Talk:Terrorism in Yugoslavia

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Yugoslavia Low‑importance

	Terrorism in Yugoslavia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are "Ustasha" and "Chetnik" accurate terms?

The Ustasha organization formally stopped existing after World War II, and the Chetniks were a group fighting in the war. I believe the terms should be replaced with "Croatian/Serbian (ultra)nationalist".

Also, it might be better to place the date of each event in the Events section at the start of the line. barakokula31 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should make it clear that the perpetrators were part of the Ustashe and Chetnik emigration, that is, part of extremist nationalist organizations abroad (diaspora). This identification, "X emigration", is indeed that made in sources.--Zoupan 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that the extremist nationalist organisations in question identified with Ustashe/Chetnik ideology and leadership? "X emigration" alone does not imply this. Daß Wölf 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro

WikiProject Yugoslavia doesn't include Serbia and Montenegro/"Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". The country wasn't recognized as the legal successor to Yugoslavia, either. There is no reason it should be included in this article. ~barakokula31 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction already states the scope. Serbia and Montenegro should not be included.--Zoupan 07:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Yugoslavia page incorporates Yugoslav related material until 1995, yet limits "Serbia and Montenegro" material (even though it is included in the 1995 Bosnian War material). Removing/vandalising half the page is not helping. Instead of vandalising half the page, a simple drop down box with "Serbia & Montenegro" material post 1992 can be added with a one sentence explanation as why the era is divided. It is pointless having two seperate pages when they are the same topic. This page is limited till 2003, the year FR Yugosalvia ceased to exist (even though it was not recognised, the country still considered itself FR Yugoslavia hence, a Yugoslav related topic). --TryDeletingMe 01:30 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with WikiProject Yugoslavia, take it up with them. What FR Yugoslavia considered itself is irrelevant, the UN did not consider it Yugoslavia. North Korea is officially called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea – should Wikipedia say that it's true and that everything else is a Western lie? You should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. ~barakokula31 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have locked the article for two weeks. Y'all should be aware that discretionary sanctions can be applied for disruption; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29. I suggest you all discuss what the proper scope of this article should be--good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]