Talk:Adem Jashari/Archive 1

Archive 1

On the article's neutrality

What kind of pro-Albanian propaganda is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.169.100 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

These things have never happened:

• In 1990, Kosovo’s parliament declared independence from Serbia
• adopted a constitution for the new Republic of Kosova
• Kosovo remained occupied by Serbia

While these are far from neutral:

• continuously been an arena of freedom fights
• Albanian people and their struggle for liberty
• not one foreign country recognized the brave step taken by the Kosovar Albanians
• bounded his life with Kosovo’s destiny
• heroic fall of Adem and Hamëz Jashari

Thus, I am marking this article with totallydisputed tag. Nikola 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the "things that never happened" part: Kosovo did declare independence in 1990s but it was recognized only by Albania, nobody else, it's on Kosovo's independence precedent. . 76.112.213.78 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?

really don't think this article is NPOV. Statements like: "led to the heroic fall of Adem and Hamëz Jashari" and the fact that the article is totally missing references makes this whole article questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the truth.

This article shows the truth of Kosovo. You must be dumb to now recognize that Kosovo wasn`t occupied by Serbs and they have making a lot of suffering to ethnic albanians.

90% of inhabitants in Kosovo are albanians, this shows everything who has occupied who!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.234.17 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs

I agree with NPOV comments. I've found some (reliable) references so I'll add them and then maybe make a start on cleaning up the rest. --Nickj69 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay done, someone else like to take a shot? --Nickj69 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A diff., for context. - Ev (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the reference for the "local thug" quote. Judah does NOT say this in War and Revenge but in an earlier article (although the book in which it appears has a later publication date). Howard Clark (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously....

I was trying to find information about Kosovar politics when I ran across this page. Seriously; the man did so much to further Kosovo's independence why is this kind of fluff propaganda piece necessary. The writing is jumbled, slanted, rumor ridden and erratic, and it sounds more like the gushing of a teen heartthrob magazine than serious scholarly examination. A serious subject deserves serious, unbiased fact. Jashari's role in the conflict in Kosovo was important; too important to warrant a piece of fan fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately everybody who wants to make this article less povish will be blocked, like User Interestedinfairness and others. --Tibetian (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Message to Serbs protesting

In postbellum periods, where the pursuit of war criminals is being held, the ones who stayed defending their country are the heroes, while the ones attacking (out of their country) are the criminals. I do feel bad for the Serbs, that they cannot, with full confidence, walk around with the ones they call their heroes printed on their T-shirts. But I can only say, pick your heroes better. To some people Hitler or Stalin are still heroes, even after counting the number of unnecessary deads these monsters have caused. On the other side you have freedom fighters like Ghandi: "Kill me, for I will not defend myself, if that means that I would have to kill you." This is not the kind of hero Adem Jashari was allowed to be. The guy had to fight, against a standing army entering Kosovar villages, he couldn't have possibly gone gently into that good night. If you need a hero, I'll tell you who your real heroes are: the Serbs who turned their backs on Serbian troups - like it happened in Bosnia - and defended their neighbours. Now if you please, let the Kosovar people celebrate their freedom of speech.

Intro

"Adem Jashari (November 28, 1955 – March 7, 1998) was born in Prekaz, in the Drenica region of Kosovo, at the time part of Yugoslavia. Jashari was a chief commander in the Drenica operation zone of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was officially a terrorist organization.[1] Serbs mostly consider him to be war criminal. [2][3]"

This introduction needs to be rewritten properly. I also suggest deleting the line I marked(in bold), because whether the Kal was a terrorist organization or not is totally irrelevant to this article. 91.179.155.55 (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. He is best remembered for his role in the KLA and the reader has to understand what the KLA was. At the time when he was killed, the KLA was a terrorist organization, even according to the CIA. What happened after doesn't matter in this article, as it doesn't concern Jashari. --Cinéma C 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the text marked in bold should be removed. I can't seem to find a single "reliable" source that verifies that KLA was a terrorist organization and it is not necessary the Serb's POV regarding Adem Jashari because it will break the NPOV because Serbian Military/Police/Government were involved against him. No one has any doubts that Serbs consider him to be a criminal, just like Albanians reward him to be a national hero, but both of these should be removed to help for NPOV regarding the article. Thank you.--kedadi (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the BBC is not reliable enough for you, here's some more:

• War on terrorism skipped the KLA National Post, 13 November 2001, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)
• Reveron, 2006, pages 68 - 69

All the best, --Cinéma C 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But the BBC source is a bit weak. Can you provide one or two solid references? Evlekis (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC source is nothing more than a pure translation of Tanjug news agency with the title: Kosovo killings: Belgrade's official version of events (note, Belgrade's official version), don't forget to check out the footer of that page if you don't believe me: Source: Tanjug news agency, Belgrade, in English 2156 gmt 11 Mar 98 .

About other two pages, it's obvious that those articles are extremely anti-Albanian and not convincing at all, only allegations.

To find out if an organization is/was a terrorist one, is pretty simple. As an example take Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, it is written all over about those organizations, so take a look at CIA's website and you'll find out more, so please stop the FUD that you people are spreading everywhere on wikipedia.--kedadi (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop spreading your nonsense please. Sources that claim "most Serbs consider him a war criminal" are absolutely absurd. Why don't we edit the page of George Bush and say most peace-loving people consider him a war criminal?

The Tim Judah book, the only reliable source you guys have provided, does not even claim that. The rest of the sources are ridiculous and never meet the criteria of what is a reliable source; WP:V

Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

This is the only possible version. Claim "most Serbs consider him a war criminal" is so true, that you can't even imagine, so that must be written, due to the Kosovo disputed status. Now, here are 10+ sources that are very reliable, so there is nothing there that is not true. He was leader of the, at the time terrorist organization, so government of the Yugoslavia send military to deal with him. He stayed in the house, instead of surrender, and his family died with him. Is here something false? Of course not.

And just to tell this, the fact about terrorist organization is the key factor in this article, because entire action of the Yugoslav government where Adem died was reaction on the KLA murders and kidnapping. There are sources for that too, now, in article. Regards, T.

And this source is just for the talk page! :)

Kosovo Liberation Army, a gang of fascist terrorists that collaborated with the imperialist nations.

Tadija (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC

As regards this article however, you are using unknown sources or idiotic ones who refer to the KLA as fascists?, hardly a mainstream view. Besides, the sources do not meet the WP:V criteria. Your more than welcome to include "Slobodan Milosoviq's henchmen s views of Jashari" later on in the article, but not in the lead. (Interestedinfairness :::::::(talk) 23:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

My unknown sources are THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Council on Foreign Relations, etc... That is very much a mainstream view. This international and world wide accepted organizations completely meet the WP:V criteria, and they are not "unknown idiotic sources", so stop your sabotage. You dont have even one hard argument, if you continue to edit this article without a discussion, i'll report you for 3rd-revert-rule. If you have some problem, write it here, and we will find, together, Interestedinfairness, some solution. Please, there are no need for this kind of arguing...

Regards, Tadija (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead. It "was" a terrorist organization. It isn't any more. Why should it deserve a mention in the first sentences of the lead?

And don't threaten me please, your in no position to talk to me about sabotage.

www.impactpress.com is not a credible source, neither is glas-javnosti. The Washington times source you speak of is non-existent. The cfr source does not call him a terrorist, or claim that the Serbs consider him one. Do you think we are stupid? :::::::::(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).

There are no way for you to continue this.

"I've reworded the lead. It "was" a terrorist organization. It isn't any more. Why should it deserve a mention in the first sentences of the lead?

It must be mentioned, it was terrorist organization, and Serbia and Yugoslavia government attacked Adem because of that! Army attacks terrorist, terrorist dies. THAT IS OFFICIAL ATTITUDE; You cant denied it.

And for the sources, even if we delete independent source from Orlando, Florida, there are still lot more sources that stay there... The Washington times source is OK, of course, you are sabotaging again... I send you one, even better source, from United States also, so you will see why Serbs consider him a murderer. I can find even more. If you stop, i will stop too. Tadija (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If your only conetention lies with saying in the lead that the "Serbs" consider (ed) him a terrorist, then fine. I will reword it as to include something along the lines of "the Yugoslav army, mainly Serbs at the time, considered him a terrorist".

But please, stop getting so wound up, just relax and lets gain a consensus rationally and less emotively. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It not the Yugoslav army what is important, it is Yugoslav government. They send the attack, not army. At the end, we will find best intro. Tadija (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No Tadija, that is not how it works. My proposed lead gives you what you want. In fact, it is more than is deserved. But since no other use seems interested, I'm forced to concede some things, such as the fact that the Serbs regarded him a terrorist -- they did not regard him as a war criminal, where did you get that from? (he did die before the war really started...)

But I will not let the page be edited by some one who does not provide reasonably sources, as per WP:V or know how to construct a readable sentence. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)).

Interestedinfairness, i am tired of explaining to you some very simple things. You are talking nonsense! If The Washington Times, Council on Foreign Relations, and AntiWar by Randolph Bourne Institute are not reliable source, than i will delete your COMPLETELY pro-Albanian newkosovareport.com. There are not even one attribute that you have. And regarding my English, if i made a mistake, you can edit that. That's why Wikipedia is so great? And i understand you, you are angry because you know that i am right, so you want to be rude. That is understandable.

STOP REVERT; I WILL REPORT YOU; STOP;

Tadija (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness is currently blocked and is the subject of a proposed Kosovo-related topic ban discussion here. --Cinéma C 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

O, finally... I was too tired of his edits. Tadija (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverts

Lets just create a good article people. The fact that Serbs and at one point the U.S., Britain and France considered him a terrorist is mentioned explicitly in the article under my proposed lead. It's hard to work in an environment where the article is constantly and pointlessly edited so as to portray him as a terrorist. Can we get over this so the article can realise its full potential? -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to something, then that should be included. If you feel that there are "dubious sources", say that. Otherwise, just edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring isn't productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have tried that here and then tried to appease other user here and then removed disruptive edit here and then another one here. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

Remember article is about Mr.Jashari, not the KLA. WP:DUE. Bit at the bottom of my current edit should suffice and appease others however. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)).

Because Adem is leader of KLA, this article is about KLA too. All action of Yugoslav army was because of KLA factor. Tadija (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tadija, please stop this. Me and Elevkis left the article in a stable state. Stop with the distruptive edits. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

---

Note: when we talk about Yugoslavia in the 1990s, we are talking about Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia/Yugoslavia.--189.62.200.61 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New Kosova Report ref

Tadija, in a recent edit that you made, you stated that the New Kosova Report is not a WP:RS (New Kosova Report was declared unreliable source at reliable source noticeboard earlier.). I can't find that discussion, can you point me there? It already is being used in 45 WP articles as a ref. Thank you. kedadial 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Drenica deaths

Quote from: Humanitarian Law Violations in Kosovo (Human Rights Watch, New York, October 1998), p28:

"An estimated fifty-eight ethnic Albanis were killed in the attack, including eighteen women and ten children under the age of sixteen, and then summarily buried by the police before autopsies could be performed. The exact number and identities of the dead reported by different sources varies slightly, a consequence of the manner in which the burial was conducted (see blow) and because some of the bodies were burned beyond recognition."

A footnote refers to Amnesty International reporting that 56 bodies were buried on March 11, 41 of which were identified.

On p 32 of the HRW report, they published the list compiled by the Prishtina-based Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms of the identified dead in Donji Prekaz. This contain 41 people with the surname Jashari and Isak Halili. Howard Clark (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit war

There are currently two revisions of the article which take their turn in presenting the article and they change every time either Interestedinfairness or Tadija arrive on WP!

It seems to be a relatively large blanket revert from both parties. Now then, perhaps I am not the most suitable mediator given the position I have been seen to take on Kosovo-related articles, but are the two of you seriously disputing every single factor which changes every time a revert is made? For anyone outside the dispute, it is difficult to follow the discrepancies. Can either of you explain precisely the current problem? Is it entirely to do with the article being based on the person and not the KLA? Evlekis (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look above, you will see that a detailed discussion has gone on with Tadija. The sources have been analyzed. Other users have further broken-down the sources and how they should be used in this article. I should also reiterate that this article is about the man, not the KLA, although my edited version does include a brief and highly precise description of the KLA's "status". Furthermore, I would also like to remind Tadija that I have advised her once before against reverting with no explanations after talk page discussions. Really now, is my edited version not more appropriate for Wikipedia?. Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure if it gives some mention of the KLA status. How would Tadija feel about a compromise between the two revisions? Elements of one and the other? Evlekis (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Evlekis, my version is a compromise. All this sources are necessary to show that Yugoslav action was important because KLA was criminal terrorist organization, so adem died as a chief of that. Instead of surrender, he drag all of his family into death, and put a gun in his mouth. Regarding that, he is faaar from hero, as you can see in the lead, but i was willing to put that also. There are no compromise from me any more. Interestedinfairness is anyway inch close to complete ban. Tadija (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. I don't wish for Interestedinfairness to be banned. Your points are fair, and I accept that you have yielded your position somewhat over the past few weeks. That is to say that your edit has changed. I think we can leave out any references to Jashari not being a hero; and you know how it is with politics, the nations - or each one of its individuals - will make up their own minds. We can't influence them here! Is Interestedinfairness happy to continue with a version which ackowledges the KLA's position as a terrorist organisation and that central action from Belgrade was necessary? Or does he feel that such usage requires some caution? Evlekis (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army was back at 1998 considered a terrorist organisation by USA and France, but was removed from the list later that year. Putting such an exceptional claim with such poor references is against WP. On KLA article there is a line that mentions the USA and France list of terrorist organisations, and shows the whole truth. The current lead is totally tendentious. Furthermore, the guy didn't organize or command any attack on civilians. And, User:Tadija, pleas stop meatpuppeting as done here and here. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Two versions.

NOW WE HAVE TWO VERSIONS FOR THE ADEM DEATH:

FIRST ONE:

Local villagers say that Adem shot himself. As a matter of fact, there was only one bullet wound in his right jaw, showing that Adem possibly shot himself.

SECOND ONE:

In one of the houses, the police fired mortars, followed by tear gas. Most of Jashari's extended family gathered in a single room, which had a brick wall. A shell then fell through the roof, killing a number of family members. The shelling continued for another thirty-six hours before the police finally entered the compound. Amnesty International in a report made for the case, stated that the attack was intended to eliminate all witnesses. Adem Jashari together with fifty-two of his family members were killed, some of them burned beyond recognition. A total of fifty-eight people were murdered, among them eighteen were woman and ten children under sixteen years old.

I HAVE HIDDEN BOTH VERSIONS UNTIL CONSENSUS IS REACHED HERE IN THE TALK PAGE

• In first version, "Local villagers say that Adem shot himself" is disputable and unsourced. And second one, "there was only one bullet wound in his right jaw, showing that Adem possibly shot himself" is definitively true, as many sources can tell.

• In second version, First sentence is ok, second is a bit disputable, and in need of citation, Third one also, fourth is ok, fifth is definitively out, National army dont need to worry about witnesses, adem was chief of the terrorist gang for them, if they were innocent, why they didnt exit the compound, and i have lot of sources that there was 26 family members, nooot 52? Please, who have 52 family members in one house?? Thats pointless! At the end, we can easity place a number, after some more sources. They was not all family members there. And this is not article about those family members, it is about Adem Jashari, information that some of them burned is unneeded here. The police had no way of knowing if there were any civilians left with the terrorists, since dozens of them had earlier vacated the premises surrounded by the police. And where is that information? And last two sentences, also, not article about those family members, it is about Adem Jashari.

So, together we will make one good version. I will leave this for now, and you can write your version below. Please, try to make sintesis of both versions, and try to listen my point of view. I will answer that with my version, and i hope that we will make good one. There is no need for marathon reverts. Ok? :) Tadija (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija, I am sorry but your version is so near to the first one written by Albanian editors but in the totally opposite direction.

1. If only one bullet was found in his head, it is totally WP:OR to assume that he shot himself.

2. There are numerous sources that his entire family of fifty-two members was shot, there is no chance in the world that anyone can dispute that.

3. You claim that Jashari was a terrorist, that is equivalent to me claiming that he was a hero. So please drop you personal view and start a constructive approach as I am trying. Believe me the version that I edited was a tremendous consensus from my part.

4. Material that is not sourced and has been such for a long time, it is preferable to be deleted. You either find references or drop the sentence. Exceptional claims seek for exceptional references is a WP principle. And exceptional claims in this article have no references whatsoever. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija can't you understand that this version you proposed, is just a Personal Point of View? You can't write "gang of fascist terrorists". --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didnt write that, that is source.

• Jashari's attacks and rebellion was sometimes associated with behavior of Drenica kaçaks from the past. That is wrong. :::::It is not somethimes, and it is not past. Jashari is dead, there is no future for him. You cannot write sentence like that? Dont remove Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija then it was that officially. And he was terrorist, Yugoslav army attack him because he was terrorist, there is no doubt about that! That information is important. READ ALL FROM ABOVE. All of your questions are answered above already! Tadija (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a PERSONAL belief. As I can't add hero you can't terrorist because it is a PERSONAL belief. Do you understand that?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yugoslav army attack him because he was terrorist" vs. "He was a hero. He is a symbol of Albanian resistance against Serbian oppression". Please avoid POV. And try to find more diplomatic phrases in: Nevertheless, there are a lot of evidence of his criminal activity, little known to the world[5]. The quotation does not show anything about his criminal behavior. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija is blocked 31 hours for 3RR. In the meantime can somebody please clean up the references, making it clear what is being cited and when? At the moment the style is just horrible, and I'm sure a good chunk of the refs fail WP:RS. Moreschi (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some un-sourced sentenced that I could remove. Also some sources are unreliable, maybe replace them. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, be my guest. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove references

I think that our job here is not to smear anyone or show any point of view. Our job is to inform people who are interested in different things. If someone want's to know anything about Adem Jashari, he will be deprived from getting useful information that you just deleted. Let's not edit war about everything. The version that I edited was just cleared out, without stating a view. Please be more collaborative. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was mistake. Rest is POV, and read all from above, and you will understand why i removed it. But read that! Tadija (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but there is allot of material that was not sourced. I removed that, and added other sourced information. On the other hand, I made the terrorism part more 'light', as it was to harsh. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to persecute people - just to tell neutral stories. Which part was POV, so we can fix that? —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, i can work with that!

• Local villagers say that Adem shot himself. As a matter of fact, there was only one bullet wound in his right jaw, showing that Adem possibly shot himself.

• In one of the houses, the police fired mortars, followed by tear gas. Most of Jashari's extended family gathered in a single room, which had a brick wall. A shell then fell through the roof, killing a number of family members. The shelling continued for another thirty-six hours before the police finally entered the compound. Amnesty International in a report made for the case, stated that the attack was intended to eliminate all witnesses. Adem Jashari together with fifty-two of his family members were killed, some of them burned beyond recognition. A total of fifty-eight people were murdered, among them eighteen were woman and ten children under sixteen years old.

(This is not article about attack, or his family. There are no need for this kind of view here. This is main POV problem, and it was reverted months ago, by agreement.) Tadija (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am tired. The version I edited was very near to the concept that was already there. I do not agree with neither the version I wrote nor this one. But because of consensus I did not want to make big conceptual changes. I believe that references were firm. And your version lacks them. As shown here: . Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations and Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. I did that, found many sources, and made slight changes on the concept as well. —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jashari's record

James Pettifer, Kosova Express: A Journey in Wartime (London, Hurst & Co, 2005) writes, p144, that "Adem Jashari had been arrested and gaoled in Albania as long ago as 1993"

Quote Humanitarian Law Violations in Kosovo (published by Human Rights Watch, New York in October 1998, p27:

"Adem Jashari had already been convicted in absentia by a Pristina court on July 11, 1997, for 'terrorist acts' along with fourten other ethnic Albanians, in a trial that clearly failed to conform to international standards."

That report then refers to a press release "Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Condemns Political Trial in Kosovo", dated July 15 1997. The three defendants that were present for the trial - Besim Rama, Idriz Asllani and Avni Nura -- all stated that they had confessed after being tortured. All of the defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging between four and twenty years. Howard Clark (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

T-shirts

I've deleted the t-shirts. First, because the article cited mentions one person wearing it (and a US visitor at that!). And second because t-shirts with this slogan can be found advertised on the net with various graphics - not just the picture of Adem Jashari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Clark (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. All of those edits by you are quite balanced and NPOV. --Tadija (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

the introduction seems more like an apology: "the yugoslavs considered him to be a criminal which is why they attacked him" , then it says that the police asked only Adem to give himself up while in source 5 it says that the police asked them to go out one by one otherwise they would kill them -- CD 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is correct. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

He liked to get drunk and go out and shoot Serbs.”

There is no secondary source to support this, in fact there is no other source which supports something so controversial. Tim Judah is an avid Serbophile and a supporter of the Serb cause, he is undoubtedly POV and unreliable. This sentence was taken from his book "The Serbs". It wouldn't be a far stretch to believe he would be POV. That's why I wish to remove the aforementioned sentence if no one objects. Euripides ψ (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And your source for Judah being an "avid Serbophile" and "supporter of the Serb cause" is? It's funny, because Serb nationalists (especially on Wikipedia) accuse him of pushing a pro-Bosniak, anti-Serb agenda with his books. So which is it? 23 editor (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what other Serbs think of him. I am basing my claim off of the fact that the source for that statement is a book titled "The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia" which is written with great emotion and a statement like that without any secondary reliable source to back that up seems pretty false to me. Euripides ψ (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Other" Serbs? I don't know if you know this, but Judah is British, not Serb. That being said, I still don't see a coherent argument against him. If you feel he isn't WP:RS you're welcome to post at WP:RSN. 23 editor (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Judah is not an avid Serbophile nor supporter of the Serb cause.--Zoupan 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously this sentence is removed per IDONTLIKEIT, but its sourced, and as far as i see here, we have consensus to keep it. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim Judah

All of Tim Judah's allegations have been removed from this article because it serves Serbian and Russian nationalism. Tim Judah is an avid Serbophile and a supporter of the Serb cause, he is undoubtedly POV and unreliable. He also has in his books a hateful and racist language against Albanians and other peoples who have been in war with the Serbs during the break-up of Yugoslavia. So resources from this bookwriter can not be taken as safe sources! --Hakuli (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hakuli:, i know of Judah's works, Serbs say he is pro-Albanian and Albanians say he is pro-Serb. He merely is doing the task of researching things objectively. Both of Di Lellio's articles in the books section in the page are available, and she also references similar things like this with Jashari when she did fieldwork in Drenica. Jashari is a complicated personality, it is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I support this removal by Hakuli ([[1]]) and had earlier done it myself. It is not encyclopedic content and has more to do with Tim Judah's very ... journalistic (to put it lightly) way of wording things, than verifiable fact. --Calthinus (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

He is a journalist, but also a political analyst and has been a visiting fellow at the London school of economics. Anyway, i'll leave it up you guys then.Resnjari (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

- Tim Judah is a journalist but in his book he does not mention the source from which he wrote that text.
- The book was written in the 1997 , where during the war of Kosovo there were many minorities that became known later.
- Tim Judah never met Adem Jashari, this is another reason why we can trust this author.
- We have dozens of Albanian and foreign authors who have met Adem Jashari, none of them have affirmed the quotes of Tim Judah!
--Hakuli (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Di Lellio did do fieldwork, and there are few things about Jashari which locals (Albanians) from Drenica said about behavior etc. I'm saying that there is more to Jashari than just the martyr for the cause image in Kosovo. Anyway i don't object to a keep or removal. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, but the way Judah, with his journalistic acerbic wit, worded his sentence is (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous as it can also mean something that would give the reader this view: "how did Adem Jashari find joy in life? Well some people enjoyed good food, others music or sports, while Adem Jashari found the greatest joy in his life by cracking open a nice cold beer with da bois and then going on a hunting trip, preferring to use his rifle on Serbs rather than deer". Jashari's "behavior" is one thing, what he "liked" is a statement about his internal mental state which is inherently unverifiable. --Calthinus (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am interested, can you show me exact examples, Hakuli, where Tim Judah uses hateful and racist language against Albanians? I mean, in which book, which page and with link. Also, how can be a man who has written a books called "The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia" which was published by Yale University Press in which he accused Serbian leadership for destruction of Yugoslavia and criticizes Serbian nationalism and same done in "Kosovo: War and Revenge" (same publisher), or "Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know" in which he describes Kosovo as independent state, a position which Republic of Serbia doesn't recognize, how can he serve for Serbian nationalism? I am just asking.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

James Jim Moriarty although I agree with Hakuli's position on this article, I don't agree with calling Judah a Serbian nationalist and actually continuing to have a discussion about his alleged adherence to such a creed might violate BLP -- best for that to go on talk pages, or not be discussed in public at all. He's a living guy. --Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus I just asked Hakuli to explain me from where in Tim's literature he deduced that Tim Judah is pro-Serbian nationalist. It was said by him and he should elaborate. Accusing author of usage "racist and hateful language" towards one group of people is very strong accusation and it needs closer examinations and proofs. I am somewhat surprised that you didn't responded to that accusations of Tim when it was said and putted here by Hakuli at the very beginning of discussion, for the same reasons you've said in response towards me, but I am glad that you agreed that he cannot be called pro-Serbian nationalist or anything similar. I have read some of Tim's works, but I haven't got an impression that he is pro-Serbian nationalist at all. My point is that that specific claim cannot be a reason for removal of sources in which some person is the author, as it was asked by Hakuli here for Judah, without goods explanations and some strong proofs. As for the rest, his style of writing maybe is problematic, because, as it was said before, he main profession is journalism, and he is not an academic for example. But the facts are that his books were published and used in other literature, so this needs closer examination and bigger discussion in which I will not go deeper and leave it to you. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@James Jim Moriarty:, Hakuli knows by now he should not have referred to a living author that way on a talk page (WP:BLPTALK). Some of us are new, there is time for everyone to learn. There was no need for me to respond to it; Resnjari already had. Regarding whether Tim Judah is a "Serbian nationalist", the two of us are in agreement-- he is not. --Calthinus (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Hakuli's reasons for removal of Tim as a source in this article before your response were towards alleged Serbian nationalism. Nobody asked him why he thinks Tim is nationalist or why he thinks that Tim uses racist language and where in the books he used that - to elabore that more. That reasoning as a set of claims without explanations and examples is not right. Nobody responded to that and every response to that will only help Hakuli. There was a response from Resnjari that Tim is objective and just merely does his work and that someone thinks he is pro-Serbian, someone pro-Albanian. I was interested when I heard Hakuli's proposals and that specific reason (nationalism and racism in his books etc) about Tim so I was interested and asked. And there is no need to defend someone who started the discussion with that, especially not to someone who responded in a good faith to that accusations with the simple questions where and why. As for the rest, there is no need to be a PR to someone - he is a user, he is asked and he will to respond. And he wasn't attacked or something. Also, not to mention the WP:BLPTALK where I agree with you that this topic is not very good for talk here. But the fact that the accusations without some more proofs and response will be left on this Talk page here is not very right towards a living person either. I think that you understood that. In any way, I think he learned that and this could become a slight drift away from the main topic so no need for more discussion about that here. As for removal of Tim's sources from this page, I am not a "fan" of Tims work either, because of his methods of writing and approaching to problems which is, as you already said, journalistic and not very much analytic, so you understood what I meant, but I think that harder reason for removal than that is needed. The fact is that his books as sources are used in some other articles on with similar topics, for example, Kosovo war and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, so they need to be taken into account as well and that's the reason why this is a wider issue and more analysis of the topic is needed. Because of that I will leave that discussion to people who have "digged deeper" into his work. Kind regards, James Jim Moriarty (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Even using the concept of "defending" someone over an issue like this entirely the wrong paradigm. The insinuations about Tim Judah were responded to by Resnjari. I do not oppose his usage elsewhere so long as the material is verifiable and encyclopedic. This is not a debate forum, it is an encyclopedia, and talk pages are for improving content; one should reprimand behavior when and if it is important for the former. To be entirely fair, Hakuli may not have seen WP:BLPTALK before this exchange between us, but as I pinged him, he hopefully now has. The ending should be now with, "they all edited happily ever after". For the record I removed the material long before Hakuli ever touched this page; it was reinstated by Anastan.--Calthinus (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You didn't understood what I meant with that "defending someone" - it is not a wrong paradigm, it is so obvious, but it is not an attack or something similar. And if you didn't understood, I didn't accused you for defending Hakuli's usage of such insinuations and unsupported claims. I do not understand why you have the need to answer on behalf of him - he was asked about that, he should answer. Simple. As for the questions, again, I see nothing wrong with my questions towards that insinuations. There is nothing wrong to ask a person who said something to elaborate that more precisely - again, it will only help Hakuli to see how discussions should be managed here. This is an Encyclopedia, as you said, not some forum. As for WP:BLPTALK - it is totally ok, I didn't had a problem with that, he obviously wasn't aware about that and now he already seen that. But, as you said and this discussion went off-topic - the ending should be now with, "they all edited happily ever after". James Jim Moriarty (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)