Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kosovo War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:15, 29 November 2014 editAmanuensis Balkanicus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users28,223 edits →Morale story - again: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 18:21, 29 November 2014 edit undoFkpCascais (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers72,533 edits →Morale story - again: reNext edit →
Line 101: Line 101:


The "Morale" sub-section is problematic to say the least. The Judah cite doesn't have a page number and nearly fifty percent of it is an unknown soldier's quote (]). If it is to remain, it needs to be expanded about twenty-fold, as the current form violates ], which states "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still ''disproportionate'' to their overall significance to the article topic." ] (]) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC) The "Morale" sub-section is problematic to say the least. The Judah cite doesn't have a page number and nearly fifty percent of it is an unknown soldier's quote (]). If it is to remain, it needs to be expanded about twenty-fold, as the current form violates ], which states "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still ''disproportionate'' to their overall significance to the article topic." ] (]) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sources about it:
:* by Bruce Nardulli,Walter L. Perry,Bruce R. Pirnie,John IV Gordon,John G. McGinn, pag. 54. It says: "...but departing Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale and displaying large holdings of undamaged equipment."
:* by Helga Haftendorn, pag 364, it says: "Consensus was eroding in the weeks before Milosevics surprise capitulation to the point that, as David Fromkin has noted ˝it seemed possible that NATO unity might crack before Yugoslav morale did˝".
:* by R. J. Crampton, pag. 275, it says: "This has been a tremendous boost to Serbian morale." (see the context before and after that sentence).
:Ill see more. ] (]) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:21, 29 November 2014

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.
Article policies
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: 3 months 

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

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.
Article policies
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: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / French / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSerbia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconKosovo High‑importance
WikiProject iconKosovo War is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlbania High‑importance
WikiProject iconKosovo War is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

russian intervention

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.Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

EU support

In the Support for the war section, there is a quote by David Clark saying, amongst other things, that all EU countries supported the war. This 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? 109.78.239.190 (talk) 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.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A biased article

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing section?

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 Operation Horseshoe 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? 14.139.236.148 (talk) 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. 62.193.159.186 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Morale story - again

I would like to point out that bobraynr has again returned the disputed section of this article.

This issue has already been discussed (and closed) before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.243.185 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (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. FkpCascais (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I see FkpCascais and Vanjagenije were canvassed by a banned editor, and happily coöperated. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Truth hurts? 212.178.243.185 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Apparently so, since you are so determined to remove reliably sourced content - truth - for no clear reason. bobrayner (talk) 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. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 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. The Banner talk 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 WP:Canvassing and WP:MEAT. IJA (talk) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
But can you produce any credible evidence to suggest that it isn't reliable? IJA (talk) 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. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 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? IJA (talk) 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". 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
How is it POV? IJA (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you like me to draw it to you or spell it? 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I want you to explain how it is POV. IJA (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Forget it, if you want to act like a kid, go ahead. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 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. IJA (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Morale" sub-section is problematic to say the least. The Judah cite doesn't have a page number and nearly fifty percent of it is an unknown soldier's quote (WP:UNDUE). If it is to remain, it needs to be expanded about twenty-fold, as the current form violates WP:BALASPS, which states "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." 23 editor (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources about it:
  • Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999 by Bruce Nardulli,Walter L. Perry,Bruce R. Pirnie,John IV Gordon,John G. McGinn, pag. 54. It says: "...but departing Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale and displaying large holdings of undamaged equipment."
  • The Strategic Triangle by Helga Haftendorn, pag 364, it says: "Consensus was eroding in the weeks before Milosevics surprise capitulation to the point that, as David Fromkin has noted ˝it seemed possible that NATO unity might crack before Yugoslav morale did˝".
  • The Balkans Since the Second World War by R. J. Crampton, pag. 275, it says: "This has been a tremendous boost to Serbian morale." (see the context before and after that sentence).
Ill see more. FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories: