Talk:Podujevo bus bombing

serbian propagande
In Kosovo was UÇK not UÇPMB, and ther are so many serbian propagande!!!!!

OK, firstly please sign your comments, also, if you have a problem with this article then explain the problems you have here, preferably before you change things. I'm going to revert the categories you changed unless you can demonstrate in what way this was NOT a terrorist operation, i.e. a deliberate attack on a civilan target by a non-governmental organisation, although you are within your rights to add the tags you left. The statement about the UCPMB is referenced in the links at the bottom, please give a source which explains that the UCK was actually at fault.--Jackyd101 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Emotions in favor of rationality
Let me quote this interesting emotional sentence: "The blast angered Serbian officials and the community, who had endured numerous attacks by Kosovar Albanians in recent months." Well, if we want Wikipedia to be vested with academic properties, then we must leave literary propositions and verses out of the way of rational and factual arguments. --ArbërT • ? 06:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: Article full of lies.
This article in fact lacks proper citation and includes a lot of lies. First the attack has been categorized as terrorist with no reference and secondly it is clearly an anti-Albanian piece of writing. I would urge that in the future such article are removed for Wikipedia for the sake of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.99.153 (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article clearly violates the NPOV. This article should be placed on probation for review. --A B XT • ៛ 03:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Podujevo bus bombing. 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/20121102183720/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=06&dd=05&nav_id=59615 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=06&dd=05&nav_id=59615

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) 17:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism categories
has recently removed two categories from this article relating to terrorism. This move was prompted by an ongoing discussion at Talk:Terrorism_in_Europe about terrorism as a contested term and its applicability to the Podujevo bus bombing. Further input there is welcome. I've been going through RS sources and have highlighted a number that refer to the bombing as terrorism, but others are more circumspect in their wording. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We can see all the sources you post in this post . Here is what they are actually saying:


 * Only mention of "terror" (no mentions of "terrorist") in LA Times ([]) is this:

"Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica urged Serbs 'not to fall into the trap of Albanian terrorists"


 * … a quote from the Serbian government, which of course was embroiled in an ethnopolitical conflict at the time. It's Belgrade saying it, not the LA Times. Now, for AP ([[]):

"Today we had two really disgusting acts, they can really only basically be called terrorist acts... SUPERCAPTION: Susan Mannuel, UN spokeswoman"


 * Well this could be used for the view of Susan Mannuel, UN spokesman, but does Wikipedia adopt as fact what UN employees say? No. Otherwise among other things we would have to right that the Temple Mount has "no connection to Judaism" (wildly offensive and controversial) and other ridiculous horsecrap that occasionally comes from them. So does this justify the category? No, we need an RS source actually calling it terrorism in its own words.


 * Now, lastly there is BBC, which says this:

"In Belgrade, the Yugoslav parliament cut short its session in protest at the terrorist attack, which it described as an act of terrorism aimed at destabilising the area."


 * And that's the only occurrence of the string "terror" in the source. The second clause clearly is a paraphrase of Belgrade. The first is also quite possibly. This attack generated fairly wide of coverage. Surely, if there is an RS consensus it was a terrorist attack, you should be able to find better sources than this, right? Well, if we search "podujevo terrorist -Wikipedia" we get this -- not encouraging. It includes mostly events in the 90s, including a couple blogs like "Chronology of the KLA's Terrorism: April 1996 - February 1998" by a rather anti-Albanian writer (the Podujevo attack was in 2001). We also see plenty of references, oddly enough, to the 1999 Podujevo massacre, where Kosovar Albanians were slaughtered by individuals who happened to be Serbian Christians (and quite loudly and proudly so). But nothing calling the relevant 2001 attack terrorism. Well, if  has sources actually clearly referring to the 2001 attack as terrorism I have said I support adding them -- and I explicitly said so regarding the BBC, before I actually read it and realized it didn't say what it should have. --Calthinus (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Terrorism_in_Europe has more. Input by others welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)