Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old

message: 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)
thread_title: Map of Greater Albania

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Nikola, could you please stop deleting the alternative Albanian placenames? -- ChrisO 11:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo/Kosova?

message: I don't know if this article has any information you don't already have, if so merge, if not just redirect. cohesion ☎ 20:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 :) cohesion ☎ 22:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cause of Kosovar Albanians exodus during NATO bombing campaign 

message: 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)
thread_title: New check

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: "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)
thread_title:  'Right-wing, Right-wingers' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revert War Going on

message: I add the Tag to merge with Kosovo crisis.  Bonaparte  talk 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: merge [[Kosovo crisis]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  DenisRS's POV-pushing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NATO losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Milosevic's logic for ethnic cleansing 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The whole article is slanted towards Serbs

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Trepca mine" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Task Force Hawk" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Casualty numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title: Links

message: You said these pages are not working, may be your browser from your country can not access them...
*Two american pilots die in a crash on Kosovo/Albanian border
: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)
replies: text: This link is not only non neutral the picture placed there it is offencive. Can't you get a better link?
*Over 10 British soldiers die in Kosovo operations
~: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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Good pages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reply

message: 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)
thread_title: Total Dead

message: 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.
* Wikipedia:Verifiability, 
* Wikipedia:No personal attacks
* Wikipedia:Etiquette
* Wikipedia:Civility 
I don't think you have read any one of those articles. Mieciu K 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Mieciu problem

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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 .
I do my best to follow these rules and guidelines:
* Wikipedia:Verifiability, 
* Wikipedia:No personal attacks
* Wikipedia:Etiquette
* Wikipedia:Civility Mieciu K 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Kosovo war article

message: 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)
thread_title: Correct day

message: 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)
thread_title: Argue as much as you want to

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: You are a criminal

message: Perhaps when this article is unlocked, the correct NATO losses could be put in.  (46 Aircrafts, 6 helicopters, 8 unmanned aircraft, 182 cruise missles). 
*"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NATO Losses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slight Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serbian Orthodox Church 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About NATO looses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is "alleged" in a found mass graves? 

message: ...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)
replies: text: ; 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)
thread_title:  As a result, the Serb police did very little officially for the next two months... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-Contradicting 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pictures?

message: 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)
thread_title: Who won

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree I was thinking about proposing the similar wording. Mieciu K 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculousness of NATO Loses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox and Pictures 

message: 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.
#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?
#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".
#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)
thread_title:  Casus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing the "POV" and "verify" tags 

message: Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment