Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army/Archive 3

Cleaning effort
Gnjilane mass graves – The remains of 80 Serbs were discovered in mass graves after they were killed by Albanian militants has a dead source link. I'm going to remove that row but anyone who can update the source is welcomed to revert it. Fez120 (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Jugoslav authorities saw KLA as a terrorist organisation has its own section. The report by Serbian authorities about 3K+ kidnapped is not relevant at all. A lot of lies from all parties were told during the conflict, "official" number of Albanian victims was up 100k at a point so I don't see the relevance of writing every bit of propaganda from war time in this article no matter from which side it comes. Fez120 (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to remove the allegation sections i.e. child soldiers and organ theft, since these are only allegations it doesn't make any sense to have them there. If KLA were to be found guilty about any of that then sure but we cant have 50%+ of the article talking about allegations. Need consensus on this one! Fez120 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And also Organ theft has it's own page. Fez120 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that my edit summaries were clear enough, but as they apparantly are not, I will explain here.
 * My first edit concerned the dead link part. Actually you are not supposed to remove sourced text even if the link to the source is dead, see WP:DEADREF: "Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." The proper way to handle it, is at least to mark the link with the template, or even better, try to find a live link. Which was what I did in my edit; inserting a fully working, live link. In your blanket revert you removed it.
 * My second edit had the following edit summary: "Reverting massive removal of sourced info. Create a consensus in talk before you remove." You reverted this saying "No reasons were given for reversions..." My reason was clearly stated, but I can repeat it: You made a massive removal of sourced info. I disagree with that removal, since the text you remove seems to be well sourced. That means that you will have to discuss in the talk page in order to get consensus for your changes. Please read WP:BRD.
 * I will reinstate my two edits in separate edits, since they are based on two different lines of reasoning. --T*U (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. But since you are here in this talk page, why not share your opinion on my reasons of removing those sections. The rosens were: 1. To as Yugoslavia saw KLA as a terrorist organisation, this have its own section in the article. I'm just cleaning. Are you of the idea that it should be stated through out the article? 2. What Serbian authorities said under the war (3k+ kdnapped) we know now today that that is not correct. Are you of the opinion that every propaganda/lie/stupidity should stay in the article? I'm of the opinion that is just text that is smearing the article. The reder is reading something that have no meaning. If Serbian authoritis say something that is not true (and we know it now/today) it should be in its section or page. Also you say that dead links should be repaired as possible. What if not possible? See history of the article, I've raised the concern of dead links a month ago and nobody fixed that link. Now I'm gonna give some time to adress my reasons one by one if not than do not accuse me of anything.Fez120 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude for real! Are you retarded? You fixed the link but did you read the article? No where in that article is it stated that the remains were found in mass graves. This is what bothers me, Serbian editors write a lot of bullshit and then gives a link that actualy doesn't support that bullshit at all. Leaving the burden to other editors to read and correct citations. I'm not going to correct someones bullshit I'm just going to delete it. Be serious!! And since when are news articles automatically relevant to describe an organisations. Shouldn't an official court document, which are public in Serbia, be more appropriate? If we are making wiki about real life events we can not describe this event with make belief stories but original facts. Fez120 (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to answer to your last message here (you asked me to share my opinion, remember). After this last message, I see no point in answering, since you have chosen to start an edit war. Since I do not fight edit wars, I withdraw. I will just remind you that Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks. Please read it at WP:NPA. --T*U (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So again you chose to accuse me? You reverted my change on that dead link and than you fixed the link GOOD! But why in hell didn't you read the article in first place? Which raises my first question why did you revert my change, the link was dead, when the link was alive it stated something else. You, just as Zoupan are trying to bully me! You could have addressed my reasons from the beginning instead you chose to lecture me up with links to wiki rules. Fez120 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fez120, there a few basic things of which you should be aware. First, check out WP:BRD - when you're making bold changes to a page and then get reverted, you don't simply revert back. Second, check out WP:NPA - calling other editors names isn't going to help your case. These are things you should have in mind when editing with whichever account you happen to be logged in to.

With regard to some of the things you removed, the Yugoslav view of the KLA being terrorist seems pretty relevant for that section. The organ theft topic does have its own page but that doesn't mean a section on the topic isn't needed here. As TU-nor stated, when you come across a dead link, you simply tag it as such and give it some time before removing it entirely. -- Local hero talk 14:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment "Cleaning effort" does not have the least truth when it really means removing information. Also, there is no need in using such language.--Z oupan 15:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Orahovac massacre – More than 100 Serbian and Roma civilians were kidnapped and placed in concentration camps, 47 were killed." In the article, concentration camps are not mentioned. Again non of you are interested to clean this article? But then again Local hero is guarding this article need I say more? Do you guys want to contribute to any cleaning or are we going to have edit wars? Fez120 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop your comments on the contributors and concentrate on the contents.
 * It is true that the article does not mention "consentration camps". It says "prison camps". Removing the whole section when one word can be changed seems disruptive. --T*U (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

" The Serbian government also reported that the KLA had killed and kidnapped no fewer than 3,276 civilians of various ethnic descriptions including some Albanians" This is a contradicted statement, and has a dead link. I same section 7 rows down "The exact number of victims of the KLA is not known. According to a Serbian government report, from 1 January 1998 to 10 June 1999 the KLA killed 988 people and kidnapped 287; in the period from 10 June 1999 to 11 November 2001, when NATO took control in Kosovo, 847 were reported to have been killed and 1,154 kidnapped" now how come I cant delete the first row which clearly is a wrong statement which uses a dead link? Fez120 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict between the numbers. They refer to the same source. 988+287+947+1154=3276. The ref has two links. The first link, to the English version, is dead. (The site has apparently been moved, and I have so far not managed to find it back.) But the Serbian link is working and has all the numbers. The "dead link" tag should be moved to the English link. You are right about one thing, however: The section beginning with "The Yugoslav authorities..." is (almost) redundant, since the two facts are repeated elsewhere. The text from this section can be merged into the other two places.
 * Well the first row says 3276 civilians, the numbers you added include more than 1500 security forces. Can you see the difference and why I'm cranky? Again you try to modify something but you are not giving any effort to real cleaning. Can you please answer me just one question? When these edits were done why did they pass through? Why did no one contest it at first, and why do you demand me to read the sources and correct the false claims? Shouldn't the criteria be that either your edit is correct and uses correct sources or it will be reverted? Fez120 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The simple solution is to change the word "civilians" to "people", not to remove the whole sentence. By removing the whole sentence, you also remove the fact that this is "[a]ccording to a Serbian government report", which is rather relevant here. Regarding your question about why these edits could "pass through". Well, that is how Wikipedia works. Everyone can edit, some people use this to present their point of view, which (fortunately) most often is corrected sooner or later. That is the curse and the joy of Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We really need to raise the question whether Serbian news paper B92 quoting Serbian politicians are a valid source to build a *FACT in this article. A huge number of sources presented in this article are from B92, mostly b92 quoting different persons in Belgrade. This hear says are then used to build claims here. An honest question from, why did nobody contest the edits when such claims using these sources were done? Fez120 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Questions about reliable sources can be raised at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --T*U (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation
you are interpreting accusations as facts and are wrongly presenting it as such. In the source you provided it merely says that FRY is accusing KLA of some killings. If those killings took place and if in fact it was KLA who were the perpetrators is not proved in the source. Therefore if those killings really took place, I'm not saying they didn't, it should be easy for you finding another source that underscores that and also proves that it was KLA. I had this talk with TU-nor, editor that are adding text should add relevant and correct text.Fez120 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is wrongly presented, and try not to be vague, transforming the matter to "proving". The reference (UN) says what it says. You have now broken 3RR, reverting 20:42 and commenting 20:45.--Z oupan 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The text you are removing is stating exactly what is reported in the source: "FRY complained", "according to them", "FRY issued several documents" etc. Nowhere is it said that KLA were perpetrators. As far as I can see the text is supported by the source. You have several times removed whole batches of text because you found the text to be inexact representations of the source. As you now have been told several times, that is not the way to do it. If you have suggestions about a better wording, then suggest changes, but do not remove the sourced text. --T*U (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the first sentence can easily be interpreted as a statement. I suggest that the new info added starts with e.g "FRY accused...". The more important question is why is it even relevant? This page have a lot of accusation and allegations as it is. What kind of value does this new information add? Whats its purpose? I really suspect that these kind of information is only there to try to make KLA appear in a negative way. And that is bias, since its should be neutral considering only the Serbs sees them in a negative manner and Zoupan being a Serbian doesn't ease my suspicions. Further more, you've all seen earler edits where the sources ere deliberately cited wrongly. Bottom line, enough with irrelevant accusations, add facts! Jugoslav security personnel being killed in 2000 in Mitrovica should have generated more than enough sources concentrated in that event. Fez120 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rework needed to bring the article in more neutral shape
The article is not neutral. It pushes several POV of Serbian editors (nothing personal). You can see it in the structure and the content of every section/subsection. There is not a single section/subsection that does not target the KLA as terrorists, criminals. Furthermore there are severe allegation about US support, and phrases like "mercenaries" while in fact all were volunteers. It goes so far to mention the Croatian volunteers as Islamists. Beside that there are inaccuracies but POV is still the main issue. It would be great if these topics were addressed so there are no edit wars in the future.

Opening sentence

 * exodus of Kosovar Albanians and a refugee crisis that eventually caused NATO - wasn't and exodus. Was an orchestrated ans systematic ethnic cleansing. Exodus is vague here although it carries emotion.
 * that eventually caused NATO to intervene militarily' - NATO intervened after the Yugoslav refusal to sign the Rambouillet agreement despite the crisis. The core ethnic cleansing started immediately as a response to NATO's attack.

Early history
Early history here starts from 1992 at best. LPK is mentioned nowhere, neither the Serbian the oppression, the sporadic fight between insurgents in the '80, etc. I don't think this is because of the POV, but is missing anyway.

It is the West's fault. KLA is taken out of the political, social, and ethnic context of Kosovo by not mentioning the persecutions of Albanians, the imposed 70% rate of unemployment between Albanians within Kosovo, Miloseciv's rise in power, the Yugoslavian Wars, etc.
 * In 1996 the British weekly The European carried an article by a French expert - he said that he said - involving the German S. Services needs reliable sources. Hansjoerg Geiger is a living person (as far as I know) and cannot be involved inside the articles with sentences as "the birth of the KLA in 1996 coincided with the appointment of Hansjoerg Geiger as the new head of the BND (German secret Service)".


 * the birth of the KLA in 1996' - why was KLA born in 1996. The opening paragraph says '90. Jashari's activity started in 1992.

1998

 * 28 militants were killed, along with 30 civilians, - no source. No names provided even in the base articles. So far only the Jashari's were known.
 * The Yugoslav Army, although greatly outnumbered - the Yugoslav army was outnumbered?

1999
The whole 1999 is based on Roland Keith words, a field office director of the OSCE's. Not by any official statement of OSCE, or any other entity. Again POV accuses against KLA for 1999 events during the peak of the Kosovo War.
 * 1) the [KLA] kidnapping of security forces resulted in a significant increase in government casualties
 * 2) The situation was clearly that KLA provocations...

Foreign volunteers

 * Islamist volunteers from Western Europe of ethnic Albanian, Turkish, and North African origin, were organized by Islamist leaders in Western Europe allied to Bin Laden and Zawahiri - from one side it calls the volunteers Islamists, on the other side it connects them to Bin Laden although he became well known later. First the Germans, now the Islamists.
 * According to the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by September 1998, there was 1,000 foreign mercenaries from Albania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslims) and Croatia. - the Serbian Ministry is the last resort for defining the ethnic composition of the volunteers. It tries to tag KLA as "Islamists" in order for public sympathy on the west. What about the Croatians? Are they Islamists too?


 * mercenaries instead of "volunteers". This mistake is present more than once. Check the meaning of mercenary.

Aftermath (post-1999)

 * In 2000 there were unrest in Kosovska Mitrovica, with a Yugoslav police officer and physician were killed
 *  the FRY complained..., the FRY issued several documents... - repeatedly focusing on FRY point of view

During 2000 the whole Albanian population from north was expelled. Oliver Ivanovic was recently sentenced for this. Accusing KLA for something that happened in 2000, moreover in the Northern Kosovo is far from neutral.

Separatism in south Serbia and R. Macedonia

 * mercenaries - again instead of volunteers. The source lacks citation and a better one is needed.

Foreign support
Here the whole section consists of 2 paragraphs. The second and slightly largest one talks on what congressman (one out of many) Dana Rohrabacher advocated, and what DioGuardi thinks of Dana. What DioGuardi thinks of Dana Rohrabacher is not proof of neither official support nor non-support from the US. Dana Rohrabacher is a congressman. This paragraph was added just because it was easy to find online. The "culprits" are the Americans now. First the Germans, then the Islamists, now US.

Reported abuses
This is the largest section.
 * According to a Serbian government report,...
 * from 10 June 1999 to 11 November 2001, when NATO took control in Kosovo, 847 were reported to have been killed and 1,154 kidnapped.' ???

The source is "arkiva.serboja.rs".

Status as a terrorist group

 * KLA is still present in the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base list of terrorist groups, - dead link

Special Court of Kosovo

 * the parliament of Kosovo approved of a special court for serious abuses during and after the 1998-1999 - they approved a special court for individuals. It is the court to clear out if there were any abuses, serious or not, who and when, etc.

--Mondiad (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment...That is not a good way to list issues. You could have used tags (Disputed inline, Template:Dead link, Template:Clarify inline) or simply introduced references that balance the article? You know how to do that by now.--Z oupan 05:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article needs a lot of work and this is not about me liking it or not. Just tagging every sentence would not improve anything. I listed a series of points. You're welcome to discuss or suggest on each of those as you wish.--Mondiad (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some should be corrected, some are trivial errors, but this is mostly very POV request, and i would object for most of the changes proposed. --Axiomus (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you will object all the changes proposed, but I haven't proposed any changes yet. I have listed what I consider that should be changed or discussed. If you have any particular topic from the list in mind, let me know which. --Mondiad (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Report adopted by Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, body of Council of Europe
Recent report adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of Council of Europe shed new light at the nature of KLA. The findings of the rapporteur Mr Dick Marty were hailed by the former prosecutor of the Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, Mrs Del Ponte. As such I believe that they express official attitude of the Committee towards the events on Kosovo and the role of Mr Thaci and KLA, and these should be reflected in the WP article. It was followed by all major media outlets including BBC, Gardian, The Times, etc.. These statements were previously indicated in the book of Mrs Del Ponte. She as a prosecutor of the UN criminal tribunal had opportunity to conduct investigation on Kosovo. Furthermore, report by Dick Marty cites intelligence data of NATO member states as a source. By adopting the report the appropriate Committee of the CoE gave credibility to Mr Marty's findings and his sources and it became official. These are not only the words of a single person, but a legal body and their appointed rapporteur in charge for the investigation which took 2 years. As such they need to be highlighted in the WP article on the KLA. The CoE is the most important institution for fostering human rights in Europe and its opinions have heavy weight. I ask the superior editor to adjudge on this issue. I also invite everyone involved to read the lengthy report of Mr Marty.

Foreign support (validity of sources?)
Regarding alleged German support, the "Foreign support" section makes use of an article written by a "French expert" in "The European", a British weekly that seems as an extremely unreliable source, see http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/30/the-european/ Also the Sunday Times article, regarding alleged US and UK support, cannot traced on the Times Online site. Can someone verify if these articles do really exist? Thx.

Radical Islamist?
Please immediatly erase this lying, the KLA was not a terrorist organization, they were guerrilla fighters who fought to protect their homes. It had no islamist ideology but albanian nationalism, while the motto is "the religion of albanian people is to be albanian". The flag is this of Skanderbeg, consideres by the pope of his time as "an athlete of the christ". All christians albanian are supporters of the independance of Kosovo, it's just a problem of nationalism, islam has nothing role in this. ANd the source of this affirmation doesn't exist, the link drive to nothing. Thank you.

Yes they are terrorist and they were listed as terrorist organization even by the United States Department of State at that time it is also proven that they were supported and welcomed support from radical Islamists including Bin Laden. I agree that they only used radical Islamism as excuse to recruit young, innocent people and the true goal was to protect their drug trading routes and strongholds which were "invaded" by Serbian police. And I've spoken with christian Albanians that were appalled by the radicalism and crimes of the KLA.

Even in the text of the wiki you have the sources that US and UN regarded KLA as a terrorist group. " In February 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, condemned both the actions of the Serb government and of the KLA, and described the KLA as "without any questions, a terrorist group".[91][92][93] UN resolution 1160 took a similar stance.[94][95]"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kosovo Liberation Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080517121236/http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm to http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091031095007/http://www.fas.org:80/irp/world/para/kla.htm to http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/kla.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kosovo Liberation Army. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/fatmir_limaj_145.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-monster.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012192008/https://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CCSCOAL%2C%2CSRB%2C%2C498805fbc%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CCSCOAL%2C%2CSRB%2C%2C498805fbc%2C0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3517

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo Liberation Army. 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:
 * Added tag to https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/ps020299.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220030412/http://www.cfr.org/publication/10159/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/10159/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo Liberation Army. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000816165402/http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm to http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr033199.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideology
Where is "ideology" of KLA is based on? Give sources and do not blindly add stuff that is challenged. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Another anon editor has added a list of tendentious "ideologies" to Albanian nationalism - Greater Albania, Anti-Serbism, Anti-Orthodoxy. I believe that is POV pushing, and deleted once but it was reverted so I've added dubious and cn tags. Is there a non-POV RS that states the KLA's ideology? Should there even be an "ideology" line in this infobox? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed "anti-orthodoxy" after it was added by an annonimous user . None of the cited sources (two were undefined tags and one was cited two times) has any mention of "anti-orthodoxy".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These were re-added and the undefined ones rescued. I checked them all. Agree, none of them mentioned "anti-orthodoxy" or even discussed the ideology of the KLA; one of them didn't even mention the KLA.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your help, it is hard to deal with these disruptive IP editors. After I started this discussion, one registred editor added Albanian nationalism and I did not touch it. It was some kind of silent consensus to keep only Albanian nationalism. The KLA was a nationalist organization, and there was no religious reason behind war in Kosovo. On Greater Albania, it is an irredentist concept of Albanian nationalism rather than an ideology on its own. Furthermore, the used sources do not present it as an ideology. Thus, I believe that the Ideology part should contain only Albanian nationalism. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverts
, if others revert you, try to make them understand the reasons of your edits on the talk page. In particular if you never use edit summaries. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

On the Citation Needed tag in "Kosovo War," paragraph 1
So I managed to track down the Amnesty International report discussing the Prekaz Massacre, in hopes of adding it as a source and resolving the last remaining Citation Needed tag in this article (as of now, at least). The only problem is that the report is in French, and I can't speak a word of French beyond "Bonjour." Would anyone fluent in French be willing to quickly skim through the report and see if the report ever outright declared the massacre to be an extermination operation? Thanks.

Link to the report: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/eur700331998fr.pdf

TheHardestAspect OfCreatingAnAccount IsAlwaysTheUsername 06:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: Decided to simply run the report through Google Translate, though I would still appreciate it if a fluent French speaker would double-check the source. Thanks. Regardless, the citation has been added.


 * TheHardestAspect OfCreatingAnAccount IsAlwaysTheUsername 03:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo War
In the following i will relate to the recent dispute over the sourced statement by Tim Judah:"The KLA has never won a battle"

From 1999 to this day there is a dispute over who won the Kosovo War. Besides we can all agree that nobody really wins in a war, we have the Serbian side who claims a win based on numbers and battles won and the Albanian side which claims to be the winner since the Albanians reached their purpose (independence). With this background i would be cautious with statements like the one which is stated above.

We do also have the Battle of Košare where the Yugoslav Army lost control over the border and the KLA captured the border outpost. To me this seems like a clear win. And even if it's not clear enough, it is definitely not legit to make that kind of statements. I don't really care about who won or lost. But what i do care of is when people try to belittle the achievements of the KLA. Especially when there are multiple sources in the same time that not just view the KLA as a successful insurgency but rank it as the most successful. I don't know why Tim Judah gives such kind of statements. Thats for now the only source with this claim that i can find. It doesn't represent the common view.

My suggestion: Delete the part Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Losing control" such as retreating is not an argument. There is no win (or any major win, despite foreign support), or at least the majority of sources is not claiming that. We have a RS which is pretty clear and I do not see arguments presented for removal. "Belittle"? That particular word seems to indicate a strong POV, which is not good for the free encyclopedia.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So when you hold a position and you lose control of it, then it's not a win for the counterpart?

Some English sources:


 * Note 4. NATO and KLA defeat Yugoslavian troops at Albanian border:


 * NATO bombs barracks at Kosare unaware they are already captured for more than a month by the KLA:


 * by the end of may, Serbian troops where also defeated at the southwest border between Kosovo and Albania:Crazydude1912 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Amateurish way of thinking considering that the main goal is of primary relevance when determining the final success, which in this case was further penetration of Albanian forces, which was not achieved.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course you always find a way around until it matches your personal preferences. The main goal of the KLA could be taking over the border, penetrating through to Prishtina/Pristina or uniting all Albanian settlements in one state. I hope that you can see that we can extend this "main goal debate" to an unlimited level, until it is in your POV not achieved. In that way of thinking of course the KLA can never win any battle anytime.

But in this discussion we are talking about the Battle of Košare/Kosharë/Kosare or sometimes the Battle of the Albanian border but definitely not the battle of penetrating though Kosovo. I don't see any arguments why the goal was not achieved in this point since it is clearly stated as a defeat of the Yugoslav troops. Crazydude1912 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not achieved, whether anybody likes it or not. All battles were either stalemates or Yugoslav victories, and no, that is not my interpretation but an opinion based and formed per data available. The more interesting fact was that the border was defended mostly by green boys who did their National service. Ping me when you learn how to discuss with other editors without finger-pointing and other nonsense. Please do not further edit-war like it was done on this very page. ty,  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I provided available data where a defeat is stated. Don't call it nonsense when you get confronted with facts. Green boys? I'm not sure who the green boys are (no real explanation in the web) but there was some time ago a Serbian movie about the Battle of Kosare with the name "Ratne price sa Kosara" that clearly talks about the regular Yugoslav army with soldiers, battalions and commanders. Crazydude1912 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added content based on Perritt who says that the KLA won few battles. Both views can be present on the article, since it seems that the sources dispute each other's stance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extremely Biased Article
There is no proven evidence that KLA was involved in drug trafficking, or systematic abuses of human rights. There have been multiple trials on its leaders, Haradinaj, Limaj, etc., and all the cases have been dismissed by the International Court of Justice. However, by reading this article the reader gets a biased view that KLA is somehow really involved in such accusations. We should take into account that accusations against KLA are a routine part of the Serbian state propaganda, in order to justify or relativize its involvement in countless massacres which on the contrary are proven at the International Court of Justice. In that light, this Wikipedia page does a great service to fake news and propaganda warfare by filling the page with allegations and unproven fairy tales. There is no mentioning of the fact that so far all cases have been dismissed by the International Court of Justice. There is no mentioning that the biggest accusation so far, the so-called „Yellow House“ tale that Serbia fabricated and advertised aggressively was proven to be a hoax. There is no mentioning that KLA represented the will of the people of Kosovo against an oppressor and an occupation army, no mentioning that its members are regarded as heroes in their own country. Sorry to state it, but this page is a Serbian propaganda bulletin and has no connection to an unbiased encyclopedia.2003:C0:6F09:3361:4941:2E14:B6BB:89BD (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "an oppressor and an occupation army" - how can one state occupy it self is beyond normal logic and discourse

New edits
noted that SS "sympathies" are an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which has to be discussed in a number of reliable sources. The use of the Koktsidis (2008) in the article doesn't preserve the required nuance and doesn't meet WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is probably the first time I read any mention of SS Skanderbeg in bibliography. Koktsidis writes: Side comment: I would suggest to avoid use of this source. It wouldn't pass WP:POV/WP:RS in the context of WP:RSN. The author writes: It's a very weird narrative which stands far apart from what would be expected on the intro of an International Relations article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have considered the repercussions of including it, however I am learning. After an extensive search, I could not find any article online making a similar association (albeit describing a chronological history of the independence of Kosovo in the context of foreign intervention). In the article, 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg, a claim is made by Chris Hedges that However, he states "fascist militias raised by the Italians in World War II" which makes the association with the Nazi formed SS redundant, he maybe referring to the Balli Kombëtar, but from my recollection they fought against the Italians? The only way I see it staying is if the background of this article touches on the topic of Kosovo statehood historically, however it may be beyond the scope of the article.ElderZamzam (talk)

Reverted
The Terrorist designation was RVed. Wikipedia does not label organizations are terrorist per WP:TERRORIST unless they are labeled such by the vast majority of sources. The KLA is not labelled by sources as a terrorist organization. even the separatist group ETA is not labeled a terrorist group. Durraz0 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the organ theft allegations
I see no reason for a section to exist over some weak allegations from 12 years ago that have never been confirmed(BBC). The file has been closed long ago and investigations have ceased. This section has no reason to stay up per WP:OUTDATED. Uniacademic (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC) :The allegations are part of the historical record, and this is a historical article. The section can be updated with newer articles about the allegations. Edit: this is probably the most detailed coverage of this on Wikipedia: War crimes in the Kosovo War, it's certainly a noteworthy topic. twsabin 23:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is some follow-up coverage:

"Marty’s claims led to the setting up of the Special Investigative Task Force (SITF) in January 2011. Based in Brussels and funded by the European Union, it began investigating the allegations in the Marty report and in 2014 reported that organ harvesting had taken place, but 'on a limited scale'.In 2015, the Kosovan parliament - somewhat reluctantly - agreed to set up a special court to deal with the allegations and, in 2016, the newly-established Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, based in The Hague, began its work."
 * twsabin 23:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Sock of )
 * We should cover all allegations and follow-up events per WP:UNDUE. I don't think that we need a whole section for an allegation which has been debunked and doesn't exist as an investigation item as of 2022. The content should be shortened to a summary of the events.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Initiator
According to the article. The original source is offline and can't be verified but the same chapter is quoted in another publication: The source refers to the ceasefire agreements and quotes the comment of a NATO member representative on the NATO council. It doesn't refer to the war and it's not a NATO comment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist activity => Terrorist organisation
I know that per wiki talk page rules the new item should be added to the bottom, but for better visibility i have placed it on the top. If you want, you can push it to the bottom, but if someone deletes it, it will be marked as vandalism, and reported

I will drop UN documents which implicate the KLA as terrorist organisation: https://web.archive.org/web/20011122091748/http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/98sc1160.htm Then MIPT Terrorist knowledge base: https://web.archive.org/web/20070402053051/http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3517 Then the START Center: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism; a Center of Excellence of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security based at the University of Maryland https://web.archive.org/web/20090211235357/http://www.start.umd.edu/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3517

All of these sources declare the KLA as terrorist organisation. Maleschreiber Crazydude1912 you can object to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to remove the KLA from the list, if you succeed, until then the the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is WP:RS. Good luck disputing that. Pixius talk 13:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you read sources or reverted the change WP:IDONTLIKEIT Here is an excerpt:
 * UNSC resolution 1160:
 * Condemning the use of excessive force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo, as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training,
 * Calls also upon the Kosovar Albanian leadership to condemn all terrorist action, and emphasizes that all elements in the Kosovar Albanian community should pursue their goals by peaceful means only;
 * Underlines that the way to defeat violence and terrorism in Kosovo is for the authorities in Belgrade to offer the Kosovar Albanian community a genuine political process;
 * Decides that all States shall, for the purposes of fostering peace and stability in Kosovo, prevent the sale or supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels and aircraft, of arms and related matériel of all types, such as weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall prevent arming and training for terrorist activities there
 * Where exactly have you not seen the terrorism in terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army ? Pixius talk 08:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the only sentence where KLA and terror are mentioned together in the entire resolution "Condemning the use of excessive force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo, as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training," =/= "We the UN designate the Kosovo Liberation Army with the label terrorist organization". You have not provided a source from the official homeland security site rather a web archive to a university project funded by them. this link does not exist anymore, nor could I find any mention to the KLA on the website anymore. on all the US government designations listed on the site, the KLA is NOT classified as a terrorist organization. Same goes with the other link you have provided, it is an archive to a link that redirects you too some internet provider. Also on this archive, it has no terror designations by any of the governments and agencies listed. Durraz0 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrorist activities are done by terrorists and terrorist organisation - I haven't heard of a single charity organisation "doing terrorism". External support was again related to KLA, all sentences with terrorism are related to KLA. The sentence:
 * "Condemning... ...all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training," does equal to "We, the UN designate the Kosovo Liberation Army with the label terrorist organisation" :Serbian forces are not, in the context of terrorism, mentioned in the resolution at all. It is quite clear who/what the KLA was.
 * Second, archive of archive.org aka. the wayback machine is a reputable and highly reliable source of data from the past. I am really sorry that you are not aware of it.
 * So, on both archived web pages, the KLA is designated as a terrorist organisation. Further more A Department of Homeland Security Emeritus Center of Excellence headquartered at the University of Maryland is the school of the Homeland Security, it belongs to them. It is not funded by them (it is funded by the USofA governement) it is "the Homeland Security Center"( National_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism MIPT_Terrorism_Knowledge_Base ).
 * The so called "alleged" crimes are listed in the new database as well, where most of terror action (attacks, bomb attacks, executions, kidnapping, beheading, torture etc..) of the KLA with date and outcome are presented.
 * The Global Terrorist Database maintained by the Homeland Security (Homeland Security Global Terrorism Database)  --Pixius  talk 10:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the two archives in which you have provided say that the KLA is not on the list of terrorist organizations by all the US entities listed there. you said "you can object to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to remove the KLA from the list, if you succeed, until then the the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is WP:RS. Good luck disputing that." which is setting up WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your source is not even from the homeland security website rather a university project funded by them and it says the KLA is not on a terrorist list from all the us departments listed. but even if this was from homeland security as you claimed in your statement, it has already been removed as i cant find a single mention of the KLA on that website today. Durraz0 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the statement that the USA recognized KLA as a terrorist organization conflicts the statement in the paragraph Status as a terrorist organization because it claims that the US has categorized and considered the KLA as a terrorist organization by using source a statement of Ambassador Gelbart, a statement which does not represent the position of the US Government and a statement which he had to modify. A statement by a US official which was later modified does not represent the official stance of the US Government on the matter as such it is very misleading and can be considered as agenda pushing. As such the sentence "It was considered a terrorist group by Yugoslavia and the United States until the breakup of Yugoslavia." needs to be modified to "It was considered a terrorist group by Yugoslavia until the breakup of Yugoslavia." thus removing the part "and the United States" Butrint10morina (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New proposal
The section about the "use of child soldiers" should be deleted. It doesn't refer to specific battles or to a widespread phenomenon and more importantly it has nothing to do with the recruitment of children in the military. In 1999, the average age in Kosovo was ~26 and more than 40% of the population were younger than 25. Participation in the Kosovo War was an issue which affected the entire society and in most families those who stayed behind and didn't become refugees did try to do something to help in the war effort. They weren't "recruited" by any faction, they participated in what they perceived as a war of national liberation in a society where most people were young. Individuals like Albesian Mataj (1982-1999) weren't recruited and coerced, they were volunteers and today their sacrifice - as is perceived in local society - is commemorated yearly. In Ukraine today there are fighters who are younger than 18 and they obviously weren't recruited by force but volunteered to fight for what they perceive as a just war of national defence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023
Add "Albania–Yugoslav border incident (April 1999)“ to battles and wars. 2A02:8070:784:F980:948B:FA0E:2814:77B7 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks like this was completed by another user. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you include Nezir Nebihi in the list of leaders
I suggest that you include Nezir Nebihi in the list of leaders 185.222.138.112 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source to support this addition (also is helpful to add the request template, as users have done above). GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Should it be designated as a terrorist group in the first paragraph?
This is 50% false information! What I think should be done is editing the first paragraph to define it as a "was a paramilitary ethnic-Albanian separatist militia that sought the separation of Kosovo from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" Gmiletic (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That fact is well-documented, including the UN resolution. There is also a narcoterrorism claim. Which is also false because it is not claimed by any type of organization and no evidence.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It's basic NPOV to not use loaded terms which present a particular POV in the WP:LEAD in wikivoice. The state of Serbia considered the KLA as a terrorist organization and other states switched the way the viewed it (from terrorists to freedom fighters) based on international politics that can be discussed in the article, but there's no such thing as an "objectively" terrorist organization (with the exception of groups like ISIS). Most organizations of national liberation movements have been branded as terrorists by the states that they fought against, but we don't call the People's Protection Units "terrorists" despite the fact that the main country that is fighting against them views exactly as that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Maleschreiber This is a typical straw man argument- The People's Protection Units is a group of people fighting against ISIS - the terrorist organisation. In Serbia, KLA - the terrorist organisation is kidnaping people and killing officials and civilians from ambush or by direct confrontation.

Your argument is invalid. Second, in 1998 USA has officialy declared the KLA as teh terrorist organisation. At one point the USA saw the opportunity to use them for their agenda and retracted them from the list ( by US law it is forbidden to support the terrorist organisation ), hence we got the crooked name "freedom fighters" Pixius talk 13:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But KLA before the war was perfect example of terrorist organization. There are many sources that well documented the change of the status of the organization. It was generally considered terrorist (including the UN), not only by Serbia.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no objectively terrorist organization - with exceptions like ISIS. "Terrorist" is a manufactured political term that is used by various factions against their political opponents, but it's not used in historiography as an objective marker.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your good objective job here, do not let these Serbs to provoke you to implement their narrative into this. Weiter so :) ECasio (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course that they were seen as a terrorist group, sources are quite clear, see
 * This relevant info. should be added to the article, not in the first sentence, but in the lead, with more details touched and with serious WP:NPOV.
 * Another thing, the part "stressing Albanian culture" in the lead should be rewritten, as this little group was not a bunch of museum curators but paramillitary/soldiers who were considered to be a terrorist group by the United States. That is a fact and it's 100% worth mentioning. Editor  do you have any more sources to add, I think that this topic is your area or interest? ty,  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a source at the bottom in section External links from Federation of American Scientists which should be used in text. There are also plenty of sources here which back up the claim that KLA was a terrorist organization. The biggest evidence is US itself which classified KLA as terrorists. Peervalaa (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose the proposed change of the lead which would reflect a biased stance on the whole article. Sadko mentioned sources that quote the statement made by Robert Gelbard, Special Representative of the US, who claimed in 1998 that the KLA “is, without any questions, a terrorist group". What Sadko did not mention is that Robert Gelbard completly changed his approach to the KLA one month later with his statement that the KLA has "not been classified legally by the U.S. Government as a terrorist organization."  . The terrorism issue is already distinctly covered as a section in the article. Mentioning terrorism in the lead would bring to much undue weight to this article, since western countries didn't regard it as a terrorist organization and to some point completely abolished any doubts that existed from before 1998. The only countries that support this stance are Serbia and its allies.Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources are not saying that. None of my sources are Serbian. It was seen as a terrorist group world-wide for a period of time. It is a fact. It's currently not covered in the article and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points, --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph the statement that the USA recognized KLA as a terrorist organization conflicts the statement in the paragraph Status as a terrorist organization because it claims that the US has categorized and considered the KLA as a terrorist organization by using source a statement of Ambassador Gelbart, a statement which does not represent the position of the US Government and a statement which he had to modify . A statement by a US official which was later modified does not represent the official stance of the US Government on the matter as such it is very misleading and can be considered as agenda pushing. As such the sentence "It was considered a terrorist group by Yugoslavia and the United States until the breakup of Yugoslavia." needs to be modified to "It was considered a terrorist group by Yugoslavia until the breakup of Yugoslavia." thus removing the part "and the United States"Butrint10morina (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

>:::::: Thanks for explaining. I understand the argument. However, this single sentence in the first paragraph serves as a summary of the corresponding section: Kosovo Liberation Army (per MOS:LEAD under which the lead is nothing but a summary of the body). In it's current form, the sentence fails to summarize this section. Previously, it also did not summarize it very well, but at least it tried to; the extent to which it failed can simply be seen as an imprecision/incompleteness, rather than agenda pushing. Positions of Yugoslavia, France and the USA all need to be carried over, concisely. It's poor WP:BALANCE to only mention the position of Yugoslavia, and make it seem so isolated in this regard, when other countries expressed similar viewpoints during a certain period. It should be easy to come to a common ground here. twsabin 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BALANCE combined with WP:TERRORIST means that we shouldn't just lump countries that considered KLA a terrorist organization (otherwise why aren't we adding that most countries didn't consider it a terrorist organization?). Uniacademic (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be glossing over the need for the lead to act as a summary. France and the USA are covered in the body for a reason. I don't agree with your change. I will think for a while what the best next step is for this content. twsabin 19:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding states that considered KLA a terrorist organization but excluding the bigger picture which is that KLA was not considered a terrorist organization by the vast majority of UN states is WP:UNDUE. I think that we should not treat in moralizing overtones the "terrorist" label. All insurgent national liberation organizations have been considered terrorist groups by the states against which they rebelled and by their allies. If they manage to shift the political narrative and win, they are no longer considered "terrorists". The KLA is no exception to the rule.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber Do you have the statement of all countries about the KLA from 1996-1999?
 * What does the UNR1160 says? Do you know that the UN Resolution is a binding legal document?
 * By your argument "All insurgent national liberation organizations have been considered terrorist groups by the states against which they rebelled and by their allies. If they manage to shift the political narrative and win, they are no longer considered "terrorists".", if Hitler has won the war, we would be learning that the Nazism is a good thing Pixius talk 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly room for incremental improvement from here. twsabin 23:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC) (Sock of )