Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3:
The article, dated 2003, is the only one that I can see. I can see no other articles saying that AKSH is a terrorist organization. The article on UNMIK calling AKSH a terrorist organization appearing on the Balkantimes article was cooked by Tanjug, a serbian news agency, therefore it's biased. I can see no official positions of UNMIK or the Department of State saying that AKSH is a terrorist organization. Tanjug can say a lot of things, but for what it represents it's biased source. As long as I'm not going to have any single reference on whether the organization is deemed a terrorist one by UNMIK or the Department of State sources, I'm going to delete the word "terrorist". This is coherent with English speaking wikipedia. The serbian agencies can claim all they want, but this is not Wk Serbia. --Sulmues 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sulmues|Sulmues]] ([[User talk:Sulmues|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sulmues|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Okay... here's an article stating the same thing, only this time, it's directly from the UNMIK site. [http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2003/mon/May/lmm%20130503.htm] Here's another article from [[BBC]] supporting UNMIK's statement.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3084482.stm] [[User:Kobra85|Köbra]] <sup>[[User talk:Kobra85|Könverse]]</sup> 08:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, it seems that you are right. In this case though, it would be fair that along with citing UNMIK who calls AKSH "terrorist", we also cite AKSH calling UNMIK a "colonialistic organization". Also why don't we state the ideas and the organization of AKSH? Why don't we talk about its history and about his leader Gafurr Adili? [http://www.unitedalbania.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=34]--Sulmues 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
| |||