Talk:Bardhyl Çaushi

Serbia vs Yugoslav entities

Many editors get confused with the contemporary status of Serbia regarding sovereignty at certain times in its history. I realise that much of this is down to many publishers' simplification of the statistics. Our task on Wikipedia is to be precise, and as such, unambiguous. Where sovereignty is the key issue (eg. military, incarceration) then the following guide should help smooth out difficulties:

• for the period prior to 26 April 1992 - SFR Yugoslavia
• for 26 April 1992 to 6 February 2003 - FR Yugoslavia
• for 6 February 2003 to 20 May 2006 - Serbia and Montenegro
• from 20 May 2006 to present - Republic of Serbia, there is no requirement for the long form as Serbia per se provides the information that it is a country formed from that time.

Please also be aware that citations which simplify cannot be used as reliable sources to alter Serbia's status as independent for any period prior to 2006 therefore the term by itself on state matters is erroneous except where known that the constitution designated the institution in question to its constituent republics (eg. police force). For example, the Helinski report which does acknowledge the FRY in a few places is otherwise poorly written and POV-fuelled (pro-international psition) in that it refers to all state activity as distinctly Serbian to the point the author feels the need to round up the administration, governance or system and reduce it to "Serbian regime" on every single occasion. Nevertheless, it contains the following passage: In Serbia, 20,000 young men faced charges of disertion while the figure in Montenegro was 14,000. Proof if proof be needed that the military was central and not devolved to intermediate entities.Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already raised the same question on DYK! You may look here. I raised the question for the part "who died in Serbian prisons", which is not referenced, and disputed per fact raised above. I dont see any relevant neutral source that can confirm that he actually died in Serbian prison. Any source at all, at the end. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have found nothing in English but I am prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt as long as the presentation meets the standards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The source about the medal details the identification of his remains and the return of his body from Serbia. Evlekis if the sources mention the "Serbian prisons" so explicity I plan to stick to them and definitely not replace them with ambiguous terms[1].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 03:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The all too familiar "what the sources say" argument again. Well we are here to write an encyclopaedia and this does not mean quote amateur authors verbatim. You know exactly of what Serbia formed a part in 1999 and the republic's local administration was subordinate to a head of government - from Montenegro. The manner in which I stalled on the issue did not detract from the source nor deny what the author would have told you had you asked him directly. To all intents and purposes you could say I have added extra information by providing the actual country and this can be easily sourced if someone wishes to tag it. After all, are you imparting the suggestion that this was an arbitrary operation conducted by mere intermediate factions within a state? Or are you simply pedaling the myth that it was Serb state, Serb army, Serb navy, Serb air force, Serb this, Serb that? Bottom line: the "troops" have an article which can be used to link the section. This may either be Army of Serbia and Montenegro or Serbian Army: check the timelines to be sure which is relevant. Likewise if the troops were not part of Vojska Jugoslavije, perhaps you can provide a source for the supposed external "Serbian" nation state from which these troops invaded a sovereign territory. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents. In some cases sources use colloquial names for certain armies. Like Turkish instead of Ottoman, Russian instead of Soviet or Serb instead of Yugoslavian during Yugoslav Wars. In most cases it is unencyclopedic and against NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The notion that multliple reliable sources used "Serb" as a colloquial alternative for "Yugoslav", so that we must change their words because they didn't mean what they said, is absurd. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In the FRY, there was one army, Vojska Jugoslavije (VJ). You find me a source to dispute this then we'll talk. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you read the sources on this article? Try reading those, then we'll talk. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The same problem has started on Ukshin Hoti too. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbian paramilitary?

Naturally it is fine to refer to distinct Serbian paramilitary but it requires a more satisfying source than a mere author simply acknowledging the term. Here is our list. Does anyone know which of these was involved in Kosovo? Because if so, we need a name of it on the article. If it is not included, why is it not there? If it is included, does it say anything on the page in question? I'm not pushing POV but I want solid facts. Who is going to provide them? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have read the full quotes of the sources[2] i.e. WP:IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I will take your word for it - just provide the name of the organisation and I will restore it syself with Serb NOT Yugoslav. I cannot open that link from this system. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources say "Serbian prisons" and no other details except for a mention of the "Milosevic regime" i.e. just stick to them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, Slobodan Milošević was President of Yugoslavia 1997-2000. If you want the Serbian President of the time, you're looking for Milan Milutinović. So you have no sources that the actions were being carried out by any specific Serbian paramilitary organisation, you simply have the vague "forces". Well, this is enough to warrant Vojska Jugoslavije as any raw form of 'forces' invariably refers to national army, particularly now we know it was part of the regime of Yugoslav president and his head of government who happened to be Montenegrin. Sorry Zjarri, it's no good - the reader requires the name of the organisation, no matter what it is (eg. Arkan Tigers, White Eagles, VJ, Serb Police). Prisons may indeed be in Serbia but they would also be in various towns and municipalities, either provide the full catalogue or stick to the sovereign nation (Yugoslavia). It is not as if you escaped from a Montenegrin prison and ran into Serbia in 1999 you would have found a "haven". The article is absolutely fine in this form. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey what the heck is your problem? Why can't you just accept that the sources say "Serb troops" full stop. It doesn't say paramilitary nor does it say police, it was Serb military so why do you have to keep adding Yugoslavia was was disestablished in 1991? You are tyring to lay the blame on war crimes to Tito and blatantly covering up Serb-commited atrocities. If the source says "Milosevic regime" then this should be evident enough to anybody that it was SERB TROOPS who commited the offences, as he was Serbian president at the time. If you can't stik to sources, go find a forum which is more up your alley. Keithstanton (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you something Mr.Stanton, POV-pushing is one thing when you place spin on the facts like reporters do but to do the same thing when your facts are based on falsehoods is repugnant. I am starting to believe you know more about this part of the world during that time than I do. For the first time I admit, I could be wrong - perhaps I have just been reading the wrong newspapers and watching the wrong news channels. Would it be rude of me to ask where exactly you derive this information that "he" (Milošević) "was Serbian president at the time"? And how am I trying to "lay the blame on war crimes to Tito" when I know that his death preceded events of this article by 20-25 years. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Name in Serbian, no!

Removed unnecessary name in Serbian of Bardhyl Çaushi. Based on what wikipolicy do you base that? Why would an English speaker be interested in the name in Serbian language? Do you give names of people born in the Ottoman Empire in Turkish? Guzhinjeri (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is biographical information concering the individual. Albanian in 1936 has no status in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croat was the official language. The subject's parents knew this when choosing to be remain there when the region passed from Ottoman Empire to Serbian kingdom. Meanwhile, we have a task to provide readers with information here and names are given in any language considered relevant to the subject's biography. Within the Ottoman Empire, local languages were autonomous but if you can find the form used and the subject spent a fair portion of his life in that country, then you are free to add it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your English is poor, and you are not making any sense. Can you point to the correct policy, where you based your revert? And, btw, this is a racist comment. Guzhinjeri (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can teach me the language of my birthplace then. Can we continue the discussion at Talk:Agnesa Vuthaj otherwise we will be all over the place. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, each article deserves its own attention. You should remove the name in Serbian of Bardhyl Caushi asap. It is completely relevant that he was born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the English wikipedia, you fail to point me to the policy or mediation conclusion, so you should revert yourself. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That is true. But I don't think we have any special cases. That is why I would like to talk in one place, I will continue on my own talk page so you will see the comments as they appear. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, per our agreement I made the change. Good now? Guzhinjeri (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Modified as it is a note, not an external citation but apart from that, all good. I've also neutralised it more with Serbo-Croat because in fairness, that was the only way it was known during those years. It dilutes any specific Serbian influence which I hope helps. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your edits and current version. Guzhinjeri (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over Đakovica / Gjakova

Enough already. Stop edit-warring and talk, please! bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from the highly controversial and scanty evidence on which the article sits at Gjakova, using that name in any historical context is without merit. Kosovo declared independence in 2008 but regarding regimental affairs, nothing has changed between the start of UNMIK in 1999 and today. The Macedonian capital is Skopje but Mother Teresa is reported as being born in Üsküp and rightly so historically. Nobody disputes the name of Skopje. So if Çaushi was born in Gjakova, shouldn't Ljuba Tadić be born in Ferizaj for 1929? --93.86.40.222 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)