Talk:Drenica massacres

problem with sources

There are no really reliable sources in this article - the first one is to a site of BBC h2g2 project which is a collaborative online encyclopedia. The second one is to a site that explicitly names Kosova Crisis Center site (http://www.alb-net.com/index.htm) as its only source, so anything taken from that site should be attributed properly. Alæxis_¿question? 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Both Albanian and Serbian are legitimate to use in proper context (eg according to Albanian sources) but only neutral (third party) and reliable sources could be used as a objective view.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

of course. Alæxis_¿question? 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

source for term

The next question is what neutral and reliable sources call this incident a massacre. Alæxis_¿question? 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Drenica Massacres (Human Right Watch) --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source. Alæxis_¿question? 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav - Serb

"Yugoslav" is a term fit only for the infobox for semi-official purposes. Other than that, "Serb" is the only term that can be used throughout the article as that is the term used by the sources i.e. please don't misrepresent the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, dont push you POV. This happened in 1998, Serbia is independent since 2006. Sources said Serb, but Serb ethnicity, in Yugoslavia, and not Serb forces from Serbia, as it exist today. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pushing the sources. If the sources say "Serb", I don't see why we shouldn't use "Serb". After all, Serb isn't wikilinked to Serbia, so why would anyone think that it's a reference to Serbia(2006-)?

Yugoslavia refers to the federal level. It controlled the army and whitewriter's point seems somewhat pedantic but valid with respect to the VJ. The police hoewver, fell under the administrative jurisdiction of Serbia, because Kosovo was a region of Serbia at that time. So when refering to the army its correct to say Yugoslav or VJ but when refering to the police and the MUP/SAJ/JSO/PJP units in Kosovo its correct to say Serbian. They were the forces of the Serbian state within the federal system and they reported through a different command chain that ended in the Serbian state rather than the Yugoslav federation at that time. This was the critical issue in the Milutinovic trial where VJ General Nebosja Pavkovic claimed that he had no idea what the Serbian police forces were up to in Kosovo because they reported directly to the Serbian state. He claimed that the VJ hadn't committed any crimes. Serbian police commander Sreten Lukic, meanwhile, claimed just the opposite which turned the case into a "cut throat" defence, made it much easier for the Prosecution, and they both were convicted. go figure.Epeos (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that, and that is the reason for my edit! We should not fall into that pit of questionable original research, as security forces belong to the state, and not to the nation. Special forces chain of order are presidential, and not federal! Exactly that is the reason. As that was not ordinary police, that is, by far, federal. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. so we agree that police forces are Serbian and VJ forces are Yugoslav. That is my understanding. Is that yours as well?Epeos (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Oh no. that's not right. I've understood you now. The PJP/SAJ/JSO were all nominally under the MUP. They were the special forces of the MUP. So when sources say special police they are referring to those units which officially reported to the Serbian state rather than the federal state. Yugoslav police has no meaning (other than the VJ military police units stationed around Kosovo). That isn't what the sources are talking about. When you talk about police forces you include special police forces that reported through MUP channels such as PJP/SAJ. I'm not sure what pit of original research you are talking about. that must be a comment for someone else?? There isn't anything radical in this. its all pretty straightforward stuff. I can track down the cites if you'd like... didn't think that distinction was a contentious issue...Epeos (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, again, police mentioned in this article was Yugoslav. Serbian police exist now, in country named Serbia, established in current from in 2006. Sources that mention Serbian police use that term as a second side from Albanian, and per fact that they didn't use term Yugoslav after 1992. But that was Yugoslav police of Serb ethnicity, so we should not use Serbian police as it may be linked to the current formations, that are not responsible for any of this. We have wiki guidelines about this, we must not follow blindly sources, per example i already explained in Talk:Battle of Glodjane. Anyway, i am going to sleep now, a bit stunned with the fact that several editors here have only one, very explicit agenda of editing. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

With the utmost respect I think you're wrong on this point. The source says Serbian Police forces at para 50 and in the appendix on page 301 it describes exactly what that means. We all have interests and agendas. That is part of being human.Epeos (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is more complex than everything hitherto discussed here, I appreciate that not every contributor is affiliated to the old Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and some others seem to have a problem comprehending the value of sources so I shall explain from top to bottom.

• 1. Source doesn't have monopoly over fact. Whilst a publication itself may be deemed reliable, it may not always be so that the author reports the facts correctly. For example, during the entire Yugoslav war period, media would use Yugoslavia and Serbia interchangeably. The reason is that the word "Serbia" came to constitute an unofficial title for FRY, this was down to Serbia being the by far larger unit, few people knowing much about Montenegro, and more importantly ethnic Serb struggles in neighbouring entities (ie. Bosnia and Croatia) for which it was far easier to say they were being helped by the eponymous country. Nowhere is such feature more evident than when many anchors, reporters and publishers spoke in 1999 (during Kosovo/NATO crisis) of Slobodan Milošević being the President of Serbia whereas the real accolade belonged to Milan Milutinović during that time.
• 2. Police in the FRY. Yes both republics had their own civilian police divisions, however, there did also exist a national unit (Yugoslav police) which in turn was by duty deployed in national emergencies - the police dealing with Kosovo answered directly to the central interior, a body comprising personnel from both Yugoslav republics.

Even so, the best way around it is to skirt the issue. Rather than saying "Serb" or "Yugoslav", you can say central forces, government police or just plain old police/authorities, there are lots of solutions. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Solution

I have found a UN source which mentions Serbian police and Yugoslav army on the same line. It looks as if it actually was a federal and not state police operation not only in Drenica but in the entire Kosovo conflict. I believe the best thing to do is restore the original references (Serbian) to police, with all else hinting at FRY institutions. I think a template similar to the Kosovo note would be good for this article and all others, one that can be placed on the first mention of Serbian police so that from there on, the term can be used liberally. The template should explain that in FRY arrangement, the two republics had separate police forces and that any Serbian police activity in Kosovo was as part of the government scheme. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drenica massacres. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011150718/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a837c,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a837c,0.html

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)