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.

Israel did not approve of NATO attacks and sent humanitarian aid to Serbia. If you look at the page Israel-Serbia relations you'll see sources there. 68.204.211.76 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point, does the article say Israel DID support NATO?Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the article does not say this, but it does not mention Israel at all. It's a long article, and since there's room in it for some statement from the UK about averting "humanitarian disaster", it would seem to only be NPOV to mention Israel's position, which, being contrary to NATO, probably really was on principle. Perhaps it could be put in the section on 'Criticism on the case for war'. Son of eugene (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the section, "NATO bombing timeline":

" So-called "dual-use" targets, of use to both civilians and the military, were attacked, including bridges across the Danube, factories, power stations, schools, houses, nurseries, hospitals, telecommunications facilities and, controversially, the headquarters of Yugoslavian Leftists, a political party led by Milošević's wife, and the RTS television broadcasting tower."

I'm not here to cast judgement on the actions of either side, but I think that it would be helpful to explain why a nursery could be considered "dual use"?

If a nursery was indeed struck by NATO, I would like to know, was it: -struck because NATO planners thought it could have been of use to the enemy, and if so, what use? -was it struck by accident? -Is this propaganda from NATO opposition? -Is this pro-NATO propaganda whitewashing over a terrible tragedy?

I can see how a school or hospital could be considered "dual use" - for example, a school is a large building, and if located in an area with a high concentration of the enemy, it could well be used as a HQ/outpost/logistics point etc. - but specifically using the word "nursery" (which is pretty similar to a school) implies that a nursery was deliberately targeted for a specific, nursery-related, reason.

Not specifying a reason could make it sound like NATO was deliberately attacking nurseries across the country for nefarious purposes. Does the author think that NATO was fighting the long war and eliminating the next generation of enemy soldiers? Or did the author want to paint a picture of his own (ie: author reads about civilian targets being hit, but instead of writing "civilian", he writes "hospitals, schools and nurseries").

I'm sure there were plenty of tragic incidents of civilians and civilian buildings being involved in collateral damage, but which ones were targeted deliberately? And if so, for what reason?

Not knowing the facts, I cant say whether NATO did right or wrong in targeting any civilian structure, but just throwing in a comment that NATO bombed nurseries, without giving much further info other than mentioning the term "dual use" kinda leaves some big questions hanging.

The editor even goes so far as to end his sentence with a short list of apparently "controversial" targets...

Either more detail about NATO targeting policy is needed, or more detail of specific incidents involving the bombing of nurseries (or, as I suspect, one single nursery) OR the section should be amended just to say "civilian targets" without specifying type.

Peace, out.

94.175.244.252, the list of targets doesn't even appear to be sourced, nor any distinction made between intentional/inadvertent targets.Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. Fixed. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit put this in the lead [1] (scroll down), I modified it thus [2] (again scroll down). I've now put a 'cit tag' as the source is far from perfect (a BBC World service Iplayer file, which certainly does not justify the original text and hardly justifies mine). I would have thought the claim that civilian casualties were (continue to be?) a controversial element of the NATO bombing, could find a better source, though I cannot do so at present.Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "rampant" are unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And linguistically incorrect, and not in the source, thus removed. I retained the sense despite the weak source as I suspect the reduced assertion is reasonable and a better source for it is possible. Aside from the weak source, the text refers to 'Yugoslavs and Albanians', which in context refers to a nationality and a constituent ethnic group of that nationality. My involvement with this page is marginal, but I'm simply leaving this note here in the hope that someone can fix.Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good source to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Larry, having had a quick look, the source is a good general overview of the war, but doesn't cover this specific point.Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Robinson and Clark quotes on pp. 114-15 perhaps demonstrated the controversy over civilian casualties? Here are some other sources that might be of use: a HRW report, section IV of this article, which specifically mentions controversy amongst scholars, or perhaps pp. 779-80 of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have modified and slightly expanded thus [3]. Using some of Larry's refs and moving the original iPlayer ref. to External links. Whilst no ref speaks EXACTLY about 'controversy of civilian deaths', there whole content is discussing possibilities of war crimes etc. in relation to those deaths.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. Should we semi-protect the article? IJA (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has shown his indifference thus:[4]. In this instance, if the behaviour continues, I suggest going straight for a block. Though (in general), semi-protection of the article might save us all a lot of wasted time.Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reported for violation of the 3RR already. I respect everyone's right to edit Wikipedia, but it'd make life a lot easier if only registered users could edit sensitive articles such as this. IJA (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally.Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been damaging related pages for several years now, using many different IPs. I think a long-term abuse page would be helpful. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor went straight for an old 'edit war' [5] with this edit,[6] the old edit war was started by two 'over lapping' editors [7] and [8]. Both of whom have now been blocked [9] and [10]. They share common interests at least, re-inserting the same texts and not entering into/responding to any discussion.

IF LTA can do anything then I endorse. Bob, you probably know better than us what the 'patterns' are.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! By now requested and granted. Indefinite semi-protection. The Banner talk 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kosovo War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605034712/http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html to http://nytimes.com/1999/06/04/opinion/the-kosovo-peace-plan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824051104/http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf to http://pdx.academia.edu/documents/0035/5846/ICTY_Fruits_expert_report_final_080203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308163600/http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/05/apache.crash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fixing, needs better sources, lots of conflicting data.

This source says more than half of soldiers were killed by KLA. (around 300, 600 in total) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/serb-army-unscathed-by-nato-kla-killed-more-serbs-than-nato-nato-did-1101448.html

But just below you have a statement that says over 1000 casualties were caused by NATO.

Needs lots of fixing. 212.178.226.34 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many different estimates. These may be some new ones. But they are from the same source as some of the estimates already in the article - with the same biases and no indication that they are based on any new research or reasoning. There will always be disputes in these matters which is why we show multiple numbers with their sources. Rmhermen (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]