# Talk:May 1995 Pale air strikes

This may be trivia, but is still worth to mention. Despite El País claim that the bombing of Pale was the first offensive action of the Spanish Air Force since the Ifni War in 1957, a good number of Spanish sources ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) report an action between the Spanish Legion and the Polisario Front on the border between Spanish West Africa and Mauritania on 17 December 1974 which saw a rocket strike of a package of Ha-200 Saeta in support of the Spanish troops. There is no way per WP:OR to challenge El País statement, but at least this comment stands as a record. In favor of El País it should be say that if the Ifni War was a forgotten war, the Sahrawi insurgency was, from the Spanish point of view, the erased war-- Darius (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

For GAR this seems to have problems with relying too heavily on sources connected to the matter. 

AFSSOUTH was a participant
CIA - not independent from the USAF, a participant . WP:RFE/RL seems to indicate they are not RS?
CIA
Richard Holbrooke not independent
Czarking0 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds was described by the political scientist Eliot Cohen in the November/December 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs as "a superb contribution to contemporary strategic studies and will prove a boon to students in universities and war colleges alike". It is a scholarly publication written by CIA analysts and using plenty of excellent quality primary and secondary sources. Flicking through a few pages show this is the case. There are plenty of other highly positive reviews in relevant academic journals, and it is used widely as a source in academic publications for details about the wars in the Balkans. The reliability of AFSOUTH and Holbrooke depend on the context, ie what material they are being used to support, and are they an appropriate source for that content. In the case of AFSOUTH, it is being used to explain its own command and control at the time (and probably the best source for that information), and also the conflicting date of the second strike (which is important because it needs to be addressed in the article). It is highly appropriate as a source for both matters. Holbrooke is being used only for the name of the commander of AFSOUTH at the time of the airstrikes. I'm unaware of any involvement that Holbrooke had with the airstrikes (if I did I would have included it), but even if he did have some tangential involvement, are you suggesting that his lack of independence means he would mis-represent who the commander of AFSOUTH was at the time because of it? Interested in your responses to the above. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Great points thanks for the response. I think the Cohen source is helpful for establishing the reliability of the CIA in this context. However, I don't think any level of reviews can be used to determine if a source was independent. I think readers (especially those distrustful of the US) would value additional sources that are more independent. Just to be clear I am not advocating for removing the CIA source but for adding a second source where the articles relies solely on the CIA. Similar for AFSSouth. For Holbrooke, I am saying he is not independent rather than he was involved. I think his official capacity at the time gives him a lack of independence in these matters, further, Richard Holbrooke#Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (1994–1996) seems to indicate he is not the most reliable source. I would think other sources list the AFSSOUTH commander and would be preferred. Still I don't think its a problem to include him but I am offering an opinion on how to solidify GAC#2 Czarking0 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I consider you are over-extending the concept of source independence beyond the intent of the RS policy. While I will reinforce BB with additional sources for anything that might reasonably be challenged, I think a community view at RSN would come down firmly on the side of BB being a reliable source on factual details of the Balkan wars of the 90s. I’m not even using BB for analysis of the success/failure of the air strikes, for that I have used a political scientist. And with respect, I don’t think there is any issue here with reliability in context for any of these sources. With AFSOUTH and Holbrooke you seem to have skipped my point about context. I’d like to know more about why you don’t think AFSOUTH is a reliable source for its own command and control structure at the time and how that fact is likely to be challenged, and why you don’t think Holbrooke is a reliable source for “the name of the AFSOUTH commander” and likewise, how that fact is likely to be challenged. That is all he is being used for. Neither AFSOUTH nor Holbrooke are being used for any opinion or analysis here, and nothing they are being used for is even slightly controversial. Reliability is directly tied to what it is being used for, not to some theoretical concept. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with AFSSOUTH being used for their own C2. I linked why I don't think Holbrooke should be used.
What I see is the entire background section was written based on sources with direct connection to the US military. Most of the article is written based on sources which are not independent of the US military.
Here is an example of a challenge that I think could use more sourcing, especially for readers distrustful of the US. News of the bloody massacre in Tuzla spread internationally, prompting further NATO airstrikes. - According to the CIA, but maybe the US was always going to airstrike more, and just used the massacre for justification. Czarking0 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't consider your objection to Holbrooke is valid given what he is being used to cite. It would be ridiculous to word this as "According to Richard Holbrooke, Leighton Smith was the commander of AFSOUTH." He either was or he wasn't. It isn't Holbrooke's opinion, he's just stating a fact. Who could possible challenge it? On what basis? I have added several sources that provide additional details regarding the details of the decision-making, deadlines etc. I am unsurprised that there is little variation between all the sources about what happened and why, which only reinforces the quality of BB as a source. In some cases, people distrustful of a "US account" have their own ideological reasons for questioning what occurred – for example, the Republika Srpska and Serbian governments and media regularly issue statements or post articles that push fringe theories regarding the wars, deny war crimes and events that are extremely well documented and proven in international courts. Those that support those sorts of conspiracy theories are bound to distrust a US government publication, but we don't write WP to account for their fringe ideas. On this and similar articles we regularly have IPs that geolocate in Serbia changing the result to "VRS victory" apparently because the VRS took hostages and stopped the airstrikes. But the result is about the airstrikes themselves, not the aftermath. BB is extensively footnoted and includes many references contemporaneous local and international news articles from many different countries, books by authorities on the conflict, etc. As a US government publication it is freely available online here, you can check for yourself. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
No amount of footnotes or references will make BB an independent source. It is a source that almost certainly should be included on the page, but it is not independent and further support from independent sources would help with balance. I don't really have specific additional feedback as I think the changes you already made in response to my last comment are an improvement on the point I brought up and I want to drop the stick here. For GAR I would recommend adding additional citation/content from independent sources. Without finding those/reading them myself it is hard to be more specific. Czarking0 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "result" being what was destroyed by the bombs. The current way of phrasing it is very aligned with the overall article in that only the US aligned sources are used. The taking of hostages is clearly an important part of this. Maybe it is better in the Causalities section, or result can be changed to aftermath? Czarking0 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you are conflating decisions taken by the RS leadership to deter further airstrikes with the result of the airstrikes. The airstrikes destroyed depots and killed and wounded VRS personnel. The airstrikes didn't make the VRS take hostages. Hostage taking isn't a part of the result, it is part of the aftermath, not the result of these airstrikes. This article is not about the May-June 1995 UN hostage crisis, and is only mentioned here as a part of the aftermath. The dropping of bombs did not cause hostages to be taken. The hostages being taken was a result of a decision taken by the RS leadership to commit a war crime as a way of deterring further airstrikes. Another example of something that was not a "result" of the first airstrike is the shelling of the UN safe areas including the Tuzla massacre, again a decision by VRS personnel to commit war crimes. They were shelled by the VRS in retaliation for the first airstrike, but were not a "result" of the first airstrike, which destroyed ammunition depots. The hostage taking is covered in the lead (to summarise the Aftermath section) and the Aftermath section, which is appropriate. However, it isn't appropriate to conflate decisions to commit war crimes by RS and VRS personnel with the results of the airstrikes, and it therefore should not be in the infobox as a result of the airstrikes (the subject of the article). Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I hear your point about VRS action being in response to the airstrikes rather than a result of them. However, I disagree that none of the VRS response belongs in the infobox. If it is in scope for the article then it can be in scope for the infobox. To remedy the situation I suggest that either all the aftermath section is removed because it is not about the air strikes and the article is solely covering the air strikes or something about the hostage situation (and maybe the Tuzla bombing?）is included in the infobox. That could be done by changing the result to "result and response". I think what I had in casualties is fine as prisoners are causalities. The reader is unlikely to think that the bombs took UN peacekeepers hostage. Or a new row for VRS response is added. Czarking0 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I cannot understand your argumentation here. The scope/subject of this article is the airstrikes, not the hostage taking. Just because the hostage taking isn't in the scope of the article doesn't mean it can't be mentioned at all. That is completely illogical. You are apparently saying that there should be no aftermath section unless the aftermath is included in the infobox? That makes no sense to me, and is contrary to every battle/incident article I've ever taken through the various review processes to FA, or the hundreds I've reviewed at GAN, Milhist A-Class review or FAC. The VRS response is a highly complex and drawn out process with a significant background that extended into late June and which was investigated thoroughly in the ICTY trials, and deserves its own detailed article, which would have the airstrikes and previous airstrikes, discussion between Smith and the VRS etc would be in the background section. It is relevant to mention a brief summary of the hostage taking, the negotiations and release, RRF and Operation Deliberate Force here in the aftermath because it flowed out of the airstrikes. Infoboxes are not places to try to impart complex information, and they should be focussed on the scope/subject and its immediate results (ie destroyed depots and killed and dead), not something that occurred subsequently, whether it is the continuing VRS shelling of safe areas on the afternoon of 26 May, hostage taking or anything else. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I think I understand you perfectly fine and you understand me as well and still disagree. IMO you are POV pushing. I am not saying that you are editing in bad faith just that you are pushing a certain POV. To some level I suspect you think I am POV pushing too. I don't want to repeat my same points but you have not changed my mind that the VRS hostage taking belongs in the infobox. Czarking0 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Not sure what POV you think I am pushing. I will refrain from labelling your attitude to this issue. Regardless, DR appears to be needed here if you insist on pursuing this. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I think you are pushing a POV of "only use US state department approved sources" rather than trying to create a balanced perspective. As for what other RS can be used to create this balance I would think the UN has some reports about the air strikes that lead to the hostage taking. I'll wait till GAR to push this further unless you have something you want from me now. I would just fail the article but I feel like I am too involved for that to be seen by others as a fair review. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Hang on. You apparently don’t know what alternative sources exist, beyond the UN. Yet you accuse me of pushing a POV? What balance are you referring to? The UN asked NATO for airstrikes, they carried them out. There is no alternative fact-based version of events I’m aware of. I fail to see what my alleged POV is. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)