Talk:Kosovo War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Kosovo War/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search


External links to correct[edit]

Link 67 should rather point to https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946 (instead of http://www.newstatesman.com/node/138456) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlko (talkcontribs) 06:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

SAS man killed[edit]

USER:Hrvoje1389, IMO there is not a bat-in-hell's chance of this edit passing any WP vetting by other editors, WP:RSN, or wherever. A single unnamed KLA commander, in a single news source, not supported by any subsequent 'book' studies, is not WP:RS for this claim - certainly not in WP voice. "Quoted commander who was actually there, seems reliable", is pretty silly. It is not whether the commander impresses YOU or ME sufficiently by the likelihood of him being accurate, but rather whether he impressed those who actually wrote the history books. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Very professional and mature response from you. Thanks. I stand by my claim - reliable source quoted commander from the battlefield. As for history books, it takes years and years for many facts to come to light, but they eventually do. That explains why there is no mention of this in them. Why would NATO officials confirm they had casualties, especially when clandestine operations are involved, even before the war began? Hrvoje1389 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the possibility exists that NATO would seek to 'cover up' SAS involvement and/or casualties, but we don't make that judgment. If the majority of reliable researchers have not established the truth of the claim .... it cannot be made here, especially in our voice. It does not trouble you that the 'KLA commander' does not even have a name such that his claim can be assessed, nor that the claim was never verified by other sources? Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The nameless KLA commander does not bother me, just like a nameless tank commander that does not bother anyone either. As for the source, it says what it says, I don't have any other to add at the moment and I find The Independent to be reliable. When I quoted that source and added that content I broke no rules. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The "nameless tank commander"'s opinions are not put in WP's voice, they are cited as an example by an historian. The "Indy", does not claim that the SAS death is true, it simply claims that a KLA commander said it. Politicians, military leaders, newspapers etc say all sorts of things all the time, unless corroborated by other RS, they cannot be included in WP voice. I didn't say that you broke any rules, I did say, and repeat that no WP source-vetting process would endorse this use of this source. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Double standard. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If you cannot tell the difference between "a historian reported that Donald Trump said he is honest", and "Donald Trump is honest", perhaps editing here is nor for you. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will take your advice to heart. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Editorialising"[edit]

nb early part copied from my talk page. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

From the article Greater Albania:

"...Another term used by Albanians, is "Albanian national reunification"" (Albanian: Ribashkimi kombëtar shqiptar).[1]


From the Kosovo war, in interview in Der Spiegel:

Krasniqi: Wir wollen mehr als die Unabhängigkeit. Unser Ziel ist die Vereinigung aller Albaner auf dem Balkan. (Krasniqi: We want more than independence. Our goal is the unification of all Albanians in the Balkans.[2] When asked if that meant that they will start armed insurgencies in other Balkan nations where Albanians are considerable minority, he answered that "beginning rebellions in Montenegro and FRY Macedonia (FRYM) depends only on his brothers and sisters in those countries" and that in FRYM, "KLA was already active".[2]

1. You claimed that there is not mention of "Greater Albania" by any way in that source. If "Unification of all Albanians in the Balkans" is not the concept of "Greater Albania", then what is that?

2. You claimed that KLA was off-topic, and that the page is about Kosovo War. For every war, goals of all sides are in matter and surely not off-topic. KLA was one of the two sides who fought in Kosovo war. How can then their goals be off-topic?

3. You stated that he didn't said that "unification of Albanians" is one of goals of KLA. As seen above, in the source (interview), he clearly stated "Our Goal is..." in his sentence. Explain me how then it is not their goal?


Thank you for the answers in advance.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alternativat e ribashkimit kombëtar të shqiptarëve dhe të Shqipërisë Etnike..!". Gazeta Ditore (in Albanian). 10 December 2012. Archived from the original on 24 January 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2013. 
  2. ^ a b "„Die Realität ist der Krieg"". Der Spiegel (28): 122–123. 1998. Retrieved 25 November 2017. 

James Jim Moriarty, this edit and this edit are blatant editorialising. Is it Krasniqi who says that the goals are made clear by that interview? Is it Der Spiegel who says it? No to both, it is JJM interpreting a single primary source to conclude that the primary goal of KLA was a "Greater Albania", ignoring completely that this is a single primary source and that 4/5 of the interview is anyhow about Kosovo.

I was tempted to remove completely, the text may be relevant to the KLA page, but how is it relevant to the war page? I decided to remove the blatant editorialising and simply leave a neutral version of the interview until other editors became involved and gave their opinion. My neutral version has Krasniqi saying that "KLA was "a political-national movement that aims to liberate Kosovo" but that they also wanted the unification of all Albanians in the Balkans.

You don't want that summary of his two main points. You ONLY want the element that says that KLA's aspirations are pan-Albanian, even though that is less than 1/10th of the interview. This is much less blatant than your original edit, but it continues the wish to interpret and present a single primary source in a particular way.

I don't especially object to the "Greater Alb" link. That is a side-show to the main business of selective interpretation and partial quotation of the single primary source. Though how is this relevant anyway? Do we go into depth about 'Slobo's' history of ethnic-nationalism beyond Kosovo in the 20 years prior to the war? No, we don't despite 100s of sources drawing attention to it. Why is the KLA having aspirations beyond Kosovo either surprising or relevant to the war? Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ps re: "Next time I will consider this as edit war". Can I remind you that the onus is on you to establish agreement on inclusion, not on me to justify exclusion. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a brief observation without having looked too much into this dispute, but if the article is to say that the aim of the KLA was the creation of a Greater Albania, then we need multiple secondary sources establishing that. I have no idea whether that was their aim or not, but I am sure that a single interview with a KLA commander is nowhere near enough. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Answer (for more clarity where my answer begins and ends, because of usage of paragraphs)

The Kosovo War was fought against KLA and Yugoslav forces. Again, how can you claim that the goals of KLA are off-topic then? For every war you need to know what are the goals of each side. Second, he stated "Our goals" - again, it is his sentence and it is not editorialising. The words "Made clear" are off the ground and I will fix it, but that he stated that "unification of the all Albanians in Balkans" are their goals - it is pretty clear and it is not editorialising.

As for "KLA was "a political-national movement that aims to liberate Kosovo" - it was already given in the text. You have a lot of paragraphs in the text with references - and it is pretty clear. I don't see any problem with pointing out another goals of theirs - not just "liberation" of Kosovo, but "unification of all Albanians". He said that at the end. In the sentence, "Not just liberation but unifictation" - it is neutral. I point out that the goals of "liberation and against repressions", as they were pretty much discussed in the whole article, for example see the paragraph above, which is talking about KLA (and it is not my decision - I followed that in the article). Why not pointing out another of their goals, said by their spokesman? Again, no editorialising and completely within the spirit of the text.

You: "Do we go into depth about 'Slobo's' history of ethnic-nationalism beyond Kosovo in the 20 years prior to the war?" We don't go, because of couple of simple things: I guess by "Slobo" that you mean Slobodan Milosevic - he wasn't in power 20 years before conflict (he started rising after 1984, when he was elected president of the Belgrade League of Communists City Committee - that is 12 years before conflict, if you count that the conflict started in 1996 when first skirmishes started, and 14 if you consider the official start of the conflict in February 1998). Second, the paragraphs "Kosovo in Tito's Yugoslavia (1945–1980)", "After the death of Tito (1980–86)", "Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–90)", "Constitutional amendments (1989–94)" are already TALKING about the stuff you said - description of the situation before the war. Following your logic, I will ask you counter-question: Why are we talking about "nationalistic stuff" of Yugoslav authorities 20 years ago? For example: "Hard-liners instituted a fierce crackdown on nationalism of all kinds, Albanian and Serbian alike. Kosovo endured a heavy secret-police presence throughout most of the 1980s that ruthlessly suppressed any unauthorised nationalist manifestations, both Albanian and Serbian. According to a report quoted by Mark Thompson, as many as 580,000 inhabitants of Kosovo were arrested, interrogated, interned or reprimanded. Thousands of these lost their jobs or were expelled from their educational establishments. During this time tension between the Albanian and Serbian communities continued to escalate." It already exists in the article. So, the whole point of yours is blatant and wrong. Read the whole article again.

Why then mentioning that specific Krasniqis statement? As said, their "goals of liberation et"c are already stated in the paragraph above in the text. Example:

"Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s. However, as evidenced by the emergence of the KLA, this came at the cost of increasing frustration among Kosovo's Albanian population. In the mid-1990s, Rugova pleaded for a United Nations peacekeeping force for Kosovo. In 1997, Milošević was promoted to the presidency of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (comprising Serbia and Montenegro since its inception in April 1992). Continuing repression[citation needed] convinced many Albanians that only armed resistance would change the situation. On 22 April 1996, four attacks on Serbian security personnel were carried out almost simultaneously in several parts of Kosovo. A hitherto-unknown organisation calling itself the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA) subsequently claimed responsibility. The nature of the KLA was at first mysterious. At first, it seemed that their only goals were to stop repression from Yugoslav authorities.[citation needed]" - and that's why I pointed out his statement only.

You: "I don't especially object to the "Greater Alb" link. That is a side-show to the main business of selective interpretation and partial quotation of the single primary source. Though how is this relevant anyway"

It was my response on your claim that "the source does not mention 'goals' and is mainly about Kosove, neither does it mention 'Greater Albania'". That last part of your sentence I proved wrong. You don't need to explicitly state something - he talks about the same stuff, just do not call it by that name. Greater Albania is side-shot? Why he did mentioned it? Again, what else is "Unification" - if they already have their national state called Albania? And how relevant is - he stated that it is one of their goals. He considers it as their. It is clearly relevant. If it doesn't matter, why are then we talking about their goals of "liberation for example"? And it is not spoken some 20 years ago before the - he said that in July 1998, when the war already began.

As for my side, I will fix some words if it is so problematic for you, but hiding the fact that he was their spokesman at that time and that he stated that "unification of all Albanians" was their goal, even after given his own quote, I will not allow that. But the next time, if you claim that I gave "blatant editorialising" with not good arguments, I will react to it as vandalism and insults appointed to me. As for Cordless Larry, there is another quote by their commander. I will just copy-paste it here for you: "KLA Commander Sylejman Selimi insisted:[1]

It was said during the conflict. I could put that quote in the text, but it is unnecessary as Krasniqi quote is enough.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC) End

As I said, we need secondary sources, not primary quotes. Here, Krasniqi is described as one of a number of "more radical leaders" and "the KLA's self-styled spokesman". We shouldn't just take his word to be representative of KLA policy. What we need is secondary sources (such as histories of the conflict). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In csmonitor, before the quote about Krasniqi, it is said that "More radical leaders are gaining popularity." Can you find who are the representatives of "non-radical" side of KLA? Krasniqi wasn't described as "self styled spokesman" by Der Spiegel and it didn't mentioned any radical side there. What is the problem with giving direct interview of his, when quoting him? Also, Sylejman Selimi citation is given from secondary source. He was one of the Commander of KLA in 1998 and General commander of KLA in 1999-2000. Even in 2006-2009, he was Commander of Kosovo Protection Corps and in 2009-2011, he was Commander of Kosovo Security Force - long after the war so he is important person. I could then replace Krasniqis statement with Selimis, for example.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"Voriges Jahr sagte er sich von Rugovas pazifistischem Kurs los und ging in den Untergrund. Er ist als einziger ermächtigt, politische Erklärungen im Namen der UÇK abzugeben. (Last year, he renounced Rugova's pacifist course and went underground. He "(it is about Krasniqi)" is the only one authorized to make political statements on behalf of the KLA.)" - according to article in Der Spiegel.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Phillips book does indeed look like a better source, and states that the KLA's goal was a Greater Albania. I think it is a better idea to just report what the secondary sources state rather than picking invidiual KLA figures to quote. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You have the point, agreed. I will put it instead of Krasniqi.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think that it would be best to draw on several sources, however, rather than relying on just one. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why I don't think KLA motives very relevant BEYOND Kosovo is mainly because sources don't draw much attention to them as significant. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

They started their activities on Kosovo - as they stated, they didn't wanted to finish there. That's why they matter. I deleted the old text and put another. Also, found one more secondary source for KLA support of Greater Albania and - the quote of Jakup Krasniqi in that, the same one above ("unification...") - a from Europe Report from International Crisis Group, https://www1.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000201.pdf -, so it is not just one now.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I am persuaded that the KLA, or at least some members MAY have had a pan-Alb ideology, what I am NOT persuaded of is how that is relevant. I don't mean why YOU think it is relevant, but whether RS covering the war think it is relevant or important. It looks an awful lot like WP:coatracking content that KLA wasn't really interested in autonomy in Kosovo, it was simply a 'ploy' towards a 'Greater Albania'. The content, beyond at most a brief mention, is not highlighted by most sources as being relevant to the war AFAI can see. I'm going to wait to see how other editors feel, but I still think the content belongs on the KLA or the Greater Alb pages and should at most be summarised here as to how KLA differed from other 'autonomy' initiatives within Kosovo.
It isn't unusual for 'liberation' movements to have a more ambitious ideology than their immediate aims and isn't unusual for an ethnic group to establish relationships and seek support from the wider 'sympathetic' group - whether we are talking about the IRA getting support from Irish Americans or the ANC seeking support/making alliances with other African groups, but do most RS find this very significant about the KLA's role in the Kosovo war? Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when I said that we needed several sources, I didn't really mean that James should just go and find several sources that support what he wants to put in the article, but rather than we should consider a range of sources, and include something that reflects the balance of what those sources say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear here: After concrete quotes and direct link to the original interview and a pretty good source about Kosovo war someone here is trying to make it that I am here going on some "hidden agenda" to make "KLA as instrument in a ploy towards Greated Albania" - even, again, ignoring the fact that these are THEIR own words, not mine, from sources, and that they are spoken from high ranking official and spokesman (and again, someone is saying that only some KLA officials "MAY" had Pan-Albanistic ideas, even after their direct acknowledgments). Pincrete isn't the only one who is reading the sources about Kosovo war, to claim that it isn't significant. I know that you have said that it is your opinion, but your attitude towards different opinion and arguments seems different. There are SOURCES in which it is given as important, and, except the ones I gave you, you can read this one: [2]. That is not my opinion, but the stuff I have read it there. That's why I consider them as important. As I see, it was my mistake why I didn't give them immediately at the first place. As I said, I have fixed the problem with those "Made clear" words which I admitted that it maybe sounded to some people a little off the ground. But it was pretty interesting to see how much drama was created by Pincrete, from just a couple of quotes. And direct accusation that I lied about the "Greater Albania" in the sources I gave (that it is not mentioned in any context there) or the question "Why we haven't then put in article Slobos ethno-nationalism 20 years prior the war" and completely ignoring the fact that it is already there, in some form, and corrections because Milosevic wasn't in power 20 years prior the war etc... It looks a lot like bias, but I will not jump it to conclusion as someone else did, just because it looks to someone. And, what I think that the statements from representatives of a warring sides about their goals in the conflict are pretty important. And it was important in some sources as they are clearly mentioned and discussed, which was my motivation for putting that in the article. As for me, discussion is ended.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and U. S. Intervention". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. 2012. p. 69. 
  2. ^ Paes, Wolf-Christian; Heinemann-Gruder, Andreas. Brief 20, Wag the Fog: The mobilization and demobilization of Kosovo Liberation Army (PDF). Friedrich Naumann, Bonn International Center for Conversion. p. 11. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kosovo War. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"NATO intervention debated"?[edit]

To be honest I'm surprised why "NATO intervention debated" is even there in the Results. I don't remember seeing any war infobox containing a result like that. Of course there might be debate over it. But isn't it non-relevant? It is highly insignificant. The intervention happened and we shouldn't be adding "debated" just because it is among some. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

agree, at best it's poor phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what "NATO intervention debated" is supposed to mean: that NATO debated intervening; that it is debatable whether the intervention was a NATO one? Neither makes much sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it means 'criticised', rather than 'debated', but that isn't an outcome unless it resulted in a UN censure (for eg). The source doesn't really support anything except for the specific criticism of hitting too many civilian targets during the intervention.Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)