User talk:Ossicle

Hi! Not sure where to post this. But I'm using a Kosovan company call Kujtesa and it seems an anonymous user also sharing my IP has being doing non constructive edits and is close to being blocked. How can I resolve this? Maybe if the anonymous IP edit is blocked by my account isn't? Look at my previous edits and see I haven't ever vandalised. Thanks for your help if you can point me in a good direction. :) Genjix (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Hashim Thaçi have been reverted. I deemed them unconstructive based upon your removal of his name in Serbo-Croat. His name in that language will remain to reflect the spelling of his name in the language of the country which both his parents chose to give birth to him and raise him, and the one which he was prepared to live out his entire life even if Kosovan independence were never to be achieved. If his local language name spelling should go, then so should everyone from Yugoslavia, the USSR, and other defunct states; and to do that, you'll have a war on your hands with other editors, so best to end it now. If you feel that other blanked edits were reverted unfairly then be my guest and restore them one by one, but removal of Serbo-Croat is not an option, it is that, or just plain Serbian and that will involve writing on Cyrillic. The choice is yours. Evlekis (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * You're right, sorry about being lazy, that's all it was... no harm intended friend. Evlekis (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Thaci - independence v. separation
Hey, I hadn't noticed an effort to divorce Kosovo from independent (and I apparently didn't read your whole post before I replied). No worries, I'll support "independent" where appropriate (which should be pretty much everywhere). Thanks for clarifying! //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Chauvinism"
You're quite right Ossicle, about nations using language as a major political tool, there is no question of it. Strip a nation of its language and just how many generations can the nation have the ability to self-identify living alongside the ethnic group who dissimilated them linguisticly; it's harder and more tedious than people think. You mentioned "reliable sources". To be honest Ossicle, I've stayed away from such areas of WP: I am more concerned with overall presentation; meaning, where there is conflict, to help present the matter objectively. I've often found reading through other people's heated discussions that there is a myth to suggest that "one source is more reliable than the other", especially when the former source panders to the prejudices of the individual whilst the other opposes it. Take any war, present or near past, probably going back to the beginning of time, and you'll find that every party has exploited a propaganda machine: exaggerating the atrocity of its opponent, and downplaying what it personally perpetrates. It has never been different; then, outside parties pop their ugly noses in. If I am a RED, and I murder you, a BLUE, and your State-controlled press reports that I have done this, then it is telling the truth; but people think "ah well, state controlled...must be a lie to promote anti-Red propaganda", then you have chinless commentators posing as historians, declaring themselves as neutral (philosophically impossible in conflict), who will say "The Red never murdered the Blue, the Blue escaped to South America and had a sex-change and the Blue government changed his details on the database to declare him dead," but your anti-Blue appreciation society will state that this source is relaible because it's an example of free media. Free=ability to tell lies. Living Marxism, for example, were sued by ITN when ther former rubbished the latter on its reports of the Bosnian concentration camps. ITN won. Does it mean that they were right? Well...he who deemed them right works for a court which in turn serves a government which has its interest. Was there a factfinding mission to the spot where ITN said it was, involving court representatives, a delegation from ITN and one from Living Marxism with a camera crew from every country of the world and a free plain ride for any single world citizen who wished to see for himself? No there wasn't. Now imagine if a journalist publishes damaging reports about an organisation in another country, particularly one in a land with no diplomatic ties to the country of the newspaper in question...how might an innocent victim of misrepresentation clear his own name when observers only see him as acting for political interest alongside an oppresive administration? see my point? So I only look to stylise the sentences so as to present them in a manner which is acceptable to all warring tribes, hard but possible. With regards to the display of foreign names Ossicle, I believe that it is commonplace in WP to display accurate details. The observer will decide whether it is relevant, and only for himself, not for others. I think you'll find that things are the other way round: with the former Yugoslavia, it is the ethnic Albanians who don't want their names written in the Slavic language. Now these hopefuls are not going to succeed in removing the names in the example I gave (the Hungarians), and we cannot have one rule for one ethnic group, and one for another, they all stay, or they all go. If they should go, Albert Nađ will have to be rechristened as his display name is in the Slavic, likewise, so is Blerim Džemaili, and he is Albanian, and check the history of the page, it was I who tried to have him moved to his Albanian name but a more familiar editor switched it back, see? I am far from chauvinistic. Naturally I would have insisted his Macedonian language name remain but I would have been happy to see him displayed in his Albanian name. The trouble is, many editors here think that Kosovo is sacred ground, it is a place which was switched off from the virulent muck of the rest of Yugoslavia; a place which was destined to be independent of Belgrade from its prehistory, and they think that anything regarding the territory should be treated differently to everywhere else, and this is where the "chauvinism" comes in, because I say that Kosovo was an integral part of Yugoslavia, and its special post-1974 status did not raise the region above Belgrade. Only independence could have done that. The fact that the Kosovan Albanian authorities took unconstitutional liberties in rejecting Belgrade policy was a self-made decision; it wasn't a case of Kosovo being an independent entity, opening its borders with the rest of Yugoslavia, and remembering at all times - you run your bit, we'll run ours, you don't have to speak our language, we don't have to speak yours, but we'll work as a single nation as we have common interests. I believe that this is the nature of a confederation, and in such case, there would be no requirement to give Slavic names to Albanians from Kosovo. But it wasn't like that. This Kosovo (as is now) was created in 1946. Even the origin of the name is of dispute; likewise, so is the line of demarcation. Albanian scholars argue that the Preševo Valley is eastern Kosovo. So I can't be any clearer as to why I support some form of Slavic name. Finally, there was nothing silly about the Serbo-Croat language idea. To appreciate it, you need to bare in mind that at the time, there were plans from certain quarters to unite all Slavic people into a single nation. It had its critics and opponents who wished for the individual identities, and throughout time since, everything was subject to people who believed in unity, and people who opposed it, like a tug-of-war, the opponents did everything to distort and savotage the ideals of the pro-unity clerics; but like the propaganda machine mentioned earlier, it worked the other way too. If you think that Serbs and Croats cannot be a one-language single nation based on too many differences from one extreme to the other, then count the whole of the former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and your Slavic population is around 30-35 million. Look at the Ukraine, 40 million with extreme differences from far west to far east, culturally and linguisticly, but one identity. Now look over the Adriatic at Italy, 60 million; you cannot even begin to site differences between Venetians and Sicillians; one language, one identity. It starts with some people from all corners supporting the idea, then setting the wheels in motion: but it also means silencing its opponents, often violently. Sounds cruel, but give it a couple of generations and the new folk will question how the hell their ancestors ever believed in being different. You may find this hard to believe, but many of today's "beautiful, reputable" countries had to do this in order to "condition" their population, such as France and Germany, not to mention even bigger countries. Italy is still in the process of doing it, only in 1979 did the first survey reveal more than 50% of Italians to consider Standard Italian their home language; Sardinians still havn't all arrived at this. See my point? If people want to be different, let them be different; if they want to merge and unite, or reunite as was the plan of the Slavic peoples, again, let them. Anyway dear friend, I've exhausted myself, sorry if this is painful for your eyes, but you can leave a novel on my talk page any time, I promise I'll read it and respond. Evlekis (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

"Disagree with regard to tone?"
I didn't realise how quietly I was coming across! Shall I shout louder next time??!!! Only joking. Seriously, I don't disagree with you about anything, I am pleased that you've tried to take a neutral stand, something I know is very difficult. I'll now go to the page you mentioned to see if I can suggest anything. Evlekis (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.


 * So tell me, what precisely do you suggest about Hashim's birthplace details? Apart from the fact that they appear to be standard, I didn't notice any form of edit-struggle and nobody seems to have started the discussion unless I missed something. Let me know what your plan is. Evlekis (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * I left a note in the section you mentioned, hope it conforms to your ideas as well. Evlekis (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Thaci
Since our conversations keep getting sidetracked by nationalists, would you like to continue our discussion here? As far as Mother Teresa is concerned, I mis-spoke (wrote) - I did see that her birthplace is not mentioned in the lead section, but I think that's just because hers is a longer and more substantial article. The principle I think is still the same - quick mention in the article, exhaustive details in the infobox. I'm open to discussion on the wording of what goes where, but could you agree to this sort of formatting? //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with any solution that made it immediately clear on a first read for the laziest reader (e.g. not through a redirect, not by saying one thing in the first line and clarifying in the info box) that Thaçi was born in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, in the country of Yugoslavia, not in the country of "Kosovo." I think leaving a mention out of the lead discussion in favor of having the full details in the info box is entirely called for here (e.g. exactly parallel with the Mother Teresa article) - it's visually much less abrasive than having the full litany in the lead section, and it doesn't give the impression that "Kosovo" existed as a country when Thaçi was born. The other solution would be to have the full litany in the lead section: "born 24 April 1968 in Srbica, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (since February 2008, the area occupied by the Republic of Kosovo), Socialist Republic of Serbia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Any variation of that language that's accurate would be fine.

I'm fairly sure the original objection arose because of 1. the nationalist desire to see Kosovo listed prominently and 2. the desire to eliminate any mention of Serbia. Neither of these seem like particularly helpful guides to editing, but if they must be coddled, let's at least be accurate and ADD not eliminate information.

Also, there are very good reasons I'm insisting that the information be presented in one place. It's important to keep in mind that most consumers of WP do not actually know how WP works: they don't ever look at discussion pages, nor do they typically follow wikified links for nouns they think they know the meaning of already. Thus a redirected "Kosovo" will never be followed by the majority of readers and will serve to make the article inaccurate and biased. Also, we should keep in mind the ways in which people skim articles - ignoring pull out boxes, maps, anything even slightly visually complicated. This means that information should be presented in easily digestible chunks, and that each chunk needs to be accurate without needing clarification from somewhere else. Thus, saying "kosovo" and clarifying in an info box that people don't look at makes the article inaccurate, since the clarifying information will never reach most readers.Ossicle (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, my opposition to the "full litany" is simply for purposes of readability. Originally I was pushing the piped Kosovo link to compromise with a certain editor, but s/he doesn't seem willing.  Are you suggesting then that the lead read born 24 April 1968 in Srbica, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. with the rest of the details in the infobox?  I'd be perfectly happy with that solution.  I'd also suggest that whatever solution we come up with here, we run it by Evlekis (who I've had no interaction with but seems reasonable), and then post it to the article.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, maybe "Srbica, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, Yugoslavia." Just for clarity, since according to the Kosovo article, Serbia in refusing to recognize the independence of Kosovo still claims it as the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija." And put the full listings in an info box.  There's also something going on with the rendering of "Srbica" vs. "Skënderaj" (e.g. one's Serb, one Albanian) and I think they'll probably become an issue before long.  Even though those aren't the main question right now, maybe ask Evlekis just for reference?  Evlekis is reasonable and more knowledgeable about the nomenclature than I am, so yeah, run it by him and then post. Ossicle (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * though, thinking about it, i'm not sure the Kosovo article is correct about that - one of the first things Milosevic did to prepare for the Kosovo war was strip Kosovo of its autonomy. was that autonomy restored at the end of the conflict? Ossicle (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one to answer that question. Your wording is perfectly fine though.  I also meant to ask earlier if you understood the dispute about Drenica v. Srbica.  I tried to get clarification and was ignored.  I do think we should stick with Srbica though, as that's currently the spelling on our article.  If that ever changes, we can change it here too.  Just curious, but what's your interest in Kosovo?  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * um. Srbica is the town, Drenica is a region name that doesn't refer to a governmental distinction - e.g. Srbica is a town in the "Drenica Valley" but it's in the "Kosovska Mitrovica district."


 * My interest was originally in modern humanitarian interventions by the international community as an example of the applications of just war theory - e.g. Kosovo, Haiti, the Dominica Republic in the 1960's, the African Union actions in Uganda, Darfur, etc. In grad school I wrote a big paper contrasting that type of intervention with the current action in Iraq and comparing the specific rhetorical tactics used to link the two.


 * Mostly I edit Kosovo articles because it seems like one of those topic areas where WP needs completely disinterested editors to steward articles, and I have some time right now. Ossicle (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I understand the geographic difference between Drenica and Srbica.  I just don't understand the vitriol of the demands that Srbica be replaced with Drenica.  Especially because one of the sources s/he provided said he was born in Srbica.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the issue seems to be that Srbica is a Serb name and seems like Kosovar nationalists are happier using the local place name, "Drenica," though I don't know that that's any less Serb.  Ossicle (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood. Drenica is a region that covers the muncipalities of Skenderaj (Serbian: Srbica) and Drenas (Serbian:Glogovac). Some like to use this because the people from Drenica are known for being patriotic and they have always "defended the homeland" but there is also some social stigma about people from Drenica since Drenica is the poorest region in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IT'S YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE VANDALIZING! How dare you write nonsense about his 'alleged' criminal activities. Based on what facts? Milosevic's inditements? Cos only Milosevic and Kostunica has caled him a criminal. You better get that part of the article out!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.1 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)