Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

 

Template talk:Yugoslav Wars

FBiH didn't have an army

In what kind, FBiH was included in any war? FBiH was created 1994, during the war, but FBiH didn't have army (it was created in 1995, after Dayton Peace Agreement). --Kahriman 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you answered your own question there champ. // Hadžija 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha Hajji, you certenly are funny guy. FBiH was not involved in any wars or even conflicts. It didn't even have army in that time. --Kahriman 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It was created during the Bosnian War, it was one of the warring sides (on paper, at least). That makes it relevant.--Hadžija 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't make it participant because FBiH didn't participate in any wars or conflicts. --Kahriman 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And black is white, right?--Hadžija 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead Estavisti, delete the truth. --Kahriman 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template needs changes

This template needs changes.
Regarding "states", we should divide the sections into recognized and unrecognized states.
Second, in the section of recognized states, we should make a subsection of "self-proclaimed autonomous units" (Herceg-Bosna, Western Bosnia). The latter two consider themselves as a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Third, regarding military commanders. Ovo je bilo nedopustivo. To put regular army commanders together with bandits like Ražnatović? Kubura 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing main image because of its (mis)representation of the ARBiH

I'm taking off the recently added main image because of its (mis)representation of the ARBiH. While Croatian and Serbian/Yugoslav soldiers are presented fairly typically, the image placed alongside Alija Izetbegovic shows the 7th Muslim Brigade in ceremonial attire. What's more, the 7th Muslim Brigade made up less than .5% of the ARBiH and was one of a minority of specifically monoethnic units. That image might fly on the Serbian wikipedia where it originated, but here I think I'm making a reasonable request in asking for a more representative display of ARBiH soldiers. Live Forever 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you. And the picture of 7th brigade which was included is not free. It belongs to 3rd corps press archive. According to Wikipedia policy, it should be deleted. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing fair use images

All fair use images are being removed from this template in accordance with Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Vassyana (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed all images since they fit in two categories: improperly tagged non-free government/army seals and flag icons that are replaceable with text abbreviations. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo War

Kosovo War 1998-1999 should also be added to this template.--Mladifilozof (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it has been removed without any discussion. Reverted it back to the latest stable version and also included your last commit. Thank you. kedadial 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kosovo War, fought years after Yugoslavia dissolved, is a "Yugoslav war"? Source that, please, otherwise it can't stay in this template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I have no problem with the previous version, as long as it is sourced. Kosovo a "Yugoslav war"? In 2001? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Kosovo War, fought years after Yugoslavia dissolved, is a "Yugoslav war"?" -Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: 1992-2003. Kosovo War: 1998-1999. Insurgency in the Preševo Valley: 1999-2001. Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia: 2001. Do they qualify as Yugoslav wars?
kedadial 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia and Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia) was often not considered "Yugoslavia proper" by many authors, indeed, the US refused to recognize its name until 2000. But this is besides the point, we're not here to debate the "yugoslavity" of Serbia and Montenegro, rather I would like to see some source categorizing the Kosovo War as a "Yugoslav war". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Kosovo War was a part of a wider process of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Here are some sources that Kosovo War was part of Yugoslav Wars:

Also, War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia also included Kosovo War crimes. Furthermore, ICTY prosecution argue that Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were all part of a same process.

The prosecution's argument that [...] the allegations made in the three indictments [Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo] were all part of a common scheme, strategy or plan on the part of the accused [Slobodan Milošević] to create a "Greater Serbia", a centralised Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and all of Kosovo, and that this plan was to be achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of the crime charged in the indictments. Although the events in Kosovo were separated from those in Croatia and Bosnia by more than three years, they were, the prosecution claimed, no more than a continuation of that plan, and they could only be understood completely by reference to what had happened in Croatia and Bosnia.

— Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002.

--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) naturally includes Kosovo as it is obviously a part of "former Yugoslavia", this is not disputed, is well known, and is completely besides the point. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main article considers the Kosovo War as part of the Yugoslav Wars, it was debated whether it should considered part of the Yugoslav Wars in the the article's talk page and the consensus was that it was one of those wars, it time we honor their conclusion. Charles Essie (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FRY = SCG

Since the FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro articles were merged, there's no reason to stay separate in this template.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline part

Why is this level of detail necessary? It's both incomplete and lengthening the navbox unnecessarily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we're to remove it then another template for the Croatian war should be created that's similar to the Bosnian war template. The Croatian war campaignbox looks out of place and includes many non-battle events. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that campaignbox has been an issue for quite a while now, cf. Template talk:Campaignbox Croatian War of Independence. I think the main problem is that it's a lot of work to replace it now, and nobody has bothered. Need to find a way to cram more hours in a day... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a start. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya