shooting, for example like in the 2015 Zvornik police station shooting. Therefore, the name would be misleading. The second name, Battle of Kumanovo, is also misleading, but in an opposite direction. It would mean there was a major confrontation, which it wasn't. There were clashes, and only this term is appropriate for this event. --AnulBanul (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the present title, for reasons I think I made quite clear above. But in an other case, I would like to say that I would agree with AnulBanul's title and only would accept the article's name change if the alternative would be clashes.- Phill24th (talk). 23:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't clashes, being plural, imply more than one, albeit related, event - more than one in terms of timing or location? Attack might be best, though I suppose shooting or shootings would be tolerable. Battle seems wrong in this case, though I can't point to exactly why. note: while I'll check back from time to time, I won't be watching this page, so ping me if there is a specific response. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think "Attack" would be a great replacement for "shootings". - Phill24th (talk). 00:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Attack. Battle is misleading since this is not part of larger-scale war. Shootings also is not best since it does suggest an incident similar to Sandy Hook or Aurora as stated previously on this talkpage. --Local hero ^talk 03:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: manhunt, hiding, then shootout, rather than clash, as in two groups meeting eachother directly. Depending on the actual number of involved, it may be termed a battle, we'll see when more information is released. "shootings" leans towards multiple murder, spree-killing or massacre rather than this kind of event (counter-terrorist operation, then gunfight). --Zoupan 05:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support–Attack Per above. - Phill24th (talk). 05:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentWe are seriously going to get this fuss about shootings and then propose attack? The same arguments stand against attack. 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack or 2014 Queens hatchet attack, need I really dig thru and point out where lone wolf terrorist attacks are labeled as attacks? Insurgency would perhaps be more apt.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How about Kumanovo Standoff? D3RP4L3RT (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standoff goes along the lines with impasse or stalemate. Or you could even take into a "Mexican Standoff." I'm not sure that fits here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support–Clashes Seems a vast majority of RSs refer to it as "clashes" (plural, as the city has a recent history of similar incidents, also, this was not one single clash/battle/incident - there were several targets in this latest instance). The OP's reasoning seems valid here. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see an issue with clashes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Comment: With new updates, evidence, and information on the event I don't think we should call this an attack, because it wasn't like the militants just attacked someone. The shooting happened during a police raid. With that in mind, I think we should stick with the contemporary title. - Phill24th (talk). 07:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support clashes - i think its the most amenable solution as it doesn't seem like anyone who has posted opposes it except for perhaps in the most recent comment by Phill24th.XavierGreen (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a number of positions being forwarded here based on what various parties feel is the more semantically logical term, but these matters are actually mostly governed under the principle of what the sources use. I will say that, from my impressionistic experience reading news articles on the topic over the last couple of days (in British and American press), the terminology I saw utilized was overwhelmingly "clashes". What the balance of the sources available here say, I don't know -- but whatever it is, it ought to largely determine the name of the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — clashes. Larger event than just a "shooting", but not quite large enough to be a battle. —Славянский патриот (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's nothing wrong with the current title. I'd say leave it how it as and revisit if in the future there's another Kumanovo event that would dictate putting a year in the title. Lucutious (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ~~2015~~ Kumanovo clashes, in accordance with BBC ([2], [3]) and CNN ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Borsoka: Why do we need to mention the year? - Phill24th (talk). 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that there is a consensus for Kumanovo clashes as the title, unless anyone else has anything substantial to say on the matter, i will place a request close this RFC in the next 3 days.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Just would like to say, that changing the title is fundamentally pointless at this stage. I really don't know why we went through all the fuzz discussing this, when, as by now everyone knows this, even as defined in the LEAD, was a 'shootout.' I'd stick with the current title, because just constantly changing the article's title has no meaning. So we have to just stop defying Wikipedia's principles, and try to look, change, and fix the other issues regarding this article rather than the title and infobox. - Phill24th (talk). 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would note as other editors have above that the general principal in naming articles is to use the most widely published common name in english language sources as the article title. [[5]] Use of the term Kumanovo shootings is practically non-existant in english language sources, though as others have pointed out clashes has been and as i noted to a lesser degree battle.173.54.54.229 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (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.

Current Event tag

Since virtually all sources used on this page were released while this event was still going on and as much of the information regarding this event has still not been released (ie complete casualty figures, identity of the militants, ect) the current event tag should stay on this page until better sources become available. The purpose of the tag is not only to signify that the event is ongoing, but as is stated in the tag to warn readers that the sources used may be unreliable because they were created while the event was ongoing.XavierGreen (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read Template:Current#Guidelines. - Phill24th (talk). 04:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day;

- Phill24th (talk). 04:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Article

I think a parent article is needed for these incidents. Maybe Albanian separatism in Macedonia. FPSTurkey (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though, maybe Ethnic tensions in Macedonia, would be a better title. - Phill24th (talk). 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, also, before we make a parent article we have to decide weather these events are linked or not. And , if so, how? We also must have sources that we could use. We can't just simply make up our own terms and events, and just publish them on the site. - Phill24th (talk). 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't need the names of the people killed

Seriously, its just information that serves no purpose to the reader. D3RP4L3RT (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yeah, we can't just write the names of all 22 killed. It's pointless information.- Phill24th (talk). 05:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though, we should keep the names of the deceased commanders and/or leaders of the group. - Phill24th (talk). 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Agree. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree as well. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Especially as they don't seem to have a source, and the addition of birth/death dates makes it seem like memorial to them, which is not Wikipedias purpose. 220 of ^Borg 02:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POW on NLA commander names

Shouldn't we remove the POW templates, considering that this was an isolated police operation, not an armed conflict part of a larger war. - Phill24th (talk). 07:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This wasn't an armed conflict, it was a criminal act, therefore, those men are criminals, and not prisoners of war. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Look at Waco Siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.165.161 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia Ministers

AnulBanul,19999o,Phill24th there are ministers who resigned from they post after the violence in Kumanovo,I think we should add them on the article.Lindi29 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe their resignation was due to the wiretapping scandal, and not this particular incident. - Phill24th (talk). 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Source: BBC - Macedonia ministers resign amid phone-tapping scandal - Phill24th (talk). 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should a separate article be made for the protests?

The article mentions the scandal that began, with the protests taking place recently. Should we create a separate "2015 Macedonian protests" article for those? Here are some news articles on it:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/thousands-macedonia-protest-alleged-police-brutality-30909093

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-macedonia-government-protests-idUSKBN0NQ2BH20150505

http://news.yahoo.com/least-19-injured-macedonia-anti-government-protest-225012578.html

—Славянский патриот (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- Phill24th (talk). 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 or 14

Were there 10 or 14 militants killed during the shootings? - Phill24th (talk). 16:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 dead 28 captured 1 escaped & around 40 gunmen in total estimated official macedonian figures i applied all the sourced.94.174.95.56 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Event section

We need to change/update the Kumanovo shootings#Event section. It's been the same since the time the conflict was still going on. It uses mostly Serbian sources, and most of the claims turned out not to be correct. - Phill24th (talk). 13:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo shootings → 2015 Kumanovo shootings – The 2001 insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia included shootings in Kumanovo (see article), and therefore 2015 needs to be added to this title, in order to disambiguate it from the earlier events. Anonimski (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be necessary. The article is already on way to be moved to Kumanovo clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.179.86 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It doesn't matter if Kumanovo is mentioned in the insurgency article, there are no other sources that are provided that say there have been other major isolated clashes in Kumanovo. The year isn't important as this is the first time this has happened as an isolated clash between police forces and an armed group, and this wasn't part of an armed conflict, or a larger war. Therefore, I think it would be nonsense if we add the year to the article's name. Also, by adding the year you're just making it more confusing, and per guidelines we have to use the names used by most reliable sources - those being either Kumanovo shootings or Kumanovo clashes. - Phill24th (talk). 21:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kumanovo clashes. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514171748/http://www.novamakedonija.com.mk/NewsDetal.asp?vest=51115957106&id=9&prilog=0&setIzdanie=23464 to http://novamakedonija.com.mk/NewsDetal.asp?vest=51115957106&id=9&prilog=0&setIzdanie=23464

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo clashes → 2015 Kumanovo clashes – These certainly weren't the only clashes to have taken place in Kumanovo throughout history (for example, clashes took place during the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems more specific to the incident. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2020 (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.