Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Picture at top is wrong

The building displayed in the image at the top of the page is not the Chinese embassy -- has more floors, built of brick etc.

Sorry to butt in at the top, but this message can be deleted when the pic is corrected.Dduff442 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias I do not understand were all this bias information is coming from. It says that KLA killed 200 Albanian civilians, no proof of that and why would KLA kill Albanians? Growing up in Kosovo, I would never imagine anybody in KLA to kill another Albanian. Also it says that America lost hundreds of Cruise Missles, Which is untrue because if u do research, Almost Exact how many the website claims America lost missles is the same as how many we launched. America launched 4 missles that missed none else. Please someone, edit the page to make it correct. My English not so well and I don't want to let my Albanian-Kosovar heritage disturb what I say to make it Bias. Thank you for all yours time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.123.58 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

-Will you edit it already??? The brick building isn't the chinese embassy, it's the head command of serbian army! (well, it was) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.236.23 (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added a cleanup-tag for this article. The article is very long, information from sections should be concentrated on full articles and those sections here reduced to summaries. Also, images (diagrams illustrating the course of war, pictures from the war etc.) should be included to accompany the text.

See Wikipedia:Article size.

This topic is an important part of recent history of Europe and deserves a good, readable article. Oghmoir 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge

I’ve put the template of merging this article with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia because it seems like these two articles contains lots of overlapping informations and content.--MaGioZal 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is 100k, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article is 40k. You want to merge them? Each are both notable events and should be preserved as they are right now. // laughing man 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But the eventual merge would not result in a 140KB article, since much would be reduced due to the trimming of reduntant information and eventual summarization of the events.--MaGioZal 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never said that it would result in a 140KB. I assumed you wanted to merge to the recommended 32KB article size. I do not agree with deleting 75% of the text of these sourced articles. // laughing man 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if deleting that much is not the intent, I can't imagine there's that much redundant info that it would reduce the size so much as to make sense to merge even more in here. Perhaps the better solution would be to create more branching articles, and summarize them here with links to the new main articles, per WP:SS? -Bbik 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The downed helicopter

Before you get at each other's throats... I was a border scout in the Yugoslav Army at that time. I was there when the helicopter was shot down by a 12.7mm anti aircraft cannon. It presented an easy lateral target, as we were camouflaged. The gunner emptied the thirty round magazine at his target and it exploded. We were not in Albanian territory, although the helicopter was. The cannon was outdated and a permanent fixture at the border base and its use was intended for infantry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leeppa (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


Possible source of pictures

On this link you can find some pictures of NATO forces entering Kosovo in 1999. These pictures are Crown Copyright but may be used provided due attribution is given.

Photo Library: NATO in Kosovo, #1 --Marko M 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Blah Blah this is all crap

NATO & WAR

Well since there is already an article about the 2nd NATO intervention NATO involvement should not be included in the side box, it can be mentioned but NATO never fought a ground war so I think they should go off. if every one agrees then I will edit that and if we all put our nationalistic egos aside and work together Albanian & Serb maybe we can clean up this article and put truth in it Gon4z 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

KLA losses

Okay, what is their OFFICIAL figure (killed)? --HanzoHattori 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


We will never know because KLA insurgents, in classical guerrilla fashion, fought in civilian dress. Their dead were stripped of their weapons and left to be found by Serbian police and military. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons the estimates of civilian casualities among Kosovo Albanians were inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Above editor misses the point completely. The vast majority of KLA didn't fight in civilian clothes as part of some nefarious scheme to fool the VJ and the world. They fought in civilian clothes because they WERE civilians. Armed civilians, certainly, and perhaps technically combatants, but these were ordinary people taking up weapons to defend their homes and villages, not some elite group of super-terrorists trained by Al Qaeda and the CIA as some have erroneously claimed. Davu.leon (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts and figures (PBS Frontline)

  • Est. total population of province of Kosovo (in 1999): 1,956,000
  • Kosovar Albanians as a percentage of population: 82% [1]
  • Reported cost of a looted AK-47 assault rifle in neighboring Albania, 1997: $20-40 [2]
  • Est. number of Kosovar Albanians driven from their homes by Serb security forces prior to October 1998 cease-fire: 250,000 [3]
  • Total number of pistols Milosevic authorized for defense of 2,000 international cease-fire monitors in Kosovo: 2 [4]
  • United Nations (UNHCR) estimate of maximum number of refugees from a potential conflict in Kosovo, prior to war: 100,000 [5]
  • Maximum UNHCR refugee relief capacity in Albania, three days after bombing began: 10,000 [6]
  • Est. Number of Kosovar Albanians expelled from Kosovo by Serbs, March to June 1999: 863,000 [7]
  • Est. Number of Kosovar Albanians internally displaced within Kosovo, as of mid-May 1999: 590,000 [8]
  • Percentage of Kosovar Albanian population displaced during war: at least 90% [9]
  • Total number of NATO aircraft employed in "Operation Deliberate Force" strikes over Bosnia, 1995: 300 [10]
  • Total allied aircraft at beginning of Kosovo conflict, March 1999: 344 (214 US, 130 other allies) [11]
  • Total at end of Kosovo conflict: more than 1031 (731 US, at least 300 other allies)
  • Length of Kosovo air campaign in days: 78 [12]
  • Number of days poor weather impeded bombing: 54 [13]
  • Total NATO sorties flown: 38,004 [14]
  • Total NATO strike sorties flown: 10,484 [15]
  • Total sorties flown in Gulf War: 109,870 [16]
  • Total strike sorties flown in Gulf War: 42,600 [17]
  • Number of NATO manned aircraft lost due to hostile fire: 2
  • Number of Serb military jets destroyed in the air by NATO during Kosovo conflict: 6 [18]
  • Serb military aircraft bombed and destroyed on the ground: approx. 100 [19]
  • Number of hours for nonstop, round-trip travel from B-2 air base in Missouri to targets in the Balkans: approx. 30
  • Number of B-2 sorties: 45 [20]
  • B-2 sorties as a percentage of NATO total: 1% [21]
  • B-2 bombs dropped as a percent of total: 11% [22]
  • Percentage of approx. 23,000 NATO bombs and missiles that were precision guided: 35 [23]
  • Percentage in Gulf War: 8 [24]
  • Percentage of nearly 20,000 NATO bombs which a DOD spokesman claimed on June 2 had "hit their targets" : 99.6% [25]
  • Est. number of Dubrava Prison inmates killed by NATO during bombing of nearby military targets, May 21: 19 [26]
  • Est. number of inmates executed by guards and security forces subsequent to bombing: 76 [27]
  • Serbia's stated death toll at Dubrava Prison, attributed to NATO bombing: 95 [28]
  • Yugoslav Government (FRY) total of army and police killed, from 24 March to 10 June 1999: 576 [29]
  • FRY estimate of civilian casualties: "several thousand" dead; 6,000 seriously injured. [30]
  • Human Rights Watch est. of Serb civilian deaths: 500 [31]
  • U.S. share of costs of air campaign, peacekeeping and refugee assistance through 30 Sept. 1999 (FY 1999): $5.05 billion [32]
  • Amount requested by Clinton Administration April 19 to pay for war and refugees in FY 1999 : approx. $6.57 billion [33]
  • Emergency funding appropriated by Congress for operations in Kosovo and other defense spending in FY 1999: $12 billion [34]
  • Preliminary est. of US peacekeeping costs in Kosovo for FY 2000: $2.04 billion [35]
  • Tons of munitions dropped by NATO: 6,303 [36]
  • Tons of food delivered to refugees during conflict: 3,100 [37]
  • Number of murder victims identified by name in 24 May 1999 war crimes indictment of Milosevic and four other high-ranking officials: 340 [38]
  • Amount US agreed to pay China for the bombing of its Belgrade embassy: $28 million [39]
  • Number of foreign diplomatic buildings alleged by FRY to have been damaged in bombing: 20 [40]
  • Est. number of refugees that had returned to Kosovo as of Dec. 1999: over 810,000 [41]
  • Est. number of schoolchildren enrolled in reopened Kosovo schools in October: 300,000 [42]
  • Number of posters and leaflets on mine awareness distributed in Kosovo: 443,000 [43]
  • 1998 United Nations (UNHCR) estimate of Kosovo Serb population in Pristina, Kosovo: 20,000 [44]
  • Post-war, July 1999 estimate: 5,000 [45]
  • September 1999 estimate: 1,000 - 2,000 [46]
  • Current estimate: 700-800 [47]
  • Percentage of remaining Pristina Serbs said by Belgrade NGO to "never leave their homes": 81% [48]
  • Number of ethnic Albanians estimated to still live in southern Serbia: 70,000 - 80,000 [49]
  • Number of United Nations (UNMIK) police authorized and requested for Kosovo: 4,718 [50]
  • UNMIK police, including trainees, in Kosovo as of Jan. 31, 2000: 1,970 [51]
  • UNMIK police in city of Djakovica (Pop. 120,000): 9 [52]
  • Miles of barbed wire installed to protect US peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, August 1999: 54 [53]

Links to the original sources are here: [1] Guess one would use ome of these in the article. --HanzoHattori 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These certainly paint a less bias picture of the war, and it seems strange that some of them are missing in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.126.126 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture and caption

The third picture in the opening infobox (debris crushing a Yugo) is captioned as evidence of destruction in Kosovo. However, the same picture illustrates NATO bombing of Belgrade streets. I don't know where the picture was taken, but it can't be both Belgrade and Kosovo. Dchall1 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

mujahedin fighters in Kosovo

BS serb propaganda. And the reference leads to a wikipedia article about mujahedins in Bosnia. Someone has totaly f... up his BS story. This is about Kosova and not about Bosnia. There were not souch thing as al-qaeda and mujahedins in Kosovo. Most foregin fighters were ethnic bosniak and croats and individuals westerners.

That has now become deleted since there are no reliable sources to back up the claim and there seems to be no doubt that this is a unfounded (false) statement. --Albanau 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful or not? It is not for me to judge. I mentioned these links only to show that the story of Al Qaeda presence in Kosovo isn’t Serbian propaganda or BS (as our anonymous colleague politely expressed him self). --Marko M 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I add Excerpt from the book Osama Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America (Rocklin CA: Prima Publishing Co., 1999, ISBN 0-7615-1968-8)] to the pile of links. Nikola 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is no more than speculation and speculations cannot be presented as facts at the fact table. You can write about it somewhere in the article instead, and present it as it is: speculations. --Albanau 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed those sources (which had recently been re-added). They are either not applicable to the claim of mujahideen fighters in Kosovo, or they were not reliable sources. In addition, the claim does not appear anywhere else in the article. Dchall1 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And I returned them. NYT and Freerepublic don't mention mujahideen directly, though they do mention connections with Al Quaeda. But The Washington Times is clear about it:
The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists -- members of the Mujahideen --as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight.
as is the book "Osama Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America":
The mujahideen established close relations with the key clans from the Drenica area in central Kosovo
Rather than removed, the fact should also be added elsewhere in the article. Nikola 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is well referenced and should stay in article.--Medule 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The fact is whether some people like to admit it or not there were Mujahideens in Kosova, I have photos to prove it, also it was my Uncle and a few other of his friends who brought the Mujahideens into Kosova, there were around 600 stationed in PREKAZ in the Drenica region, they were given a couple of acres of land and a big house by the KLA commander ILAZ KODRA, most of the Mujahideens in Prekaz and in drenica were these same muajhideens who fought in Bosnia, by end of 1998 they pulled back out of Prekaz, and all regrouped in KOSHAR with the rest of the Muajhideens that were waiting in the border with Albania, they took part in the battle of Koashr and after the war some went to Macedonia and most left Balkans and whent to other conflict zones. It might be a bit of a bitter truth for some of my fellow Albanians but that is the truth I don't see anything wrong with it, tis no different from the neo-Nazis Russians and slavs who fought in Serbia's side, or the Greeks & Israelis, it does not mean that we are some sort of extremists it just means that we had help frm many people, there were many Christians like the Croats, Danish, German, Italian, British...etc who fought for us but they didn't even reach a three digit number which the Mujahideens reached and passed the four digit's, whilst mujahideens does not mean Al-Qaeda it means Muslim voulanteers from all over who came there as for KLA links to AL-qaeda its pretty non true, the only Muslims that financed us was Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria & Iran no one else82.35.33.72 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Both the United States and United Kingdom admitted training Muslim insurgents in Bosnia during the Yugoslav civil war and KLA during the Kosovo War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Adem Demaci, the civilian leader of the KLA, openly appealed to mujahedin to go to Kosovo to fight for the KLA in a mendacious article for an Islamic publication that pushed the great lie that Kosovo Albanians are most devout Muslims on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these links can help too: http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/analysis/a09.incl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=052WjpCYYTU There is translation available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Refugees

it says that by november 1999 800000 out of 850000 (circa) refugees returned to kosovo... anyway there were 250 000 refugees in macedonia (who made a real mess and weren't even a tiniest bit thankful for it) and out of those 250 000 no more than 100 000 returned to kosovo... so be sure to check your sources (it says the un is the source, but i didn't see a source page)... u got my point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.167.148 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is clearly pro-Serbia and anti-NATO, presents opinions as facts, and omits many relevant facts, including UN Resolutions:

as well as the no flight zone, and violation of safe havens by Serbia.

Some of the missing relevant material:

--John Navas 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are at the wrong article; what you are looking for is Bosnian War.
Either way, however, what you claim is false: first, because Serbia did not participate in the Bosnian War and so could not violate safe havens; and second, because safe havens did not exist and no one could violate them.
But keep the tag anyway, as this article is appalingly pro-NATO and anti-Serb. Nikola 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I came onto the the discussion page was to lodge this complaint. The article feels to be written from a "haha, you NATO people tried, but you really didn't do anything to us! You destroyed only decoys!" How you can claim to have "won" anything is beyond me; the NATO mission accomplished its goal and for better or worse crippled military and civilian infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.71.33 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Winner

I believe no one won the war. Serbia achieved it's goal (protected Serbian Kosovo from ocupators and nazi nato who killed 1,500 Serbia civilians for nothing), NATO and terrorist so called "KLA" didn't (independence and stealing of Serbian holy land Kosovo). So I think we should change it to none. --Србија до Токија (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

-What about the 10,000+ innocent Albanians you Serbs massacred? --Vepton (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing!

I beg you to stop vandalizing the article. You are destroying the Wikipedia neutral point of view. I repeat Kosovo is in Serbia (even Kosovo is a Serbian word) and when you say that this war occured in Kosovo most of people won't know what is Kosovo, but if you say Serbia, Kosovo they will understand it. --Србија до Токија (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Untill you don't say why are you vandalizing Wikipedia I 'll repeatedly undo your vandal edits. --Србија до Токија (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You made two edits which I reverted. The first was to explicitly state that the war took place in "Serbia, Kosovo". Not only is this grammatically incorrect (if anything it should be Kosovo, Serbia), but it is unnecessary. The first sentence of the Kosovo article states that Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Nobody reading this article would come to the conclusion that it is anything but (for now, at least).
Your second edit about the NATO airforce losses does not belong in the "casualties" column, which is for loss of human life only. Nor did the sources you list identify the planes destroyed, or discuss the "dozens" which were damaged. Further down in the article is the discussion of the F-117 which was shot down. Dchall1 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok about NATO airforce loses, but it must be clearly shown that Kosovo is a Serbian province, so I wroted Serbian province of Kosovo. You must understand that there are places that not everyone know about. Example: if you say that something happened in Pyongyang a lot of people won't know where it happened (some may say it's in Europe, some in Africa) but if you say that something happened, in Pyonyang, Capital of North Korea everyone will understand what are you talking about. I know many of you don't accept the fact Kosovo is Serbian, but it's a fact that you must accept. --Србија до Токија (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm with Srbija do Tokija on this one, we can't stop making it clear that Kosovo is in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is its own country now so they do not need to include Serbia in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vepton (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not an independent country since only 36 countries recognized it (out of more than 200). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.174.2 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And 7 months later, 71 nations have accepted the independence of Kosovo. Sorry, it is its own nation, no matter how much the Serbs complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

1.000 Serbs killed by terrorist albanians? Is someone kidding to me? NATO, USA, Clinton claimed Serbs killed 500 000 albanians (in truth they killed thousands of terrorists in self defense actions in Serbian Kosovo) and that albanians killed 1.000 Serbs. Terrorist so called "KLA" killed both albanians (they considered that are cooperating with Serbs) and Serbs. Today many of murders on albanians commited by terrorist "KLA" are attributed to Serbs.

Anyway, it's on you who are you going to believe, USA that said 500 000 albanians were killed for 3 years, while only 1.000 Serbs were killed, or Serbs who claimed 10.000 Serbs were killed. If they would lie, they would say 100.000 Serbs were killed or something like that.

I believe we should change number of killed Serbs to at least 4.000 to 10.000, if you don't agree with me tell me why and let's discuss it. And yeah if someone doesn't delete albanian lies from this articles I will send pictures of Serbian baby Sava burned allive near prizren in 1999, Serbian baby slaughtered near Gnjilane, burned churches etc. and then ask youreslves who was ethnic cleansing who. Anyone who has at least little brain could see demographic cards from those years and you can clearly see that every year Clinton and NATO (USA) claimed that Serbs killed 500.000 albanians, more and more Serbs were killed, so less and less Serbs were those years in this Serbian province. --Србија до Токија (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who is unaware, the above editor's username is a Chetnik propaganda slogan referring to Greater Serbia. His edits are not neutral, and should be reverted as a matter of course. Davu.leon (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the new numbers of Serbs and Roma who were killed or are missing is supported by the sources. However, I would like to see a source for 3-11,000 KLA members killed. Granted, the original number didn't have a source either, but we can't be throwing random numbers onto the page. Dchall1 (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't aware of any reliable source for 10,000 Serb civilians killed in 1998-99. Perhaps you could include a link to this? Thanks. Davu.leon (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon re-reading your post, I wonder if you are in fact referring to the circa 1,000 figure as being sourced? If so, please ignore the preceding. Davu.leon (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, both the original 1,000 and the 3-11,000 were unsourced. I'd prefer to see a source for either one, but personally 11,000 sounds really high. Dchall1 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just published a source, someone removed it, this page is vandalized pretty often! --Србија до Токија (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dchall, what is your problem. You want to say more Romas died than Serbs? LoL! I wanted to say that after albanians mostly Serbs died you removed it, even if it's a fact. I gave back number more than 3,200 only by KLA forces and please don't remove it. I stated more than 3,200 Serbs killed by terrorist "KLA" and there are names , when they died, and how they died for each of them, human rights watch has nothing like this so I think it should be removed.--Србија до Токија (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but HRW is kind of the standard, and its numbers are well-accepted by any number of other sources out there. 3.2k is so far at odds with the HRW number, I think we would need to see some confirmation other than from the Serbian government. The number of Roma who died in the conflict has nothing to do with this, by the way. Also, FYI, it's not vandalism when someone makes a change you disagree with. Dchall1 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes

You are right there, but when someone continues vandalizing one article it is not good as far as I know. I just told you you have everything about victims (on pdf document) how, when, where and by who they were killed, date, and even pictures (other pages). Stop removing please! --Србија до Токија (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted, your source is very detailed. But again, it is so far out of line with every other source out there that some confirmation must be provided before we can use it in the article. Please see WP:REDFLAG if you don't believe me. Until you can find some corroborating evidence, I'm reverting the changes. Dchall1 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Any info on whether the Serb government tried to justify or defend themselves using the loophole in international law regarding ethnic cleansing?

  • Timothy V. Waters, [law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4600&context=expresso On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing], Paper 951, 2006, University of Mississippi School of Law.

--Stor stark7 Talk 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The proof of ethnic cleansing comes not in the removal, evacuation of people from a territory. The proof comes when the time comes to return. The Republika Srpska and Serbia both agreed to allow the return of citizens to their homes. Israel, in contrast, makes it a point to never permit the people they displaced to return ever and have complete support from the American government for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, the only meeting between Milošević and Ibrahim Rugova took place in May; Rugova was forced to attend after police sequestered him from his house in Priština."- This is not true. There was an early meating between Milosevic and Rugova before the Kosovo war along with other Albanian officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.187.153 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I think that the person who put that there was confused with reports of a Rugova meeting in 1999... The first meeting had American approval and was in Belgrade. Rugova went there willingly. Remember that this was a victory for him. On the Serbian side, they insisted that Rugova deal with the Serbian authorities and only with the Serbian authorities, not the Yugoslav ones. Getting a meeting with Milosevic was a victory for him. It suggested that this was more than just an internal affair of Serbia, which is how Serbia wanted it to be characterised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rehaul changes

I went through the article and completely rehauled all citations, mainly transforming them into {{citeweb}} templates for convenience. I also;

  • Removed a GeoCities link, as that isn't exactly a reliable source
  • Removed some dead or broken links
  • Removed a secure link; this needs some kind of authorization to be viewed properly, and therefore isn't usable by most readers
  • Removed foreign language source here, as, while I can read it, most readers wouldn't be able to.

Also rearranged some links and combined some short sentences to make the text more flowing. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic job, thanks for the hard work. I made one content change to remove a claim from a globalresearch.ca article on the Chinese embassy bombing. The website is not a reliable source, and the controversy is thoroughly discussed in the article about that event. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Military and political consequences" part

I am sorry but I didn't know where to put my proposition, so I did it here. My opinion is that you should remove the 4th point in "Military and political consequences" part I'm quoiting it:

" Dummy targets were used very extensively. Fake bridges, airfields and decoy planes and tanks were used. Tanks were made using old tires, plastic sheeting and logs, and sand cans and fuel set alight to mimic heat emissions. They fooled NATO pilots into bombing hundreds of such decoys. (though "General Clark's survey found that in Allied Force, NATO airmen hit just 25 decoys-an insignificant percentage of the 974 validated hits.")[26] However, NATO sources claim that this was due to operating procedures, which oblige troops, in this case aircraft, to engage any and all targets however unlikely they were real. The targets needed only to look real to be shot at, if detected, of course. NATO claimed that Yugoslav air force had been decimated. "Official data show that the Yugoslav army in Kosovo lost 26 percent of its tanks, 34 percent of its APCs, and 47 percent of the artillery to the air campaign." [27]

This is taken from air force magazine which can not be taken as a reliable source of information: First of all it was written by a reporter based on statements, and these statements were made by general Clark September 1999 when, I'm sure, he didn't know the complete truth and these were just presumptions. Even though he might have known the truth it was still early to talk about ineffective NATO air strikes on ground forces after extensive briefings held by gen. Clark and Jamie Shae where they were talking about hundreds of tanks, APC's and artillery pieces destroyed every night. The third and final reason for removal of this statement is that this part of the article should be about Yugoslav tactics not losses. These are the reasons why I have deleted it, you can copy it and paste it back from here if you think it's right, and I won't delete it again.Dualnature (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

China and Russia vetoing war part

NATO did not proceed without UN Security Council backing because any resolution was vetoed, but due to the implicit threat of a veto from Russia and China. This has now been changed. Ian, 15 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.93.116 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen

I make no statement to the accuracy of this claim but a tripod site is not a WP:RS nor is a statement by Osama bin Laden. Having ~10 sources for one claim many of them not being authoritative makes it seem... well, suspicious. Please trim down the sources. 128.175.87.166 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=/content/analysis/a09.incl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=052WjpCYYTU There is translation available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Add other pictures

Can somebody add some other pictures from Kosovo's POV? All I see is yugoslav forces. TY. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

This and many other articles related to it are poorly written and presented. Citations are few and far between and there is a mountain of text with numerous instances of uncited interpretation and assessment. I believe this and many other articles should be completely rewritten from scratch. 87.198.20.228 (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite done.87.198.20.228 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure this bad quality propaganda should be rewritten as good quality propaganda. It is not even a POV! Who cares about truth? This article is here to glorify the US. Get a hint...The 2 weeks campaign lasted 80 days. Planes had to fly over 15000 feet. AH-64s only « trained » nearby. So, US pilots aren't trained enough to fight or even pilot and US shoplifters are very unreliable? Isn't it what they mean?. Wesley Clark got thanked and removed quickly from its NATO commandment after the campaign. Other details, like 9/11, clearly point out what a bad and unimpressive job was done in reality. People looking for Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan had pictures of them taken in Kosovo, Bosnia... ;). The point of this article is giving a great image of the US and its military capacities: rewritting history is a true power. --90.23.200.16 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA and Kosovo War

How come there is no mention of role of CIA in this war? There are plenty of references available [2],[3].Lakinekaki (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article but...

I see one glaring error. The article refers to the Constitution "granting political rights" That is an oxymoron. Rights are not granted, privileges are granted. Rights are inherent. If someone or something allows you to do something, that you couldn't already do, thats not a right, thats a privilege. And that which is granted can also be taken away. Pieces of paper do not grant rights.

Other than that, thank you for the informative article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeah92101 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is a good, balanced, and very informative article. Rational arguments for a "disputed" label seem to be absent, so I am going to remove the label. --Lumidek (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Albanian Casualty Figures

The claim "at least 13,627 Albanian civilians killed by Serb forces**[4]" is utter garbage. It references an outdated article. The Hague could not prove that more than 2-3000 civilians from both sides were killed (you can view the Milosevic trial). The Hague, that is updated information. The referenced article is almost 10 years old and unproven. How can such unsubstantiated claims stand? The fact that such falsehoods are presented as truth (and being cited by preliminary, propaganda influenced reports) call into question the validity of the entire article. Why is it locked for editing, so that such blatant factual inaccuracies can stand untouched?

Not only is the source old and outdated, but it is also misquoted. The Source specifically states that the deaths were in a "95 percent confidence interval from 7,449 to 13,627.46" whereas it is quoted as being "at least 13,627". Perhaps the author had no knowledge of statistics, as there is only a 2.5% chance the number is over 13,627 according to the article (which I claim to be invalid anyway). Moreover, the report sourced by the article does not at all take into account the distinction between soldiers and civilians killed in those metrics (especially since this is a hard distinction to make in terrorist/guerilla warface) I am thoroughly unimpressed by the clear bias presented by this article, moreso by the fact that the article has been locked, so inaccuracies can not be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akolicic (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The statement "at least 13,627 Albanian civilians killed by Serb forces" misrepresents the source it is quoting to start with and should say at most 13,627 if this source is to be used and the lower end of the confidence interval should be quoted too. -- Phildav76 (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav Casualties

The very last paragraph in this section on the wikipedia entry is terribly worded, has no sources, and is (at least I think) utterly wrong, WikiWiznerd (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1996??????????

The article in his main paragraph says the Kosovo War started in 1996.

PLEASE, is there any GOOD, NON-SERB SOURCE, that have some information about this? As far as the rest of the world knows, the Kosovo War started in 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.226.144 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I used a Human Rights Watch report to source the start on January 2008 --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about sources

Because of never ending edit warring in articles about Yugoslav Wars we have created consensus about sources for related articles. Sources in this list are not only sources because we are free to use any NPOV source but this one will be very hard to defeat with other sources.

vote:

Source Mike Babic Rjecina Civilaffairs DIREKTOR HarisM B.Fever Berkowitz Ijanderson977
Amnesty International OK OK OK OK OK OK OK [1] OK
Human Rights Watch OK OK OK* OK OK OK OK [1] OK
United Nations Security Council resolutions OK OK OK-fact OK OK OK OK OK
United Nations General Assembly resolutions OK OK OK-fact OK OK OK Depends [2] OK
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Helsinki Watch OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
ICTY court decisions OK OK OK-fact OK OK OK OK OK
ICTY Self-incrimination OK OK OK** OK OK OK Depends OK
Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council: OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
BBC Depends OK OK*** OK OK OK [3] OK
CNN Depends OK OK*** OK OK Depends [3] Depends
New York Times Depends OK OK*** OK OK OK Depends
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
United Nations Commission on Human Rights OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Reuters OK OK*** OK OK OK OK
Agence France-Presse OK OK*** OK OK OK OK
International Herald Tribune OK OK*** OK OK OK OK
The Guardian OK OK*** OK OK OK
Sydney Morning Herald No OK*** OK


From vote it is possible to see that only Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations Security Council resolutions, United Nations General Assembly resolutions, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Helsinki Watch, ICTY court decisions, ICTY Self-incrimination, Report of Secretary-General to the Security Council, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has not recieved negative vote so we are having consensus about them.

It is important to notice that using for ICTY Self-incrimination is valid only like guilty plea or if there has been latter court action against Self-incrimination person.--Rjecina (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

removals of de facto / de jure

I see that this sentence is being removed all the time from the infobox [4] and then restored again:

now de facto sovereign state (de jure still part of Serbia)

I have gone to the original text of the resolution 1244 but I found no mention of "de facto" or "de jure", and only passing mentions to Serbia. It appears that the UN considers Kosovo to be part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and not part of Serbia. Also, the resolution talks of "previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo", and the only sovereignty it talks about is "the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region", and I'm not sure if "other countries" refers to Kosovo as a separate country from Yugoslavia or not. Maybe it would be better to reword or remove this estatement? How about replacing the word "Serbia" with "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", as being more in accordance with the only source provided? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can do that, as there is no "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" anymore. In any case, the terms "de facto" and "de jure" are correct, as demonstrated by any number of sources. Sure, independence is still disputed, but there's no denying that Belgrade has no say over the internal functions of Kosovo. Perhaps leaving the statement with the addition of a couple of strong sources would be the best solution? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you can find strong sources saying that Kosovo is "de jure" part of Serbia :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
From your first paragraph, I'm a little unclear on how you would like that whole sentence to read. Could you spell out your proposal please? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see the problem now, the resolution is from 1999, but FRY became Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, and Serbia and montenegro parted ways on 2006. On the FRY article I can also see the Mari Jo source where Serbia and Montenegro are listed as forming FRY, and Kosovo is surely included as part of FRY.
Yeah, the statement is correct, is just that the name on the resolution has become updated. Yeah, the statement is correct and it can be kept that way without problem, you just need a pair of good inline references so it doesn't get removed all the time (I just reverted the sentence back into the article, I'm not adding the sources myself because I don't know where to find them) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll get the sources when I'm not at work :) // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Račak massacre

The bulleted list seems to be an exact copy from here. Could somebody fix this? Mouse is back 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nato countries involved in 1999 attacks

The list does not list Luxembourg. Any information? Was it really not involved? Does it not have a real military? Or has it just been forgotten? Evlekis (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Norwegian special forces

HJK ( Special forces of Norway ) was the first specialforces to go into Pristina. The HJK job was to clean the way between the striding parties and to make local deals to implement the peace deal between the Serbians and the Kosovo Albanians. This was done under very difficult sircumstanses. The HJK was chosen to do the job, ahead of American and French special forces. The recomandation to use Norwegian HJK, came from the British SAS.

Why is there no mention of Norway in this article ? 84.48.45.200 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source talking about it (a blog post by someone on the internet wouldn't be enough, for example), or point that a source already cited on the article that mentions it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a source stating that US and Norwegian elite forces were the first in theater. The specific info mentioned before is from a Norwegian book on the subject.
Article: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990420_01_n.shtml
Book: " Norges hemmelige krigere " by author Tom Bakkeli. The book is in Norwegian: ISBN: 9788248907220 : http://www.norli.no/NORLI_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?item=2965230
Can someone please add the info in the appropriate place ? Thanx Mortyman (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This probably goes under Yugoslav withdrawal and entry of KFOR, but I'm not sure of how this fits with the role played by KFOR. The Jane's article only talks of norway troops on Macedonia. Is there any english language source for those troops being assigned to Pristina? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No unfortunetly I don't know of any english language source regarding this. But english sources can't be the only one that counts ? This was Norwegian specialforces and not regulare forces.Mortyman (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This url tells of Norwegian involvment in the Kosovo war atleast... Se under " MNB Center, The British " Unfortunetly it does not confirm what they did.However norway was present and i have added a norwegian flag to the list of participating countries...
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Norwegian+specialforces+in+Kosovo&xa=pMOGNcbLn55ItF0vD2..Cw--%2C1223494664&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=NO&u=www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB583.pdf&w=norwegian+specialforces+%22special+forces%22+kosovo&d=NiOKpfReRhds&icp=1&.intl=us
Mortyman (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
working link --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In this English interview with a former minister of defence in Norway, it is stated that " The Norwegian troops are regarded internationally as being specialists in the conduct of winter warfare operations. They were among the first of NATO forces to enter Pristina during the war in Kosovo. " : http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article254448.ece?service=print

You are correct when you say that Norwegian forces were involved in Macedonia. Norwegian specialforces cooperated with the UCK in gathering inteligence information. Preparing for the invasion on the 12th of june. The Norwegian specialforces sat together with the UCK on the Ramno mountain on the border between Macedonia and Kosovo and is an excellent scouting point for what is happening inside Kosovo. Together with British specialforces, Norwegian specialforces were the first to cross over the border into Kosovo. According to Keith Graves with the television network Sky News, the Norwegians were already inside Kosovo 2 days prior to the march in of other forces. Article in Norwegian siting NATO sources: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=8665264

I think it would be correct to include the various info that I have posted here into the article. Mortyman (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I managed to add the info myself. Mortyman (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell that the whole article is written by Serbians

Uhmmm, yeah read the article, enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.225.65 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC) it is written by serbianssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.40.242 (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the bulk of article is written by User:ChrisO and is his typical anti-Serbian propaganda. Nikola (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are many Serbs on Wikipedia editing Albanian related articles to make Albanians look bad --Vepton (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On Serbian Govt. website as a Source for KLA inflicted casualties

I don't want to cause a big argument here, but I would submit that using the Serbian Govt. website as a source for the number of casualties, particularly civilian casualties, is not acceptable, particularly given the fact that several members of the Serbian security apparatus and government of the time have been put on trial for the falsification of evidence relating to civilian casualties. I would imagine that this would make their statistics subject to a greater degree of skeptical scrutiny? Davu.leon (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Which members of the Serbian security apparatus and government of the time have been put on trial for the falsification of evidence relating to civilian casualties? Nikola (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Vlastimir Djordjevic for one. Although I suppose that was not the only charge Davu.leon (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that he is charged with falsification of evidence; even if he would be, I don't see him implicated in creation of this particular report. Do you have any specific indication that this number is false? (While at it, what number, exactly, are you referring to?) Nikola (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Uck kla logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2 combat deaths at Kosare?

In the info box it is written, that Nato had 2 combat deaths at Kosare, but no sources were given. As much as I know there were no single KIA on Natos side. I would propose to delete this from the info box as long as there are no reliable sources for that claim. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Significance of the internet age

I remember following this conflict on blogs and personal reports while in college. It seems like this was the first major conflict after the maturation of the internet and proliferation of digital photography. I remember seeing digital photos taken moments after each bombing, showing casualties in graphic detail. Was this really the first conflict where this kind of thing was common? If so, maybe it bears mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.111.186 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Reference

Here are two references for the analysis of missing Serbs from Kosovo region. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/04/03/letter-kosovar-authorities-calling-investigation-serbs-missing-1999 http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/07/25/failure-protect-0 And these References are not from Serbian source.

Someone raised a question of gathering information from Serbian sources for the refugee's numbers. Why should we take it from Albanians, when a known killed is a president or prime minister of the so-called new country in Europe.

The truth is far from known and many Albanians-Kosovars are trying to hide it. I am not saying that some facts are true, but lots of them are hidden and covered. The war didn't start in 1998. Problems started ever since 1974 and later when many Albanians could come to live in Kosovo area (by Tito's settlement), without paying taxes or legal documents from Serbia. At the same time Serbs who had land there could not come back, since Tito prohibited it with huge taxes and political and social restrictions. So, no wonder that today we have 87% of Albanians living in Kosovo area.

But what I am saying is: so what? Why should Kosovo become its own country when clearly even with the help of KFOR and NATO violence on Serbs and its Churches could not have been stopped in March 2004. Nobody mentions that here? Why? To be honest I am not surprised that there were 500 000 refugees from Kosovo(Albanians). If the war is near your house would you still be there or would you try to leave the place and run as far as you can. So this number does not prove that they were molested. On the other hand you say that most of 850 000 of albanians returned to Kosovo. Why 200 000 of Serbs refugees have not returned? Because they would be killed by Albanians, or taken as hostage or just simply would not have what to eat or where to work since everything is controlled by albanians who never employed a single non Albanian person to work. On top of that they have been stealing land from Serbian families, taking woods and harvesting Serbian crops. Why this kind of thing is never mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.17.72 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself. Go to Kosovo_War#Aftermath and add a short paragraph explaining that there are 200,000 serbs that can't go back to Kosovo because nobody will protect them from albanians attacking, and put these two links as sources. Don't worry about getting it perfect, just put them there as well as you can. (and remember to say, "according to Human Rights Watch") --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because "Human Rights Watch" is such an unbiased source. Also, I find it amazing how the Serbian Army got out of this war so unscathed. You'd think if they were so cunning in hiding all their equipment, as this biased entry claims, they wouldn't have surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerjohn111 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality can exist, even if it criticizes the status quo

I must say that I disagree that the article is biased. When other articles, be they in Wikipedia or in the mainstream press, blandly report about various military actions, they often do so with either no or little mention of reasoned critique. What this article does is to, for once, question the validity of the NATO action. NATO, as the article points out, is supposed to defend member states--not attack states that they may disagree with. Just because there happened to be an armed group, the KLA, who were insistent on creating an independent state, did not give NATO cause to bomb Serbia.

The UN did not sanction any action against Serbia. If we are to be a nation (US) and world community of laws, then we must follow them at all times--not just when they suit our fancy.

Greenwoodian (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Section: Kosovo in Tito's Yugoslavia (1945–1986)

This section needs be separated into paragraphs. It is one long paragraph like a run on sentence that should be punctuated but someone forgot that punctuation is free and maybe were afraid to use it for some reason or lack thereof so the end result is something that's hard to read and obfuscates whatever communication was attempted because it's a paragraph that reads like one long run on sentence; that is, many thoughts are crammed together with no break for the reader and so the reader gets a headache and loses interest even if the information might be or even is accuracy lost in a muddle of too many words run together in a run on paragraph like a run on sentence like this one.

The semicolon ; in the previous sentence is in honor the late, great Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (who is in Heaven now), who wrote that semi-colons are like transvestite hermaphrodites. The previous sentence was a comma-splice, often used in run on sentences.

Just saying. Spelunkerdrone (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties again

Someone just changed the Serbian casualties to 1200 from 703; however, the given references don't seem to support either of those numbers. Can we find a good reference to use and keep the page in agreement with it? Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Milosevic government used Kosovar Albanians as human shields

Look at excerpts from this April 26, 1999 article from Time:


Had the air defenses been crippled, the pilot could have flown closer to that target, seen it was civilian and aborted the strike and the resulting global horror it provoked. A fellow F-16 pilot, from the 555th Fighter Squadron at Aviano, call sign “Buster,” was frustrated by the snafu. “The last thing we want to do,” the major says, “is help Milosevic do his job.” But mixing Serbian troops with Albanian civilians has been part of Milosevic's strategy. Buster says he has seen “truck, truck, tractor, military, military, bus” convoys. “They're using Albanians as shields,” he says, “and that makes me sick.”
(…)
The Serbs have been hiding tanks and other weapons in villages, knowing that NATO's aversion to civilian casualties will keep them safe. “We know where they are, but it's difficult when they're parked in villages or in convoys with civilians,” says Buster, the F-16 pilot. He held his fire, he recalls, when he spied a white vehicle next to a burning house. “Is a white van a military vehicle?” he asks. “No, but I'm sure it's not the guy lighting his own house on fire.” And the Serbs have split their armored units so that tanks operate alone or in pairs, denying NATO nice, fat targets.


Maybe this info should be put in this article and/or the article about the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia.--201.52.86.117 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania–Serbia relations

FYI. Ikip (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I edit the infobox itself?

The title's self explanatory. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.129.40 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reaction to the war

Section Reaction to the war, 2nd paragraph:

"Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as U.S. aggression and imperialism, while critics on the right considered it irrelevant to their countries' national security interests. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign. However, in comparison with the anti-war protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the campaign against the war in Kosovo aroused much less public support. The television pictures of refugees being driven out of Kosovo made a vivid and simple case for NATO's actions, and the atrocities committed by the Albanians went unreported."

The end of the paragraph (marked with red) is completely irrelevant and even changes the nature of the last sentence.

Lately, four references are being used to back it up, which report that there have happened atrocities. Now did they went unreported or reported?

For those things that have happened, as we all know, trials at The Hague were held. But it does really have nothing to do with that paragraph. Thank you kedadial 11:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the ref clearly states that they were unreported.So restore it.Megistias (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not questioning if atrocities happened or not, but that sentence just doesn't belong there. Let's have other editors (neutral ones) look at it and they're going to tell us if that's correct or not. kedadial 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If deemed inappropriate for that paragraph.But they did happen and they did go unreported.Megistias (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"But they did happen and they did go unreported" -That's a different story.kedadial 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes,right....Serbia shooted 2 planes...Yeah,right...Ofcourse...NATO propaganda...For 2 air shoots we dont need PVO.Yes,we lose dramatically,but NATO never entered with tanks?Serbia say that shooted (destroyed) 60 planes,that is more realistic...And China,India,Iran,Russia say same.Iraq destoyed much many planes.Yes,serbia is so stupid to destroy only 2 planes.And USA only confirm loses,when serbian televison show their loses.USA never confirmed,that lose F117.And when RTS in Serbia show videos,USA finally sayed the true...Yes,usa have `bad appache` which always crushed in `accident` in Albania,or this helicopters always crashed alone??? : ))) Come on,pls when you edit this serious page,pls put and informations from China,Russia,India,Korea,Iran,Greece...Not put only NATO and USA (CNN) information.Bcs in this informations n this page only NATO `believe`... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladjan85 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Relax

Would you all just relax? If the information is incorrect, fix it, don't have a sulk here about it. If your information keeps getting deleted, don't bother adding it again, just go somewhere else. 114.76.83.109 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Greek volunteers?

Can somebody provide a citation for this? I'm very interested as to what their motivations would be.

Greeks tend to support Serbs strongly becasue they have two things in common: religion and the same enemy Albanians 

74.78.117.93 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More Relevancy, Less Fluff

Okay...I agree that it looks like this article either needs a MAJOR overhaul or needs to be deleted and re-written by someone else, in its entirety. Here are some basic suggestions for remaining unbiased and politically neutral:

1) Don't make unsubstantiated claims, or even repeat unsubstantiated claims by other sources. It is unsubstantiated for a reason--the facts don't support the claim. 2) Leave opinions about "who was right" out of it. Claiming the "other" is extremist is a red flag, meaning the author him/herself is likely an extremist. No academically-minded individual is going to take that claim seriously. 3) When in doubt, source it out. If, for example, one side says there were 10,000 casualties and the other says 3,000, cite both. Cite everything! 4) Use politically neutral sources, such as Amnesty International, etc., or other sources that don't have a stake in the outcome. 5) Wikipedia is a source. We're looking for neutrality here--not opinion, just facts and figures. Push opinions on your blog.

And remember, if you really want someone to listen to your point of view, barking about how wrong "they" are and how right you are--fighting just to "win"--makes you look like a child.

So, this is what the public wants to know about the Kosovo War; what triggered it, who participated and for what stated reasons (by the participants--no speculation, conjecture, or conspiracy theories), exactly where it happened, death tolls/statistics. No fluff! Maps are good, photographs aren't really necessary.

And, if you want to dispute a claim or a source, post the disputed fact and post a better source or debunk it, citing your source. Calling the article "BS" isn't going to convince me of anything, nor is it relevant to the facts. No more griping. Get to work! AuroraSilvermane (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Aurora S.

Inconsistency in Chinese casualties

In the information box, the article lists Chinese casualties as 3 diplomats, but in the body the casualties are described as 3 journalists. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnor663 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They were yournalists http://www.glas-javnosti.rs/clanak/glas-javnosti-17-03-2008/nato-danima-planirao-bombardovanje-ambasade-kine you can translate article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The NATO bombing campaign?

Is it right term or is it correct to call Aggression "The NATO bombing campaign". Dear editors I would like to exchange views with you with this term. For example. Every act of Violence of one or more suveren states against another without prior approval of Security Council is act of Aggresion or Act Against Peace by International Law. ref [5] So, my suggestion is to rename this section with NATO Aggresion to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia). Any suggestioj further?Georgius2010 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "Every act of Violence of one or more suveren states against another without prior approval of Security Council is act of Aggression or Act Against Peace by International Law." -Maybe there was a reason for the bombings.
  • "So, my suggestion is to rename this section with NATO Aggression to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia). Any suggestion further?" -I oppose your suggestion. I think the term "bombing campaign" reflects a NPOV.
Thank you. kedadial 11:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kadadi, but here is not a case of reason. It is a case of International Law as you correctly pointed out. In case of reason for intervention all countries agree that only force can be legitimately use prior to the approval of Security Council. NATO is not UN do not forget. If we take out emotion between Serbian and Albanian, we need rhetorically find out legal answer on very simple question: "Is it case of NATO Aggression or bombing camping" by International Law? Or for example is it case of Russian Aggression to Georgia or bombing camping? Thank you.Georgius2010 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't pointing out to anything as I was just quoting your own words. kedadial 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finger wagging

I removed the following statement for unencyclopaedic wording, lack of substance and lack of reference. 82.1.148.7 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"It should also be noted that neither the United States nor the other influential powers made any serious effort to stop money or weapons being channeled into Kosovo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.148.7 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo War header

File:Kosovo War header new.jpg
New header proposal

New header image should be made, because an existing one contains:

  • 2 pictures of Belgrade
  • 1 picture of Aviono
  • 1 picture of UÇK memorial

But there is not a single image of war in Kosovo. Wiki commons has much better images than those in the Category: Kosovo War. --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose new header for Kosovo War which consists of:

  • Yugoslav Army tanks in Kosovo,
  • Kosovo Liberation Army fighters in trenches,
  • Kosovar refugee camp in Macedonia,
  • bombed Serbian police headquarter in Belgrade,
  • U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle takes off from Aviano Air Base in Italy.

--Mladifilozof (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Individual Countries under NATO

I'm seeing a lack in the levels of involvement of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Countries. Any word or opinions of Kosovo veterans or immigrants on this? Did Britain or France have any major roles in this? Also, The page really needs some clarification on civilian deaths, and whether it is a massacre or a genocide. -SocioEconomics, 6/1/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocioEconomics (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The lovely and tranquil gallery of propaganda was very ambiguously titled (originally titled just "Gallery"). It could have been a gallery of anything. It could have even been a shooting gallery for all we knew. I changed the title to "Gallery of Propaganda" to be more informative and persuasive for those weren't yet ready to be persuaded by it right after reading the title. Hope this helps with the beautification of this historic war through the use of such imagery.Xetxo (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hum, wouldn't it be easier if we went to commons:Category:Kosovo_War, and we picked some better photos? I'm going to replace one from commons:Category:Bombing_of_Belgrade_in_1999. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_4&oldid=1136883484"