Talk:Meja massacre

Forces

This is a vague but nevertheless collective term which covers police, paramilitary and army units. As such, to refer to "Serb forces" for the FRY period in light of the known facts is no different to referring to English troops simply because we know the entity involved is the Yorkshire Regiment. It still goes down as British forces. For editors who use the all too common and sickening cliche to push their propaganda, "stick to sources", perhaps they too should stick to the more reliable sources of listing the country of which Serbia was a part. If they cannot familiarise themselves with these facts, they are wasting everybody's time here at WP because the community has no use for them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are sources which use colloquial and non-encyclopedic term "Serb forces" when referring to the forces of FRY. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Howard Ball of VU: Stocchi is under no illusions that he can provide a complete accounting of Kosovo's dead. So far his team has recovered the remains of just a handful of the 500 men and boys pulled out of a convoy and massacred on April 27, 1999, by Serb police and paramilitaries near Meja.. Btw even the early reports that hadn't been based on thorough investigation made the distinction like HRW which attributes the massacre to "Serbian police and paramilitaries, as well as Yugoslav soldiers". --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely fine. If we can keep everything this way on related articles then we can move away from this ongoing issue and never have to look back or discuss the obvious. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We will continue to have an "ongoing issue" as long as you try to rewrite history. Sources generally say "Serb". Our articles should reflect what independent sources say; you should stop inserting your own version of events. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I think that there are no "we" in this case. Everybody here agreed to make distinction between different armed units. Only you "will continue to have an "ongoing issue"".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And with regards my "inserting own version of events", if you want to play at denialism, start from the top - nominate Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for deletion on account of the fact that your bible does not recognise the entity, and see how far your "independent sources" support your nomintation. If you succeed, I will take time to help you dismantle every mentuon of FRY across Wikipedia and change it to Serb. Until then, kindly confine yourself to topics in which you comprehend the sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We should always rely on what the sources say. Synthesis is not allowed, and in this case sources specifically say Serb with VJ (i.e. Yugoslav) forces giving more of an assisting role. This is a critical element due to the way the command structure worked in Serbia and Yugoslavia, although the case could be made that Yugoslav forces were also more or less exclusively Serb whether in the individual low-level membeship or in the largely non-existing participation of Montenegro in the war effort. --Arianit (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the facts that is up to you, as for synthesis not being allowed - you've taken the words out of my mouth. army-Yugoslav, paramilitary-Serb. Forces? VAGUE. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see where your confusion is. Force can also be police, not justy Army. --Arianit (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not my confusion, everyone's! Forces can be anything, even fire fighters for that matter. Your latest revision is all right by me. I just reduced the load from the next line by merging the things. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meja massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120906115449/http://www.pescanik.info/content/view/4742/62/ to http://www.pescanik.info/content/view/4742/62/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)