Talk:Yugoslav Wars/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

rename

I was a participant in these various conflicts. I've often heard them called "The Balkan Wars." This is the first place I've seen them referred to as the "Yugoslav Wars." It doesn't mean this is incorrect but it should be put forward here for anyone doing research. Gingermint (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

.

Alas, I fear that the term Balkan Wars already lends its name to two wars fought between 1912 and 1913 in the region. These wars have been called The Third Balkan War but it has never really caught on. I'll be honest with you, this linkage of events on this article are very much a case of Original Research. Admittedly, DIREKTOR trimmed it by removing the wars concerning the Albanians from 1996 onward but there is still no connection between the Ten Day War fought between Slovene rebels and a rump JNA comprising units from Serbia and Montenegro only, and the war between Bosnian Croats and Muslims 1993 time. At the same time, the events are in some small way tied and so this article is in many ways necessary as it tells the story of an entire region forming a relatively small part of the world and its transitions over only a few years. Yugoslav Wars does suffice. Evlekis (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The three conflicts remaining are most certainly interconnected. The minor Ten-Day War is very much linked to the Croatian War of Independence that followed soon after. "Third Balkan War" is just silly. The wars in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia have very little in common with the wars between Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and Serbia ninety years earlier, taking place in a completely different geographical and historical setting. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The battles which took place in Slovenia and northern Croatia (eg. Slavonija) were most definitely wars fought on central European ground. That what was fought on the Balkan was on the fine edge of the Balkan and linked to that across the conventional line. Balkan War in any shape cannot identify the chapters of this article. Evlekis (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SFRY & JNA?

I know Wikipedia encourages you to "Be Bold". But since this is a sensitive topic, I figured it would be better to ask first before editing:

  • Should the SFRY and/or the JNA be added to Belligerents? The SFRY existed de jure until 1992 (although as a severely crippled state), and remnants of the JNA fought in the Ten-Day War and early stages of Croatian War of Independence. Was their involvement too small to warrant a mention on the main article and should only be listed in the individual articles, or should they be mentioned here as well? Any thoughts? Ding Chavez (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly the JNA, but I think its pretty much covered by FR Yugoslavia's entry. The infoboxes depict the last state of affairs, and the JNA is included in FR Yugoslavia... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes just be aware that the JNA involvement in Slovenia (and needless to say early stages in Croatia) did by this time only comprise units from Serbia and Montenegro. Macedonia and Bosnia had long withdrawn their internal citizens from national military activity, as had Croatia and Slovenia (eg. military staff living on Croatian soil were recalled from Kosovo as early as 1990). The JNA dissolved in various stages. Evlekis (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Which wars were part of breakup?

Since dissolution of Yugoslavia is breakup of its constitutional Republics, only conflicts up to Dayton agreement can be considered as part of it.

After Dayton all ex-Yu republics became a new nations.

Conflicts in Macedonia and Kosovo are of different nature, and they are inside new Republics, so no longer apply to breakup of Yugoslavia (their goal is not relared to Yugoslavia in any way)

e.g. Conflict in Kosovo is a result of different series of events as explained here, that are much longlasting then Yugoslavia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian%E2%80%93Albanian_conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.5.56 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything is very complicated. The Southern Serbian conflict was directly a spin-off from the Kosovo war. The Kosovo problems were the first to emerge in the former SFRY. The incidents within Kosovo dated back to the beginning of the Yugoslav Wars but then resurfaced after the Dayton accords. Either way, with the existence of a Yugoslav entity (FRY) with Belgrade as its capital, the two wars (in Serbia) involving ethnic Albanians are probably best billed as Yugoslav Wars. The stumbling block is Macedonia. Here, a government recognised for over nine years previously, had found itself at war with internal rebels representing a significant minority in the country. So whilst there was no conflict between Macedonia and the Belgrade authorities, the Macedonian security forces were at war with a faction which had links to both Southern Serbia and Kosovo conflicts. In 2002, after the war ended in Macedonia, there was an emergency period in Greece with Greek security forces on stand-by amid reports of clashes in the Epirus region. This did not take off, but there could very possibly one day be a conflict between Albanians and Greeks in Greece itself. It would be part of the same Albanian project as that in former Yugloslav regions, but can never be a Yugoslav War. This is a sticky point and it is a tall order predicting where to draw the line. Evlekis (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think the Kosovo War and the Macedonian/Albanian conflicts should not be listed as "Yugoslav Wars". What have they to do with SFR Yugoslavia? (conflicts and political unrest in Kosovo may have played a part in causing the other wars, but this is very removed from the Kosovo War.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My very point. If we don't demarcate this chapter in history, it could potentially spread to Greek government vs ethnic Albanians and then to Cypriot Greeks vs Turks and so on until the whole world is affected. Evlekis (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know about that. There is no particular need to invent categories to sort Kosovo War, Southern Serbia conflict, Macedonia conflict. What is clear, however, is that they have little or nothing to do with the country that fell apart a decade before they took place. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro lede

Can users please stop reverting the intro lede. We need to be honest and not play this article like Kosova in the hands of the Serb nationalists. You can't deny that the Yugoslav Wars started out and were characterized by Milosevic's attempt to create Greater Serbia. Take that out, you could still have had Yugoslavia today. Crackajack Mac (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

↑↑↑ Human rights I can´t remember what, sockpuppet.↑↑↑ FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crackajack Mac has been blocked indef. as a sock of highly WP:DE user Human Rights Believer --Tadija (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo War, part of Yugoslav Wars (or not)

This article proves that Kosovo War was part of Yugoslav Wars. kedadial 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Kedadi on this issue. The Kosovo crisis (precedent of the war) started during the SFR Yugoslavia period, the same crisis was re-birth again, just after the Dayton agreements (it was never "dead", just overshadowed by conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia), the main actors were mainly the same as from the Yugoslav period (Milosevic, Rugova, and even UÇK´s many members were active long time before the 90s...), and the conflict involved a country called "Yugoslavia" (even if a different one, FRy). Also, the conflict affected directly other ex-Yugoslav countries in the region and many were used as bases or logistics support for NATO, as Macedonia, Bosnia and Croatia (beside Albania), or Montenegro, as part of the FRY. I also support the inclusion of the internal Macedonian-Albanian conflict, and the separation from other regional conflicts can be donne by the fact that all this conflicts begin during, or just after the break up of the SFRY, and are located inside the territory of the same former Yugoslavia, while other related (or not that much) conflicts didn´t. Of course, this is just an opinion... FkpCascais (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, from NATO perspective, their operations begin during 1995 in Bosnia (intelligence, much earlier), and the Kosovo conflict was just an intensified continuation of it... FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Personal views and monologues aside, what needs to be established is the position of the professional community. We need to see what the majority of the published scholars have written: Yugoslav Wars (and synonymous terms) 1991-1995, or Yugoslav Wars (and synonymous terms) 1991-2001. I'm hoping for Wiki professionalism and impartiality, not a "contest". Lets all just list sources on this subject and write up a note on how does each approach the matter (yes, even if one doesn't like it). This is the only way to avoid the stupid forum-like discussions where people voice how they "feel" on the issue, as its a pretty abstract subject (plus, this way we'll avoid the obvious danger of this discussion getting clogged by utter nonsense). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the thin end of the wedge. The Kosovo problems date back not to the beginning the Yugoslav wars but to forgotten times buried in prehistory. Either way, if the Kosovo crisis counts as a Yugoslav War then so do does the Preševo Valley war, and even the Macedonian conflict sees some form of continuity for one of the belligerents. At the same time, there is no relation between the Macedonian conflict and the Ten Day War (with the minute exception that Macedonia was still part of the JNA when the Ten Day War happened). That said, even since the Macedonian conflcit ended, there have been a number of minor battles and military operations to restore control over parts or simply uproot anti-governmental activity. Like Israel's modern-day problems stemming from World War II (1939-45), the scenario is never ending unless we draw the line. I'm neutral here, but in favour of a concensus. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@direktor - You can´t really talk normally, do you? You can´t have one comment without your favourite words: "non-sence" and "stupid". Those words pretty much describe your interventions... Learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village... Imb*bdcj!

@Evlekis, it´s really hard to talk without having this pseudo-direktor throwing insults and showing his complexes everywhere. I really dont care, I have other things to do. I´m out. FkpCascais (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the above refers to you personally, speaking of "complexes", I made that clear by spacing my post away from yours as well as by indentation. I'm speaking out of previous experience from discussions elsewhere - you seem to lack some background on this issue.
To Evlekis et alii: I apologize if I'm only able to post sporadically on this subject. I'm much too busy lately (too many rocks to kick at the hospital, I'm afraid :). be careful though, people without a college degree don't seem to be welcome... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbian-dominated congress voted down Slovenian proposals

from the lead: the Serbian-dominated congress voted down Slovenian proposals for an end to the one-party system and for economic reform. That is actually an opposite to what the source says. Must be reworked. --windyhead (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually true. How is it "opposite", what does the source say? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you rephrase it? Can we see the exact source you refer to for ways that we can correct it if need be? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

have no good rephrase for this moment. The source is the paragraph reference itself - [1] - The congress voted for an end to the one-party system --windyhead (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh you were referring to the abolition of the one-party system? Yes that part is indeed incorrect. I'll rephrase... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Windyhead. I have for the moment restored the version revised by DIREKTOR for the following reasons: I believe you are discussing the BBC heap compiled by Kate Adie. I accept that she is not an academic source and that her writing was selective and not wholly reflective of Slobodan Milošević: meaning, she was pandering to the prejudice of the typical "BBC freak", that means the lover of BBC1, BBC News 24 and similar institutions (she presents Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent and listeners of Radio 4 or BBC World Service are of a higher intellectual capacity and are not as malleable as readers of that page). The point is that she was potraying the Idi Amin-style Slobodan Milošević, the Augusto Pinochet-style Milošević, the person with all the BBC design specs that simple readers love to hate. She did this by ignoring all related aspects and by not acknowledging Milošević's circumstances or any of his colleagues or opponents or their activities. If a Wikipedian produced the same information, it would be instantly removed for its open bias. However, it has been written, and is available on the BBC website, and BBC information qualifies as "reliable" on Wikipedia and we don't have a choice but to accept it. It does say "Serb dominated" for whatever that is taken to mean. The other thing that you have to consider is, if BBC is not reliable, what is? They have contributed to anti-Croatian propaganda as well, especially when they were compiling their essays to discredit Ante Gotovina. But the only news sources where one would find an alternative picture is HTV (Croatian television), and as things are, BBC and similar networks have the upper hand on this website. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What are your arguments about? It does say "Serb dominated" is false. --windyhead (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh ffs, it was indeed Serb-dominated since after the anti-bureaucratic Revolution Serbian party chief Slobodan Milošević controlled the majority of the votes. That is one of the most basic pieces of information, well known and undoubtedly correct. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
If the source doesn't mention that, neither the wikipedia article should. --windyhead (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Its not a controversial point, its a basic fact, and it also follows from the text itself. Its not something to debate or dispute.
The congress was dominated by the League of Communists of Serbia, led by Milošević, who controlled the majority of the votes and blocked almost all proposals from the opposing two party branches - thus ruining the largest, militarily most potent, diplomatically most influential, and economically most significant country of the Balkans peninsula :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Um I'm not sure how much you've actually studied that particular congress, but the main point of disagreement at that session was how multi-party free elections would be conducted in the country. The Serbian bloc led by Milosevic and recieving the majority of votes in the Congress argued that the first elections should be held nationally at the federal level with the entire country voting for one president and electing a federal government. The Croatian/Slovenian block insisted that elections be held at the republican level and then for whoever wins in those elections to meet at a presidency and preserve the Tito-style presidency. The majority of the members of the LCY sided with the Serbian bloc and wanted elections at the federal level. When the Slovenes saw they couldn't push their proposal they simply walked out, followed by the Croatians later. In all honesty, that was the biggest, stupidest decision they could have done and with that act probably contributed most to the break-up of Yugoslavia. If they had accepted federal elections first, then no candidate in those elections could have won without advocating a pro Yugoslav platform and most likely Ante Markovic would have emerged as president. Instead, the Slovenes and Croats walked out, held their own republican elections and put in power separatist leaders which from then onward made it their goal to transform the country from a regular federation into six seperate countries in a loose confederation...something that de-facto meant ending Yugoslavia, and something that Serbs outside of Serbia in Croatia and Bosnia could never accept. So I would say that it was the Slovenian and Croatian leaders decisions to walk out of that Congress that eneded the most prosperous country of the Balkans...and not Milosevic's insistence that elections be held at the federal level Yugo91aesop (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Kosovo war

There is only one reference to the Kosovo War and it doesn't mention the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.110.175 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo War 1998-1999 should be mentioned because it was a part of a wider process of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Here are some sources that Kosovo War was part of Yugoslav Wars:

--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Partiality

This article is very partial--Stebunik (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Kosovo war is part of the much larger Serbian-Albanian conflict, which is much older than the Yugoslav Wars, started long before the 1990s, and is still not fully resolved. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?

Let's settle this matter once and for all. Many have voiced their disagreement and opposition to remove Kosovo War from Yugoslav Wars, and I'm one of them. So a vote would be the best way to settle this issue. My argument, besides the fact that it is a part of Yugoslav Wars in virtually every other language on wikipedia, is that even the ICTY included it in its jurisdiction: the three Milosevic charges (wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) were united into one single indictment [2]. This clearly shows that you can not look at Kosovo War as being apart from Yugoslav Wars, but as part of the whole conflict.

There were also many other excellent observations for this argument used in previous discussions. Now, User:DIREKTOR seems like an intelligent person and his argument is that Kosovo was part of the Serbian-Albanian conflict instead. However, I think he made a small misconception in his conclusion in this case. Namely, according to that deduction, Serbian occupation of Albania in 1912 was then not part of the First Balkan War. But obviously, it was. You also have the First Sino-Japanese War and the Second Sino-Japanese War, which are both part of the Sino-Japanese conflict. Yet, the second one is also considered part of World War II, and not apart from it. So I would suggest for Kosovo War to be part of Serbian-Albanian conflict AND Yugoslav Wars. I do not understand why it can or should not be part of both. Either category is not exclusive.

So, let's vote. Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, what would be the point? People are not going to agree simply because you manage to swing enough votes here. The idea that the Kosovo War in 2000 somehow contributed to the dissolution of Yugoslavia is farcical at best, and a purely (Kosovar) Albanian concept. It is a minority view in the scientific community. Yugoslavia broke-up in 1992.
The Yugoslav Wars are conflicts surrounding the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943-1992). Yugoslavia broke-up, starting the Yugoslav Wars, which lasted up to 1995. The Kosovo War started as late as 2001 according to some researchers, no less than ten years after SFR Yugoslavia disintegrated and after six years of peace had already passed after the Yugoslav Wars were concluded. The point is that the Kosovo War has nothing to do with Yugoslavia, but is instead an internal conflict within the Republic of Serbia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Small correction regarding Kosovo War, 1998-1999. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes well as I said I'm sure every single Albanian user on this wiki is likely to "vote" yes here regardless of the facts, I just do not see how anyone could possibly think that these sort of "votes" will change the article in any way - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Don't let me stop you though... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not like there was never a case of different opinions discussed to reach a consensus over a matter on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves): You have, for example, the Golden hamster debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golden_hamster#Requested_Move_July_2010) or the White Rabbit debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Rabbit#Requested_move), all of which can serve as the example how wiki users support or oppose some issues in the article.

"The idea that the Kosovo War in 2000 somehow contributed to the dissolution of Yugoslavia is farcical at best, and a purely (Kosovar) Albanian concept. It is a minority view in the scientific community. Yugoslavia broke-up in 1992."

Now that you mention the issue of majority and minority of scientific community, the notion that Kosovo War is not part of Yugoslav Wars is a minority view in the scientific community. Do I even need to again point to the majority of the scientific community that views it as part of Yugoslav Wars? ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Dr. Craig Nation perfectly summed it up when he commented: "Everything started with Kosovo and everything will finish with Kosovo" ([8], page 223). By removing Kosovo, you remove the final conclusion to the whole conflict.

"The Yugoslav Wars are conflicts surrounding the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943-1992). Yugoslavia broke-up, starting the Yugoslav Wars, which lasted up to 1995. The Kosovo War started as late as 2001 according to some researchers, no less than ten years after SFR Yugoslavia disintegrated and after six years of peace had already passed after the Yugoslav Wars were concluded".

Almost impossible that the Kosovo War started in 2001, and we both know it. The fact that you even place it that late makes me seriously question your expertise about the issue. Serbs even place the start of the war in 1996 when the KLA started to operate ([9]). Also - not that Yugoslav Wars are somehow magically only limited to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and not to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - but in September 1991, a referendum on independence for Kosovo was organized. The referendum achieved a reported 90% turnout among the province's Albanians, and a 98% vote—nearly a million votes in all—which approved the creation of an independent Republic of Kosovo. Ergo, Kosovo also broke up from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991, around the same time as Croatia and Slovenia. The war was just a delayed reaction. The only difference is that Yugoslav forces managed to hush up the independence movement for a couple of years, but not for long. Also, in 1999, Kosovo was de facto taken away from Yugoslavia. Kosovo's declaration of independence was just a formality 9 years later (This shows that it was the final nail in the coffin of the Yugoslav state. The break-up came in at least two stages (1991-1992 and 1999-2003). After it, Yugoslavia barely held for a few years until 2003, when it collapsed as a political union called the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, even that collapsed).

Again, why can the Kosovo War simply not be a part of both Serbian-Albanian conflict AND Yugoslav Wars?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can, of course, it just isn't. The few authors who do perhaps consider it as such are a notable minority. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, there is something called Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. When you claim something, I can not just simply take your word for it because "it just isn't so". That's just arbitrarily. If someone would simply claim that Zeppo Marx is not a member of the Marx brothers and remove him from the article about them, he or she should better have a very good source for it. So please, present us here with the majority of sources that Kosovo War is only and exclusively part of the Serbian-Albanian conflict, which started way back in 1912. Feel free to post as many sources as you wish.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"This is pointless vote. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY You cannot outvote fact that Yugoslavia broke up in 1992. I reject this false vote."
Once again, this is not about the Yugoslav break-up, but about the Yugoslav Wars. They are not synonymous. And I once again point out to Wikipedia:No original research, i.e., you need reliable sources when you claim something. Numerous sources were given that it is part of the Yugoslav Wars, none yet that it is a seperate part of Serb-Albanian conflict. One definition of Yugoslav Wars that I found was: "The Yugoslav wars were a series of violent conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia that went on in the 1990s. They comprised two series of successive wars affecting all of the six former Yugoslav republics"[10].--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just recently checked again if I'm crazy or not, and even Encarta lists the Kosovo War as part of Yugoslav Wars. This again shows that my request for clarification is valid. Also, just take a look at infobox for Yugoslav Wars: DIREKTOR himself edited it and tolerated Kosovo War as part of Yugoslav Wars [11], until he suddenly, without any explanation, started deleting it from the list in January 2010. So, what gives?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

YES

--Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Kosovo was part of the Yugoslav Wars. As far as we know, the international press, writers and scholars classify the 1998-1999 Kosovo War as the last of the Yugoslav Wars, which culminated with the direct intervention of NATO led by Bill Clinton against Milosevic’s Serbia, resulting in the pullout of Serb forces from Kosovo and the subsequent overthrow of Milosevic in 2000, ending the cycle of wars that began wen Slovenia and Croatia decided to separate from Yugoslavia in mid-1991.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is part of Yugoslav Wars, as well as clashes in Preshevo Valley and Macedonia (1999-2001). I do not propose it, but on my logic, those wars which included Albanian inhabitants are third phase of Yugoslav wars- first phase ended with cease-fire on January 1991 (between Yugoslavia and Croatia, war in Slovenia was over at large), second included whole War in Bosnia and end of War in Croatia.
  • Obviously Yugoslavia was not done being broken up. Int21h (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the lead of the article does not say anywhere that its scope is limited to military conflicts which ended with the breakup of Yugoslavia (it only says that it covers the time period between 1991 and 1995, which is arbitrary at best and which clashes with DIREKTOR's argument anyway - Bosnia and Herzegovina was an independent country by 1992 so I guess Bosnian War does not belong here either according to that view). On the other hand, the infobox says that the result was "new countries independent" - and since we might consider Republic of Kosovo a country which is still in the process of gaining full international recognition, an opposing view might be that Yugoslav wars are still going on. I disagree with both possible interpretations. Because fact of the matter is that almost everything ever published on the subject that I've ever read (as well as ICTY) considers the Kosovo War as part of the same chain of events - the events in Kosovo in 1989 and Milošević's rise to power were directly responsible for kickstarting the events which led to Slovenia's Ten-Day War in 1991, which then spilled into Croatia's 1991-95 and then culminated in Bosnia's 1992-95 war. The Kosovo War which began three years later (although the events leading up to it began much earlier) marked the end of Milošević's reign and directly led to his overthrow in 2000. You cannot talk about the rise of nationalism throughout the country in the early 1990s without mentioning Kosovo and you cannot talk about the entire period without delineating it chronologically with Milošević's rise and fall. This is how historians interpret it, this is how they will continue to interpret it, and this is how we should interpret it. Copious amounts of sources corroborating this can be made available upon request. Timbouctou (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed this only now... on a similar note, I only recently noticed that the Timeline of Yugoslav breakup had been split at April 1992. This made it incoherent and contrary to the description at Breakup of Yugoslavia, so I reverted that change. I think we should all agree that the Yugoslavia being talked about - did break up relatively early (~1991). But, that doesn't mean that the same processes and events abruptly stopped. Not only a lot of critical stuff happen after SFRY became dysfunctional, but there was still a Yugoslavia in existence, which in turn had inherited not all but certainly some critical SFRY issues - Kosovo is the prime example. Granted, in the end, it wasn't AP Kosovo that declared independence from SFR Yugoslavia, and the whole thing protracted up to 2008, so that's a bit of a stretch. Yet, the war was nearly contiguous - to remind, easternmost parts of Croatia were still in transition in '97 and early '98 - so to completely avoid describing it as one of the Yugoslav wars seems pretty arbitrary. In general, I'm in favor of describing the entire context, so a section about the Kosovo war in this article is necessary, even if we don't describe it as a fully integral part (in the lead section). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

NO

This is pointless vote. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY You cannot outvote fact that Yugoslavia broke up in 1992. I reject this false vote. --Tadijaspeaks 18:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Is Kosovo War part of Yugoslav Wars?" epilogue

I've restored a note of Kosovo to the lead. Maybe the rest of the removal edit should be reverted, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the article "Serbian–Albanian conflict" was deleted on 7 February 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian–Albanian conflict. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joy, Kosovo War should be included back into the info box. Scroll up. You will see numerous sources and opinions supporting that move. As opposed to only one user who denies its entry. If we look at Yugoslav Wars as Wars for Independence from Yugoslavia, Kosovo fits in perfectly.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead and help, you don't need me to do it :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Albania?

Since when does Albania have to do with Yugoslavia? There was never a recall of war there aand since it wasn't part of Yugoslavija, it doesn't have any relevance. 68.202.26.86 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see this mention of Albania? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:M84a slovenija.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:M84a slovenija.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:M84a slovenija.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo war

We've had an anonymous editor try to undo this consensus based on "ancient hatreds and turbulent history". I don't think that's an appropriate assessment lacking any sources here. Given that Kosovo War#Before the War doesn't list any sources for its vague description of early causes, and generally starts talking with references since the 1980s, I see little reason to doubt the assessment of Kosovo War as one of the wars resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, a random google search through Serbian sources gives me:
  • u zemljama bivše Jugoslavije, u najtežim trenucima građanskih ratova 1991 – 1995. NSPM
  • spomenik žrtvama ratova na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije od 1990. do 1999. Politika, NIN
  • spomen ploču koja je podignuta u sećanje na srpske žrtve stradale u ratovima od 1991-2000. godine na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije RTS Pravda
  • Problemi na Kosovu i Metohiji mogu se shvatiti, i rešiti, samo u kontekstu procesa koji su zahvatili bivšu Jugoslaviju 1990/91: [...] Ratna pozornica se pomerala od Slovenije preko Hrvatske do Bosne i Hercegovine, i najzad zahvatila Kosovo i Metohiju. a University of Belgrade professor of international law
  • Raspad Jugoslavije, ratovi sa bivšim republikama, međunarodna izolacija i bombardovanje od strane Nato pakta 1999. obeležili su srpsko društvo [devedesetih godina]. a University of Niš assistant professor
I'm not inclined to believe that the consensus in Serbia is that the 1999 stuff is distinct from the 1991 stuff. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Joy, practically every single historical event in ex-Yugoslavia from here on end will most likely be able to be characterized, at least in some way, as having to do with the breakup of Yugoslavia. You could probably also trace them all to the Ottoman-Habsburg wars, or the fall of the Roman Empire.
The IP editor is actually quite correct, though he may have expressed himself in an unfortunate manner. The Serbian-Albanian conflict in Kosovo is, historically, a larger and longer conflict than the Yugoslav Wars. That is not to say that the Yugoslav Wars and the Serbian-Albanian conflict are entirely unrelated, but if anything, the former can be considered a sub-topic of the latter, rather than vice versa. The Breakup of Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav Wars themselves, can be considered in great part a consequence of the Serbian-Albanian conflict in Kosovo. The Serbian-Albanian conflict long predates the Breakup of Yugoslavia, and its serious escalation began in the 1980s (as a consequence of the 1974 constitution, and after the death of Tito), but well before the Breakup of Yugoslavia even loomed on the horizon.
However one must also distinguish between the Serbian-Albanian conflict in general, and the specific confrontation dubbed the "Kosovo War" (1998-99). The Kosovo War and the breakup of Yugoslavia are not directly related. They're only related in as much as they both stem (one in part, one entirely) from the Serbian-Albanian conflict. The Serbian-Albanian conflict partially caused the Breakup of Yugoslavia, and the Breakup of Yugoslavia caused the three Yugoslav Wars. And the Serbian-Albanian conflict caused the Kosovo War. The weak connection from one to the other does not justify listing them all under the same category. I find that incredibly simplistic.
The Breakup of Yugoslavia did not cause the Serbian-Albanian conflict (which caused the Kosovo War), or in any way precipitate the Kosovo War directly ("bypassing" the more general Serbian-Albanian conflict). Rather the inverse is true: the weak and indirect connection between them stems from the Serbian-Albanian conflict precipitating the Breakup of Yugoslavia (among other major factors of course). -- Director (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion - unreferenced for years now?! - that the Serbian-Albanian conflict is so general to warrant disconnecting the Kosovo War from the rest of the Yugoslav wars. There is a historic aspect to that war, sure, but that doesn't change the straightforward and widespread perception that Kosovo War as such cannot be extracted from the process of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Kosovo was continuously disturbed before and during the first Yugoslav wars, what with the coup and the strikes and the perpetual state of emergency and the first declaration of independence, and the first guerillas, providing a prelude to war and a connection to SFRY that is a bit more drawn out but certainly no less strong than the road blockades and declarations of autonomy and various armed incidents and rioting that preceded the Croatian independence referendum and then the rest of that war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying that "the Serbian-Albanian conflict is so general to warrant disconnecting the Kosovo War from the rest of the Yugoslav wars". That is a straw man. This is not an issue of the Serbian-Albanian conflict being "general". I am saying that the Serbian-Albanian conflict does not stem from the Breakup of Yugoslavia, but that it was going on, in earnest(!), well before the Breakup of Yugoslavia started (and by that I mean the early to mid-1980s). In fact, not only does it predate it, but the conflict in Kosovo is one of the direct causes of the Breakup of Yugoslavia. And that is really a generally-known fact ("niko ne sme da vas bije!").
Speaking of sources, do you have a scholarly source that explicitly states the Kosovo War was part of the "Yugoslav Wars"? Surely you're not expecting me to prove that it wasn't? And I hope you're not serious in referring to the above as a "WP:CONSENSUS". -- Director (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR, you are a very diligent user here on Wikipedia, yet for some reason you often play the „amnesia game“. If you want sources, scroll up, we already had this conversation and I am not going through this deja-vu topic every six months. Stop going round in circles. Some historians do not consider Kosovo War as part of the Yugoslav Wars – while others do. Therefore, it can be included in order to give a complete picture.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please quote the source, so we can see exactly what it says. Complete with page number. There is no question that the Kosovo War and the Yugoslav wars are indirectly related, as both stem from the Serbian-Albanian conflict in Kosovo. The ethnic tensions stemming from that conflict can be considered one of the direct causes of the Breakup of Yugoslavia, and hence the Yugoslav Wars. The Kosovo War in the sense it has on Wikipedia (i.e. the 1998-99 military conflict) cannot be considered as part of the wars stemming from the breakup of SFR Yugoslavia. Since there are hundreds and thousands of sources on this subject, I would like to see at least a several sources explicitly make such a claim - otherwise, even if some exist, they could reasonably fall under WP:FRINGE. To be clear, I'd like to see sources that explicitly list the Kosovo War as part of the "Yugoslav Wars", with "Kosovo War" meaning what it does on Wikipedia: the 1998-99 war.
Note on terminology: "Yugoslavia" (without further clarification) in this context means SFR Yugoslavia, not Serbia and Montenegro. If you wish to refer to Serbia and Montenegro by its older name, please disambiguate by using the term "FR Yugoslavia". -- Director (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
BBC: The Croatian war claimed some 20,000 lives, the Bosnian war 100,000 and the Kosovo war some 10,000... Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and to a lesser extent other parts of the former Yugoslavia, are all still struggling with the legacies of the Yugoslav wars. Also, scroll up, way back to July 2010.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That looks like WP:OR to me. I am not really interested in implied meanings. As I said, I would like to see sources that explicitly state the Kosovo War (1998-99) is considered a part of the "Yugoslav Wars". Don't tell me to "scroll up", just please provide a brief quotation from a scholarly source, along with a page number. That's all. And if you'd like to demonstrate WP:FRINGE does not apply, more than one would be good. -- Director (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read the fine article that already lists several references for the claim, and stop all this wiki-lawyering. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Its not wikilawyering, Joy. There simply appear to be that many problems with the claim. I contend that no source in reality supports the claim that the 1998-99 conflict is part of anything called the "Yugoslav Wars". I believe that the sources listed in support are similar to the above quotation: misrepresented and OR. It just makes no sense at all. The Yugoslav Wars stem directly from the dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia, and are a part of it, whereas the Kosovo War has no direct relation to that event. Furthermore, you fellas added it into the article in spite of opposition and without consensus. Users expressed opposition, and you just waited a while for them to go away and added your changes anyway. -- Director (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no this is not WIKIPEDIA:OR, you should know better, DIREKTOR, you are longer active here than me. OR says that If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The BBC link I provided is one source, not a combination of sources A and B to reach some third conclusion. Now you are taking this so far that you even claim that BBC is original research. Since I am in a good mood today, I will also give you one last proof: Yugoslav Wars by Nigel Thomas, p. 47 directly mentions the Kosovo conflict. So please, give it a rest already and focus your energy on writing something more useful on Wikipedia than this topic.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line, J&A, is that your quotation has nothing to say about the 1998-99 Kosovo War, it just vaguely lists Kosovo as one the areas affected by the Yugoslav Wars, which it certainly was being part of FR Yugoslavia. There was no war in Serbia or Montenegro, yet they are listed there as well. Its a misquoted source. As for the Osprey book:
  • 1) it does not actually state (or at least I couldn't find any such statement) that the Kosovo War was part of the Yugoslav Wars. You "extrapolated" that (OR) from the book's contents and title.
  • 2) its not really a serious scholarly publication anyway, by which I naturally mean a peer review publication. Its 50 pages, for heaven's sake, and it reads like an elementary school textbook.
Since this is your claim, surely you can find one scholar or author that actually states that the Kosovo War was a part of the Yugoslav Wars. Let's be serious here. Do you have some real research behind that or not? And please stop requesting that I go away. I should probably revert the non-consensus addition of the Kosovo War here forthwith, but I am waiting to see whether there are some real sources behind it. -- Director (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No, now you are making stuff up. The BBC link does not just list areas affected by Yugoslav Wars, it lists wars. The above is just your interperation to circumvent the source. And yes, there were wars in Serbia and Montenegro since they were both the target of NATO strikes in 1999. And no, the number of pages not relevant (though the book by Nigel Thomas is just volume II, there is also volume I), the only relevant thing is that the Kosovo conflict is listed as part of the Wars in the former Yugoslavia. Don't you see what you are doing? You are ignoring sources. German [13] and French [14] sources also agree. Finally, just read the article. And go to references no. 4, 5 & 6 – they all also confirm the same.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The BBC link says "Kosovo is still struggling with the legacies of the Yugoslav wars". It also lists Serbia, and Montenegro, as "struggling". It is absolutely preposterous to claim that this somehow indicates that the Kosovo War (1998-99) was a part of the Yugoslav Wars. Wishful thinking.
  • The other source you listed does not state the Kosovo War was a part of the Yugoslav Wars. You deduced that claim from the title of the book and its contents. The book makes no such claim.
Am I to understand you have no scholarly source that actually states, in any way, that the Kosovo War was one of the "Yugoslav Wars"? You seemed to indicate there is a multitude of sources in your support. Could you please quote just one statement of that sort, so one can see it isn't OR and wishful thinking like the above. -- Director (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you are once again trying to detach yourself from an argument. And in doing so, you are dangerously starting to get close to a troll. If Kosovo War is not part of the Yugoslav Wars, why does the BBC link mention it in context with Croatian war and Bosnian war? If Kosovo had nothing to do with Yugoslav Wars, why does it have to struggle with the legacies of Yugoslav Wars? Why would Mr. Thomas include Kosovo in his book about Yugoslav Wars? According to you, he might have thrown in the Iraq War while he is at it. :-) Again, really, but really, just read the article here on Wikipedia. And go to references no. 4, 5 & 6 – they all also confirm the same.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
First you're telling me to go away, then you're calling me a "troll". Please learn what that means and discuss properly. So far, you've only behaved in a rather condescending manner while constantly posting links that only deepen my suspicions regarding your allegations of having sourced your claim. Maybe we're reading different things, but references 4, 5, and 6 do not have anything to say whatsoever on the question of whether the Kosovo War was part of the Yugoslav Wars. I am inclined to believe this is "one of those things"..
As for the rest of your post, I am not at all interested in your deductions and conclusions. You're saying "oh they must mean this or that". You're interpreting the sources, and we call that WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I already explained that the Kosovo War is indirectly related to the Yugoslav Wars, but that I challenge your claim that it is one of the Yugoslav Wars. I would like to see a single statement from a source that supports said claim directly and explicitly. "Explicitly" means no nonsense OR extrapolations, deductions and conclusions of your own - just a statement. It doesn't have to be in a single sentence, mind you, that's not what I'm saying, but I will require a source that isn't OR or I'll be reverting the non-consensus edits on this article (and, by my count, there are at least three users that oppose them). -- Director (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your reference-less argument has so far failed to convince at least half a dozen good-faith editors over a period of several years. I don't have better suggestions other than giving up or actually finding sources to explicitly back your claim, which isn't impossible, rather than continue to do this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not require sources, Joy. You are the one making a positive claim, and one that appears to be completely without references ("reference-less"). The WP:BURDEN is squarely on your shoulders.
As I've repeated numerous times already, the three references I included in the article support the said claim. If you want to refute it, just provide one or more references supporting the contrary position - for example, a book that describes the Yugoslav wars up until 1995 only, or similar. That shouldn't be particularly hard. Then we can compare those sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Your advocacy of said claim is noted, but please stop with these rhetorical tactics. In addition to apparently being based on misquoted sources, the edit you support was added against opposition from several users, without consensus. My best suggestion to you and J&A would be to post a real source. Not some nonsense OR about "Kosovo and Serbia and Montenegro etc. still struggling with the legacies of the Yugoslav wars". Are you serious, Joy?
You're a responsible Wikipedian, and yet are promoting a point of view that apparently has no real sources to its name. Am I wrong? Well then please point to a sentence or paragraph or page where an author unambiguously indicates, in whichever way, that the Kosovo War is one of the Yugoslav Wars. -- Director (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
@"the three references I included in the article support the said claim." That's the whole point. No, they do not. Or at least, I cannot conceive as to how they do. Could you be so kind as to help me understand why you believe so? That's all I've been asking this whole thread. -- Director (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

DIRECTOR, your extraneous messages on this topic make you seem more and more like a troll, whether you realize it or not. I posed you three simple questions and you failed to anwser any of them. You fell into the trap yourself when you admitted that Kosovo is still struggling with the legacies of Yugoslav Wars: why would Kosovo be affected by the Croatian war or Bosnian war? And again, why would Mr. Thomas include the Kosovo conflict in his book Yugoslav Wars? Do you seriously do not understand or are just pretending not to understand?

All those three sources in the article - and here, too - talk about the Kosovo conflict in the same context with the wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. Whether you wants to call them, Yugoslav Wars, Wars of Yugoslav Seccession, Wars of Yugoslav Disintegration, Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s or Balkan Wars, all these sources list those four wars as part of a wider conflict. The ICTJ link is particularly striking - "Slovenia’s declaration of independence from the Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991 marked the start of the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia. Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) followed suit. The fighting between Slovenia and the Yugoslav People’s Army lasted only 10 days, but the brutal wars fought in Croatia and BiH (begun in 1991 and 1992 respectively) dragged on until 1995. Fighting in Kosovo lasted from 1998 to 1999." What is it that you do not understand in that publication? The BBC link, those three sources and these all mention the same context.

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo...Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo....Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo...Notice a pattern, DIRECTOR? Does that tell you something?

All in all, there some 69,400 hits in google books alone for the words "Yugoslav Wars 1991 1999" https://www.google.hr/#hl=hr&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=Cd-0T-DKLYPLsgbtycywDA&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=yugoslav+wars+1991+1999&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f9104e55b5a8b1d9&biw=956&bih=550

Please, stop embarssing yourself. I suggest we delete this whole topic for your own sake.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:OR. The Kosovo War and Yugoslav Wars are indirectly related, no question. But compiling some sort of list of all the places you could possibly find that mention them in the same context - does not indicate they are one and the same.
I did not answer your questions since they are completely without relevance, and are perfect, textbook examples of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is. You are not conveying the position of the source, you are trying to draw conclusions from the source - and are attempting to convince me of the accuracy of said OR conclusions by asking me rhetorical questions. They are irrelevant in and of themselves since they're meant to convince me of the validity of your OR.
I shall repeat myself for the fifth time: do you have a source that actually states, in any, that the Kosovo War was part of the Yugoslav Wars. And please, do refrain from posting more links and whatnot that do not state anything of the sort. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard This topic is now in the hands of users who are willing to give a third opinion on the matter.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

JFTR, there was no new conclusion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 30#Yugoslav_Wars-Kosovo_War, and I don't see that anyone has disputed Nigel Thomas as a source. An anonymous user has kept censoring the Kosovo War without sources, which I've rolled back as abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo? Macedonia? LAPMB?

Ok I think it is totally ridiculous that Kosovo is a part of the Yugoslav Wars. Macedonia? Are you joking me? That is incredibly unnecessary to think that Macedonia itself was a part of the war... Yugoslav Wars were Yugoslavs fighting for keeping the Yugoslavia together, then it switched to Serbs having Serb populated and historically Serb areas under Serbian rule. It was Serbia against Bosnia and Croatia. The Kosovo War, Preševo Valley and the Macedonian war were all different with Serbs and Macedonians against the Albanians, who wanted to form a Greater Albania with territories from Serbia, and Macedonia and in the future, Montenegro and Greece. So it's a whole different story and context. If consensus is used for it... Then please brace yourself with criticism from other people who are trying to contribute. 70.118.102.247 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

http://libcom.org/history/yugoslavia-wage-cuts-war-wildcat

This link says "Posted By Spaßmaschine Aug 25 2009 08:49". What could possibly make you think that it is a reliable source? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.librarything.com/subject/Yugoslav+War,+1991-1995

LibraryThing is a user-edited site that anyone can contribute too. Same question? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4676227261370202745

An anonymously posted video with nothing more than a clearly slanted introduction. Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=CV%2FSubject%2FYugoslav%20War%20(1991-1995)

Finally something at least resembling sources. This link brings up a series of interviews with British diplomat David Burns and a European Commission speech by British politician Neil Kinnock. For the first set, there's links to online versions, but you have to actually cite them if they're supposed to be treated as sources for your claim. I clicked through to the first, and in [15] that is [16] found numerous references to e.g. Kosovo and no clear reference to the Yugoslav wars ending in 1995. So what exactly is this supposed to prove? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Yugoslav+War%2C+1991-1995+--+Atrocities%22

This is apparently a registered "subject" at the Internet Archive, which is also apparently a user-edited site. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I am reverting your editing of earlier today, because such removal of copy must first be discussed here. It is not sufficient to write what you have above, and at the same time, plough into the article in such an antagonising manner.
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How did I use an antagonizing manner? I was speaking my mind and I put sources on there. 70.118.102.247 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've disputed all of the "sources" above. Please read WP:IRS and WP:SYNTH. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, whatever... So any source I put in you would not accept, good job... You should be proud. No wonder you have many people criticizing your actions. I think you are a nationalist with heavy POV. 70.118.102.247 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, how does Presevo and Macedonia become a part of the war? That is incredibly stupid, and heavily POV'd. I don't think you know anything about this toopic at all. 70.118.102.247 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.kosovo.net/batak3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.102.247 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:IRS, it explains what kind of sources are reliable and what kind of sources aren't. I actually agree that Preševo and Macedonia are corner cases; they're mentioned as such in the text, but I don't see a reason to include them in the infobox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

SFRY

There is a flag of SFRY but it is not presented as one of belligerents.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The flag of SFRY has been replaced with logo of its army (diff), although SFRY is still not presented as one of belliberents.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Could we simplify the giant infobox? At the moment, it's completely unmanageable. I understand the temptation to add every detail to something that's supposed to be a summary (that's why controversial articles often have huge ledes), but I don't see how this benefits readers. bobrayner (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Yugoslav Wars → Yugoslav wars – Not a proper name, but a descriptive title. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC) No such user (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - strictly speaking, it actually is used as a proper noun with an initial capital for "Wars", per this. There are quite a few academic sources there that use the proper noun version, and even a few that use "Yugoslav Wars of Secession". This may be one of those things that is changing as time passes. At present, I believe the argument that this is a WP:NDESC instead of the common name hasn't been made. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I agree with Peacemaker, the term started being used as a descriptive title, but by now it became used as a proper noun for that war. FkpCascais (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not about Yugoslav wars in general (and there were other, e.g. in the 1940s), but about a specific group of wars called the "Yugoslav Wars". —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    While I can accept (not necessarily agree with) the above arguments that the expression has became a proper noun by means of usage, not every group of items becomes one just by virtue of being specific and finite. Besides, the war of 1940s has never been called (or even referred to as) 'a Yugoslav war'. No such user (talk)
    I agree that being specific and finite is generally not enough to make a proper noun/name (e.g., cities of Germany). However, in some cases, there are exceptions where a plural noun refers to a group considered unique (e.g., the American Great Lakes). The world war article at Wikipedia illustrates this well. The title is a common name but there is a section of the article with the redirect from the proper name "World Wars" dealing with WWI and WWII only. (Also, cf. Punic Wars, English Wars) The term "Gunboat War" is neither specific nor finite but it is a term used for a unique war and is therefore a proper name. In the case at hand, "Yugoslav Wars" is similarly used for specific, finite, and unique group of wars (which, as an aside, can be heard with the subtle shift of syllable stress from "wars" to "YUgo" in a typical sentence like with "white house" vs. "White House"). —  AjaxSmack  14:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, walk victor falk talk 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support while there are some sources that use this name as a proper noun, this ngram shows that they are nowhere predominant enough to justify the current title. This together with WP:TITLEFORMAT (to ease hypertexting, as this title is highly likely to be used in running text) strongly motivates a move. walk victor falk talk 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. This is about a specific series of conflicts, so it should be treated as a proper noun. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Peacemaker67 and AjaxSmack. 23 editor (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is prejudiced

Not only is this article prejudiced, but Balkan based "admin" from Croatia is bullying editors who do not share his nationalistic worldview, and even does not allow for a POV tag to stick on this horrible article. The article has many problems:

  • Coverage is biased, and is from Croatian POV.
  • "Facts" are skewed, and pictures are inserted that favour their POV.

Problems abound, but the clique of editors and admins with conflict of interest do not allow any review of article that they think they own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.221.171 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please present a modicum of sources that support your claims. Otherwise, kindly stop with this abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
abuse comes from you. You not only remove talk comments from other people, POV tags, but push your bias under auspices of your admin status in articles where you have conflict of interest. Bullying, using false pretenses and pushing anonimous users from Serbia away. THAT is great amount of abuse, and apparently is your manner, your behavior and "intimidating" attitude is neat example of worst kind of power abuse. 213.198.221.171 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
These insulting accusations are patently false, as can be verified from page histories. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The article does not have all perspective. It is not balance or neutral. Macedonians had also been in war in 2001, also in 1991 when Croat strangulate JNA Macedonian soldier in Split. In Macedonia this is when war starts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malomomce (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems distinguishing between past and present

Hi,
Why are people FkpCascais and the usual IP address editing this article to say that Kosovo is, rather than was, a province of Serbia? Surely everybody knows that Kosovo declared independence years ago...? bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you, trying to be funny? In the map it is mentioned Vojvodina and Kosovo. Vojvodina was and still is part of Serbia, and Kosovo declared independence, but half of countries of the world still regard it as part of Serbia, so by all means 3/4 of the case is closer to "are" than "were". So the only one here pushing a POV and failing to recognize reality of 2014 and complexity, is you. One sincere question: you are so partisan allways about it, (even more than Kosovo-Albanian editors themselves!) are you being paid for editing Kosovo subjects just the way Albanian nationalist want? Because if you are you should step out of this subjects right away. FkpCascais (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not paid; I'm competent. If you cannot understand the difference, you should stop stalking me. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I came across this stale discussion, however I feel I should point out that NOT recognising a country's independence does NOT mean you agree with the alternative claim. Silence can mean 100 things other than agreeing with the alternative.Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arms embargo

The arms embargo section seems largely reliant on a single source and is phrased fairly strongly. I am certain 'sanction busting' happened, however statements like 'United Kingdom sent military equipment' could mean the 'UK Government facilitated sales', it could mean 'UK-manufactured military equipment was sent', or even 'UK-based arms dealers sent military equipment'. Such sweeping (and unclear and unqualified) statements seem pretty dangerous on the strength of one (non-mainstream) source.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that that material would benefit from a wider range of references, including academic sources if possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yugoslav Wars. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Wars/Archive_4&oldid=1137341627"