Talk:2004 unrest in Kosovo/Archive 1

Mitrovica incident

I would like to see some proper references about the riots in Mitrovica.

Title

Hi there - can you tell me about this title? It seems pretty inflamatory - who uses it? Thanks, Mark Richards 17:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It appears to be sourced from a (Serbian) report by B92 [1]. -- ChrisO 20:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can we reference and attribute some of the claims of numbers here? Thanks, Mark Richards 18:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In a similar vein, isn't the entire info box on the side rather POV? "a lot of Serbs (and Roms) exiled, including all the refugees that returned since 1999" - there's no possible way that you could say this for certain and this is just for starters. the entire box needs to go, IMO. --Smegpt86 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Re-write

I would suggest renaming this page, as this term is not in common usage, it was used by one anonymous UNMIK rep, and has not gain common currency. How about Violence in Kosovo (March 2004)? Mark Richards 18:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If someone is going to move it, at least be optimistic and move it to Unrests in Kosovo (2004). Nikola 12:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Unrest" is one of those odd English words that is both singular and plural. "Unrests" doesn't exist as a word. Also, the usual order for date-restricted articles on Wikipedia appears to be date:subject, as in 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks or September 11, 2001 attacks. How about March 2004 unrest in Kosovo? -- ChrisO 13:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article so needs a rewrite - it doesn't even attempt to be NPOV. -- ChrisO 18:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - can we start with the name? Anyone oppose this? Mark Richards 19:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it even needs to exist as a separate article. As an event in the history of Kosovo, it should be rewritten and merged with the main Kosovo and Metohia article after the section on the Kosovo War. -- ChrisO 20:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is clearly enough info on this to warrant a separate article. Everyking 22:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think there is enough material, there are several articles on individual incidents related to Kosovo, including Racak, which is a good example of how to deal with an issue like this one - the title and style of this article are totally inapropriate. Mark Richards 22:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I've moved the article to "Unrest in Kosovo" as a (temporary?) more NPOV title. Since this clearly isn't a one-day event and we don't know how long this is likely to go on for, I'm hesitant to give it a chronological entry (e.g. "March 2004 unrest in Kosovo"). We can always revisit the title when things settle down. -- ChrisO 22:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see the name's already been changed, but the Main Page still uses the name 'Kristallnacht'. How about removing everything after the last comma ('IN an event termed the Kosovo Kristallnacht'), and making Renewed ethnic strife the link instead? Sietse 22:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've addressed that too. :-) It now says: Violent unrest in Kosovo has led to riots between Serbs and Albanians with at least 31 deaths. That's about as long as it's possible to make it, given the space constraints of the "in the news" box. -- ChrisO 22:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, that's good for now, although some way to make it clear that this is not a general article about unrest in Kosovo in the abstract, and that it refers to a specific set of events would be nice. Let's get to work on the main text then! Mark Richards 22:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you hold off editing it for half an hour or so? I'm currently working on it. -- ChrisO 22:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) - OK, I'm done. :-) -- ChrisO 23:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, it's been awhile since March, have all issues been resolved or not? Is this article still disputed despite months of inactivity here? Just fix it! Nikki 02:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since no one has mentioned any dispute in about a year or so, I'm removing the NPOV disputed tag. If someone believes it needs to go back on the article, that's fine, but please put reasons here on the talk page. Thanks. Wesley 05:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Rugova

I can't beleive we don't have a page on Ibrahim Rugova! Mark Richards 18:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll write a small stub. Dori | Talk 18:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers! Mark Richards 18:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Disputed

Dori - can you list the main points that are disputed here so that we can try to resolve them? Thanks, Mark Richards 20:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I resent the entire accusatory feel of the article towards Albanians. Regarding, "2000 Serbs and non-Albanians are reported as missing and over a thousand dead" -- I don't think this is factual, but even if it were how come the Albanian deaths are not mentioned? I don't like how the Albanians are made to look like the agressors and instigators, when it was the Serbian and Yugoslav armies that started mass killings and deportations. I don't like how Albanians are always accused of ethnic cleansing by Igor, when it's the other way around. Sure, the Albanians are retaliating, and committing violence against the Serbs, but it is not ethnic cleansing. The majority of Serbs left before Kfor even went in. They left on their own accord, though they were rightly afraid, whereas the Albanians were deported under direct threat and by the Yugoslav armies. What the Serbs have done is not even mentioned in most cases. This is most definitely POV. Dori | Talk 20:36, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's factually accurate at all. According to the BBC television news a few hours ago, about 31 people have died, 500 have been injured and 1000 (apparently mostly Serbs) have been made homeless. -- ChrisO 21:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So it's the 'Unrest since the end of the war' bit that is objected to? Can we just take it out completely, since it is not directly relevant to the March incidents? Also, I don't think the Albanian deportations during the war belong here , this is just for the recent March incidents. Mark Richards 21:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the above as relating to the casualties in the latest unrest. I don't know where Igor is getting his figures from but I've been unable to corroborate them myself; I suggest that we leave them out until they can be sourced. However, I do agree with what I think is Igor's general intention here, i.e. to provide a bit of background. I've rewritten the paragraph to try to convey that in a more NPOV way. See what you think. -- ChrisO 21:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure - I like that - if this is going to be broader than just March, do we want to rename to Unrest in Kosovo since 2000, or since the end of the Kosovo War or something? Mark Richards 21:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think there's certainly scope for a broader article on postwar ethnic relations in Kosovo, but if we were to do that it would probably have to be either (a) a new article linking out to this one or (b) an expanded version of this article renamed to something like "Ethnic relations in Kosovo". Either would be viable, I think. If we stick with having this article covering only this outbreak of unrest in detail, I think a one-paragraph summary of preceding events is sufficient. -- ChrisO 21:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's just watch how it evolves for now. Mark Richards 21:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just one question - since I'm not on Wikipedia for that long, what happens when an article is so inflamatory? Doesn't even mention what happened in the rest of Serbia, a mosque in Belgrade and a mosque in Nis being torched down... Will someone rewrite this? Muha

Actually it does, under "Reactions in Serbia". I added that - the original version of the article made no mention of the mosque attacks. -- ChrisO 20:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you think an article is inflammatory, you can dispute the neutrality of the article. →Raul654 19:08, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, excuse little old me for not having noticed, ChrisO. The last thing I saw was the original article :). On the other hand, how do I dispute the neutrality?! Muha

Um, no - I added it several days ago... :-/ -- ChrisO 22:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't like the stand-alone "Attacks on Kosovo Serbs" section, while no information is given on Albanian causalties. I unfortunately have not seen any specific reports (the ethnicity is not speficied on most stories). I would like to know the source for the information on this section, which I cannot substantiate from any of the stories. Dori | Talk 22:16, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's been a disturbing lack of sourcing for virtually all of the claims made by Igor. Igor, if you do have sources, could you please include them? -- ChrisO 22:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you - we should not mention things here that we cannot reference to a reliable source. Mark Richards 22:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unicode

Could everyone please be aware that Unicode should be used for Central European characters? If you enter CE characters, they are at risk of being corrupted by subsequent editors who don't have CE fonts installed. In particular, the character š keeps getting corrupted to ?. If you need to enter a CE character, please use the Unicode for that character. You can convert them very easily with the script at http://www.mikezilla.com/exp0012.html . -- ChrisO 21:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually this seems to be a common browser problem. When one inputs characters č, ć, đ in Latin 2, they get correctly converted to Unicode upon submitting the form in Mozilla; however, that doesn't happen for š, ž, they go through unmodified and then whoever comes along later with a different charset corrupts them. But we're way offtopic for this page... --Shallot 02:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Map image

Igor, what is the source of your map image? What is its copyright status? -- ChrisO 23:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyright should not be a problem. --Igor

I don't think this map image should be used, as all it shows is events where Serbs were victims; no retaliations (there must have been some) are mentioned.

Can you provide any instances of alleged Serb retalliations against Albanians? There were none to my knowledge. --Igor.

This give the map a very accusatory feel, which point was also raised by [[user:Dori|Dori] in regard to the text. So either someone edits the map (if its copyright status allows that) to show both sides of the conflict, or else the map should be removed altogether.
Sietse 10:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that, speaking objectively, Serbs were indeed the principal victims of last weeks' events. From what I've seen in (Western) press reports most of the violence was carried out by Albanians against Serbs. I've not seen any reports of retaliations, although I agree there probably were some. That said, I think there's a legitimate question about how much detail we should go into. Should we just summarise along the lines of "X number of villages were attacked, Y number of homes were burned, Z number of churches were destroyed" or provide a breakdown either in the article or in a map? -- ChrisO 20:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Chris. The map should be kept. More informative is better than less. However, I'd like to hear about the copyright status of the picture. →Raul654 20:24, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think the map could be salvaged but it will need major revisions. Looking at it, the main problems appear to lie in the highly POV language that it uses and its assumption that Serbs were the only victims (they were certainly the principal victims, but not the only ones). I suggest the following changes if we're to keep the map:

• Why are "torched monasteries" treated in two different categories according to how old they are? Also, it's inconsistent with the text, which speaks of churches, shrines and other cultural sites being attacked. The two categories should be combined and renamed as "Cultural or religious sites attacked".

Torched monasteries and torched churches, years in paranthesis give the oldest and newest of each of them. --Igor

• "Killings of Serbs" / "Ethnic cleansing and attacks against Serbs" - replace with a single category, "Flashpoints". (Perhaps this should include the "torched monasteries" category as well?)

Or maybe just put a big black dot to make it uniform and simple? --Igor

• "Serb enclaves" - if this accurate represents the main areas of Serb settlement, fair enough, but I think we'd be better off with a proper demographic map (if one exists).

This is more accurate than most maps you see on the news, will make it even more accurate just to spite your attempts to degrade this article. --Igor

• "Areas that are being cleansed of Serbs" - POV, of questionable value and accuracy and time-dependent anyway; we're supposed to be writing for the long term here. I don't know what Igor's source is for the areas that have been plotted.

Will make it more precise. --Igor

I agree now that the map should be kept. I couldn't find a demographic map &emdash; I used the keywords Map, Kosovo, Serb, and Alban, but I didn't find anything. For that matter, I couldn't find the source of Igor's map either.
Sietse 10:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did a bit more searching and was unable to find a demographic map either - they all seem to date from before 1999. I gather there was due to be a census in 2001 but it doesn't appear to have taken place in Kosovo (though it did in the rest of Serbia). I suspect it's a rather sensitive political issue... -- ChrisO 13:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are some Serbs living in mixed communities, but the vast majority live in locations that are usually refered to as enclaves. They are relatively small, relatively self contained communities with poor linkages to other communities. I think the term is pretty accuate and not to POV. Mark Richards 21:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's in dispute. The enclaves certainly exist. The problem is that I've not found any source, and Igor hasn't provided any source, which details where each of them are and how big they are. From what I've been able gather, it appears that they range in size from entire districts (as in north Kosovo) down to individual villages and even individual buildings, all of which have to be guarded round the clock by police and troops. It beats me why anyone would want to live in such a place but evidently some do... -- ChrisO 23:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is that something that I should address or was that a rhetorical question? --Igor

Well, the reasons are pretty depressing, and usually hinge around the people being old / poor / sick / having no-where else to go in the case of the smaller ones, to the larger ones being a mix of no-where else to go and a sense that that is their home. Some of the larger ones are viable as communities, the smaller ones are totally depressing. Anyway, the numbers in them are pretty sensitive, for obvious reaons, and the UN probably does not publish the figures. We could probably track them down, but in most cases these communities are trying to keep a relatively low profile and not draw attention to themselves. The numbers are a political issue. I would be tempted not to go down that road. I'll have a rummage around and see if I can get data on some of the large ones. Mark Richards 00:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OSCE has a series of pretty good reports on the status of them, where they are etc, but no numbers - I suspect they have them, but are reluctant to publish. [2] Mark Richards 00:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

References

Is there a tidier way to deal with those references? Perhaps a superscript number or something? Mark Richards 21:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did my best... Some of the links were ambigous or dead, and I removed them. --dcabrilo 16:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed everything you did, but in principle you shouldn't have removed the dead links outright, instead you should first try to find them at http://www.archive.org . Nikola 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the "dead links" were not in fact dead, but just pointing to a wrong site. E.g. most of links to B92 were links to "latest news" page, which is of course, of no use. --dcabrilo 12:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another rename proposal

Would anyone object to renaming this article to "2004 Kosovo unrest" or something along that line? There were several other instances of what could be called "Unrest in Kosovo" and it would be good to think ahead (not necessarily as in future unrests in Kosovo, but as somebody starting other articles about specific unrests). Some other articles to follow this naming convention are:

• 2001 UK foot and mouth crisis
• 1992 Los Angeles riots

--dcabrilo 23:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think renaming it to "2004 unrest in Kosovo" is better than using the word "pogrom" which according to MW dictionary means ": an organized massacre of helpless people;". I do not think this meaning fits the unrest that happened in 2004. In march 2004 several churches were destroyed, and people in some cases fired at each other with weapons. Thank you. Regards, ilir_pz 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)