Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"only several thousand victims"

What a disgusting statement. CJK (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Resolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, now it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. But hey, as long as you two aren't offended, fuck encyclopedia's, right? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed the offending paragraph to read:

Despite initial western claims that hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians were killed subsequent investigations have recovered the remains of less than three thousand victims,[8]

In future, if you are offended by something on wikipedia, wait for some form of consensus before ripping the offensive content out and leaving a totally grammatically nonsensical passage in it's stead. What you did was compromise the entire purpose of a sixth of the lede because of butthurt. That's patently ridiculous behaviour; a little re-wording would have yielded a far superior result. There is no point in me citing the whole not censored, yadda yadda, braces hugged all capital letter doctrines of Wikipedia to vouch that arbitrarily removing things leaving everything broken is douchebaggery of the highest order, just please think before doing stuff like that in future. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Islam; the super-silent partner?

How is there only one instance of the word Islam in this entire document and it's in the title of one single source right down the bottom? I mean, I may be tripping balls here, but I'm pretty sure that the tens of thousands of mujahadeen soldiers running around beheading people and gutting babies from pregnant women and shit calling themselves freedom fighters weren't all coincidentally bearded men who tripped over and fell in orchestrated fashion at seven specific times per day. I may be wrong, but I'm smelling Conspiracy Pete aboves paranoia; this definitely does read like a propaganda piece.

I've noticed in a lot of instances Wikipedia's articles on any war or conflict issues in the past thirty years are skewed, and tend to lead to edit wars and dramu if questioned, so if my comment will cause such drama forget I mentioned it; but if it doesn't and we're actually reading the same handbook and obeying the same concept of neutrality then this article needs a whole lot of modification going on! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is one sided (MADE BY PRO-KLA EDITORS)

alot of sources that have gone through age 20 years ago are being used, then alot of sources are pointed out only from the sources of one terrorist organization -KLA, while anything on other side is ignored. This page is obviously trying to show Albanians as poor and terrorized people during that war, while the attacks on serbian civilians and heritage and on serbian government institutions even before the war became is putten in shadow; trying to show KLA as "liberty fighters". This is why i dont care at all what this article says, because its just NOT RELIABLE, just wanna let anyone who comes up here to know and to read this. The article is a whole piece of nothing. Goodbye

The neutrality of this article is fine. I'm removing the 'disputed neutrality' banner on the article. If there are actual concerns about the neutrality, you can put the banner back. UncappingCone64 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WARNING : There is a lot of Serbian propaganda and false information in this page

There were many human rights abuses of Albanians leading up to the war. The Albanian's initially used peaceful means of protest. However, as their rights were arbitarily taken away one by one it became clear that they would have to defend their families by other means. The atrocities committed against pregnant women, children and the elderly by the Serbs are shocking and brutal. In some villages all the men and boys were simply rounded up and shot in front of their families. Serbian nationalism is still prevalent today and many millitant Serbs use the internet and other media outlets to promote their propoganda. Please use discretion when reading any account of the war in Kosovo especially if it does not come from an independant source. This kind of misrepresentation of the truth only fuels conflict and prevents healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marigold333 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Very POV

"Morale

Morale was a serious problem for Serb forces; intelligence surveys found that many soldiers disagreed with their comrades' actions. One tank commander reported:

For the entire time I was in Kosovo, I never saw an enemy soldier and my unit was never once involved in firing at enemy targets. The tanks which cost $2.5 million each were used to slaughter Albanian children... I am ashamed."

This entry is very POV, it is not cyclopedic, and it explains the morale solely on one witness, there were many who did not complain, on the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.229.116 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that it doesn't merit an entire section and that a page number isn't provided to the source it's cited with. 23 editor (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What does "very POV" mean? I recognise, of course, that it's not compatible with your POV. It is, however, based on a reliable source. If you're concerned about undue weight then I will happily develop more content based on this and other sources. It would be a shame to have such a lengthy article on a war without mentioning morale. By the way, 109.106.229.116, you should log in when you edit. We have enough nationalist sockpuppets already.bobrayner (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• "NATO officials ....the apparently strong morale among Serbian troops.... the Serbian force of nearly 47,000 men seemed less demoralized than allied accounts had led people to expect. " link.
• Bruce Nardulli; Walter L. Perry; Bruce R. Pirnie (5 June 2002). Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999. Rand Corporation. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-8330-3231-7. Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• And the quick exit of Serb forces showed they were still a fighting force with high morale. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

All of which are specific to the retreat after allied intervention; it is a longstanding tradition on en.wikipedia for Serb nationalists to pretend that the Kosovo war was all about Allied Force, and gloss over trivial detail like ethnic cleansing, widespread brutality &c. Nonetheless, I'm sure we can expand the section. bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bab, if you cannot see the POV you keep protecting, I am truly sorry for you, maybe you should let other objective people edit this article, you are too emotionaly involved. All the best...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.228.14 (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbs have a strong link with Kosovo, so it´s absolute nonsense that morale was even a slight problem for Serb forces... Some people just cannot keep a line of logic here. When necessary, they want to present Serbs as barbarian killing machines of woman and children, but now suddently Serbian forces morale was low? Imagine then if it was high? They would be truth Super Mans then... Anti-Serb editors should really get some better strategy, cause this just looks like they are simply collecting all negative ever written about Serbs, whatever it is, even if contradictory with (their own) story line. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, these "hot" articles should be speacially dealt with extreme care, because our point here should be to make them as neutral as possible for en.wikipedia credibility. Inserting propaganda, as clearly that account on how Serb forces had low morale is, will simply move readers away from the article and make en.wiki loose credibility. Antidiskriminator already found 3 sources claiming the opposite, so the alleged words of one alleged commander don´t really have a place here. FkpCascais (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob, please provide a page for this edit of yours. Also, seems higly pushy to make a one sentence section. FkpCascais (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The page number is not so important. I presented scholarly sources which refute the low morale assertion. Slaughtering of Albanian children with tanks belong to another section which deals with massacres.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not to bothered about FkpCascais. 23 editor complains about the lack of a pagenumber, so Fkpcomplains about the lack of a pagenumber. Zavtek complains about me removing unsourced listcruft elsewhere, so Fkpcascais complains about me removing it too. There aren't any new insights here.

More concerning is that Zavtek removed the content as "badly sourced", even though it's from a reliable source, published by a university press. For content that Zavtek wants to add, the standards of sourcing are far lower - no source is required at all. Isn't that tendentious editing? It seems that some editors just make up any old reason to justify changing content to fit one nationalist perspective. It doesn't matter what the reason is; quite often it's outright false, all that matters is pushing articles in one direction. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the source, it's your deliberate misrepresentation of the source. Naturally if the source mentions "Serb soldiers" then its reliability will not so much come into question as be thrown in the bin since it would contain false information. Zavtek (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Such nationalist rants need not be taken sriously. It's a reliable source on Serb history which explicitly discusses Serb forces. If your personal politics are incompatible with that you have my sympathies, but sooner or later these articles will reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Nationalist rants"? Not sure what you're actually reading but perhaps you can quote the statement that allegedly equates to some 'nationalist rant' and then reveal which is the (un)lucky nation to have this follower rooting for their causes. Meanwhile if we get back to the issue, you used the term 'Serb forces' (ie. police & irregulars) and then started discussing 'soldiers' who in turn formed a part of the national military (VJ). No reliable soure could produce such a blunder, unless of course it isn't reliable. Equation solved. --Zavtek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Equipment of the Serbian Army is irrelevant here. You were explained that it is wrong to give undue weight to what one no name alleged commander said. You were also explained that what you added to the article contradicts to other sources which explain that during the withrawal of Yugoslav forces it became obvious that they had strong morale which contradicted what allied accounts had led people to expect. Please be so kind to stop with personal attacks and flag waving fallacious comments on this talk page by which you attempt to attribute nationalism to other editors. You were already warned more than once because of your disruptions at Kosovo related articles. I politely ask you to please take a better care in future or you might be warned again. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

For me it doesn´t really matter who makes one edit, it is allways the content that matters to me. As you could see Bob, I may agree with others on some edits, and agree with you on others. So I support edits, not editors. Now regarding the edit, that edit is sourced by Judah´s book with no page mentioned to confirm it and it doesn´t certanly deserve a separate section by itself. Also, even if written by Judah in his book from 1997, that edit screams propaganda (written before NATO intervention, some alleged commenader allegedly said... hmmm). Maybe Judah was introduced to someone who claimed to be YA commander and said that so he naively transponded that into his book, but anyway, are there more sources to confirm that? Such a hot issue as it is Kosovo War with so much writen about it and so much to write certainly can´t have one entire section reliying on one sentence from one source. Plus, making no much sense to anyone well familiarised with the issue, and with sources claiming otherwise. FkpCascais (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertion about Yugoslav army using tanks to slaughter Albanian children is exceptional and should be referenced with exceptional sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job we have a reliable source which quotes Serb forces directly, then. However you've removed the content as "misinterpretation". That is false. Did you intentionally use a false edit summary, or did you really believe it? bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

With your fallacious "false edit" loaded question you continued with disruption here. That is not the first time you write this kind of comments to me and by doing that you made editing of many articles including this article unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. That is why this will my last comment in this talk page. All the best! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"which quotes Serb forces directly", that's the funniest one I've ever heard! So morale is down across the outfit due to the feelings of a handful of carefully selected unenthusiastic individuals. --Zavtek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Main picture controversial

In infobox, you use a picture of a memorial to fallen Albanian guerilla terrorist fighters? This article is very visiual for its "one sided - role" instead of neutrality. Why dont you also put a picture of a memorial to fallen Chechens on Chechnia war article, and pictures of a memorial to fallen Tallibani forces in Afghanistan war? I propose to you that you remove that picture immediately...

Agree. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.233.41 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

.> Kosovo offers welfare to wartime rape victims(Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Infobox

I'm concerned that the infobox has grown so large as to be unmanageable. It even includes some things which aren't in the body of the article. Could we trim it down so that it just highlights key points for readers? bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which points did you have in mind? If you are referring to the countless names under "Commanders" then I absolutely agree. 23 editor (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw, since when is Croatia considered a belligerent in the Kosovo War? The BBC article used as a source for this pretty creative interpretation of events merely mentions a seized truck which "came from Croatia" carrying ammunition and uniforms for Kosovo Albanians. Also, do we need to list American aircraft losses by aircraft type and do we really need to list 17 countries under the "NATO" heading? Timbouctou (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all points! bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we should make the list of losses on all sides consise (e.g. tally up the number of NATO aircraft lost instead of listing each aircraft by name) and should remove Croatia from the list of belligerents. Also the location of the conflict should be listed as "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (with minor spillovers in neighbouring countries)". After all, the conflict was not restricted to Kosovo itself—NATO bombed the entire FRY, NATO bombs accidently fell on Bulgarian territory on several occasions, Yugoslav pilots landed in eastern Bosnia after their aircraft were shot down, and towns in Albania were shelled by the Yugoslav army on several occasions. 23 editor (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the mention of three Chinese consular casualties, since they were already covered by the row above. Is that OK? bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the infobox is better now. Could anything else be cut? bobrayner (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the "conflict location" proposal above? 23 editor (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current set up regarding location. We could say for location "Kosovo and the rest of FR Yugoslavia", we need to emphasise that the majority of the conflict took place in Kosovo. Also I supose you could replace "Albania" with "(with minor spillovers in neighbouring countries)" to reflect what happened in Bulgaria and BiH as well. IJA (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Unconventional suggestion, but: Could we remove it entirely? We already have more nuanced discussion in the body of the article. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There's whole article about NATO bombing of FRY. Over 100 bridges destroyed were not mainly on Kosovo. On another note, there's no mention of Operation Arrow in this article. KLA troops undertook Operation Arrow, a two-pronged push from Albania. They were "creamed" as one intelligence source put it, but they scared the Serbs out of hiding, providing what NATO spokesman say was a "target rich" environment. [1] 109.93.181.242 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no mention in the article that Albanian army participated in the conflict. NATOs Air War for Kosovo A Strategic and Operational Assessment By Benjamin S. Lambeth. Page 53. 109.93.181.242 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Morale Section Should be Eliminated

One soldier's opinion is enough to constitute an entire army's morale? If no one provides a legitimate reason as to why not, I will remove this section in a few days.

21.03.2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.213.119 (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look few sections up, you will see stroke out comments. I also pointed that out and several established authors agreed with me (Antidiskriminator, 23 editor and FkpCascais) but another editor simpy put that back, no discussion, no arguments given.

212.178.240.46 (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also some constructive feedback was removed:

It has to be made clear that during the Kosovo War the NATO did not achieve a military victory as it failed to destroy the army of the FRY and the soldiers’ morale. [2]

The NATO campaign is showing significant progress and results in crippling Yugoslav military mobility and eroding morale. Two important signs of sinking morale, he said, are reports of desertions from combat units in Kosovo and a growing effort by young Yugoslavs to evade reserve call-ups.[3]

By early May, Nato was claiming that its aircraft had destroyed more than 200 tanks and had cut off Serb forces in Kosovo from their supply bases. It portrayed a Serb army whose morale was crumbling from mounting casualties, shortages of food and fuel and lack of sleep, as it dispersed into smaller and weaker units to escape the relentless bombing. After conceding that the initial war aims - which were to avert a human disaster, as George Robertson, then defence secretary, put it - had failed, Nato claimed it was progressively destroying the Albanians' tormentors. Yet when the western media saw the Serb military withdraw from Kosovo in early June, they saw convoys of Serb tanks, armoured cars, guns, trucks and military equipment untouched by Nato's air assault. Nato's bombing campaign, with thousand of sorties and the dropping of tens of thousands of bombs, including sophisticated precision weapons, succeeded in damaging just 13 of the Serbs' 300 battle tanks in Kosovo. [4]

I agree moral section should be removed. 77.46.243.37 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.240.46 (talk)

I absolutely agree with this IP concerns. Also, I strongly condemn removal of coments in the way bobrayner has done it diff. Sock? Who´s sock? Anyway, what he adressed here is rightfull concern about neutrality of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you really ought to break this habit of encouraging and collaborating with obvious socks. It's not going to have a happy ending. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it on the grounds of not being notable and for being trivial. IJA (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you IJA. If we had more sources confirming that, and official statesments, that would be one thing, but this is clearly not the case, and we even have reports claiming the opposite. So definitelly a good decition. FkpCascais (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If the quote came from a notable military leader at the time, I think it would be useful or even if it came froma notable historian on the subject I think it would be worth including. But one soldier's opinion isn't that useful here. There were tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers. Most of them withdrew from Kosovo before KFOR arrived so of course many will have never seen an "enemey soldier". And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces. IJA (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Self contradictions re. EU/NATO support

Just to note that the assertion Every member of NATO, every EU country, and most of Yugoslavia's neighbours, supported military action, is contradicted by later assertions, specifically about Greece (which is both NATO & EU). I believe the Gk government 'walked a tightrope' between accomodating its NATO allies and not alienating its own population (who were almost universally hostile to NATO action), thus Gr allowed 'flyover', but denied 'landing & refueling' of NATO planes. I've checked out the David Clark article (from which the 'every member etc' assertion comes), our rendition is accurate, is indeed a quote. I'm not sure what appropriate action is here, possibly attribute the quote to the writer? Thus, … …'In a 2009 article, DC wrote " Every member etc.' Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It was late at night when I typed the above! Immediately after I realised that the 'David Clark', is principally an opinion piece, asserting that this was a 'just war'. Therefore for this reason, rather than because of any contradictions, the piece SHOULD be written as: In a 2009 article, DC wrote " Every member etc. ...." and the quotation be made explicit. Unless anybody objects, I will rewrite it in this form soon.Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

UGGGGHHHHHHHH ! How dumb can one be? I was right the first time ... Anyhow I have attributed the "every member ..." quote to D Clark.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Labelling the KLA

Hi all,
I'm concerned that we've been following a Kremlin-funded news agency's line on a controversial topic, and it just so happens that this line directly contradicts what multiple reliable sources say. Gelbard said that the KLA "had not been classified legally by the U.S. government as a terrorist group", and as far as delisting is concerned (to the extent that you can delist something which wasn't on the list in the first place, again there are reliable sources which directly contradict RT. So, I have removed it. Any comments/suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly object. There are a number of sources that verify this: Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_as_terrorist_group. There is Wall Street Journal article about it... 109.93.181.242 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BobRayner to this extent, it is very questionable whether US government formally 'listed' the KLA as a terrorist group (current wording expresses certainty that they did). I have a suggestion to get round the problem of how to represent issue on THIS page, which I will propose when I have more time (late at night ! hard day!).Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE this subject continues below 'US regarding KLA as a terrorist organisation' section.

Semi protect?

There has been a rather high volume of IPs, new accounts and socks recently who keep reverting things and are disinterested in the talk page. Do we agree a short term semi protect will do the article good until things cool down? This way only accountable registered users can edit the article. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, otherwise we are going to waste a lot of time … especially agree with the element of people who aren't interested in arguing their case on the talk page.Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

US regarding KLA as a terrorist organisation

I don't for one minute dispute this, it is a known fact. What I would like to know is, why is it vital to include this cherry picked information in the introduction? Forking it in the introduction sets a POV tone for the rest of the article. Isn't it sufficient enough later on in the article? It would be more NPOV to just say something along the lines of "The KLA was regarded by some powers as a terrorist organisation". Cherry picking information like this in the introduction sets the wrong tone and gives our readers/ audience the wrong impression. The US has historically regarded many groups and people as terrorists, Nelson Mandela for example. Introductions are a quick overall briefing of the article topic, covering the key points/ main factor of the article. A key point of the Kosovo War isn't that the US historically regarded the KLA as a terrorist organisation. Another point, the KLA was never legally considered a terrorist organisation by the US; that isn't made clear to our readers/ audience. And if were to state in the introduction that the US had considered them as terrorists previously, then we should be say that NATO deemed them as "freedom fighters". Page 69. IJA (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, the "KLA-terrorist" commentary should be kept to the article body. Overall, the article needs a hell of a re-spin to be anywhere near addressing the subject neutrally and without bias to either the KLA, NATO or the Serbs. For the record, I don't see anything neutral about the KLA being described as terrorists in Wikipedia's voice (which doesn't seem to be the case), nor as "freedom fighters"; as the late George Carlin said: "if firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, then what do freedom fighters fight?" 23 editor (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just first of all to point out that this is continuing "Labelling the KLA" section above. I agree almost entirely with the comments of IJA & 23 editor here. What I was on the point of suggesting was that some 'catch-all' phrase covering the fact that 'some commentators have asserted that the KLA was listed/seen as a terrorist organisation by the US until 199X', with a link to the issue section on the KLA page (this saves duplication of essentially the same issue and probably makes maintenance easier).

I emphatically agree that this should be in the body of the text, I also agree that too much is expressed in 'Wikipedia's voice', as though it were accepted fact, if you follow the references, they often turn out to be opinion pieces, or merely a journalist quoting a source.Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but many of the news references are from March–June 1999. What is often the case is that death tolls from NATO bombings or Yugoslav Army massacres were over-estimated in the chaos of war (many estimates were based on refugee accounts and/or Yugoslav propaganda). Unfortunately, the article tends to gravitate towards such sources as opposed to academic texts published 2, 5 or 10 years after the war ended. 23 editor (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to see Russia Today's claims presented at face value, in wikipedia's voice. It's not a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Russia Today is not reliable just like CNN or BBC...yeah. (sarcasm) 62.193.158.242 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree with Bobrayner that these assertions cannot be in 'our voice'. Will try to leave fuller comment/suggestion when I have time.Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I've MOVED the Pilger 'listed as terrorist' reference down to where the subject is discussed, that section may now be a bit out of sequence/overkill., but I thought moving it OUT of the intro was a good start. Also, I made it clear that the court referred to towards the end of the intro was a local court, according to the source it was ruling on genocide charges against one individual, and a retrial was scheduled. If the genocide issue is introduced in the intro it seems appropriate to include the final/highest court briefly, but I've no idea what that was.

A subject which may be difficult/sensitive in the intro is referring to FRY (Serb + Mont's self-adopted title at this time), since former republics of Yug were referred to at this time in rather tortured ways in the west, I think it appropriate to make some clarification of who FRY was by 1998.Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete's changes are a big improvement; but when did Pilger become a reliable source? bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

bob, you make it sound as if Pilger made it all up. (this line added by anon IP 4th July 2014)

bobrayner, Bob, I sympathise, personally I think whether KLA were/were'nt on what list and when and even why is a gigantic irrelevancy, (Governments can and do change their minds!) however ENOUGH sources make the listing/delisting claim and present it as a 'turn around', that it has to be covered in some coherent way (as I already said, where I moved Pilger to is now a bit muddled, but at least it's all in one place).Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, "KLA" was terrorist organisation, there is countless evidence for that fact. They are responsible for vandalism of cultural objects, kidnaping, killing, organ and drug traficking, theya re supported and have been trained by US in Albania close to border with Serbia province of Kosovo and Metohija. So, they should be labeled for what they are, a groupd of Albanian criminals supported by US. Current self-proclaimed ("elected") president of unexistant Republic of Kosovo was part of that organization, and is war criminal. However, we do not need to prove this to humans, since they will pay for whath they did very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.24.195 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your Serb-nationalist views, problem is many many people dispute and disagree with that (not to mention that it is unproven and lacks evidence), this is Wikipedia, we must be neutral. Also please read WP:NOTAFORUM and take your nationalist rants elsewhere. IJA (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I've just modified the Russian Volunteers in the infobox. The original said 'Hundreds of', source 1 says 'unknown number, possibly hundreds' source 2 says that many/most were mercenaries, I also note that there is a general instruction in the infobox to NOT include volunteers. Unsure as to how to deal so did temp fix, referring to 'unknown number'. I've created this new section as there may well be other infobox matters needing attention/discussion. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC) ps Source 2 says that they were 'Russian' only in the Western sense ie including Ukranian and other former USSR/Soviet bloc nationalities.Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–1990)

I have just made a number of changes to the "Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–1990)" section. Changes are: Firstly the Binder article is mainly about the growth of ethnic tensions, of which the growth of KosAlb Nationalism is only part of the story. Secondly, the "Paraćin massacre" incident is only written about 'in passing', as part of the background to tension, so I altered to 'referred to' Thirdly, Binder writes fairly explicitly about the rise of Milošević (and his commitment to 'getting tough' in Kosovo), of which I have tried to select the clearest quotes. I did this for two reasons, firstly because it is a significant part of Binder's article, but secondly because this section is titled 'Kosovo and the rise of … …'.

I wonder whether the 'Paraćin massacre' reference adds anything and also wonder whether the 'Branko Mamula' quotes that follow add very much, but both are 'background', so I only tidied slightly.Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

EU support

In the Support for the war section, there is a quote by David Clark saying, amongst other things, that all EU countries supported the war. This paper says that of the EU neutrals, only Ireland supported NATO, Sweden and Finland did not say whether they suppoted the NATO or not, and Austria condemned the bombings, and denied NATO aircaft access to its airspace. Which source is correct? Can anyone find another source to support either position? 109.78.239.190 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It was me that recently attributed the claim to Clark (it was previously in 'our voice', ie as a fact). Apart from the neutral countries you mention, it was widely reported at the time that some NATO members were 'less than keen', notably Greece, which (I believe), allowed flyover but refused any more active role (I don't have a source for that beyond memory of BBC news of the time). Clark is guilty of simplification on this point, (had he written 'almost all', there would be no issue), however the 'NATO/EU support' is not the main point of HIS article, and the point of this section of OUR article is to present the 'case for war'. I'm not sure what the appropriate remedy is here, nor if anything needs to be done.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A biased article

This is one of the most biased and partial articles I have ever read.It seems to me that the editor is a strong supporter of the serbs.In the background there is not a single word of the poisons of students in Kosovo.Not a single word of peaceful protests violently suppressed by Yugoslav police.I think there should be a clean-up to the article and write about the aggression as well.Also I have saw many reports(news,documentaries and books and also talked to KLA veterans)that there have been APC's destroyed by the KLA,I cannot say a certain number but the editor should get more references than american sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the image at the top of page is entirely of the NATO air campaign and not the genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign that precipitated it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing section?

For the duration of the NATO bombing campaign, all we have is information on the NATO side of the campaign. Where is the information on Yugoslav Army actions (elsewhere in Wikipedia we have Operation Horseshoe for instance) or KLA actions? I'm sure they didn't stop fighting the moment the bombs started falling (didn't the war intensify at this point?). Before NATO intervention there is plenty of information on the military operations of both sides, and then after the campaign ended there is a section on the Serb withdrawal. Did something get deleted at some point? 14.139.236.148 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There were parts that described Yugoslav tactics, but those parts were deleted by some users because there were no sources. Or they did not bother to find any. I agree - we should add those. We just need sources to back them up. I believe it won't be hard to find them. If you or anyone else is willing to contribute I will also help in any way I can, but I am not an experienced editor, far from it. 62.193.159.186 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Morale story - again

I would like to point out that bobraynr has again returned the disputed section of this article.

This issue has already been discussed (and closed) before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.243.185 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So, was the moral high and Serbs were slaughtering and raping or was it low? Cant the anti-Serbian guys make up their mind, or everything goes? This edit is a good edit for propaganda manipulation article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see FkpCascais and Vanjagenije were canvassed by a banned editor, and happily coöperated. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Truth hurts? 212.178.243.185 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently so, since you are so determined to remove reliably sourced content - truth - for no clear reason. bobrayner (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable as it was determined before here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated You bailed out on the discussion and suddenly, 7 months later, you revert very controversial part of the article (one upon 3 editors agreed it was wrong). Oh and just because I am not registered you call me sock and such. That is discrimination and you should be ashamed of yourself. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you try to prove, with reliable sources, that moral among Serb soldiers in Kosovo were high all the time? After all, you are the one who has to prove that the section is incorrect. But for now it is a properly sourced section that should be present in the article. The Banner talk 11:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In the former discussion, nowhere did we conclude or establish that it isn't a reliable source. If the Belgrade based IP wants to say it is "not reliable" then fair enough, but it doesn't count for much unless they can produce reliable evidence to suggest it isn't reliable. It seems to be a case of IDONTLIKEIT, no-one has produced anything credible to say it shouldn't be used. Whilst I'm at it, let me remind people about WP:Canvassing and WP:MEAT. IJA (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your words IJa "If the quote came from a notable military leader at the time, I think it would be useful or even if it came froma notable historian on the subject I think it would be worth including. But one soldier's opinion isn't that useful here. There were tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers. Most of them withdrew from Kosovo before KFOR arrived so of course many will have never seen an "enemey soldier". And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But can you produce any credible evidence to suggest that it isn't reliable? IJA (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because I cannot find a source which claims that it is reliable. My question is - since when anonymous tank commanders represent entire moral of the Yugoslav army? Contradictory to that next paragraph says morale was good. It's a mess and it's very, very POV. Surely you see it too. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a properly referenced source from the time by someone who was actually there. How is it POV? IJA (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your words IJA: "And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces". 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it POV? IJA (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to draw it to you or spell it? 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I want you to explain how it is POV. IJA (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Forget it, if you want to act like a kid, go ahead. 212.178.243.185 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely want to know how it is POV. I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that it wasn't reliable and you couldn't answer me. Now you've claimed it is POV and now that I've asked you how it is POV, you're unable to answer this as well. You're making baseless claims without the ability to back them up. If you can't back them up, then back off. IJA (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Morale" sub-section is problematic to say the least. The Judah cite doesn't have a page number and nearly fifty percent of it is an unknown soldier's quote (WP:UNDUE). If it is to remain, it needs to be expanded about twenty-fold, as the current form violates WP:BALASPS, which states "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." 23 editor (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources about it:

• Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999 by Bruce Nardulli,Walter L. Perry,Bruce R. Pirnie,John IV Gordon,John G. McGinn, pag. 54. It says: "...but departing Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale and displaying large holdings of undamaged equipment."
• The Strategic Triangle by Helga Haftendorn, pag 364, it says: "Consensus was eroding in the weeks before Milosevics surprise capitulation to the point that, as David Fromkin has noted ˝it seemed possible that NATO unity might crack before Yugoslav morale did˝".
• The Balkans Since the Second World War by R. J. Crampton, pag. 275, it says: "This has been a tremendous boost to Serbian morale." (see the context before and after that sentence).

Ill see more. FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this just a collection of lame excuses to hide POV-pushing. The Banner talk 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The ridiculous story of Yugoslav low morale? Yes, I agree. FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, your excuses for whitewashing the article. And with your threats to report me, you have only made clear that you have a WP:POINT to make and that you don't want to engage in serious discussion. The Banner talk 21:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no patience for playing games, and what you beleave is POV and whitewashing I couldn't care less. And I still see no page for that edit, and I will report this situation because I have serious doubts that age and citation exist, and per wiki principles it is required to add the page number for WP:Verifiability. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice when you had been looking in the books you offered here. The second and third books never mention "high morale". And Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale is a nice quote, but in war propaganda is important. Knowing that you are seen could be be enough to straighten your back and appear to have a high morale. The Banner talk 00:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Page 332 [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much AndyTheGrump. The page cannot be accessed trough google books, however at least now someone with the book or access to it can verify it. It is fundamental in these controversial articles to do proper sourcing, and if something is missing, requesting to fix it is absolutely adequate. It was up to the editors inserting the edit to do their homework and they should not attack at any point someone requesting proper sourcing. FkpCascais (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I accessed the page via Google Books, though it is irrelevant whether a source is accessible online or not. That has never been a Wikipedia requirement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that, but a page number is. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We have all digressed here a little bit. I wanted to point out that anonymous statements (no matter from which book) are very non encyclopedic. Even credible newspapers would not use such statements without confirming them first. That is my point. Where else on Wikipedia you see the use of such anonymous statements? That paragraph IS inflammatory a little. C'mon, am I the only one who sees this? 212.178.243.11 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly making up spurious reasons to selectively remove sourced content about bad things that Serbs did - whilst leaving other stuff standing, and indeed adding poorly sourced content that pushes in the opposite direction - is tendentious editing, pure and simple. bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to the 2000 edition with the quote. I'll revise the citation. From what I can see, there's three parts to that paragraph: (a) In contrast, other sources reported that morale was a serious problem for Serb forces"; (b) "intelligence surveys found that many soldiers disagreed with their comrades' actions" and (c) the quotation. The third part I think we can all agree is factually true in that it is a quote from a single tank commander. It's the including it at all and of parts a and b that are of larger concern. Would anyone object to an RFC with various permutations (none being an obvious option)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No objection at all. A RFC seems a good option. Thank you for your assistance Ricky81682. FkpCascais (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces?

The following discussion 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.

---

The question is what language, if any, we should have for the second paragraph of the Morale section here starting with "In contrast" including whether to including the quotation? The paragraph currently consists of (a) In contrast, other sources reported that morale was a serious problem for Serb forces"; (b) "intelligence surveys found that many soldiers disagreed with their comrades' actions" and (c) this quotation.

Keep as is

1. Properly and reliably sourced. Neutrality of the article suffers when removed. The Banner talk 12:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
2. It is properly sourced/ referenced encyclopaedic information. IJA (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Of course it should stay; it should be expanded, as reliable sources devote a lot of attention to this issue. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove entirely

Discussion

Allow me just to add the links of the previous discussions about this same subject: Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Very_POV , Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_6#Morale_Section_Should_be_Eliminated. FkpCascais (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the problem here is the text, but rather if the quotation has enough value as to be made as quotation giving itthat way clear highlight in the article. I am all against providing such value to the words of an alleged Serb commander with no name, when we have much more important quotes from important people. FkpCascais (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

russian intervention

i wrote up a section on the pristina airport incident, i used a BBC article to source the data

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

but didn't include it in the references as i'm a lousy editor, feel free to include that

gosh i'm not trying to start a fight here, i just thought i should add that part.

I'm dating, just so section auto-archives.Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?

The following discussion 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.

---

“ When withdrawing from Kosovo after NATO intervention, Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale and displaying large holdings of undamaged equipment. Weeks before the end of hostilities, David Fromkin has noted that ˝it seemed possible that NATO unity might crack before Yugoslav morale did.˝ When Clinton announced it would not deploy ground troops, that made a a tremendous boost to Serbian morale. ”

(Conform this version)

The given sources do not support the statement that the Serbian forces had a high moral during the Kosovo War. The paragraph is misleading and should be removed. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read the paragraph, you will see it never says what you claim it says. Are you sure you are at the right paragraph? Cause I see there was some confusion already. ([[6]] [7]). FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Agreed. There has been extensive cherrypicking trying to show that everybody was happy during the Serb invasion of Kosovo; nonetheless, the most reliable source we have discusses this at length (and quotes Serb military sources), showing that quite a lot of soldiers had serious moral concerns about what they were ordered to do. We should stick to what reliable sources say, although that means going back to the original version of the morale section, or toning down the first part of the current version, rather than removing the entire section. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. I see nothing wrong with having a paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces. IJA (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The paaragraph is sourced by 3 reliable sources and quoted almost verbatin. FkpCascais (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. The topic of the troops' morale most definitely is a notable part of the article, and therefore at least merits a paragraph. And if unreliable sources are the worry, perhaps there could simply be a qualifying statement added: "In the opinion of <author of source>, morale was high, but <other author> states it wasn't" etc. Also, I normally wouldn't be this pedantic, but since multiple editors made the mistake, the word in the sense you all are using it is spelled morale, not moral, a word with an entirely different meaning.DNA Ligase IV (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fix

1. Subject to the provisos mentioned by DNA Ligase IV above (that opinions/impressions/contested material should be attributed), I see no problem with the material, however at present the first para's claims are presented AS FACT, while the second is presented as 'other sources reported'. This contradiction should be fixed ('Many sources claim'/other sources reported?) … … btw block-quoting in this section seems neither necessary nor justified … … also, 'Weeks before the end of hostilities, David Fromkin has noted that etc.' is confused in its phrasing and tenses, and therefore unclear (David Fromkin noted that, shortly before/in the weeks immediately prior to the end of hostilities etc. ??) … … also at present wording makes it unclear as to whether DF is making these claims, or the sources, or DF IN the sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Is a nursery really "dual use"?

From the section, "NATO bombing timeline":

" So-called "dual-use" targets, of use to both civilians and the military, were attacked, including bridges across the Danube, factories, power stations, schools, houses, nurseries, hospitals, telecommunications facilities and, controversially, the headquarters of Yugoslavian Leftists, a political party led by Milošević's wife, and the RTS television broadcasting tower."

I'm not here to cast judgement on the actions of either side, but I think that it would be helpful to explain why a nursery could be considered "dual use"?

If a nursery was indeed struck by NATO, I would like to know, was it: -struck because NATO planners thought it could have been of use to the enemy, and if so, what use? -was it struck by accident? -Is this propaganda from NATO opposition? -Is this pro-NATO propaganda whitewashing over a terrible tragedy?

I can see how a school or hospital could be considered "dual use" - for example, a school is a large building, and if located in an area with a high concentration of the enemy, it could well be used as a HQ/outpost/logistics point etc. - but specifically using the word "nursery" (which is pretty similar to a school) implies that a nursery was deliberately targeted for a specific, nursery-related, reason.

Not specifying a reason could make it sound like NATO was deliberately attacking nurseries across the country for nefarious purposes. Does the author think that NATO was fighting the long war and eliminating the next generation of enemy soldiers? Or did the author want to paint a picture of his own (ie: author reads about civilian targets being hit, but instead of writing "civilian", he writes "hospitals, schools and nurseries").

I'm sure there were plenty of tragic incidents of civilians and civilian buildings being involved in collateral damage, but which ones were targeted deliberately? And if so, for what reason?

Not knowing the facts, I cant say whether NATO did right or wrong in targeting any civilian structure, but just throwing in a comment that NATO bombed nurseries, without giving much further info other than mentioning the term "dual use" kinda leaves some big questions hanging.

The editor even goes so far as to end his sentence with a short list of apparently "controversial" targets...

Either more detail about NATO targeting policy is needed, or more detail of specific incidents involving the bombing of nurseries (or, as I suspect, one single nursery) OR the section should be amended just to say "civilian targets" without specifying type.

Peace, out.

94.175.244.252, the list of targets doesn't even appear to be sourced, nor any distinction made between intentional/inadvertent targets.Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Fixed. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Civilian casualties controversial - cit needed

A recent edit put this in the lead [8] (scroll down), I modified it thus [9] (again scroll down). I've now put a 'cit tag' as the source is far from perfect (a BBC World service Iplayer file, which certainly does not justify the original text and hardly justifies mine). I would have thought the claim that civilian casualties were (continue to be?) a controversial element of the NATO bombing, could find a better source, though I cannot do so at present.Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Terms like "rampant" are unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And linguistically incorrect, and not in the source, thus removed. I retained the sense despite the weak source as I suspect the reduced assertion is reasonable and a better source for it is possible. Aside from the weak source, the text refers to 'Yugoslavs and Albanians', which in context refers to a nationality and a constituent ethnic group of that nationality. My involvement with this page is marginal, but I'm simply leaving this note here in the hope that someone can fix.Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This might be a good source to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, having had a quick look, the source is a good general overview of the war, but doesn't cover this specific point.Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought the Robinson and Clark quotes on pp. 114-15 perhaps demonstrated the controversy over civilian casualties? Here are some other sources that might be of use: a HRW report, section IV of this article, which specifically mentions controversy amongst scholars, or perhaps pp. 779-80 of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Update I have modified and slightly expanded thus [10]. Using some of Larry's refs and moving the original iPlayer ref. to External links. Whilst no ref speaks EXACTLY about 'controversy of civilian deaths', there whole content is discussing possibilities of war crimes etc. in relation to those deaths.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? IJA (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[11]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though (in general), semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I reported for violation of the 3RR already. I respect everyone's right to edit Wikipedia, but it'd make life a lot easier if only registered users could edit sensitive articles such as this. IJA (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree totally.Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been damaging related pages for several years now, using many different IPs. I think a long-term abuse page would be helpful. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor went straight for an old 'edit war' [12] with this edit,[13] the old edit war was started by two 'over lapping' editors [14] and [15]. Both of whom have now been blocked [16] and [17]. They share common interests at least, re-inserting the same texts and not entering into/responding to any discussion.

IF LTA can do anything then I endorse. Bob, you probably know better than us what the 'patterns' are.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! By now requested and granted. Indefinite semi-protection. The Banner talk 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kosovo War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605034712/http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html to http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824051104/http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf to http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308163600/http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? IJA (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[18]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though (in general), semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I reported for violation of the 3RR already. I respect everyone's right to edit Wikipedia, but it'd make life a lot easier if only registered users could edit sensitive articles such as this. IJA (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree totally.Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been damaging related pages for several years now, using many different IPs. I think a long-term abuse page would be helpful. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor went straight for an old 'edit war' [19] with this edit,[20] the old edit war was started by two 'over lapping' editors [21] and [22]. Both of whom have now been blocked [23] and [24]. They share common interests at least, re-inserting the same texts and not entering into/responding to any discussion.

IF LTA can do anything then I endorse. Bob, you probably know better than us what the 'patterns' are.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! By now requested and granted. Indefinite semi-protection. The Banner talk 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kosovo War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605034712/http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html to http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824051104/http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf to http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308163600/http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

International Reaction

Israel did not approve of NATO attacks and sent humanitarian aid to Serbia. If you look at the page Israel-Serbia relations you'll see sources there. 68.204.211.76 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the point, does the article say Israel DID support NATO?Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the article does not say this, but it does not mention Israel at all. It's a long article, and since there's room in it for some statement from the UK about averting "humanitarian disaster", it would seem to only be NPOV to mention Israel's position, which, being contrary to NATO, probably really was on principle. Perhaps it could be put in the section on 'Criticism on the case for war'. Son of eugene (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Military casualties

Needs fixing, needs better sources, lots of conflicting data.

This source says more than half of soldiers were killed by KLA. (around 300, 600 in total) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/serb-army-unscathed-by-nato-kla-killed-more-serbs-than-nato-nato-did-1101448.html

But just below you have a statement that says over 1000 casualties were caused by NATO.

Needs lots of fixing. 212.178.226.34 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many different estimates. These may be some new ones. But they are from the same source as some of the estimates already in the article - with the same biases and no indication that they are based on any new research or reasoning. There will always be disputes in these matters which is why we show multiple numbers with their sources. Rmhermen (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/The effect of aging sources. The source you've provided is rather old (I know it says 2015, but it was actually written in 1999). The Serbian PM recently conceded that about 1,000 Yugoslav soldiers and police were killed in the bombing. As for the number killed by the KLA, it's possible the number is 300 or higher over the course of the war. Thus, cumulative Yugoslav losses were probably 1,300–1,500 dead. 23 editor (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"I know it says 2015, but it was actually written in 1999", you're right, it did sound weird once I read it. These are probably most recent sources, but these are still not that good, I guess, just my opinion....

• http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/number-of-victims-of-nato-bombing-still-unknown

• http://www.politika.rs/vesti/najnovije-vesti/Vucic-Tokom-bombardovanjao-stradalo-1008-pripadnika-vojske.lt.html (1008 both police and army - 52 missing both police and army) 212.178.226.34 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See my summary of losses at Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. 23 editor (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's good. Only issue I have is simplified infobox for NATO losses, I liked older version, it was more informative. 212.178.226.34 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why Serbian PM's figures are any more likely to be reliable than any other set of figures, politicians 'bend' statistics to suit their purpose everywhere. I endorse Rmhermen's point, that where there are conflicting claims, with none CLEARLY more reliable, we have to show multiple numbers. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out at Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the casualty figures Vučić provided are higher than what any previous Serbian politician ever admitted to, not to mention they closely align with NATO's own final estimation (1,200 VJ and MUP personnel killed). At present, they are the most believable numbers I have personally come across. Others are obviously exaggerated (the 5,000+ suggested by NATO in June 1999) or deliberately minimized (e.g. Milošević's claim that 576 VJ and MUP personnel were killed). 23 editor (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a danger, though, that we set the standard for what is "most believable" ourselves, rather than leaving it to sources to assess that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any academic sources that endorse or repudiate Vučić's figures, which were delivered while he was Defence Minister and qualify as the only official statement about VJ and MUP casualties from a high-ranking member of the Serbian government since Milošević claimed 576 killed in June 1999. 23 editor (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither 'endorse or repudiate' would be a good basis for us to work from (i.e. use attributed as his claim, alongside other claims). Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo war

This "essay" should be corrected by the author, if the author doesn't have all the facts I can provide with all the necessary information because I am the living proof of this war of Kosovo in 1999 Please correct your mistakes and dont educate readers with propaganda or falls information according what you believe AlbanianDardan (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that articles be written from a neutral point of view, based on what reliable sources say about a subject, AlbanianDardan. If you have any specific suggested changes, please outline them here and indicate the sources for the material you want to be added. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130201000150/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iI-Ix5tQ59McTX8NyBF1R120X4dAD97O8IRO0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iI-Ix5tQ59McTX8NyBF1R120X4dAD97O8IRO0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosovo War. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/PageSub/Kurumumuz/Tarihce/1944-Today.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219093335/https://www.un.org:80/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1199(1998) to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1199(1998)
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.355.9222.original_research.1004.1&x=x.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207191558/https://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/ramb.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/ramb.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.355.9222.original_research.1004.1&x=x.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Serb or Yugoslav?

this conversation took place in response to these edits, inc prev and next, and whether to refer to 'Serb' or 'Yugoslav' troops, decisions etc. I am moving it here as a permanent record. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete. I'm well aware of what sources may use in connection to the Kosovo war, however this doesn't make them trump the tangible points. To see how and why sources can be anecdotal and often are (e.g Russian troops instead of Soviet), I refer you to a previous discussion where I took part here. Note the sources I provide. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. For imstance this source uses "Serb withdrawal" and "Yugoslav forces" interchangeably. --OJ (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OJ, I'm aware of the ambiguity in the two terms and dangers of using either,(one suggesting something too specific/ethnic, one too broad which is only understood by those who understand how the term changed meaning during the 'breakup'). I find the logic of the 3rd opinion bizarre, but so be it. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm all ears (or eyes!), I'd like to read why you found it bizarre and I'm certianly in favour of exploring further options. If you reply here, I'll keep watch. --OJ (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OJ, the 'Russian/Soviet' example is clear, the former is a commonly used, but imprecise, metonym for the latter and it doesn't cause any confusion to use the more 'correct' form. It is less clear in the post-USSR world since 'Russia' is both a constituent state of, and the general metonym for the federation.

In the case of 'Yugoslavia', there is possible confusion for the reader, since the term is used both for the lonstanding, multi-region socialist republic, and also the only elements of that republic to NOT secede (ie Srb + Mnt + their territorial 'satellites', notably Kosovo). This use was short-lived and widely disputed, even the WP article has FRY as a redirect to Srb + Mnt.

I don't have a clear answer, I agree that sources often use the two terms interchangably for this period, I agreed with your '3rd op' point that where specific units/paramilitaries were involved, it was possible to designate them correctly. I didn't quite agree that this is wholly a non-pov issue. The claim to the name was a part of Srb+Mnt's claim to be the legitimate inheritor's of the older republic's rights and territories.

I don't think article writers of this period were ignorant of the difference in meaning of the two terms, but presumably thought it insignificant. Political writers commonly use UK or GB to mean 'the UK of GB and NI', but no-one misunderstands that a GB proposal or action, also involves the junior partner NI, (in this example there is of course a simple solution, - 'British').

My own preferred solution would be to use the term used by the source, with clarifying text within the article, if nec. (which I think there is at present).Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Several good points. On the whole, I'm in agreement. There are a handful of solutions here. "Serb forces" in scare quotes is one, but that is sloppy. A repetition of the passage in question in quotes has more credibility, but this too would be done for avoidance reasons. A simple caveat such as the Kosovo footnote may well be a solution and a tidy one at that. Here it would only need to be added to the first mention and then it can be used indiscriminately throughout the rest of the article in question. I certainly take your point about the confusion Yugoslavia causes since the vast majority of people in the English-speaking world associate this name with the pre-1992 country. There are actually a fair few solutions though each one needs to be looked at case by case. For example, in Kosovo war where it is said that NATO and its opponent government reported separate figures for soldiers killed, here it naturally needs some form of link to VJ, but with regards who spoke for VJ, I believe the answer would be to use Belgrade as a metonym. After all, it is common to speak of "Washington said to Moscow, etc.", and it is totally unambiguous to the point the reader need not even concern himself with the logistics. At this moment, I don't have time to go further but I am sure there are things we can do. Thanks for your new insight, leave your suggestions and we will arrive at a solution. --OJ (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OJ, I don't disagree with anything significant here. To compound difficulties, the legal status of various components altered over time, and were/are often disputed. An extremely inelegant solution would be to use FRY, however that is also open to being confused with FYR and did not gain much general use. There is already a mention in the lead of who FRY were. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we'd at least require a parenthesised addition (commonly referred to in publication by the metonym Serb forces), and on from there. --OJ (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple. Don't use the terms "Yugoslav" or "Serb" when referring to military groupings. If you are referring to the Yugoslav Army, then use VJ. If you are referring to police forces, use MUP. If you are referring to nationalist militias or paramilitaries, use "Serbian nationalist militia" or actually name the militia/paramilitary group in question, i.e. Scorpions, etc. If you are referring to government delegations, use Yugoslav, i.e. "the Yugoslav delegation", as these individuals were representatives of a countyou are called Yugoslavia. Problem solved. 23 editor (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not quite that simple, paramilitaries and other specific groups, yes you are right, name them. Sometimes 'generic' terms are used (by sources), Serb/Yugoslav forces, Serb/Yugoslav authorities, sometimes alternate terms by the same sources. Just as importantly, the use of (FR of) Yugoslavia was short-lived, and is not generally understood by most readers to mean the much smaller, inheritor of the name (ie Srb+Mnt+). If reasonably 'sound' sources use 'Serb' do we alter it for consistency, and if so do we explain in some way why our text doesn't match the source? Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I should have made myself more clear. If the authorities were federal, use Yugoslav. There is no way of getting around that; that is simply what the country was called. If they were from one of the two republics, i.e. Serbia or Montenegro, use Serbian or Montenegrin. And yes, there should be a note saying that Western media organizations used the generic term "Serb" to refer to all forces fighting the KLA, albeit imprecisely. 23 editor (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 23 editor for any force that is specifically named. Pincrete's points on the wider problem are also valid, and there is no silver bullet for this obstacle. Let's look at the dilemma when choosing a comprehensive term for Serbia/Yugoslavia on Kosovo 1998-99 related issues:

• If an editor wishes to be official and unimpeachable, he could use Yugoslav but this can create confusion as many people's general perception of Yugoslavia is the pre-1992 bigger country.
• If an editor wishes to be clear and keep this simple, he may refer to the metonym Serbian but this is at the expense of accuracy, especially with regards readers slightly more knowledgeable in the subject.

Pincrete rightly states that following sources is a safe option. The two problems here are that sources can be interchangeable (so which shall we use?), and even if the source is using one unsparingly, it won't overcome the problem which we have established.

Would the two editors to have commented so far agree to the avoidance trick or using terms such as government forces, state troops or terms to this effect? --OJ (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahim Rugova and other LDK members

Whoever listed the LDK leaders: Rugova, Zemaj, Krasniqi as part of the war, please provide substantial references. This is a false claim! Rugova was not involved in the war, even after the NATO air campaign he was hosted by Milloshevic in Belgrade, with his own request. This comes up from the Milloshevic's trial transcripts and video. The so-called Kosovo Defence Minister A.Krasniqi was killed in 1998 by KLA members in Tirana, before the main conflict even begun. How could he be a belligerent? Zemaj was the only one that participated at a certain point, but under regular KLA format. His divergences with KLA leaders that led to his alleged assassination came after the war.
If I.Rugova and other LDK leaders who did not support the war, came to support KLA and NATO intervention at a certain point, like all Albanians did, that does not make them belligerents. Rugova/LDK stance might be subject to a separate section withing the article due to its complexity.
--Mondiad (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mondiad, sections covering Rugova and FARK, would I think be an asset. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have prepared a subsection for Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo and FARK during the war. I was thinking of adding it under the "Reaction to the war" as 6 (in front of "Casualties" which would shift to 7), or inside the "Reaction to the war" as 5.3. Regarding the title, I was thinking "Democratic League of Kosovo and FARK". Any suggestions? --Mondiad (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mondiad, difficult to say without seeing the text, this is partly a 'sequence' matter and partly weight, I suggest you put it where you see fit and see reactions. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done.--Mondiad (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I made some minor ce's and think there might be room for a few more 'tidies'. Initial reaction is that I'm not sure it is in the right place (reactions to the war). I can't see an obvious place for it to go and wonder whether it should have its own section, though where in the sequence I'm not sure.Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

he knew he was gay so he said so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.239.249 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)