Talk:Kosovo War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:33, 19 March 2014 edit109.93.20.242 (talk) Undid revision 600229880 by Bobrayner (talk)don't insult me! don't revert! be nice, be polite.← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:27, 19 March 2014 edit undoIJA (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,321 edits Undid revision 600278039 by 109.93.20.242 (talk) Not a Forum!Next edit →
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:::::::With your fallacious "false edit" ] you continued with disruption here. That is not the first time you write this kind of comments to me and by doing that you made editing of many articles including this article unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. That is why this will my last comment in this talk page. All the best! --] (]) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)		:::::::With your fallacious "false edit" ] you continued with disruption here. That is not the first time you write this kind of comments to me and by doing that you made editing of many articles including this article unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. That is why this will my last comment in this talk page. All the best! --] (]) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::<s>"which quotes Serb forces directly", that's the funniest one I've ever heard! So morale is down across the outfit due to the feelings of a handful of carefully selected unenthusiastic individuals. --] (]) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)</s><small>Striking out sockpuppets. ] (]) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)</s>		:::::::::::<s>"which quotes Serb forces directly", that's the funniest one I've ever heard! So morale is down across the outfit due to the feelings of a handful of carefully selected unenthusiastic individuals. --] (]) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)</s><small>Striking out sockpuppets. ] (]) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)</s>


	How about adding a source from the other side, not just western writers:
	''It has to be made clear that during the Kosovo War the NATO did not achieve a military victory as it failed to destroy the army of the FRY and the soldiers’ morale.''

	Or maybe another enemy opinion:
	''The NATO campaign is showing significant progress and results in crippling Yugoslav military mobility and eroding morale. Two important signs of sinking morale, he said, are reports of desertions from combat units in Kosovo and a growing effort by young Yugoslavs to evade reserve call-ups.''

	But then another contradictory one:
	''By early May, Nato was claiming that its aircraft had destroyed more than 200 tanks and had cut off Serb forces in Kosovo from their supply bases. It portrayed a Serb army whose morale was crumbling from mounting casualties, shortages of food and fuel and lack of sleep, as it dispersed into smaller and weaker units to escape the relentless bombing.
	After conceding that the initial war aims - which were to avert a human disaster, as George Robertson, then defence secretary, put it - had failed, Nato claimed it was progressively destroying the Albanians' tormentors.
	Yet when the western media saw the Serb military withdraw from Kosovo in early June, they saw convoys of Serb tanks, armoured cars, guns, trucks and military equipment untouched by Nato's air assault.
	Nato's bombing campaign, with thousand of sorties and the dropping of tens of thousands of bombs, including sophisticated precision weapons, succeeded in damaging just 13 of the Serbs' 300 battle tanks in Kosovo. ''

	If you really want NPOV, then you'll place few more.. otherwise remove the cherry picked one. ] (]) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

	== Labelling the KLA ==		== Labelling the KLA ==

Revision as of 11:27, 19 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Serbia High‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Kosovo High‑importance

	Kosovo War is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albania High‑importance

	Kosovo War is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

russian intervention

i wrote up a section on the pristina airport incident, i used a BBC article to source the data

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

but didn't include it in the references as i'm a lousy editor, feel free to include that

gosh i'm not trying to start a fight here, i just thought i should add that part.

Main picture controversial

In infobox, you use a picture of a memorial to fallen Albanian guerilla terrorist fighters? This article is very visiual for its "one sided - role" instead of neutrality. Why dont you also put a picture of a memorial to fallen Chechens on Chechnia war article, and pictures of a memorial to fallen Tallibani forces in Afghanistan war? I propose to you that you remove that picture immediately...

Agree. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.233.41 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Very POV

~~"Morale~~

~~Morale was a serious problem for Serb forces; intelligence surveys found that many soldiers disagreed with their comrades' actions. One tank commander reported:~~

For the entire time I was in Kosovo, I never saw an enemy soldier and my unit was never once involved in firing at enemy targets. The tanks which cost $2.5 million each were used to slaughter Albanian children... I am ashamed."

This entry is very POV, it is not cyclopedic, and it explains the morale solely on one witness, there were many who did not complain, on the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.229.116 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that it doesn't merit an entire section and that a page number isn't provided to the source it's cited with. 23 editor (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What does "very POV" mean? I recognise, of course, that it's not compatible with your POV. It is, however, based on a reliable source. If you're concerned about undue weight then I will happily develop more content based on this and other sources. It would be a shame to have such a lengthy article on a war without mentioning morale. By the way, 109.106.229.116, you should log in when you edit. We have enough nationalist sockpuppets already.bobrayner (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"NATO officials ....the apparently strong morale among Serbian troops.... the Serbian force of nearly 47,000 men seemed less demoralized than allied accounts had led people to expect. " link.
Bruce Nardulli; Walter L. Perry; Bruce R. Pirnie (5 June 2002). Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999. Rand Corporation. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-8330-3231-7. Yugoslav units appeared combat effective with high morale {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
And the quick exit of Serb forces showed they were still a fighting force with high morale. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

All of which are specific to the retreat after allied intervention; it is a longstanding tradition on en.wikipedia for Serb nationalists to pretend that the Kosovo war was all about Allied Force, and gloss over trivial detail like ethnic cleansing, widespread brutality &c. Nonetheless, I'm sure we can expand the section. bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bab, if you cannot see the POV you keep protecting, I am truly sorry for you, maybe you should let other objective people edit this article, you are too emotionaly involved. All the best...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.228.14 (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbs have a strong link with Kosovo, so it´s absolute nonsense that morale was even a slight problem for Serb forces... Some people just cannot keep a line of logic here. When necessary, they want to present Serbs as barbarian killing machines of woman and children, but now suddently Serbian forces morale was low? Imagine then if it was high? They would be truth Super Mans then... Anti-Serb editors should really get some better strategy, cause this just looks like they are simply collecting all negative ever written about Serbs, whatever it is, even if contradictory with (their own) story line. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, these "hot" articles should be speacially dealt with extreme care, because our point here should be to make them as neutral as possible for en.wikipedia credibility. Inserting propaganda, as clearly that account on how Serb forces had low morale is, will simply move readers away from the article and make en.wiki loose credibility. Antidiskriminator already found 3 sources claiming the opposite, so the alleged words of one alleged commander don´t really have a place here. FkpCascais (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob, please provide a page for this edit of yours. Also, seems higly pushy to make a one sentence section. FkpCascais (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The page number is not so important. I presented scholarly sources which refute the low morale assertion. Slaughtering of Albanian children with tanks belong to another section which deals with massacres.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not to bothered about FkpCascais. 23 editor complains about the lack of a pagenumber, so Fkpcomplains about the lack of a pagenumber. Zavtek complains about me removing unsourced listcruft elsewhere, so Fkpcascais complains about me removing it too. There aren't any new insights here.

More concerning is that Zavtek removed the content as "badly sourced", even though it's from a reliable source, published by a university press. For content that Zavtek wants to add, the standards of sourcing are far lower - no source is required at all. Isn't that tendentious editing? It seems that some editors just make up any old reason to justify changing content to fit one nationalist perspective. It doesn't matter what the reason is; quite often it's outright false, all that matters is pushing articles in one direction. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the source, it's your deliberate misrepresentation of the source. Naturally if the source mentions "Serb soldiers" then its reliability will not so much come into question as be thrown in the bin since it would contain false information. Zavtek (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Such nationalist rants need not be taken sriously. It's a reliable source on Serb history which explicitly discusses Serb forces. If your personal politics are incompatible with that you have my sympathies, but sooner or later these articles will reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Nationalist rants"? Not sure what you're actually reading but perhaps you can quote the statement that allegedly equates to some 'nationalist rant' and then reveal which is the (un)lucky nation to have this follower rooting for their causes. Meanwhile if we get back to the issue, you used the term 'Serb forces' (ie. police & irregulars) and then started discussing 'soldiers' who in turn formed a part of the national military (VJ). No reliable soure could produce such a blunder, unless of course it isn't reliable. Equation solved. --Zavtek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Equipment of the Serbian Army is irrelevant here. You were explained that it is wrong to give undue weight to what one no name alleged commander said. You were also explained that what you added to the article contradicts to other sources which explain that during the withrawal of Yugoslav forces it became obvious that they had strong morale which contradicted what allied accounts had led people to expect. Please be so kind to stop with personal attacks and flag waving fallacious comments on this talk page by which you attempt to attribute nationalism to other editors. You were already warned more than once because of your disruptions at Kosovo related articles. I politely ask you to please take a better care in future or you might be warned again. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

For me it doesn´t really matter who makes one edit, it is allways the content that matters to me. As you could see Bob, I may agree with others on some edits, and agree with you on others. So I support edits, not editors. Now regarding the edit, that edit is sourced by Judah´s book with no page mentioned to confirm it and it doesn´t certanly deserve a separate section by itself. Also, even if written by Judah in his book from 1997, that edit screams propaganda (written before NATO intervention, some alleged commenader allegedly said... hmmm). Maybe Judah was introduced to someone who claimed to be YA commander and said that so he naively transponded that into his book, but anyway, are there more sources to confirm that? Such a hot issue as it is Kosovo War with so much writen about it and so much to write certainly can´t have one entire section reliying on one sentence from one source. Plus, making no much sense to anyone well familiarised with the issue, and with sources claiming otherwise. FkpCascais (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertion about Yugoslav army using tanks to slaughter Albanian children is exceptional and should be referenced with exceptional sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job we have a reliable source which quotes Serb forces directly, then. However you've removed the content as "misinterpretation". That is false. Did you intentionally use a false edit summary, or did you really believe it? bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

With your fallacious "false edit" loaded question you continued with disruption here. That is not the first time you write this kind of comments to me and by doing that you made editing of many articles including this article unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. That is why this will my last comment in this talk page. All the best! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"which quotes Serb forces directly", that's the funniest one I've ever heard! So morale is down across the outfit due to the feelings of a handful of carefully selected unenthusiastic individuals. --Zavtek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Striking out sockpuppets. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Labelling the KLA

Hi all,
I'm concerned that we've been following a Kremlin-funded news agency's line on a controversial topic, and it just so happens that this line directly contradicts what multiple reliable sources say. Gelbard said that the KLA "had not been classified legally by the U.S. government as a terrorist group", and as far as delisting is concerned (to the extent that you can delist something which wasn't on the list in the first place, again there are reliable sources which directly contradict RT. So, I have removed it. Any comments/suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm concerned that the infobox has grown so large as to be unmanageable. It even includes some things which aren't in the body of the article. Could we trim it down so that it just highlights key points for readers? bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which points did you have in mind? If you are referring to the countless names under "Commanders" then I absolutely agree. 23 editor (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw, since when is Croatia considered a belligerent in the Kosovo War? The BBC article used as a source for this pretty creative interpretation of events merely mentions a seized truck which "came from Croatia" carrying ammunition and uniforms for Kosovo Albanians. Also, do we need to list American aircraft losses by aircraft type and do we really need to list 17 countries under the "NATO" heading? Timbouctou (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all points! bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we should make the list of losses on all sides consise (e.g. tally up the number of NATO aircraft lost instead of listing each aircraft by name) and should remove Croatia from the list of belligerents. Also the location of the conflict should be listed as "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (with minor spillovers in neighbouring countries)". After all, the conflict was not restricted to Kosovo itself—NATO bombed the entire FRY, NATO bombs accidently fell on Bulgarian territory on several occasions, Yugoslav pilots landed in eastern Bosnia after their aircraft were shot down, and towns in Albania were shelled by the Yugoslav army on several occasions. 23 editor (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the mention of three Chinese consular casualties, since they were already covered by the row above. Is that OK? bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories: