Talk:Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Humanitarian bombing was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 September 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Kosovo Mid‑importance

	Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

Archives

Archive 1

Changed my edit

Somebody has changed what I have edited and changed what I wrote after I have shown legitimate proof that it was an illegal attack even the UN says it is and it has been changed without any legitimate sources by Pincrete which has also left no note explaining why it was changed. He has simply changed it to fit what he believes in. I have not added my sources again like last time as you have clearly not read through it as I have quite literally quoted what is written. 2003:FB:9707:9E00:CE8A:1826:9005:4F51 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown legitimate proof that it was an illegal attack even the UN says it is and it has been changed without any legitimate sources by Pincrete which has also left no note explaining why it was changed, As your post and my edit reason make clear, what you are doing is attempting to 'prove' that the bombing was illegal. That is called 'original reasearch' here and isn't what we do. What we do do is document the arguments that have been made by reliable expert sources about whether it was illegal. Insofar as I have an opinion, the bombing was at least of very dubious legality, as were the actions it was intended to stop, but neither my opinion or yours is worth a fig here. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right our opinions don't offer any answers and i have reread the wikipedia article and it does offer both sides of the picture, so for my edit i apologise. I would like to add though, as i am not sure where to add this in the document, that NATO did also break the Vienna Convention and the Geneva conventions rules of war by bombing Serbian civilian structures such as hospitals, the Serbian Radio and Television Stations and trains is against the Vienna convention. Furthermore, depleted uranium (DU) ammunition was used which goes against Geneva Conventions and the Environmental Protection. Hope it helps and again sorry for before. 2003:FB:9707:9E00:6D64:CD20:10CD:638C (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you do is you find sources that discuss the legality of these issues, then represent them neutrally (and attribute opinions/judgements as such). My own understanding is that the TV station was dual purpose, it was also a communication centre (and was being used for propaganda?), or at least that was the NATO justification. Some of the damage to civilian structures was exaggerated at the time, for propaganda purposes. Some may have been accidental rather than illegal (what advantage could NATO possibly gain from bombing a hospital or school, the alienation of both Serbian and western publics would be extreme?) Whether illegal ammunition (DU) was being used is also the subject of controversy/dispute, I believe, but I am probably out-of-date on that subject.

I have limited knowledge about the details of all of these, but tend to start from a highly sceptical position that at times of conflict, both sets of militaries and their political leaders will only tell the full truth to the extent that they think doing otherwise would 'blow up in their faces', if their core audiences (their own public mainly) found out. The old adage applies that, "Truth is the first casualty of war". Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]