Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars

The article
I am sorry to say this but this article is more of an attack platform than an informative piece. The whole subject of one entity throughout a set of wars is pure original research, and all verifiable data on the page is both non-sequitur (out of context between one section and the next), and duplicated in that all of the information was already available on other pages. The whole concept of creating a "Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars" article is therefore little more than further exposure and attempt at vilification of what some editors view as the nemesis of the Yugoslav Wars. In the first place, the Yugoslav Wars refer only to the conflicts up to the Dayton Accords. The three ensuing battles involving Albanians (Kosovo 1998-99, Preševo Valley 1999-2001 and Macedonia 2001) are not "Yugoslav Wars". Even so, what was Serbia? Until 2006, it was a partner in a federation. How influential the government was is of no importance. The fact is that Milošević was seen as the man at the helm and yet in his time, he led two entities: Serbia from 1989 to 1997, and then Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2000, sufficient is it to say that the role of the hard man was irrelevant; president of Serbia, president of Montenegro, president of federal republic, minister for work and pensions, or plain old librarian in a small town. So a more appropriate term is Belgrade authorities/government as that speaks for everything. Anything that came from Belgrade, whether before or after 1997, was a national act and not just a Serbian transaction. Or could Serbia refer to the Serb nation? They too were - in the eyes of their opponents - considered to be the vermin in the areas they populated and thus fought for outside of FRY. Or does the term try to focus on Serbia as just its wider authorities (the ICTY's so-called "joint criminal enterprise")? Either way, for one reason or another, the term "Serbia" means nothing in the title. Either we refer to the whole country of which it formed a part or the whole nation. None of the sources corroborate the title of the article and the very concept of Serbia acting alone in the wars is original research as are many of the remarks which fill the page. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, it is just another episode in the History of Serbia, just like Serbia in the Balkan Wars, Serbia in the World War I or Serbia in the World War II.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those pages exist. They are all just redirects to the countries. Pages like this should not exist per ARMBAC, and especially should not be written in this one sided POV way. --Tadija (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, the 2nd and 3rd links are just redirects to other articles. The 1st article you've mentioned is just another example of an attack page, similar to this one. It says "Serbia in the Balkan wars" - however, over 90% of the article deals exclusively to atrocities committed by the Serbian armed forces during and after the military offensives. Even the "history" section does not begin with the background of the conflict, but with the Serb-committed war crimes. There is no definition on the escalation, there is no mention of the diplomatic works of Milorad Miloradovic, there is no mention of the Alliance with Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria, there is nothing about the fighting itself. The article should be renamed to "Serbian atrocities in the Balkan wars". The article also contains information that doesn't belong to the period - mentioning the peacetime atrocities of official Serbia against the newly acquired populace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.173 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is dead on.There is a problem with Serb nationalists who refuse to accept what their leaders and army ahs done.ICTY and ICJ confirm all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack page
This is obviously an example of an attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.173 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

type of engagement
This page should be made to have name Serbia during the Yugoslav Wars. Serbia was not directly engaged in this wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaziraniMiš (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was indirect, but it's a well documented affair. Please cite sources claiming otherwise. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add to that, in the eyes of the International Courts, the Serb Krajina forces were a puppet of Serbia. This was stated outright during the Gotovina trial by the judge that originally convicted him.

Kosovo War
Why is the Kosovo War part of this, already dubious, article? The apparent intent of this article is to show Serbia's direct/indirect role in the Yugoslav Wars (i.e. neighboring countries), so it is completely nonsensical to include the Kosovo War considering it was an internal conflict within the FRY (Serbia) itself, at the time. Its like creating an article Croatia in the Yugoslav Wars then including the Croatian War of Independence next to the Bosnian War. Buttons (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources treat it as part of the same series of wars. Why shouldn't we? I'm slightly surprised that one conflict within Yugoslavia is thought to be out of scope of an article about several other conflicts whose main common factor is that they happened amid the remains of Yugoslavia in the same era. bobrayner (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out why it is out of scope above. No one is arguing that the Kosovo War isn't a part of the Yugoslav Wars. But an article dedicated to a country's "role" in a series of wars with a entire section dedicated to one within it its own borders is nonsensical and repetitive given that it already has it own separate article. Buttons (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"There was no Serbia"
I remember one article with probably the worst title on wikipedia. A small group of editors prevented its renaming based on "there was no Serbia" argument. Is the same argument applicable here? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Republic of Serbia (1992-2006)? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You again contradict yourself. The article you pointed to explains that Republic of Serbia became state in 2006. None of Yugoslav wars articles present Republic of Serbia as one of belligerents.
 * Since Serbia was not sovereign state in 1990's my question remains unanswered: Is "there was no Serbia" applicable here? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that even if there is an argument that "there was no Serbia" during WWII because there wasn't a formal entity called "Serbia" to be found - which I'm not casting judgment upon - that formal premise simply doesn't exist here because one can find that entity, so the argument is moot at best. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Existence of formal premise? You yourself pointed to the article that explains that Serbia became sovereign independent state only in 2006, while you also emphasize that Serbia was not sovereign independent state during WWII. I know from our previous interactions that this is not going to be fruitful discussion so I don't plan to continue it for now. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems the disconnect here is that you think that the WWII argument relates to Serbian state sovereignty, as opposed to the notion of lack of existence of a Serbian state at all at the time in the country. Again, I'm not really a true advocate of that argument, so this is all academic. But what I can say as far as the 1990s is that the comparison is moot: there was clearly a state of Serbia in the country of Serbia which exerted its sovereignty insofar as willfully entering into the then-Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

cleanup tags
The vast majority of the content in this article is covered in their own separate articles. This is just an attack page with a mix-mash of reliable and unreliable sources. I don't see any attempt at reciprocity with the other parties in the Yugoslav Wars. Buttons (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you care to elaborate a bit? For example, tag unreliable sources inline? The topic of the article seems clear and specific enough - if the article is discussing Serbia's role, why would a lack of reciprocity in this article be sufficient to indicate it's an attack page? In any event, it you really think this qualifies under WP:ATP, simply reinstating Obozedalteima's tag farm is not the right recourse. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Renaming
Serbia was not one of belligerents in the Yugoslav wars. The article should be renamed to Yugoslavia in the Yugoslav Wars. If nobody objects to it I will rename it within reasonable period of time. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a move would be pretty pointless don't you think? Try filing a formal request instead, "within a reasonable period of time" of course.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 12:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would such renaming being pointless? If nobody presents valid arguments against my proposal there is no need for formal RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Yugoslavia was not a belligerent in the Yugoslav Wars. Besides, the consensus will decide whether arguments (yours or anyone elses) are valid. Not you. So file a formal RM.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say that Serb forces were belligerents in the Yugoslav wars. If Antidiskriminator says the opposite, then... given the choice, I would prefer our article to align with the reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR at massive scale
This article has serious SYNTH and OR issues on massive scale. Illustrative example is section about "Serbia's role in the Slovenian war". The whole section discuss Yugoslav Army campaign in Slovenia, or Yugoslav People's Army and its collective federal presidency, not Serbia. Serbia was not one of belligerents in this war. This is only an example of numerous events which are not directly related to Serbia. I am afraid that significant part of this article is indeed attack page, like another editor already pointed, that correspond with Croatian nationalistic talking points. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. Since the article discusses the role of politicians, army units, command structures, crimes and other events related to Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs and Serb(ian)s - which have been coordinated via Belgrade according to plenty of sources including the ICTY - perhaps the article could be titled Serbs in the Yugoslav Wars? Would that work for you?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 12:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yugoslav wars were wars between states, so the name you proposed would be even more inappropriate. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which state had declared war on which other state? and When?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 15:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Yugoslav wars were officially declared.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the section about the war in Slovenia says that Serbia did not play a particularly relevant role in that part of the Yugoslav Wars? But, isn't that exactly what the text is saying? There is some unreferenced innuendo in there, weaving the narrative of equating Serbia with Yugoslavia (which was a partially accurate Croatian nationalist talking point), but when we drop some of that biased editorializing (which we should do), we appear to be left with an accurate and verifiable description of the role of Serbia in the war in Slovenia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "An accurate and verifiable description of the role of Serbia in the war in Slovenia"? Not at all.
 * as already explained, Serbia was not one of belligerents because it was not sovereign state and had no army nor foreign ministry. Per Croatian nationalistic talking point Serbia is equated with Yugoslavia.
 * The section about "Serbia's role in the Slovenian war" does not present a single assertion about Serbia's role in the Slovenian war. Serbia is mentioned three times in this section. First to discuss if government of Serbia was concerned with this war. Second, to present the position of representative of Serbia in Yugoslav presidency and third to point to concerns of Serbia with situation in Croatia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot possibly say that the documented actions of an official representative of Serbia with regard to event X are proof that the article is improperly synthesizing a description of actions of Serbia with regard to event X. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Official representative of Serbia was member of Yugoslav presidency that was directly involved in this event, unlike Serbia. (Representatives of all administrative units of Yugoslavia, including Serbia) → presidency of Yugoslavia → war in Slovenia. Why do you insist on direct connection of Serbia with war in Slovenia trough equating Serbia with Yugoslavia? Is there any other reason then to support Croatian nationalistic talking point "blame Serbs and Serbia" for Yugoslav wars. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We can rename the article to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Yugoslav Wars to be extra precise, but that would basically be just beating around the bush around the overwhelming consensus that the Milošević government was that major player in the Yugoslav Wars that merits notice. "Serbia" is the simplest, most natural and recognizable moniker for these entities when we look at the entire period between the start of the breakup of former Yugoslavia and the end of the wars. I would sympathize if you said that we shouldn't shun Montenegro by separating it from the story this way, but I reject the baseless notion that the entire concept is a Croatian nationalist talking point. There's plenty of talking points in the topic area, and indeed the idea that Serbia wasn't in the Yugoslav Wars is one of the most egregious ones. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt you know that FR Yugoslavia was established almost a year after the war in Slovenia. I know from our previous interactions that this is not going to be fruitful discussion so I don't plan to continue it for now. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would prefer if you would explain your line of reasoning to some relevant conclusion, because otherwise the readers will inevitably get the impression that you were just stringing everyone along (wikilawyering). Would you like for the article to be refocused and/or split into portions that you feel would be coherent? Role of the authorities of SFR Yugoslavia in the Yugoslav Wars + Role of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Yugoslav Wars perhaps? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lacking basic clarity
I've just done some basic corrections of grammar (lots of missing definite/indefinite articles) and spelling, however even as I was correcting I noted that the article lacked basic clarity and readability, the phrasing is sometimes tortured, often vague and words appear to be badly/incorrectly chosen. Simply an observation guys, I've no opinion on the content!Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

this is not good
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/07/serbias-defense-minister-praises-convicted-war-criminal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.59.83 (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis
The article should include sections on battles, military strength, casualties, diplomatic negotiations etc. The page should look like articles History of Germany during World War I, United States in World War I, Spain during World War II...

The article is not called “Serbs in the Yugoslav Wars”. For example, only Miodrag Jokić from Serbia has been convicted in the ICTY for crimes commited outside Serbia (Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina). The War crimes section should list the crimes outside Serbia only with direct involment of the authorities or forces of the Republic of Serbia (1992–2006), not by the Army of Republika Srpska, Serbian Army of Krajina or paramilitary formations. Futhermore, the article should mention all the crimes on the territory of Serbia, not only the crimes committed by Serbs. The War crimes in the Kosovo War article lists crimes against Serbs, as well. Also, NATO bombing needs to be explained more broadly.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This user had since been topic-banned in this topic area. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)