Talk:Kosovo War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 2 months

Military history: Balkan / European / French / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Serbia High‑importance

	Serbia portal 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.

Limited recognition Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Sweden participiated

Sweden participiated and lost 14 men. Please add them in to the wiki-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.212.74 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the deaths? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the Yugoslav casualties, I request that there should be added “2 prada aircraft vehicles eliminated„ since in defense of somolica the Yugoslav suffered 2 prada aircraft veichles to be eliminated by the KLA. 185.173.207.148 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result

@Griboski

I'll go source by source (in the order you mention it).

Yes, pyrrhic isn't great (although I'm pretty sure pyrrhic was more referring to something outside of the war such as media), although it still definitely counts as a victory nonetheless.
Quite honestly, I misread. Yes, I agree, this source shouldn't be included as ambiguous isn't exaclty a fair result to provide for a full-on victory.
Yes, it implies NATO won on its own, although it links NATO's efforts to securing a victory in this war. Furthermore, when the bombing ended this war practically did too. I think this definitley asserts a victory to NATO within specifically the Kosovo War, just by attributing it to the bombing.

I just personally dislike leaving results as treaties. I feel that if someone did try and do a deep dive into sources, the result I provided could be supported by more sources. However, I must admit, this is an incredibly tedious process due to how sources speak about modern wars. I agree, what I provided definitely wasn't perfect, but I think it tends to be the best idea to straight-up provide a result if it is supported by sources. Looking forward to hearing from you back! Setergh (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most neutral result would be to leave it as is, due to the contentious nature of the topic and the fact that there's constant edit warring over infobox results. I don't have an issue changing it if an abundance of sources make it clear, but a lot of the sources say different things with some sort of caveat. As for example, two of the sources you added which seem to actually denigrate the level of NATO success, without mentioning the KLA. From what I've read most of the sources follow the pattern of, the war ended with the signing of the Kumanovo agreement, Yugoslav forces pull out, Kosovo is placed under UN administration, NATO peacekeeping forces come in. Griboski (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, I should probably look for more sources. If I get at least 5 or so (which at least support my result enough), I think I might come back to this. Setergh (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've come back with more sources. I'll show them, state what quote says so and explain my reasoning on why it's valid.

Just wanted to quickly address however, "two of the sources you added which seem to actually denigrate the level of NATO success, without mentioning the KLA.". Yes, you are right, though I'd be guessing this is likely due to NATO being the main belligerent in this war. One of the sources I used even mentions how NATO practically did all the work. Therefore, I'm going based off of if it's quite clear to see that the result refers to the Kosovo War/Crisis in particular.

[1] p. 84 "Kosovo victory" [...] "Pyrrhic one (still implies victory)" [...] "first-ever fulfillment of the long-sought dream of victory through air power alone" [...] "The war was the first case of a completely bloodless victory" I'd say this source does try and clearly state a NATO-sided victory.
[2] p. 75 "it was able to have NATO win its war for it" I'd say "its war" definitely refers to this war. This is the source I was referring to earlier, NATO practically did all the work, however it still did win this war in particular.
[3] p. 367 "military interventions against Libya and Bosnia-Kosovo produced strategic victories" Personally refers to this war being a strategic victory, and I think it simply just groups Bosnia and Kosovo together due to being similar conflicts. You can also refer to p. 275-276 "What remains unanswered is how to interpret this victory in the 1992-9 Bosnia-Kosovo intervention" [...] "Part of the calculus of victory in Bosnia and Kosovo"
[4] p. 177 "Ironically, even after this unambiguous victory" I'd say this clearly shows that the author thinks this war was most definitely a NATO success and victory.
[5] p. 16 "To be sure, enough problems remain in Kosovo that NATO's victory cannot yet be called permanent." Even though it says the victory's not permanent, it still states an immediate result of a victory within this war.
[6] p. 244 Straight up states a victory for Anti-Yugoslav forces.
[7] p. 257 "The terms for the agreement were now worse than at the beginning, for this time Allies dealt with a defeated state. Hence, the agreement meant surrender, a capitulation." States the defeat of Yugoslavia.

These are the sources I found, with which I tried to make sure there's a justifiable reason to use them for the result I have provided earlier. If you think there's any problems with what I've sourced then I'll gladly look over it and respond. Waiting to hear from you soon! Setergh (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to google NATO victory in this case and provide random sources, it's more a matter of what is due, and whether we should force a result victory for the sake of it. They still don't explicitly call it a KLA victory, only NATO. Also, #6 seems to be a science book about digital media (with the table being taken from Wikipedia) and #7 is published by the Dorrance Group, a vanity press. --Griboski (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]