Revision as of 13:01, 29 November 2014 editIJA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,319 edits →Morale story - again← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:32, 19 August 2024 edit undoAmanuensis Balkanicus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users28,223 edits →KLAs own casualtie claims: rsp | ||
(377 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{talk header}} | |||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 6 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
|algo = old(90d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Kosovo War/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=b|style=long}} | |||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WPMILHIST | |||
|class=B | |||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | ||
|B-Class-1= yes | |B-Class-1= yes | ||
Line 28: | Line 12: | ||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | ||
|B-Class-5= yes | |B-Class-5= yes | ||
|Balkan=yes|French-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes | |||
|attention=yes | |||
|French-task-force=yes | |||
|US-task-force=yes | |||
|past-collaboration=], ]–], ] | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=High}} | ||
{{WikiProject Kosovo |
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=High}} | ||
{{WikiProject Albania |
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=High}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject European history|importance=high}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 8 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Kosovo War/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|e-e}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
}} | }} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== |
== Unexplained removals == | ||
i wrote up a section on the pristina airport incident, i used a BBC article to source the data | |||
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm | |||
but didn't include it in the references as i'm a lousy editor, feel free to include that | |||
gosh i'm not trying to start a fight here, i just thought i should add that part. | |||
== Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–1990) == | |||
I have just made a number of changes to the "Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–1990)" section. Changes are: '''Firstly''' the Binder article is mainly about the growth of ethnic tensions, of which the growth of KosAlb Nationalism is only part of the story. '''Secondly''', the "Paraćin massacre" incident is only written about 'in passing', as part of the background to tension, so I altered to 'referred to' '''Thirdly''', Binder writes fairly explicitly about the rise of Milošević ''(and his commitment to 'getting tough' in Kosovo)'', of which I have tried to select the clearest quotes. I did this for two reasons, firstly because it is a significant part of Binder's article, but secondly because this section is titled 'Kosovo and the rise of … …'. | |||
I wonder whether the 'Paraćin massacre' reference adds anything and also wonder whether the 'Branko Mamula' quotes that follow add very much, but both are 'background', so I only tidied slightly.] (]) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== EU support == | |||
In the ] section, there is a quote by David Clark saying, amongst other things, that all EU countries supported the war. paper says that of the EU neutrals, only Ireland supported NATO, Sweden and Finland did not say whether they suppoted the NATO or not, and Austria condemned the bombings, and denied NATO aircaft access to its airspace. Which source is correct? Can anyone find another source to support either position? ] (]) 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: It was me that recently attributed the claim to Clark ''(it was previously in 'our voice', ie as a fact)''. Apart from the neutral countries you mention, it was widely reported at the time that some NATO members were 'less than keen', notably Greece, which ''(I believe)'', allowed flyover but refused any more active role ''(I don't have a source for that beyond memory of BBC news of the time)''. Clark is guilty of simplification on this point, ''(had he written 'almost all', there would be no issue)'', however the 'NATO/EU support' is not the main point of HIS article, and the point of this section of OUR article is to present the 'case for war'. I'm not sure what the appropriate remedy is here, nor if anything needs to be done.] (]) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
@] the question whether a genocide has happened is irrelevant to the lead, as its not being discussed there. It’s clear that a certain POV is trying to be portrayed with that sentence. And btw, being sourced doesn’t warrant the inclusion into the article nor the lead. You did not make any argument to why the content should remain in the lead. | |||
== A biased article == | |||
„Vague and sourced content“ what exactly is vague about the expulsion? You easily could have looked up the article that is linked in this sentence, there you will find every source you need, but okay, if you insist on sources, I’ll add them later if I have time despite the case of WP:BLUESKY we have here. You know what would be vague? Including Albanian and Serbian estimates. But I did not do that. ] (]) 17:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is one of the most biased and partial articles I have ever read.It seems to me that the editor is a strong supporter of the serbs.In the background there is not a single word of the poisons of students in Kosovo.Not a single word of peaceful protests violently suppressed by Yugoslav police.I think there should be a clean-up to the article and write about the aggression as well.Also I have saw many reports(news,documentaries and books and also talked to KLA veterans)that there have been APC's destroyed by the KLA,I cannot say a certain number but the editor should get more references than american sites. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: I agree, the image at the top of page is entirely of the NATO air campaign and not the genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign that precipitated it.] (]) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The lede is supposed to summarise the most important contents of the article, and whether the violence was judged to constitute genocide seems like an important point. ] (]) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Missing section? == | |||
:You said that {{tq|It’s clear that a certain POV is trying to be portrayed with that sentence.}} For me it actually is not that clear - what POV is being portrayed by including the information that it was not ruled to be a genocide by the UN Supreme Court? That seems like a crucial, lede-worthy piece of information. ] 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'll agree that the this high-court ruling may be relevant, but I'll take out the quotes at {{tq| found that there had been '''"'''a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments'''"''' against the Albanian population, but that Yugoslav troops had tried to force them out of Kosovo, but not to eradicate them, and therefore it was not genocide.}} To me, this looks like an attempts to make the "systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments" look like an opinion. ] (]) 22:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I also sourced the "vague" content and readded it. ] (]) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''Comment:''' I wish to contribute to this discussion by shining some light on other aspects in the background section: | |||
:1. The very first line - {{tquote|The modern Albanian-Serbian conflict has its roots in the expulsion of Albanians in 1877-1878...}} - is somewhat questionable. Albanians and Serbs (as a distinct population group) have been fighting since the Middle Ages, whereas the Balkan Slavs in general (whom the Serbs descend from) invaded territories inhabited by the ancestral populations of the Albanians all the way back in the 6th-7th centuries CE. The conflict between Albanians and Serbs goes back to over a millennia, not a century and a half ago. However, I notice the word "modern" there. Perhaps something else is meant by this line, but this should be clearly and explicitly stated. | |||
:2. I removed an unsourced line for the same reason used by editors above; it's simply too vague. In fact, one of the articles I removed - ] - barely has any information on specific attacks and does not include any figures whatsoever. Contrast that to the ], where attacks are quite clearly recorded and figures exist on the matter. The only line mentioning somewhat specific attacks on that article is the following: {{tquote|Tensions in the form of revenge attacks arose by incoming Albanian refugees on local Kosovo Serbs...}} If the article in question cannot be expanded upon soon, I genuinely question whether or not it should even exist. All of its content fits into the ] article, or even the ] article. It does not seem to warrant an article of its own, and I may propose it for deletion if it's not expanded upon soon. Nonetheless, that's a discussion that is more fitting on the TP of the article in question. | |||
:3. The other linked article that I removed - ] - is also quite lacklustre in terms of content and sources, and also makes no mention of any figures whatsoever. Nonetheless, it does say that Serbs were massacred, and although we have no info on the article discussing who or how many Serbs were killed, I'd assume it'd be good enough to stay, although it should also be expanded upon. It can also be mentioned in this article, but in a more accurate way than it was previously; did the Muhaxhirs seriously wait nearly 15 years or so to exact revenge on the Serbs in Kosovo? This article should perhaps be mentioned more explicitly, as the previous mention was quite vague. ] (]) 01:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Concerning Botushali's first argument, I think what is meant here by "modern" is the beginning of the Kosovo problem. I mean - if we're being honest - Serbia shot itself in the foot with every action that they've taken against the local Albanian population. Kosovo, which already had had an Albanian-dominated population, kept getting more and more Albanian after the Albanians of Nish and Toplica were expelled. On top of that, the local Serbian population of Kosovo fled, creating a vacuum that Albanians naturally and quickly began to fill. Several attempts have been made afterwards to restore a supposed "status quo" by ]. I think that's what scholars mean with roots of the modern Albanian-Serbian conflict. | |||
::With that being said, it is, however, evident that the Albanian-Serbian conflict is much more than that. ] (]) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As it was argued, I've also noticed the lack of reliable and precise recordings of the massacres on Serbs, whereas testimonies of Serbian massacres of Albanians are precise and detailed. ] (]) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Statements with outright ridiculous sources == | |||
For the duration of the NATO bombing campaign, all we have is information on the NATO side of the campaign. Where is the information on Yugoslav Army actions (elsewhere in Misplaced Pages we have ] for instance) or KLA actions? I'm sure they didn't stop fighting the moment the bombs started falling (didn't the war intensify at this point?). Before NATO intervention there is plenty of information on the military operations of both sides, and then after the campaign ended there is a section on the Serb withdrawal. Did something get deleted at some point? ] (]) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
: There were parts that described Yugoslav tactics, but those parts were deleted by some users because there were no sources. Or they did not bother to find any. I agree - we should add those. We just need sources to back them up. I believe it won't be hard to find them. If you or anyone else is willing to contribute I will also help in any way I can, but I am not an experienced editor, far from it. ] (]) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
The statement "...thousands killed and between 70,000 and 100,000 expelled from Kosovo or sent to concentration camps in order to Albanianize the province..." references a book, which does mention those numbers, HOWEVER said book itself calls these numbers literally, and I quote, "pure fantasy". | |||
== Morale story - again == | |||
This is a clear case of someone taking something out of context in order to try and make fantasy (it is a fantasy, according to their own source) into reality. | |||
I would like to point out that bobraynr has again returned the disputed section of this article. | |||
By the way, that was the first link I checked. I have no doubt there are countless more here. If Misplaced Pages wants to be a pillar of truth, there should be more work being done in checking these claims and not just approving them because they seem legit at first sight. ] (]) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This issue has already been discussed (and closed) before. | |||
:The Malcolm book describes Serbian nationalists' claims about the number of Albanians moving to Kosovo in the 1940s were "pure fantasy". It doesn't describe estimates of the number of Serbs expelled as such. ] (]) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Also Sabrina Ramet mentions these estimates without any qualifications or caveats in ''The Three Yugoslavias''. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== KLAs own casualtie claims == | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Daalder & O'Hanlon 2000 is used to claim that the KLAs casualties were 1,500 dead, according to their figures. This is what the source says; {{tq|"KLA commander Agim Ceku estimated that perhaps 1,500 KLA fighters were among the dead (his tally numbers included cumulative losses over fifteen months, however)"}}. I propose removing this 1,500 number because it seems to be a pretty early estimate by one commander rather than an official listing. ] (]) 21:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:So, was the moral high and Serbs were slaughtering and raping or was it low? Cant the anti-Serbian guys make up their mind, or everything goes? This edit is a good edit for propaganda manipulation article. ] (]) 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I tend to agree (see ] and ]). On a related point, the infobox casualty figures for the Yugoslavian side are also inexplicable. It says that NATO killed 1,008–1,200 Yugoslav security personnel and 1,084 were killed by the KLA, which implies there were 2,000+ military fatalities on the Yugoslavian side. This is not only a clear example of ] and ], but also a blatant misrepresentation of the HLC study cited, attributing the Yugoslavian side's ''total'' 1,084 military deaths from Jan 1, 1998 to Dec 31, 2000 (including 276 incurred by NATO) solely to the KLA. I mean, the citation is right there, and it's even in English. So, I'm at a loss as to why such misleading claims have been up for so long. ] (]) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I see and were canvassed by a banned editor, and happily coöperated. Just another day in the Balkans... ] (]) 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Truth hurts? ] (]) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Apparently so, since you are so determined to remove reliably sourced content - truth - for no clear reason. ] (]) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, it's not reliable as it was determined before here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated You bailed out on the discussion and suddenly, 7 months later, you revert very controversial part of the article (one upon 3 editors agreed it was wrong). Oh and just because I am not registered you call me sock and such. That is discrimination and you should be ashamed of yourself. ] (]) 10:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Why don't you try to prove, with reliable sources, that moral among Serb soldiers in Kosovo were high all the time? After all, you are the one who has to prove that the section is incorrect. But for now it is a properly sourced section that should be present in the article. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 11:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::In the former discussion, nowhere did we conclude or establish that it isn't a reliable source. If the Belgrade based IP wants to say it is "not reliable" then fair enough, but it doesn't count for much unless they can produce reliable evidence to suggest it isn't reliable. It seems to be a case of IDONTLIKEIT, no-one has produced anything credible to say it shouldn't be used. Whilst I'm at it, let me remind people about ] and ]. ] (]) 11:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Your words IJa "If the quote came from a notable military leader at the time, I think it would be useful or even if it came froma notable historian on the subject I think it would be worth including. But one soldier's opinion isn't that useful here. There were tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers. Most of them withdrew from Kosovo before KFOR arrived so of course many will have never seen an "enemey soldier". And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces" from http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::::::But can you produce any credible evidence to suggest that it isn't reliable? ] (]) 12:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::No, because I cannot find a source which claims that it is reliable. My question is - since when anonymous tank commanders represent entire moral of the Yugoslav army? Contradictory to that next paragraph says morale was good. It's a mess and it's very, very POV. Surely you see it too. ] (]) 12:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::It is a properly referenced source from the time by someone who was actually there. How is it POV? ] (]) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Your words IJA: "And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces". ] (]) 12:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::How is it POV? ] (]) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::Would you like me to draw it to you or spell it? ] (]) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::I want you to explain how it is POV. ] (]) 12:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Forget it, if you want to act like a kid, go ahead. ] (]) 12:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::I genuinely want to know how it is POV. I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that it wasn't reliable and you couldn't answer me. Now you've claimed it is POV and now that I've asked you how it is POV, you're unable to answer this as well. You're making baseless claims without the ability to back them up. If you can't back them up, then back off. ] (]) 13:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:32, 19 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Unexplained removals
@Pincrete the question whether a genocide has happened is irrelevant to the lead, as its not being discussed there. It’s clear that a certain POV is trying to be portrayed with that sentence. And btw, being sourced doesn’t warrant the inclusion into the article nor the lead. You did not make any argument to why the content should remain in the lead.
„Vague and sourced content“ what exactly is vague about the expulsion? You easily could have looked up the article that is linked in this sentence, there you will find every source you need, but okay, if you insist on sources, I’ll add them later if I have time despite the case of WP:BLUESKY we have here. You know what would be vague? Including Albanian and Serbian estimates. But I did not do that. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- The lede is supposed to summarise the most important contents of the article, and whether the violence was judged to constitute genocide seems like an important point. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- You said that
It’s clear that a certain POV is trying to be portrayed with that sentence.
For me it actually is not that clear - what POV is being portrayed by including the information that it was not ruled to be a genocide by the UN Supreme Court? That seems like a crucial, lede-worthy piece of information. Brat Forelli🦊 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)- I'll agree that the this high-court ruling may be relevant, but I'll take out the quotes at
found that there had been "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments" against the Albanian population, but that Yugoslav troops had tried to force them out of Kosovo, but not to eradicate them, and therefore it was not genocide.
To me, this looks like an attempts to make the "systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments" look like an opinion. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)- I also sourced the "vague" content and readded it. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll agree that the this high-court ruling may be relevant, but I'll take out the quotes at
- Comment: I wish to contribute to this discussion by shining some light on other aspects in the background section:
- 1. The very first line -
The modern Albanian-Serbian conflict has its roots in the expulsion of Albanians in 1877-1878...
- is somewhat questionable. Albanians and Serbs (as a distinct population group) have been fighting since the Middle Ages, whereas the Balkan Slavs in general (whom the Serbs descend from) invaded territories inhabited by the ancestral populations of the Albanians all the way back in the 6th-7th centuries CE. The conflict between Albanians and Serbs goes back to over a millennia, not a century and a half ago. However, I notice the word "modern" there. Perhaps something else is meant by this line, but this should be clearly and explicitly stated. - 2. I removed an unsourced line for the same reason used by editors above; it's simply too vague. In fact, one of the articles I removed - Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878) - barely has any information on specific attacks and does not include any figures whatsoever. Contrast that to the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, where attacks are quite clearly recorded and figures exist on the matter. The only line mentioning somewhat specific attacks on that article is the following:
Tensions in the form of revenge attacks arose by incoming Albanian refugees on local Kosovo Serbs...
If the article in question cannot be expanded upon soon, I genuinely question whether or not it should even exist. All of its content fits into the Expulsion of the Albanians, 1877–1878 article, or even the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878) article. It does not seem to warrant an article of its own, and I may propose it for deletion if it's not expanded upon soon. Nonetheless, that's a discussion that is more fitting on the TP of the article in question. - 3. The other linked article that I removed - 1901 massacres of Serbs - is also quite lacklustre in terms of content and sources, and also makes no mention of any figures whatsoever. Nonetheless, it does say that Serbs were massacred, and although we have no info on the article discussing who or how many Serbs were killed, I'd assume it'd be good enough to stay, although it should also be expanded upon. It can also be mentioned in this article, but in a more accurate way than it was previously; did the Muhaxhirs seriously wait nearly 15 years or so to exact revenge on the Serbs in Kosovo? This article should perhaps be mentioned more explicitly, as the previous mention was quite vague. Botushali (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Concerning Botushali's first argument, I think what is meant here by "modern" is the beginning of the Kosovo problem. I mean - if we're being honest - Serbia shot itself in the foot with every action that they've taken against the local Albanian population. Kosovo, which already had had an Albanian-dominated population, kept getting more and more Albanian after the Albanians of Nish and Toplica were expelled. On top of that, the local Serbian population of Kosovo fled, creating a vacuum that Albanians naturally and quickly began to fill. Several attempts have been made afterwards to restore a supposed "status quo" by colonizing Kosovo. I think that's what scholars mean with roots of the modern Albanian-Serbian conflict.
- With that being said, it is, however, evident that the Albanian-Serbian conflict is much more than that. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- As it was argued, I've also noticed the lack of reliable and precise recordings of the massacres on Serbs, whereas testimonies of Serbian massacres of Albanians are precise and detailed. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Statements with outright ridiculous sources
The statement "...thousands killed and between 70,000 and 100,000 expelled from Kosovo or sent to concentration camps in order to Albanianize the province..." references a book, which does mention those numbers, HOWEVER said book itself calls these numbers literally, and I quote, "pure fantasy".
This is a clear case of someone taking something out of context in order to try and make fantasy (it is a fantasy, according to their own source) into reality.
By the way, that was the first link I checked. I have no doubt there are countless more here. If Misplaced Pages wants to be a pillar of truth, there should be more work being done in checking these claims and not just approving them because they seem legit at first sight. 84.22.48.91 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Malcolm book describes Serbian nationalists' claims about the number of Albanians moving to Kosovo in the 1940s were "pure fantasy". It doesn't describe estimates of the number of Serbs expelled as such. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also Sabrina Ramet mentions these estimates without any qualifications or caveats in The Three Yugoslavias. Alaexis¿question? 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
KLAs own casualtie claims
Daalder & O'Hanlon 2000 is used to claim that the KLAs casualties were 1,500 dead, according to their figures. This is what the source says; "KLA commander Agim Ceku estimated that perhaps 1,500 KLA fighters were among the dead (his tally numbers included cumulative losses over fifteen months, however)"
. I propose removing this 1,500 number because it seems to be a pretty early estimate by one commander rather than an official listing. Durraz0 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree (see WP:AGEMATTERS and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Academy/The effect of aging sources). On a related point, the infobox casualty figures for the Yugoslavian side are also inexplicable. It says that NATO killed 1,008–1,200 Yugoslav security personnel and 1,084 were killed by the KLA, which implies there were 2,000+ military fatalities on the Yugoslavian side. This is not only a clear example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but also a blatant misrepresentation of the HLC study cited, attributing the Yugoslavian side's total 1,084 military deaths from Jan 1, 1998 to Dec 31, 2000 (including 276 incurred by NATO) solely to the KLA. I mean, the citation is right there, and it's even in English. So, I'm at a loss as to why such misleading claims have been up for so long. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class Serbia articles
- High-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- B-Class Kosovo articles
- High-importance Kosovo articles
- WikiProject Kosovo articles
- B-Class Albania articles
- High-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- B-Class Limited recognition articles
- Mid-importance Limited recognition articles
- WikiProject Limited recognition articles
- B-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages