Encyclopedia > Talk:Kosovo War
Talk:Kosovo War
It is not true that Russia vetoed a resolution or that there was any resolution to justify the NATO bombing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm where all the vetoes of Russia are discussed
Try reading this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/201007.stm, I think this verifies what I was saying.User:G-Man
I dont think that it does. It is a resolution adopted before the negotiations between the Serbs and Albanians, and no other resolution was considered after that. It does not say anywhere that the majority of Security concil were for a stronger resolution authorising the use of force (that is what you claim). Also, China, as well as Russia abstained from even this resolution. The issue in resolution was not signing the agreement (a reason for the start of bombing in late March) but retreating of the Serbian forces, which subsequently happened.
Regarding the most recent edit: I don't know and don't think it's possible to find out how all Kosovar Albanians felt re: autonomy, independence, and Greater Albania. But it's definitely wrong to say that no Kosovar Albanians wanted unity with Albania, or that this desire by some Kosovar Albanians did not reflect itself in significant political movements. What did the KLA have to say about Greater Albania? What about Rugova? DanKeshet
I agree that some people in Kosovo were for greater Albania. However, it is wrong to say that Albanians always considered Kosovo as an integral part of Albania, the way Serbs did consider it integral part of Serbia. Albania didn't exist as a state until 1912. Serbia did and at the time after the Balkan wars it had conquered Kosovo, Sanjak and FRY Macedonia teritories - Kosovo was teritory of middle age Serbian kingdom, and thus Serbs did view it as a part of their state. Albanians however have their historical ties to Kosovo - rising of their nationalist movement in XIX century started in southern Kosovo under the Ottoman Empire. During the Balkan wars many Albanians were expelled by the Serbs. In WWI, Albanians took revenge when Serbian army was retreating over Albanian mountains. The origin of the conflict can be traced at least that far. During the WWII Greater Albania did exist and included most of Kosovo under faschist puppet regime. After the WWII Tito had promised Albanian communists that part of Kosovo will be allowed to join Albania. However, this did not happen, and Kosovo was set up as autonomous part of Serbia. The Albanian separatists had a goal of greater Albania, but more recently they are for Kosovo separate from Albania. Kosovo is much more developed than Albania (even today, and certainly during regime of Enver Hoxa), and Kosovo Albanians look down on Albanians from Albania proper. So, it is not entirely accurate to say that Albanians want Kosovo inside Albania - certainly, there is a dream of "Greater Albania" as it existed during WWII, and Serbs want to portray Albanian pretensions in this way, but it is not accurate description of the situation.
As for Rugova, he was always for independent Kosovo, as a separate state. KLA is mostly of this view too, although some KLA members certainly want all the Albanians inside one state. But even parts of Macedonia and Serbia proper are more likely to be seen as included in Kosovo, than in Albania as one state (there was some speculation about the exchange of teritories between Kosovo northern areas, even now populated by Serbs, and Presevo valley in Serbia proper).
- Thanks for the long discussion. Could we get some of this up at History of Kosovo[?], History of Albania, and history of Yugoslavia? DanKeshet
Removed from article: Yugoslav tactics that worked against NATO
- Yugoslav air defences tracked U.S. stealth aircraft by using old Russian radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth characteristics when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them shine on radar screens.
- Radars confused precision-guided HARM and ALARM missiles by reflecting their electromagnetic beams off heavy farm machinery, such as plows or old tractors placed around the sites. This cluttered the U.S. missiles' guidance systems, which were unable to pinpoint the emitters.
- Scout helicopters would land on flatbed trucks and rev their engines before being towed to camouflaged sites several hundred metres away. Heat-seeking missiles from NATO jets would then locate and go after the residual heat on the trucks.
- Yugoslav troops used cheap heat-emitting decoys such as small gas furnaces to simulate nonexistent positions on Kosovo mountainsides. B-52 bombers, employing advanced infrared sensors, repeatedly blasted the empty hills.
- The army drew up plans for covert placement of heat and microwave emitters on territory that NATO troops were expected to occupy in a ground war. This was intended to trick the B-52s into carpet-bombing their own forces.
- Dozens of dummy objectives, including fake bridges and airfields were constructed. Many of the decoy planes were so good that NATO claimed that the Yugoslav air force had been decimated. After the war, it turned out most of its planes had survived unscathed.
- Fake tanks were built using plastic sheeting, old tires, and logs. To mimic heat emissions, cans were filled with sand and fuel and set alight. Hundreds of these makeshift decoys were bombed, leading to wildly inflated destruction claims.
- Bridges and other strategic targets were defended from missiles with laser-guidance systems by bonfires made of old tires and wet hay, which emit dense smoke filled with laser-reflecting particles.
- U.S. bombs equipped with GPS guidance proved vulnerable to old electronic jammers that blocked their links with satellites.
- Despite NATO's total air supremacy, Yugoslav jets flew combat missions over Kosovo at extremely low altitudes, using terrain to remain undetected by AWACS flying radars.
- Weapons that performed well in Afghanistan — Predator drones, Apache attack choppers and C-130 Hercules gunships — proved ineffective in Kosovo. Drones were easy targets for 1940s-era Hispano-Suisa anti-aircraft cannons, and C-130s and Apaches were considered too vulnerable to be deployed.
This only looks like Serbian propoganda and doesn't improve this already very POV article one bit. Also given the very low numbers of NATO losses the above is rather surprising. --mav
- Most of these strategies would serve to reduce Serbian military losses and waste NATO money, rather than killing NATO troops. Certainly these kinds of tactics have been used by other armies - bonfires to block laser-guided bombs compare with the oil trenches used by Iraq in the Gulf War, and I'm pretty sure that fake targets were used as early as WW2. Stealth bombers are known to be vulnerable to old-fashioned radar designs, being designed to be invisible to more modern systems, and are indeed more visible when their bomb bays are open. Plus, the Serbians did manage to shoot one down. Martin
- AP news, from which this was taken, is hardly a Serbian propaganda - see
- Oh so besides being POV (sic there is no NATO response to the claims) it is also a copyright violation. That is another reason to remove the text. --mav 00:19 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
- copying from AP news IS NOT copyright violation. Even parts of artistic work can be used for educational purposes, and copying from parts of news is widely done in Wikipedia, and does NOT copyright violation. Also, it is precisely NATO who was MAKING the claims - Wes. Clark is analyzing Serbian tactics in the article. You are just censoring the article to fit your POV and use copyright as an excuse, which btw is misplaced.
- From the "fair use" section of the copyright law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
We are not talking about copyright law here. We are talking about the rules of Wikipedia. Are you a lawyer? If so, are you prepared to act in official capacity as counselor for Wikipedia if they are sued? Unless the answer is "Yes" to both questions, then I say the stolen text should be removed from the article. Chadloder 01:45 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
- at the very least it should be attributed to its source.
- what do you want, list to be rephrased a bit so that the text is not the same? it does not make sense, and it is certainly not a copyright violation as it stands - it is a very small portion of an article, in which journalist sumarizes points which various NATO generals have made to him. If you want it attributed for NPOV purposes, that would make some sense, but it is quite clear from the article that there is nothing controversial there - this is based on what years after the war some US generals said in connection with Iraq and lessons they have learned from the Kosovo war, so it is not something contested by NATO, and neither it is by the Yugoslav side. It is pretty much a list of undisputed facts about the tactics used by the Yugoslav army to minimize military losses from the bombardment.
I think it romances a bit, but the general thrust of it is somewhere within cooee of an article I read a little while ago about the NATO air campaign, which as written by a distinguished defence analysist. I'll try to remember to dig it out at some stage. Tannin 11:56 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Well, regardless of the NPOV discussion, there are two serious problems with the list of tactics:
- Copyrighted material should not be used on Wikipedia. If you want this information to stay, you need to write your own version. Even just paraphrasing the list would be better than a straight copy. If you can't be bothered to do that, then just put in the link to the Globe and Mail story.
- The list looks completely out of place where it is in the article. This should be in a separate article instead, and linked from this one.
-- Ansible
- The list is now reworked so noone can say it is a copyright violation. Although I still think it was not copyright violation in the first place - unlike photos, text is something much more easily produced, and a thiny portion of some article easily reworded, so it does not make sense to worry about copyright. The whole article or a substantial portion would be different, but anyway, now it is rephrased. I have provided a link so it does justice to the military analyst who se text was used.
- As for your second point, I believe military tactics used by some party in some war should be discussed in article about the war. This aspect is also important, and while it is good for the article to discuss politics, historical context, civilian victims, war crimes etc. in this war, it is also should have a section dealing with the defense against bombing. Especially because Yugoslav army had this doctrine of defense against invador for like 50 years, and a long tradition of partisan warfare from the WWII on which it was based. Low tech approach, using independent units etc. was cornerstone of Yugoslav peoples army, and the teritorial defenses were used many times during the Balkan wars in the 90s by all the sides in ex-Yugoslavia. Officers on all sides were educated in this same military school, and while it was not particilary well suited for the civil war, it was perfect for defense against invasion. Ground invasion never happened, but
The list goes. The AP are very aggressive about making sure people don't screw with their copyrighted material. I've heard of them going after people who rewrite parts of their text just enough to pass the Google test. They also say as much: "Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed." Also our license (the GNU FDL) and the fact that we are a world-editable wiki puts serious constraints on our use of fair use text (read Wikipedia:Copyrights; look for "Fair use" headings). Basically we are limited to short, annotated and attributed quotes that help to illustrate the article and are clearly demarked as quotes so that other wikipedia editors know not to edit that text. And even if we could use the list under fair use we would have to attribute the source. Not doing so is a grave act of plagiarism. --mav
- I bet they are not as aggressive as you are to protect them. Now the list is rephrased, so even you cannot use this cheap excuse to remove material that does not fit your POV, but with wich US generals, military analysts, not to mention Yugoslav side, agree. Your claims of "plagiarisam" are laughable - noone takes credit here for their work, which consists merely of reporting, and is not original research.
- The new intro to "Yugoslav tactics that worked against NATO" makes all the difference as far as NPOV is concerned. Now the opinions expressed have been attributed to their adherents. It was not at all "laughable" for me to protect the legal and professional integrity of Wikipedia from a user intent on presenting the work of others as his own and not even attempt to attribute the ideas or the text to their original sources. This was both plagiarism (read that article and learn something) and a copyright violation (read Wikipedia:Copyrights and also learn something). Most of the text now at least passes the Google test. Hopefully in time it will become truly unique. --mav
- Yeah, right. Plagiarisam means to steal and pass off someone's work as one's own - and noone was doing that. Wikipedia articles by definition have no author, and noone was trying to falsely present text as their own anyway. Your worrying for protecting Wikipedia makes more sense, had it been the real motive - but then you would have to take care of every part of every article which was copied from some other site - and you know well how many articles started by copy-pasting and merging (combining small parts of different articles as a basis for an article which is anyway going to evolve is hardly a copyright infrigement - or you could as well extend it to include using parts of sentences, words, or even letters to be copyright protected). I agree that fair use is not clear-cut and so one can reword text just in case - "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." < from the link you provided yourself. So, if that is a general policy here to avoid any possible although unlikely problems, fine. But the real worry it seems to me here is about the use of photos, media files, or substantial portions of some other articles, not about few listed facts, which, as you can see, can be reworded without much trouble and which happens anyway.
- Your premise is incorrect - Wikipedia articles are not anonymous works. The page history documents every edit and who made those edits. And I do check for copyright violations (which are also plagiarism if the source is not noted) on numerous new articles. It is also true that information cannot be copyrighted but the issue here was the verbatim copying of text without even noting the source. Oh and some media outlets have been trying to extend copyright to greatly limit fair use by using scare tactics which result in expensive legal fees for defendants - there is nothing wrong with trying to limit this type of liability by respecting notices such as the one Reuters. It is better, IMO, to limit our use of such resources and to extensively rewrite and reorganize any information obtained from them when no other sources are available. This makes it very difficult for them to make any case against us without looking like fools. --mav 01:38 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
Has the map of great Albania ut's place here ? Ericd 11:45 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone else think there may be a NPOV problem with 3 pictures of unintended civilian casualities vs. one picture of an apparently intended target? -- stewacide 07:13 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Firstly, two of four pictures show intended targets as admitted by NATO (TV and electricity). Secondly, most probably all four of them were intended. Nikola 08:19 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The TV one also says "residential areas", which is why I got 3/4 - I guess 3+3=4 in this case :)
- Still, it would nice if someone could dig up a picture of destroyed Serbian military equipment.
- Still, it would nice if someone could dig up a picture of destroyed Serbian military equipment.
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|