Talk:Banjska attack

Banjska crisis?
Shouldn't we connect this with the village itself, not immediately with the monastery? For example Banjska crisis. The perpetrators barricaded themselves in the monastery after blocking the village and attacking the police, killing and wounding policemen. Идеологист (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree that the name should be changed to banjska crisis or even battle of banjska, the serb attackers ambushed the kosovar police in banjska before being repelled and pushed away by kosovar police to the monastery. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a military expert, but battle seems too much of a word for this, like two or more regular armed forces clashing during a war. And I don't see sources using battle for this events. I think Banjska attack should be fine - do you agree? Or maybe simply keep the crisis terminology and call it Banjska crisis for now? Идеологист (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Banjska attack. Most sources I see call it an attack. We'll monitor it and see if it needs another name change, but I think this one is fine. Идеологист (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, as of now Banjska attack seems to be the most accurate name for the current situation. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Wagner presence
The sources that the user posted all quote the deputy director of police, who said that so far there is no factual evidence of Wagner's presence, ie. Kosovo authorities do not claim that Wagner was present, so it should not be in the infobox. Идеологист (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

APCs
There are no pictures or proofs of any APCs being used. The kosovo media actually used photos from Nagorno-Karabakh, you can check this yourself by using google images search. Vucic also commented on one single photo that was not from Nagorno-Karabakh;

"''They say armored APCs, they say it's a gendarmerie vehicle. This is not a gendarmerie vehicle. It's something that our people used in '96, '97 and '98, set up to keep the parts protected. It is a shame to even talk about such lies." ( https://www.klix.ba/vijesti/regija/vucic-o-desavanjima-na-kosovu-rekao-sam-da-moze-doci-do-ovoga-srbi-ne-zele-trpiti-teror/230924109 )'' Gjergj333 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC) → These tools were used by 30 militants, there were no additional militants to operate the tools. OK, I corrected the mistake, I apologize! BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing he said was that APC wasn't from the Serbian Gendarmerie, but nothing else and there is photo evidence like this one: Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that if we are going to have the APCs mentioned in the text, it should be noted that the claim is by Kosovo. Since we have conflicting and contradicting information from the both sides, it should be noted from which side the information is coming from, as we've done with other things here as well. 83.219.168.102 (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * don't undo the edit about captured tools, because for the captured tools, I have based on Wikipedia articles of well-known incidents/attacks/battles in this Balkan region, where some of them are Battle of Tetovo, Battle of Košare, etc., which means "Strength" is for the number of militants who have been, while "Casualties and losses" include captured tools, because captured vehicles are considered a loss for the militants. BalkanianActuality (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding them only to the casualties section is pointless, things like the ATVs and drones shouldn't be put in the strength section because they weren't even used, but the APC and Jeeps were used so they should be mentioned in both sections. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , please review and base on Wikipedia the articles of the conflicts that you mentioned above and that you do not believe, base on those of the battles further away from the Balkans, whether captured tools are used or not, they were ready for use by the militants.BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you cited supports my argument. In the 'Strength' section of the Battle of Tetovo article, it mentions APCs. Additionally, if you revisit the 'Casualties' section, you'll notice that APCs (BTR) are mentioned again. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. We all make mistakes Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead
I would add that the special forces surrounded the monastery and the time where those forces raided the monastery. If the contrahent (@Based.shqiptar.frompirok) could state why they are against the current lead? AlexBachmann (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree with the contrahent on this one. Their version looks clearer and is easier to read. However, I do not know if we should include those two language tags. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the description? Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) He basically just copied and pasted information that's already in other sections of the page
 * 2) A description is a short overview, not a full-length overview like his
 * 3) His version is way too long, cluttered, overwhelming, and in general hard to understand while mine is short and gives the needed beginning information
 * 4) His version is mainly used for shootings or incidents that aren't very well documented, which in this case is not the case Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, based on that I'd say your version should stay. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Vučić
Vučić Is referenced multiple times in the article but his full name is not stated and his article is not linked. This will cause confusion for any readers who do not already know who he is. When Xhelal Sveçla is mentioned his article is linked and it is stated what his title is. Just to answer before anyone reading this asks; I cannot make the edit myself because the page is semi-protected. Vector2022isbad (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mistranslation of Vucic and Serbian Media
On the controversy part, the claims of the Serbian president stem from a potentially deliberate mistranslation. The police officers were not laughing and saying let them die and don't help them, but one police officer was saying "Adem, Adem – Adem Ribari lajmërohu", which means Adem, Adem - Adem Ribari (name of the police officer), request answer-report" DranguiDardanisë (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Number of killed
On the Serbia side it's wrong. It is citing some "opinions" Drilon~enwiki (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding old information that is incorrect in the casualties section for the Serbian side. You are adding speculations from unreliable sources on the day of the attack and the next day which have not been proven. It has now been almost a week since the attack and every single major newspaper in the world is reporting that three were killed on the Serbian side. Even the Albanian Daily News article you added from 24 September has been usurped by this more recent article which says three were killed. We add the most current and reliable information available, not the other way around. --Griboski (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Several security experts, including both Albanian   and Serbian sources, have indicated that around eight militants were killed. Nevertheless, it's crucial to acknowledge that there hasn't been an official death toll released yet. So, until the government clarifies the actual number of casualties, the best estimate appears to be around eight. Additionally, the Kosovo Police has shared approximately six photos of the deceased militants, each depicting a different person, which further substantiates this claim, so adding 3 killed, as you suggest, would be inaccurate and highly unlikely, considering the photo evidence debunking it. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you're citing unconfirmed reports from the day of the attack and shortly after. You do realize that once an event like this happens, there's always uncertainty about what exactly happened and how many casualties there are? It's why the Template:Current warns "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable."
 * The Serbian source you linked to is a Serbian lawyer's tweet on September 25. We're not in the business of reporting on speculations and predictions but actual determined facts. If there are six confirmed deaths then it shouldn't be hard to provide current RS (not random blogs or web portals); otherwise simply linking to pictures is WP:OR. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Liberty source I added from September 25, it states that a body found was incorrectly reported as a fourth attacker, when it was the third.
 * The Kosovo government and police have stated that three were killed. No more, no less. As of September 30, that is what every reliable source is reporting, including The Guardian, France 24, Associated Press, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, BBC, Euronews, New York Times, Albanian Daily News, and many others. --Griboski (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 4 of them are confirmed by both sides. Together with names and pictures. So why 3? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? The RFERFL article I linked to above states that reports of a fourth attacker was erroneous. --Griboski (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright then i didnt knew about this report claiming that the fourth was erroneous RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023
77.243.24.184 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 12:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack"
... should be changed back to "an armed conflict" in the lead sentance per WP:NPOV. 178.223.80.112 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it was classified as such by many countries and organizations. Iaof2017 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is recognised as a terrorist attack across many nations. Botushali (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The government of Kosovo considers it a terrorist attack and the European Parliament passed a resolution which described the incident as a terrorist attack, but we tend to go by how the consensus of reliable sources describe an event. None of them as far as I know describe it as a terrorist attack. --Griboski (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know about that. There’s quite a few sources calling it a terrorist attack, especially those that discuss the recent resolution or the government’s stance. Botushali (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen a few Albanian sources refer to it as such but not others, aside from a couple of EU-affiliated press sites, usually in scare-quotes. In a general sense when news articles refer to the incident, they don't describe it that way. It seems to me "armed attack" as it previously was is more neutral. --Griboski (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on terrorist label
Should the lead and rest of the article describe or refer to the incident as a terrorist attack (in wikivoice)? --Griboski (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No Per WP:TERRORISM & WP:NPOV. The government of Kosovo considers it a terrorist attack and on 19 October, the European parliament passed a resolution which described it as a terrorist attack. However, events on wiki are usually described as terrorism if the consensus of reliable sources describe it as such, and the vast majority do not. They variously refer to it as an attack, shootout, clashes and so on. For example:


 * "Brutal attack" per Deutsche Welle; "clash" and "attack" per Politico; "shootout" and "gun battle" per Associated Press (and more recently "flareup", "attack" and "daylong gun battle" here and here ; "hours-long shootout" per Euronews; "shootout" and "ambush" per The Guardian; "firefight" per Al Jazeera; "attack" and "clashes" per RFERL; "standoff" and "clashes" per France24; "siege" and "shooting" per BBC. --Griboski (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wiki must stay neutral. Just like UÇK is not labelled as terrorist organization despite that CIA, BIA and many more labelled it as a terrorist. 178.222.133.133 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since a week has passed and no one is against, Griboski would You remove biased text which states that this was a "terrorist atack"? 178.222.214.159 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No! Iaof2017 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @IP, Not how it works. RFCs usually last for 30 days. --Griboski (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes Already is explained even if it's self explanatory! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Yes, the incident clearly qualifies as a terrorist attack, supported by declarations from the government of Kosovo and resolutions in Albania and the European Union. The explicit labeling as a terror attack by authoritative bodies directly associated with the region in which it occurred also adds substantial weight in it. The consensus is apparent in the statements (and resolutions- of course) issued by multiple governmental entities as well as diplomatic representatives, who were closely linked to the incident. However, can you please provide more precise arguments related to WP:TERRORISM and WP:NPOV, as your current explanation is not convincing at all? Iaof2017 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:TERRORIST clearly states: "Value-laden labels – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." List of terrorist incidents in 2023 states: "To be included, entries must be.. described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism".
 * Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about a subject, not a particular government or organization's opinion. And as I've shown above, the consensus of reliable sources don't use the terrorist label. If the world's reputable news organizations don't describe it as such, neither should wiki per NPOV/WEIGHT.
 * Anyway, my point in creating this RFC is to gather input from neutral uninvolved editors with policy-based knowledge. --Griboski (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No as per WP:TERRORISM. If this attack is labelled as a terrorist attack then what is stopping the 2015 Kumanovo clashes from being labelled a terrorist attack too? The Kumanovo clashes resulted in terrorism convictions being laid down so that is more than enough to have a terrorist attack label added. There shouldn't be a double standard. This is why WP:TERRORISM exists so that things do not get out of control on article and talk pages. Things should be left as neutral as possible. ElderZamzam (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No since civilians were not targeted, it would be POV to refer to this event as a terrorist attack. Yung Doohickey (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)