Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No genocide in Kosovo? NPOV!

This article claims, several times throughout the article, that there was no genocide in Kosovo. This is a radical minority opinion, not the general concensus among most scholars. The Hague is an international organization and I find it bizarre that they would claim that the genocide was baseless when such a large organization had Milosevic on trial for so long, and right as he was about to be convicted in a court of law, he died of a heart attack. The Hague's review of the case has pretty much confirmed Milosevic's guilt and this non-NPOV does not reflect that. On the contrary, with much hubris it argues the contrary. Take this text, for instance:

Stories appeared from time to time in the Belgrade media claiming that Serbs and Montenegrins were being persecuted, although few appear to have been reliably substantiated. Nonetheless, there was a genuine perception among Serbian nationalists in particular that Serbs were being driven out of Kosovo, with some claiming that Serbs were being subjected to "genocide" by Albanians. All of these perceptions were unsubstantiated and catagorically untrue.

The fact that it's called called the "Kosovo war," when it lasted merely a few weeks further reflects its bias. I've added an NPOV label to the front and I've removed the editorial label (a grade of B) from this discussion page, because I doubt that this article today is what they reviewed and, if it was, then they need to review it again. 71.246.245.115 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it horribly sad that after the real war there is now a far more important war over who's version of history to believe. There is one indisputable fact: NATO had no real reason to intervene in Kosovo if there were NOT human rights violations which threatened to destabilize the region. Kosovo has no oil. If you want to ignore the theory of genocide, then if NATO was after an incredibly poor region in order to collect rock samples I suppose their intervention made sense. There were human rights violations. To deny that Milosevic deserved his title of "Butcher of the Balkans" is to be incredibly naive. Prior to committing genocide in truth he was committing cultural genocide in not allowing the people of Kosovo to teach their children in the Albanian language and supressing their culture with violence and fear. He and his cronies fabricated alleged attacks on churches in order to stir up religious hatred in Serbians. In reality, the Serbs and Albanians in the region were neighbors and friends prior to Milosevitc's hate campaign. Albanians affiliate themselves more with their ethnicity than with their religion. Afterall, with so many muslims, christians, orthodox christians and roman catholics forming the mix of Albanians, how can they afford to hate other religions? After Milosevic, some Serbs turned on their former friends.

This article addresses the KLA and makes it seem as if the whole organization was a shadowy operation led by drug dealers and prostitution bigwigs. How sad that the truth can be so distorted. I would like it explained to me how poor dirt farmers, shepherds, and the unemployed family men have been so transformed in public opinion as to be called criminals instead of recognized for what they truly were and are: people at the end of their rope, persecuted and poor, who finally rose up against their oppressors? Were our founding fathers also terrorists? Paul Revere, Ben Franklin and the like were fighting against taxation without representation. The ethnic Albanians were fighting against being dragged from their homes and beaten or killed for no other reason than their ethnicity. Representation is a luxury when you compare it to fighting for your life. Many point to some examples in the KLA and dismiss the whole as criminals. I am positive there is a criminal element in even the best of organizations (i.e. our own government officials taking bribes, the U.N. food scandal, etc.) The fact that there are criminals does not negate the whole and it does not reflect on the whole organization. Because Tom deLay is crooked does that mean the U.S. government is a criminal organization? I don't believe so. So write what you will. Keep skewing the facts. History will prevail no matter what means you employ to try and twist it. Years from now history will show the naysayers to be what we now consider Holocaust deniers to be. The worst humanity has to offer.

WHO EVER WROTE THIS HAS PROBABLY NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY OR FURTHER MORE DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT,SCAN YOUR LANE AND MAKE SURE TO THANK THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO VOLUNTEER TO GO TO WAR AND PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERYDAY WHILE YOU SIT AT HOME AND TWIDDLE YOUR THUMBS AND PLAY ON THE COMPUTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.105.164.3 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"I want you for the US Army to trample Iraq" Hahaha!
Real bombs exploded closer to me, even though I`m a civillian, than they ever will to your sorry ass! And that happened pretty much because of the likes of you. The real people who took the risk were the ones armed with 20-30 years old missiles and radars trying to defend their country and preserve it`s honor against the world`s greatest, most well-armed bully and those misslead to follow him!

Old

It deeply shocks me that any reference to civilian casualties in Serbia is almost hidden and the arthicle mostly focuses on NATOs legitimacy to bomb Serbia. My dear God, just browse the internet and you'll see over a thousand pictures of civilian deaths! And what about a reference to the killing of serbian JOURNALISTS in Belgrade's tv building????? As a journalist, serb, i feel insulted!


People were greedy and wanted the oil but the Americans won at last.


Something needs to be done to divide the overflowing external links.

- Pointless.

It seems to me that the debacle of Kosovo trails itself wherever the name itself is mentioned. I read the article and it seems pretty neutral and unbiassed to me. I dont think it necessary to taint 'everything' with inferiority issues, and trying to find truths molded according to national beliefs and myths. Leave the article as is -its pretty good

-lotsofissues 3/19/05


This page seems to have been quiet for a month or so, but the neutrality tag remains - I have read the discussion archives, but it is not clear to me from them what content remains disputed, if any. I would like to suggest that we either remove the tag, or generate a list of specific issues that we could potentially resolve in order to remove it.2toise 12:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where to start -just about every sentence is disputed. Rmhermen 23:13, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I just don't think that it's very helpful to claim that the topic in general is disputed - start at the beginning if necessary.2toise 23:14, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is this article still disputed? The neutrality tag was added to the previous version of the article (before I rewrote it) so it doesn't seem appropriate to keep it in the new version unless someone still disagrees with it. If nobody has any objection, I'd like to remove the tag. -- ChrisO 23:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't have time to read everything, unfortunately. The few parts I did read seem OK to me, but the pictures are quite inapropriate: the article is about Kosovo war, while the photos show mostly civil targets hit by NATO missiles - the message is far from neutral.--Messlo 12:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russian veto?

It is not true that Russia vetoed a resolution or that there was any resolution to justify the NATO bombing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm where all the vetoes of Russia are discussed

Try reading this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/201007.stm, I think this verifies what I was saying.User:G-Man

I dont think that it does. It is a resolution adopted before the negotiations between the Serbs and Albanians, and no other resolution was considered after that. It does not say anywhere that the majority of Security concil were for a stronger resolution authorising the use of force (that is what you claim). Also, China, as well as Russia abstained from even this resolution. The issue in resolution was not signing the agreement (a reason for the start of bombing in late March) but retreating of the Serbian forces, which subsequently happened.

Unity with Albania?

Regarding the most recent edit: I don't know and don't think it's possible to find out how all Kosovar Albanians felt re: autonomy, independence, and Greater Albania. But it's definitely wrong to say that no Kosovar Albanians wanted unity with Albania, or that this desire by some Kosovar Albanians did not reflect itself in significant political movements. What did the KLA have to say about Greater Albania? What about Rugova? DanKeshet

I agree that some people in Kosovo were for greater Albania. However, it is wrong to say that Albanians always considered Kosovo as an integral part of Albania, the way Serbs did consider it integral part of Serbia. Albania didn't exist as a state until 1912. Serbia did and at the time after the Balkan wars it had conquered Kosovo, Sanjak and FRY Macedonia teritories - Kosovo was teritory of middle age Serbian kingdom, and thus Serbs did view it as a part of their state. Albanians however have their historical ties to Kosovo - rising of their nationalist movement in XIX century started in southern Kosovo under the Ottoman Empire. During the Balkan wars many Albanians were expelled by the Serbs. In WWI, Albanians took revenge when Serbian army was retreating over Albanian mountains. The origin of the conflict can be traced at least that far. During the WWII Greater Albania did exist and included most of Kosovo under faschist puppet regime. After the WWII Tito had promised Albanian communists that part of Kosovo will be allowed to join Albania. However, this did not happen, and Kosovo was set up as autonomous part of Serbia. The Albanian separatists had a goal of greater Albania, but more recently they are for Kosovo separate from Albania. Kosovo is much more developed than Albania (even today, and certainly during regime of Enver Hoxa), and Kosovo Albanians look down on Albanians from Albania proper. So, it is not entirely accurate to say that Albanians want Kosovo inside Albania - certainly, there is a dream of "Greater Albania" as it existed during WWII, and Serbs want to portray Albanian pretensions in this way, but it is not accurate description of the situation.

As for Rugova, he was always for independent Kosovo, as a separate state. KLA is mostly of this view too, although some KLA members certainly want all the Albanians inside one state. But even parts of Macedonia and Serbia proper are more likely to be seen as included in Kosovo, than in Albania as one state (there was some speculation about the exchange of teritories between Kosovo northern areas, even now populated by Serbs, and Presevo valley in Serbia proper).

Thanks for the long discussion. Could we get some of this up at History of Kosovo, History of Albania, and history of Yugoslavia? DanKeshet

Just a short notice:

- Yes, Albanians on Kossovo don`t think of coming in unity with Albanian, neither

 Albania wants it (altough Albania was biggesr supporter of their rebellions,
 with KLA camps etc.). However, at Kossovo they wave Albanian flag. GREATER
 ALBANIA was a facist creation and never existed beside fascist ocuupation
 of 1941-5. I never heard that Tito had such a promise - he could always
 give it to Albania, but yes he had a wise policies including many
 Kossovo Albanians in gouverment and giving them strong half-independence
 status. Serbs don`t try to portray it like this it became obvious
 that Kossovo Albanians want indepedent state, but it is intresting
 to see what will they you do with such a small country, economicaly undeveloped
 if it happens.


- Who looks down on who. Altough Kossovo was better developed than Albania

 during communist period, people living in Albiania Albania have better
 cultural standards and are more looking up to Italy and Western culture etc.
 so I think it is other way aroumd.

Yugoslav tactics that worked against NATO

  • Yugoslav air defences tracked U.S. stealth aircraft by using old Russian radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth characteristics when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them shine on radar screens.
  • Radars confused precision-guided HARM and ALARM missiles by reflecting their electromagnetic beams off heavy farm machinery, such as plows or old tractors placed around the sites. This cluttered the U.S. missiles' guidance systems, which were unable to pinpoint the emitters.
  • Scout helicopters would land on flatbed trucks and rev their engines before being towed to camouflaged sites several hundred metres away. Heat-seeking missiles from NATO jets would then locate and go after the residual heat on the trucks.
  • Yugoslav troops used cheap heat-emitting decoys such as small gas furnaces to simulate nonexistent positions on Kosovo mountainsides. B-52 bombers, employing advanced infrared sensors, repeatedly blasted the empty hills.
  • The army drew up plans for covert placement of heat and microwave emitters on territory that NATO troops were expected to occupy in a ground war. This was intended to trick the B-52s into carpet-bombing their own forces.
  • Dozens of dummy objectives, including fake bridges and airfields were constructed. Many of the decoy planes were so good that NATO claimed that the Yugoslav air force had been decimated. After the war, it turned out most of its planes had survived unscathed.
  • Fake tanks were built using plastic sheeting, old tires, and logs. To mimic heat emissions, cans were filled with sand and fuel and set alight. Hundreds of these makeshift decoys were bombed, leading to wildly inflated destruction claims.
  • Bridges and other strategic targets were defended from missiles with laser-guidance systems by bonfires made of old tires and wet hay, which emit dense smoke filled with laser-reflecting particles.
  • U.S. bombs equipped with GPS guidance proved vulnerable to old electronic jammers that blocked their links with satellites.
  • Despite NATO's total air supremacy, Yugoslav jets flew combat missions over Kosovo at extremely low altitudes, using terrain to remain undetected by AWACS flying radars.
  • Weapons that performed well in Afghanistan — Predator drones, Apache attack choppers and C-130 Hercules gunships — proved ineffective in Kosovo. Drones were easy targets for 1940s-era Hispano-Suisa anti-aircraft cannons, and C-130s and Apaches were considered too vulnerable to be deployed.

This only looks like Serbian propoganda and doesn't improve this already very POV article one bit. Also given the very low numbers of NATO losses the above is rather surprising. --mav

Most of these strategies would serve to reduce Serbian military losses and waste NATO money, rather than killing NATO troops. Certainly these kinds of tactics have been used by other armies - bonfires to block laser-guided bombs compare with the oil trenches used by Iraq in the Gulf War, and I'm pretty sure that fake targets were used as early as WW2. Stealth bombers are known to be vulnerable to old-fashioned radar designs, being designed to be invisible to more modern systems, and are indeed more visible when their bomb bays are open. Plus, the Serbians did manage to shoot one down. Martin
AP news, from which this was taken, is hardly a Serbian propaganda - see

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021120/wless1120/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

Oh so besides being POV (sic there is no NATO response to the claims) it is also a copyright violation. That is another reason to remove the text. --mav 00:19 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
copying from AP news IS NOT copyright violation. Even parts of artistic work can be used for educational purposes, and copying from parts of news is widely done in Wikipedia, and does NOT copyright violation. Also, it is precisely NATO who was MAKING the claims - Wes. Clark is analyzing Serbian tactics in the article. You are just censoring the article to fit your POV and use copyright as an excuse, which btw is misplaced.
From the "fair use" section of the copyright law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;


(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

We are not talking about copyright law here. We are talking about the rules of Wikipedia. Are you a lawyer? If so, are you prepared to act in official capacity as counselor for Wikipedia if they are sued? Unless the answer is "Yes" to both questions, then I say the stolen text should be removed from the article. Chadloder 01:45 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

at the very least it should be attributed to its source.
what do you want, list to be rephrased a bit so that the text is not the same? it does not make sense, and it is certainly not a copyright violation as it stands - it is a very small portion of an article, in which journalist sumarizes points which various NATO generals have made to him. If you want it attributed for NPOV purposes, that would make some sense, but it is quite clear from the article that there is nothing controversial there - this is based on what years after the war some US generals said in connection with Iraq and lessons they have learned from the Kosovo war, so it is not something contested by NATO, and neither it is by the Yugoslav side. It is pretty much a list of undisputed facts about the tactics used by the Yugoslav army to minimize military losses from the bombardment.

I think it romances a bit, but the general thrust of it is somewhere within cooee of an article I read a little while ago about the NATO air campaign, which as written by a distinguished defence analysist. I'll try to remember to dig it out at some stage. Tannin 11:56 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the NPOV discussion, there are two serious problems with the list of tactics:

  1. Copyrighted material should not be used on Wikipedia. If you want this information to stay, you need to write your own version. Even just paraphrasing the list would be better than a straight copy. If you can't be bothered to do that, then just put in the link to the Globe and Mail story.
  2. The list looks completely out of place where it is in the article. This should be in a separate article instead, and linked from this one.

-- Ansible

The list is now reworked so noone can say it is a copyright violation. Although I still think it was not copyright violation in the first place - unlike photos, text is something much more easily produced, and a thiny portion of some article easily reworded, so it does not make sense to worry about copyright. The whole article or a substantial portion would be different, but anyway, now it is rephrased. I have provided a link so it does justice to the military analyst who se text was used.
As for your second point, I believe military tactics used by some party in some war should be discussed in article about the war. This aspect is also important, and while it is good for the article to discuss politics, historical context, civilian victims, war crimes etc. in this war, it is also should have a section dealing with the defense against bombing. Especially because Yugoslav army had this doctrine of defense against invador for like 50 years, and a long tradition of partisan warfare from the WWII on which it was based. Low tech approach, using independent units etc. was cornerstone of Yugoslav peoples army, and the teritorial defenses were used many times during the Balkan wars in the 90s by all the sides in ex-Yugoslavia. Officers on all sides were educated in this same military school, and while it was not particilary well suited for the civil war, it was perfect for defense against invasion. Ground invasion never happened, but

the goal of preservation of the Army was achieved, and Yugoslav forces were preserved in Kosovo despite the heavy bombing - it was loss of civilian infrastucture which mattered and forced Serbian withdrawal. So, it is important to deal with this aspect of the war.


The list goes. The AP are very aggressive about making sure people don't screw with their copyrighted material. I've heard of them going after people who rewrite parts of their text just enough to pass the Google test. They also say as much: "Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed." Also our license (the GNU FDL) and the fact that we are a world-editable wiki puts serious constraints on our use of fair use text (read Wikipedia:Copyrights; look for "Fair use" headings). Basically we are limited to short, annotated and attributed quotes that help to illustrate the article and are clearly demarked as quotes so that other wikipedia editors know not to edit that text. And even if we could use the list under fair use we would have to attribute the source. Not doing so is a grave act of plagiarism. --mav

I bet they are not as aggressive as you are to protect them. Now the list is rephrased, so even you cannot use this cheap excuse to remove material that does not fit your POV, but with wich US generals, military analysts, not to mention Yugoslav side, agree. Your claims of "plagiarisam" are laughable - noone takes credit here for their work, which consists merely of reporting, and is not original research.
The new intro to "Yugoslav tactics that worked against NATO" makes all the difference as far as NPOV is concerned. Now the opinions expressed have been attributed to their adherents. It was not at all "laughable" for me to protect the legal and professional integrity of Wikipedia from a user intent on presenting the work of others as his own and not even attempt to attribute the ideas or the text to their original sources. This was both plagiarism (read that article and learn something) and a copyright violation (read Wikipedia:Copyrights and also learn something). Most of the text now at least passes the Google test. Hopefully in time it will become truly unique. --mav
Yeah, right. Plagiarisam means to steal and pass off someone's work as one's own - and noone was doing that. Wikipedia articles by definition have no author, and noone was trying to falsely present text as their own anyway. Your worrying for protecting Wikipedia makes more sense, had it been the real motive - but then you would have to take care of every part of every article which was copied from some other site - and you know well how many articles started by copy-pasting and merging (combining small parts of different articles as a basis for an article which is anyway going to evolve is hardly a copyright infrigement - or you could as well extend it to include using parts of sentences, words, or even letters to be copyright protected). I agree that fair use is not clear-cut and so one can reword text just in case - "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." < from the link you provided yourself. So, if that is a general policy here to avoid any possible although unlikely problems, fine. But the real worry it seems to me here is about the use of photos, media files, or substantial portions of some other articles, not about few listed facts, which, as you can see, can be reworded without much trouble and which happens anyway.
Your premise is incorrect - Wikipedia articles are not anonymous works. The page history documents every edit and who made those edits. And I do check for copyright violations (which are also plagiarism if the source is not noted) on numerous new articles. It is also true that information cannot be copyrighted but the issue here was the verbatim copying of text without even noting the source. Oh and some media outlets have been trying to extend copyright to greatly limit fair use by using scare tactics which result in expensive legal fees for defendants - there is nothing wrong with trying to limit this type of liability by respecting notices such as the one Reuters. It is better, IMO, to limit our use of such resources and to extensively rewrite and reorganize any information obtained from them when no other sources are available. This makes it very difficult for them to make any case against us without looking like fools. --mav 01:38 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Map of Greater Albania

Has the map of great Albania ut's place here ? Ericd 11:45 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Can we move the map of Greater Albania to a ga page? I think the concept deserves treatment, but not on the Kosovo war page.
Also, the caption states that it is claimed by Albanian Nationalists - can we be more specific?

2toise 05:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved the map of Greater Albania to a new page of that name. Hope this is ok, it just doesn't seem to be really central to the Kosovo War page. I have no particular interest in writing the ga page, but think it needs some work. 2toise 06:04, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pictures of civilian casualties

Does anyone else think there may be a NPOV problem with 3 pictures of unintended civilian casualities vs. one picture of an apparently intended target? -- stewacide 07:13 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, two of four pictures show intended targets as admitted by NATO (TV and electricity). Secondly, most probably all four of them were intended. Nikola 08:19 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The TV one also says "residential areas", which is why I got 3/4 - I guess 3+3=4 in this case :)
Also says. Let's conclude that 2.5 of 4 :) pictures show unadmitted to be intended civilian casaulties. Nikola 04:53 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Still, it would nice if someone could dig up a picture of destroyed Serbian military equipment. Image:Natotrain.jpg seems even more biased towards showing civilian casualities only. -- stewacide
Such images are very hard to find... Nikola 04:53 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
See discussion at User talk:Nikola Smolenski, Serb atrocities on Albanian civilians are not hard at all to find. --Dori 18:40, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I also agree that 4 pictures in the row about the serbian casualties makes an impression that serbia was the big victim and the Albanians actually planned to occupy serbia or something. I suggest couple pictures to be replaced with pictures from the ethnic clensing. Robert 15:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time I have looked at this article, and it reads like Serb propaganda from beginning to end. I hate to think it was like before people started trying to NPOV it. I would suggest that someone knowledgeable and unbiased write a completely new article and then a vote be taken at Village Pump or somewhere on substituting it for this one, which is probably beyond redemption. Adam 07:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Me personally have no problem with that. However, if new article omits to mention something important that was mentioned in the old article, I will move that from the old article to the new article. Nikola 19:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've been saying this for a long time, most of it is the work of User:Nikola Smolenski and User:Igor

Lie. The article was started at July 31st 2001, and my first edit was on May 18th 2003, almost TWO YEARS after that! Since then I've made 16 edits of 84 edits total. And all of my edits were quite small ones. Similarly, Igor's first edit was in April 8th 2003 and since then he made 12 edits, even less then me. So, we together have 28 of 84 edits, or about 1/3. Nikola 19:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

who seem to see the wikipedia as a dispensary for Serb propaganda, numerous people have complained about them.

For example? Nikola 19:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You should see the other articles they have worked on - like Kosovo and Prishtina which I have attempted to NPOV. In fact just about every article they have worked on reads like Serb propaganda.

Of my last 50 edits, articles I worked on are: Kosovo War, Serbo-Croatian language, Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Missions, Republika Srpska, Non-native pronunciations of English, Differences in official languages in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia, Mathematical beauty, Orthodox Celts, Franjo Tudjman, Sony Ericsson, Saint Sava, ISO 639, Petar Petrovic Njegos, Utva, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, Males, Most popular names, List of most popular family names, Kosovo and Metohia, Ligature, Timeline of Belgrade, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, The Flower of Scotland, Pan-Slavic colors, List of countries by rail transport network size, Apoapsis, Periapsis. I highlighted these that struck me as prime examples of Serb propaganda.
And your "attempts of NPOV" were as much NPOV as what you've just wrote about me. Nikola 19:28, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree this article should be re-written from scratch G-Man 13:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Which I'm doing at the moment. As a participant in the conflict (on the NATO side) I have something of an insider's viewpoint, and I should be able to fix most of the problems that seem to have cropped up in this article - the usual minimisation of one side's role and stressing of the awfulness of the other side. -- ChrisO 01:16, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I was not in the army, but I have talked with people who were stationed in various parts in Serbia, and I think I can provide fair representation of the other side. As I guess that the layout of the new article will be somewhat similar to the layout of the old, could you please replace it section by section instead of replacing all at once? This way it will be easier to see the differences. If your layout is not similar, you could first change the layout of the old article, then replace sections with new ones. Nikola 07:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Okay, will do. In due course, I would like to focus the article more tightly on the armed conflict (1996-99), which will require major structural changes. I propose to move the pre-conflict history of Kosovo into the related article on Kosovo (which also needs to be rewritten, btw). The section I'm referring to is basically the text from "Kosovo was declared an autonomous region" to "unsuccessful attempts to gather a fighting force", although I've extensively rewritten and added to this as it's not entirely NPOV and omits the wider Yugoslav context (i.e. the political dispute at the federal level). I propose to cover the Rambouillet Conference briefly in the Kosovo War article and expand the separate article on the Rambouillet Agreement to provide more detail.
So far I've got as far as the breakdown of the Rambouillet talks. I'll try to post the first section over the weekend. I may simply do a straight rewrite of the entire article (including the pre-conflict and detailed Rambouillet Agreement text) and then move the appropriate blocks of content into Kosovo and Rambouillet Agreement when I'm done. -- ChrisO 13:41, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kosovo War rewrite

It's taken longer than I had hoped, but the rewrite is about ready now (basically covering the period from post-WW2 to the failure of Rambouillet in March 1999). See what you think - comments welcomed! -- ChrisO 01:34, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've now completed the rewrite, taking in the period of the NATO campaign and its aftermath. -- ChrisO 00:57, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo/Kosova?

Given that Kosovo has two recognised and legitimate names in Serbian and Albanian, I think it's only fair that both names should be given at the start of the article. Please don't remove the Albanian name. At some future point, I may also add the Albanian placenames of the towns mentioned in the article. -- ChrisO 23:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, could you please stop deleting the alternative Albanian placenames? -- ChrisO 11:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Does anyone still dispute the neutrality of this page, I certainly dont, It's been improved dramatically from a NPOV perspective. Can the dispute header be taken down? G-Man 00:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Given that the article does not really highlight the Serbian POV, and only briefly mentions the murders on Serbs and Roma living in Kosovo, I think it's best left in. Something needs to be added about how this war started as a result of the "Greater Albania" mentality that lives amongst Kosovo Albanians and how they started persecuting Serbs, Roma, and other non-muslims, and a link to how the KLA tried to carry the war to the Macedonian republic is still needed. — Jor 00:11, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
This raises a question: what exactly should the scope of this article be? Is it:
  • the conflict between NATO and Yugoslavia during March-June 1999?
  • the conflict between Yugoslav and Serbian forces and the KLA from 1996-1999?
  • the wider political conflict between Serbs and Albanians?
  • and if the latter, during what period? After 1989 or 1974 or 1945 or 1912? Or even earlier?
  • and when should we say the war ended? June 1999? Can the political violence after that date be considered part of the war?
Perhaps we should trim down the article to the period of the armed conflict and move the political debate to a separate "Politics of Kosovo" article? Suggestions welcomed... -- ChrisO 10:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the article I see that the points I mentioned are listed, albeit briefly. I understand how difficult it is to keep it NPOV, and certainly don't think I can do better: I hesitate to edit the article myself. Still I recommend splitting the article: "Politics of Kosovo" seems like as good a name as any to carry information about the Albanian vs Serbian politics. This article should optimally only deal with the conflict from the start of KLA agression in 1996 to the end of the NATO bombing campaign in 1999. The ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Roma which has occured since could either go in the 'Consequences of the war' section, or be removed to a seperate article 'Consequences of the Kosovo War', highlighting the immense crime rate in the rebel province, the ethnic cleansing, a mention of the KLA attacks in the Republic of Macedonia, etc.. — Jor 11:46, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovan people? Why is the word civilian only used in the context of Serbs or the international community? I'm trying to find out more about the war between the Serbs and Kosovans, as far as I remember the war was infamous for the number of civilian deaths--Dilaudid 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

the truth

I've been skimming some posts here, and I want to say the real truth: -Balkan Peninsula was always populated by Albanians (they've been called Illyrians before) - In the very beggining they've been 100% christian, but then they've been conqured by Otoman Empire so they've been forced to accpet Islam religion (some located in mountanois sites managed to defend their religion so that how in kosovo, and in albania are christians too) but most of population had to convert to Islamic releigion as forced by Otoman Empire... - Serbs came from capathian montains- from russia, it's beleived that they are by orginin gypsies from russia, so they moved south for a better life they found a new tarritory with high culture, and very civillized nation, so they conqured a part of Illyrian land the southern part and they claim that kosovo is their mother, but its not true... a fact : why their language is similiar to Russain? Why Albanian language is entirely independent language showing no similiarities to any language.... (some with latin), this explains that this language is very old and so is spoken by Albanian certenly they must be very old nations with very old roots in Europe. I must say that serbian nation is very sadist, bloodsucker, its very obvios having on mind where they come from... Once again :"World dont buy Serbian politics, let Albanian nation live independed as it deserves to"

Obviously your attempting to portray Serbs in a negative light, using false racist theories. Serbs are not "gypsies from Russia" but are Slavs instead (they came to the Balkan peninsula in the 6-7th Century while gyspies appeared in the 15th and 16th centureis). Why is the Serbian language similar to Russian? Because they are both based on Slavic. Gypsies have been seen as neusances and burdens to European societies because of their illicit and illegal activities...doesn't this remind you of Albanians? Name an Albanian contribution to society.

"The truth" can rarely be achieved by insults and racism. If that is the picture you would like the world to have of you and the Albanian nation so be it. Just remember that the truth is not about making statements or insulting people it is about knowing what really happened, and if you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Albanian, Serb, Gipsy ,Russian... you should hold it a very precious thing.


the bottom line

Non-Albanians were kicked out from Kosovo. So much for stopping the purported ethnic cleansing. Reality speaks volumes.

The Serbs were rammed an ultimatum they couldn't possibly accept (just like in WWI), Serbian elections after the war were sabotaged by external funding of Milosevic's opposition. Milosevic was expelled from Serbia illegally (Serbian constitution does not allow trial of Serbian citizens abroad for crimes commited in Serbia) by said opposition. Civilian targets were bombed. From what I have read, Serbia has been the soccer ball of the larger powers during the XXth century, not sadist bloodsuckers. I suspect this war shall go in the anals of history as pointless drivel that only made things worse. The flame of nationalism has been rekindled in Europe. We shall reap the winds we have sown.

"From what I have read" are a key words here. Some people did not just "read", they lived through it. Average Albanian is no better than average Serb, I guess. However, what is important is that Serbs and Russians as a whole nations recently were (or in case of Russians, are) drifting toward totalitarian state. I, as a citizen of post-totalitarian country, want to assure you that it worries me a lot more that Chechen or Albanian terrorists. Terrorists cannot kill millions. Stalinists can, and *WILL*, if they'll get enough power. Again, it's not about "bad Serbs", it's about tyranny, no matter under which camouflage (nationalistic, religious, etc...)

Merge from Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo

I don't know if this article has any information you don't already have, if so merge, if not just redirect. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 20:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In any case it's just a personal, highly POV essay. I fear the consequences if it is to be merged. Would probably be best to just redirect. Everyking 21:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, i thought so too, but I am not an expert on this so I wasn't sure if it had any hidden gems of new information :) [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 22:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cause of Kosovar Albanians exodus during NATO bombing campaign

As the article properly states in a NPOV, "The cause of the refugee exodus has been the subject of considerable controversy." So why does the previous paragraph convolute this by stating "fighting worsened and produced massive outflows"? Obviously fighting worsened, but exactly why there was a massive exodus is what is controversial and I have changed the sentence to reflect a more NPOV as the next paragraph follows. - Dejitarob 23:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


New check

Still the NPOV tag, two months later what about a new check? --ThomasK 10:15, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Page seems not bad by Wikipedia standards, except for being too long. Needs factoring. 193.60.78.118 15:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political consequences

Despite the successful conclusion of the war, Kosovo exposed gaping weaknesses in NATO. It revealed how dependent the European members had become on the United States military - the vast majority of combat and non-combat operations were dependent on US involvement - and highlighted the lack of precision weapons in European armories. It also served to discredit NATO in the eyes of the US military and American right-wingers, with the alliance's cumbersome agreement-by-consensus arrangements blamed for hobbling the campaign. The experience of Kosovo was a crucial factor in the United States deciding to go it alone in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, preferring instead to build "coalitions of the willing" rather than rely on its existing alliances.

(my emphasis)

Is this paragraph NPOV? I've highligted the portions which I think are patricularly bad.. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the effects of this conflict on us foreign policy motivations, but certainly America's military supermacy wasn't questioned before the war?

Call me crazy but, an even more crucial factor in us deciding to go it alone is that other disagreed with the war?

I'm going to go ahead and edit this to take out what I think is blatantly untrue. --Freshraisin 10:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the USA provided most of the troops, it is not true that that the USA did go it alone in either conflict.

Brinlarr

Links

Is it just me, or is that first link on the list a little...crazy? I don't see any need to remove it, but I don't see any need for it to be at the top of the list, above much more useful sources.

I retitled the link to the London Observer headline; yes it should be moved down the list somewhat. Nobs 20:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

'Right-wing, Right-wingers'

"Some right-wing and military critics in the US also blamed the alliance's agreement-by-consensus arrangements for hobbling and slowing down the campaign."

Shouldn't this just be condensed as 'Some critics' instead of the 'right-wing and military' as there are certainly critics who do not fit into those characterizations who did whats described. Personally I don't see the sentence being useful, but if its included it should at least be accurate. If there are those that would say only 'right-wing and military' were the critics, I would like to see a source. 172.131.58.54 07:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as a sign of US aggression and imperialism, while right-wingers criticised it as being irrelevant to their countries' national security interests."

This is part of my earlier comment, but is 'right-wingers' really an encyclopedic term? Is there a better way of saying this? 172.131.58.54 07:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

neutral??!

i'm from kosova and there should be no neutreality in this discussion. it was a war. people were killed. what is there to be neutral about ??!

Wrong, you` re from kosovO.
The spelling commonly used in English is Kosovo; the Serbian spelling is transcribed as Kosova. Using 'Kosovo' does not mean Wikipedia is siding with either party in the war, anymore than using the phrase 'Azad Kashmir' in describing the portion of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan implies acceptance of Pakistan's claims of the territory or using the phrase 'Falkland Islands' implies Wikipedia does not note Argentina's claims to the islands.
Wikipedia's official position is that it poses a neutral point of view; that is, in this case, it supports neither the Serbian, the Albanian, nor the NATO point of view. It is meant to be as impartial as human beings can be, and the way that we do this is by consensus. Despite the feelings of Serbian nationalists, there are neutrals in this conflict. Posters should, when possible, base information on documented sources.
Posters would also do well to include a user ID in each post and the date/time of the posting in UTC. Who believes an anonymous post? --GABaker.
English spelling is the same as Serbian - KosovO. The word Kosovo is Serbian and it is a claiming adjective (meaning kos`s) and "kos" is Serbian for blackbird. And that adjective (Blackbird`s) is reffered to the field where the great battle between Ottoman and Serbian (+ Bosnian and some other allies to be fair) armies was fought in 1389. The Albanians use the word KosovA informally, so the poster was not a Serbian, but an Albanian nationalist.
My source of information for this is my elementary school education as I am from Serbia.
I`m not sure but I think the adjective "blackbird`s" in Albanian would have been said and spelled in a way other then Kosova. I think that the construction of claiming adjectives, as is in Serbian, by adding ov (m), ova (f) or ovo (n) to the noun does not appear in Albanian nor is similar as the two languages are non-related (Albanian is not a Slavic language as Serbian). If this is true, they`re using an Albanised Serbian word for the province. Anyone who knows for certain?
Veljko Stevanovich 3. 12. 2005. 16:45 UTC+1
See Kosovo#Name. Nikola 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever you are, kid, you should realize that Wikipedia has a neutral policy. WW1 and WW2 killed people, lots more than your little "balkan conflict" in the late 90s...and guess what, the articles are neutral. Look at is this way, if we biased it in your way, it would be unfair to opposing viewpoints. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

I Agree, but don`t forget that Balkans (and particulary Serbia) suffered terribly in the World wars, much more than the US, for instance.
Veljko Stevanovich 7. Mar. 2006. 16:45 UTC+1


Revert War Going on

We need someone to step in and write a NPOV paragraph. I disagree that it's "plain facts" listed in the last revert are as plain as stated. --GABaker 2231 12 Dec 2005 UTC.

Which part do you think needs to be backed up with a reference?

Problem of this article is too many anonymous post simply eliminate other contributions they don't like. It is inaccurate that Tomahawk is launched from aircraft, and UK is where the B-52 bombers take off from. Image of a shot down MiG-29 is also quickly deleted without giving any reason. It is hard to write a NPOV article with posts like that.--Astrowikizhang 19:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

merge Kosovo crisis

I add the Tag to merge with Kosovo crisis. Bonaparte talk 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That article talk mostly about Romania. Maybe it would be good to move it to, say, "Romania in Kosovo War" or something similar, and then make a redirect from "Kosovo crisis" to here? Nikola 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources that were requested

(As for The General's comments - Simply Google them, it's not hard... And I'm not going to do it for you.)

By the way User:CJK if you revert my edits again without discussion here on the discussion page I will ask a mod for a temporary block. Got that? - Nikos.

DenisRS's POV-pushing

User:DenisRS keeps trying to add the following lines to the intro: "Even though the war broke international laws that were signed by NATO members, and was directly classified as an invasion and a crime against humanity by UNO laws, no officials of the responsible NATO countries ever went through the international Tribunal." This is an extremely contentious POV. DenisRS provides no sources, attributes the claim to nobody and states it as an undisputed fact, which it plainly isn't. What's more, it's inappropriate for the intro section anyway: the intro summarises the sequence of events, not whether any of the sides were right or wrong in what they did. It's nothing more than POV-pushing and isn't remotely compliant with WP:CITE or WP:NPOV. It doesn't belong in the article. -- ChrisO 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO performs POV with selective deletion of informaion

It is severe violation of Wikipedia principles. The sources for the line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO trying to delete are already in the list of sources that is at the bottom of the article. This all is just because this user fails to actually read those sources (he could go to a libriary at least).

ChrisO tries to simply delete information he personally does not like, instead of offering alternative information with source (as it was supposed by Wikipedia concept in case if there is contradicting information), like that would assert that unsanctioned by UNO war is legal, and not aggression, and the responsible parties of that war are not subject of international Tribunal for the crime against humanity for being aggressors. DenisRS 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the line "Even though the war broke international laws that were signed by NATO members, and was directly classified as an invasion and a crime against humanity by UNO laws, no officials of the responsible NATO countries ever went through the international Tribunal" does not contain any POV, but only is the ascertaining of the legal status of the war. It says nothing on whether the war was fair or not in the essense, it says only the fact that the war was illegal and the responsible people for this crime -- breaking (international) laws is a crime -- never actually went through prosecution, international tribunal. The matter of legality of the war is cornerstone thing of the event and it can not be considered as secondary. So it should not be moved lower in the article. DenisRS 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the POV policy here. Also you have not provided - nor is there any link in the article to any UN declaration about the war. Rmhermen 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again -- any war without UNO sanction is illegal, and this is not my opinion, but ascrtaining of the fact that is in the sources that listed at the bottom of the article. According to Wikipedia principles, it is not allowed to ask for any additional sources than already are listed. And it is not allowable to ask sources for obvious things. For example, you could ask source that "Kosovo war" is actually called "war" in this article, or why G.W. Bush Jr. is called "President". Nonsense is not allowed.

However, just for the sake of this formalism nonsense -- if some users want it too badly -- I found the direct link to UNO documents: 1) http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/068/54/IMG/NR006854.pdf

Doesn't work. -- ChrisO 08:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2) http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/7_5.htm 3) http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/guide/7_5.htm

Again, I did not have to do this, because the information I protect comes from sources that already listed properly.

It is matter of you or ChrisO to question that information if you would ever have chance to find another version about legality of the war. DenisRS 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Denis, once again let me point out that the 1st section is a summary of the course of the war. It's not the appropriate place for asserting that it's legal, illegal or anything else. And even if it was, your statement is a straightforward unsourced and unreferenced POV assertion, which isn't permitted. Please go and read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. -- ChrisO 08:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The word "Kosovo" does not appear in either of the two links. Perhaps WP:NOR. Rmhermen 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If the first link does not open anymore, it comes from the second or third link anyway. I just checked, they generate always temporarily links, so the actual addess that will always work is this:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/7_5.htm#_ftnref9

So please see 1974's definition of aggression. And, of course, there is no resolution with the word "Kosovo", but it is not needed anyway. According to definition, any outside unsanctioned war operation held not in accordance with agreement with the subject county is aggression. Kosovo is exactly the case, as well as the lastest war in Iraq and bombings of Yugoslavia in 1995 (but not 1990/1991's war, which was sanctioned).
And it is cornerstone, not secondary property of a war, whether it was legal or not from very beginning. Leaving this to the bottom of the article is the same as speaking about a policeman killing armed and theating criminal without mentioning that the killer was policeman and thus legally done killing and that the killed was armed and threating criminal. DenisRS 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop pushing your own personal POV here. As I've already said, the introduction is not an appropriate place to try to characterise the nature of the conflict; it summarises what happened, not whether it was right to happen. Your claims of illegality are highly disputable (I'd call them plainly wrong) as well. I'll add something to the relevant section of the article to explain why. -- ChrisO 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no my "own personal POV" here; the war is illegal since it was not sanctioned by UNO. Also, legality status has nothing to do with "whether it was right to happen", it just the ascertaining of the fact that the concrete war was illegal, what is cornerstone thing. So please stop deleting information that You personally do not like; it is POV, what is not allowed by Wikipedia principles. DenisRS 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a common misconception. The UN Charter does not state that war is only legal if sanctioned by the UN Security Council. It does say that a belligerent party may be subject to punitive action by the UN (see Chapter VII), but it doesn't require all military action to be authorised by the UN. While we can legitimately mention the Serbian claim that UN approval was required in the case of Kosovo, it's simply wrong to assert that as a fact, as you keep doing. It's not only POV, it's factually untrue. -- ChrisO 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course UNO does not state that "war is only legal if sanctioned by the UN Security Council", because every war can be legal if military help of other country is officially requested, contracted by the government. If official government did not ask for military invasion, then the war is illegal by definition of aggression from 1974. There can be no other variant, it is fact, not POV and not untrue. Approval, sanctions are secondary argument and in the information that You want to delete does not rely on sanctions at all. DenisRS 23:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that the issue is a complex one which can't be summarised in a glib partisan statement like the one that you keep pushing. Go and read something like this (look for the paper on "The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law")for an insight into the legal issues involved. You clearly don't understand the legal context (which is complex, admittedly) and you don't appear to want to follow the neutral point of view policy, which you must comply with if you want to continue editing here. -- ChrisO 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NATO losses

Can anyone cite links to officially declared losses by NATO forces? There seems to be a lot of misinformation cirulating on the Net. --Mzabaluev 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS ARE WRONG

THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS ARE WRONG THERE WAS NO 82ND AIRBORNE IN KOSOVO IT WAS 4/29 FIELD ARTILLERY OUT OF BAUMHOLDER GERMANY AND ALSO 2/3FIELD ARTILLERY OUT OF GIESSEN GERMANY YES IT IS A FACT THAT MOLOSEVIC WAS A MANIAC ALL FOR KILLING AND NOT HELPING THE PEOPLE IN WHICH HE LED BUT BECAUSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR US MILITARY AND MOSTLY THE UNITS ABOVE HE IS NO LONGER IN CHARGE SINCERELY ONE SOLDIER WHO WAS THERE HOOOOOOOOAH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.105.164.3 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It`s nice to see your computer`s "Caps Lock" works... Or were you just holding "Shift" pressed all the time?

Milosevic's logic for ethnic cleansing

Hi, I'm new to the Kosovo War page. I'm an economist by training with a degree in European Studies as well. As a Swede, hopefully I'll be able to provide a nonpartizan voice on the Talk page. Below is my first suggestion for improvement.

The article is not very detailed regarding the possible reasons for Milosevic to (most likely) have instigated the ethnic cleansing at the start of the war.

Currently the article reads: "It is unclear what Milošević may have hoped to achieve by expelling Kosovo's Albanian inhabitants. One possibility is that he wished to replace the Albanian population with refugee Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia, thereby achieving the "Serbianization" of the province."

In fact, the main reasons are likely to have been

(1) to create a logistical/humanitarian problem for Nato, thereby delaying or hindering a ground attack, and

(2) to remove a source of local support for the KLA, akin to the US strategy in S. Vietnam of creating 'strategic hamlets'.

What do you think about adding these as additional possible reasons for the ethnic cleansing campaign? I haven't been able to find any direct sources, but neither have I been able to find any sources for the (in my mind) less likely reason of wanting to "Serbianize" the province (how would he do that in the middle of a war?).

Also, should any mention be made of the connection between the breakdown of the Rambouillet negotiations and the impending Nato attack and the expulsion of the albanians? Osli73 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Osli73, and welcome to this page. For sure an experience from a member of a peaceful nation like the Swedish is more than welcome here. At the same time it might be difficult for you to "think like the killers" of Balkans. The worst case of such a killer was Milosevic. One can just speculate about superficial goals he had by carrying ethnic cleansing, but the real reasons of course were financial, he got richer and more powerful, after every war he waged. As of the questions and comments you posed, I agree partly with them. Indeed removing the local population would have weakened the support for KLA. Not sure about your first point. If local population was moved from Kosovo, it would have been easier for NATO troops to invade the place. One of the main fears of NATO before invasion was planned, was that local population (mainly Albanians) would suffer during that action, and Serbs could retailiate and kill Albanian civillians or use them as hostages during retreat. As far as Serbianizing the province, indeed that could have been a goal of his. He thought the Bosnian scenario would be the case in Kosovo as well. In Bosnia even as we are speaking there are many refugees who refuse to return. In Kosovo it happened the contrary, all refugees that were forced out by the Serbian troops returned. There is a connection between the failed Rambouillet negotiations, and NATO strikes. That was the threat directed towards Milosevic, if he was not going to comply with Contact Group demands. Expulsion of Albanians happened after NATO strikes, and was carried out by Serbian troops in retaliation. Ilir pz 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments Ilir pz. Again, I'd would like to have some more thoughts on this. As the ethnic cleansing played a very big part in motivating/justifying Nato's attack on Yugoslavia, I believe that understanding what motivated Milosevic to order it is, or should be, of great interest to readers of the article. So far, all we have is speculation. As I believed the motive currently presented in the article, that the aim was to Serbianize the province, is unlikely I proposed two hypothesis of my own. However, I would very much appreciate it if anyone had any references to academic studies or other studies.Osli73 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is that Milosevic didnt order ethnic cleansing, and that it was KLA in whose interest it was, for propaganda purposes. There is ample evidence for this presented at Milosevic trial. The refugees were fleing conflict, bombing - but also were ordered by KLA to flee. The border was closed in early April, to stop the flight of refugees, but was reopened on the insistence of NATO. Don not put wild NATO propaganda allegations as facts and then speculate about them. KosovaKupusPress 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There you go that is some Tanjug type of explanation, or explanation found in the pamphlets of Serbian socialist or radical party. Horrible. ilir_pz 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Again, I find it very strange that this issue not more well researched or documented. Arguments seem to range from it was the KLA and Nato bombing which drove the refugees out to it all being part of a Serbian master plan. Does anyone have any suggestions?Osli73 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not need to discuss this. Only a Serb can make such egregious claims. And for people who don't know: you need not edit any articles about Kosovo because you don't know jack about what happen.Ferick 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess documenting something well takes a bit more time than 7 years. I agree with you that more work should have been done in this field. One thing is for sure, never did KLA or NATO forces did ask refugees to leave Kosovo, that is pure propaganda directed from Milosevic's regime. That was a way to cover his master plan, a plan which did exist for many years, and he was about to complete..fortunately it did not work. (Osli73, please sign your edits using 4"~" so we know the time of your edit.) Thank you,ilir_pz 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is slanted towards Serbs

"Then, in January 1998, the Western powers got a boost when first they installed Milorad Dodik to be Republika Srpska's prime minister, and then they got Milo Djukanovic installed as President of Montenegro despite serious election irregularities there".?

"A massive fight at the Jashari compound led to the deaths of 60 KLA and supporters in the compound".? The whole article reads as if it came directly from a pamphlet writen by the government of Serbia. This will have to change, not just in tone but in substance..Ferick 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

60 KLA and supporters? I thought that most of the dead in that massacre were members of the family of Jashari family, exclude 4 adults, who were armed. This is one of the most ridiculous statements this article holds. ilir_pz 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article holds more then one ridiculous statements.The whole thing is ridiculous!Ferick 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, not the whole thing is ridiculous, try to check it more carefully. There are facts that are represented here, and with a little more effort from all of us they can be improved significantly. Your constructive help is appreciated. ilir_pz 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the article is, so to speak, Serb-Friendly. Ferick 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, could you please highlight what parts of the text/article are "Serb friendly".Osli73 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)