Talk:List of massacres in Kosovo/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

Untitled

This article is pointless! It is still the same as war crimes in Kosovo, it is not NPOV, and i urge to remove it, or merge it with War crimes in Kosovo. There are no need to have this article. Tadija (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

This article has its own topic, it focuses on "organized and sistematic" mass murders of Kosovo Albanians, commited by the Serbian state, as a part of Joint criminal enterprise of Serbian political and war leaders (according to ICTY judgment). Content of this article significantly differs from War crimes in Kosovo (which includes also NATO, KLA and other Serbian war crimes) and there's no real need to marge it.

It's good to have one general article on War crimes in Kosovo, but we also need more specific articles like Massacres of Albanians and Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo. It is regular on Wikipedia to have extended articles on ethnic massacres like Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and many others.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this article? Should we place here everything that ever happened on Kosovo that you think is appropriate to show you own one sided POV? This is far from anything that can be NPOV! --Tadija (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of the article on The Holocaust? To remember and not to repeat! That's exactly what is the point of this article. Now, please, tell us what is POV in the article?--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not like that! You cannot compare Holocaust with this?! And if you are so NPOV, where is Massacres of Serbs in the Kosovo War? --Tadija (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have enough materials, then such article should be created. --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Tadija. This "Mladifilozof" and others are just here to contribute to the expantion of hateriot towards Serbia and Serbs. He´s completely not neutral. That´s not ilegal, but so it isn´t our actions. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

agree, Merge. Subject matter is the same. Mladifilozof seems to think that calling one thing "Massacre" and another thing simple "Persecution" is somehow NPOV. Change this article name to "Persecution" (as well as making in article changes to conform) and I'll change my answer. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Mladifilozof. kedadial 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good solution to merge most of the article, leaving only List of massacres in the Kosovo War as it was in the very beginning. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Your Arguments

This article uses reliable sources such as: Human Rights Watch reports, ICTY judgments, CNN and BBC news, etc. What is acctualy problem with the neutrality? --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see above is jast general discussions, not specific arguments. To recall the rules:

Merging should not be considered if:

The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.

So please, name your specific arguments for merging or disputed neutrality or templates will be removed. --Mladifilozof (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling you that your sources are not ok. (Although some of those are not, as you cite Albanian sources that cannot be found in any other international source.) As User:Prodego told you earlier, you cannot write article with only one side and one POV included. If you write it like this, it looks like only Albanian suffered. What about Serbian victims. Monstrous KLA massacres? Numerous guerrilla organizations. One country react on those things, and all of that must be included in article. That's why all of us asks for merge in War crimes in Kosovo War. This is just not right. --Tadija (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we should create paragraph named "background" and explain whole context of the conflict. This article is just a part of "War crimes in the Kosovo War" series, focusing on Albanian victims. There is also article that focusing on Serbian victims (1998–present persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo).--Mladifilozof (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for merging

I see no reason to have this article or the 1998–present persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo articles as standalone articles at this point. Also, using words like 'persecution' in a title is hardly NPOV compliant. I think this article and the article that presents the Serbian/non-Albanian narrative can be integrated into a single article. Perhaps the title of 'War crimes in Kosovo War' should be changed to something broader so that events that perhaps don't qualify as war crimes can be included e.g. an individual event something like the burning of a medieval church may not necessarily have been designated as a war crime by a court but it's a notable event that deserves to be in the article. The current war crime specific title is a bit narrow in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that we have one editor User:mladifilozof, that insists in making articles, and an enormous ammount of edits in other related articles having in mind only one side POV, this way creating this entire "war-like mentality" inserted in all the articles. I already triyed to explain somewhere that crimes, and its covering-up propaganda are not fighted in the best way, by more crimes and even worste propaganda. All this kind of excessive nationalistically oriented (and very politicized) editors should be limited here somehow. FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is covered by the sanctions imposed here whose scope was broadened from Macedonia by the following statement "The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted". (my bolding). If you believe that any editors are repeatedly acting in a way that is inconsistent with these sanctions you can ask questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report possible violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. It's probably better just to try to talk the issues through first though. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this editor has the particularity of negotiating when there is no other alternative, and when the issues are explained to him in one article, when he jumps to a next one, he just continues as he didn´t learned nothing. As a person quite familiarised with the subjects of the articles edited, I can asure you that his editing is not simply NPOV, but its tremendously radically extreme. If some editor is willing to edit in only one way, and ignore completely the other side, he just doesn´t seem qualified to continue editing the subjects. When confronted, he just responds like here:

"...Then we should create paragraph named "background" and explain whole context of the conflict. This article is just a part of "War crimes in the Kosovo War" series, focusing on Albanian victims. There is also article that focusing on Serbian victims (1998–present persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo)...."

In other words, he says "...we should...(include a NPOV)" but he never does, and when is donne, he does all in his possibilities to delete it. And also, he just wants to provoke a response in a another nationalisticaly oriented article (that he could claim as NPOV then) ending up the wikipedia, this way, to be a ping-pong table for the nationalists (wich I think is wright the oposite from the WP intentions, and I strongly opose). Thanx very much for the orientations. FkpCascais (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment about anyone in particular here because I don't know the details but I edit extensively in the Israel-Palestine conflict area of Wikipedia where there are similar problems and similar sanctions. I also have very strong views that editors must be NPOV in their edits at all times and can't rely on other people to fix the imbalance problems they create. Compliance with the principals described in the arbitration decision is mandatory. Editors must comply with them at all times and if they don't they should not be editing articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. That is exactly the situation regarding this editor. Many thanx for all. FkpCascais (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop comment on the contributor and start comment on content. I also agree to merge both articles:

into a single one:

War crimes in the Kosovo War.

--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the period of 1998 to today overlaps the Kosovo War which was fought between civilians, paramilitary and military forces. Any incidents during that time should be included in War Crimes during Kosovo War article 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, since it is the Serbs that are victims in that period, somebody here must be very happy by ignoring it. FkpCascais (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

It is quite clear that page is disputed! You are not allowed to remove tags without a dispute resolution! That is regarded as vandalism. --Tadija (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to abuse tags. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues were addressed numerous times already! You never answered them, just expanding article. --Tadija (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor who adds a POV tag to an article needs to explain on the article's talk page the issues behind the tag's insertion, pointing to specific issues or problems. Meowy 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Usage of disputed image

File:Uaz kosovo.jpg

Column of Yugoslav army vehicles in Kosovo.

We dont know where is this, who is this and and we dont know when this happened. This image is Unrelated to article subject. Why i have to explain you to details all edits i do? It is clear as day! --Tadija (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The image represents Yugoslav (Serbian) Army forces in Kosovo, with Serbian flags and Serbian three-finger salute. This image is used to illustrate paragraph named "Serbian military operations". It is closely related to the paragraph topic.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if this is Yugoslav Army force, we don't know where is this taken, and when. So using it in this and not any other section is clearly POV. Do you have ANY source that this is Yugoslav army, in Kosovo, or any date? --Tadija (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion about this subject can be found here ([1]), where three users (me included) already agreed that this image should not be used. --Tadija (talk)

Now four users. How many users should be enough for you? 4:1, and even wiki is not democracy, still, all sources and arguments told us that this is Russian army, and who knows where. --Tadija (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems substantially unrelated unless there is evidence that this specific caravan was somehow involved in a specific massacre. No further support for the image appears to be expressed so I would suggest removing the RFC unless there are others that have new arguments in support of retaining the image. Ngaskill (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This image is not disputed as admin on wiki commons nicely explained to you.--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a reliable source saying that this is an image from Kosovo taken during the Kosovo War it isn't even possible to make a policy based argument for adding it to the article. Editor/admin opinions about the image aren't relevant. Everything in Wikipedia has to comply with WP:V. It's a mandatory requirement. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does the image add to the article? If the reader needs to know more about the respective armies, they will likely go to the page reflecting the armies as this image will not explain anything. Image could be from any time or location completely unrelated to the article subject. Imagespam. Spigot Map 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

article reorganized

This article was reorganized. Most of the article was merged with the War crimes in the Kosovo War. Also, the article was renamed from Massacres of Albanians in the Kosovo War to List of massacres in the Kosovo War. Now, this article is only a chronological list (reference is needed only if there is no link to other article).--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass grave or many individual graves?

Below the picture it is written "mass grave" and on the picture is many individual graves, not mass one.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I added the template "unbalanced". I just checked two of the about 30 massacres listed here and both do not reproduce a balanced point of view:
First one: January 15, 1999 Račak Massacre - "However, the Finnish investigators representing EU found that these killings were committed on civilians":
The cited source (BBC, March 17, 1999) cites Ranta correctly: "there were no signs that the victims were anything other than unarmed civilians". At ICTY Ranta said later, that she never said the victims were civilians (http://iwpr.net/report-news/expert-testifies-racak-not-staged). Indeed, Ranta made it difficult to understand her. But in this case we have to follow her literally here. The misunderstanding has been caused in the cited BBC-source itself: The meaning of the sentence "But the report does conclude the victims were unarmed civilians." has correctly been used in our article according to the cited source, but it has not been used correctly according to what the finnish team found in its report of March 17, 1999.
Second one: January 29, 1999 Rogovo Massacre - "Serb police-officers executed 24 Albanians, supposedly KLA members": None of the three cited sources (NYT, January 30, 1999; OSCE: Kosovo/Kosova - As Seen, As Told, 1999; BBC, January 29, 1999) mentions an "execution" of 24 Albanians. Only one of them (Kosovo/Kosova - As Seen, As Told) mentions details you can interprete as an execution, just not for 24 individuals, but for 5 or 6, not based on material evidences, but based on witness reports.
Both of the incidents might imply crimes, committed by Serbian/Yugoslavian security forces. But: both of them might include such ones committed by Albanian/KLA forces as well. In order to reveal all those crimes, it doesn't help much to cite sources in a wrong meaning. It doesn't help to describe the real crimes of Yugoslavian forces, committed in this context. And it doesn't help to describe any of those committed by the KLA of course. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)