![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. George Ho ( talk) 04:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
} NATO bombing of Yugoslavia → NATO bombing of Kosovo – " Yugoslavia" no longer exists since the breakup in 1992. Of course, that led to wars. Speaking of wars, it should not be confused with NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina (former state of Yugoslavia), also called Operation Deliberate Force. George Ho ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The entire article must start around the true reason NATO had decided to get involved, which is described in the book "A journey" of Tony Blair and other books, known as "liberal interventionism" consisting of "humanitarian interventions". The role of NATO has changed and from protectionism against USSR they decided to take the role of protecting "higher moral values" around the globe, especially in Europe.
For this reason the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was heavily supported by strong media coverage that repeatedly used the strongest possible language of "genocide", "acts against humanity", "brutality" and so on, before, during and after the campaign, including the present day. This strong language is a trademark of every subsequent NATO campaign around the world. Many of the media "horrendous" and "unspeakable" claims were never proved, and many of them were disproved later.
At that time, smaller Yugoslavia and predominantly Serbian people were an instrument of justifying the continuous strong NATO presence in Europe. The NATO campaign lasted that long since its failure would put a question mark on the possibility of any similar future interventions around the globe as well. It had to end by some form of success literally by all means.
In that sense this article, and any similar articles will remain biased with strong possibility of actually justifying NATO actions at that time as "necessary" and "unavoidable".
For this reason this article, willingly or not, is part of the same media instrument that was used during the campaign, as it is, obviously, even today.
Aperisic ( talk) 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion, since that was the question, is to remove the article all together.
Aperisic ( talk) 09:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]"
The above passage from the article presents a clear anti-Western bias. Not only does it contradict the rest of the article regarding civilian casualties that resulted from the bombings, but its source is suspect. First, it is well know that the Russian Times is mouthpiece of the Russian government. Second, the news article was published in March 2014. Considering the events in Ukraine and the anti-western rhetoric of the Russian government, the integrity of this source is clearly compromised.
108.28.70.18 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In a recent (May 7, 2014) Czech parliament debate the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg (now in opposition) was labeled as supporter of bombing of Serbia. He denied this and said:
Já jsem nikdy nepodporoval bombardování Srbska. Naopak, to si dobře pamatuju, těsně předtím, než to začalo, bylo zasedání Trilateral Commission ve Washingtonu a tehdy byli tři, bohužel pouze tři přítomní, kteří se postavili proti plánu zahájit bombardování Srbska. To byl, budete se divit, Henry Kissinger, byl to nynější ministr zahraničí Království švédského Carl Bildt a potom jsem byl já v té diskusi. Je něco jiného, když ta válka proběhla a Srbsko ztratilo nadvládu nad Kosovem a nebyla nejmenší naděje možnosti, že by ji získalo zpátky, že jsem uznal Kosovo jako nezávislou zem. Ale bombardování Srbska jsem opravdu nepodpořil.
(public debate in Czech parliament, recorded on its website
[1]).
My literal translation from Czech language:
"I never supported bombing of Serbia. Just the opposite, I remember the events well, it was just before the bombing started, there was meeting of Trilateral Commission in Washington and unfortunately only three people present there were against the plan to start the bombing. They were, you will be suprised, Henry Kissinger, then Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt and me. Something else is that the war started and Serbia lost their control over Kosovo and there was no chance to get it back, then I [as the Minister of Foreign Affairs] recognized Kosovo as independent country. But I didn't support bombing of Serbia."
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Total = 1008. From NATO attacks = 271 killed (249 soldiers and 22 policemen). Rest lost lifes in direct combat with Albanian terrorists (KLA) or other couses. Official statistics are source (not newspappers as it is in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.24.195 ( talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The air combat section of the article could use some attention. There are conficting accounts on which aircraft were destroyed and by whom. The source used for the most of the information found in the section is an article called Yugoslav and Serbian MiG-29's featured on the website Acig.org. The article contradicts itself in its account of who was shot down and by whom. I wonder how reliable this article is as a source on this subject. There are also several sources that confirm that a dutch f-16 shot down a MiG-29, however in this article editors maintain it only damaged the MiG. I believe this information to be inaccurate considering the multiple sources that confirm the Dutch F-16 shot down a MiG-29: [1] [2] [3]
82.171.161.161 ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
82.171.161.161 ( talk) 10:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The followin section is a direct copy of a newssite which cannot be seen as a verifiable neutral source (rt.com): In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]
Requested change: In the course of the campaign, over 23,000 air munitions (rockets and bombs) were fired in 9300 strikes. Among the weapons used were cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs, which were controversial but not prohibited at this time. Strikes were aimed at armed forces, military positions and installations and infrastructure [1]. Civilian radio and television headquarters, usually residing in densily populated areas, were also targeted leading to a high civilan death toll. The same can be said for bridges used by civilian transport that were attacked in daytime. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of civilian casualties lies around 500, but other sources claim numbers varying from 1000 up to 5000 casualties[2]. [4] [5]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
13:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Unfortunately, each time I try to remove serious neutrality problems, Anastan comes and puts them back. Anastan, could you give us a good reason why the lede should harp on about RT's favourite distraction-points but cannot ever mention why the bombing happened? You know that the bombing was a response to Serb atrocities in Kosovo. I know it. Reliable sources know it. Why do you block any mention of it? Anastan, if you are unable to comply with core wikipedia policies, please step aside and stop reverting others. bobrayner ( talk) 00:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
it was the first time that this military organisation used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.
The sentence "Nato launched fresh strikes against Serb forces tonight, amid fears of a renewed wave of ethnic cleansing atrocities in Kosovo." is bad. We don't know what were NATO's intentions with attacking Yugoslavia. Maybe they did it to help Albanians, maybe they were there to oust Milosevic and end Yugoslavia, or maybe to ignite another crisis point in the Balkans, or they just wanted to make room for their new bombs, drop old and obsolete ones and in the end have more budgeting for the military because otherwise NATO's spendings were useless which is the most likely scenario. The reasons behind the so called operation could be anything. The source doesn't clearly explain them and it's either because they didn't have a clue or they were part of the problem. Or it could be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.62.140.137 ( talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.89.105 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.248.6 ( talk)
It isn't properly referenced, that's the problem. The sentence says nothing about why did NATO attack Yugoslavia. Amid fears is not because of fears. And whose fears were those, mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.68.215 ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Western editors, may think that the article is not neutral enough for them, but the reason why is because they know only the Western point of view and they think as reliable sources only the Western ones. There is also another point of view, that of the Serbian, Russian and other pro-Serbian side, and that needs to be acknowledged equally in order for the article to be neutral. When stating reasons for action, according to, is a correct term, because it is always according to, it is never a global opinion. In addition, facts, figures, war crimes, e.t.c need to be added in a real proportional way, in order for the article to be accurate. I hope I have helped slightly in your discussions. Take careRon1978 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Anastan, why are you collaborating with a sockpuppet? The stories about depleted uranium are very much WP:FRINGE. bobrayner ( talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
According to Interior Minister Nebojša Stefanović, 167 police officers lost their lives.-- Zoupan 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The current citations for Yugoslav materiel losses are kind of a mess.
Is there something I'm missing here?-- Nihlus1 ( talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Nihlus1 this revert: [3], for which you give this edit reason EVERY number in that box is an estimate. No need to give this special attention. That 3.8 billion figure (also from G 17) only talks about direct damage, while G 17's 29.6 b includes indirect economic damage. Human capital, loss of GDP, etc. … Yes other 'estimates' also give the source of the estimator. One of your sources, the BBC is specifically saying these are Yugoslav Govt figures given during time of war, it is falsifying the figures to represent them as 'objective' since it simply would not have been possible to know in the middle of the war, but I left them. It is equally false to exclude another legitimate (Dinkic) estimate, but say from-to.
If the figures cannot be represented with the full picture of who said it, given in words, then they should not be in the info-box AT ALL. Info in the info box should ALWAYS be in the text and if it is too complex to reduce to numbers, they should not be in the info box at all. Tomorrow I shall do what I am suggesting, put all three figures (with explanatory text), in a new section in the body of the article, and either nothing, or the full range of figures in the infobox. Pincrete ( talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has more text on rebuttals of criticisms than it does on the actual criticisms themselves. In particular the authors gloss over the fact that a UNSC resolution authorising the bombing was not obtained and therefore many consider the operation to have been illegal. Therefore as it stands the section inadequately covers the subject it refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Especially as it relates to Yugoslav military losses. Current article favors heavy Serbian propaganda and flawed reporting by Newsweek. The RAND Corporation is a rather objective think tank, frequently critical of U.S. policy. Excuse the Megaupload, I couldn't find an easy way to convert a Word file. https://mega.nz/#!84ogXKTJ!93NWyc40kDH2xc-s93135H3djMRSbzRsGod7kZtKgl8 Matt714 ( talk) 09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete Especially as it relates to Serb tank/apc/artillery losses. The current article accepts the Serb claim at face value, moreso with a flimsy source. NATO claims are subject to transparency since the West has a free press. It's mostly on page 3. I'l try updating the page myself later when I have time. Matt714 ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Air combat section seems to contain a lot of supposition and at times is more like a 'Boys' Own' adventure story than an informative article. Pincrete ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
BowlAndSpoon re. the Talbott (reported by Chomsky), the quote you supplied says 'It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war'. There is no mention here of 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. Nor is there in the Chomsky interview (though he says some much stronger things).
Immediately preceding your/Chomsky's quote is 'As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course.' This DOES mention reform of economies, but it is a leap of logic to go from 'reforming an economy' (ie moving away from centrally-planned Marxist economies) to 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. It is also clear that Talbott's emphasis is at least equally on 'mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society', and other 'political' considerations, to which he devotes much more space therafter.
The much longer quote supplied by DeLong emphasises 'political', the opening words are 'For Western powers, the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region' ... later … 'NATO went to war in Kosovo because its political and diplomatic leaders had enough of Milosevic and saw his actions disrupting plans to bring a wider stable of nations into the transatlantic community' … and … 'Fischer observed that he had originally resisted military action, but that his views had changed, "step by step, from mass murder to mass murder". Talbott also makes the point that most of the European NATO powers, were not 'hawkish' and 'were proponents of "third way" politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments'.
I don't doubt that Chomsky said these things and believed his case, nor that Talbott said the (brief) quote you give. The problem is to not imply that Talbott said things which are Chomsky's interpretation of Talbott's words, based on the two words 'economic reform' only, which Talbott claims other nations in the region sought. Pincrete ( talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
>The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians
Было убито около 2000 человек, в их числе - маленькие дети. По всей Сербии печально известна Милица Ракич (Milica Rakic)- шестилетняя девочка, которую убило осколком кассетной бомбы. А из-за того, что бомбы содержали обеднённый уран, сейчас в Сербии невероятный рост раковых заболеваний. 37.194.189.130 ( talk) 07:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Basilissa, the same age as "Merciful Angel".
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ekograf, I'm not sure what happened here, but the removal was accidental as part of another edit. HOWEVER, I wonder how useful either side's claim of 'victory' is. Neither NATO nor Milosevic are exactly known for admitting negative truths and in modern warfare, outright 'victory' is rare. Would it more useful to express 'result' solely as tangible (political?) outcomes, ie remove both claims ? Pincrete ( talk) 09:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Under subheadings "Yugoslav operations" the text reads:
Many accounts from both Serbs and Albanians identified Yugoslav security forces and paramilitaries as the culprits, responsible for systematically emptying towns and villages of their Albanian inhabitants by forcing them to flee. [5]
Unfortunately the reference does not support the claim. In the reference the german reporter Franz Josef Hutsch, during his testimony at Milošević trial, stated:
[...]several Albanian villages in the area between Orahovac and Suva Reka that were evacuated on KLA orders. [...] there were Albanian villages that were emptied after they were attacked by Serb security forces; according to him, "there was a mixed picture."
I would suggest to modify the paragraph to reflect the testimony or find additional sources to support the claims.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aeronautics.ru/official/losthelicopters.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
User:91.148.93.34, re this and this. That's not how it works. If other editors disagree with your edits to an article, we stay with the long term version until you are able to establish a concensus for your edit. You need to come to this talk page FIRST, not edit war, until you've gotten your way. The summarised version has been in place for AT LEAST the last 6 months, which means it stays until you have achieved agreement for your changes. You are also reminded that special rules apply to this article and sanctions against any editor who is edit-warring can be applied at the discretion of an admin and without further warning, see head of this page. I amm therefore reverting to the long term stable version until there is agreement on change. Pincrete ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I cannot see how it is NPOV to imply that Kosovo IS currently part of Serbia. Pakistan was once part of India, Bangla Desh was once part of Pakistan, Ireland was once part of Gr Britain, we would not in any of these cases use wording that implied that any of them still were part of the larger units currently. I cannot see how it is NPOV, though would welcome a form of words that avoided the problem. Pincrete ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein claimed Iraq won the Gulf War. That was his opinion, yet the Gulf War article does not hold back in calling it what it was - namely, a coalition victory. How come Milošević's victory claim is taken more seriously than Saddam's, even though the Kosovo War directly cost Milošević his presidency (a consequence not even Saddam Hussein suffered)? It seems odd to doubt this was a NATO victory when NATO achieved its objectives and Miloševic not only lost control of Kosovo, but also his political career. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This article has unbeliveable anti-Serbian bias. Even our civilian victims are denied, by picking one sided HRW as only source. I tried to remedy this a bit, but it is unbeliveable how some pro-NATO anti Serbian editors have taken ownership of this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.141.53 ( talk) 13:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia call NATO forces "Allied Forces" if it has a neutral point of view, and the enemies of NATO are not "allied" with them? German Gamer 77 21:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Here. Hope you're happy. German Gamer 77 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Calm down, calm down. It's just that Wikipedia is neutral and not "allied" with NATO, just made in the USA, and I thought calling it "allied" was a little weird. ` German Gamer 77 21:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to revert page back to changes made by MateoKatanaCRO 14:12, 19 February 2018. PR5634 ( talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
cite the claim " with, the tenth page of this and add quote "It is NATO’s view that the Yugoslav military must be hit so hard that its capacity to continue the present offensive will be greatly reduced and further humanitarian misery prevented."-- Jozias van Aartsen or quote "The targets of the air raids are military targets: anti- aircraft defences, command centres, means of communication and military installations."-- Frank de Grave 67.242.19.37 ( talk) 11:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete I don't know if it is lede-worthy. Yes it looks a bit out of place but I just couldn't find anywhere on the article to insert the details. Every section appears to have its own heading and its own specifics. I did say my edit may be tweaked and amended but it was done at another editor's request who is unable to edit the page. I have to be fair here. On reflection, yes "said" is better than "quoted" but I thought it all had the same effect. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Can Russian Volunteers be put into the FR Yugoslav side of the combatants section since there are sources confirming they were there to oppose NATO. 142.197.9.91 ( talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[Bremen-class frigate|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and
To:
The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[German frigate Rheinland-Pfalz (F209)|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and
as the ship now has its own article, and a link to the class page is no longer necessary. 82.39.49.182 ( talk) 11:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Name of operation "Allied Force" should be article name, "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" is a description. It should be immmidiately stated it was without declaration of war or UN approval.
More should be drawn from obvious illegitemacy /info/en/?search=Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
Should include: - Strike without declaration of war or UN approval equaling it to alliance terrorism (later to be seen elsewhere) - Germnny intervening outside Germany (against German constitution and after WWII restrictions) - NATO changing from defensive to agressive alliance - A cause of attack "Operation Horseshoue" is proven hoax, so stated goals are imaginary since they come from wrong premise
These are 3 key components.
Also, well documented history of war crimes and use of forbidden arms
has a nice Wikipedia article.
/info/en/?search=Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force
Rastavox ( talk) 07:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This has sat harmlessly for fully ten years ( [6]). The source was placed even earlier (I'm not diving that far back). Editors must be given an opportunity to provide sources that Farah has made this claim. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Since the subject is notable, you'll have a hard time proving he isn't and so his stand should not matter."I agree that Farah himself is notable, however notability has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. We don't include or exclude a viewpoint based on the notability of the people holding that viewpoint. – dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think there should be changes made to this section:
"There has also been criticism of the campaign. The Clinton administration was accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbs.[144] In an interview with Radio-Television Serbia journalist Danilo Mandic on April 25, 2006, Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo that "the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians", but rather "It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated".[145] On May 31, 2006, Brad DeLong rebutted Chomsky's allegation and quoted from elsewhere in the passage which Chomsky had cited,[146] "the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region" and also that "Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of 'third way' politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."[146][147]
The rebuttal of Chomsky by Brad DeLong is from a self-published blog (albeit from a university professor), that makes what I think is an error - perhaps from using a transcript of a spoken interview - in saying that Chomsky claims that John Norris makes the claim, when Chomsky, I think, says it was Talbott. The foreward in question (as quoted by DeLong - and I believe it's the foreward from the page number style) does indeed say a lot more than Chomsky says, but certainly includes the passage: "it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war."
There's an argument to be had, no doubt, but perhaps Talbott's (or Norris's views) should be included in the "support for the campaign" section first-hand from that book (if anyone has read it or has a copy to reference), and if Chomsky's criticisms should be included - should they? - is there not a better source for them than a single television interview (where it's not 100% clear - as evidenced above - what he's saying)?
Thank you.
WattStreetWhiteStreet ( talk) 10:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thank you. I see I'm not raising much new then. It seems out of place to me to include DeLong's comments and the Chomsky interview, when Chomsky has written a long article on the intervention and even whole book - neither of which, but of bloody course(!), I've yet read in full. Norris and Talbott's views are of course very notable, but perhaps should be incorporated where they fit elsewhere in the article - again, uselessly, I haven't read the book! (I need to go to the library I see.)
I'm not yet a good enough or trusted enough editor to make changes, but - if I were allowed to - I would remove the whole lot and include something about the article and the book. Criticism of Chomsky's views - which includes substantial stuff from lots of sources, including Christopher Hitchens and George Monbiot I believe as well as Prof DeLong - on Serbia/Kosovo might belong somewhere else? I notice that there's not a section on this in Chomsky's "Political views of..." page for example, whereas there seems quite enough material. WattStreetWhiteStreet ( talk) 14:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
YEAR АLB. SERBS ОTHERS
1455[2] 1 % 98 % 1 % 1871 32 % 64 % 4 % 1899 48 % 44 % 8 % 1921 66 % 26 % 8 % 1931 69 % ?? % ? % 1939 60 % 34 % 5 % 1948 68 % 27 % 5 % 1953 65 % 27 % 6 % 1961 67 % 27 % 6 % 1971 74 % 21 % 5 % 1981 77 % 15 % 8 % 1991 82 % 11 % 7 % 20002 88 % 7 % 5 % 20072 92 % 5 % 3 %
SOURCE - WORLD'S STATISTIQUE BANK(2000), OSCE (2005)
It means, war was started on faked data and informations. Just like Iraq war, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.46.15 ( talk) 07:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nato victory? Really? Fuck You! 178.120.126.207 ( talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I have had a look on the NATO FORCES / Aviation part of the article, and as it is an air military campaign, I would suggest to describe in more factual and details the Nato order of battle. I would suggest too to make a link between the country forces involved and the level of commitmment of the Nato countries to this operation. As the desciption of the involved forces are a little bit unstructured, I would suggest an overall view of the air forces, with a breakdown by country and/or by role of aircaft (CAS, Air superiority, C3I, refueling, etc...). The book "Air Warfare in the Missile Age" , from Lon O. Nordeen, ISBN-13 : 978-1588342829, seem to be a fair source about this subject.
Regards
BihacVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. George Ho ( talk) 04:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
} NATO bombing of Yugoslavia → NATO bombing of Kosovo – " Yugoslavia" no longer exists since the breakup in 1992. Of course, that led to wars. Speaking of wars, it should not be confused with NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina (former state of Yugoslavia), also called Operation Deliberate Force. George Ho ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The entire article must start around the true reason NATO had decided to get involved, which is described in the book "A journey" of Tony Blair and other books, known as "liberal interventionism" consisting of "humanitarian interventions". The role of NATO has changed and from protectionism against USSR they decided to take the role of protecting "higher moral values" around the globe, especially in Europe.
For this reason the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was heavily supported by strong media coverage that repeatedly used the strongest possible language of "genocide", "acts against humanity", "brutality" and so on, before, during and after the campaign, including the present day. This strong language is a trademark of every subsequent NATO campaign around the world. Many of the media "horrendous" and "unspeakable" claims were never proved, and many of them were disproved later.
At that time, smaller Yugoslavia and predominantly Serbian people were an instrument of justifying the continuous strong NATO presence in Europe. The NATO campaign lasted that long since its failure would put a question mark on the possibility of any similar future interventions around the globe as well. It had to end by some form of success literally by all means.
In that sense this article, and any similar articles will remain biased with strong possibility of actually justifying NATO actions at that time as "necessary" and "unavoidable".
For this reason this article, willingly or not, is part of the same media instrument that was used during the campaign, as it is, obviously, even today.
Aperisic ( talk) 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion, since that was the question, is to remove the article all together.
Aperisic ( talk) 09:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]"
The above passage from the article presents a clear anti-Western bias. Not only does it contradict the rest of the article regarding civilian casualties that resulted from the bombings, but its source is suspect. First, it is well know that the Russian Times is mouthpiece of the Russian government. Second, the news article was published in March 2014. Considering the events in Ukraine and the anti-western rhetoric of the Russian government, the integrity of this source is clearly compromised.
108.28.70.18 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In a recent (May 7, 2014) Czech parliament debate the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg (now in opposition) was labeled as supporter of bombing of Serbia. He denied this and said:
Já jsem nikdy nepodporoval bombardování Srbska. Naopak, to si dobře pamatuju, těsně předtím, než to začalo, bylo zasedání Trilateral Commission ve Washingtonu a tehdy byli tři, bohužel pouze tři přítomní, kteří se postavili proti plánu zahájit bombardování Srbska. To byl, budete se divit, Henry Kissinger, byl to nynější ministr zahraničí Království švédského Carl Bildt a potom jsem byl já v té diskusi. Je něco jiného, když ta válka proběhla a Srbsko ztratilo nadvládu nad Kosovem a nebyla nejmenší naděje možnosti, že by ji získalo zpátky, že jsem uznal Kosovo jako nezávislou zem. Ale bombardování Srbska jsem opravdu nepodpořil.
(public debate in Czech parliament, recorded on its website
[1]).
My literal translation from Czech language:
"I never supported bombing of Serbia. Just the opposite, I remember the events well, it was just before the bombing started, there was meeting of Trilateral Commission in Washington and unfortunately only three people present there were against the plan to start the bombing. They were, you will be suprised, Henry Kissinger, then Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt and me. Something else is that the war started and Serbia lost their control over Kosovo and there was no chance to get it back, then I [as the Minister of Foreign Affairs] recognized Kosovo as independent country. But I didn't support bombing of Serbia."
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Total = 1008. From NATO attacks = 271 killed (249 soldiers and 22 policemen). Rest lost lifes in direct combat with Albanian terrorists (KLA) or other couses. Official statistics are source (not newspappers as it is in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.24.195 ( talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The air combat section of the article could use some attention. There are conficting accounts on which aircraft were destroyed and by whom. The source used for the most of the information found in the section is an article called Yugoslav and Serbian MiG-29's featured on the website Acig.org. The article contradicts itself in its account of who was shot down and by whom. I wonder how reliable this article is as a source on this subject. There are also several sources that confirm that a dutch f-16 shot down a MiG-29, however in this article editors maintain it only damaged the MiG. I believe this information to be inaccurate considering the multiple sources that confirm the Dutch F-16 shot down a MiG-29: [1] [2] [3]
82.171.161.161 ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
82.171.161.161 ( talk) 10:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The followin section is a direct copy of a newssite which cannot be seen as a verifiable neutral source (rt.com): In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]
Requested change: In the course of the campaign, over 23,000 air munitions (rockets and bombs) were fired in 9300 strikes. Among the weapons used were cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs, which were controversial but not prohibited at this time. Strikes were aimed at armed forces, military positions and installations and infrastructure [1]. Civilian radio and television headquarters, usually residing in densily populated areas, were also targeted leading to a high civilan death toll. The same can be said for bridges used by civilian transport that were attacked in daytime. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of civilian casualties lies around 500, but other sources claim numbers varying from 1000 up to 5000 casualties[2]. [4] [5]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
13:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Unfortunately, each time I try to remove serious neutrality problems, Anastan comes and puts them back. Anastan, could you give us a good reason why the lede should harp on about RT's favourite distraction-points but cannot ever mention why the bombing happened? You know that the bombing was a response to Serb atrocities in Kosovo. I know it. Reliable sources know it. Why do you block any mention of it? Anastan, if you are unable to comply with core wikipedia policies, please step aside and stop reverting others. bobrayner ( talk) 00:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
it was the first time that this military organisation used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.
The sentence "Nato launched fresh strikes against Serb forces tonight, amid fears of a renewed wave of ethnic cleansing atrocities in Kosovo." is bad. We don't know what were NATO's intentions with attacking Yugoslavia. Maybe they did it to help Albanians, maybe they were there to oust Milosevic and end Yugoslavia, or maybe to ignite another crisis point in the Balkans, or they just wanted to make room for their new bombs, drop old and obsolete ones and in the end have more budgeting for the military because otherwise NATO's spendings were useless which is the most likely scenario. The reasons behind the so called operation could be anything. The source doesn't clearly explain them and it's either because they didn't have a clue or they were part of the problem. Or it could be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.62.140.137 ( talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.89.105 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.248.6 ( talk)
It isn't properly referenced, that's the problem. The sentence says nothing about why did NATO attack Yugoslavia. Amid fears is not because of fears. And whose fears were those, mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.68.215 ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Western editors, may think that the article is not neutral enough for them, but the reason why is because they know only the Western point of view and they think as reliable sources only the Western ones. There is also another point of view, that of the Serbian, Russian and other pro-Serbian side, and that needs to be acknowledged equally in order for the article to be neutral. When stating reasons for action, according to, is a correct term, because it is always according to, it is never a global opinion. In addition, facts, figures, war crimes, e.t.c need to be added in a real proportional way, in order for the article to be accurate. I hope I have helped slightly in your discussions. Take careRon1978 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Anastan, why are you collaborating with a sockpuppet? The stories about depleted uranium are very much WP:FRINGE. bobrayner ( talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
According to Interior Minister Nebojša Stefanović, 167 police officers lost their lives.-- Zoupan 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The current citations for Yugoslav materiel losses are kind of a mess.
Is there something I'm missing here?-- Nihlus1 ( talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Nihlus1 this revert: [3], for which you give this edit reason EVERY number in that box is an estimate. No need to give this special attention. That 3.8 billion figure (also from G 17) only talks about direct damage, while G 17's 29.6 b includes indirect economic damage. Human capital, loss of GDP, etc. … Yes other 'estimates' also give the source of the estimator. One of your sources, the BBC is specifically saying these are Yugoslav Govt figures given during time of war, it is falsifying the figures to represent them as 'objective' since it simply would not have been possible to know in the middle of the war, but I left them. It is equally false to exclude another legitimate (Dinkic) estimate, but say from-to.
If the figures cannot be represented with the full picture of who said it, given in words, then they should not be in the info-box AT ALL. Info in the info box should ALWAYS be in the text and if it is too complex to reduce to numbers, they should not be in the info box at all. Tomorrow I shall do what I am suggesting, put all three figures (with explanatory text), in a new section in the body of the article, and either nothing, or the full range of figures in the infobox. Pincrete ( talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has more text on rebuttals of criticisms than it does on the actual criticisms themselves. In particular the authors gloss over the fact that a UNSC resolution authorising the bombing was not obtained and therefore many consider the operation to have been illegal. Therefore as it stands the section inadequately covers the subject it refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Especially as it relates to Yugoslav military losses. Current article favors heavy Serbian propaganda and flawed reporting by Newsweek. The RAND Corporation is a rather objective think tank, frequently critical of U.S. policy. Excuse the Megaupload, I couldn't find an easy way to convert a Word file. https://mega.nz/#!84ogXKTJ!93NWyc40kDH2xc-s93135H3djMRSbzRsGod7kZtKgl8 Matt714 ( talk) 09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete Especially as it relates to Serb tank/apc/artillery losses. The current article accepts the Serb claim at face value, moreso with a flimsy source. NATO claims are subject to transparency since the West has a free press. It's mostly on page 3. I'l try updating the page myself later when I have time. Matt714 ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Air combat section seems to contain a lot of supposition and at times is more like a 'Boys' Own' adventure story than an informative article. Pincrete ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
BowlAndSpoon re. the Talbott (reported by Chomsky), the quote you supplied says 'It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war'. There is no mention here of 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. Nor is there in the Chomsky interview (though he says some much stronger things).
Immediately preceding your/Chomsky's quote is 'As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course.' This DOES mention reform of economies, but it is a leap of logic to go from 'reforming an economy' (ie moving away from centrally-planned Marxist economies) to 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. It is also clear that Talbott's emphasis is at least equally on 'mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society', and other 'political' considerations, to which he devotes much more space therafter.
The much longer quote supplied by DeLong emphasises 'political', the opening words are 'For Western powers, the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region' ... later … 'NATO went to war in Kosovo because its political and diplomatic leaders had enough of Milosevic and saw his actions disrupting plans to bring a wider stable of nations into the transatlantic community' … and … 'Fischer observed that he had originally resisted military action, but that his views had changed, "step by step, from mass murder to mass murder". Talbott also makes the point that most of the European NATO powers, were not 'hawkish' and 'were proponents of "third way" politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments'.
I don't doubt that Chomsky said these things and believed his case, nor that Talbott said the (brief) quote you give. The problem is to not imply that Talbott said things which are Chomsky's interpretation of Talbott's words, based on the two words 'economic reform' only, which Talbott claims other nations in the region sought. Pincrete ( talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
>The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians
Было убито около 2000 человек, в их числе - маленькие дети. По всей Сербии печально известна Милица Ракич (Milica Rakic)- шестилетняя девочка, которую убило осколком кассетной бомбы. А из-за того, что бомбы содержали обеднённый уран, сейчас в Сербии невероятный рост раковых заболеваний. 37.194.189.130 ( talk) 07:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Basilissa, the same age as "Merciful Angel".
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ekograf, I'm not sure what happened here, but the removal was accidental as part of another edit. HOWEVER, I wonder how useful either side's claim of 'victory' is. Neither NATO nor Milosevic are exactly known for admitting negative truths and in modern warfare, outright 'victory' is rare. Would it more useful to express 'result' solely as tangible (political?) outcomes, ie remove both claims ? Pincrete ( talk) 09:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Under subheadings "Yugoslav operations" the text reads:
Many accounts from both Serbs and Albanians identified Yugoslav security forces and paramilitaries as the culprits, responsible for systematically emptying towns and villages of their Albanian inhabitants by forcing them to flee. [5]
Unfortunately the reference does not support the claim. In the reference the german reporter Franz Josef Hutsch, during his testimony at Milošević trial, stated:
[...]several Albanian villages in the area between Orahovac and Suva Reka that were evacuated on KLA orders. [...] there were Albanian villages that were emptied after they were attacked by Serb security forces; according to him, "there was a mixed picture."
I would suggest to modify the paragraph to reflect the testimony or find additional sources to support the claims.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aeronautics.ru/official/losthelicopters.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
User:91.148.93.34, re this and this. That's not how it works. If other editors disagree with your edits to an article, we stay with the long term version until you are able to establish a concensus for your edit. You need to come to this talk page FIRST, not edit war, until you've gotten your way. The summarised version has been in place for AT LEAST the last 6 months, which means it stays until you have achieved agreement for your changes. You are also reminded that special rules apply to this article and sanctions against any editor who is edit-warring can be applied at the discretion of an admin and without further warning, see head of this page. I amm therefore reverting to the long term stable version until there is agreement on change. Pincrete ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I cannot see how it is NPOV to imply that Kosovo IS currently part of Serbia. Pakistan was once part of India, Bangla Desh was once part of Pakistan, Ireland was once part of Gr Britain, we would not in any of these cases use wording that implied that any of them still were part of the larger units currently. I cannot see how it is NPOV, though would welcome a form of words that avoided the problem. Pincrete ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein claimed Iraq won the Gulf War. That was his opinion, yet the Gulf War article does not hold back in calling it what it was - namely, a coalition victory. How come Milošević's victory claim is taken more seriously than Saddam's, even though the Kosovo War directly cost Milošević his presidency (a consequence not even Saddam Hussein suffered)? It seems odd to doubt this was a NATO victory when NATO achieved its objectives and Miloševic not only lost control of Kosovo, but also his political career. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This article has unbeliveable anti-Serbian bias. Even our civilian victims are denied, by picking one sided HRW as only source. I tried to remedy this a bit, but it is unbeliveable how some pro-NATO anti Serbian editors have taken ownership of this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.141.53 ( talk) 13:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia call NATO forces "Allied Forces" if it has a neutral point of view, and the enemies of NATO are not "allied" with them? German Gamer 77 21:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Here. Hope you're happy. German Gamer 77 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Calm down, calm down. It's just that Wikipedia is neutral and not "allied" with NATO, just made in the USA, and I thought calling it "allied" was a little weird. ` German Gamer 77 21:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to revert page back to changes made by MateoKatanaCRO 14:12, 19 February 2018. PR5634 ( talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
cite the claim " with, the tenth page of this and add quote "It is NATO’s view that the Yugoslav military must be hit so hard that its capacity to continue the present offensive will be greatly reduced and further humanitarian misery prevented."-- Jozias van Aartsen or quote "The targets of the air raids are military targets: anti- aircraft defences, command centres, means of communication and military installations."-- Frank de Grave 67.242.19.37 ( talk) 11:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete I don't know if it is lede-worthy. Yes it looks a bit out of place but I just couldn't find anywhere on the article to insert the details. Every section appears to have its own heading and its own specifics. I did say my edit may be tweaked and amended but it was done at another editor's request who is unable to edit the page. I have to be fair here. On reflection, yes "said" is better than "quoted" but I thought it all had the same effect. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Can Russian Volunteers be put into the FR Yugoslav side of the combatants section since there are sources confirming they were there to oppose NATO. 142.197.9.91 ( talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[Bremen-class frigate|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and
To:
The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[German frigate Rheinland-Pfalz (F209)|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and
as the ship now has its own article, and a link to the class page is no longer necessary. 82.39.49.182 ( talk) 11:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Name of operation "Allied Force" should be article name, "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" is a description. It should be immmidiately stated it was without declaration of war or UN approval.
More should be drawn from obvious illegitemacy /info/en/?search=Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
Should include: - Strike without declaration of war or UN approval equaling it to alliance terrorism (later to be seen elsewhere) - Germnny intervening outside Germany (against German constitution and after WWII restrictions) - NATO changing from defensive to agressive alliance - A cause of attack "Operation Horseshoue" is proven hoax, so stated goals are imaginary since they come from wrong premise
These are 3 key components.
Also, well documented history of war crimes and use of forbidden arms
has a nice Wikipedia article.
/info/en/?search=Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force
Rastavox ( talk) 07:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This has sat harmlessly for fully ten years ( [6]). The source was placed even earlier (I'm not diving that far back). Editors must be given an opportunity to provide sources that Farah has made this claim. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Since the subject is notable, you'll have a hard time proving he isn't and so his stand should not matter."I agree that Farah himself is notable, however notability has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. We don't include or exclude a viewpoint based on the notability of the people holding that viewpoint. – dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think there should be changes made to this section:
"There has also been criticism of the campaign. The Clinton administration was accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbs.[144] In an interview with Radio-Television Serbia journalist Danilo Mandic on April 25, 2006, Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo that "the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians", but rather "It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated".[145] On May 31, 2006, Brad DeLong rebutted Chomsky's allegation and quoted from elsewhere in the passage which Chomsky had cited,[146] "the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region" and also that "Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of 'third way' politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."[146][147]
The rebuttal of Chomsky by Brad DeLong is from a self-published blog (albeit from a university professor), that makes what I think is an error - perhaps from using a transcript of a spoken interview - in saying that Chomsky claims that John Norris makes the claim, when Chomsky, I think, says it was Talbott. The foreward in question (as quoted by DeLong - and I believe it's the foreward from the page number style) does indeed say a lot more than Chomsky says, but certainly includes the passage: "it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war."
There's an argument to be had, no doubt, but perhaps Talbott's (or Norris's views) should be included in the "support for the campaign" section first-hand from that book (if anyone has read it or has a copy to reference), and if Chomsky's criticisms should be included - should they? - is there not a better source for them than a single television interview (where it's not 100% clear - as evidenced above - what he's saying)?
Thank you.
WattStreetWhiteStreet ( talk) 10:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thank you. I see I'm not raising much new then. It seems out of place to me to include DeLong's comments and the Chomsky interview, when Chomsky has written a long article on the intervention and even whole book - neither of which, but of bloody course(!), I've yet read in full. Norris and Talbott's views are of course very notable, but perhaps should be incorporated where they fit elsewhere in the article - again, uselessly, I haven't read the book! (I need to go to the library I see.)
I'm not yet a good enough or trusted enough editor to make changes, but - if I were allowed to - I would remove the whole lot and include something about the article and the book. Criticism of Chomsky's views - which includes substantial stuff from lots of sources, including Christopher Hitchens and George Monbiot I believe as well as Prof DeLong - on Serbia/Kosovo might belong somewhere else? I notice that there's not a section on this in Chomsky's "Political views of..." page for example, whereas there seems quite enough material. WattStreetWhiteStreet ( talk) 14:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
YEAR АLB. SERBS ОTHERS
1455[2] 1 % 98 % 1 % 1871 32 % 64 % 4 % 1899 48 % 44 % 8 % 1921 66 % 26 % 8 % 1931 69 % ?? % ? % 1939 60 % 34 % 5 % 1948 68 % 27 % 5 % 1953 65 % 27 % 6 % 1961 67 % 27 % 6 % 1971 74 % 21 % 5 % 1981 77 % 15 % 8 % 1991 82 % 11 % 7 % 20002 88 % 7 % 5 % 20072 92 % 5 % 3 %
SOURCE - WORLD'S STATISTIQUE BANK(2000), OSCE (2005)
It means, war was started on faked data and informations. Just like Iraq war, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.46.15 ( talk) 07:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nato victory? Really? Fuck You! 178.120.126.207 ( talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I have had a look on the NATO FORCES / Aviation part of the article, and as it is an air military campaign, I would suggest to describe in more factual and details the Nato order of battle. I would suggest too to make a link between the country forces involved and the level of commitmment of the Nato countries to this operation. As the desciption of the involved forces are a little bit unstructured, I would suggest an overall view of the air forces, with a breakdown by country and/or by role of aircaft (CAS, Air superiority, C3I, refueling, etc...). The book "Air Warfare in the Missile Age" , from Lon O. Nordeen, ISBN-13 : 978-1588342829, seem to be a fair source about this subject.
Regards
BihacVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)