Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stated Aims

The KLA has officially stated, or did officially state, that it's aim was to attack Serbian Civilian Targets in order to ellicit a Serbian Military Occupation of Kosovo to protect the Serb Minority, which would inevitable drag NATO into the conflict. Like it or not the KLA is a criminal terrorist organization with links to Sex Trafficking, Drug Dealing and other nefarious criminal acts (Agency France Press). Cut the American Propaganda and start working on the article to show a fair representation of what happened. The fact that The Spanish Forensics Team Leader returned home from Kosovo without having found a single mass grave, and complaining of a being subject of a 'semantic piroutte by the War Propaganda Machine', evidently isn't enough - The Media don't seem to give a shit either, 2000 Bodies where uncovered in Kosovo, most of them were KLA Terrorists, Serbian MPs or Serbian Civilians, one estimate that the WSJ gives is 700 Kosovans over the period '91-'99. That's terrible, but that clearly ISNT mass genocide. PatrioticGreekCypriotStandingByHisSerbianOrthodoxBrothers

Ti Kamnis Re?

I think we all know that the KLA was a Terrorist Organisation fighting for one goal: A 'Greater Albania' including Kosovo. They intended to leverage the demographics of Kosovo, ie, its majority Albanian population, in order to harass and terrorise the Serb Minority which would force a Yugoslav Army intervention, and a NATO response. No mass graves were ever found, no evidence of Genocide in the FBI Investigating Team's own words! What a joke.

NATO for its part wanted to break up the only real opposition to its power in Eastern Europe, both militarily and economically: Serbia. Serbia was and still is the strongest military force in Eastern Europe outside of Russia. It did not conform to the norms of a satellite state in that it was: a. Not small enough to be considered a non-threat and b. Militarily too powerful compared to the rest of Eastern Europe.

NATO succeeded in its aims of creating a plethora of small, manageable satellite states out of the former Yugoslavia - we only have to look at the situation now with completely arbritrary states such as FYROM and the Protectorate of Kosovo etc.

Oh well another year, another unjust War.....somehow I don't think there will be any more Wars fought by the West in favour of a Muslim population for some time :) thank God. 82.35.34.24 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Mediation

hey all, I'm here from the Mediation Cabal page for dispute resolution. I'll look over the history and talk page, but it would help if everyone involved (User_talk:1liberator and User:ChrisO were noted on the request page, but all interested parties are welcome) would make a statemement about the problem right here in this section.

please follow these mediation rules (my own personal preference, mind you, not official wikipedia stuff) when working in this section...

when you make a statement about a problem...

1. try to be brief and clear
2. avoid overt insults, broad categorizations, and statements designed just to tick people off
3. talk about the problems occurring while editing this page, and only refer to actions that have happened elsewhere if you cannot avoid it
4. you may feel free to revise your own material, but please do not revise or remove the material of others (I'll do that myself if necessary).

if you wish to respond to a statement made by someone else in this section...

• please make one (1) and only one response to any comment someone makes here (though, of course, you may edit it later if you like)
• responses to responses are forbidden. no talk back, please: you may argue in other sections of the talk page, but not here
• please keep your response focused on the particular things said in the problem statement you are responding to. do not bring in extraneous material, no matter how much you want to
• all of the 'making a statement' rules, above, apply

roll with me on this. I'm not so much concerned about content (though we can discuss that as well) as I am with opening up communication. your friendly mediator, Ted 14:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, Ted, but I don't think this is a suitable case for mediation. 1liberator has repeatedly edited the article anonymously to add a highly POV, badly formatted paragraph, violating the 3RR in the process (see e.g. [1]). Misza13 has already explained why 1liberator's edits] weren't acceptable. 1liberator hasn't responded to those comments. If 1liberator wants to discuss the issue, he can and should do, but it's not appropriate to jump straight to mediation. -- ChrisO 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chris.  :-) you know, I've looked over that edit history, and I think the real issue here is that 1liberator is new to wikipedia, and hasn't quite gotten the hang of the etiquette and policies here. You are right that what he's posted hasn't really met NPOV standards, but the fact that he's seeking mediation speaks to a willingness to learn (or so I believe - for instance, I suspect that anonymity thing is that he hasn't gotten in the habit of logging in before he edits). This is just an informal mediation, not an official thing. since there doesn't seem to be any animosity here — he's willing to talk, and you're willing to talk, yaddyadda... — maybe we can clear this up quickly. Ted 13:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Chris, as I look at this, I think that 1liberator hasn't figured out talk pages or user pages yet. he askes to be contacted by email in the mediation request, but didn't leave his email address. since you've said he's emailed you, would you be comfortable sending him an email explaing that he should log in and check his own user talk page, and the discussion page of the article? I'll leave a note for him on the mediation request page, but it would be faster if you sent him an email... Ted 13:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cabalists: Thank you for your time and effort here. I am new here, but I am learning the ropes. My 3 last edits were, I believe, in accordance with Wiki rules. YET, Chris-o again deleted them. I believe that Chris-o just does not like my point of view. I believe that KLA is a terrorist organization, like Al-Qaeda, and that KLA was and is, in fact, responsible for ethnic cleansing and de facto Genocide of the minorities of Kosovo. In fact, what I have to say about the KLA is the truth. How can the truth be POV? If you do not like what I have to say, you should nonetheless let me speak the truth, and there is a plethora of evidence about what I have to say. I believe Chris-o has a personal stake in this dispute, and we must rise above personalty here and come to a mutual understanding of what happened there. I know, since I worked in Kosovo, that there are no minorities left there, that KLA commited ethnic cleansing, war crimes, etc. but the article reads like a propaganda pamphlet about the KLA; they are a bunch of murderers, racist war-criminals and ethnic cleansers, after all. I saw with my own eyes the destroyed churches, the burned villages, the bodies of Romany and Serbian civilians (farmers) charred and bullet-ridden, and you are telling me I can not mention even a word about KLA's crimes in the article. Perhaps, the KLA also brought 'freedom' to Kosovo Albanians; perhaps they just brought them more enslavement by KLA drug-prostitution-weapons gangs the NATO and UNMIK personnel, and multi-national corporations. At the very least, the article is TOO POV in that it portays the KLA too favorably; let's not forget they are murderers, just as much as the Serbian police and army forces, etc. That HAS to be said, otherwise this article sounds false since it portrays the terrorists in a favorable, untenable light, in view of the atroticites they commited. Let us, therefore, work together on drafting a version that will include the OTHER side's facts, not just terrorist propaganda by Chris-o (pardon my french) Thank you for your time and understanding in this very important matter. Ps. Chris-o, please do not accuse me of violating the rules when you did not even allow my postings to stay for 36 hours, etc. so history proves that you violated the rules, too, (please see history) except you are an established person administrator here, and charged with the knowledge of the rules. Pss. Discuss the issue? I wrote you 3 emails, none of which you responded to, except you deleted my postings ASAP -- summarily. In fact, the intesity of your hatred for my work makes me believe that you have a PERSONAL stake here, and sorry this is not a forum for supporting terrorist organizations. Here we go, please contact your 1liberator here :)03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey 1liberator...  :-) ok, I see some issues here. I'm not sure you're understanding Wikipedia's place in the universe, and that's what's causing the conflicts. You have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, blog, or research journal. that puts some odd limits on what can be said here. point by point:

• encyclopaedias aim to be factual: they don't report beliefs, opinions, or even the truth unless unless those things can be demonstrated through verified and verifiable facts. if you've seen things, and what you've seen has convinced you that the KLA is a terrorist organization, and you want to present what you've seen to the world as new facts, the proper place to do that is through the news, or through academic research, or through political action. when you have put them before the world and they have become established facts, then they will surely end up in encyclopaedias like this.
• if the beliefs, opinions, or truths that you want to present here actually are verifiable (you have newspaper or research articles, statements by politicians or scientists, or the like), then please cite them. for example, if you simply want to call the KLA terrorists, that will probably get you reverted: terrorist, used by itself, is harsh and insulting. however, if you have documented evidence of some statesman calling the KLA terrorists, then you would probably be justified in saying something like "the KLA have been accused of being terrorists by notable figures such as (so-and-so) (see (such-and-such))", where (such-and-such) is a decent reference to (so-and-so's speech). likewise, saying " I saw with my own eyes the destroyed churches, the burned villages, the bodies of Romany and Serbian civilians" is something to be published in a newspaper or journal; in an encyclopaedia you can only point to documented evidence (photojournalist pictures, United Nations reports, oficial documents in the public domain...
• it's really bad form to accuse other editors of having a personal stake without good evidence. ChrisO has (as far as I can tell) merely been trying to keep a balanced, neutral tone, which is proper for an encyclopaedia; he's not trying to exclude you. if you will be more factual in your own writing I think you will run into fewer problems. history will judge the KLA; it's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to do so. see what I'm reaching for? Ted 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ted:

I backed up all my claims with about 300 articles from the BBC, and Chris-o deleted them. Where could I properly post these articles, so that Chris-o does not delete them? Secondly, how can you claim that Chris-o has a neutral view when he does not even mention the expulsions and ethnic cleansing and anti-minority violence in his article? He makes the KLA sound like the boy scouts; are they not more like Al-Qaeda? That is the well-documented truth, so please allow me to properly post (cite) my sources, so that I can demonstrate facts. Like, I could post the indictment of Haradinaj by the ICTY. Or, I could post the BBC article where the top NATO commander accuses the KLA of Ethnic Cleansing. Ooh, guess what, I already did -- please see history -- but Chris-o deleted it ASAP! So, I am sorry, but I demurr to your position -- Chris-o seems not to want anyone to post anything remotely distasteful about the KLA; bunch of murderous thugs. So, again, I do not want to be one-sided, please could we formulate a joint statement that reflects on the crimes commited, and currently inflicted, on the people of Kosovo -- Albanians, Serbs, Romas and others -- that properly reflects the facts. I apologize to you and Chris-o for my attitude, but I myself am offended, insulted and outraged that the KLA is represented in a favorable light. That is like calling Al-Qaeda the "good ole boys" see what I'm getting at? Again, my sincere apologies, and thank you for your hard work here, please teach me to cite properly, and I'll give you evidence; preferably, we could avoid this and formulate a joint paragraph on the evil side of the KLA. And of course please write to me here 1liberator 20:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Dear Ted, as a second reply to your assesment, I in fact attempted to cite properly, albeit with no skill. Would you kindly help me to "polish-up" this article. Now, at least I properly cited evidence so there is no dispute that these are the facts. Thank you endlessly, your 1liberator 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (still learning the ropes!) :) Specificaly, could you please help me properly post my enumerated cites in the references section? Thank you :)

OK, here's what I see. the quality of your sources seems fine (though that's an amateur's opinion; I'm no expert on this subject), but your style is somewhat aggressive. for instance, just looking at the edits you'vve made over the last couple of days:

any time you say 'there is evidence', immediately show the evidence

where you say, for instance: There is, however, evidence to suggest that the "Racak Massacre" was, in fact, a CIA-orchestrated propaganda move designed to "shock and awe" the international community into military action in Kosovo, you've made a very strong statement, but I don't immediately see any supporting evidence. it would be better to say something like, Some have suggested that the "Racak Massacre" was, in fact, a CIA-orchestrated propaganda move designed to "shock and awe" the international community into military action in Kosovo (see citation, citation)., where the citations point to appropriate verification. that takes the apparent bias out of the previous statement and makes it a matter of public record.

try not to add emotional content that goes beyond the facts actually in evidence

a bit later you write: Mr. Ceku is known as an international terrorist, and wanted for War Crimes and other criminal acts in several states. [2]. well, the actual article you're referring to is more circumspect. it says, "The KLA's new leader, Agim Ceku, may have helped mastermind the most brutal ethnic-cleansing campaign in post-communist Yugoslavia's history". you might rephrase this by saying something like according to Mother Jone's magazine, Agim Ceku may have been involved in ethnic cleansing or other terrorist acts (see article), or something like that.

ChrisO, does this seem like correct advice to you?

I agree entirely with your comments about going beyond the facts in evidence. The question of the Racak massacre is a rather complex one, which is dealt with in some detail at Racak incident. However, I should note that the POV that 1liberator has put forward is an extreme minority one which I'm not sure even the Serbian government endorsed; you can see a mention of it at Racak incident#Other claims. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the claim in this article, as it's not widely regarded as credible and doesn't really add anything to the article.

I hold no brief for or against Ceku, but if we're to attribute claims properly here, we need to say that (1) the view that he's a war criminal is specifically one that some on the Serbian side hold, and (2) he hasn't been indicted on any war crimes charges so far as far as I'm aware. Perhaps 1liberator can provide a source for this particular claim, which I notice he hasn't done... -- ChrisO 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that I haven't received any e-mails from 1liberator - my ISP's been having a lot of problems over the last few days, which may account for that. Sorry! -- ChrisO 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have a discussion going. Next, I believe that there is no Serbian/Albanian/Whatever side, just the truth; Serbanians and Albanians are BOTH extremely bad tribes, and have BOTH commited atrocities, war crimes, etc, So let us hear the minority position, here, since we are trying to be fair to the public and report the facts. Now, it is a well-known and documented fact that 250,000.00 people were expelled by the KLA after 1999. Why does Chris-o have a problem with pointing that out; just let the last paragraph stay as it is right now, and I am happy to forget-off. Otherwise, we have a problem, the KLA is represented as a bunch of goody-shoes, when in fact they are as bad as the "serbian side" -- which I absolutely DO NOT support and wholeheartedly oppose. I simply insist that we let the World know about the treatment of minorities of Kosovo after 1999. If you want, draft a proposed joint statement and let's see what we can agree on. Thanks, your 1liberator 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Ps. On Cheku, read the sealed indictments; do you think this is the man to lead the people of Kosovo? Pss. Where do you show evidence that Serbians commited atrocities on Kosovans? Take a taste of your own medicine, by your standards your whole article is suspect. Psss my aditions JUST as opinionated as Chris-o's, would you not agree? The facts ARE that KLA is a terrorist group, that Serbian police + other groups ARE terrorists, too, and that the people of Kosovo suffered pre 1999 and post 1999. Why can't we just say something like that, please? Then we would not have a propaganda piece on the KLA, as I see it. Thanks, 1liberator 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) OK most importantly I will tone down but give me a finger (haha!) I mean I hate to tell you but the article is too pro-KLA, do you not see that? Remember, I am just trying to add one paragraph on the effects of the KLA on others, could we please have that 1 para worded properly and included to show the effects of KLA rule on the people of Kosovo -- you must agree, the KLA is just as bad to the Serbs now as the Serbs were to Albanians pre 1999. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THAT IS A FACT, AND THAT MUST BE SHOWN IN WIKIPEDIA. Thank you 1liberator 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1liberator - lol... I'll let ChrisO answer the questions, but WHOOOAAAA... no shouting, keep it cool, everything will work itself out. is everything properly referenced?  :-) Ted 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ted, I live to laugh. Anyways, I referenced everything to the best of my ability, but it looks like Chris-O deleted my references, so now we just have numbers like [4] and [5] in the text. I will redo them again, but could you show me how to actually reference them in the 'references' page. Sorry for my screams, I apologize, I will not let it happen again. Thanks for mediation, yours 1liberator 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, the numbers are normal, and nothing got deleted - that's how wikipedia handles outside links. for instance, this is a link to google [3]. if you want the link to have text, type it like this [http://www.google.com| google], and you'll get this: google. the pipe character (upright line) is right above the return key on most keyboards (shift-backslash), and make sure to put a space right after the pipe, otherwise the following text won't show. Ted 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1liberator, I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, "or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article." -- ChrisO 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Chris—if I can throw in a 'middle of the road' comment (what else is a mediator for, yah?) it's very rare that you find an editor or an article that lacks a point of view entirely. Notice please that one of 1liberator's original complaints is that you yourself have a POV that paints the KLA as too respectable. this kind of difference of perspective is normal, and doesn't necessarily represent advocacy or soapboxing, so long as it's within reasonable bounds. but I think you know that.  :-) I'm curious, though, why you removed the 'sealed indictment' comment when 1liberator provided a source Halifax Herald Limited. Is that source unreliable? or do you really think the point is off-topic? my own inclination (given that the source is usable) might have been to add a comment such as "the ICTY has, however, denied that any such secret indictment exists (see citation)." That allows readers to make up their own mind about which source to believe. of course, if the reference is yellow journalism, propoganda, or otherwise unreliable, then your deletion is the correct response. Ted 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's plain wrong, as well as from an unreliable source. The article is dated September 10, 2001 (inauspicious date!). At the time, the ICTY was still investigating and still issuing indictments, and it had a policy of "neither confirming nor denying" whether any particular individual had been the subject of a sealed indictment. Serbia's "Blic" newspaper of 4 March 2006 carries the following brief story, which I'll post here for the record:

Artman: There is no indictment

There is no indictment that the Hague Tribunal has raised against Agim Ceku. The last one in Kosovo was against Haradinaj. There are also no new investigations. They all were closed in December 2004. After that all indictments became public and available on Internet', Florence Artman, spokesperson of the Hague Tribunal's prosecution said for 'Blic'. [4]

1liberator's source is an op-ed article (not original reportage) from Scott Taylor, a Canadian journalist who's something of a polemicist and from what I've seen of his writing, rather sloppy with factual accuracy. I wouldn't call it yellow journalism but I wouldn't call it good journalism either. I don't think he would qualify as a reliable source. But as the assertion is demonstrably wrong anyway, it's a moot point. -- ChrisO 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, I understand perfectly. :-) Ted 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted, please stop these attempts to mediate, or at least make clear to people that it is completely informal, and not connected to the mediation cabal. You're a very new editor, but it takes a lot of editing experience and a good working knowledge of our policies to mediate well, or even adequately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind Ted's efforts on this page - he may be a relatively new user but his contributions here have been useful and an independent viewpoint is also appreciated. -- ChrisO 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your contributions and mediation. Chris-o, just a few questions: 1)will you help me to draft a joint statement on KLA crimes, including the expulsion of minorities after 1999?; 2) Will you stop deleting my contributions and my references? and 3) Will you accept that Wikipedia must include these facts? (i.e. KLA as a group of armed individuals who expelled minorities en masse from Kosovo after 1999, my right to post facts, etc.) I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a propaganda forum, its supposed to be an Encyclopeadia. It's supposed to have some reputation, like "The Nation" where my articles came from, and not like "Blic" where I see a naked woman on page 3. But, you sound like an un-american propagandist, since you can't stand to read my view of the facts. Above all, Wikipedia is an American institution, where we cherish free-speech, and the right of anyone to post facts -- check out the Abu-Ghraib page (full of pro's and con's but all are included in there). Wikipedia is also a Florida not-for-profit corporation, so venue is proper in Florida courts. I never had a blog; I won many Judgments, however. The issue, is, therefore simple: do you agree to co-operate, do you agree not to delete my factual contributions, or do we need to take the dispute to a formal (Wikipedia) level immediatelly? Ps. I have (again) added facts as a last para, please do not delete them, let us work together on this one, or you will really prove me right :) Finally, since one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, truth be told, I absolutely equate the KLA with Arkan's terrorists, or other Serbian terrorist attacking Sarajevo, Kosova, etc; no pardons here. Let us just condemn equally terrorism, whether from Serbian, Albania, Morrocan, American, Eskimo and other origin -- terrorism is terrorism, and it should be universally condemned in an encyclopaedia designed for the World to read.

ok, it looks like things are going smoothly here, and (as you can see) I have some user troubles of my own that I don't want to spill over onto this page. so if you both agree, I'm going to bow out and mark this case as closed. 1liberator, if you have any other questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page; I'm always happy to help if I can.  :-) Ted 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not allow hateful Serb Propaganda in this page. Ferick

New references

I have added a few new references and moved the external links to a new header. The article looks clearer now, as an external link does not necessarily mean it has been used as a reference. Also, it would be great if someone could provide links to the other Jane's defence weekly articles too. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the external link you provided, I read that KLA is in none of those lists:

• US Terrorist Exclusion List Designee: No

• UK Proscribed Group: No

• Australia Specified Group: No

• Canada Specified Group: No

• EU Specified Group: No

What kind of source are we talking about here then? in one word: unreliable. If you give me a hint what you are trying to prove with these sources, I could maybe help you out. Until then I do not want to speculate that you are just trying to use old (i.e. Milosevician) materials to make KLA look as terrorist at every cost. If you keep adding such references, you will just (re)start an edit war here. Please reconsider! Ilir pz 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you followed all the links I added? The KLA was removed from the US DoS list in 1998. Well, I restored the external link to the White Book as Serbian Government views (as for 2003, so no Milosevic here) are important. The rest of the links are from western media sources. I would gladly add the link to the WSJ-Europe if I could but I found this using Lexis-Nexis, which as you probably know, is a paid database and excluded by Fair Use. My point is that the KLA actions were deemed as terroristic at some stage and this is verifiable. The US changed its policy towards the KLA in the late nineties, as explained. I cannot see the point of edit-warring over verifiable sources. Thanks, Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: It seems it has not taken your friend Ferick long to start reverting and making feeble accussations. This is what give Wikipedia a bad name. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you don't seem to get it. KLA was called a terrorist organization by one individual one time. Reading this article you get an impression that KLA was actually a terrorist organization. We can have one reference and one link that says KLA was considered a terrorist organization by Robert. G. I am not going to agree to have the word terrorist all over this article because that is misleading to the reader, which is your goal. If we go by your definition, the U.S government can be classified as terrorist as well. You either don't know what you are talking about, you are trying to purposely mislead, or you have no common sense.

Another thing: I don’t care if that link you provided is not from Milosevic’s government. The current government of Serbia has the same policies towards Kosovo.Ferick

Can you please discuss your contributions instead reverting for no particular reason? --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have a reason and it's clearly stated. I have contributed quite a bit a while back. Now I am more of a fact checker as everything that needs to be said has already been said.Ferick

Considering the sources are all from Western media and academia, I find your "Serbian government propaganda" comment an insult. I have spent a good time researching and verifying the sources I used. Wikipedia is not a matter of personal preferences: You may not like that the KLA was once considered a Terror Organisation, but that does not change the facts. I would appreciate some constructive criticism instead Ad Hominem attacks. Regards,

No they are not."GOVERNMENT OF SERBIA (2003): Albanian Terrorism and Organised Crime in Kosovo-Metohija (White Book), pp 9-14"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs)

If you bother to differ the edits[5], you will realise that I simply added the reference link and left the text as it was in Ilir's edit. If you are not happy with it, simply remove the <ref> link and keep the White Book on external links. Is that OK with you? --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As if I knew that would happen. That is why I advised you to use rather neutral sources. The one you gave, if not all from "srpska mreza" they are made by it somewhere as they clearly cite data given by (then) Serbian sources during Milosevic's time. I am more than sure about that. The current regime did not know about the alleged crimes by KLA, they got them from Milosevic's era. I have to agree with Ferick that the current regime, when it comes to Kosovo, it just does not use mass killings of civillians, for the rest it has the same attitude.Ilir pz 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is really annoying me is that you want to whitewash the article somehow. I have spent the whole morning finding the articles MYSELF. The result is quite balanced. If you object to having the white book link, please tell me why. Thanks, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

the whitebook is cooked by Milosevic era, and is just being used by the current regime. No way, Asterion. That is not netral at all. Please! Ilir pz 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What? 2003?--Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I agree to leave Serb government propaganda links when there is no pro Albanian links? I don't get it! Ferick

If we add pro-Albanian links then we will have to mention the word terrorist for every action that the Serbian army and police did in Kosova, we are well aware that more than 10000 Albanians got killed somehow. NATO did not do that. Let us keep derrogations away as of now. Hope you understand.Ilir pz 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Has the KLA got an official site? I can't see why there should not be some balance. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA is not an existant organization to have a website. 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more links, from a pro-albanian view. I also refactored the word terrorism out from the other one. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only removing the White Book link now but also the MIPT one (the most reliable databank on the subject of terrorism in the world)? Exactly what I suspected. A clear example of whitewashing. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading MIPT seems to me very similar to Milosevic's army statements on KLA. I will try to find the same text somewhere. Not sure I should consider MIPT the most reliable source on terrorism in this case. You still insist that KLA was terrorist, don't you? Ilir pz 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not about my personal opinion. I normally keep that to myself. This is an encyclopaedia and it should cover all verifiable sources. You asked for the DoS source and I gave it to you. All the other links are verifiable too. If we can keep references from various POV in the Kosovo article, what is different here? Listen, Ilir, I am not in the mood for edit war. I have improved my edits and tried to compromised with everyone of my versions but I see that Ferick is still playing the fanatic game and does not care about 3RRing. This makes me really sad indeed. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A source that has no sources cited is not a source :). It is speculation. Your source you gave, Boris, cites NO ONE where he got all those claims. If he wrote an article it does not mean that he is right, as long as he has no facts about his claims. Furthermore, "The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.", so it is a pure speculation from his side. ilir_pz 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't rely on the UN to give us sources for every single detail. --serbiana - talk 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the latest additions

The latest additions to this article present some major problems with NPOV and citations. I'll go through the additions below to highlight where I think the problems are:

The Kosovo Liberation Army was an "extremist militant group"

This is plainly POV - Albanians regard it as a national liberation movement, Serbs regard it as extremist and terroristic. The text currently called it an "armed group" - both sides can at least agree with that description.

In the years immediately before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the al-Qaeda militants moved into Kosovo, the southern province of Serbia, to help ethnic Albanian extremists of the KLA mount their terrorist campaign against Serb targets in the region. The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia (in March, 1999) to unseat Slobodan Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), which had already received “substantial” military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say. [6]

This shouldn't be included in the article, on several grounds:

1) First, it's extremely POV; you state it as proven fact when it's - at the very least - highly disputable.

2) Second, it's very much a minority claim - I've never seen any reputable source supporting that claim (and I've read a lot of material on Kosovo, including stuff that isn't in the public domain). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

3) Third, the source is inadmissible; it comes from Kurt Nimmo's personal website, it's by the website's owner, and Wikipedia policy on sources dictates that it can't be used as a primary source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources).

4) Fourth, it's from an extremely partisan source - not necessarily a disqualifying factor but definitely requiring it to be treated with great caution. (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites).

5) Fifth, it constitutes original research from a source that is neither credible nor widely published - this disqualifies it from use. (Wikipedia:No original research).

In short, it's simply not the kind of content that we can or should use in a Wikipedia article. -- ChrisO 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree --Telex 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I support ChrisO's points. ilir_pz 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some particular reason? --Telex 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• You know, it doesn't actually matter if you don't agree - that's what the policy states. If you disagree with the policy, tough. If you don't want to follow the policy, you're editing the wrong encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Boris, your edit is mainly from an opinion piece. They cannot be generally used as sources. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external links and references

There has recently been some unexplained removals by User:Ferick. I would appreciate an explanation on this behaviour. Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason: Unreliable Source.Ferick 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it may not be an entirely accurate source - I don't think the Serbian government has a neutral view on Kosovo. But it is a definitive statement of the Serbian POV and as such, we need to have it in the article. I've restored it to the article and warned Ferick about removing it. -- ChrisO 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, if that article is cited than every second word in this wiki page would sound like "terrorist" or "islamic fundamentalists" referring to KLA. I am not sure how reliable a source it is when it has been written by the regime that horrified the whole Balkans (Serbs admit the latter as well). ilir_pz 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removing a line from a 3 page article is a minor edit. I guess I am going to have to translate something from KLA Veteran's Association and bring it here to balance the sources. Just giving you heads up that that will be a biased and inflammatory article. I expect that no one will challenge it.Ferick 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bringing articles from the KLA's Veteran Association is a legitimate source. I encourage you to do that. They were not condemned as terrorist by the world, instead they are even recognized in the European Association of War Veterans. Only Milosevic's regime, (and obviously the new one as well, how similar they are when Albanians are in question) did call them terrorists. ilir_pz 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Added info about Fatmir Limaj. As you know he was a senior KLA Commander.Ferick 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added information on Haradin Bala, also tried at the same time and sentenced by the ICTY. Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Haradinaj was never exradited to The Hague. He turn himself him- a big difference. Bala a senior KLA member? Far from the truth. Removing false info.Ferick

Bala was a "Commander of the Lapusnik (Llapushnik) camp", according to the indictment. Maybe it should read "a less senior member" instead. Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It either a senior, or a non senior. How can you have less senior or more senior members? ilir_pz 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the ICTY, he was Commander Guard of the Lapusnik Camp[7]. Whether you consider this position less senior than a front line commander's is what I was talking about. He was obviously a senior member but his level of seniority less than Limaj's. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So, now a small prison commander becomes a senior commander huh? Not by any stretch of imagination!Ferick 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

He was not a simple Prison Guard but the Commander Guard: Check it here in page 58. Thanks, Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the Indictment which also talks about how Limaj was in overall control of the prison. Only an Indictment- not a proven fact. Bala was never a senior KLA Commander. Nobody in Kosovo knew about the name Bala before he was indicted.Ferick 22:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the word Commander Guard is misleading. In any case, he was not just a simple prison guard, but NOT a senior KLA commander I see. On the other hand, once someone is convicted, the facts are assumed proven. Regards and good night, Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The link you are providing has been tampered by a cynical commentary and it is not in its original form. Your intention is more to show the commentary rather than the original article( which was balanced).Ferick 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean "tampered?" I'm showing the article, which clearly talks about KLA ATROCITIES COMMITTED AGAINST THE SERBS. LIVE WITH IT. C-c-c-c 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. Well, why can't you just find a link that has the original article on it? Your intentions are malicious to say the least.

Chris, the article looks more balanced, but where are you getting this info about KLA crimes outside Kosovo?Ferick 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that KLA did do crimes, at least within Kosovo? Oh my God, we've reached a breakthrough!! Malicious, haha, no, your KLA puppetry is malicious. I found a link that has an article in it, if you can find the same article that tells a different tale, then prove me wrong. Otherwise, leave it. C-c-c-c 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the cross-border arms smuggling, which has been a long-running problem both before and after the war - the KLA got many of its weapons from looted Albanian depots in 1997. There were also some (IMO well-substantiated) reports before the war that the KLA's backers in Switzerland and Germany were involved in the smuggling of heroin and other drugs, using the proceeds to fund KLA activities. See e.g. this Washington Times article. -- ChrisO 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo free account website is a credible source? since when ChrisO? ilir_pz 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the article - it's a genuine newspaper article which someone has put on a personal web page. I've got access to the original article (via a subscription database) but I thought you would prefer to read it for yourself. Consider it a convenience link if you like... -- ChrisO 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same problem. You can find things via Lexis-Nexis but not the original link to the article as published in the newspaper, as most times these are available only online for a limited period. So, if we want to link to an old article, the most suitable solution is to link to a mirrored version, even if it is posted at Yahoo or similar. In any case, the article authenticity is still verifiable as long as the correct date of publication is given. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the same reports appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review, which is an extremely well-sourced publication. Again, I can dig those out if need be. Jane's was a major source for me when I wrote this article a long time ago. -- ChrisO 21:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, he'll never accept, they'll come up with one reason or another why they think it's Serb propaganda. Cheers, C-c-c-c 21:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA buying arms to fight Serbs is a crime now huh? Amazing!

In any case you could have said arms smuggling rather then crimes outside Kosovo. Anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that the KLA killed civilians outside Kosovo. Is that your intention? Ferick 00:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Commander Reference

Ferick, stop sympathesizing with guilty KLA members, and stop minimizing their roles. Asterion proved it, it's not POV pushing if it's true dumbass.

P.S. You're an Albanian living in Missouri? How's the redneck life going, better than in Albania? Haha C-c-c-c 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are to be incorporated in this article, only. Please consider the sensitivity of the topic before you carry on your NPOV pushing. Thank you, ilir_pz 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like sockpuppets took over. I will have to ask for revisioning the CheckUser. ilir_pz 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whenever there is a source that is in direct conflict with your POV, you call it unreliable. I hope everyone sees how nationalistic this all sounds. Also, PLEASE REQUEST CHECKUSER, I REALLY WANT TO SEE JUST HOW WRONG YOU ARE. -- serbiana - talk 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, I am impressed. So 3 times you revert, then Estavisti (like a flash) and then Krytan. Nice but traceable. Your days here are counted. ilir_pz 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Request a checkuser, and stop wasting your time here. I am in Vancouver, Krytan is in Toronto, and Estavisti is in London. Good luck proving we are the same person. -- serbiana - talk 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Personal Attacks

I would like to remind people to stay calm and avoid provocations and personal attacks. This is a sensitive issue. Please do not let Wikipedia down with insults and accusations. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 14:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA links to organized crime

The intro claims that the KLA "was widely regarded as being involved in postwar criminal activities". For the sake of improving the quality of the article, I believe such a statement should be backed up by sources. I have found a couple which mention this but, since I am new to the article, I would prefer if those editors who have been here longer comment on whether or not they are appropriate/good sources.

• Human Rights First, a US NGO, says "The vacuum in policing has created a climate of criminality and empowered organized criminals, including some former KLA members and their supporters." [8]

• A 1999 Washington Post article on the KLA titled "Rebels With an Uncommon Cause," by Peter Finn and R. Jeffrey Smith apparently (I have not been able to find the article) stated that:

"Although the KLA denies any links to criminal activities, Western law enforcement officials say ethnic Albanian criminal gangs are funneling some profits to the war effort. 'Turkish [drug] trafficking groups are using Albanians, Yugoslavs and elements of criminal groups from Kosovo to sell and distribute their heroin,' according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration office in Rome. 'These groups are believed to be a part of the financial arm of the [KLA's] war against Serbia. These Kosovars are financing their war through drug trafficking activities, weapons trafficking and the trafficking of other illegal goods..."

Any other souces? Cheers Osli73 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Some more for you:

• BBC News, "Kosovo gripped by racketeers", 5 April 2000: "Police in the province believe much of [the organised crime] is being controlled by the successors of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." [9]

• BBC News, "Analysis: Kosovo chooses normality", 30 October 2000: "[The public's] admiration for the KLA had turned to disgust at the way in which many of its former commanders have, since the end of the war in June 1999, used their positions to seize businesses and property and even murder anyone they believed was standing in their way." [10]

• BBC News, "New dawn for Kosovo", 19 November 2001: "There is a widespread belief among Kosovans that former KLA guerrillas have been involved in post-conflict violence and organised crime." [11]

• Guardian, "Kosovo polls feed separatist fever", 28 October 2000: "The biggest problem remains lawlessness in a country with one of the highest concentrations of guns in the world. The judicial system is biased against Serbs; crime and corruption are endemic. The PDK, which has many members who fought in the KLA, and close links with organised crime, has control of many towns and villages." [12]

This really isn't difficult to source. It's plain that Ilir and Ferick are motivated purely by POV reasons in deleting cited references to Agence France Presse, Jane's Intelligence Review and the Times of London as "Serbian fabrications and speculations, that mislead the reader, and have no credibility whatsoever" in Ferick's words. Having lots more references to the same thing is good but I suspect it won't overcome bone-headed POV-pushing of the sort we've seen so far. -- ChrisO 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody serious wil question the KLA is terrorist and mafia. Only alb deny this.

In the interest of clarity, it should state that former members of the KLA... The KLA itself was disbanded immediately following the war. Davu.leon 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

                                       Lefties?

Are they commies?

Role of disintegration/chaos in Albania

The article only mentions in passing the role which the chaos/civil war which engulfed Albania following the crash of the pyramid schemes there had on the Kosovo conflict. As far as I understood, arms plundered from military warehouses in Albania was a major source of weapons, at least in the beginning of the conflict. The KLA also had military bases inside the Albanian border. Should we expand on thsi in the article? RegardsOsli73 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

---

moved from my talk page and responded here: // Laughing Man 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Which bit is original research? Sanmint 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

So essentially, your edits were, below.

• (cur) (last) 16:02, December 16, 2006 Laughing Man (Talk | contribs) (rv WP:NOR)
• (cur) (last) 14:46, December 16, 2006 Sanmint (Talk | contribs) m
• (cur) (last) 14:43, December 16, 2006 Sanmint (Talk | contribs) (rewording, adding extra info)

// Laughing Man 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah but which bit was original research????Sanmint 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

all of it. // Laughing Man 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, everything is sourced. KLA had become a "reluctant" partner to the NATO supplying it with intelligence. Serbian forces did drive out 800k people according to a UN report. 8k civilians killed by the Serbian forces. Which bit is Original reasearch???Sanmint 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not give any sources for your edits above. // Laughing Man 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just used the sources that were there already. All the bits I have entered are factual, and nothing is made up. If you can suggest alternative wording so that it avoids offending anyone then pleaso do so. Sanmint 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Using Serbian government as source

I think we can not use Serbian Government (or KALA for that reason) in a encyclopedia article about KLA. Serbian Government and KLA fought with each other and it would be VERY inencyclopedic to use something published by them as a source. I ask you to read WP:Reliable sources. Please stop pushing POV. --Noah30 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact we can, and such things are done regularly. If things sourced to governments which fought with each other would be removed, a lot of Wikipedia would become blank. Nikola 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can not because the source is unrealiable. Stop with this POV pushing. --Noah30 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added POV template because I want someone to consider the use of Serbian government as a source. The source and the conenent itself is very baised. Using this source is against the WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV --Noah30 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is reliable. Governement of Serbia is no less reliable than government of any other country. Neither the source nor the content is biased, it is just a list of KLA victims. Do you know of any other sources about the number of victims? Nikola 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Government of Serbia is less reliable than other governments since they have been involved in major massacres against civilian population. They also refuse to deliver war criminals responsible for genocide etc. The best solution is to put a POV template and someone who is not from Balkans can consider it. I still think the source is very POV. I have a source saying a total of 500 Serbs died during the whole Kosovo war. --Noah30 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every government in the world has been involved in major massacres against civilian population. A number of governments also refuse to deliver war criminals responsible for genocide. Nikola 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The government of a country vs. a terrorist organization... Who do we trust? This is tough... :) --Bolonium 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just shows why you make POV edits all the time.

We do need to make it clear that the source is clearly labelled in the main text, not just in the footnotes - i.e. "According to the Serbian government ..." It is no doubt a biased source, but as long as we make it clear to the reader that the data comes from one party in the conflict, we should be OK. -- ChrisO 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. If there is no other source disputing it, there is no need to clearly label source in the main text. What you propose would create impression that this information is under dispute, while it in fact isn't. And the source is not biased. It is simply a list of all KLA victims. Nikola 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is pure propaganda and labels all Albanians criminals. The source is biased and disputed. Besides KLA is not mentioned in the source. We will have to remove it. --Noah30 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not propaganda, does not label all Albanians criminals, is not biased and not disputed. KLA is the only Albanian terrorist organisation that was active on Kosovo at the time. Nikola 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end, what Chris wrote is quite good - "Serbian government reported" - though I believe he went too far with "were said to have been" - for example, after police and army withdrew, of course all victims have to be civilians. Shouldn't POV tag now be removed? Nikola 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

KLA losses?

--HanzoHattori 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since all KLA are civilians the 40 thousand strong armys dead are counted among the total civilian deaths (2,788)99.236.221.124 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"War Crimes" section

Hanzo, you recently changed the subtitle from Casualties to Allegations. While I agree that Casualties maybe wasn't the perfect title I don't think Allegations is the correct one either, as there is quite a lot of evidence of KLA involvement in kidnappings and killings of civilians, both before and after the war. Here are some:

• Killings blamed on KLA, UN fears master plan by Albanian leaders for an independent and ethnically pure Kosovo, by Peter Beaumont. The Observer, Sunday July 25, 1999 [13]
• Theater of the Absurd in Kosovo, by Gary Dempsey. CATO Institute, August 21, 1999. [14]

We now know, however, that in the first seven weeks of NATO's occupation there were 198 confirmed homicides, 573 confirmed arson attacks, and 840 confirmed incidents of looting. More than 40 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed or damaged, and 200 Serb civilians have been kidnapped. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 80 percent of the Serbs in Kosovo have left or been driven out. Most of the kidnappings and murders, adds the rights group, have been committed by members of the KLA, who believe NATO has given them expansive reign.

• A Fragile Peace: Threats to Justice in Kosovo, published by Human Rights First (1999), [15]

Much of the violence and many of the crimes committed since the arrival of KFOR are attributed to persons linked with the KLA, including killings, kidnappings, and threats and intimidation of Serbs and other minorities. Increasingly, Kosovar Albanians who are seen as opponents of the KLA or "collaborators" with Serbs are facing violence and threats, particularly in rural areas that are effectively controlled by the KLA.

• Kosovo, Lessons from the Crisis, 2000, UK Ministry of Defence. [16]

8 October – KLA declares a ceasefire, but continue attacks against security forces and kidnapping and executing ‘collaborators’ during October, November and December. North Atlantic Council approves Operation Plan for Phased Air Operations

*Serbia and Montenegro, Amnesty International, 2004. [17]

In January the Tribunal secretly indicted four former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) members including Fatmir Limaj, a senior aide to leading Kosovo politician Hashim Thaci. The indictment was for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in connection with the murder and torture in 1998 of Serbs and of Kosovo Albanians perceived as Serb collaborators. It was made public after three of the accused were arrested in February and transferred to the Hague. In July former KLA commander Rustem Mustafa and three others were convicted in Priština (Prishtinë) of war crimes connected with the illegal confinement, torture and murder of suspected ethnic Albanian “collaborators”. They received sentences of up to 17 years’ imprisonment.

• Kosovo: KLA Veteran Under Investigation, IWPR, 1 December 2001.[18]

Gani Imeri, a former commander in the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, has become the first of the now disbanded organisation's veterans to be arrested on suspicion of involvement in serious crimes against Kosovo Serb civilians during and after the war.

So, to degrade this information to "Allegations" is incorrect. How about "War Crimes", since some have also been prosecuted for these.Osli73 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, not all of these crimes happened during wars. Nikola 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the section itself should be cleaned up to deal specifically with war crimes (alleged and confirmed). Other criminal enterprises tied to the KLA, such as trafficking and smuggling, could be dealt with in a separate section.Osli73 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations missing and POV tags

I'll agree that the article could do with more citations/references. However, I can't find any list of specific POV grievances motivating the current pov-tag. If there isn't any list of issues forthcoming I think we should remove the pov-tag. Osli73 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is very POV, presents only the Serbian version. The source about how many were killed by KLA does not mention KLA. But neither you or Nikola are known for respecting NPOV. Hope you have changed. --Noah30 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that NPOV is in the eye of the beholder. It would be easier if you listed exactly what it is that you find to be POV since it is very difficult to discuss the issue otherwise. Osli73 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli I am on wikibreake and don't have much time but there are many things in the article which I find POV and against the Wikipedia rules. E.g. take a look at reference 5. No place in the text which is in Serbiam is KLA mentioned. Isn't this POV? --Noah30 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, since I can't read Serbian I can't comment on the text. However, I don't think it's appropriate to use non-English language sources, especially not Serbian or Albanian, on a topic such as this. I will remove it and all other non-English sources, and, unless there are other sources which vouch for the statement I will remove that specific statement. OK. CheersOsli73 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this!!!--Noah30 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On a second, though, given that the text states that it's the allegation of the Serbian government, I guess it would be acceptable that the source is in Serbian. However, I still can't vouch for whether or not the text justifies the article statement.Osli73 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't come up with any other specific reasons for the POV tag I think it should be removed.Osli73 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, it is simply a list of victims with summary of their distribution by nationality and civilian status. I have just found the English version at [19] (only summary, without the list of victims).

As an example, here is the first entry from the list of killed:

1. АНТИЋ ИЛИЈА, земљорадник, рођен 18.07.1934. године у Лоћанима, општина Дечани, од оца Милоша. Отет неутврђеног датума и убијен од стране албанских терориста. Његов леш пронађен је почетком септембра 1998. у околини села Глођане, општина Дечани, у каналу око Радоњичког језера заједно са још 33 леша (доказ*: 360/99-1, 360/99-9, 516/99-31, 517/99-24, 288/00-5, 288/00-6, Р-20).

Translated:

ANTIĆ ILIJA, a farmer, born 18.07.1934. in Loćani, Dečani municipality, of father Miloš. Kidnapped on undetermined date and murdered by Albanian terrorists. His body was found in early September 1998 near the village of Glođane, Dećani municipality, in the canal around Radonjičko lake with 33 more bodies (evidence: 360/99-1, 360/99-9, 516/99-31, 517/99-24, 288/00-5, 288/00-6, Р-20).

There is absolutely no reason why this reference would not be fully believed. Nikola 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I don't contest the crimes but the numbers which I think are exaggerated. According to KMLDNJ during whole 1999 465 non-Albanians were killed in total. Report--Noah30 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the source in question refers to the opinion of the Serbian government I believe it would be OK to use a Serbian language source (if no English version of it is available). Also, since it clearly states that it's a Serbian government report we should just leave it at that and not try to determine whether or not it's correct or not. However, if we find a more netural/authorative report, we should use this. I'm removing the POV and ref tags. Osli73 09:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli you have to understand that the source you are using does not mention KLA. And remeber that KLA did not exist in 2001 (war crimes section). I think this is POV. --Noah30 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, again, I have no idea what the source says (since it's in Serbian) and if it's an incorrect/irrelevant source then please go ahead and remove it. I'm in no position to determine if it's relevant or not. Cheers Osli73 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, I see that you've added a POV tag. However, I'm not sure why. If you say what things you find to be POV then we can discuss them and move forward. However, until then it is not possible to justify the tag. I'm taking the liberty of removing it. Cheers Osli73 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

War Crimes

1. "(for a more detailed overview see Victims section)" - No "Victims section" for a more detailed overview to see.
2. "War Crimes" - Because Writing Like This Is Totally Awesome, Look.
3. Numerical claims by the Serbian gvt only. - Booooring. Expand/update requested. Also: which gvt - Slobo's? --HanzoHattori 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, just a quick search of the net finds many mentions of KLA attacks on civilians and kidnappings. The ICTY has also launched investigations on several KLA commanders. Here are a couple of sources:

1. Under Orders, a book on war crimes during the Kosovo war published by Human Rights Watch in 2001. See Chapter 1 "Abuses by the KLA".
2. "Ex-KLA chiefs jailed for warcrimes" by the BBC in 2003
3. ICTY indictment against R Haradinaj, the initial indictment in 2005 and the ammended indictment in 2007 ([20] select Haradinaj under "Select an accused name").

So, calling them "alleged" is not fitting with how they are reported elsewhere. I don't know about the numbers mentioned in the text since I can't read Serbian. However, I'm sure there is lots of other info we could put in there from these reputable sources above. Cheers Osli73 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, here's a proposal for a new section on KLA war crimes. Let me know what you think:

There have been widespread reports of war crimes committed by the KLA both during and after the conflict. These have been directed against both Serbs, other ethnic minorites (principally [Roma]) and against ethnic Albanians accused of collaborating with the Serb authorites. [21] According to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW):

The KLA was responsible for serious abuses… including abductions and murders of Serbs and ethnic Albanians considered collaborators with the state. [22]

It is also believed that the KLA has played a key role in the ethnic cleansing, kidnappings and murder of Serbs and other ethnic minorities after the end of the war. HRW writes:

Elements of the KLA are also responsible for post-conflict attacks on Serbs, Roma, and other non-Albanians, as well as ethnic Albanian political rivals... widespread and systematic burning and looting of homes belonging to Serbs, Roma, and other minorities and the destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries... combined with harassment and intimidation designed to force people from their homes and communities... elements of the KLA are clearly responsible for many of these crimes. [23]

The KLA is also accused of on purpose provoking attacks by Yugoslav security forces against civilian targets by, for example, staging attacks from villages, knowing that the response would create bad publicity for the government forces in the international media:

The KLA… engaged in military tactics in 1998 and 1999 that put civilians at risk. KLA units sometimes staged an ambush or attacked police or army outposts from a village and then retreated, exposing villagers to revenge attacks. Large massacres sometimes ensued, helping publicize the KLA's cause and internationalize the conflict. [24]

Following the end of the war several of the leading figures in the KLA have been convicted of war crimes by the ICTY, including [crimes against humanity] (torture, murder, kidnapping and rape). [25][26] In 2005 the then ‘Prime Minister’ of Kosovo and former KLA commander, Ramush Haradinaj, was indicted together with two of his lieutenants on 37 counts of war crimes. According to the ICTY he was responsible for a plot to drive out Serbs and other ethnic minorities from Kosovo through a campaign of murder, rape and torture. [27] Despite this, Ramush Haradinaj remains popular with many Kosovo Albanians. [28]

The exact number of victims of the KLA is not known. According to a Serbian government report, from January 1 1998 to June 10 1999 the KLA killed 988 people and kidnapped 287; in the period from June 10 1999 to November 11 2001, when NATO took control in Kosovo, 847 were reported to have been killed and 1,154 kidnapped. This comprised both civilians and security force personnel. Of those killed in the first period, 335 were civilians, 351 soldiers, 230 police and 72 were unidentified. Following the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav security forces from Kosovo in June 1999, all casualties were civilians, the vast majority being Serbs. [29] According to Human Rights Watch, as “many as one thousand Serbs and Roma have been murdered or have gone missing since June 12, 1999.” [30]

CheersOsli73 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? WHATEVER. Do not cite me here, cite in the article where I pointed out. --HanzoHattori 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. CheersOsli73 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the proposed text to the article. CheersOsli73 09:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)