![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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. |
![]() | The contents of the Operation Eagle Eye (Kosovo) page were merged into Kosovo Verification Mission on 5 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
OppositeGradient. National armies do not work on the basis of "ethnicity". Furthermore, if they did, then not even today's Serbian army would be "Serb" given that minus Kosovo, ethnic Serbs still barely compose 80% of the population. Prior to 2006, there was one central military comprising soldiers and staff from Serbia and Montenegro. If you believe this to be incorrect, please find your sources and make the corrections at Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ) first. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oranges Juicy The sources explicitly state that the troops were Serbian. This is a concrete qualification and a sub-set of the term Yugoslavian. I would strictly stick to the sources, not to synthesis. Unless you have other reliable sources to clearly indicate that the forces were not Serbian, then please roll back the article to the version backed up by sources. Being Serbian implies being Yugoslavian, but the other way doesn't and violates the provided reliable souces. OppositeGradient ( talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
All right, you've made a number of errors in your statement and your summaries.
Oranges Juicy ( talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oranges Juicy The soldiers were Serbians (ethnic definition) and also mostly part of the army of Yugoslavia (taxonomy of military troops). As sources indicate, the term Serb is the most concrete and realistic term to identify the troops. You can add an extra clarification on the army, but you cannot rollback the source-backed ethnicity. All sources indicate the troops were Serbian, for the occurrences, you can search for "Serb" or "Serbian" inside all the references (quite numerous mentioning of the Serbian forces). In that context, I agree you have a point on the official name of the army (Yugoslavia), however you words are likely not reliable in assuming the soldiers were not Serbian (your synthesis vs. reliable sources). If you would like a consensus, please rephrase in the most appropriate way the sentence "Serbian soldiers, primarily members of the Yugoslavian army". Once you rephrase this sentence in the way you feel reasonable, then please roll back the original version (clearly specifying the Serbian ethnicity) and insert the new lede sentence (adding official army name). OppositeGradient ( talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No Opposite. The Kosovo conflict was fought between the rebel KLA and the security forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The latter was represented by Vojska Jugoslavije (Yugoslav Army). During that time they were accused of committing many atrocities and there are no statistics and frankly it is a non-event to explore every single accusation and to ascertain that within the army, no single atrocity was attributed to persons from Montenegro, or the near 20% from the remainder of Serbia identifying by another ethnicity. We take the affiliation and leave it at that; if you know the person to pull the trigger in one village somewhere in Kosovo was Serbian, that doesn't mean the KVM officials hold some form of evidence that breaches to the October agreement were carried out specifically by ethnic Serbs, they blamed the force at top level. To switch Yugoslav soldiers for "Serb" even if your principles hold true would still violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. Anyhow, this is the wrong article to be proposing such a radical shift. The main articles to try to launch this daydream would be Kosovo War and Military of Serbia and Montenegro. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 08:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is now fixed with the facts.
I will remind you anyhow that this article is only about the
Kosovo Verification Mission, not the military engagements or their aftermaths. They all have their own articles. If you read the OSCE publication, it states: ...receive weekly information from relevant FRY/Serbian military/police headquarters in Kosovo regarding movements of forces..., which simplifies FRY and Serbia, and military with police. That was their task. As regards atrocities, these could have been carried out by any one of three pro-state bodies: Serbian police, Serb paramilitaries, or Yugoslav army. But as I said, for each there is its own page. --
Oranges Juicy (
talk) 08:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Tell me why I should not report this case to ANI?
I would leave a day for you to reflect and reason. If you still insist on this disruptive behavior, I will go straight to ANI, since you left me no other choice and I would not follow you into an edit war.
OppositeGradient (
talk) 08:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
To answer each question:
-- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Here you are, the wording of the source magnified, [2]. It is not reliable anyhow since it is a partisan government account rather than an independent report. Furthermore, its reference to the non-existent Serbian Army (yes, capitalised) shows that the person writing clearly did not discern. A reliable source would tell you whether the acts were committed by paramilitaries (if so which), back by police, etc. and not the oversubscribed "Serb army". Even "Serbian government" is used in place of Yugoslav authorities. The man whose head the west paraded during and after the conflict was the President of Yugoslavia, nor the functionaries that served the federal Serbian government. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything has already been explained to you about the reliability of the source, and the dynamics of the internal structure of the FRY. So if you now feel I am doing wrong, please do as you originally stated and take the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: . Should we refer to Yugoslav forces or Serbian forces? Or could we just use the non-controversial State loylist forces?
What is the background? Kosovo was a part of Serbia, and Serbia was within Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) - Serbia and Montenegro as one country - during the period of this article (1999). The Kosovo War saw the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) wage war against the state forces of the FRY. The state forces were split into three categories: Yugoslav Army (unified), Serbian police (federal, Montenegro had own force), and Serbian paramilitary forces (volunteers made up mainly of ethnic Serbs and some non-Serb participation).
What is relevance of article? Briefly, international assessors were deployed to monitor that state forces adhered to the protocols of an agreement from 1998. When this failed and the representatives left, fighting resumed and state atrocities occurred more rapidly against Albanian population.
Is this about one specific operation and its aftermath? No, for each chapter of the conflict, there should be a corresponding article which goes into detail on which entities were invovled, for example Ljubenić massacres names Serbian police and paramilitaries, and Battle of Junik names Yugoslav Army. As such, articles of this nature require a comprehensive term to include all concerted forces which answered to the central government, leading us to the seminal question of this thread.
What do sources say? It varies.
So as you see this is not a neutrality matter because no editor contests the core activity being reported, we simply cannot agree on which all-inclusive term to use. Please list your views and reasons below. Thanks. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Many thanks. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 22:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Did the OSCE communications equipment scandal ever-get properly investigated and resolved?
if-so, perhaps it should be here too, even-if only portrayed with both sides of the accusation & response, if i remember correctly, a claim that some equipment was stolen? was released at one point, but people found it difficult to believe?
. *shrugs*
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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. |
![]() | The contents of the Operation Eagle Eye (Kosovo) page were merged into Kosovo Verification Mission on 5 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
OppositeGradient. National armies do not work on the basis of "ethnicity". Furthermore, if they did, then not even today's Serbian army would be "Serb" given that minus Kosovo, ethnic Serbs still barely compose 80% of the population. Prior to 2006, there was one central military comprising soldiers and staff from Serbia and Montenegro. If you believe this to be incorrect, please find your sources and make the corrections at Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ) first. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oranges Juicy The sources explicitly state that the troops were Serbian. This is a concrete qualification and a sub-set of the term Yugoslavian. I would strictly stick to the sources, not to synthesis. Unless you have other reliable sources to clearly indicate that the forces were not Serbian, then please roll back the article to the version backed up by sources. Being Serbian implies being Yugoslavian, but the other way doesn't and violates the provided reliable souces. OppositeGradient ( talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
All right, you've made a number of errors in your statement and your summaries.
Oranges Juicy ( talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oranges Juicy The soldiers were Serbians (ethnic definition) and also mostly part of the army of Yugoslavia (taxonomy of military troops). As sources indicate, the term Serb is the most concrete and realistic term to identify the troops. You can add an extra clarification on the army, but you cannot rollback the source-backed ethnicity. All sources indicate the troops were Serbian, for the occurrences, you can search for "Serb" or "Serbian" inside all the references (quite numerous mentioning of the Serbian forces). In that context, I agree you have a point on the official name of the army (Yugoslavia), however you words are likely not reliable in assuming the soldiers were not Serbian (your synthesis vs. reliable sources). If you would like a consensus, please rephrase in the most appropriate way the sentence "Serbian soldiers, primarily members of the Yugoslavian army". Once you rephrase this sentence in the way you feel reasonable, then please roll back the original version (clearly specifying the Serbian ethnicity) and insert the new lede sentence (adding official army name). OppositeGradient ( talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No Opposite. The Kosovo conflict was fought between the rebel KLA and the security forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The latter was represented by Vojska Jugoslavije (Yugoslav Army). During that time they were accused of committing many atrocities and there are no statistics and frankly it is a non-event to explore every single accusation and to ascertain that within the army, no single atrocity was attributed to persons from Montenegro, or the near 20% from the remainder of Serbia identifying by another ethnicity. We take the affiliation and leave it at that; if you know the person to pull the trigger in one village somewhere in Kosovo was Serbian, that doesn't mean the KVM officials hold some form of evidence that breaches to the October agreement were carried out specifically by ethnic Serbs, they blamed the force at top level. To switch Yugoslav soldiers for "Serb" even if your principles hold true would still violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. Anyhow, this is the wrong article to be proposing such a radical shift. The main articles to try to launch this daydream would be Kosovo War and Military of Serbia and Montenegro. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 08:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is now fixed with the facts.
I will remind you anyhow that this article is only about the
Kosovo Verification Mission, not the military engagements or their aftermaths. They all have their own articles. If you read the OSCE publication, it states: ...receive weekly information from relevant FRY/Serbian military/police headquarters in Kosovo regarding movements of forces..., which simplifies FRY and Serbia, and military with police. That was their task. As regards atrocities, these could have been carried out by any one of three pro-state bodies: Serbian police, Serb paramilitaries, or Yugoslav army. But as I said, for each there is its own page. --
Oranges Juicy (
talk) 08:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Tell me why I should not report this case to ANI?
I would leave a day for you to reflect and reason. If you still insist on this disruptive behavior, I will go straight to ANI, since you left me no other choice and I would not follow you into an edit war.
OppositeGradient (
talk) 08:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
To answer each question:
-- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Here you are, the wording of the source magnified, [2]. It is not reliable anyhow since it is a partisan government account rather than an independent report. Furthermore, its reference to the non-existent Serbian Army (yes, capitalised) shows that the person writing clearly did not discern. A reliable source would tell you whether the acts were committed by paramilitaries (if so which), back by police, etc. and not the oversubscribed "Serb army". Even "Serbian government" is used in place of Yugoslav authorities. The man whose head the west paraded during and after the conflict was the President of Yugoslavia, nor the functionaries that served the federal Serbian government. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything has already been explained to you about the reliability of the source, and the dynamics of the internal structure of the FRY. So if you now feel I am doing wrong, please do as you originally stated and take the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: . Should we refer to Yugoslav forces or Serbian forces? Or could we just use the non-controversial State loylist forces?
What is the background? Kosovo was a part of Serbia, and Serbia was within Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) - Serbia and Montenegro as one country - during the period of this article (1999). The Kosovo War saw the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) wage war against the state forces of the FRY. The state forces were split into three categories: Yugoslav Army (unified), Serbian police (federal, Montenegro had own force), and Serbian paramilitary forces (volunteers made up mainly of ethnic Serbs and some non-Serb participation).
What is relevance of article? Briefly, international assessors were deployed to monitor that state forces adhered to the protocols of an agreement from 1998. When this failed and the representatives left, fighting resumed and state atrocities occurred more rapidly against Albanian population.
Is this about one specific operation and its aftermath? No, for each chapter of the conflict, there should be a corresponding article which goes into detail on which entities were invovled, for example Ljubenić massacres names Serbian police and paramilitaries, and Battle of Junik names Yugoslav Army. As such, articles of this nature require a comprehensive term to include all concerted forces which answered to the central government, leading us to the seminal question of this thread.
What do sources say? It varies.
So as you see this is not a neutrality matter because no editor contests the core activity being reported, we simply cannot agree on which all-inclusive term to use. Please list your views and reasons below. Thanks. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Many thanks. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 22:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Did the OSCE communications equipment scandal ever-get properly investigated and resolved?
if-so, perhaps it should be here too, even-if only portrayed with both sides of the accusation & response, if i remember correctly, a claim that some equipment was stolen? was released at one point, but people found it difficult to believe?
. *shrugs*