Talk:Kosovo War/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

{{subst:trim|


| combatant1 = Kosovo Liberation Army KLA
Mujahideen

{{Collapsible list

A small addition needs to be made. In the combatants table, the Mujahideen flag needs to be added. According to the July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes page, Mujahideen fighters took part in the Kosovo War.

}} TryDeletingMe (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The border incident article does not actually say that "Mujahideen fighters took part in the Kosovo War", so we need RS, preferably with numbers and this needs to go into the text before we would add any flag or text to the info box. The presence on another article of a similar assertion is not sufficient to include here.

BTW, the border incident article seems to be unclear about what it means by "Mujahideen", the usual meaning in the 'Yugoslav' context is fighters from (distant) Islamic countries, mainly Arab ones. The border incident article says:

Serb sources assert that the first mujahideen began arriving in Kosovo in the spring of 1998, mainly from Bosnia and Herzegovina. By that summer, about 240 mujahideen were present in Kosovo and northern Albania. Most of these were ethnic Albanians, but the group also included several dozen Arabs from the Middle East and North Africa.

I'm unclear who are meant by 'mujahideen' if they are ethnic Albanians. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is refered to the ethnic Albanians and Arabs from Middle East and North Africa that fought in Mujahideen units in Bosnian War. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I kind of guessed that, but wonder whether the meaning would be clear to most Eng readers, to whom the term primarily refers to Afghanistan, and more recently to foreign Muslim fighters in other conflicts. Pincrete (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

International Responses

For anyone interested in adding more detail to the section on international responses to the conflict, an article from the Washington Institute on the Iranian reaction is available here. It might be best summed up as follows:

'Following the initial Serb moves against Kosovo in 1998, the Iranian press called for cooperation with the West in order to safeguard the rights of Kosovar Muslims. However, by the time of the Rambouillet Conference a year later, official Iranian media claimed that the situation had to be solved by the UN, and preemptively condemned NATO intervention. Once airstrikes against Serbia started, these were described by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as part a plot which sought ‘annihilation of the Muslims in Europe’.'

The Iraqi response to the conflict is also shown in a BBC article here, which quotes the Iraqi description of NATO intervention as 'brutal aggression'.

Furthermore, the attribution of the 'humanitarian bombing' quote to Václav Havel in the Czech response section is one which the Wikipedia article on the subject suggests is erroneous. The articles used to prove this on the page are unfortunately in Czech - but perhaps someone might be able to clear up this internal discrepancy?

An article by Nicholas Rees in the journal Irish Studies in International Affairs also describes Ireland's reaction to NATO intervention. On page 67, he mentions that polls showed the Irish public to be split on the issue - with 46% supporting and 42% opposing the bombings. Michael Smith, at the time Ireland's Minister of Defence, is also quoted as saying that the Kosovar conflict was 'totally outside of our control' - indicating that the Irish government neither supported nor condemned the intervention.

Finally, if the countries are to be listed in alphabetical order - might it be possible for someone to place the Czech Republic and Bulgaria in their appropriate positions?

Lets not forget the Turks response too of both society (strong support) and the kemalist government who wavered at first and then went with the Turkish populations sentiment. There is a fair amount of info out there on that too.Resnjari (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the Havel claim, since although he was in favour of intervention, it seems he didn't use that phrase. I wonder if it would be better to move the whole 'reactions' section to the bombing article, since these are all reactions to intervention, not to the war itself, and keep here only a sentence or two. It might be a good idea to have Europe non-alphabetical (involved countries, then non-involved), but present order appears random I agree. 'Reactions' are inevitably summaries of official and public positions, but agree, other countries could be added.Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that whilst many countries' responses are still missing, including some NATO and 'local' countries, the article is currently 185Kb long, which is double the recommended maximum length. Moving the responses to the 'NATO bombing' article also isn't an option, since that is also overlong.
Time for a 'split-out' of this section and most of the content relating to the bombing? Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Kosovo War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The article falsely represents Rambouillet Treaty Appendix B as being insignificant, when it was the war-forcing device.

"Although the Yugoslav government cited military provisions of Appendix B of the Rambouillet provisions as the reason for its objections, claiming that it was an unacceptable violation of Yugoslavia's sovereignty, these provisions were essentially the same as had been applied to Bosnia for the SFOR (Stabilisation Force) mission there after the Dayton Agreement in 1995."

... and it cites the British Parliament's (Blair government's) The Kosovo Crisis after 1997, which was never of course going to be an objective, honest source.

This is utterly false and was a proven-false argument at the time to try to cover up how Appendix B forced the war on the Serbs. This *should* read:

"The Yugoslav government correctly read the Rambouillet Treaty's Appendix B's unrestricting occupation provisions as applying to all Yugoslavia and amounting to an unconditional occupation - surrender - of Serbia as well. This was verified by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in his 31 May 1999 Newsweek magazine article 'New World Disorder,' wherein he described Rambouillet being 'not a negotiation--as is often claimed--but an ultimatum.'"

Sources:

Already in External Links is my 14May99 H-Diplo posting in American academia, whistle-blowing Appendix B. Here are pertinent excerpts of the discussion which followed:

From: Peter Winters <winters@patrol.i-way.co.uk> List Editor: H-DIPLO--Marcsisin <hdiplo@YorkU.CA> Editor's Subject: Rambouillet Treaty Appendix B [Winters] Author's Subject: Rambouillet Treaty Appendix B [Winters] Date Written: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:08:38 -0400 Date Posted: Wed, 25 May 1999 16:08:38 -0400

Eduard Mark insists that Appendix B to the Ramboulliet Agreement is "an absolutely conventional statement of rights of transit. .. a similar (to the) statement present in the Dayton Agreement."

Jamie Shea at the 26/4/99 Nato briefing also suggested that Appendix B was copied from Dayton.

However : Article VI : 9a of Dayton reads: .... Air and surface movements in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be governed by the following provisions: The IFOR shall have complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. It shall have the right to bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilize any areas or facilities to carry out its responsibilities as required for its support, training, and operations, with such advance notice as may be practicable. The IFOR and its personnel shall not be liable for any damages to civilian or government property caused by combat or combat related activities. Roadblocks, checkpoints or other impediments to IFOR freedom of movement shall constitute a breach of this Annex and the violating Party shall be subject to military action by the IFOR, including the use of necessary force to ensure compliance with this Annex.

This is not as strong as the Rambouillet Treaty Appendix B and, more importantly, it only covers Bosnia and Herzegovina and not the FRY. Maybe I have missed a section but I would be grateful if somebody would point out that part of Dayton which gives IFOR the same rights over the FRY as Rambouillet Appendix B aspired to. Peter Winters


From: colin s. cavell <cscpo@polsci.umass.edu> List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Labrosse]" <hdiplo@YorkU.CA> Editor's Subject: The Rambouillet Diktat [Cavell] Author's Subject: The Rambouillet Diktat [Cavell] Date Written: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:23:01 -0400 Date Posted: Sat, 28 May 1999 23:23:01 -0400

In his "New World Disorder" article in Newsweek magazine, International Edition, issue of May 31, 1999, none other than U.S. veteran diplomat Henry Kissinger clarifies the truth about the Rambouillet diktat which so many on the H-Diplo list have tried, but failed, to say it doesn't say what it does say. States Kissinger: "Rambouillet was not a negotiation--as is often claimed--but an ultimatum. This marked an astounding departure for an administration that had entered office proclaiming its devotion to the U.N. Charter and multilateral procedures. The transformation of the Alliance from a defensive military grouping into an institution prepared to impose its values by force occurred in the same months that three former Soviet satellites joined NATO. It undercut repeated American and allied assurances that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion, since the Alliance's own treaty proclaimed it to be a purely defensive institution." Colin S. Cavell University of Massachusetts Department of Political Science


From: A. Tom Grunfeld <tgrunfeld@sescva.esc.edu> List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Labrosse]" <hdiplo@YorkU.CA> Editor's Subject: Appendix B [Grunfeld] Author's Subject: Appendix B [Grunfeld] Date Written: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:42:57 -0400 Date Posted: Wed, 08 Jun 1999 16:42:57 -0400

Several weeks ago there was some discussion about the meaning of Appendix B of the Rambouillet "agreeement." The split, as I remember it, was one group arguing that it made a peaceful solution to Kosovo impossible while others argued that the language was almost boiler plate and nothing which should make the Serbs anxious.

So it was with some interest that I read Steven Erlanger in the NYTimes, (June 5th , p.A5) citing "senior Yugolsav officials," reporting that 

       "...the key part of the [the current] proposal that made it acceptible

to Belgrade, the officials said, was the limitaion on the movement of the international forces...under a United Nations flag, to Kosovo itself. 

       "Under the annex of the Ramouillet accord, a purely NATO force was to

be given full permission to go anywhere in Yugoslavia, immune from any legal process." Over the weekend I caught a former Information Minister of the FRY saying the very same thing on CNN. A. Tom Grunfeld SUNY/Empire State College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou Coatney (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosovo War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing equipment

In the section weaponry and vehicles used you missed the CF-18 Hornet flown by the RCAF under the auspices of Operation Allied Force where it "conducted 10 per cent of all strikes, including 558 bombing missions." Here is a reference/history of Canada's CF-18 Hornets. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Start of war

Cordless Larry,Baba Mica I'm copying this discussion here, so that other page watchers can join in.Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Kosovo war began on February 28th, 1998, when the first large KLA clash (under the command of Adem Jashari) and the Yugoslav police near the village of Drenica occurred. Albanians celebrate February 28th as the beginning of the uprising in Kosovo. Then, the Serbian police started the same day offensive against the village of Donji Prekaz and surrounded the house of Adem Jashari where violent clashes took place from March 3rd to 6th. By March 5, negotiations were tried, but the Albanians refused to surrender and opened fire on the police in an attempt to break the siege. The police opened fire and settled the house with the land and killed the whole family.--Baba Mica (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to cite reliable sources for this, Baba Mica, not Pinterest. I've had a look for sources for both dates and they are sparse, so we should probably discuss this on the article's talk page. Pinging Pincrete for input. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Kosovo war began on February 28th, 1998, when the first large KLA clash (under the command of Adem Jashari) and the Yugoslav police near the village of Drenica occurred. Albanians celebrate February 28th as the beginning of the uprising in Kosovo. Then, the Serbian police started the same day offensive against the village of Donji Prekaz and surrounded the house of Adem Jashari where violent clashes took place from March 3rd to 6th. By March 5, negotiations were tried, but the Albanians refused to surrender and opened fire on the police in an attempt to break the siege. The police opened fire and settled the house with the land and killed the whole family.--Baba Mica (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kosovo_War --Baba Mica (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I know more details.--Baba Mica (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article can't be a source for a Wikipedia article, and nor can your personal knowledge, Baba Mica. Please see WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

February 28 is the last day of February. Of course the next day is March 1. The February 28th event in the village of Donje Likošane was the first major armed conflict in Kosovo and Metohija since the end of the Second World War. As always, firing machine guns began, and the epilogue was a mortar fire. In addition to all this, I take into account that that day Slobodan Milosevic ordered an anti-terrorist operation that was not far from the military offensive. On February 28, for the first time, the first frontal clashes between the UCK and the Serbian gendarmerie occurred. The offensive to Donji Prekaz village was using artillery for the first time in the Kosovo war. Therefore, as the optimal date for the commencement of the entire war, I take February 28, 1998. Ramush Haradinaj in his memoirs mentioned that the KLA units were preparing for an armed rebellion on March 1st, in large proportions, in January 1998. But the day before Adem Jashari and his group suddenly faced a police patrol sent to arrest him for a number of diversions and partisan attacks from 1995/1996. Of course, it did not come to his mind to surrender without a fight and there was a clash with the most dead Serbian policemen until then. Serbia launched a total frontal offensive against the Jashari group and joined the army. After a three-day exchange of fire in the village of Donji Prekaz, the Serb security forces entered Donji Prekaz and surrounded Jashari who refused to surrender and fight until the death of March 6th.--Baba Mica (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Ask the Albanians (members of the KLA) and former members of the Serbian police. I will find. I am from the Balkans and I know both Albanians and Serbs. I was a witness.--Baba Mica (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I realise that there was violence in February, but that does not necessarily mean that is when the war is widely considered to have started. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Here, the Americans are the most reliable source: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/kosovo98/timeline.shtml --Baba Mica (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That timeline doesn't give a clear start date to the conflict. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that that hrw is ambiguous, would text explaining the 'escalating situation' work? Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, yes. I have looked for sources and there are very few clearly stating "The Kosovo War started on [date]" or something similar (that includes the source presently being cited for 5 March). I think we should perhaps avoid giving a specific date and instead use "February/March" in the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That was what a quick look at the sources led me to conclude, I removed hrw, only for 'speed', but it itself supports an 'escalating tensions' scenarion. Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I have found some reliable sources (one of which states 28 February and another gives a more vague February start date), so I have modified the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from user talk

What is a stable version? What are you talking about? And Larry agreed with me, and You're doing something here. I left those four sources, and you are returning an old and not reliable source. Albanians celebrate February 28 as the day of the uprising against the Serbian authorities because on that day began organized attacks under the command of Adem Jashari. The United States has reliable sources because it has controlled the entire situation on the ground from the very beginning. A major conflict between Albanians and the Serbian gendarmerie broke out on February 28, 1998, when groups under the command of Adem Jashari attacked the police patrol in Donji Likosan, in order to confiscate the area of ethnic Albanians from the Serbian police. After great losses, the Serbian authorities and Slobodan Milosevic as the supreme military commander launched the same day the army and paramilitary formations and organized an offensive against the ethnic Albanian village Donji Prekaz. This village is the birthplace of Adem Jashari, who with his smaller group led guerrilla fighting with far more numerous police, military and paramilitary formations. On March 3rd, the Serb forces pushed Jashari's well-armed group down to his house leaving ruins in mortar fire. Serbian authorities gave Jashari to surrender in 48 hours together with family members. Jashari refused and decided on March 5th to launch a counter attack when the Serbian deadline for the surrender expired. He tried to break through the blockade, but Serb forces used artillery and rocket launchers. On the morning of March 6, 1998, Jashari's house was compared to the land, and Adem Jashari and 45 family members and wider relatives were killed. So it was not rebellion that caused the death of Jashari, but Adem Jashari rebelled in order to force the Serbian authorities to release from the prison of Albanian political prisoners. Here is a Serb policeman to whom the Albanian rebels intercepted a patrol in the village of Likosane on February 28, 1998, who survived the wounding of several bullets.

Montenegrin source of information:

http://www.nezavisne.com/novosti/ex-yu/Zandarm-pogodjen-sa-7-metaka-na-Kosovu-docekao-penziju/357725--Baba Mica (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

American sources:

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/kosovo98/timeline.shtml

A far more reliable source than Larry.--Baba Mica (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Baba Mica One of the sources you used previously is in fact a 'mirror' of WP, though you presented it as being PBS. The hrw confirms that a 'start date' is unclear, but it doesn't confirm a 28 Feb start. However the proper place for this discussion is the article talk, please continue the discussion there. Larry and I are already of the opinion that an 'open-ended' text might be appropriate (ie late Feb early March). Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Please also take care not to do things like this when editing, Baba Mica. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Albanian Rebellion Day in Kosovo

Albanians mark February 28 as the day of the rebellion against the alleged occupier. Serbian authorities admit that Albanian action broke out on February 28th. On the same day, the Serbian government launched a general offensive. Here are Albanian sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxbQbamH2dg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu3Q0CHFnhQ

Here's the Serbian data:

http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/01_kse1_02_tck.pdf

http://www.epokaere.com/sq/Opinione/Nga-kujtesa-e-dit%C3%ABs-28-shkurt-1998

Serbian Raid against Drenica, February to March

On 28 February, a battle-like clash between UÇK fighters on the one side and heavily armed SAJ, JNPJ and PJM units on the other, equipped with 20 helicopter gunships and 30 armoured personnel carriers, took place near the Drenica village of Likoshan (Likošan). The incident was triggered off by the killing of four Serbian policemen in an UÇK ambush. During the next three days, more than 16 Albanian guerrillas were killed..--Baba Mica (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What we need is sources that clearly state when the war started, Baba Mica, not details of events that you think signalled the start of the war. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I sent you everything and chewed it. The Albanians and the Serbian government also claim. The Americans and the International Community argue the same. Only two of you are rebelling and looking for hairs in your egg. I will no longer deal with this topic. You got me on your head. If you do not understand now, there will have to be some better and younger generation of Wikipedians. It was enough for me, and I have more data. No more power.

I sent you everything and chewed it. The Albanians and the Serbian government also claim. The Americans and the International Community argue the same. Only two of you are rebelling and looking for hairs in your egg. I will no longer deal with this topic. You got me on your head. If you do not understand now, there will have to be some better and younger generation of Wikipedians. It was enough for me, and I have more data. No more power.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's your sources and do what you want. I do not care:

http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/01_kse1_02_tck.pdf--Baba Mica (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You will do it. I am not interested in this article even 1/100. Goodbye.--Baba Mica (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kosovo War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

SAS man killed

USER:Hrvoje1389, IMO there is not a bat-in-hell's chance of this edit passing any WP vetting by other editors, WP:RSN, or wherever. A single unnamed KLA commander, in a single news source, not supported by any subsequent 'book' studies, is not WP:RS for this claim - certainly not in WP voice. "Quoted commander who was actually there, seems reliable", is pretty silly. It is not whether the commander impresses YOU or ME sufficiently by the likelihood of him being accurate, but rather whether he impressed those who actually wrote the history books. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Very professional and mature response from you. Thanks. I stand by my claim - reliable source quoted commander from the battlefield. As for history books, it takes years and years for many facts to come to light, but they eventually do. That explains why there is no mention of this in them. Why would NATO officials confirm they had casualties, especially when clandestine operations are involved, even before the war began? Hrvoje1389 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the possibility exists that NATO would seek to 'cover up' SAS involvement and/or casualties, but we don't make that judgment. If the majority of reliable researchers have not established the truth of the claim .... it cannot be made here, especially in our voice. It does not trouble you that the 'KLA commander' does not even have a name such that his claim can be assessed, nor that the claim was never verified by other sources? Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The nameless KLA commander does not bother me, just like a nameless tank commander that does not bother anyone either. As for the source, it says what it says, I don't have any other to add at the moment and I find The Independent to be reliable. When I quoted that source and added that content I broke no rules. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The "nameless tank commander"'s opinions are not put in WP's voice, they are cited as an example by an historian. The "Indy", does not claim that the SAS death is true, it simply claims that a KLA commander said it. Politicians, military leaders, newspapers etc say all sorts of things all the time, unless corroborated by other RS, they cannot be included in WP voice. I didn't say that you broke any rules, I did say, and repeat that no WP source-vetting process would endorse this use of this source. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Double standard. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If you cannot tell the difference between "a historian reported that Donald Trump said he is honest", and "Donald Trump is honest", perhaps editing here is nor for you. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will take your advice to heart. Hrvoje1389 (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Editorialising"

nb early part copied from my talk page. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

From the article Greater Albania:

"...Another term used by Albanians, is "Albanian national reunification"" (Albanian: Ribashkimi kombëtar shqiptar).[1]


From the Kosovo war, in interview in Der Spiegel:

Krasniqi: Wir wollen mehr als die Unabhängigkeit. Unser Ziel ist die Vereinigung aller Albaner auf dem Balkan. (Krasniqi: We want more than independence. Our goal is the unification of all Albanians in the Balkans.[2] When asked if that meant that they will start armed insurgencies in other Balkan nations where Albanians are considerable minority, he answered that "beginning rebellions in Montenegro and FRY Macedonia (FRYM) depends only on his brothers and sisters in those countries" and that in FRYM, "KLA was already active".[2]

1. You claimed that there is not mention of "Greater Albania" by any way in that source. If "Unification of all Albanians in the Balkans" is not the concept of "Greater Albania", then what is that?

2. You claimed that KLA was off-topic, and that the page is about Kosovo War. For every war, goals of all sides are in matter and surely not off-topic. KLA was one of the two sides who fought in Kosovo war. How can then their goals be off-topic?

3. You stated that he didn't said that "unification of Albanians" is one of goals of KLA. As seen above, in the source (interview), he clearly stated "Our Goal is..." in his sentence. Explain me how then it is not their goal?


Thank you for the answers in advance.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alternativat e ribashkimit kombëtar të shqiptarëve dhe të Shqipërisë Etnike..!". Gazeta Ditore (in Albanian). 10 December 2012. Archived from the original on 24 January 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b "„Die Realität ist der Krieg"". Der Spiegel (28): 122–123. 1998. Retrieved 25 November 2017.

James Jim Moriarty, this edit and this edit are blatant editorialising. Is it Krasniqi who says that the goals are made clear by that interview? Is it Der Spiegel who says it? No to both, it is JJM interpreting a single primary source to conclude that the primary goal of KLA was a "Greater Albania", ignoring completely that this is a single primary source and that 4/5 of the interview is anyhow about Kosovo.

I was tempted to remove completely, the text may be relevant to the KLA page, but how is it relevant to the war page? I decided to remove the blatant editorialising and simply leave a neutral version of the interview until other editors became involved and gave their opinion. My neutral version has Krasniqi saying that "KLA was "a political-national movement that aims to liberate Kosovo" but that they also wanted the unification of all Albanians in the Balkans.

You don't want that summary of his two main points. You ONLY want the element that says that KLA's aspirations are pan-Albanian, even though that is less than 1/10th of the interview. This is much less blatant than your original edit, but it continues the wish to interpret and present a single primary source in a particular way.

I don't especially object to the "Greater Alb" link. That is a side-show to the main business of selective interpretation and partial quotation of the single primary source. Though how is this relevant anyway? Do we go into depth about 'Slobo's' history of ethnic-nationalism beyond Kosovo in the 20 years prior to the war? No, we don't despite 100s of sources drawing attention to it. Why is the KLA having aspirations beyond Kosovo either surprising or relevant to the war? Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ps re: "Next time I will consider this as edit war". Can I remind you that the onus is on you to establish agreement on inclusion, not on me to justify exclusion. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a brief observation without having looked too much into this dispute, but if the article is to say that the aim of the KLA was the creation of a Greater Albania, then we need multiple secondary sources establishing that. I have no idea whether that was their aim or not, but I am sure that a single interview with a KLA commander is nowhere near enough. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Answer (for more clarity where my answer begins and ends, because of usage of paragraphs)

The Kosovo War was fought against KLA and Yugoslav forces. Again, how can you claim that the goals of KLA are off-topic then? For every war you need to know what are the goals of each side. Second, he stated "Our goals" - again, it is his sentence and it is not editorialising. The words "Made clear" are off the ground and I will fix it, but that he stated that "unification of the all Albanians in Balkans" are their goals - it is pretty clear and it is not editorialising.

As for "KLA was "a political-national movement that aims to liberate Kosovo" - it was already given in the text. You have a lot of paragraphs in the text with references - and it is pretty clear. I don't see any problem with pointing out another goals of theirs - not just "liberation" of Kosovo, but "unification of all Albanians". He said that at the end. In the sentence, "Not just liberation but unifictation" - it is neutral. I point out that the goals of "liberation and against repressions", as they were pretty much discussed in the whole article, for example see the paragraph above, which is talking about KLA (and it is not my decision - I followed that in the article). Why not pointing out another of their goals, said by their spokesman? Again, no editorialising and completely within the spirit of the text.

You: "Do we go into depth about 'Slobo's' history of ethnic-nationalism beyond Kosovo in the 20 years prior to the war?" We don't go, because of couple of simple things: I guess by "Slobo" that you mean Slobodan Milosevic - he wasn't in power 20 years before conflict (he started rising after 1984, when he was elected president of the Belgrade League of Communists City Committee - that is 12 years before conflict, if you count that the conflict started in 1996 when first skirmishes started, and 14 if you consider the official start of the conflict in February 1998). Second, the paragraphs "Kosovo in Tito's Yugoslavia (1945–1980)", "After the death of Tito (1980–86)", "Kosovo and the rise of Slobodan Milošević (1986–90)", "Constitutional amendments (1989–94)" are already TALKING about the stuff you said - description of the situation before the war. Following your logic, I will ask you counter-question: Why are we talking about "nationalistic stuff" of Yugoslav authorities 20 years ago? For example: "Hard-liners instituted a fierce crackdown on nationalism of all kinds, Albanian and Serbian alike. Kosovo endured a heavy secret-police presence throughout most of the 1980s that ruthlessly suppressed any unauthorised nationalist manifestations, both Albanian and Serbian. According to a report quoted by Mark Thompson, as many as 580,000 inhabitants of Kosovo were arrested, interrogated, interned or reprimanded. Thousands of these lost their jobs or were expelled from their educational establishments. During this time tension between the Albanian and Serbian communities continued to escalate." It already exists in the article. So, the whole point of yours is blatant and wrong. Read the whole article again.

Why then mentioning that specific Krasniqis statement? As said, their "goals of liberation et"c are already stated in the paragraph above in the text. Example:

"Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s. However, as evidenced by the emergence of the KLA, this came at the cost of increasing frustration among Kosovo's Albanian population. In the mid-1990s, Rugova pleaded for a United Nations peacekeeping force for Kosovo. In 1997, Milošević was promoted to the presidency of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (comprising Serbia and Montenegro since its inception in April 1992). Continuing repression[citation needed] convinced many Albanians that only armed resistance would change the situation. On 22 April 1996, four attacks on Serbian security personnel were carried out almost simultaneously in several parts of Kosovo. A hitherto-unknown organisation calling itself the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA) subsequently claimed responsibility. The nature of the KLA was at first mysterious. At first, it seemed that their only goals were to stop repression from Yugoslav authorities.[citation needed]" - and that's why I pointed out his statement only.

You: "I don't especially object to the "Greater Alb" link. That is a side-show to the main business of selective interpretation and partial quotation of the single primary source. Though how is this relevant anyway"

It was my response on your claim that "the source does not mention 'goals' and is mainly about Kosove, neither does it mention 'Greater Albania'". That last part of your sentence I proved wrong. You don't need to explicitly state something - he talks about the same stuff, just do not call it by that name. Greater Albania is side-shot? Why he did mentioned it? Again, what else is "Unification" - if they already have their national state called Albania? And how relevant is - he stated that it is one of their goals. He considers it as their. It is clearly relevant. If it doesn't matter, why are then we talking about their goals of "liberation for example"? And it is not spoken some 20 years ago before the - he said that in July 1998, when the war already began.

As for my side, I will fix some words if it is so problematic for you, but hiding the fact that he was their spokesman at that time and that he stated that "unification of all Albanians" was their goal, even after given his own quote, I will not allow that. But the next time, if you claim that I gave "blatant editorialising" with not good arguments, I will react to it as vandalism and insults appointed to me. As for Cordless Larry, there is another quote by their commander. I will just copy-paste it here for you: "KLA Commander Sylejman Selimi insisted:[1]

It was said during the conflict. I could put that quote in the text, but it is unnecessary as Krasniqi quote is enough.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC) End

As I said, we need secondary sources, not primary quotes. Here, Krasniqi is described as one of a number of "more radical leaders" and "the KLA's self-styled spokesman". We shouldn't just take his word to be representative of KLA policy. What we need is secondary sources (such as histories of the conflict). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In csmonitor, before the quote about Krasniqi, it is said that "More radical leaders are gaining popularity." Can you find who are the representatives of "non-radical" side of KLA? Krasniqi wasn't described as "self styled spokesman" by Der Spiegel and it didn't mentioned any radical side there. What is the problem with giving direct interview of his, when quoting him? Also, Sylejman Selimi citation is given from secondary source. He was one of the Commander of KLA in 1998 and General commander of KLA in 1999-2000. Even in 2006-2009, he was Commander of Kosovo Protection Corps and in 2009-2011, he was Commander of Kosovo Security Force - long after the war so he is important person. I could then replace Krasniqis statement with Selimis, for example.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"Voriges Jahr sagte er sich von Rugovas pazifistischem Kurs los und ging in den Untergrund. Er ist als einziger ermächtigt, politische Erklärungen im Namen der UÇK abzugeben. (Last year, he renounced Rugova's pacifist course and went underground. He "(it is about Krasniqi)" is the only one authorized to make political statements on behalf of the KLA.)" - according to article in Der Spiegel.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Phillips book does indeed look like a better source, and states that the KLA's goal was a Greater Albania. I think it is a better idea to just report what the secondary sources state rather than picking invidiual KLA figures to quote. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You have the point, agreed. I will put it instead of Krasniqi.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think that it would be best to draw on several sources, however, rather than relying on just one. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why I don't think KLA motives very relevant BEYOND Kosovo is mainly because sources don't draw much attention to them as significant. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

They started their activities on Kosovo - as they stated, they didn't wanted to finish there. That's why they matter. I deleted the old text and put another. Also, found one more secondary source for KLA support of Greater Albania and - the quote of Jakup Krasniqi in that, the same one above ("unification...") - a from Europe Report from International Crisis Group, https://www1.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000201.pdf -, so it is not just one now.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I am persuaded that the KLA, or at least some members MAY have had a pan-Alb ideology, what I am NOT persuaded of is how that is relevant. I don't mean why YOU think it is relevant, but whether RS covering the war think it is relevant or important. It looks an awful lot like WP:coatracking content that KLA wasn't really interested in autonomy in Kosovo, it was simply a 'ploy' towards a 'Greater Albania'. The content, beyond at most a brief mention, is not highlighted by most sources as being relevant to the war AFAI can see. I'm going to wait to see how other editors feel, but I still think the content belongs on the KLA or the Greater Alb pages and should at most be summarised here as to how KLA differed from other 'autonomy' initiatives within Kosovo.
It isn't unusual for 'liberation' movements to have a more ambitious ideology than their immediate aims and isn't unusual for an ethnic group to establish relationships and seek support from the wider 'sympathetic' group - whether we are talking about the IRA getting support from Irish Americans or the ANC seeking support/making alliances with other African groups, but do most RS find this very significant about the KLA's role in the Kosovo war? Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when I said that we needed several sources, I didn't really mean that James should just go and find several sources that support what he wants to put in the article, but rather than we should consider a range of sources, and include something that reflects the balance of what those sources say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear here: After concrete quotes and direct link to the original interview and a pretty good source about Kosovo war someone here is trying to make it that I am here going on some "hidden agenda" to make "KLA as instrument in a ploy towards Greated Albania" - even, again, ignoring the fact that these are THEIR own words, not mine, from sources, and that they are spoken from high ranking official and spokesman (and again, someone is saying that only some KLA officials "MAY" had Pan-Albanistic ideas, even after their direct acknowledgments). Pincrete isn't the only one who is reading the sources about Kosovo war, to claim that it isn't significant. I know that you have said that it is your opinion, but your attitude towards different opinion and arguments seems different. There are SOURCES in which it is given as important, and, except the ones I gave you, you can read this one: [2]. That is not my opinion, but the stuff I have read it there. That's why I consider them as important. As I see, it was my mistake why I didn't give them immediately at the first place. As I said, I have fixed the problem with those "Made clear" words which I admitted that it maybe sounded to some people a little off the ground. But it was pretty interesting to see how much drama was created by Pincrete, from just a couple of quotes. And direct accusation that I lied about the "Greater Albania" in the sources I gave (that it is not mentioned in any context there) or the question "Why we haven't then put in article Slobos ethno-nationalism 20 years prior the war" and completely ignoring the fact that it is already there, in some form, and corrections because Milosevic wasn't in power 20 years prior the war etc... It looks a lot like bias, but I will not jump it to conclusion as someone else did, just because it looks to someone. And, what I think that the statements from representatives of a warring sides about their goals in the conflict are pretty important. And it was important in some sources as they are clearly mentioned and discussed, which was my motivation for putting that in the article. As for me, discussion is ended.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and U. S. Intervention". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. 2012. p. 69.
  2. ^ Paes, Wolf-Christian; Heinemann-Gruder, Andreas. Brief 20, Wag the Fog: The mobilization and demobilization of Kosovo Liberation Army (PDF). Friedrich Naumann, Bonn International Center for Conversion. p. 11.

External links to correct

Link 67 should rather point to https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946 (instead of http://www.newstatesman.com/node/138456) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlko (talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kosovo War. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

edit request on 27 March 2018: Fix link to John Pilger article

The John Pilger citation (number 62) in the opening section should link to this page: https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946

The citation reads: 'Pilger, John (September 4, 2000). "US and British officials told us that at least 100,000 were murdered in Kosovo. A year later, fewer than 3,000 bodies have been found". New Statesman." and links to the wrong New Statesman article, here: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/138456 and redirects to https://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2014/02/belgium-extends-its-euthanasia-laws-children Mrhota (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Spintendo      04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"NATO intervention debated"?

To be honest I'm surprised why "NATO intervention debated" is even there in the Results. I don't remember seeing any war infobox containing a result like that. Of course there might be debate over it. But isn't it non-relevant? It is highly insignificant. The intervention happened and we shouldn't be adding "debated" just because it is among some. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

agree, at best it's poor phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what "NATO intervention debated" is supposed to mean: that NATO debated intervening; that it is debatable whether the intervention was a NATO one? Neither makes much sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it means 'criticised', rather than 'debated', but that isn't an outcome unless it resulted in a UN censure (for eg). The source doesn't really support anything except for the specific criticism of hitting too many civilian targets during the intervention.Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it was debated, and that was indeed result. It's definitely not insignificant. I do wonder as well though what this specifically refers to. At first I thought it meant the intervention just went badly and had some goofs, but perhaps it refers to their reasons being controversial and/or its legitimacy being debated. The source only supports some goofs, which by the way include the highly significant NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Debated by whom is the obvious Q.Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The source used refers to criticism during the campaign, so it isn't even a result. I'm sure better sources and better phrasing could be found if the post-campaign criticism is the intended meaning. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it's weird and out of place. I suggest we remove it from the infobox and insert it somewhere in the text.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've simple removed, there is already an entire section on 'criticism'.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Engvar UK?

user:Illegitimate Barrister, I reverted some of your series of edits. Many of the early ones seem constructive, others less so. If I reverted at the 'wrong' point, I apologise.

Firstly, I'm not wholly sure of your premise that the article is - or should be - UK English. Kosovo has no strong connection to the UK.

Even if it is, what sense does it make to change 'planes' to 'aeroplanes', the second is somewhat anachronistic even in the UK, whereas 'planes' is understood and used in all variants of Eng. Has anybody ever used the term "Stealth aeroplanes' or 'decoy aeroplanes'?

I see the sense of using US/UN or U.S./U.N. etc in a consistent way throughout - but why change 'American' into 'US'? Especially in sentences where 'Albanian' and 'British' are not abbreviated, frankly it's a bit disengenuous to claim that 'US' is UK usage, but 'American' isn't. I have no feelings either way about adding/omitting full-stops (periods) to abbreviation and am not sure which is more 'British', but agree that it would be good to be consistent throughout.

I'm posting here as I would welcome other editors input - beginning with whether the article IS UK Eng - but continuing with how far we should take that. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is, or is supposed to be, in UK English, as the top of the article says {{Use British English|date=November 2014}}. My edits are just keeping in line with that.
  • According to Wiktionary, aeroplane is still acceptable in UK English.
  • The BBC seems to prefer US over American so that's why I did that edit.
– Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, you are right about the article being UK English - I should have seen.
I still think it makes sense to use a 'universal' term when one is available (eg planes) and to be consistent and flexible when using or not using the tersest abbreviated form of a country or org's name when it is helpful. It's easy to end up with needless 'acronym-ese' ("The US and UK were criticised in the UN because of the NATO raid on the PRC embassy in FRY"?).
As you see, I happily use 'UK' on talk pages - but would probably use 'British' in articles. BTW, I make the same arguments on US-Eng pages (pet hate being 'Hollywood-isms' like an actor being 'slated' (provisionally contracted) to play a part). Let's see what others think. Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The beginning of the war in Kosovo

Sorry. But I need to remember the pages to explain to all those controversial elements about the Kosovo war. Especially its beginning.

When did the war in Kosovo and Metohija begin? The first serious war conflict was an introduction to the village of Likosane, but it is questionable whether it was on February 27 or 28, 1998. Did the Drenica group of the KLA under the command of Adem Jashari start a partisan attack on the FRY Police on Friday evening before midnight on February 27th or the night between 27th and 28th of February or Saturday morning of February 28th, 1998? Albanians claim that the attack followed on February 28 in the early hours before dawn. Albanians celebrate February 28 as the day of the uprising against the "Serbian occupier". Serbs claim that on February 28, 1998, the Albanians launched the first synchronized "terrorist attack" against members of the security forces who launched the attack on Drenica on the same day, when on March 5 they liquidated Adem Jashari with 45 family members. The question remains whether the KLA members from Drenica attacked on February 27 evening or on the 28th of February in the morning. Everything related to this war is known. Nothing started spontaneously. Can you explain on Vikipedia more than three years the exact date of the beginning of the war conflict? Before Likosane, there was not a serious armed incident with a lot of dead policemen between Serbs and Albanians. In the period 1995, 1996 and 1997 there was sporadic shootings and criminal killings and occasional terrorist attacks on the police and Serb and Albanian civilians during human casualties, as well as an armed incident without casualties in the night between January 22nd and 23rd, 1998 Armed conflict in the chain began after the conflict in the village of Likosane and the whole political issue in Kosovo and Metohija was opened on the interstate scene. Each subsequent armed conflict took on warfare with substantially larger victims and displaced populations on both sides. It seems incredible that you do not know how to reconcile more than three years around the start of the war, and Serbs and Albanians can. Plus, you have all documents of all armed incidents. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there at least some voting system by the admine to determine the exact date or gambling? The Kosovo war was not before the new era, in the old age, in the Middle Ages, or a few hundred years ago, so it's hard to decide or there is no data? The Kosovo war was bipping out less than 20 years ago. All documents exist and a process was conducted before the international court. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there any need to be more precise then "Late Februari 1998"? The Banner talk 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Same question + do sources give a specific date? Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This article Attacks on Likošane and Ćirez is correct on February 27. This is the first open armed conflict between the KLA and the FRY police. We all know that February 27 and February 28 is the last day of February. However, according to such a criterion, we can say that the [[Winter War] began at the end of November and not on November 30, 1939. Or for the Greek Civil War that it began in late March and not on March 30, 1946. We can also say that the Soviet-Afghan War began at the end of December, and not on December 24, 1979, although the start of Soviet operations has been disputed in Russia for years. The Croatian War of Independence and Bosnian War are even more controversial, where the opposing parties have their own theory and it was much more difficult to reconcile with the start date. For the Croatian War of Independence, all parties finally agreed that the beginning of this conflict was on March 31, 1991, but for a long time on Wikipedia was the beginning of this war conflict of the spring conflict in 1991 or only in March 1991. Bosnian war was particularly complicated and the international community decided on the completely inaccurate date of the start of the armed conflict on 6 April 1992, the date of international recognition. The first open-ended armed incident happened on March 1 of the same year on the day of the referendum when Ramiz Delalić killed at the wedding of the father of the Serbian groom Nikol Gardović, followed by a series of armed incidents and raising barricades by Serbs and Bosniaks. Until April 6, about 1,000 people died on all three sides, and in the village of Sijekovac, the HVO launched an open military aggression on March 26 through the Sava River, killing 47 Serb civilians in a very cruel manner. On April 1, the JNA from Serbia carried out an open military attack on the Drina River and committed a massacre in the town of Bijeljina nad Bosnjaci, and on April 4, Sarajevo was bombed from a mortar. Bosniaks count on April 1, 1992 at the beginning of the Bosnian War. Croats consider something third as the theoretical beginning Bosnian war. This is the beginning of the siege of Dubrovnik when units of the JNA crossed the Croatian Ethnic Area Popovo polje and attacked the northern side of Dubrovnik on October 1, 1991. However, the JNA passed that day only through the southern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and arrived in Dubrovnik for several hours. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there were no armed conflicts in the autumn of 1991. So, the Croatian version of the beginning of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has nothing to do with the brain. However, I challenge Wikipedia over the years because of which the period from March 1 to April 6 has been omitted, and why there is no specific article devoted to this period, as there were many victims, especially in Bosniak and Serb parties. When it comes to the war in Kosovo, the issue was much simpler and faster, and it was clear that everything started from the conflict in Likosan, and international observers and rebellious Albanians clearly set out when and how to start an armed insurrection. Albanians celebrate on February 28 as the day of the uprising, but it seems that the attack on Likosana was held on February 27 at about 23:00. This has to be finally determined. Adem Jashari's dossier and his end-of-life activities need to be studied well. He is the alpha and omega of the beginning of the Kosovo war. — Baba Mica (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Source for number dead

The sidebar lists 2,057 dead Kosovar insurgents (link[1]). The PDF linked, however, gives the number 1,057. Is this a typo?

Chrismamo1 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.kosovskaknjigapamcenja.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transcript_KMB_Data_Evaluation_Press_Conference_February_2_and_6_2015.pdf

Czechia and Hungary's involvement.

https://planken.org/balkans/allied-force/statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueLightningStriker (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hungary "stated its readiness to contribute medical teams and it is allowing the use of Hungarian airspace and airport facilities." That is 'involvement'? Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Number of displaced Serbs

Hi admins,

I needed some data and checked this article. I noticed the number of displaced Serbs is given at 230,000. But this is in contradiction to the figures given by Serbian government and census figures from before the war. According the the 1991 census the number of Serbs was 194,190 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo), which is smaller than the suggested number of the displaced. There is also the issue of the source, it is not clear where does the cited author (Tim Judah) gets his numbers.

I propose using the data from this thorough research by European Stability Initiative (ESI). I am quoting them:

"The Belgrade-based Kosovo Coordination Centre (CCK), which is the Serbian administrative body responsible for Kosovo affairs, published a detailed report in January 2003 which gives a figure of 129,474 Serbs in Kosovo in 2002. This corresponds closely with ESI estimates based on primary school enrolment figures from the Kosovo Ministry for Education. There are 14,368 pupils in Serb-language primary schools in Kosovo in 2004. Using data on the age structure of Kosovo Serbs from a number of post-war surveys, this suggests a total Serb population of 128,000.

According to the last Yugoslav census, there were 194,000 Serbs resident in Kosovo in 1991. During the 1980s, the number of Kosovo Serbs had declined. It is unlikely that the number of Serbs increased again during the 1990s. In fact, during the 1990s, the Serbian government felt compelled to introduce various measures aimed at stemming the emigration of Serbs from Kosovo.

The extent of Serb displacement from Kosovo is therefore likely to be around 65,000."

Here is the source: https://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=156&document_ID=53

Thank you Diestari (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Please change the casualties of the Yugoslavian army because the truth number was never shown by the Serbian Goverment. People might think that the Yugoslav forces had an excellent Army (because it says 300 losses, in comparasion to the 1.500 KLA Soldiers), and such an big page like Wikipedia should not spread wrong Informations. Fisnik24 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

"*Return of Albanian refugees" should be removed WizzrdLord7233 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? The Banner talk 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
information Note: Marking as  Not done since no reason was given. A change such as this should be discussed first anyway before making an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Starting to doubt the legitimacy of the military statistics on the Yugoslavian (or Serbian) side in the Kosovo War

I've recently noticed that many of the sub-articles relating to various battles between the KLA and the VJ showed no signs of losses from the Yugoslav(or Serbian) side, and I'm beginning to question the true legitimacy of the statistics at hand, as most of them are saying that there were no losses, and that there were no shown commanders in the infoboxes.

Can anyone provide actual proof of such claims? I can't seem to believe that the VJ are completely invincible and that all their fighters apparently were either equiped and trained well which resulted in the least casualties, or something else. Balkanite (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The KLA was a lightly armed irregular militia. The Yugoslav/Serb side was regular military with artillery, tanks, and air support.--Muddymuck (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Balkanite, as in almost all conflicts, though perhaps more so, casualty (and damage) claims frequently fulfil political purposes, At some points in the narrative, or when playing to a particular audience, one may have a vested interest in 'underplaying' the harm done by the enemy, at other points of 'playing the victim'. Whether that is the case here, I don't know, but would not be surprised. Regardless, all we can do is report what this side said and when and that side said and when and what academic or other sources have concluded was the probable figure. Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Muddymuck, you are on some part correct because they did not have armoured vehicles and/or heavy infantry gear, but you forgot about the weapons that were being smuggled into Kosovo via Albania after their little bout with the government only a year ago. Some of those weapons were successfully smuggled into Kosovo, and even some that came from World War 2. Also, The KLA's uniforms as depicted are usually either olden Yugoslavian camouflage jumpsuits, civilian hunting gear, or foreign-printed military surplus uniforms that shows more of a distinct pattern compared to the Yugoslav M93 camouflage displayed on many of their military equipment, as well as their uniforms. The KLA's true arsenal statistics are not well-known because of the very scarce amount of information we currently have on them, however what bothers me is that the Yugoslav soldiers are either supposedly invincible, or are strategically and tactically very sound during that time, which could explain the very few losses.
However, on Pincrete's theory, I think his is more correct. As I quote: "At some points in the narrative, or when playing to a particular audience, one may have a vested interest in 'underplaying' the harm done by the enemy, at other points of 'playing the victim'. Whether that is the case here, I don't know, but would not be surprised.", this shows to be more substantial and factually correct. Nonetheless, I still need actual confirmation on all the sources displayed in order to make sure that the information is as accurate as seen on the articles that are traced back from the war. Balkanite (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Start date of Kosovo war

nb The discussion below, which I copied from my talk page, concerns this edit, which changes the long-term stable version of the start of the war, from "Februarry" to a specific date, 27th Feb. Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop waging an editorial war with me on the date of the start of the war in Kosovo. It's not fair and it's not okay. I found reliable sources and documents that confirm that the war began on February 27 at around 11 pm, with a conflict between the Yugoslav police and the KLA in the two villages of Likošane and Ćirez. I have sent you as many as three new sources that proved to be the first major armed conflict in the evening of February 27th. Of course, February 27th and 28th are the end of February. Every moron knows that. Who attacked when it doesn't matter here anymore. The first major armed confrontation on February 27 at around 11 pm is important, which was extended until February 28. Albanians in Kosovo mark the date as a day of insurgency. The initial capsule occurred on the evening of February 27, 1998. The exact date is very important. The war in Kosovo was not too far in the past to lose historical data. At the end of the 20th century. Any respect to colleague Pincrete. Baba Mica (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are the original documents. I'll look for them more if I need to.

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/F62789D9FCC56FB3C1256C1700303E3B-thekosovoreport.htm1998 https://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/europerussiacentral-asia-region/serbiakosovo-1968-present/ |https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/6D26FF88119644CFC1256989005CD392-thekosovoreport.pdf Baba Mica (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Baba Mica, none of these sources supports what you claim, even if they did, a few sources supporting a specific day and time, would not override more - and better sources which simply record 'February". Typical of what you added is "The Serbian massacre of 58 people in Prekazi/Prekaze in February 1998 became a turning point. The internal war escalated." - an internal war cannot escalate which only began 30 hours before! The other sources used are even vaguer about start day and none claims a time-of-day. What you are engaged in is your own interpretation of the available info. If you disagree, start an RfC, the WP:Onus reponsibility is yours to get agreement on changes, not to come to my talk page to issue edicts. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Baba Mica's reply on my talk page.Pincrete (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Role of the Albanian Armed Forces in the War

It appears that during certain parts of the Kosovo War, notably the Battles of Paštrik and Košare (Operation Arrow), the Albanian Army provided direct combat assistance to KLA rebels, against Yugoslav Forces. Is it okay to then add Albania as a participant of the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Uçk is a terorist group

Uçk is a terorist group makeing genocide on ethnic group of serbs. Deger63 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Russia’s involvement

If I am not wrong, Russia was involved in peacekeeping on the Yugoslavia’s side right? History of the Burmese (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian forces were part of Kosovo_Force which was deployed in Kosovo after the war. Alaexis¿question? 06:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Result

How is this not a NATO victory? last time I checked NATO succeeded in ending the Yugoslav campaign of genocide against the Kosovo Albanian population and they occupied Kosovo. without losing a single man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durraz0 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Prins van Oranje 17:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The political results are more important IMO than the 'score-card'. I doubt if sources anyway treat this either as a clear cut victory or defeat. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prins van Oranje and Pincrete. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

HLC states that 276 Yugoslav forces died as a result of NATO bombs. the source which states 300+ killed by the KLA only refers to the period between 25th of march to 10th of June. Durraz0 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Source does not actually say to which period the 300+ killed correspond to, but agree based on the HLC's figures that it is most likely the period of NATO's bombing. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

International Reactions to NATO Air Strikes

Karen Donfried (1999), Kosovo: International Reactions to NATO Air Strikes, Congressional Research Service

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.192.174 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

This is all false information, they writing suggests Serbia attacked Kosovo whilst they already lived and conqured the land over a 1000- years ago, I was the Albanians in the region who revolted and started killing serbian police officers. 79.143.111.144 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Change Serbia became home to the highest proportion number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe.[70][71] to Serbia became home to the highest proportional number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe.[70][71] FriedrichKonstantin (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've actually removed the text since it is ambiguous and unnecessary (actual numbers in prev sentence), and because it is not expanded on in the body of the article (lead should be a summary). Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Genocide

There were more Serbian casualties than written States show from anywhere from 3000-5000 Plus there was almost no Albanian casualties KLA often shot its own civilians and blamed it on Serbs. 109.93.236.33 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH

this The NATO bombing campaign has remained controversial, as it did not gain the approval of the UN Security Council and because it caused at least 488 Yugoslav civilian deaths, including substantial numbers of Kosovar refugees is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. none of the sources state that the bombing remained or ever was controversial, they also do not say it was because of the bombing not gaining approval for the UN security council or because of civilian deaths. the sources do indeed talk about civilians deaths and the UN security council, however they do not frame it this way. Durraz0 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You are right that the sources don't explicitly say it but I think it's pretty uncontroversial and it should be possible to find other sources that do. I'll try to do it. Alaexis¿question? 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
On the second thought, I think it's a fair summary of the section Kosovo_War#Criticism_of_the_case_for_war in which all these statements are referenced. Alaexis¿question? 10:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to reflect sources, this here is pure OR and even misuse of bibliography. it is not a fair summary of that section. that section focuses on the media campaign and does not mention anything about the NATO bombing remaining controversial because of the civilian casualties. the UN not approving the bombing should be mentioned. the sentence has to be changed to reflect bibliography. Durraz0 (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The only problem I see is the word 'remained', which may now be outdated. The principal reasons people criticised NATO at the time and immediately following the war were the lack of UN mandate and the deaths (especially of civilians, both Serbian and Kosovan) and damage to the economy and infrastructure of Serbia. Like Alaexis, I find it a reasonable summary of the article content but wonder what specifically is objected to. There is a whole article about the legality of the NATO action, so I cannot see how anyone could conclude that the bombing was not controversial! People had strong opposing views as to its morality, objectives, efficacy, and legitimacy, how is that not controversial? Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I am objecting to original research, i do not find this sentence to be a fair summary of criticism of the case for war or the legality of the NATO bombing as it barley touches on it. if it was a fair summary of those sections it would use sources from those sections and focus on the legality of the bombing. instead it is coming to its own conclusions of why the NATO bombing was and has remained controversial via original research and WP:SYNTH. Durraz0 (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Saying that something is controversial just means that there are different opinions about it. This is obviously true with respect to the Kosovo war. Its legitimacy is questioned (see Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and sources there, for example The UN, NATO, and International Law After Kosovo in Human Right Quarterly). Adam Roberts says that "The international human-rights movement – a huge array of individuals, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), inter-governmental bodies and more – was deeply divided over Operation Allied Force." If you don't find it convincing, maybe opening an RfC and getting external feedback would be the way to go. Alaexis¿question? 14:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
he sentence as it stands with the citation it uses is original research. I perfectly agree that the source you have provided could be summarized as it being controversial. i believe we should rewrite the sentence to correspond with bibliography instead of a synthesis of several sources that comes to a different conclusion that the sources explicitly say. I propose we change the wording to fit bibliography, something like "The NATO bombing was controversial and received mixed reactions. NATO did not gain UN security council approval for the campaign. the bombing caused at least 488 Yugoslav civilian deaths." thoughts? Durraz0 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it's just about re-writing it as three separate sentences, I see no particular problems with it. Having said that, I don't understand the need for it either. Do you think there were other reasons why it was controversial? Alaexis¿question? 09:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

I agree with Pincrete's assessment that the background should be a summary of relevant events and not give undue focus to particular random pieces of information. However, Xz1333 recently added information about the massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars and Yugoslavia's colonization of Kosovo and its effects on the Albanian population. If that information is there, then I think that we should also include content about the WWII occupation of Kosovo, when Albanian nationalist collaborationist forces expelled and killed Serb/Montenegrin settlers, in order to paint a more complete and neutral picture pre-1945. Having said that, I am also fine with essentially restoring this version before all these recent changes were made. --Griboski (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with reverting it back to the original template and removing the recent additions. The addition by Xz1333 of POV nationalist content in a random manner, without reaching a consensus will lead to conflict on the page. WP:STATUSQUO prevails here. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kofi Annan

This section quotes Kofi Annan saying that "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force is legitimate in the pursuit of peace". However, the BBC source used is an inaccurate/unfair summary of his whole statement. He followed that sentence up with the following:

"But as Secretary-General, I have many times pointed out, not just in relation to Kosovo, that under the Charter the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security -- and this is explicitly acknowledged in the North Atlantic Treaty. Therefore, the Council should be involved in any decision to resort to the use of force."

Source: [1]

In other words, he was explicitly critical of the NATO bombing. Can someone with edit access please edit the linked section to reflect this? 86.130.89.208 (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added it. Cheers! Alaexis¿question? 05:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

96.244.61.172 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

They should only have as the support for Kosovo as (us nato) and so

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Meja massacre

Hi Griboski I added the Meja massacre after coming across it while editing something else, and as it is clearly a notable event that happened during the Kosovo War, needs to be mentioned in this article. However I don't think it belongs at the bottom of the NATO bombing timeline as everything else in that section is about NATO bombing, and the event in the preceding paragraph happened in June, whereas the massacre happened in April. To my mind it needs a separate sub-heading, and/or slight restructuring of those sections, but I will leave it to you and others to do that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit odd at the end of the NATO timeline. The whole article is a bit 'shapeless' though IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, it seemed random to me to have it placed as a sub-heading in the "Eruption of war" section which discusses events leading up to the bombing (March 24), since the massacre happened in late April in the midst of the bombing campaign. The issue is that the article doesn't discuss specific atrocities, only an overview, so having it almost anywhere is challenging. Though I can agree that it deserves a mention by virtue of it being the largest massacre. Perhaps the War Crimes section under Yugoslav government would be an appropriate place for it. --Griboski (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading quote - Tim Judah -

I've just read the book mentionned in source 47 (Judah, Tim (29 September 2008). Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-974103-8.)

This source is used about number of serbians and other minorities that were expelled from Kosovo during war.

In the book, the author says that the number of "230'000" is too exagerate.

I will quote him, page 14 :

I will examine this question later, along with the widely quoted—and most likely wrong—estimation that in the wake of Serbia’s loss of control of Kosovo in 1999, some 230,000 people, mostly Serbs but including some Roma, fl ed the province.

Later, page 101 :

The problem was that most Kosovo Serbs were not in the north. At fi rst the fi gure put forth by Serbia of 230,000 displaced was a mystery. How could it be so large when the 1991 census, taken while Serbs were in control, showed that there were only 214,235 Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo? Now there were more than that number in Serbia, with another 100,000 or more remaining in Kosovo?6 The answer, it seems, was that even though UNHCR had adopted the Serbian fi gure, it was not true. In 2004 the Berlin-based think tank, the European Stability Initiative (ESI), conducted the fi rst serious research into this question. Gerald Knaus, the director of ESI, said that five years after the end of the war he was stunned by all sorts of official documents in and about Kosovo in which the numbers of Kosovo Serbs and Albanians varied enormously, making any kind of serious planning, including everything from education and health care to decentralization, a hitand-miss affair. And yet, he explained, making an accurate assessment was not necessarily hard to do. ESI based their estimate of Serbs in Kosovo on the easily available fi gures of primary school enrollments. Their results showed that “there are still nearly 130,000 Serbs living in Kosovo today, representing two-thirds of the pre-war Serb population.”

How could we use his name to say something he never said ?

We have to change the number to 65'000 or find a new source for the 230'000.

As I don't really know how to edit and manage these things on Wikipedia, can someone please do it.

Thank you. 2A02:1210:7488:3500:D5CC:49B7:9DFC:CD6B (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the error. Note that this HRW report says that 200,000 Serbs were forced to leave. I've replaced the source in the infobox and updated the number. Note that this is not inconsistent with the figures cited by Judah. It is possible that some Serbs returned after the acute phase of the conflict was over. I'm not an expert, so if you can find more reliable sources which discuss it we can include them as well. Cheers! Alaexis¿question? 18:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Alaexis: Thank you very much for your answer and for the new source. About Judah, as he says that the number of 230'000 is wrong—estimation, quoting him as the source for the 230'000 would be a ethical mistake (I think).
I have also read the source you provided. In this source, it is said that the number of 200,000 comes from a report (In the 3rd paragraph) : https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kosov2/
The only place we find this number (200,000) is in a sentence that says:

It is estimated that 80,000 of the 200,000 Serb residents of Kosovo have left the province since June

In the report we can read

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), more than 164,000 have left Kosovo altogether.

If we read the source no 3, we can find these numbers :

- On July 16, Reuters reported that some 75 percent of Kosovar Serbs--approximately 150,000 people--had fled the province. Source : not found

- On July 20, the UNHCR's Belgrade office reportedly estimated that the number of Kosovar Serbs and Roma who had fled to Serbia and Montenegro had reached 169,824, while the Yugoslav Red Cross estimated the number in Serbia at about 100,000. Source : https://reliefweb.int/report/albania/unhcr-warns-critical-refugee-problem-serbia Here it is only to Serbia and Montenegro

- New York Times, July 23, 1999 (estimating that 80,000 of Kosovo's 200,000 Serb residents had left the province since June). source https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/23/world/tardy-kosovo-rebels-force-extension-of-arms-deadline.html

That's all for me. Changing the quote of Tim Judah was the most important thing for me.

2A02:1210:7488:3500:D5CC:49B7:9DFC:CD6B (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, probably it's better to replace a single number with a range. I'll do it later, or maybe someone else will fix it. Alaexis¿question? 20:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_War/Archive_7&oldid=1157336098"