Talk:2004 unrest in Kosovo

Protection
This article is just a huge mess and it need like a complete editing. Furthermore I would make the suggestion to put this article under semi-protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks05ks (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

References Needed
I have placed tags Fact around several statistics and statements in the article.--A B XT • ៛ 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citing and dead links

 * "Between 150,000–250,000 Serbs and Roma fled the province in the immediate aftermath of the war." is backed by a.) a dead link and, b.) a link to a HRW report that dates 1999. The said unrest took place in 2004 -- if the apparent title isn't clear enough -- and I believe that due to these serious errors in citation and quite a large approximation, "150k to 250k", make very clear cases for a.) complete deletion of the sentence or, b.) revising to known information which in truth is unavailable at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.173.192 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary categories
I removed the following categories that do not belong to this article which has to do with year 2004: Thank you.  kedadi al  17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kosovo War (1998-1999)
 * Kosovo Liberation Army (1996-1999)
 * Terrorist attacks on places of worship (It was an unrest)
 * War crimes in former Yugoslavia (1991-1999)
 * Ethnic cleansing (There was no ethnic cleansing except Kostunica saying so; We need a RS for this)


 * This was Terrorist attacks on Serbian places of worship, and Ethnic cleansing was explained earlier. a lot more people told that. And even just Koštunica said so, he was respected president, so it is RS. --Tadija (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The label ethnic cleansing is not justified. Just because Kostunica says so it does not make it so. Also, there are many irresponsible politicians in the Balkans. Should we cite each of their absurd declarations here? I think that a term such as ethnic cleansing should pass a higher acceptance test than simply a statesman's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneofakindornot (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. Claims like these especially in the Balkans should be verifiable through various sources rather than just through the ramblings of one clearly emotionally involved polititian. 2A02:1210:26AD:8000:68D8:EB00:D66B:584F (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has mistakes
It is written that 8 Serbs were killed during the riots, but when one counts the number of the serbs reported as killed the number is suddenly 18. Since most of the reporting agrees that 8 Serbs were killed the other figures have to be corrected. Also the church in Prizren which is reported as being burned down is still standing and not destroyed but rather damaged at the entrance. Unë, ti, ai, ajo (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with TC. The number of deaths is inconsistent: 8 in the top right box and 18 in the article. The 18 in the article are not sourced. And there is a picture of a church in the article that is located in Croatia. What's the deal with that?? --Ylmuanima (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed wrongly referenced death numbers. Maybe somehow should be additionally clarified difference between sources: B92 says 19 Serbs, BBC says 28 people. Also, reference to church is corrected. There was redirection from general name - Church of Holy Salvation, to single church in Croatia - St. Saviour, Cetina.Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iricigor (talk • contribs)

People, like Tadija, have continued to introduce further mistakes. The BBC article was written at a time when there were no clear figures on the number of casualties, but the B92 one is more recent. Also, do you really think that a Serbian news agency (B92) would want to purposely portray the events as less tragic by lowering the number of victims? That would be absurd. That is why we should put the number of victims at 19, as B92, Amnesty and other sources claim, and not 28.

Also, at the beginning of the article the ethnicity of the people killed should be clearly stated (11 Albanians and 9 Serbs).

Finally, I do not see how this article belongs to the "Terrorist attacks on places of worship" category. We should remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneofakindornot (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oneofakindornot, your contributions were not good. B92 is talking about 19 Serbs, BBC says 28 people died in total. That's the difference. Also, I do not see how it makes sense to have statement "19 civilians were killed (11 ethnic Albanians and 9 ethnic Serbs)"--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Igor, you are wrong and Oneofakindornot was right. The B92 article reads "Eleven Albanians and eight Serbs were killed in the violence. " -- please check paragraph 4 below the picture in the B92 article. I think you should apologize for your error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.104.22 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And Oneofakindornot says 11+9, not 11+8. You are also just simply wrong. 11+9 is 20, not 19!--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iricigor (talk • contribs)
 * You are absolutely right, for that arithmetic error. I corrected it so that 19=11+8 now. Thanks.


 * Also, the references to the section Attacks on Kosovo Serb must be added as well. If there is a certain web site that specifies this, must be added as reference. Radu Gherasim (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've found |this related news wich says 4012 Serbs were expelled, 6 towns and 9 villages were ethnically cleansed, and 935 Serb houses and 10 public facilities, such as schools, healthcare centers and post offices, were burnt to the ground or severely damaged. What reference should we add or keep? Radu Gherasim (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Radu, B92 is a Serbian News Agency. Their sympathies lie with the Serbs on this unfortunate event and it is apparent that the sources they used (most likely Serbian due to ease of access to such data) were also skewed towards a less neutral stance. E.g.: It's like citing an IRA newspaper as a source for the total suffering of Northern Irish Catholics at the hands of Protestants - obviously skewed. My point is that there is a conflict of interests therein and that an independent source needs to be cited and should be referred to in the first place. Otherwise this article will end up in statements of flagrant disproportionalism due to both sides using whatever biased stats that they can provide a link to. Moreover, I am sure that there is not a shortage to verifiable and unbiased news sources as the event impacted not only Serbs and Albanians but international peace keeping troops as well not to mention that it saw a great amount of exposure in all the news media. Respectfully, --Ylmuanima (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I don't know where to begin. This page is continually being vandalized and being turned into a POV blitz on the part of the Serbs. To start the fact that there are 5 pictures of damaged Serbian churches when discussing an event where people were killed (the majority of whom were Albanian) sort of skews the article into a POV light that any objective observer knowledgable about the situation would pick up at a glance. Moreover, a great deal of the sources are POV. Eg: Source number 17: Pravoslavie.ru which reports on Slav related news events for a Slav audience. Obviously POV. I think it's time Albanians started putting up Kosovar Albanian or Bosnian websites to cite the horrors Serbians have committed. This is quickly what this and many other Kosovo related articles are trending towards, although I must say that those sympathetic to Serbian claims are by and large in charge. For example, bumping up the amount of dead from 19 to 31 with not a single valid source is an example of this eggregious violation of Wiki's NPOV policy, not to mention that it's just plain wrong (BBC, NYTimes, and many other respected news agencies put it at 19 or less). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylmuanima (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BBC says 28, not 19 or less (reference 1 from article). --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S 21:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iricigor (talk • contribs)
 * Regarding the pravoslavie.ru source, i don't know what to say... It does say in the article that the letter was sent to patriarchs which means pravoslavie is the primary source, but I am still unable to find any mention of it in secondary sources (which are, as far as I know, the only reliable sources). I don't know, I'm not an expert in Wikipedia, but can't we just add that another source is needed, at the end of that sentence? Or rephrase that paragraph so that it is clear that what's written there is a content of the patriarch letter, and not something that can be regarded as NPOV, verifiable truth? BytEfLUSh (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Translation
It seems that some churches are wrong translated. Example:


 * Đakovica: Church of the Ascension of Our Lord (Uspenja Gospodnjeg) from 19th century, torched along with the parochial residence on March 17. Reports of Albanians clearing the ruins of the Church of the Holy Trinity, destroyed in 1999.

In the specified source, the church from this town can be translated as Church of the Assumption of the Virgin. Someone please fix this. I'm not a Serbian native. Radu talk  21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And one more thing. "The casualty toll at the end of the day (18 march) was 28 and 600 people were injured..." How can the number of dead is different to the other one who happens to be 19. Does 19 refer only to citizens and 28 to all the people, including the peacekeepers? None of the sources mentions this. Regards, Radu  talk  00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.srbija.gov.rs/coordination_centre
 * In 2004 unrest in Kosovo on 2011-05-25 07:51:22, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 unrest in Kosovo on 2011-06-11 12:59:26, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection
This article is very sensitive and can be edited whenever a vandal wishes. I suggest this article be protected. Radu talk  23:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Globalresearch.ca
A part of the article that'll be removed per WP:RS used the globalresearch.ca website as a source. It is a fringe source and it considers itself as a source that provides analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media. Of course its articles do reveal its gross POV i.e How the Arab League Has Become a Tool of Western Imperialism/Ongoing atrocities by NATO-installed Libyan regime/Crimes in Syria committed by terrorists backed by Western and Arab countries etc. If someone thinks it's RS, he should ask for affirmation on WP:RSN.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see problems in there. If you question it, you must ask for opinion on RS noticeboard. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

19 or 28 victims?
There's a Canadian source from 2010 stating 19 victims, and a BBC article from 2004 stating "at least 28". Anonimski (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
I think Template:Infobox event or Template:Infobox civilian attack is a more suitable infobox.--Z oupan 04:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 2004 unrest in Kosovo. 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/20140714072330/http://forsvaret.no/sites/video/PublishingImages/veterandagen-2014-kjellolav/veteran-2014-kjellolavmyhre.mp4 to http://forsvaret.no/sites/video/PublishingImages/veterandagen-2014-kjellolav/veteran-2014-kjellolavmyhre.mp4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2004/03/i040318a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on 2004 unrest in Kosovo. 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/20131203233339/http://www.kim.gov.rs/en/ to http://www.kim.gov.rs/en
 * Added tag to http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/38889-czechs-hold-line-in-kosovo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205205645/http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2257 to http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205205343/http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2281 to http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2281

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrorrism
27 sources describe this event as terrorism. That is more then enough for any normal person to include category. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  13:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Strange Flag
i see first time, and i never saw it in Kosovo especially in "Unrest 2004". But i saw just and. I wonder who put that flag, and where it was seen ?! We should change this flag. --PetarM (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This flag is a civil ensign. Please learn more about civil ensign! --Hakuli (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The neutral article
In this article I have found sources that are not in English, as well as this article contains Serbian nationalism and anti-Albanianism. I edited this article based on United Nations and OSCE resources.

No matter how long the article has been in this version! All my edits have been made in accordance with the laws of Wikipedia, all my sources are neutral and are not pro-Serb or pro-Albanian. The pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian versions are very different from each other! Hakuli (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, nothing you said here is true, unfortunately. All of your edits are only pro-albanian, and in albanian, and anti-serbian, and at the end, very much non-neutral :) You must gain consensus for any controversial edit like yours, please. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm based on UN and OSCE documents, the latter two did hold a neutral stand. The Albanian version is very radical. That version does not accept that they were assailants, because more Albanians died than Serbs. Please Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, please disconnect from serbian ultra-nationalism and at least accept the neutral version! --Hakuli (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no place for any extremism on Wikipedia, and the same goes for Albanian ultra-nationalism too - I am glad that we agreed on that. But, except for the word part, let us see what has done. You haven't based your edits on UN and OSCE documents, you've based part of your edits on one OSCE document you haven't even properly read. Here is your last edit:, while others before with the same edits are: , , , and  - after the revertings of not one, but a number of other users. You've removed the whole text in the Background section, the text with sources from Human Rights Watch and ICTY . You replaced the text in the "Background section" from the one from the OSCE document you cited. The OSCE document you cited as source , "MISSION IN KOSOVO  Monitoring Department, Legal System Monitoring Section - Four Years Later" deals with the situation four years after the March Pogrom. That's the reason why the March Pogrom was in the Introduction section of OSCE document - it is, because, again, the documents is about 4 years after the event. It deals with the the legal topics and criticism of weak reactions from Kosovo courts. Just look at the names of the sections, if you don't want to read them - Problems with the appeals,  Kosovo Prosecutor’s Office withholding case files etc. Read the section, for example, Ethnic motives ignored from page 13 of the document. Why haven't you added these, for example, as a reactions towards March 2004 pogrom and legal reactions from the courts in Kosovo? That is connected to the article. As you said, this is a neutral source. In the text you added, quote "On 17 and 18 March 2004, a wave of violent riots swept through Kosovo, triggered by two incidents  perceived  as  ethnically-motivated  acts", why you haven't explained which two incidents, as it was explained in the OSCE document? Why you haven't closely read the document - I don't know and I won't jump to the conclusion, but from this above it is obvious that you didn't. As for removing the word Serb in Serb owned house to Minority owned, your excuse was that it was to make the article appear more neutral. That is not a neutrality, that's ignoring the facts, for example, that the picture name is Downtown Vista with Ruins of Serb House Destroyed in 2004 Pogrom - Prizren - Kosovo if not anything else. Totally replacing the name of the nationality of the victim, is the act which is, wrongly or not, perceived as a bias. Following this logic, then in all of the incidents, pogroms, wars and other articles, the nationality of the victim who is minority in some territory should be replaced with, what, "Minority" - that is not allowed, for the reasons cited to you by everybody else on this page, in the talk page or in the explanations of revertions of your edits in history section. This replacement wasn't done in other sources in the article which aren't Albanian or Serbian, so why it was done by you? This is clearly not helping on some neutrality and clearly not on objectivity. As for the discussion, I haven't seen any consensus for your changes except that everyone here is against - so much about your "I have discussed it on the Talk Page". So, I ask you here, after all of this: 1. Why you removed the whole Background section of March event and replaced it with the text about March Event itself (logic: Background of the event is the event itself?)? 2. Why you removed the term "Serb" in a picture of destroyed Serb owned house and how the replacing the name of the victim should add more, allegedly, neutrality to the article?James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)