Jump to content

Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeVos Max (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 24 April 2022 (→Article is biased toward NATO: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bill Clinton in leaders?

Title 178.237.221.133 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He had no direct role in operations. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a accurate review of the invasion and bombing of Yugoslavia.

Please reflect. The sources are unrepresentative of the situation as they are unverified and unestablished, they only reflect the US-interest groups false and unverified accusations. Maybe when the world starts to challenge the big lies the world will be a better place. 109.245.32.217 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific change you want made, backed up by sources with a reputation for accuracy? Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel the bias in the fact that the article only cites Yugoslav atrocities during the Kosovo war. I would like to add information about what the Albanian side did in Kosovo war, because they have also been accused of carrying out ethnic cleansings. Unfortunately, I have no time right now... --Esmu Igors (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Esmu Igors, this article is about the bombing campaign, why would it include anything about KLA crimes? Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, the reason is that NATO justified the bombing campaign citing Serbian/Yugoslav atrocities during the war, therefore it got involved in the Kosovo war on one particular side, citing only crimes of the opposite side. In its current form, the article gives the reader an impression that this was obviously justified. For example, the third paragraph of the Preamble. We could at least include the counter-arguments by the Yugoslav government, or citations of some political analysts. Esmu Igors (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire article about the legality of the intervention, there are innumerable articles covering the war and specific justifications for the deeds of either side.Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia in 1999?

This is false, Yugoslavia didn’t exist after 1990s 51.37.190.122 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which often is referred to "Yugoslavia" and which claimed the name Yugoslavia "was founded on 27 April 1992 as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia … and … ended in 2003". The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist/broke up in 1992. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed

This is not a correct summary of what happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia! 87.116.165.209 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because? Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Change the number of civilian casualties to at least 2,500 being killed and 12,500 injured. Here is a source for this: https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/22/78-days-of-fear-remembering-natos-bombing-of-yugoslavia/ 2001:8003:C12E:D601:C53C:16CA:ED21:2053 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source actually says During the NATO military campaign, the Serbian government estimates that at least 2,500 people died and 12,500 were injured, but the exact death toll remains unclear. Even as a Govt estimate, better and more recent and better framed estimates are in the HRW cite we use. So no, I would not endorse these figures going into the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to Ukraine: Echoes of the past

Suggestion to edit this article. This incident echoes through the ages and has relevance to modern day Ukraine. The USA likes to believe it can bomb and kill anyone around the world. But at the same time, it criticizes others when they try to defend themselves from NATO terrorism. It is completely ridiculous that NATO and the USA can get away with this kind of murder and still have the shamelessness to lambast other countries on Ukraine, even blackmailing the weak into aligning with their hegemonic interests. Article should reflect more on the USA's crimes and be more critical about American hegemony. Stalin Zhukov Ekko Kamisato 53 (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Zhukov Ekko Kamisato 53, talk pages are not a forum for discussing the subject in the way you suggest. Nor do we publish editors' own opinions about topics. Even if you could find good sources which supported the kind of argument you propose - they would be much more likely at present to belong on some "Russian justifications for invading Ukraine" article than here - unless fairly large numbers of academic sources claimed that an aftermath of the bombing of Yugoslavia was the invasion of Ukraine.Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased toward NATO

To my eye, this article (at the very least the lead) is unfairly biased towards NATO's interests and places undue weight on NATO's justifications. The lead is, intentionally or otherwise, written such that it implies the invasion is universally accepted as a successful peacekeeping operation and the controversy is over the technicality of whether or not it was legal, such as in the quote below

It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council, which triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention.

The lead also neglects to mention the massive amount of academic literature and discussion exists that suggests that this operation was the tipping point that accelerated the ethnic cleansing, which is much more effectively documented on the Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia page, which in my opinion should be merged into this page to create one balanced article.

I'm not one to make blanket criticisms and disappear into the darkness, and I have no issue with proposing or directly implementing changes myself, but I wanted to gauge the opinion of the community before making any sweeping changes to an article as critical as this one, such as a merger of this article with the legitimacy article I mentioned earlier.

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise the bias you speak of either in the article nor in your quotes, nor the 'counterbalance' in the legitimacy article. It may be 'factual' that the NATO campaign "accelerated the ethnic cleansing", but is that because the bombing 'caused' or simply created a 'pretext for' the ethnic cleansing? I've seen both viewpoints claimed and to my mind the 'legitimacy' article covers both viewpoints.Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue I take is that the anti-NATO viewpoint isn't mentioned in the lead at all, which I believe is poor representation of the situation (and violates WP:WEIGHT), given that very well-respected figures have publicly stated opposition to the NATO viewpoint. I'll write up a proposed change and put it here later, I'm quite busy today.
DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1084486517"