Talk:Identity cleansing

Untitled
 "Apparently the idea behind this was the fact that most of the ethnic Albanians spoke only Albanian as opposed to Serbo-Croatian, and if they attempted to return to Kosovo in the future the Serbian authorities could claim that those doing so were actually Albanian nationals and not Kosovars, with the latter status conferring citizenship in what was then still known as the Republic of Yugoslavia, and thus a right of abode therein."

"Most Albanians spoke only Albanian...", yes, trouth, Albanians (from Albania) didn´t knew to speak Serbian, but for the Kosovar Albanians (what I supose was meant to say), that statement is simply unthrue.

"and if they attempted to return to Kosovo in the future the Serbian authorities could claim that ..." if, could, isn´t this speculation, thus, non-encyclopedic? Is this all the EVIDENCE? FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is so POV that it is pointles to rewrite it. Also, it's subject can be mentioned somewhere, but that is also questionable. --Tadija (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
An editor who adds a POV tag to an article needs to explain on the article's talk page the issues behind the tag's insertion, pointing to specific issues or problems. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
It seems to me that Mladifilozof on purpose left the most crucial word of the definiton with whom he starts the article. Original definiton says "Identity cleansing is a term used to denote a strategy allegedly[1] employed by the government of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis of the late 1990s." but contributor chooses to left the word allegedly and to create another meaning of the whole article. His quotaion was "Identity cleansing is a term used to denote a strategy employed by the government of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis of the late 1990s" so his intention was to show that "Identity cleansing" is a fact. But it seems to me that this whole article is a pure propaganda fabrication, based on few hearsay incidents that some journalists used in their books without any serious reference in scientific circles. So i am putting POW tag beacuse it seems to me that contributor is biased for some reason and he is not pursuing the truth, neutral point of view and he is trying do distort the truth and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That book copies old versions of articles from Wikipedia, hence the [WP] tag next to every paragraph of the book and wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not quite understand what you said, but i will try to...book does not copies Wikipedia it is vice versa, book was used as a source for Wikipedia article. This is version of 2004 article with word allegedly in it so why removing it. I changed the words according the text in the book b. I explained it why in upper part of this discussion. If you want to delete reference it is ok with me because i wanted to point out disparancies. But the word allegedly have to stay. As i mentioned it above. Shanticm (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Shanticm on this. The word "allegedly" ia important here, and it should be included. We all know it is not the first time Mladifilozof purposly missinterprets sources... FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That book is a book that copies wikipedia articles Shanticm and because of that the [WP]=wikipedia is used next to all its entries. Because of that it can't be used as a source.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the source cited is WP, so not acceptable. Sorry, I touth a "real" source was used. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree FkpCascais. If a reliable source is found please add it without hessitation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

but this article notes the book as it source??? so what came first the article of the book??? than this whole article is to be deleted because its source did not exists because book took it from wikipedia and wikipedia article is written based on the book??? this is contradiction...you are deleting a word allegedly based on the source but you keep previous version based on the same citation??? how do you call that??? so you delete whole sentence because it is taken from the book, or leave it be...ref number 2 is same reference next to the word allegedly...and you do not have problems with that Shanticm (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the whole citation from the book as — ZjarriRrethues —  suggested that source cited is WP... Shanticm (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Identity cleansing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060923021126/http://belgrade.usembassy.gov/policy/regional/030331.html to http://belgrade.usembassy.gov/policy/regional/030331.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Identity cleansing. 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/20110522100942/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Reports/document.html to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/kosovo/reports/document.html

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) 07:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)