Talk:Battle of Belaćevac Mine

Untitled
Working with the Rescue Squadron to improve this article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbs, Yugoslavs, and sources
Let's have a look at what sources say: ...and so on. We can examine more sources if necessary. I've spent a long time trying to bring Kosovo-related articles into line with what sources say; why must WhiteWriter always hit the revert button to reintroduce content which is either non-neutral or outright false? bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * HRW's coverage of Belaćevac mentions "ethnic Serbs" and "a senior Serbian policeman". It does not mention Yugoslavs.
 * One NYTimes source says "Fierce Fighting as Serbs...", " three-pronged Serbian assault", "Serbian officials said the police and Serbian paramilitary forces...", "the rest of Serbia", "violent Serbian sweep". It does not mention Yugoslavs.
 * Another NYTimes source says "Serbian Forces Retake Mine", "Serbian forces appeared to have beaten...", "Yugoslav Army troops alongside the Serbian forces", and "Serbian police". There is no other mention of Yugoslavs.
 * The Independent says "Serb forces", "Serb police, supported by tanks and armoured personnel carriers", "Serbs were embarking on a sweep through the country", "Serb forces with more than 140 tanks", "between Serbs and Turks", "Serbian nationalists", "Serb civilians", " Serb president Slobodan Milosevic". There is one mention of "Yugoslav helicopters".
 * The BBC says "Serb offensive", "Serbian province", "Serbs' aerial superiority", "Serbian forces will try to re-take key areas", " Nato attacks against Serbian forces". The only mention of Yugoslavia is a tangential aside on the Contact Group.
 * It's unfortunate that both WhiteWriter and 23 editor have reverted the bad old content back into the article. Even if you're determined to ignore what the sources say, can't you at least use the talkpage? bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Serbs as a people, but not Serbia as a state, even with current flag adopted in 2006. C'mon, you are just pushing. Add related info in article, but dont add historical errors. You are hiding behind the sources, but you may add source about people invloved in this, but in no way as a combatant add Serbia with current contemporary flag. And yes, you are doing it on purpose, just to present one nation under bad light, based on your editing habit. There are not good faith in your edits any more. FR Yugoslavia should be linked, with Republic of Serbia (1990–2006), and with Yugoslav flag of the time, and no, no, and no Serbia with current flag. It is clear that sources mention Serbs, third Yugoslavia was populated with Serbs mostly! Internationals sources didnt use demonym Yugoslavs since fall of SFRY. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment.  International sources didn't use demonym Yugoslavs since fall of SFRY. Well then, the sources say it's Serb so it must all be Serb. Podgorica was in Serbia, the navy was Serbian, the anthem Hej Slaveni was Serbian, Momir Bulatović was Serbian, because that's what the sources all say. Any source that says FRY is unreliable! Bobrayner's theory vs HRW/UNHCR/ICTY. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you still believe that stuff? Meanwhile, on one hand, reliable sources continue to say "Serb",      and, on the other hand, the usual editors continue to remove "Serb" from the article.    . bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, it is because Serbia was not an independent country at the time and its flag was not even adopted to represent the state. It was horizontal blue, white, red - not red, blue, white. Your sources do not corroborate your claim that Serbia was independent therefore those sources represent the actual activity. Why don't you examine a few atlases and take up non-fiction, perhaps a wikibreak for a few months would do you good. When you understand the facts, come back and edit then. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources all say troops. We all know to which entity they belonged, and like hell was there a separate Montenegrin army. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Still a problem
Sources still say "Serb". Why do editors continue to change "Serb" to "Yugoslav"? bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Tag
I tagged the part in the text which says Many of these weapons ended up in the hands of the KLA, which already had substantial resources due its involvement in the trafficking of drugs, weapons and people, as well as through donations from the Albanian diaspora. It is reffering to the pages 127-130 of this book. I did a quik research and couldn't find this part in those pages. I would appreciate it if somebody could have a look on this. Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How could you do "quick research" if those pages are not displayed in the preview of the book in the link you posted? Peervalaa (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Try here. Crazydude1912 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's link to the same page, there's no preview of the pages you are questioning. Peervalaa (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually the best i can do. Crazydude1912 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't access the book either, but the way wikipedia functions allows us to solve this via WP:BURDEN. When an editor tags a part, any other editor can contest that and prove that the tag should not be there. So, a full quote from Judah (2002) will do it. The editor(s) who added that part back in the article have the WP:BURDEN of proper citing too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe You could add something to this discussion 05:57, 16 November 2015 Crazydude1912 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Judah talks about drug smuggling being used to support the "Kosovar cause", rather than outright explicitly naming the KLA. Hence, I've removed Judah for the drug smuggling passage and added two new sources which explicitly connect the KLA with drug trafficking. Since Judah explicitly states that arms looted during the unrest in Albania ended up in the hands of the KLA, I kept Judah as a reference for that portion of the text. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorensen (2009) cites a tripod blog as his source. It's not RS - but that's not my main argument. is not related to this article, so it's better to remove it. Otherwise, in the context of WP:NPOV we should add every possible means of financial support like . It highlights a problem of WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE to have this irrelevant sentence included in the article since it is not directly related to the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For addition Jonsson, Michael (2014) is misinterpreted here. Where is the direct involvement of the KLA in drug trafficking proven with this page from the book. The KLA and drug traffickers are even treated as two different groups and not the KLA as beeing the drug traffickers like You try to display in Your last edit. Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is context of the event, and it very important part to explain everything. Its in article for quite some time, and it cannot be removed per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ ) 08:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't directly related to the article, and it wasn't even the main source of income. N.Hoxha (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The original complaint was that what Judah said was in doubt. Now the goalpost has shifted to how the sentence isn't relevant to the article. Is the firing of Albanian public sector workers relevant to the article? What about the Kosovo Serbs' demographic decline? Heck, let's get rid of the whole Background section while we're at it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here needs to stop edit warring. Reach a consensus first, then introduce the agreed-upon version to the page(s) in question. If you can't reach a consensus among yourselves, bring in outside input via RfC or similar. I've fully protected the pages for a brief time to stop this nonsense, but if it continues, you should expect blocks to be issued in short order. This is not how we handle content disputes on this project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking swift action, GorillaWarfare. Let's hope this leads to some productive dialogue. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We already had a discussion about this part in the article from 19 - 22 August. Arguments were given tags were placed and the dispute was solved. Nobody represented any further arguments for the inclusion of this part for more than two weeks. Why the reverts without any real arguments. I don't see what's the dispute here. I welcome everyone who is taking part in this discussion to get solution Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The complaint at the time was that nobody had access to Judah's book and thus couldn't confirm its contents. I checked and altered the sourcing accordingly and notified the involved users on this talk page. Then the goalposts shifted and it was no longer about the sources, but rather about whether or not the passage should be included to begin with. Those are two different things. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the problem here? If there are users who have serious concerns with this part then this users should mention them. Thought thats the way how Wikipedia works. The real question here is why You are constantly trying to create a connection between the Kosovo Liberation Army and Drug trafficking organizations for which You were ready to cite sources five years ago that never said that. Bibliography is quite clear about not having a 100 % confirmation about any direct involvement of the KLA into drug trafficing. What bibliography is very clear about is that the donations of the Albanian diaspora made the biggest share of fundings for the KLA. Under this circumstances i see some WP policies against which the inclusion of this part is violating. Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And which WP policies is the passage violating? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber already pointed them out. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Furthmore WP:NPOV and WP:POINT play a role here. To some point WP:RS. Crazydude1912 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If bibliography doesn't connect two events, editors shouldn't connect them too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion halted again. Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of ways to request outside input if discussion is stalling here -- WP:CONTENTDISPUTE has more information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's the dispute here, the case is clear. If the editor, who has no valid reasons to keep the part in this article, has no interest in participating in this discussion, then we should move on. Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute involved more than just Amanuensis Balkanicus, so it's worth pinging Peervalaa and Anastan as well. However, I can see that Amanuensis Balkanicus has not been active onwiki since their comment two days ago, and would suggest a bit more patience before suggesting they have "no interest in participating in this discussion". Not every editor is available to edit every day, nor should they expected to have to do so in order to contribute to a discussion such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, GorillaWarfare. I've been busy IRL but I'm still committed to this discussion. Crazydude1912, since the content in question has been a part of the article for years, the onus is on you to present a valid argument for its removal. Merely asserting RS, NPOV or POINT doesn't cut it. The sources are reliable, the sentence isn't egregiously POV and WP hasn't been disrupted to prove a point. As for the claim that the sentence is only tangentially related to the subject of the article, the other background paragraphs are only tangentially connected to the subject too. The point of a background section is to present the context of a given event. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why should i repeat the points of Maleschreiber and me again and again. Everything is said relating to RS, POINT and NPOV. Please have a look above. Since You didn't question WP:UNDUE then i guess that You understood Yoursef that it's clearly the case here. This contet in question has been a part of the article citing an author that never said that. In that case the content in question should have never been a part of this article. And if there are other paragraphs that You have a problem with, present them and we can work on them. That point itself is no valid reason to not remove the part. Once again, valid arguments for its removal were already mentioned, just look above. Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is simple: both you User:Crazydude1912 and User:Maleschreiber are subjective editors of wiki. on multiple pages related to Serbia and Kosovo you are pushing the agenda of Albanian innocence and screaming on talk pages for sources not being RS. Only reason is that they do not fit your agenda. Second to that, both of you are Albanians, which questions your objectivity in topics discussed here and both of you, from the beginning, show the aggression on anyone not being in sync with you. This casts quite of the shadow on your intentions to make the Wikipedia better Pixius talk 13:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to file a WP:DRN if agrees to be the other involved user. We can drag this out to a long RfC or have a DRN.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)