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

Military history: European / French / North America / United States B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. 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 Serbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. 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. Kosovo High‑importance Kosovo War is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Albania High‑importance Kosovo War is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. 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.

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.

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)[reply]

Strongly object. There are a number of sources that verify this: Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_as_terrorist_group. There is Wall Street Journal article about it... 109.93.181.242 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hopefully the infobox is better now. Could anything else be cut? bobrayner (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the "conflict location" proposal above? 23 editor (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the current set up regarding location. We could say for location "Kosovo and the rest of FR Yugoslavia", we need to emphasise that the majority of the conflict took place in Kosovo. Also I supose you could replace "Albania" with "(with minor spillovers in neighbouring countries)" to reflect what happened in Bulgaria and BiH as well. IJA (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional suggestion, but: Could we remove it entirely? We already have more nuanced discussion in the body of the article. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. There's whole article about NATO bombing of FRY. Over 100 bridges destroyed were not mainly on Kosovo. On another note, there's no mention of Operation Arrow in this article. KLA troops undertook Operation Arrow, a two-pronged push from Albania. They were "creamed" as one intelligence source put it, but they scared the Serbs out of hiding, providing what NATO spokesman say was a "target rich" environment. [1] 109.93.181.242 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention in the article that Albanian army participated in the conflict. NATOs Air War for Kosovo A Strategic and Operational Assessment By Benjamin S. Lambeth. Page 53. 109.93.181.242 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.> Kosovo offers welfare to wartime rape victims(Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

One soldier's opinion is enough to constitute an entire army's morale? If no one provides a legitimate reason as to why not, I will remove this section in a few days.

21.03.2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.213.119 (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look few sections up, you will see stroke out comments. I also pointed that out and several established authors agreed with me (Antidiskriminator, 23 editor and FkpCascais) but another editor simpy put that back, no discussion, no arguments given.

212.178.240.46 (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also some constructive feedback was removed:

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. [2]

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.[3]

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. [4]

I agree moral section should be removed. 77.46.243.37 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.240.46 (talk) [reply]

I absolutely agree with this IP concerns. Also, I strongly condemn removal of coments in the way bobrayner has done it diff. Sock? Who´s sock? Anyway, what he adressed here is rightfull concern about neutrality of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, you really ought to break this habit of encouraging and collaborating with obvious socks. It's not going to have a happy ending. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it on the grounds of not being notable and for being trivial. IJA (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you IJA. If we had more sources confirming that, and official statesments, that would be one thing, but this is clearly not the case, and we even have reports claiming the opposite. So definitelly a good decition. FkpCascais (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote came from a notable military leader at the time, I think it would be useful or even if it came froma notable historian on the subject I think it would be worth including. But one soldier's opinion isn't that useful here. There were tens of thousands of Yugoslav soldiers. Most of them withdrew from Kosovo before KFOR arrived so of course many will have never seen an "enemey soldier". And I really don't see how one soldier's view can be used to describe the morale of Yugoslav forces. IJA (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the assertion Every member of NATO, every EU country, and most of Yugoslavia's neighbours, supported military action, is contradicted by later assertions, specifically about Greece (which is both NATO & EU). I believe the Gk government 'walked a tightrope' between accomodating its NATO allies and not alienating its own population (who were almost universally hostile to NATO action), thus Gr allowed 'flyover', but denied 'landing & refueling' of NATO planes. I've checked out the David Clark article (from which the 'every member etc' assertion comes), our rendition is accurate, is indeed a quote. I'm not sure what appropriate action is here, possibly attribute the quote to the writer? 'In a 2009 article, DC wrote " Every member etc.'Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]