Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Belligerents (again)

Hello. I'm starting this thread, because I question the POV, accuracy and consistency of the content in the infobox (especially the belligerents and the strength sections). I'd like to remind that there was never consensus to include the content. I also noticed that it was disputed by at least three editors by now, so it certainly needs to be discussed. There have been attempts to discuss it before, but no consensus prevailed then. The onus to start this discussion was actually on the editors who restored the content, but I decided to start it to avoid an edit war type of situation.

The issue with NATO being listed as a belligerent on Macedonia's side on the basis of KFOR is that KFOR as a 'peacekeeping' force operates only in Kosovo, and it has had a mandate to operate only there. The Tanuševci operation is often cited as proof that KFOR (and for that matter NATO) was a belligerent on Macedonia's side. While it's true that both sides cooperated for the operation, there's nothing that indicates KFOR was not doing anything that was not within their jurisdiction, i.e border control and keeping Kosovo safe which is per their mandate. On top of that, it's disputed whether they actually entered Macedonia's territory for the operation. So I think it's misleading to include the 300 peacekepeers in the strength section, because this article concerns things that definitely happened on Macedonian territory. As for the claim that they were involved in the battle of Nikuštak, the German source explicitly says that KFOR detained the 90 suspected NLA rebels on their side, in Kosovo. It also refers to NATO's decision to deploy around 3000 troops to Macedonia, which were troops intended for the Operation Essential Harvest. I'd like to also point here to a statement by Lord Robertson on record in an interview with a Macedonian newspaper that NATO's mission in Macedonia is not "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Macedonian". If NATO was really a belligerent on Macedonia's side, they wouldn't come out with such statements. Not to mention that both NATO and KFOR have been also both criticized for their response regarding Macedonia. As for the NATO troops, they were deployed after a ceasefire, the Ohrid Framework Agreement and on request by the Macedonian government. Along with Operation Amber Fox, it was a non-hostile 'peace' operation. The NLA also agreed to voluntarily give up their weapons, not to mention also that their members were amnestied under the auspice of NATO. NATO and KFOR not being sitting ducks all the time does not make them a belligerent for either side. Compared to their role in Kosovo, NATO's role in Macedonia was limited, restricted and indirect. No NATO troops ever participated directly in hostilities on Macedonian territory. I see Phillips' source cited as proof that NATO was a belligerent on Macedonia's side, but I've found quite the contrary there, so I'll ask for pages within the source which support the notion that it was a belligerent.

The next issue is whether to include those who provided military aid, military/arms support and/or diplomatic support in the belligerents field. I see Turkey included solely because it expressed messages of support to Macedonia, but such support was also expressed by Albania, Russia, US and Britain. The latter two, apart from diplomatic support, also provided military aid to Macedonia. The EU also provided diplomatic support. So far I haven't seen any proof that any of the ones listed in the belligerents field directly participated in the hostilities. For Ukraine, the Ukrainian sources deny that they were directly involved, while Western sources say that Ukrainian mercenary pilots were involved, at least for the Battle of Tetovo. I'd like to point out however that mercenaries are distinct from soldiers, so I'd like to see proof that the Ukrainian Air Force was actually involved. I'll also wait for quotation from the Bugajski's source to see what it has to say about the issue. I hope that this matter with the belligerents gets resolved, because it's getting annoying to have back and forth discussions. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed NATO bc its inclusion is nonsense. On Turkey, it would need stronger and clearer sourcing, so I removed it too. You can remove Ukraine and Bulgaria; at this point I am neither for nor against inclusion. Those who added them do not have any meaningful experience on Wiki, and seem to misinterpret sources. At least in some cases. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove them due to lack of consensus. If any editors wish to include them, they can make their case here or ask for input from the community, since none of the previous discussions led to a common understanding. Both of their roles are currently detailed in the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The source of Turkey is neutral for that you don't need a stronger source or a clearer source Pringlesringles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

EVERYONE report this post, full of fake news

They never captured APCs they never destroyed Mi24 and m12 This is totaly fake report everyone 185.100.245.167 (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything is sourced, so i see no reason why the site should be fake and be reported. Edison18273 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Where was the mi 24 destroyed, where was an APC caputed? This post is full of lies

There are graveyards of around 300 NLA soldiers dead from this conflict this post is full of lies they never destroyed a mi 24 in fact they didnt even know how to use javelins there is evidence with video how they just threw javelins away and ran off the whole equipment was captured before they clould even learn to use it 185.100.244.15 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

„There are graveyards of around 300 NLA soldiers dead„ such a statement is not a reliable source, and they never had javelins. Here is the source that the NLA had 2 captured APCs

https://www.mail-archive.com/antinato@topica.com/msg01077.html

The claim with the mi24 is also sourced. Edison18273 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Several hundred killed (unconfirmed claim")"

I removed and readded and removed again that part [1] bc the many reverts the article has had made it difficult to figure out why and when it had been added/remove before. I will not revert again (the article already has too many reverts), but somone should verify whether the source backs the claim or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That source and assertion pre-dates this dispute. I find the following text: "The exact number of NLA fighters who were killed remains a mystery, with numbers varying from about 100 to several hundred." --Local hero ^talk 22:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

go visit the graveyard in Aracinovo Bel kamen, kicevo and Romanovce around 300 graveyards for NLa troops from 2001, only in radusa there were 150 casualties from shelling 185.100.245.167 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You are making things up without sources, this is Wikipedia and not the comment section of tiktok. 178.175.126.179 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

NATO vandalization

NATO was not part of the conflict yet Albanian editors daily add it to the Macedonian side of the conflict, NATO was a mediator which more than once helped the NLA. They also add Bulgaria and Turkey.

Bulgaria donated tanks in 1999 and had nothing to do with the conflict in 2001. Turkey stated their support for the government which is also what all governments including the Albanian government did. This is from the citation used to add Turkey to the "Support" part

>Albania gave full support to the Macedonian government

(https://hal.science/hal-00583229/document)

As for NATO

>JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24919730?seq=12#metadata_info_tab_contents)

Quote: But you have to remember that the government in Skopje did not find allies in NATO nor in the EU. Quote: This policy should not be treated as a desire to help the Macedonians

NATO rescued the NLA from Aracinovo and was routinely accused by the Macedonian government of helping the NLA, stop this. GoofyGoofyson (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Tanuševci Operation was a Joint military operation against the NLA, KFOR started the operation by attacking NLA troops in Tanuševci which led to a retreat by the NLA. Macedonian troops later ambushed the retreating NLA troops! All of this happened in Macedonian territory this isn't even the only NATO military operation in the conflict! You must have forgotten about Operation Essential Harvest and Operation Amber Fox Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Me and countless other editors like Karadakli230 and Albnian 7 have given more than enough sources for our edits but you delate them without any reason Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Since there are sources which explicitly say that NATO was not an ally of Macedonia and at the same time the NATO forces participated in some operations against the rebels, I think that it's better not to mention NATO in the infobox and describe their involvement in the body of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Alaexis, As already Based Shqiptar from Pirok has said, he and I have already clearly stated sources and NATO has helped the Macedonian troops against the NLA, wrm we should then not include them purely in relation to Bulgaria in the source is the Bulgaria military Macedonia supported against the rebels Albanian 7 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not sufficient to warrant including them as a second belligerent, allied with Macedonia. This is misleading and an oversimplification of something that can only be described in the body, as Alaexis has already stated. --Local hero ^talk 00:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it an Over-Simplification? NATO literally attacked a major stronghold in Tanuševci and even told the NLA to Surrender to Macedonian forces https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/08/world/nato-troops-help-macedonians-drive-away-ethnic-albanian-rebels.html https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/17/macedonia.03/index.html

Further more the NATO Secretary General George Robertson referred to the NLa as "a bunch of murderous thugs" http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/07/macedonia.fighting.04/index.html

NATO also started Operation Essential Harvest, in which they disarmed Albanian rebels who were fighting for the Control of Tetovo https://books.google.de/books?id=SB1OrH8iZtcC&redir_esc=y Karadakli230 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

GoofyGoofyson provided a much reliable source (per the criteria of WP:RS). Furthermore, the second source you gave does not prove that NATO supported the Macedonian forces. The third one also doesn't prove anything - the Operation began and ended after the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed, which also included the disarmament of the NLA (see Article 2 of the Agreement).

If we go by your logic - KFOR and UNMIK should be listed as an ally of the NLA because of:

1. A KFOR helicopter entering Macedonian airspace unannounced and dropping some sort of cargo in rebel-controlled territory.

2. The participation of Kosovo Protection Corps troops (under UNMIK) on the side of the NLA during the Battle of Raduša.

I am vehemently against the inclusion of NATO as a Macedonian ally, as it is completely against WP:NPOV. Kluche (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you can use an Macedonian claim as proof for KFOR/NATO support for the NLA, when there are literally dozens of western sources like the New York Times, CNN, BBC, the Guardian etc. which literally proof that KFOR/NATO forces attacked the NLA stronghold of Tanusevci and engaged in combat with the NLA. In fact your friend GoofyGoofyson created the Tanuševci operation site himself, proving an NATO involvement in the conflict on behalf of Macedonia. Also can you bring up an reliable third party source which proofs that the KPC participated in the Battle of Raduša?

In my conclusion, you are just coping here by denying obvious facts. It is not against WP:NPOV to add a belligerent (NATO), that engaged in COMBAT against the NLA on behalf of the REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. Drenicak32 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Drenicak32, the Macedonian sources about the KFOR helicopter use statements by officials (https://web.archive.org/web/20131003020929/http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/?pBroj=1610&stID=2318; https://web.archive.org/web/20131002140239/http://star.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=12119&idg=2&idb=315&rubrika=Makedonija).

I don't know what "my friend" has done, as I have had very limited, if not non-existant contact with them.

Since you charachterized news outlets such as CNN as reliable, here are a few sources on KPC involvement, which fufill your criteria:

https://apnews.com/article/173e5b8ef0dff14bc5e553e8a31bc72c

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/11/macedonia.peace/index.html

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/policing-protectors

https://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-088e.htm (point 6)

https://ips-dc.org/natos_credibility_in_macedonia/.

So, per your own logic, the KPC should be added here.

Furtheremore, I'd like to addrees the fact that you are fixating on one engagment - not the enitre conflict. It is well documented that NATO acted on behalf of the NLA as a gurantor of the Cease Fire Agreement. To add to this, the JSTOR source provided above in this talk states that Macedonia could not find allies in NATO or the EU.

I will make my position clear again - I am against adding NATO/KFOR/KPC as supporters of either side, instead mentioning their activity in the pages about Tanuševci and Raduša.

I'd like to also (precautiosly) make you aware that Wikipedia is not a forum, and WP:NPA, and your use of language such as "coping" may or may not constitute a violation of such guidelines. Still however, I am assuming WP:GF in this conversation. Kluche (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

KFORs actions in Tanusevci were completely in line with their role to secure the Kosovo border the operation they conducted was on the Kosovo side of the border and the Macedonian part of the operation was on the Macedonian side of the border.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021 (2)

Change ONA casualties to: 84(Oficially stated by ONA), over 2000( unoficially by bodies counted). 64 is incorrect 37.25.87.202 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for these numbers? Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source https://web.archive.org/web/20171108205017/http://tanusha2001.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:deshmoret-e-ushtrise-clirimtare-kombetare&catid=3:deshmoret-e-ushtrise-clirimtare-kombetare&Itemid=3, since it actually has the names of the fallen fighters i have used it and removed the 64 casualtions citations since this was one seems more reliable.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

UÇPMB involvment

Is UÇPMB involvet? Based Person (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

yes it was

Here's a source http://www.newsru.com/itogi/25mar2001/makedonia.html Jesssiemen (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The link is dead. Daddyson11111 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of sources and proposing to merge several "battles" to one front

I wrote about this months ago but still no reply from any wikipedia editor here. There is a constant misuse of sources on several pages and several "battles" are completely irrelevant and only written to invent "NLA victory" in cases where the only sources are Albanian. These are the battles of Matejce, Slupcane and Vaksince where fighting was stopped by the large number of civlillians present in the villages, the first source for NLA victory on Matejce is from Albanian journalist and unnoficcial spokesman for the NLA Iso Rusi which states that the battle ended on June 5th but there are several sources that fighting was ongoing past June 6 and June 11th and that the fighting was stopped in order to allow humanitarian help for the trapped villagers and to restore the water supply to the area.

>https://www.hrw.org/news/2001/06/06/macedonia-albanian-rebel-abuses-serb-civilians >https://www.rferl.org/a/1096658.html (Skopje, 11 June 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Macedonian state radio says the army has been ordered to suspend its military operations in the Kumanovo-Lipkovo region, effective at noon today (1200 Prague time). The Macedonian army suspended its shelling of ethnic Albanian rebel positions after a morning of fighting. The radio says fighting around the villages of Slupcane, Orizare, and Matejce had subsided)...( Dimitrov said the halt in shelling was called to allow international officials to enter the area and inspect the damage to pumps supplying water to the city of Kumanovo.)

THe other source used to claim an NLA victory is an AP archive from June 18th which still mentions Macedonian Army units in the village and a no mans land between the Macedonians and the NLA, furthermore the quote that the NLA won is Albanians who only claim that the Macedonian Army lost one part of the village.

>https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=c6329f35efdd2e318aab33cd596e5085&mediatype=video

(The village had been divided between rebel ethnic Albanians and the Macedonian army. But the Macedonians, who according to the Albanians, only had three tanks in Matejce, lost their part of the village after a fierce battle. This was one of their tanks, now in no man's land. Nobody can reach the tank because of sniper fire from both sides, but the Albanians say eight dead Macedonian soldiers lie inside.)

It is clear the village was still contested beyond the arbitrary timescale imposed by the Albanian source and it is clear the Macedonian security forces did not withdraw or halt their.

The one other source used on Vaksince, Slupcane and Matejce is John Philips who uses the Macedonian General Pande Petrovski as a source regarding the "mutiny" of the Tigers police force and this is used as proof of an operational failure regarding Operation Vaksince which by all sources even the ones used in the articles was a Macedonian victory, the "mutiny" of the tigers did not stop the mission in any way, shape or form. This is the one source used on several of these pages as NLA victory when it is clear it does not even refer to said villages.

>http://www.makedonijaese.com/Svedoshtva%20-%202001.pdf

All of these "battles" should be merged into one like the battle of Tetovo, and the result absolutely should be:

Ohrid Framework Agreement Militarily inconclusive Macedonian offensives stopped because of civilian presence

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@GoofyGoofyson, if those three are merged into one, what should the resulting article be titled? --Local hero ^talk 03:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

well the war had 2 fronts

The Karadak Front and the polog front

So of course the merging of the battles in the polog region should be called the polog front and the other the Karadak Front Jesssiemen (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I still think that the pages for the battles of the villages in the polog and karadak region should still exist becouse there isn't a reason to delete them

There is a article about the eastern Ww2 front and the battles in that front do still exist so there isn't a reason of why not to have both the Karadak and polog fronts and tbe battles inside those regions Jesssiemen (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Because most of those "battles" weren't battles and there is no reliable information on when they started or ended, the NLA infiltrated some of the villages on the Kumanovo-Lipkovo front and then banned the civilians from retreating, whether they stayed on their own or it was their choice is irrelevant the Macedonian army stopped and did not carry out any ground offensives to retake the villages because of the large number of civilians in the villages, furthermore only Matejce experienced ground fighting as the Macedonian army did not even try to take back the other villages as Macedonia was pressured to deescalate the situation and allow dialogue to solve the issue. The only reason those battles were made were to create "NLA victories" in the infoboxes which never occurred.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/05/09/in-rebel-held-towns-macedonians-remain-as-shells-rain-down/71bd89b4-58db-4e5f-a96d-a60d649a6085/

>Apart from Matejce, none of the towns has experienced ground fighting. Instead, the Macedonian army has lined up tanks and artillery more than three miles away along an old two-lane highway between Kumanovo and the capital, Skopje, and lobbed in shells. At times, helicopters have joined with volleys of rockets.

Also from the same source

>For whatever reason, they are functioning as human shields in a combat zone. Their continued presence means the army cannot pursue the all-out war and ground assault it says is necessary to defeat the rebels and stamp out a new full-scale ethnic conflict in the Balkans. It also means that mass civilian deaths, avoided in the two months of sporadic fighting that has shaken Macedonia, could be just one shell away, since the roofs of some houses are already gone and only one or two concrete floors now protect those sheltered in the basements.

Second of all the citation they use that the battles ended on May 5th is from Iso Rusi an unofficial spokesman for the NLA despite there being clear indications that the fighting for the villages continued past that date.

The Macedonian Army stopped an offensive that happened on June 11th due to the presence of civilians and international pressure to avoid civilian casualties and because the rebels were in control of the Lipkovo dam and stopped the water supply for 100.000 civilians.

>https://www.rferl.org/a/1096658.html

> Dimitrov said the halt in shelling was called to allow international officials to enter the area and inspect the damage to pumps supplying water to the city of Kumanovo.

The idea that the Albanian editors are trying to push in the infoboxes is that the Albanians won and stopped the Macedonian offensives when in reality there was little to any fighting except shelling to put pressure on the NLA without escalating the conflict and starting a ground offensive which would have cost thousands of lives, both western and domestic pressure forced the Macedonian Army to practice restraint and this is used to extrapolate an NLA victory when at best the result should be "inconclusive"

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore Albanian wikipedia editors have already merged the Operation Vaksince page which was a separate military operation which ended in a Macedonian victory with the battle of Vaksince in order to remove a "Macedonain victory" and replace it with an "NLA victory" despite there being more information and more right for a known and cited Military Operation having a separate wiki than a battle where no real fighting occurred. They did this intentionally to remove the Macedonian victory, they of course make little or no mention of the operation in the main article.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And the JSTOR source quoted saying that the operations of the NLA ended up with A success in the Kumanovo sector refer only to the original infiltration of the villages and several pages later it states.

>Until the armistice large areas of north-western Macedonia were recaptured however NO ATTEMPTS WERE MADE to luquidate hotbeds of rebellion

And later on it describes the offensives which were cancelled due to international pressure like MH2.

SO again the citations are misused and taken out of context, BUT that same JSTOR source claims a deceisive military victory of the Macedonians in the battle of Radusa yet Albanian wikipedia editors don't consider it a reliable source on that battle and the battle of Radusa result is still "Ohrid framework Agrement" with misused citaitons from months before the battle that the NLA captured Radusa again meant to pull out an "NLA victory"

>ASYMMETRY OF THE ALBANIAN-MACEDONIAN MILITARY CONFLICT IN 2001: MILITARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIGHT IN THE REGIONS OF TETOVO, KUMANOVO, ARAČINOVO AND VAKSINCE

>Despite the lack of coordination between the police and ARM troops, the government forces managed to eliminate the blockade of a border police station in Radusha, and then to discard the rebel forces.......It was one of the the biggest successesof the government forces since the beginning of the conflict in Macedonia. KLA NMET(NLA) suffered heavy losses in men and equipment. The breakdown of the rebel group brought a big propaganda and psychological success. It showed that the tenacious and determined fight against terrorists might succeed.

And again i have posted this several times in the talk section in both the main article and radusha and everybody ignores this? I have pointed out several times why the citations of the battle of Radusha are not reliable or do not refer to the battle and yet again it is ignored?

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be called the Kumanovo-Lipkovo front as that's what it was called during the war.

GoofyGoofyson (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Front articles are out of the question. There have been attempts to create such articles, but there are no reliable sources that refer to specific fronts. Only this REFL article has referred to a Lipkovo/Kumanovo front. One journalistic article is not enough for a whole front article and it would be largely original research. Your only options are to try to improve the existing articles or to formally propose that they be merged into this article. For the latter option, you'll need to make a good case though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the wording. Where did you find it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I may or may not have borrowed it from a far more eloquent user here on Wikipedia. Annwfwn (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I learnt almost all I know on Wikipedia by stealing things from other editors. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @ACEagle12. Annwfwn (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the result is Ohrid Agreement and there is no need to switch it to aftermath,people can just see there AcEagle12 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Then place the Ohrid Agreement in the aftermath section. The reason so many folks have been edit warring over this is and the reason the Milhist infobox insists on limiting results to "inconclusive" or "x victory" is that having all this extra detail in the infobox creates controversy and is often used by folks to convey bias. Annwfwn (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah but it also needs to explain what lead to ohrid agreement like the Macedonian Albanians gaining greater political rights and NLA agreeing to disarm after that and stuff,so yeah just let the page be like it is it's already perfect it doesn't need to be changed anymore AcEagle12 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That is what the article and the lead are for. It needs to state the immediate military outcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah exactly some people won't even go to Aftermath section because some just check the military inbox then just leave,that's why it's better for the result to be there not in aftermath AcEagle12 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

AcEagle12, every article can always be improved on Wikipedia. There's no article which is perfect and simply shouldn't be changed no more. Placing a link in the result would encourage people to read more than just the infobox. The infobox is only a quick summary of the article anyway. Anyone who wants to know more about the subject will definitely read more than the infobox. I agree that bullet points can be contentious and could cause edit warring between editors. This is a simple solution to that issue. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No absolutely not,if people are interested on reading more they can do so,but placing a link on result would make people not read it,because most people want to just see the result there,that's why it's called result,not really go in aftermath and read a whole paragraph there,so it isn't necessary to add aftermath in the result instead we can just leave it like it is,Ohrid agreement and other things that resuled,if anyone is interested in reading more they can do it with their own will not be lead by the result. AcEagle12 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That would result in the whole article being repeated in the infobox. In any event, the template instructions are clear, as repeated in the first post in this section. There seems to be a clear consensus to align the infobox with these instructions, so I am going to implement it. AcEagle12, please read WP:CON and WP:WAR: if you dislike the current consensus, please demonstrate a stronger one on this page before reverting the infobox to be more to your personal taste - that is not how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with your latest version, however I find it incorrect to not mention the Ohrid Agreement there. The lead sentence of the article states the conflict "ended with the Ohrid Agreement". --Local hero ^talk 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A simple solution to that would be to integrate the content from the Ohrid Framework Agreement section into the Aftermath section. It has also come to my attention that the information in the infobox contradicts with the lead section and the body. In the infobox, it is written that the conflict ended on 12 November, while in the lead section and body, it is written that it ended on 13 August. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Most wars end with an agreement or treaty of some sort, that does not mean that they should be mentioned in the infobox. For example, the First World War famously concluded with the Treaty of Versailles, but it is not - quite correctly - included in that war's infobox. That said, it is a little odd that when a reader clicks on "Aftermath" they go to immediately after the section on the the Ohrid Agreement! Which, it seems to me, as it does to StephenMacky1, was a part of the aftermath. I have tweaked the aftermath to remedy this. Now, when you click on "See Aftermath" the first thing you see is a whole section on the Ohrid Agreement. How is that. If people don't like this, feel entirely free to implement the R of WP:BRD and bring it back here for further discussion.Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)