Talk:Kosovo War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Probation This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Past discussions: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Kosovo War==

This article is too long, lacks neutrality, and credible sources. Thank you for your time. Mieciu K 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: This taskforce request has not been updated for 6 months.

This article has a notably anti-Serb bias and only addresses Western views on supposed ethnic cleansing. Thank you.

The use of the name "Yugoslavia" is inaccurate. In order to avoid confusion with the former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and to indicate FRY is not the internationally accepted successor state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) should be used instead.
Kosovo Portal
Kosovo War is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Serbia Portal
Kosovo War is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] "mujahideen"

wheres your proof of mujahideen in kosovo, an article about bosnia, how stupid is that, there was no mujahideen in kosovo

Not again this nonsence. What is the relation of Bosnian mujahedins with KLA and Kosovo?? Someone remove the propaganda from the sources and clean up the whole article.

[edit] "Trepca mine"

I believe I read that there is no evidence of bodies being disposes of in the mine. Can anyone verify?

I removed a sentence claiming thousands of bodies were disposed of in the Trepca mine, and a source following the sentence, because when I clicked on the source, it did not claim anything of that nature. Edrigu 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Task Force Hawk"

There is only a small reference to Task Force Hawk in the Bombing campaign but not even by name.

The battalion secured Apache Attack helicopter refueling sites and a small team forward deployed to the Albania/Kosovo border to identify targets for Allied/NATO airstrikes.

Task Force Hawk was a battlion of Apaches with support unit as well as infantry, armor, field artillary, MP, and other units. I believe their was a Frontline special on Task Force Hawk a few years ago but I haven't see it.

Sam D Ware 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...or dumped in the Danube."

Is there any person so dumb that he could believe it? Human body is not so etherial that it could dissolve in the water. Please, use your common sense.

EDIT BY GUEST:

CIA and the British Intelligence have found bodies in the water.

[edit] Casualty numbers

The Bosnian War article has a good section on casualties (both civilian and military) for the conflict as a whole and for the different sides. Is there any such information for the Kosovo War? I see links to all kinds of sources regarding deaths from NATO bombing but nothing on deaths from the war on the ground. Is there a source for the 10,000 killed Albanians? Is there any source at all for the number of killed Serbs? Roma and other?

It think it would be nice to get a nice comprehensive table of estimated and confirmed casualties. Osli73 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Is there anyone who has any sources on the number of civilians and military killed in the ground war in Kosovo? I haven't been able to find anything other than the 10,000 estimate, and even for that figure there is no information about how it was calculated, how many are military and civilian, how many are Serbs, Albanians and others. Anyone? Osli73 11:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That is difficult to do at this stage, Osli73, because there are many still missing, and their families would not like to declare them as killed before any confirmed source says that. I will look into some confirmed numbers as of now, and will bring you some sources to look at. Until then, ilir_pz 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Just a quick web search found the following articles/discussions of the numbers killed. I don't know how good the sources are but most seem to say the following:

  • approx. 2,000 persons (civilians and military) were killed prior to the NATO bombardment
  • approx. 500 civilians killed by NATO bombing 'mistakes'
  • perhaps another 1,000 civilians killed in Serbia as 'collateral damage'
  • after the war most mention a figure of up to 10,000 persons killed
  • some mention a total figure of approx. 3,000 persons killed.

The 'sources' I found were:

Osli73 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing with numbers of the dead is typical of politicians, so I would not like to speculate with such sensitive data. According to some statistics there are (still) about 1500 Albanians missing, so I am not sure where that number fits. I do not thinkg NATO bombing mistakes caused that many casualties. Those numbers have been manipulated with by the Yugoslav military and police for reasons that might be familiar to you as well. I am sure that other number of "collateral damages" is not accurate as well. this HRW article has also some contradicting numbers. On the other hand, this BBC article says that ICTY got reports of 11,000 people killed, but not all were confirmed. Not sure myself. ilir_pz 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
To give you an answe to your question I will quote the last article I gave above "How much higher is the final death toll likely to be? It is not possible to make any accurate estimates on the basis of what has been found so far because some of the mass graves yet to be opened up may contain many more - or many fewer - bodies than those exhumed so far. Besides, the ICTY says the investigators have found evidence of tampering with the graves, including the burning or apparent removal of the victims' remains." ilir_pz 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Ilir, I've found a couple of sources which might be of some help:

I think these sources could be used to improve the article.

Some more sources which could be useful:

Osli73 08:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

First of all back then I think those people called themselves Yugoslavs, not Serbs, so let's put these things into a historical perspective. Second of all, if links are dubious in nature we can always post that it's dubious, but both sides must be heard. I am veteran of the Iraq war and I am sick of all the damn politicians and all the BS out there, way too many innocent died during Nato attacks and during "Iraqi Freedom" operation, remember the first casualty in war is the truth, I am also a historian and I was the first one to find out about NATO casualties, it was not here before, the ah-64 chopper, may 5th, wow there are so many mistakes, but I am not going to dwell into ethnic bs who is right or wrong, everybody is right or wrong to a certain point and I have no time for these games. However, certain things need correcting and certain web sites must be available on the main page. E.g. http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodown.htm As far as you Mieciu VANDAL Kapusta go... It was shot down but NATO and its forces never wanted to admit to it, would you ? They wanted to show how powerful they are. If a plane explodes in the air and there is a ball of fire, trust me, it was shot down... Now... these sites might be dubious or not neutral, but there is lot of info here we need to go over...

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/crashes01.htm


Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm pretty sure that Serbs always called themselves Serbs, in much the same way as Scottish people would refer to themselves as Scottish, rather that British. Davu.leon 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SOLDIER KILLED BY MINE EIGHTH US CASUALITY IN KOSOVO WASHINGTON, DEC 16 (KUNA) -- A 26-YEAR-OLD U.S. ARMY SOLDIER WHO WAS FATALLY INJURED BY A LAND MINE LAST NIGHT WAS THE EIGHTH AMERICAN CASUALITY IN KOSOVO, THE PENTAGON SAID ON THURSDAY. PENTAGON SPOKESMAN KENNETH BACON SAID THE VICTIM, STAFF SERGEANT JOSEPH E. SUPONCIC, DIED ON THURSDAY AT A MILITARY BASE HOSPITAL FROM HIS INJURIES. BACON SAID THAT THE SERGEANT, WHO WAS A MEMBER OF U.S. SPECIAL FORCES, WAS RIDING IN AN ARMORED HUMVEE WHEN THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED. HE SAID THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS TREATED AND RELEASED. "THEY WERE DRIVING ALONG A ROAD THAT WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CLEARED OF LAND MINES, BUT THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE MANY LAND MINES," BACON SAID. "IT IS OBVIOUSLY A TRAGIC LOSS FOR HIS FAMILY," HE SAID. BACON SAID THE HUMVEE HIT THE MINE IN THE RUSSIAN SECTION OF THE AMERICAN SECTOR NEAR A TOWN CALLED KAMENICA. THE PENTAGON SPOKESMAN SAID THAT SEVERAL AMERICANS HAVE DIED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN THE WAR-TORN YUGOSLAV PROVINCE. ONE SOLDIER WAS ELECTROCUTED, HE SAID. BACON ADDED THAT TWO OTHERS WERE SHOT, BUT THEIR DEATHS MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE SUICIDES. THE SHOOTINGS ARE STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION, HE SAID. THERE HAVE BEEN NO AMERICAN CASUALTIES RELATED TO COMBAT IN KOSOVO. (PICK UP PREVIOUS) JF.AJ KUNA 162317 Dec 99NNNN

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?Language=en&id=1047762

Why does the article say 2 non-combat deaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.252.14 (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good pages

You said these pages are not working, may be your browser from your country can not access them...

This links seems to be working today. WHO said AH-64 exploaded? Who and how claimed to shot it down? How far is Kosovo from Tirana?

The article says that the crash will not postpone deployment of apache's to the crisis area. But how many of them were EVER deployed to combat? The answer is NONE! It was estimated that there would be huge losses if the helicopters were engaged. So, if anyone knows that even a single one was sent to war, please write. 89.216.173.210 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This link is not only non neutral the picture placed there it is offencive. Can't you get a better link?

~:This event did not happen during the Kosovo war. It happened after the war so the place of this link is somewhere else. Mieciu K 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The link clearly indicates the casualty of the conflict.

The title of this article is Kosovo War. The Kosovo war ended on June 11, 1999. These people died after June 11, 1999? And by the way Who said AH-64 exploaded? Who and how claimed to shot it down? How far is Kosovo from Tirana? Mieciu K 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nie, kosovo war ended on june 11 and you had it until 10th all the time. The chopper exploded after it was hit, this was top of the line chopper, they do not malfunction and explode in the air out of the blue, rozumiesz?

Who apart from you claims the AH-64 exploaded? Are the guys who supposedly shot it down shy or something because the guys who shot down the F117 aren't shy and probably even got some medals for this achievement. Read this article Wikipedia:References and be kind enough to replay to my questions (in english). Who apart from you says the war ended on 11 July? Mieciu K 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You are a complete idiot, FOR 2 YEARS THE END OF WAR ON THIS SITE WAS JUNE 10th, so I changed it to June 11th, stop putting words into my mouth dude, it seems to me you are part of nato and it seems you were there... I am not going to argue with you forever. I made discoveries not you, you want to revert, fine, I will be back to revert it to the appropriate position. What do you know about army and war strategy and procedure, nic, nothing. It was nato's strategy not to admit to anything to look invincible, this was shot down, search and look better, I explained already and it was 80 kilometers from Tirana, that means close to the border, Yugo forces were inside Albania, in order to stop KLA from entering and stopping them before it was too late. This is what it is, like it or not. And I dont care about f117.Did I mention that?

Do you call your parents "complete idiot"s if not why? Maybe because this phrase is considered an insult and we do not use insults on wikipedia it seems you are unfamiliar with the Rules of Wikipedia, if you put in content without any references it is considered vandalism. Why won't you answer my questions (which can be seen above)? Mieciu K 08:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me show you how the Serb viewpoint should look like. "According to ............. (+ serbian goverment source not some personal website/blog) the AH-64 was shot down by ............ (name of the unit) using an .......... (what did they use?) at ......... (time/place) as a result the helicopter ........ (what happened to the AH-64). What happened to the Yugoslav unit afterwards? Did they get any medals?" By the way commandoes do not carry anti-aircraft weapons, they relay on stealth, camuflage and luck instead. Even if they did it would be max. 1 MANPADS missile per 10 soldiers (they are heay and weight over 10kg each). Mieciu K 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are a confused person, because you are reverting what is given and explained, as you are doing with your own Katyn in Poland, calling you idiot is not vandalism because you are disrespecting other people's time, period, I told you 10 times I do not have time to explain you self evident truth, besides, I did not mention serbs claim, and assuming a serb claimed it crashed or not, how do we know he is neutral... I SAID AGAIN FOR THE FINAL TIME... I MENTIONED WHAT BOTH SIDES CLAIM THEY DID IT, AND of course on serbian sides they will claim they bombed it Mr. hypocrite, but I am not including their side because it's obvious they will report what they think and nato will report what they think, so think straight for a moment...

  • Can you write that again? And this time use english. Mieciu K 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Dead

If somebody can check how many soldiers Yugos lost, according to my friend who is an analyst for CIA headquarters he claims Yugos reported between 560-600, but not 1000 and that was verified, I do not have time to search for that and then get reverted, at any rate, there were 3000 dead civilians across the land, but I am not sure if that included albanians killed by nato bombs or clusters.

A "book of remembrance" was released by the Yugoslav authorities, listing every last death. It lists 169 dead soldiers during the 80 day bombing campaign. This figure must be accurate, because if someone wasn't listed in this book his family would wonder why, so it's very unlikely they could be hiding losses. Of course, any paramilitary losses or foreign volunteers would not be included in that figure. Edrigu 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I had relatives in the Yugoslav military at the time. Losses were light because they spent most of their time hiding in the mountains. Barracks that were bombed had been vacated long before. Also, my uncle flew a MEDICAL helicopter with a Red Cross emblem and was shot down by a NATO warplane. Fortunately, he survived. How's that for following the Geneva Convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mieciu problem

Every time I've tried to explain this guy can not and does not want to cooperate and it seems to me, this guy is not neutral in any way. The above is a very good explanation,due to my time constraint... I can not write 10 paragraphs every day, in reply, he simply replied in a very rude and ignorant way... can I say that in English ? If he can say it in Polish, it will make some sense, so far, he has been vandalizing this page and he should be stopped asap.

I don't think you have read any one of those articles. Mieciu K 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read them and you must learn from them, because above you told me I should write in English, clearly shows you lack of ethics, values, standards, understanding and so much, your reversals have no meanint and they are clearly not neutral and you keep on inventing new stories every time I revert it or even correct it... but when I ask about other topics, you do not have a clue... so, learn everything from the beginning, here's a thought, go back to kindergarten or ask your parents to reteach you manners. I said my peace, you can say what you want, hey I can give you 10 more links on the above, still, that does not help the situation, I have a feeling you were one of those nato forces? Your country was involved.

  • Than why are you spreading misinformation? how many people can fly in one AH-64 helicopter? And why are you saying the war ended on 11th July? Nato stopped bombing Serbia on July 10th and that's when Operation Allied Force ended. Mieciu K 23:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

==Hmmm... this guy is a complete mess, again now he tells us the bombing ended on July 10th, this man is sick.

Correction, calling you sick after you can listen to a raeson is not an argument (true enough) but I am only stressing the point that this is true, you are a sick man.

(From Wikipedia:No personal attacks), "Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
  • Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
  • Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

What you are doing (calling me a sick man) has a name... its called trolling. And of course it is also rude. Mieciu K 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010823/ai_n14418706 - 70 Kfor soldiers dead from 1999-2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.252.14 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The page has now been protected to force all involved parties to use the talk page to resolve disputes, rather than furthering this disruptive edit war. Once you have reached an agreement and protection is no longer necessary, please let me know or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Kosovo war article

This confused individual has been putting words into my mouth and into others, first he claims war ended on July 11th, then he removes all other info, you have to leave it like it was when Chopper 64 was shot down and 2 american servicemen killed, I never said they were shot down but I gave my best and most accurate assumption what might have happened SINCE NATO NEVER CONFIRMED IT OR DENIED, and as time went by they just did not want tot alk about, what does that tell you? It's time Mieciu K is blocked forever from wikipedia, since his country, poland, was part of nato attacks and he wants to look invincible. So it's time you unprotect it, remember this guy is going out of normal conversaion and he uses non-sense logic, comparing other things to God knows what and then putting words into my mouth, clearly very ignorant, when he replies like... Speak English and when I ask about other things to be looked at, he can never answer because he just does not know it. As you can see, the best version is in the link below. Let's have this done right without vandals like Mieciu. He has time for these games and I am sure his answer will make sense but only to a point. Again, both versions must be explained, what might have happened.

As you can see in his answers above, there will be no agreement with this confused individual

My answer: (About the AH64 crash) "This was a training mission - I want to insist on that - there is no indication of any hostile activity. This accident underscores the great risk that is shouldered by all the men and women associated with operation Allied Force, we salute all of them and our thoughts at the moment are naturally, as you would expect, with the families of the two pilots who lost their lives last night".By Jamie Shea, NATO Spokesman [2].

I do my best to follow these rules and guidelines:

[edit] Correct day

The bombing stopped on June 10th, but the war came to an end on June 11th, let's get this straight.

  • On June 10 1999 Slobodan Milošević agrees to withdraw Serbian forces from Kosovo (a de facto capitulation), and Nato stopped bombing Serbia. Why do you think the war came to end end on the 11th? What happened on that day? Mieciu K 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was on that day that both NATO and Milosevic declared the end of war, just because bombing stopped does not mean that many other secret operations were over. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1FFB3C5C0C728DDDAF0894D1494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fS%2fSolana%2c%20Javier Just because bombing on Warsaw in September 1939 stopped, that did not mean the war was over, remember the 63 days uprising in Warsaw, hell on earth in Aug 1944, still, was that the end of war? Just because you find something on google or it's popular opinioN DOES NOT MEAN IT'S TRUE.

  • This talk page is about the "Kosovo war" so let's leave other the Bombing of Warsaw during the IIWW out of it. Interesting link but it's second-hand infotrmation (paper newspapers usually comment things that happened the day before) this link is better:

"On 10 June 1999, after an air campaign lasting seventy-seven days, NATO Secretary General Javier Solana announced that he had instructed General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, temporarily to suspend NATO's air operations against Yugoslavia. This decision was taken after consultations with the North Atlantic Council and confirmation from General Clark that the full withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo had begun. The withdrawal was in accordance with a Military-Technical Agreement concluded between NATO and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the evening of 9 June. The agreement was signed by Lt. General Sir Michael Jackson, on behalf of NATO, and by Colonel General Svetozar Marjanovic of the Yugoslav Army and Lieutenant General Obrad Stevanovic of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, on behalf of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Republic of Serbia. The withdrawal was also consistent with the agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the European Union and Russian special envoys, President Ahtisaari of Finland and Mr. Victor Chernomyrdin, former Prime Minister of Russia, reached on 3 June." So in conclusion an agreement was reached on the 9th, combat stopped on the 10th, so (currently) I do not see areason why we should say that the war ended on the 11th. Any more arguments/links top support your theory? I looked thrue serbian govermrnt websites (in english and serbian) but I was unable to find any info on the day that the war ended according to Yugoslavia, or about shooting down an AH-64 on May the 5th 1999. Mieciu K 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argue as much as you want to

Did you just say go on serbian government website, they talk about their life, things that happened today, not about 1999 tragedy, you are a vandal and this is true. http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/nato/ Sites like this claim, prooven or not it was shot down, but I already explained that, you are beating around the bush again and again and again and repeating same things but in a different manner and way... Ok, war ended on June 11th and bombing is something else, it's obvious you do not understand anything.


  • Why are you lying? The website that you have shown me contains the following information:

"BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (AP) - Two American Apache crew members were killed during a training mission Wednesday when their helicopter crashed in Albania, the U.S. European Command said. The deaths were the first NATO casualties in the air campaign against Yugoslavia. The command said there were no initial indications of hostile fire in the crash, 47 miles northeast of the Albanian capital of Tirana, and the cause of the crash was not immediately known. The names of the two crewmen were not released pending notification of next of kin. The crash was the second time an Apache helicopter has gone down during a training mission in Albania. The first copter crashed April 26 as NATO prepared to put the U.S. attack helicopters into action against Serb forces in Kosovo. Its crewmen escaped with cuts and bruises. See http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2559431157-01d" And of course the 1999 Kosovo war was a tragedy, a tragedy caused by the stupidity of a dictator and his-half blind serbian nationalist friends who started a war (to keep in power) that was lost long before it started. You can mock my wikipedia user name but out of the two of us at least I have the courage to log in and sign my posts. What's wrong with you that you don't want to log in and sign your comments the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is chasing you or something? Mieciu K 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are a criminal

First of all, I am an american, born and raised in Indiana, I lived in croatia 4 years when I was studying, you are a vandal and a criminal, nothing but garbage, put words in my mouth I AM A HISTORIAN WITH A DEGREE IN HISTORY, you are nothing, I am not pro or a con against what happened in the war, my stuff was neutral, the above attack clearly shows your one sided story, it clearly shows you are part of nato animals who killed over 3000 civilians, almost half of those albanians, those they supposedly came to protect, ok, if you have the courage, give me your full freaking name and address in poland, so I can visit you one of these days, you are not being objective or neutral with pure garbage above. Nothing but vandalism and hate and false attacks and then some...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.2.90 (talk)

That is enough. There have been very unconstructive statements made here - by both parties - and it's not helping to improve this article. Please take this discussion elsewhere or, better yet, step back and cool off for a few days. Kafziel 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You tell him that, he is not doing anything about it and article is wrong, period, i simply asked him if he has courage to talk about it and he does not do anything about it, i am historian and i know what i am saying, ok...

Telling everyone you're an historian holds no weight on the Internet. You can't prove it any more than I can prove I'm the President of the United States. In any event, it doesn't give you the right to threaten others, or to post controversial information without proper citations. Kafziel 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"I am a criminal"? Since I am a lawyer please tell me which laws have I broken? And are you threatening me? Why do you want to visit my house? Since I served time in a Polish elite reconissance unit of the 1st Warsaw Armoured Brigade from Wesoła, Poland your physical threats don't bother me. Mieciu K 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANSWER GIVEN

First of all, in my reply above i say... "I simply asked him if he has courage to talk" now if that is a threat of any kind, including physical...you people need to include that in the new webster dictionary. And the above statement "I served in a Polish Elite unit" Tells me that this person is biased to neutrality WHICH I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ESTABLISH HERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. His intentions and slick lawyer talk (prooving guilty before even going to court or assuming innocence) clearly indicates is objectivity towards NATO side.

Citations

Read my replies, read how neutral they could be, Kafziel you are not doing a good job as an administrator, when I tell you war was over on June 11th, legally, that's when it was ended,t he bombing can stop On May 11th, that does not mean it's over. Your statements about me being the president... It also makes no sense because if I were the president I would not bother wasting my time (as I have already done so, a lot) here, talking to people who do not grasp the point citation or not and it's not about citations. But about truth. Attacking me like Mieciu did is vandalistic behavior, putting words into my mouth, not to mention claiming July 11th as the end of war (above) and creating his side of events. Great, keep your own dates!

[edit] NATO Losses

Perhaps when this article is unlocked, the correct NATO losses could be put in. (46 Aircrafts, 6 helicopters, 8 unmanned aircraft, 182 cruise missles). [3]

  • "The following are the official NATO losses data released by the Press Service of the Yugoslavian army:" This document is supposedly based on an official Yugoslavian army document, and where is the original document? Where, when by who was it published and what was the name of official document? Mieciu K 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, a cruise missile isn't a loss of an aircraft; it's a round expended. The figure of 46 aircraft and 6 helos seems high; as for the 8 unmanned drones, well, that's why they fly them. Do you have a detailed list? Does it tally with the NATO list for engagements? GABaker 2020Z 29 June 2006.

I'd like in reference to the shooting down of the AH-64 a real source if at all possible? The claim which is copied and pasted almost word for word from a website doesn't really back up its sources, it looks like a bunch of hearsay.


NATO losses were underreported because the war was not popular in the general public in NATO countries. My relatives in Yugoslavia found pieces of aircraft litering their fields nearly everyday- they couldn't have been Yugoslav planes since the majority that were lost were destroyed on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight Bias

Hello. I dont know much about this war. New Zealand (my country) served in it, but primarily as Peace Keeping forces.

However this article seems to have a slight bias against serbs. Serbs, last time I checked, are a nationality/ethnicity and while some organizations of serbian nationality committed atrocities, by consistently referring to them as "the serbs" this article smeels definitely of racist POV.

Its like saying that "the Sunni's" are the cause of all the troubles in iraq, or hating "the American's" for the actions of their government. Is someone addressing this? It seems we need a historian from a definably neutral country, or at least a qualified international historian. Cheers, --Havoc8844 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. The question is, what do you refer to the Serbian forces involved in the conflict as? JNA/VJ? True, there were some involved, but many of the forces of the ground, Serbian paramilitaries, were recruited from ultra-nationalist and occasionaly criminal gangs. There were also Kosovar Serbian police, (out of uniform) who were supplied with weapons and vitual carte-blanche to carry out intimidation, robbery and murder. This is not by any means to say that all Serbs, inside of Kosovo or in Serbia proper, were in favour of the war, or even of Milosevic himself, and it is not an attempt to whitewash the activities of the UCK, some of whom were undoubtedly involved in actions of dubious legality and morality. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that this was a conflict between Serbs and Albanians, both vying for claim to a land which they have traditionally each regarded as their birthright, and sole possesion. The use of the term Serb here is therefore, while certainly distasteful to those Serbs who wish in no way to be connected to the policies and activities of the Milosevic government, nevertheless justifiable without immediate assumption of racist undertone. Davu.leon 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Serbia, and I must say I'm sure over half the nation was against Milosevic. There were protests virtually all of the time between 1996-2000, when he was forced to give up being president after a massive protest. The era of Milosevic is undoubtebly the WORST in Serbian history period. It's true that some Serbs killed Albanians (and some still do), but it's also true that some Albanians killed Serbs (which some still do). There are those guilty on both sides, not just Serbs or just Albanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Of course this article is biased. For example, there is little or no mention of contracting claims to the popular (and false) notion of "ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia, while I love it so, is primarily written from a Western cultural viewpoint. I live in the US, and what was reported in the media was predominantly anti-Serb and pro-Albanian, probably because it would have been bad form for NATO to side with a dictator (Slobodan Milosevic). The actions of radical Serbs like the paramilitary gangster "Arkan" and Bosnian Serb generals during the civil war have sullied the image of Serbs in the West. Your average citizen who casually follows the news will take the side of whatever is reported to him or her, in this case, anti-Serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

The casualties listed are fairly accurate, though I remember the official statement in Serbian press that listed around 700 (not 1.000) Yugoslav combat fatalities. I think the civilian number was 5.000 (either inflated or possibly true if Albanians were counted in my oppinion). 13 destroyed tanks (of which only 6 declared lost due to NATO bombing - the rest were not explained but were probably lost to the KLA). The article does not mention KLA losses, however, that probably exceeded 1.000 men. It should be noted that this was not merely a bombing campaign, but also a low-intensity ground war on Kosovo between the Yugoslav Army & Police and the KLA.

As for NATO losses - the article f-117 mentions an additional f-117 heavily damaged and written-off.

Veljko Stevanovich 2. 7. 2006. 01:30 UTC+1

[edit] Meaning of Veljko

So Veljko, how to contact you?Ok, how many planes did your people shot down, also the last official day of war was June 11th when both Milosevic and Nato claimed it's over, signed, sealed and delivered, right? Just because bombs stop falling, does not mean it's the end.

I studdied reports on the net about the air war from both sides and accepted only the ones with hard evidence as fact. So far the two aircraft filmmed are the only trully proven shot down. The second F-117 (a write-off after landing) was long rummored damaged during the bombing and now I beleve it was true since I found out that American sources acknowlaged it(actually at least three were rummored to have been damaged during the bombing apart from the one shot down - but I haven`t found any proofs for the others yet).
I do not entirely rule out that a few more (but only FEW) possibly fell in the neighbouring countries and were hushed-up, but until some proof is found it of course shouldn`t be included in encyclopedia.
Also I forgot to add - I`ve heared that there were several Yugoslav POWs to KLA (one of them a lieutenant if I recall correctly), probably (but I really dunno) many more KLA to Yugoslav army, and also three US soldiers with a Humvee. The soldiers were released, but the Humvee is still on open display in front of the Military Museum in Belgrade.
As for the contact - well, you`re communicating with me on this forum, are you not? (It would be nice of you to sign your name, or at least a nickname, though)
Veljko Stevanovich 9. August 2006. 17:40 UTC+1


[edit] Serbian Orthodox Church

When this page is unprotected, would someone please disabiguate "Serbian [[Orthodox Church]]" to "[[Serbian Orthodox Church]]"? Thanks! Disambiguation link repair - You can help! --Iggle 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

As far as I can tell, there has been no substantive discussion on the differences over the past two weeks. I do notice however that the discussions further back than that were at times grossly uncivil. I request that the editors pursue their differences with civility in an attempt to find consensus. Attacks, such as acccusations of lying, "vandalistic behavior" and the like, are unacceptable and may have to be dealt with, if the participants cannot take a hint, by more pragmatic means.

I'm unprotecting this article. Happy editing. --Tony Sidaway 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About NATO looses

I believe that both sides lie about their looses and that’s normal in war. Serbian side purposely exaggerated NATO looses from reasons of moral and NATO as usual never recognize their looses. It’s not the first time. As always the truth is somewhere in between.

As military freak I have some knowledge about modern warfare. In my opinion, Yugoslav air defense shot down maybe 10 NATO aircrafts and damaged between 40-60 aircrafts. The problem with confirming looses is that Yugoslav air space is very small and except in two cases (F-117 and F-16) the only proof of hits were peaces of various NATO aircrafts scattered all around the country. The planes that crashed outside Yugoslav territory were quickly recovered by NATO. I also believe that if you shot down cruise missile (which cost I don’t know, but surely millions of dollars), before it reaches its target, with Zastava 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon (which cost maybe few thousand dollars) that you can count that as loss.

The NATO looses could have been higher but it’s evident that Yugoslav air defense was hiding their positions and conserving ammunition and missile reserves in case of all out land invasion. In that case, NATO aircrafts would have to fly lower, in order to support advancing NATO troops and would automatically exposed their self to fire of Yugoslav air defense which was best equipped for covering heights to 3.000 m. --Marko M 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As for the price of a cruise missile at that time I remmember some reliable press source writing that prices of different versions varied from 600.000 USD to 1 800 000 USD, but it can hardly be considered a victory, If a cruise missile was shot down all Nato had to do was send another, remember the difference between economies of Serbia and the USA. In my opinion it would be very hard if not immpossible to hide the figures of US planes shot down, after all it the US airforce has to answer to the congress (the budget), to the press, and there would be a lot of people (the ground crew, the pilots, the air traffic officials, the commanding officers, the guys at the spare parts depot) who sooner or later (after leaving the army) would leak the info to the press that on ______ day an _____ plane from the _______ unit did not come back to base. Mieciu K 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


The relative sizes of the Nato/US and Serbian economies is not a good yardstick by which to define what is a loss and what is not. Couldn't it just be easier to just say that xx cruise missiles are estimated to have been shot down by YU air defences?KarlXII 11:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If we can get some reliable sources that would be a good idea, but not in the battlebox (unless the V-1 are already being added to the World War II battleboxes), maybe as a note at the bottom of the page? I presume that at least some of the cruise missiles were not shot down but crashed due to mechanical or programming errors, or simply crashed into obstacles (they fly at low altitiude) like power lines. I remember one cruise missile for some unknown reason "landed" in a country bordering Yugoslavia. Mieciu K 11:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mieciu, remember Rule number one. It's not my intention to start a long discussion. My opinion is based at first hand experience as someone who’s been bombed by NATO and on my conversation with my cousin who is colonel in Yugoslav Air Force. There won’t be reliably sources on this subject for many years. Only speculations. Look what happened with NATO report on military loses of Yugoslav army units during Kosovo War. --Marko M 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against you or official Yugoslavian Army sources (but it should be stated that these numbers come from official Yugoslavian Army sources). I have not been bombed by NATO but I have seen photographs and listened to first hand reports of how Belgrade looked after 1999. If you are Yugoslavian could you please write something about how the perception of the war changed after the fall of Milosevic, this topic interests me a lot and probably other people too. As for the NATO report on military loses of Yugoslav army units during Kosovo War, yes they got tricked which is suprising since all Warsaw Pact armies paid a lot of attention to camuflage and dummy targets so it should not be a suprise for the US airforce. perhaps they have learnt a valuable lesson for the future. Mieciu K 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think, based on my opinion and people arround me who watch TV in Serbia and news press coverage, talk with people etc., that maybe Milosevic was bad to SERBIAN people, but NATO countries are, and going to be the worst scum in modern world history. They targeted our buildings, roads, factories and other, with a goal to destroy our nation. Numerous serbian lives were lost for the cause of The New World Order. And Serbian people will hate NATO countries as long as they will remember no matter who is on power in Serbia. 89.216.173.210 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be just my personal opinion and if I understand correctly there is no place for personal opinions on Wikipedia. I’ll just say this. Two weeks ago, two American F-16, from US Air Force base at Aviano, landed on Batajnica military airport near Belgrade. They were welcomed by their colleagues, pilots of Yugoslav Air Force. If they, who fought against each other during the war, could find common language, it should be easy for us civilians to do the same. --Marko M 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They took down the F 117 because when it opens its bomb bay doors it has a huge radar image ... "stealth" only is true when it is not bombing. 71.141.254.22 07:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Steve P.

"And Serbian people will hate NATO countries as long as they will remember no matter who is on power in Serbia."

You must be one of those who keeps writing grafitti "Nikad u NATO!" ("Never join NATO" should do as a translation)

[edit] What is "alleged" in a found mass graves?

Some alleged mass graves were also found in Serbia itself, on Yugoslav military bases or dumped in the Danube. Someone please explain this phrase to me, honestly. (Yes, I remember the exhumations - these graves contained children, and not so much as a military but on a "police" grounds.) --HanzoHattori 09:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In all of the recent Balkan wars evidence of massacres has been covered up and most likely in some cases faked, by all sides involved. There have been many proven cases of Serb forces removing bodies and disguising execution sites, (they have even been caught on camera by the BBC), and even the Racak massacre in Kosovo, one of the main catalysts for UN intervention, has been called into question as a possible set up by the UCK. Serbian authorities would no doubt claim that any mass graves discovered by the UN were faked for the purposes of propaganda, and it is not entirely inconceivable that some of them may have been. (Though the contention that it is the UN doing the faking is, frankly, laughable, and a sure sign of hysteric mania. Rather we would assume that parties from the opposite side of the conflict would gather bodies from various areas of fighting, dig a ditch and throw them in.) Therefore, commentators who have become familiar with the region tend to qualify their statements with words such as 'alleged', essentially to cover their ass in a situation where the truth of the matter is unclear, and may never be clear. I can understand your finding such rhetoric distasteful, however it is best to remain as impartial as possible, especially when the atrocities commited make it easy to dehumanise the people, and by extension the nation ,that was involved, exactly the type of thinking that contributes to the continuing cycle of violence and revenge.

[edit] As a result, the Serb police did very little officially for the next two months...

...The Serbs concentrated on diplomacy. This is not true. On the 24th March, Serbian forces entered the village of Gllogjan and attemped to do to the Haradinaj family exactly what they had done to the Jasharis: wipe them out down to the last child. The Haradinajs were prepared, however, and managed to fight back and eventually escape after nighfall. Three young men were killed by Serbian forces, two shot in the head while attempting to evacuate the school, and one shot in the back while fleeing. This was one of the events that lead to the outbreak of war, although it didn't gain as much notoriety as the Jashari murders, mainly because in Gllogjan, the Serbs were defeated, thus leaving fewer martyrs to rally the population. Davu.leon 12:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources, please!

Hello Mr. Sources - unfortunately my sources are original research, ie. interviewing people who were in Gllogjan on the day, including some who were used as human shields by Serb forces. Clearly this violates NOR, which is why I haven't amended the main article. Davu.leon 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Although there is this: http://www.cdhrf.org/English/Weekly/CDHRFReprotNo-401E.pdf, or this 'In March 1998, in their efforts to eliminate the KLA, Serb troops launched an attack on the rebel compound at Glodjane, using with helicopter gunships and armoured personnel carriers.', from http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=235663&apc_state=henitri2005. Davu.leon 12:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Contradicting

The article is Self-Contradicting. NATO considered KLA terrorists - and they were never on the same side, despite having a common enemy in 1999. A similiar thing as USA and USSR in World War II. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey HRE - wrong again. Getting to be quite a habit, isn't it ;) The only person on the American/NATO side who refered to the KLA as terrorists was Robert Gelbard. He was fired the next day. The KLA was offically REMOVED from the US State Dept.'s terrorist list in February 98, before NATO moved in. Moreover, the KLA fed information about the position of Serb troops to NATO during the bombing campaign. So, as I said, wrong again. Don't you actually know ANYTHING about the conflict? Davu.leon 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Gelbard was fired the next day? I have tagged the removal of Gelbard as lacking a citation, and as making a synthesis by making it look as if the two facts were somewhat related without providing a reliable source that states so --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

There is a great deal of text here, but little-nothing in pictures. Maps AT LEAST would be helpful. I myself am unsure exactly where "Slovic", "Albanian" and "Kosovo" locations are. Colonel Marksman 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who won

I am not touching it, since I do not know the details of the politics, but if there are any Yugos or independent reading this, who won really? Objectives of NATO:
1. Get referendum vote in 3 years 2. Have NATO Under control Kosovo... reality... after 70 days of bombing nato had no choice but to agree (since milosevic did not give up to withdraw the forces) there will be no referendum in 3 years and that Kosovo will be (at least on paper) part of Yugos. Also, UN has political administration of the province... that means politically Milosevic won and as usual he lost the media war, but he never cared much about it anyways.


I can tell you (I'm from Serbia) - NATO won. Today, Kosovo's gaining independence and NATO forces will be on it's territory and Milosevic is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Of Course."

This whole article needs re-written in prose and wikified.

One line about the tactics that countered NATO high-tech says "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. NATO claimed that Yugoslav air force had been decimated. In reality, as it turned out after the war, most Yugoslav planes and armored vehicles survived unscathed. However, NATO sources claim that this was due to operating procedures, which oblige troops, in this case aircrafts, 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."

What the hell is that? Common, where in wikipedia are there articles written to read like a conversation other than this line in bold? In fact, I'm almost creeped out by it: its like someone wrote that solely to say "hey, just make something look like a target, we can distract them that way."

[edit] Ridiculousness of NATO Loses

The article states that "NATO loss three helicopters, 32 unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and five aircraft — all of them American, including the first stealth plane (a F-117 Fighter Bomber)" This statement is so untrue.

If they took down a stealth plane, and moreover I am certain that they took down more than one, why couldn't they take down weaker planes?Overhere 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weaker? The F-117 was the slowest and least agile combat plane in NATO's inventory in 1999. Since when are deaths and injuries "ridiculous"? This is your opinion and we do not add opinions to wikipedia articles, If you know about any reliable sources saying which Nato aircraft, when, where and how were shot down, please share those sources with us. Mieciu K 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The F-117 weakest plane of NATO in 1999? You have a wild imagination. What in the world do you think the NATO had, F-007 Satellite bomber?

"Since when are deaths and injuries "ridiculous"?" I think you had trouble understanding what I was writing about because I have no clue as to what in my statement you are contradicting here.

And what exactly is my opinion here? And what do you consider reliable sources - the CIA, FBI? The reason that there aren't many Serbian sources is because although they are witten in the same alphabet, they are mostly in Serbian. If they weren't, I am sure that you would be the first one to post a comment on that site saying that they are biased and lying.Overhere 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "Weakest plane" is not the kind of language an expert would use, I am just saying that the F-117 has many shortcomings like it's small speed and bad agility. If you have any official Serbian sources be so kind and present them. I and probably many other wikipedians have some knopwledge of the Cyrillic alphabet so i should be able to understand the text. But again this is an encyclopedia so we need precise and reliable information. And what makes you think that Nato could hide the loss of fighter jets costing millions of USD it would be difficult if not impossible while the US defence spendings are publicly known and checked by the congress. Mieciu K 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

F-117 speed and agility may be consider as minor defects now but in 1999 F-117 was one of the best plains, and it was a huge deal when he was shot down.

Like you pointed out, it would be a waste of time to argue over Serbian language sites because they can't be included on the site.

I still don't get what do you mean by reliable information - NATO, CIA, Fox news...?

"And what makes you think that NATO could hide..." If you examine what they did in wars then and what they do now, covering up their real money expenses from the people that work for them is nothing but a phone call away.Overhere 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    • F-117 is overrated, when detected it is in serius danger from surface to air missiles.

No I did not, Serbian language sites can be added:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) "Since this is the English Wikipedia, webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in some cases:

  • when the website is the subject of the article
  • when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them
  • when the webpage contains key information found on no English-language site"

Reliable information:Wikipedia:Reliable sources It is very hard to hide a loss of a modern fighter jet weighting many tons and costing tens of millions od USD, it can be possible in an undemoctratic country but not in the US. "the people that work for them" The republican senators worked for the democratic secretary of defence? Mieciu K 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, you don't have a clue as to what the USA can do, you seem to believe everything you hear at Cnn's America news at 6.

Reliable information:Wikipedia:Reliable sources- This doesn't answer anything. Who exactly do you consider a reliable source for this article?

And as for Serbian citation, here is a site that pooped up on the first google page: http://www.novosti.co.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=10&status=jedna&vest=82270&datum=2005-11-25

The article starts of with soldiers description of the night when they took down F-117. It also mentions that later on another f-117 was extremely damaged, and then later a B-2 was destroyed (which was confirmed by US). Due to the newly discovered weakness of f-117, which you also mentioned, a US deal to sell 30-50 f-117s was canceled. Overhere 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Read the F-117 that one was shot ove Serbia was never denied, info on another one surfaced later, as for the B-2 shot down. Where are the photo's of the wreckage? And where is the US confirmation. Also these soldiers giving the interview did not shoot down those planes, the Serbian Army did, so try to find some official Serbian Army referencess. Mieciu K 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • B-2 didn't fall in Serbia, so the US had the access to the wreckage and they easily took all the remains. That B-2 was taken of the US list which means that he somehow just disappeared.

You honestly believe that the US is some honorable democrat.

And so far you kept avoiding to answer a single one of my questions.Overhere 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The supposed "B-2" did fall in serbia [4] according to the "Freedom Fighters", so where are the pictures? "That B-2 was taken of the US list" that's interesting never heard of it, show a US military document as proof please, currently all 21 B-2's are accounted for. Us is a democracy - read the democracy article. Which question am I not answering? And by the way I am not anti-Serbian, I am just a sceptic and I do not like badly sourced conspiracy theories and propaganda. Mieciu K 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My article stated that B-2 fell in “istocna Slavonija” so don’t try to turn things around.

First of all because you keep avoiding to answer my questions I will answer one of them for you - You believe that the only reliable sources are the once from NATO and the US (correct me if it’s not so). Therefore anything that I would give you in Serbian you would say "Well lets see a US military conformation".

If there is one thing that US has it’s the huge power over it’s media.

You claimed you "are not anti-Serbian", You sure are: First, you understand Serbian (and I am positive that you not Serbian) which means that you are either Croatian or Albanian.

Or Bosnian or Montenegrin or Slovakian or Polish or Russian, to name but a few who can reasonably understand the general ideas behind Serbian language. Even as an Irishman who learned a little Russian in school I can puzzle out some Serbian. Sorry to interrupt. Davu.leon 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. Montenegrin is Serbian, while Bosnian is as close as it gets (I am technically Bosnian, but I always refer to myself as Serbian). Those languages may be close but you would need aditional knowledge to understand them.65.95.79.176 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You’re like a Sunni trying to look neutral with his opinion about a Shiite. Second, you dismiss any Serbian reports if they weren’t confirmed by the NATO reports.

If you are such a skeptic why don’t you look into what the reasons for going into Iraq where, and just what the state is there now.

“I do not like badly sourced conspiracy theories and propaganda.” – I’ll give you a whole list of how bad a source the CIA is.

And because this is getting nowhere I’ll get to the point. The following is a conclusion from the article on Kosovo war and has not one of my statements. “NATO used F-117s, and way more powerful planes to bomb Serbia. During the bombing they killed thousands of people, while the Serbian army had survived in good order because the billions of dollars of technology which we know that can detect whether or not North Korea used a nuclear bomb or not, nevertheless could not distinguish between plastic and metal!?”

If you are going to turn of topic like you did before – don’t bother. Overhere 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I am Polish and I learnt Russian at school so I have some knowledge of Serbian alfabet but almost non of Serbian language. Wikipedia is not about truth it is about verifiability so do not add information that cannot be verified to this article (Wikipedia:Verifiability). "you dismiss any Serbian reports if they weren’t confirmed by the NATO reports" no I don't there is a difference between official NATO information, and some Serbian unofficial newspaper reports and private websites. If you have Serbian military reports be so kind and present them, they wpuld make this article more interesting. Nato wanted to win this war and it won it with 0 combat losses. "During the bombing they killed thousands of people," sources please. If you want to disscus the Iraq war or any other war go elswhere Wikipedia is not an Internet chatroom. "If there is one thing that US has it’s the huge power over it’s media." you are wrong, read Freedom of speech in the United States Mieciu K 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about truth" OK???. When you put it that way I guess I'll drop most of my arguments. Nato obviously has more verifiability.

But you clearly don't have any clue about US. "democracy","Freedom of speech in the United States"-sounds very nice on paper.

Tell me what's wrong with my sentence above.“NATO used F-117s, and way more powerful planes to bomb..."Overhere 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Because writing that a plane is "powerful" is unencyclopedic. The types of planes that took part in this campaign have already been mentioned. Mieciu K 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok? I'll substitute "more advanced planes' for "more powerful planes"Overhere 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Try something like 'during the war NATO utilised military hardware which was technologically far more advanced that that available to the Serbian VJ or MUP. The planes used included the F-117 stealth bomber, and.....' etc. Saying that there were 'way more powerful planes' sounds like the angry rant of a dissapointed child. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Your english is very good, but you need to be careful that your phrasing conforms to wikipedia rules. Davu.leon 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree I was thinking about proposing the similar wording. Mieciu K 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if I change it a bit and I "word it technically" nobody has any objections if I put it under the "Criticism of the Case for War"?Overhere 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea "Criticism of the Case for War" section is about law issues, not about military equipment exept for equipment that can be described as a weapon of mass destruction or in another way harmful to the civilian population. And Nato combat planes were not weapons themselves, they were weapon carriers. Mieciu K 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Seeing that the section "Reaction to the war" criticizes NATO's methods, the following would fit better under that section.

"NATO's real targeting is questioned due to the following: During NATO's bombing campaign NATO used extremely advanced planes such as the F-117 Stealth fighter, and the B-2 bomber and highly precision missiles. During the campaign they killed five thousand Serbians (according to Serbian sources(if you want to mention the other number of casualty claims that's fine with me)), while the Serbian army had survived in good order. NATO claims that the reason for that is because most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. This is highly controversial due to the fact that the NATO technology is so highly advanced, that they are able to detect whether or not North Korea conducted a nuclear test, while here they claim that they were unable to distinguish between plastic and metal."Overhere 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed this paragraph from the article, this is not a newspaper where you can put your views (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), add sources to all controvwercial statements. That this article is already badly referenced is not a reason to make it worse. Mieciu K 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"your views","add sources" - You are either joking or you are an idiot.

What exactly is my view here?- all of this was mentioned somewhere else in the article so stop that "this is your view" and "add sources" crap.

If you don't give a reasonable reason as to why this is my pov then I am putting it back.Overhere 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First don't call me names it's rude and against Wikipedia:Etiquette. Fine if it is not your original research than you should have no problem whatsoever referencing that paragraph like you should:

"NATO's real targeting is questioned[citation needed](by who?) due to the following: During NATO's bombing campaign NATO used extremely advanced planes(that's childish and unencyclopedic language) such as the F-117 Stealth fighter, and the B-2 bomber and highly precision missiles. During the campaign they killed five thousand Serbians[citation needed] (which Serbian sources?) (according to Serbian sources(if you want to mention the other number of casualty claims that's fine with me)), while the Serbian army had survived in good order[citation needed]. NATO claims that the reason for that is because most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys[citation needed], such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. This is highly controversial due to the fact that the NATO technology is (is or was?) so highly(spot the redundant word) advanced, that they are able to detect whether or not North Korea conducted a nuclear test (??? is that an opinion of an expert or your own? what does ad 2006 nuclear test monitored by the United Nations have to do with ad 1999 detection of serbian tanks by NATO?), while here they claim[citation needed](who claims?) that they were unable to distinguish between plastic and metal (dummy targets are sometimes very advanced and inclued heat, infrared and electromagnetic emmiters, such inflatable targets cost sometimes thousands of dollars how can you be sure that the serbian decoys were made of plastic and metal?)."

  • What part of it's already in the article don't you understand?

Seeing that you didn't read the article I'll tell you where to look.

Wikipedia-Kosovo War-Consequences of the war-Civilian Casualties- "Yugoslavia claimed that NATO attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian casualties." (that is the citation)

Wikipedia-Kosovo War-Military casualties and losses- "Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order."(that is the citation)


Wikipedia-Kosovo War-Military casualties and losses- "Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys"(that is the citation)


Wikipedia-Kosovo War-Military casualties and losses- "decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels."(that is the citation)


(Korean test)- (not my opinion - read the news sometimes) - Google-news- US confirms north korea (you get around thousand articles)

If US is able "to use highly sensitive satellite technology to detect radioactivity in North Korean air" - they should be able to detect and distinguish plastic tanks and telegraph poles from real tanks. (Nuclear blasts are detected measuring radiation levels are Serbian tanks radioactive?Mieciu K 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

If you think that some of my wording is nonencyclopedic or nonexpert - by all means change those words.Overhere 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That entire paragraph was in my opinion unencyclopedic as it does not add any new information to the article, I thought about it for many hours before I decided to remove it entirely. Mieciu K 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and I am using that right. Wikipedia itself as a source is not reliable. Mieciu K 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you are so big on sources why isn't it that you deleted the above information from the article where I got it from. You are basically saying that the information is ok here but not true there? If you deleted my statement because it's untrue why don't you delete the same statements from the rest of the article?

  • Because you have to start somwhere, I started from your unsourced statements. And I don't have much time, and I am sick and tired of being called names or even threatened by pro-serbian editors, this is why I do not add contenet to the Kosovo War article. Mieciu K 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia itself as a source is not reliable", "Wikipedia is not about truth" - Well then why do you keep pushing for some "expert encyclopedic terms".~

  • Because I don't want this article to get worse than it is already.Mieciu K 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to change the wording to "your terms"(whatever they are)

And unless you have a good reason as to the falseness of my paragraph, i am adding it back. Otherwise you are justifying to delete most of that article. I could easily use your citation terms for 3/4 of the article-including the places from where I got my statements. Overhere 21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    • "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. (Wikipedia:Verifiability) is this serious enough? Mieciu K 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I reread your arguments, and they are laughable (all you wanna do is write something of topic and have the final word) so I'll stop this waste of time.Overhere 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that AV8B Harrier is not listed among NATO losses, it crashed into Adriatic see due to technical reasons during training exercise, on may 2 1999 this was confirmed by NATO.Dualnature (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.99.29 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and Pictures

I updated the infobox as much as I could but it still needs a picture, a expanded casus belli, and more accurate casultie numbers. --Gw099 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is a mess.

Firstly, the casus belli is wrong - NATO entered the war because of the massive ethnic cleansing conducted by the Serbian Government - over 800,000 Albanian Kosovars had been displaced by the end of the bombing campaign. This needs to be reflected here.

Secondly, citing Ibrahim Rugova as a commander of the UCK is outrageous. Rugova was in no way involved with the KLA, in fact he at first claimed that they were an invention of Serbia intended to dicredit him. It would be more correct to have some of the KLA general staff, although they themselves had no real Command authority over most of the operational zones - so citing them as Commanders is disingenuous. Perhaps we should simply to have the NATO commanders, as it is impossible to convey in a small space the complexity of heirarchy in the KLA, which was a village-by-village insurgency. The simple fact of the matter is that there was no real centralised command in the KLA, though it would be far better to name even Hashim Thaci or Agim Ceku than Rugova, as at least both of these people were at one point members of the KLA.

And as a side note, the war didn't start until 1998. Before then there was a low-level insurgency, with little open conflict and no full scale battles. Davu.leon 10:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please everybody involved calm down. Often 'leaders' are intended as political leaders, so the the only thing is it has to be consistant - political leaders or military leaders. Second let's not have an edit war over the infobox. Best way might be to do some drafting work here, on the talk page, get some consensus, and then put up what we can all agree on - and cite. 'Horseshoe', for example, is probably a great thing to mention, but (I don't know the sources) may have to be 'X reported that, ... blah blah' and then citing the actual newspaper article (or better, a scholary text) Let's try and work together on this - that's what collaberation of the fortnight is about. Cheers 210.54.239.45 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, operation Horseshoe is a great thing to mention - in the context of unsubstantiated Western claims that led to the war ;-) Also, "NATO entered the war because of the massive ethnic cleansing conducted by the Serbian Government - over 800,000 Albanian Kosovars had been displaced by the end of the bombing campaign." It's well documented that the massive outflow of people started after the bombing began - so how can it be the casus belli? // estavisti 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The massive outflow started after the bombing yes, because international monitors who had been put there to report on the ongoing ethnic cleansing by the Serbs had to withdraw. That is not to say that many thousands had not already been displaced, merely that the Serbs stepped up their efforts once they thought they had nothing to lose by doing so. Ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanians by Serb forces WAS the casus belli for NATO, whether you like it or not. Davu.leon 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Rugova was credited for not supporting the violent uprising as far as I can remember. Some sourcing on the reason for this intervention would be useful + sources. Any official documents from NATO available? Wandalstouring 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the casus belli in the infobox is too black-and-white, following the NATO and KLA line. Both organisations are politically motivated, and the KLA's motivations are deeply questionable given its proven extensive links to organised crime across Europe. The Kosovo conflict was much more complicated than most of the Western media made it out to be, e.g.;

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&P=8700

KOSOVO ALBANIAN POLTICIAN GUNNED DOWN IN FRONT OF FAMILY

Pristina, Sep 3, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) Attackers in Kosovo gunned down an ethnic Albanian politician in front of his family over the weekend, a United Nations spokesman told AFP on Monday.

Corin Ismaili, 47, whose party was reportedly loyal to former Yugoslav hardliner Slobodan Milosevic, died in hospital in Pristina after the attack at the hands of unknown assailants at his home in Gornje Godance, around 25 kilometers (15 miles) south of the regional capital, Andrea Angeli said.

Ismaili was secretary of the Democratic Initiative of Kosovo, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) spokesman said. The Beta news agency said the party was loyal to Milosevic.

United Nations authorities -- who have administered the province since Belgrade's troops pulled out in June 1999 -- said they had found several cartridge cases from Kalashnikov assault rifles at the scene of the killing.

UN officials have launched an inquiry into the attack. 217.134.116.65 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Serbian Government is not politically motivated? 2. Define, exactly, NATO and KLA political motivation. 3. "Proven extensive links..." With all due respect, this is utter nonsense. There are NO proven links between the KLA as an organisation and organised crime. Certain individuals may have been involved in both, but just because Marko Milosevic was a criminal doesn't mean we can claim that Serbia has proven extensive links to organised crime. 4. The western media are well aware of the complexity of the Kosovo conflict. See Tim Judah, Kosovo War and Revenge, or just about any other book published on the period. 5. Your news report from 2001 is bafflingly irrelevant. Plenty of Milosevic's former allies were gunned down in Serbia too - exactly what are you trying to prove here? 6. Why no username? Are you one of the Serb nationalists who was banned in the recent Arbitration? If not, please create a profile so people will be able to identify you in future. Davu.leon 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The diocese is merely replicating a text from the New York Review of Books by Tim Judah, whom you yourself have used as a source. What's the problem? Do you ignore sources you don't like? Are you seriously suggesting the Serb Orthodox Church made up the article, or changed the text? If you want to verify it, feel free to pay for access to the article on the NY Review of Books website. // estavisti 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, having skimmed the article, I see one reference that states 'Certainly the KLA has taken money from the Kosovo Albanian mafia but this does not make the KLA, per se, a drug-smuggling organization'. So if you want to add that the KLA has recieved money from the Albanian mafia, fine, put it in, citing Tim Judah as a source. However, be sure you put it in the right place, perhaps on the KLA page, (I really don't see how it's relevant information in the sentence in which you inserted it,) and be sure to cite it as just ONE of the sources of KLA funding. Judah never suggests that this was the KLA's sole financial resource. Davu.leon 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casus

OK, I do not want to engage in an edit war, even when one person is blatantly pushing their POV, so I'll just let the article stay as it is, for now.

  1. How can an uprising by one section of Kosovo Albanian society that hasn't even resulted in independence be characterised as a "war of independence"? That's just as bad as the other guy's version which characterised it as a "secessionist war"? Pushing those phrases is pushing an implicitly biased point of view. On the other hand, the version I proposed ("KLA uprising against the Government of Yugoslavia") doesn't imply anything about the KLA, the Government of Yugoslavia, or the nature of the war. So why is it being removed?
  2. The casus belli was not the alleged "violation of ethnic Albanians' human rights by the Government of Serbia". The reason given for going to war was that ethnic cleansing and genocide was occurring - which was shown to be false. So, the NPOV way of presenting this is as "alleged ethnic cleansing".
  3. Was it a NATO victory? I don't think so. At Rambouillet (before the bombing), Yugoslavia was basically offered NATO military occupation of the whole country and an independence referendum in Kosovo after 3 years. At Kumanovo (which stopped the bombing), it was agreed that only Kosovo would be occupied, and there was no word on independence. So, after 78 days of bombing, the mightiest military alliance in history made concessions to one of the poorest states in Europe (at that time), that was only just recovering from the economically devastating trade embargo of the early 1990s. And that's a victory? Finally, characterising NATO troops as "peacekeepers" is POV. It may be a widely held POV, but it is POV nonetheless. The neutral way of describing military personnel is "troops". --estavisti 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see that the article has been edited countless times since I posted this, with precisely ZERO replies to contribute to the debate. --estavisti 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. On your first point, it was a war of independence, at least as Kosovo characterized it. Ethnic cleansing and some genocide did occur against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo (and against ethnic Serbs too). It was a smashing NATO victory. Kosovo is just months to a year or so away from independence. We would have never arrived at this political situation had NATO not prevailed.UberCryxic 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not as Kosovo characterised it. As most of Kosovo's Albaians chracterised it. Either way, that's POV - to state one group's characterisation of the war as fact. "Some" genocide? Source? And how was it a NATo victory? You didn't answer my point about the Kumanovo agreement, that ended the bombing, being much more favourable to Serbia than the pre-bombing ultimatum offered at Rambouillet... And Kosovo's future status is still unclear. This whole year all the "reputable" sources were telling us it would be independent by the end of 2006. Now the resolution of the issue is being pushed back (by Kofi Annan himself), so that just shows how much we can trust those so-called "reputable" sources. Try reading something you disagree with. You might learn something... --estavisti 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Civilian casualties

The section states that:

"The largest mass grave so far found is in Dragodan, an Albanian suburb of Priština; those bodies so far identified are of Gypsies and Albanians."

According to UNMIK this is not a "mass grave" and bodies have been of both Albanians, Serbs and Roma. In light of this I'm removing the sentence. If someone has a newer (official) source which says differently I am willing to accept that, of course.

[edit] Removing the "POV" and "verify" tags

The POV and Verify tags are only supposed to be temporary measures due to specific complaints. Knowing what these are would help in getting started on adressing them. If we don't have such a list of specific complaints, then we can't justify having the tags there.KarlXII 11:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV tag? The arbitration case has already been decided and closed and according to the history of the talk page here, there has been very little discussion regarding neutrality (in fact, very little regarding anything) for a while now.--WilliamThweatt 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One british SAS killed

Source :

Encyclopédie des forces spéciales du monde, tome 2, Jean-Pierre Husson, Histoire & Collections, Paris, 2001, ISBN 2913903150, p. 95 :

Texte original in french :

Le sergent Robert Lyon, du 22nd SAS, trouva la mort durant un accrochage avec les forces serbes. Les autres membres de son équipe purent être exfiltré en Bosnie, où 2 d’entre eux, qui avaient été blessés avec lui furent soignés à l’hôpital de Siporo avant d’être rapatrié en Grande-Bretagne.

The sergeant Robert Lyon, of 22nd SAS, found death during a fixing with the Serb forces. The other members of its team could be ‘’exfiltré’’ in Bosnia, or 2 of them, which had been wounded with him were neat at the hospital of Siporo before being repatriates in Great Britain.


[edit] Can someone provide the revised rambouillet?

the article makes many claims about this but does not source the document, i have tried searching for it but only find the original rambouillet without any revision by the serbian side. does someone possibly have any access to this? full text would be preferable. thank you in advance


I've waited about a month for someone to post a link to this, and I will delete the following part of the article as there are no citations to prove this claim, despite the fact that it is all stated as fact: If the accords did not go far enough to fully satisfy the Albanians, they were much too radical for the Serbs, who responded by substituting a drastically revised text that even the Russians, traditional allies of the Serbs, found unacceptable. It sought to reopen the painstakingly negotiated political status of Kosovo and deleted all of the proposed implementation measures. Among many other changes in the proposed new version, it eliminated the entire chapter on humanitarian assistance and reconstruction, removed virtually all international oversight and dropped any mention of invoking "the will of the people [of Kosovo]" in determining the final status of the province. Even the word "peace" was deleted. The Serbian delegation must have known that the new version would never be accepted by the Albanians or the Contact Group. It was immediately apparent that Milošević had decided to call NATO's bluff, believing that the alliance would either not make good on its threat or would do no more than launch a few pinprick raids that could easily be absorbed. Perhaps most fundamentally, Milošević appears to have calculated that he had more to lose by making peace than waging war — although the KLA threat had not yet been eliminated, its defeat was nonetheless just a matter of time, to his mind, in the face of the far more powerful Serbian and Yugoslav security forces.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).


[edit] 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)


[edit] Neutral point of view?

Well I am just surprised how this article is mostly resided in the side of the Serbian military and anti-NATO.To be honest what would happan if NATO had not acted? Any idea? Like Hitler in WW2 killed thousands of innocent jewish and other countries people Milosevic would do the same and then people would say NATO did not foresee the problematic case. I am not anti-serbian but I am for the basic right of the humans to live. 82.114.81.146 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   - Comparing Milosevic to Hitler is completely stupid and makes no sense whatsoever.
     Just a reminder. Hitler's army was attacking many countries and they killed many 
     people for no apparent reason(world dominance ?!)
     On the other hand, Milosevic has ordered the army to defend a part of Serbia's own 
     territory! I mean, do you people get that? Kosovo was, is and will be part of 
     Serbia and as such Serbia has/had the rights to defend it by all means necessary. Just 
     like US, Germany or any other legitimate country in the world has the right to protect 
     its citizens on their own territory.
     If NATO didn't intervene, today we would have peace in Kosovo and that story would have 
     been finished ages ago and consequences would have been much less then they are now in 
     Kosovo or like in Iraq, Afghanistan...etc where NATO and US led forces tried to "restore" 
     peace.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.74.12 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At least the article is not NPOV so please do it so or I think the article should be closed and be given access only to members to be changed.

As i have read the article the intend is clearly anti-NATO and anti-KOSOVO If you would read it you would understand as the Yugoslav forces were the peacekeepers and NATO started the war.I will clean some some content now.82.114.81.146 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please NEVER compare what happened in the Holocaust with Kosovo- it is an extremely tenuous subject with Serbs. 1.5 million Serbs were murdered by Nazis and Croatian Ustashe during WWII. To compare losses of under 10,000 in an internal insurgency in Kosovo to the Holocaust is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.69.56 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the comments above were written by people who were parts of the two opposing sides in the conflict, so their opinions have a risk to be biased. I am an editor who was not participating in any way and have had mixed attitudes during the conflict throughout the years. I have reviewed the article and it looks OK. The discussion about the neutral point of view has largely disappeared so I am going to remove the POV label. Incidentally, for the NATO advocate above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is certainly not a room for wild speculations what would have happened if Serbia were not bombed, especially not speculations that would use highly inaccurate and emotionally loaded analogies. Wikipedia is focusing on facts, not on wild speculations about alternative worlds. The facts are described in the article rather well. --Lumidek (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely hard/impossible to have a neutral view on a war especially on a website mostly edited by Americans (myself included). The reason is because of the destructive nature of war and that usually the side that wins is the one with the least damage to its infrastructure. If a country is damaged by a war and its citizens are angry, you are not going to get a neutral viewpoint from their mouths. Same goes for the victors, they are not going to admit their losses were due to inferior/ flawed technology. WikiWiznerd (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Who is removing my Kosovo reports by Russian pages...

Velja 89 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Velja

Someone, perhaps the admin or anyone interested is removing my Russian links that verify larger combat losses of NATO aircraft, declining Albanian civilian victims and a fair large casualties of Serbian military and civilians... Admin, reply?

All NATO losses are confirmed and verified by most of UN nations and posted on this page: [5]. My homepage and blog is [6]

  • http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodown.htm is a reliable source of information? Is this your idea of a joke? "Information you will find on this page may be somewhat speculative and a lot of it was not confirmed by NATO or Yugoslavia.", "The ITAR-TASS news agency published a report based on the information provided by the GRU - Russian army's intelligence service. The report indicates that NATO lost three F-117A tactical stealth bombers and at least 40 other planes and over 1000 missiles." why didn't they mention the two Space Shuttles and one Sputnik which were also shot down "according to unconfirmed sources". Mieciu K 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Check this out:

Many people e-mail me asking why wouldn't Yugoslav TV show pictures of more downed NATO aircraft, as it showed images of the shot down American F-117. There are a few good reasons for that: Some people still may not be convinced that all of the downed aircraft would disintegrate beyond recognition or that Yugoslav forces are not able to find any of the crashed NATO aircraft. This is certainly not the case: I am quite sure that a number of crash sites were discovered by Yugoslav troops and that, perhaps, even several NATO pilots might have been captured. So, why wouldn't they show it on TV? It would be a good idea to remember the three American soldiers captured by Yugoslav forces near the border with Macedonia: this incident had a great impact on the American society and is believed to have increased the percentage of Americans willing to send ground troops to Kosovo. If Yugoslavia would show all available footage of downed NATO aircraft, this would be sure to increase the pressure on the U.S. government from American public to account if not for all the U.S. military aircraft, but certainly for all the U.S. pilots. Under this pressure the U.S. may be far more willing to commit to a ground campaign in Yugoslavia - something Yugoslavia wants to avoid. I am certain that more videos like the one of the downed F-117 will surface sooner or later regardless of political games played by Belgrade and Washington. However, for Yugoslavia it would be important to release any such evidence only when it would be to its greatest advantage and will be less likely to provoke the US to take any drastic military actions or not to release any information at all.

P.S. So the war seems to be over, or at least its visible stage. According to information I received from military sources in Yugoslavia, NATO demanded that Yugoslavia keeps all evidence of NATO losses secret, otherwise it will not receive any compensation for the damages caused by NATO aircraft. It is easy to see that money now is more important to Yugoslavia than propaganda. I am still hopeful that some of the evidence will leak out and that it will become public sooner or later.

I love Venik :) --HanzoHattori 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • In a few years when Velja will grow up maybe he will realise that in a democratic country it is immpossible to hide from the public that the military lost one of it's multi-million dollars toys that was bought with the tax payers' money. If Velja wants to publish fairy tales he can do it on his own blog, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources. Mieciu K 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm. NATO losses were indeed minimal, but price for such a success was paid by increase number of civilian casualties (collateral damage was one of the most repeated words during NATO debriefings). Figures from many different sources confirmed that civilian casualties were higher than military and police casualties.
Sorry, but I must comment your last remark regarding democratic states. How many American soldiers died from cancer because they were exposed to radiation during testing of nuclear weapons in 50’ and 60’ (it took decades before American public was informed about these horrible events)? Not to talk about non-existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, missing submarines, left POW s, covert CIA of Black ops, etc. Churchill once said about democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)--Marko M 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"non-existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" - wow, is it some kind of secret/conspiracy? Lousy one, I guess. --HanzoHattori 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In democratic countries we have this thing called the free press, good luck trying to hide from it information regarding tax payers' money. The Us army found your "non-existant weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, thay just didn't find any stockpiles of such weapons. [7]. Covert operations they are supposed to be secret. "missing submarines, left POW s" got (reliable) sources fot those claims? Mieciu K 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, even the insurgents used a chemical shell in one incident (IED-rigged), but what I meant it's NOT any secret the stockpiles/factories were not found. There was even a controversional joke on this by Bush on TV (searching in his office). --HanzoHattori 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprofessional Statements & New Material

 Unprofessional Evidence

Hello guys. I'm Albanian and new to this article. Well, enough with the introductions.

There are a few problems I encoutered. Unfortunately, I didn't start this discussion until late while reading the article, which means there are many more problems that I left unmentioned:

1. I ran across this end-paragraph: <The American and British delegations must have known that the new version would never be accepted by the Serbs or the Contact Group. These latter provisions were much the same as had been applied to Bosnia for the SFOR (Stabilisation Force) mission there.> --While the second sentence is fine, the first one seems very unprofessional to me. I think we should alter its structure. I'd suggest we merge the two sentences and provide the second sentence as the basis on the assumption made in the first sentence. Although I might be completely wrong since I have no idea what the second sentence is talking about.

And its there again a few lines down: "The Serbian delegation must have known..."

2. <A postwar statistical analysis of the patterns of displacement, conducted by Patrick Ball of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [17], found that there was a direct correlation between Serbian security force operations and refugee outflows, with NATO operations having very little effect on the displacements. There was other evidence of the refugee crisis having been deliberately manufactured: many refugees reported that their identity cards had been confiscated by security forces, making it much harder for them to prove that they were bona fide Yugoslav citizens. Indeed, since the conflict ended Serbian sources have claimed that many of those who joined the refugee return were in fact Albanians from outside Kosovo.> --The first statement cites a reference and the very structure of the sentence is highly professional. The second statement starting at "There was other evidence..." does not cite any references. What's worse, what is later called "Serbian sources" is first refered to as "evidence". And I don't want to sound like an *sshole, but the guy who wrote those sentences is not a good english speaker. Might be Chinese...might be Serbian.

3. <Gypsies, were also driven out after being brutalized by Albanians.> --Either give a reference or delete that! Because sounds teenage b*llshit to me. Albania has a lot of gipsies, especially Tirana, the capital. Albanians have nothing against the gipsies. Yes, there are less educated than the other part of the population, but we respect their rights to the fullest. And its "gipsy", not "gypsi".

 New Material

On an unintentional look on the recent history of the article, I saw that on June, 10 user Edrigu removed this statement: <between 1,200 and 1,500 bodies were destroyed at Trepca mine.> claiming that the link did not support it. I found another link that supports that statement: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/kosovo/burning_evidence/story6.html
In fact, the link already supplied did support that statement in first place, you just had to move to page 4 of that article. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword-03.htm

Wasn't very hard to find those links. Just Googled for "trepca 1200 1500". But seeing the discussion history of that user, I don't think he was very keen on writing the whole documented truth.


I didn't edit the article myself since I don't want to "break in" in what seems a very controversial topic. I'll check back in a few days.Outsid3r 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done more than grammatical fixes here either, as I have neither the time nor desire to get into the edit wars I've seen happen with this article, which I definitely agree is strewn with POV problems. However, the English in 2 (though POV/uncited) is fine, if not perfectly "encyclopedic" (mostly because of the "indeed"). And "gypsies" (singular "gypsy") is correct. It seems the British version is as you've spelled it, but I strongly recall that the article is written in American English.([8][9]) -Bbik 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
------------
You are right on the "gypsies".
<There was other evidence> -> Other evidence suggested / No good scholar would make such a mistake.
Usually you can tell if a paragraph was written by a well-educated person or by a native speaker by the synonyms, the unusual phrases and the politically correct formulations of sentences. So, although a sentence might not contain direct errors, the vocabulary used and the variery of expressions make up for very good estimates on the person who wrote that.
What about my other points? I respect you as a creditble source of information since you have lived through that war, but I can tell you that our coastline was completely ruined due to the mass placement of homeless people. Saying that the refugee crisis was "manufactured", which by the way its the first time I hear that word in this context, is not very encyclopedic when there are video footages of wafer-thin people populating the sands of our shores like ants.Outsid3r 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, did I somehow imply that I'm from the Balkans? If I did, it definitely was not intentional. The closest claim I have to that is distant relatives travelling through to escape other wars. As for the English usage, I'm going to move that discussion to your talk page, since it's not really related to the article. -Bbik 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: [10] Guess one would use ome of these in the article. --HanzoHattori 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] CIA and Kosovo War

How come there is no mention of role of CIA in this war? There are plenty of references available [11],[12].Lakinekaki (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] MY OPINION

good article, i liked it

[edit] I liked it

JO MAMA IN BED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.100.208 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)