Talk:May 1995 Pale air strikes

Unsourced statetment

@Wingsanity: Can anybody provide a source supporting the claim of a Serbian victory? I am old enough to remember this action and the news services and the press at the time only showed a couple of ammo dumps at Pale blowing up in a spectacular fashion. The issue of the UNPROFOR hostages is a direct consequence in the aftermath, yes, but this doesn't mean that the action by itself was a Serbian success, quite the contrary. Darius (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, firstly I have to tell you that you are making a lot of mistakes and that your comment (question) is out of place. First of all, those people are not "Serbian" but "Serb" in English, you can say that it is a small difference, but in this case it is really big because "Serbian" are people from Serbia and these are Serbs from Bosnia. Second, this is a victory for the VRS because the F16s plane was shot down(pilot was saved), and this is not stated in the article but written in the sources (it is a completely similar situation to Gorazde Airstrikes). And thirdly, this is not so much a VRS victory as a NATO failure, because they did not fulfill their goals, and for literate people, it is stated below in the "Sources" section as that. That's why I don't agree with the user who deleted the result below because its not true if you just leave this empty, it's either victory or defeat. I would add the sources right above the result but I don't know how to do it unfortunately I'm new here.

Cheers Wynnsanity (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for making clear the difference between "Serb" and "Serbian"; media outlets back in the 1990s used both terms indiscriminately. Regarding the issue of a Bosnian Serb victory, don´t take it personally. I will restore the entry in the infobox, but only to give other editors the oportunity to discuss the matter. I agree that the outcome at Gorazde looked certainly more favourable to the Bosnian Serbs than the bombing of Pale, where NATO forces managed to destroy two ammo depots unopposed. If you search for any non-Serb or Serbian source (take a look at WP:PARTISAN) in the internet, none will report the shooting down of an F-16. None of the English language cited sources mention this. I am quite confident that from 1991 to 1999, Serb and Serbian forces (Montenegro also could have played its part) only shot down five fixed-wing manned NATO aircraft: 1 UK Sea Harrier (15 April 1994 by Igla missile), 2 US F-16 (2 June 1995 by a SA-6 and 2 May 1999 by a SA-3), 1 Fr Mirage 2000 (30 August 1995 by Igla missile), and 1 F-117 (27 March 1999 by a SA-6). A couple of choppers and even an Italian G.222 transport plane were also lost to Serb/Yugoslav fire, but none of them were operating under NATO command (only some doubts about an Apache fallen in Albania in 1999). If sources are reliable, usually you don't need to add citations to infobox entries, but the case for the F-16 shot down at Pale is almost insurmountable, I guess. Darius (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Good Day Darius, thank you for understanding that strange denominations that many others do not know. I'm not taking anything personally because I'm not from the Balkans, but my father is, so I understand better what's happening. It's understandable that you don't trust Serb sources because they can't always be objective, but you should also know that on many other pages(about war and politics) there are only, for example, Croatian or Albanian sources, which when you translate them into English are at least funny and that doesn't bother anyone. Regarding this topic, I only looked at English sources, but even they are not 100% accurate, because honestly English newspapers(who are to be honest pro-NATO) will never write like this "victory of the Republic of Serpska" but "those planes were shot down" or "the goals were not achieved". In the source that I read called: "Operation Deny Flight". AFSOUTH Fact Sheets reads as follows: "On 8 June 95, the pilot of the NATO F-16C aircraft, who was shot down over western Bosnia on 2 June 1995, was successfully rescued by search and rescue forces. " So the plane bombed one of its targets but was shot down a few days later, the pilot was saved and the operation was stopped because of the hostages that were taken (I don't justify that action at all). I can also write about your statement that only 5 aircrafts were shot down from 91-99 but let's stay on this topic for now.

Best Wynnsanity (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the nonsense that the results of these airstrikes was a VRS victory. The airstrikes themselves went ahead and were successful, no NATO aircraft were shot down or damaged, and no NATO air personnel had to eject or be captured. Common sense tells us that the airstrikes themselves were clearly successful in destroying VRS ammunition depots. Obviously the VRS response, of shelling civilians in cities like Tuzla (killing 70) and illegally taking hundreds of peacekeepers hostage and using them as human shields is important to note in the article, but the result of the airstrikes themselves was obviously a NATO success. Any more of this putting VRS victory into the results field of articles where there is not a reliable source that clearly states that the result was a VRS victory will be reported at ANI. Just stop it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

What the sources say about the specifics of the aircraft/nations involved

There are a number of sources listed here, most of which just mention the airstrikes but don't give any details about which aircraft and which countries. AFAIK, the only sources that clearly state the aircraft and their nation are as follows:

1. The Air Forces Book of the F/A-18 Hornet by Tim Senior (hardly an academic text, sorry Tim), which states on p. 9 that USMC F/A-18Ds joined Spanish Air Force EF-18s (flying out of Aviano) in the attack on 25 May.
2. The Civil War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95): Political, Military, and Diplomatic History by Viktor Bezruchenko (quite biased towards the Serbs, but given his military experience, probably a better source than Senior), which states on p. 547 that on 25 and 26 May four US F-16Cs and two Spanish EF-18As bombed and destroyed a VRS ammunition depot at Jahorinski Potok near Pale. He goes on to say that the airstrikes killed four and injured 17 people, both military and civilian. His attribution of the reasons for the airstrikes are biased in my view, but should be included. He also says that the airstrikes were approved by two people, Rupert Smith (UN) and Leighton Smith (NATO). They were actually NATO airstrikes requested by the UN, so probably both generals should be included on that side.
3. Between Threats and War: U.S. Discrete Military Operations in the Post-Cold War World by Micah Zenko and published by Stanford UP is probably the highest quality source. It states on p. 136 that on 25 May at 3:30pm, four US F-16s and two US F-18s, supported by American logistics aircraft and Spanish, Dutch and French fighters, dropped eleven bombs on two VRS ammo depots in the Jahorinski Potok military complex at Pale. Then he states that at 10:30am the following day, twelve NATO aircraft bombed six more ammo depots within the same complex. Interestingly he calls it a military success but a political failure.
4. El Pais (Spanish news) writing on the day of the second airstrike states there were two Spanish F-18s and four US F-16s. Contemporary news sources aren't always correct, but is seems likely that they confirmed the involvement of Spanish aircraft with their own armed forces, as they made a big deal about it being the first shots in anger since 1957.

I think the exact makeup of the aircraft isn't clear, and we should just go with the timings and nations, and not be too prescriptive about the exact aircraft and nations that actually dropped the bombs. Unless someone has a definitive academic source that is better than Zenko. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. First of all, thanks for your latest edits and the sources you provided, the article is in a better shape right now. It may be this discussion is somehow outdated given these changes, but in my opinion, the bombing of ammo depots in Pale by Spanish F-18s is a well established fact by at least four reliable sources (Senior, Beruchenko -despite being a partisan author, El País and Tim Ripley). Even assuming that Zenko is a higher authority than the others, he makes just a passing mention to the issue in a long list of hostile incidents involving US military aircraft, so understandably he focusses just on American assets. Tim Ripley, a journalist with decades of working for Jane's, CNN and BBC, in his book Conflict in the Balkans 1991–2000, page 23, published by Bloomsbury, gives more details, like the use of laser-guided Paveway bombs and the active participation of Spanish EF-18As. Interestingly, he states that the mission of 26 May was carried out only by F-16s (assuming these ones belongued to the USAF). El País is a source that provides a more in-depth analysis than the others, due to the political turmoil it provoked in Spain at the time. There are at least two other articles from El País from (27 May 1995 and 6 June 1995), where is clearly stated that two Spanish F-18 took part in the strike on Pale. Another website (not a high quality source but still useful-not to mention I was a reader of this magazine before the internet era ;)) gives the name of the Spanish pilots and the unit involved. Furthermore, the already referenced article of El País cites Pentagon officials explaining why NATO chose the Spanish fighters for the bombing round: France and Britain were reluctant to expose their peacekeeping troops on the ground to Serb retaliation. That said, we can conclude that the role of the Ejército del Aire (Spanish air Force) in this bombing mission(s) was substantial, if not paramount.----Darius (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. I think that the article fairly represents the consensus across the sources currently used regarding the first strike US F-16s and Spanish EF-18s doing the actual bombing. Clearly the Spanish dropped bombs in the first strike, but no source clearly states which nations did the second one. The issue of the French not wanting to be involved is brought into question by the mention of them presumably flying escort for the first strike. I am reluctant to use El Pais for the reasons why the French didn’t drop any bombs, as they were focussed on Spain, and a contemporary Spanish news report isn’t the best of sources for imputing motive to the French. That said, if there were other sources stating that, I think it could be included. To be fair, the French were highly exposed to VRS responses, as they were doing the lion’s share around Sarajevo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is perhaps trivia... but...

This may be trivia, but is still worth to mention. Despite El País claim that the bombing of Pale was the first offensive action of the Spanish Air Force since the Ifni War in 1957, a good number of Spanish sources ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) report an action between the Spanish Legion and the Polisario Front on the border between Spanish West Africa and Mauritania on 17 December 1974 which saw a rocket strike of a package of Ha-200 Saeta in support of the Spanish troops. There is no way per WP:OR to challenge El País statement, but at least this comment stands as a record. In favor of El País it should be say that if the Ifni War was a forgotten war, the Sahrawi insurgency was, from the Spanish point of view, the erased war-- Darius (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Could we change the name?

Could we have the old name? May 1995 Pale Aistrikes doesn't make any sense since there was only on may airstrikes on Pale. Aleksandarthegrejt (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Pale and its environs were hit by air strikes on several occasions during Op Deliberate Force later in 1995. For example, on 30 August and 5 September. So, the question would be "which 1995 Pale air strikes?". But by putting May in front of it, we limit it to the air strikes that are the subject of this article, the only ones on Pale in May 1995. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Independent sources?

For GAR this seems to have problems with relying too heavily on sources connected to the matter.

1. AFSSOUTH was a participant
2. CIA - not independent from the USAF, a participant . WP:RFE/RL seems to indicate they are not RS?
3. CIA
4. Richard Holbrooke not independent

Czarking0 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds was described by the political scientist Eliot Cohen in the November/December 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs as "a superb contribution to contemporary strategic studies and will prove a boon to students in universities and war colleges alike". It is a scholarly publication written by CIA analysts and using plenty of excellent quality primary and secondary sources. Flicking through a few pages show this is the case. There are plenty of other highly positive reviews in relevant academic journals, and it is used widely as a source in academic publications for details about the wars in the Balkans. The reliability of AFSOUTH and Holbrooke depend on the context, ie what material they are being used to support, and are they an appropriate source for that content. In the case of AFSOUTH, it is being used to explain its own command and control at the time (and probably the best source for that information), and also the conflicting date of the second strike (which is important because it needs to be addressed in the article). It is highly appropriate as a source for both matters. Holbrooke is being used only for the name of the commander of AFSOUTH at the time of the airstrikes. I'm unaware of any involvement that Holbrooke had with the airstrikes (if I did I would have included it), but even if he did have some tangential involvement, are you suggesting that his lack of independence means he would mis-represent who the commander of AFSOUTH was at the time because of it? Interested in your responses to the above. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Great points thanks for the response. I think the Cohen source is helpful for establishing the reliability of the CIA in this context. However, I don't think any level of reviews can be used to determine if a source was independent. I think readers (especially those distrustful of the US) would value additional sources that are more independent. Just to be clear I am not advocating for removing the CIA source but for adding a second source where the articles relies solely on the CIA. Similar for AFSSouth. For Holbrooke, I am saying he is not independent rather than he was involved. I think his official capacity at the time gives him a lack of independence in these matters, further, Richard Holbrooke#Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (1994–1996) seems to indicate he is not the most reliable source. I would think other sources list the AFSSOUTH commander and would be preferred. Still I don't think its a problem to include him but I am offering an opinion on how to solidify GAC#2 Czarking0 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I consider you are over-extending the concept of source independence beyond the intent of the RS policy. While I will reinforce BB with additional sources for anything that might reasonably be challenged, I think a community view at RSN would come down firmly on the side of BB being a reliable source on factual details of the Balkan wars of the 90s. I’m not even using BB for analysis of the success/failure of the air strikes, for that I have used a political scientist. And with respect, I don’t think there is any issue here with reliability in context for any of these sources. With AFSOUTH and Holbrooke you seem to have skipped my point about context. I’d like to know more about why you don’t think AFSOUTH is a reliable source for its own command and control structure at the time and how that fact is likely to be challenged, and why you don’t think Holbrooke is a reliable source for “the name of the AFSOUTH commander” and likewise, how that fact is likely to be challenged. That is all he is being used for. Neither AFSOUTH nor Holbrooke are being used for any opinion or analysis here, and nothing they are being used for is even slightly controversial. Reliability is directly tied to what it is being used for, not to some theoretical concept. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with AFSSOUTH being used for their own C2. I linked why I don't think Holbrooke should be used.

What I see is the entire background section was written based on sources with direct connection to the US military. Most of the article is written based on sources which are not independent of the US military.

Here is an example of a challenge that I think could use more sourcing, especially for readers distrustful of the US. News of the bloody massacre in Tuzla spread internationally, prompting further NATO airstrikes. - According to the CIA, but maybe the US was always going to airstrike more, and just used the massacre for justification. Czarking0 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider your objection to Holbrooke is valid given what he is being used to cite. It would be ridiculous to word this as "According to Richard Holbrooke, Leighton Smith was the commander of AFSOUTH." He either was or he wasn't. It isn't Holbrooke's opinion, he's just stating a fact. Who could possible challenge it? On what basis? I have added several sources that provide additional details regarding the details of the decision-making, deadlines etc. I am unsurprised that there is little variation between all the sources about what happened and why, which only reinforces the quality of BB as a source. In some cases, people distrustful of a "US account" have their own ideological reasons for questioning what occurred – for example, the Republika Srpska and Serbian governments and media regularly issue statements or post articles that push fringe theories regarding the wars, deny war crimes and events that are extremely well documented and proven in international courts. Those that support those sorts of conspiracy theories are bound to distrust a US government publication, but we don't write WP to account for their fringe ideas. On this and similar articles we regularly have IPs that geolocate in Serbia changing the result to "VRS victory" apparently because the VRS took hostages and stopped the airstrikes. But the result is about the airstrikes themselves, not the aftermath. BB is extensively footnoted and includes many references contemporaneous local and international news articles from many different countries, books by authorities on the conflict, etc. As a US government publication it is freely available online here, you can check for yourself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

No amount of footnotes or references will make BB an independent source. It is a source that almost certainly should be included on the page, but it is not independent and further support from independent sources would help with balance. I don't really have specific additional feedback as I think the changes you already made in response to my last comment are an improvement on the point I brought up and I want to drop the stick here. For GAR I would recommend adding additional citation/content from independent sources. Without finding those/reading them myself it is hard to be more specific. Czarking0 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Including hostages in infobox

I see what you mean about "result" being what was destroyed by the bombs. The current way of phrasing it is very aligned with the overall article in that only the US aligned sources are used. The taking of hostages is clearly an important part of this. Maybe it is better in the Causalities section, or result can be changed to aftermath? Czarking0 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you are conflating decisions taken by the RS leadership to deter further airstrikes with the result of the airstrikes. The airstrikes destroyed depots and killed and wounded VRS personnel. The airstrikes didn't make the VRS take hostages. Hostage taking isn't a part of the result, it is part of the aftermath, not the result of these airstrikes. This article is not about the May-June 1995 UN hostage crisis, and is only mentioned here as a part of the aftermath. The dropping of bombs did not cause hostages to be taken. The hostages being taken was a result of a decision taken by the RS leadership to commit a war crime as a way of deterring further airstrikes. Another example of something that was not a "result" of the first airstrike is the shelling of the UN safe areas including the Tuzla massacre, again a decision by VRS personnel to commit war crimes. They were shelled by the VRS in retaliation for the first airstrike, but were not a "result" of the first airstrike, which destroyed ammunition depots. The hostage taking is covered in the lead (to summarise the Aftermath section) and the Aftermath section, which is appropriate. However, it isn't appropriate to conflate decisions to commit war crimes by RS and VRS personnel with the results of the airstrikes, and it therefore should not be in the infobox as a result of the airstrikes (the subject of the article). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I hear your point about VRS action being in response to the airstrikes rather than a result of them. However, I disagree that none of the VRS response belongs in the infobox. If it is in scope for the article then it can be in scope for the infobox. To remedy the situation I suggest that either all the aftermath section is removed because it is not about the air strikes and the article is solely covering the air strikes or something about the hostage situation (and maybe the Tuzla bombing?）is included in the infobox. That could be done by changing the result to "result and response". I think what I had in casualties is fine as prisoners are causalities. The reader is unlikely to think that the bombs took UN peacekeepers hostage. Or a new row for VRS response is added. Czarking0 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot understand your argumentation here. The scope/subject of this article is the airstrikes, not the hostage taking. Just because the hostage taking isn't in the scope of the article doesn't mean it can't be mentioned at all. That is completely illogical. You are apparently saying that there should be no aftermath section unless the aftermath is included in the infobox? That makes no sense to me, and is contrary to every battle/incident article I've ever taken through the various review processes to FA, or the hundreds I've reviewed at GAN, Milhist A-Class review or FAC. The VRS response is a highly complex and drawn out process with a significant background that extended into late June and which was investigated thoroughly in the ICTY trials, and deserves its own detailed article, which would have the airstrikes and previous airstrikes, discussion between Smith and the VRS etc would be in the background section. It is relevant to mention a brief summary of the hostage taking, the negotiations and release, RRF and Operation Deliberate Force here in the aftermath because it flowed out of the airstrikes. Infoboxes are not places to try to impart complex information, and they should be focussed on the scope/subject and its immediate results (ie destroyed depots and killed and dead), not something that occurred subsequently, whether it is the continuing VRS shelling of safe areas on the afternoon of 26 May, hostage taking or anything else. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand you perfectly fine and you understand me as well and still disagree. IMO you are POV pushing. I am not saying that you are editing in bad faith just that you are pushing a certain POV. To some level I suspect you think I am POV pushing too. I don't want to repeat my same points but you have not changed my mind that the VRS hostage taking belongs in the infobox. Czarking0 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what POV you think I am pushing. I will refrain from labelling your attitude to this issue. Regardless, DR appears to be needed here if you insist on pursuing this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you are pushing a POV of "only use US state department approved sources" rather than trying to create a balanced perspective. As for what other RS can be used to create this balance I would think the UN has some reports about the air strikes that lead to the hostage taking. I'll wait till GAR to push this further unless you have something you want from me now. I would just fail the article but I feel like I am too involved for that to be seen by others as a fair review. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hang on. You apparently don’t know what alternative sources exist, beyond the UN. Yet you accuse me of pushing a POV? What balance are you referring to? The UN asked NATO for airstrikes, they carried them out. There is no alternative fact-based version of events I’m aware of. I fail to see what my alleged POV is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:May 1995 Pale air strikes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 05:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)