Talk:Austria–North Macedonia relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austria–Republic of Macedonia relations. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Austria–Republic of Macedonia relations. 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:

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) 06:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking point[edit]

The editor who is attempting to add that the perpetrator of a crime in Austria was an ethnic Albanian from N.Macedonia has to explain why that is related to the state relations between Austria and North Macedonia and why the ethnicity of the perpetrator is important, but not the ethnicity of one of the victims(Albanian from NMac) or one of the police officers(Albanian from Kosovo) involved. There's no link between them because it hasn't had any impact to diplomatic relations. Given the fact that the same editor a while ago tried to keep on wikipedia an extreme POV theory of Serbian politics according to which books published in Serbia are not allowed in Croatia (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Destruction_of_books_in_post-independence_Croatia) and a few days ago tried to remove the characterization "genocide" about the crimes committed by the Chetniks, a WWII Serbian fascist collaborationist group [1] this may strongly require admin oversight. Wikipedia is not the place for political talking points.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that one of the victims was an Albanian from N. Macedonia is important to you then add that to the article, perhaps also a statement from the NM ambassador condemning the attack, don't blank everything. I've made this clear before.
As for your baseless assertions about my editing, this "extreme POV theory" you mention was covered extensively in books published by multiple university presses, as well as mainstream news articles. This didn't seem to matter to your or the 3 or 4 other editors who opted to vote delete even after my rewrite, as the goalpost just kept being moved. The genocide reference you're alluding to was (and is) a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. No one chose to dispute that, instead deciding to dwell on what does and doesn't constitute a genocide, which isn't what the article is about, effectively strawmanning the discussion. So if these are the 3 examples of conduct requiring admin oversight, go for it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you might not have undestood my comment. You have every right to object any deletion you consider a mistake - the particular AfD and deletion review judged that the "subject" was not suitable for coverage in wikipedia. But what you choose to object or support in itself forms an editing history.
Neither the ethnicity of the perpetrator or one of the victims is relevant because they're not linked to relations between the two states. You can't automatically link actions which involve citizens of two countries to the relations between those two states. If the sources don't put forward that link, wikipedia can't imply it - it's WP:OR and WP:OFFTOPIC. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to dignify your first paragraph with a response given how spurious your claims are. Back to the topic of the dispute.
How does this not pertain to relations between the two countries?? The Austrian police formally requested the North Macedonian intelligence services' cooperation in investigating the attack. [2] Suggesting this attack isn't relevant to Austrian-North Macedonian intra-state relations is frankly disingenuous. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What else would you expect the security services of any state to do in the case of a crime committed by a person with dual citizenship? Are you suggesting that we should mention the collabration between police services via the Interpol as part the relations between different states? If sources don't specifically mention the relations between the two states in the context of the incident, it's WP:OFFTOPIC. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that they are related, not on me to show that they aren't.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Maleschreiber says in the comment above. If sources do not state what did the event bring to the relations, it is all just AB's own interpretation. If a source says sth relevant, AB should post it here, and a solution can be worked out. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we mention Interpol? This article isn't about Austria-Interpol relations. Citing WP:SYNTH is nothing short of a cop-out since you lack a solid argument. And by the way, victims of a terror attack who have forever been torn from their families are not a "talking point". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that they are related, not on me to show that they aren't. or let's just move on. I'm sure that there are better things to do on a Sunday.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll started an RfC for additional community input. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

No Consensus to add to the article. The main concern by opposers seems to be the lack of references directly associating this info with the page topic. - jc37 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article contain information about the 2020 Vienna attack, which was committed by a man with dual Austrian and North Macedonian citizenship, and the subsequent joint inquiries by the Austrian and North Macedonian police services and intelligence agencies? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should prepare a specific edit with sources as a proposal otherwise there's nothing to support or object to. As for the subject, oppose if specific sources don't connect the activity of the 20-year-old religious extremist who held dual citizenship (Austrian-born, parents migrated there from NMac) to the relations between the two states - the subject of this article - such a connection shouldn't be implied via the inclusion of the event in the article. It's like implying that if a Mexican is involved in a specific criminal event in the US that automatically should be mentioned in Mexico–United States relations even if the event played no role in state relations. It's WP:OR, WP:OFFTOPIC and trivializes international diplomatic relations. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The event is notable and relevant. Such cases tend to result in increased collaboration between the security services of the affected states. It is disingenuous to suggest that a major terror attack had no impact whatsoever on state relations. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attack was committed by a 20-year-old person who was a citizen of Austria because he was born in Austria and lived his entire life there and is also a citizen of NMAc because of his parents' origins. One of the victims was also an Austrian with Albanian origin from NMac. And one of the police officers involved is an Austrian Albanian whose origin is from Kosovo. Should that be added to Austria–Kosovo relations? The event itself can't be linked automatically to state relations. It's WP:OR to assume that and then ask for sources that show that it didn't affect them. If you claim that it did affect them and should be included in this article, you have to get the sources which show that effect.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one of the victims was also an Austrian citizen with Albanian origin from NMac actually strengthens the case for inclusion. It shows how tightly connected the two countries are. Btw, please learn to properly indent your comments using ":" instead of "*". If you are not familiar with proper indentation, read WP:INDENT. Deliberate mis-indentation is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It neither reinforces, nor weakens the case for inclusion because the origins of his migrant parents are irrelevant in terms of diplomatic relations between these two states. It's WP:OR and WP:FORUM-y to assume that such an effect exists solely based on the fact that his parents migrated to Austria from NMac. You need sources which put forward that link. The automatic assumption that a criminal event which involved a person who held dual citizenship impacted the relations of the two states who had given him citizenship is very dubious.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary fellow editor, it makes the connection even more important and the inclusion more relevant. There is no doubt that the event made the two states exchange information, politicians made statement etc. it's not like nothing happened, it was a major event which made the two countries be mentioned in the same story and similiar context. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that the attackers "parents migrated to Austria", but the attacker himself was a citizen of NMac who had spent quite a bit of time in the country. NMac arrested three individuals in connection with the attacks. This was a major event. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no real guideline which would suggest that we should not include this info. Furthermore, there is nothing "off-topic" here, absolutely nothing. Quoting WP:OFFTOPIC seems like an attempt at relativization of the fact that this terrible event brought the two countries into connection as it obvioulsy wasn't a marginal event, I think that we all agree on that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Every year Mexico citizens in the US, Morocco citizens in France, Turkish citizens in Germany, just for some random examples, commit crimes. But the articles of the relations between those countries do not contain such information. Unless there is a source that links the event with the relations between North Macedonia and Austria, including what the event might have brought to the relations, the inclusion to this article is WP:OR based on editors' own interpretation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Security cooperation between states, be it at the level of law enforcement or/and intelligence, is always in line with Wikipedia's policies. This is also the usual Wikipedia practice, and many such articles already make mention of various forms of security cooperation. An example of that is the article Greece–United States relations where the security cooperation between the two countries at military level is noted, or the article Greece–Italy relations where cooperation at judicial level is noted. Contrary to what certain editors have argued around there, a cooperation (and its causes) doesn't have to affect the diplomatic relations in order to become WP:RELEVANT. After all, the article isn't a barometer titled "Course of Austria–North Macedonia relations"; or else a good portion of Wikipedia's articles would have been totally empty or undeveloped nowadays (besides the usual info on diplomatic missions). As long as this cooperation is noted and confirmed by the sources (which I checked and indeed is), then it permits inclusion and I support it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A criminal investigation isn't something under the scope of diplomatic relations between two countries. Criminal investigations which require tranfer of information between security services internationally happen every day. You have to show with reliable sources that this particular crime had an impact of any kind in the relations of Austria and NMac.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber: sorry but I disagree with you. This article isn't called "Status of Austria–North Macedonia relations" but "Austria–North Macedonia relations". There is a big difference about what you are arguing here for and what this article is about. If you can't grasp the difference, then I suggest you leave the article to those who do, instead of coming here just to WP:EDITWAR them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article's subject is the relations between the states of Austria and NMac. Typical information sharing in the context of criminal investigations isn't what the article discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A significant event which involved a dual citizen of the countries carrying out a terrorist attack in one of the countries, and in the aftermath involved coperation between the two countries. Seems notable enough for inclusion. --Griboski (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the same reasons already explained above by fellow editors. Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What does some attack have to do with Austria–North Macedonia relations? The state of Macedonia did not send him to do that crime. It's like putting information from Anna Lindh case to article about Serbia–Sweden relations. Mikola22 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sources don't connect this attack to relations between Austria and North Macedonia. Why would anyone assume that they are connected per se? If Austrian police asked for information the North Macedonian police, then it's a standard procedure. Nothing out of the ordinary that should be elevated to imply that it is a "significant" event in relations between the two countries. The insinuation that the attack and diplomatic relations are "obviously" connected sounds very much like a Balkan sensationalist storyline. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This terrible event has neither positive nor negative imapacts in the diplomatic relations between Austria and North Macedonia.--Lorik17 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasoning by Ahmet Q. GMPX1234 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Support per the reasons provided for the "Support votes." Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant, widely coveraged event involving a dual citizen of both of the mentioned countries. Should be included. Elserbio00 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article should generally be expanded and improved, but there is no reason to omit this event.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are credible publications that say the relations of Austria and North Macedonia were affected by that event, then yes, otherwise, no, to avoid OR Armatura (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditionally oppose An individual crime should not appear in the article unless it occasioned a significant change in relationship between the two countries. To have a place in the article, this would have to be a procedural change in the nature of institutional relationships between governments or state bodies within the two countries which is applicable outside the context of the original crime. If anyone can document that, I would change my vote. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - as per Ahmet Q. This article is about the diplomatic relations of two countries, Austria and Macedonia. Inclusion of the terrorist act is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS as goes beyond the scope of the topic. If we take the path that some want, then articles on diplomatic relations between countries would turn into a WP:POV list of criminal activities by dual citizens. Some nuance on the part of some would go a long way here.Resnjari (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The edit in question [3] does not in any way explain how this event affected the relations between the two countries. ImTheIP (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reuters article that has been the reference in the text that caused this edit war doesn't seem to talk about bilateral relations between the two countries at all. Are there sources that put this incident in that context? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria–North_Macedonia_relations&oldid=1205515152"