Talk:Battle of Paštrik

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your new article on the Battle of Pashtrik. Note that other editors have called for improved citations/footnotes in the main text area..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The result of the battle

@Crazydude1912 and Peervalaa: you should stop making reverts on the article. Peervalaa, as you want to change the stable version, you need to provide your rationale here, amd then things can be sorted out. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I put sources forward, I don't know why you have not mentioned other guy who kept deleting them. If you want rationale read sources. Peervalaa (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright @peervalaa let's check your sources.

First source

First of all this author is describing myths. This source is pretty much garbage since you can't creat a serious article with myths. Still you argumented on an administrator user page (not on the Battle of Pashtrik article) a KLA/Nato defeat with the quote: page 53 ("Operation Arrow was limited to one sector, and even so, it was not a success. A US intelligence official, in fact, claimed the KLA was “creamed.” The KLA forces came under heavy Serb artillery fire, and while some areas changed hands, no major gains were claimed by the KLA.")

I hope you can see what the problem here is since this myth describes not a Yugoslav victory but no win for the KLA/Nato side.

To be honest this was probably the worst source you could choose. It is funny that the only NOT myth part (the introduction) describes a KLA/Nato victory:Operation Allied Force was a hardwon success for NATO

Second source

This article is in Croatian, but English translation is given. The translation doesn't mention any defeat. I asked you to show me a quote but you acted ignorant. I would still recommend you to use neutral English sources since other languages especially in the Balkans always take a side and are harder to proof.

Third source

Since you didn't provide a link i even looked it up by myself. Page 199 Note 35: Mentions no KLA/Nato defeat. I once again asked you show me anything where a defeat is mentioned. If the book says quote:.. was not a success, it doesn't mean that the KLA/Nato was defeated.

Fourth source

Quotation:The major KLA offensive (code-named Operation Arrow) launched in late May in the Mount Pastrik area of southwestern Kosovo met with little if any success. Even after heavy NATO bombing of suspected VJ defensive positions, KLA forces were able to penetrate only a few miles into Kosovo during two weeks of fighting.

Here we got the same situation as in the third source. You should learn what a defeat is.

My suggestion: If you can't show us any reliable source which shows us a Yugoslav victory or a KLA/Nato defeat don't change this part in the article. Even if you got any RS talk it first out on the talkpage.

Since the result of the battle is a dispute i suggest keeping the part:Kumanovo Treaty, End of the Kosovo war as the best version. Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your dishonest use of word "myth" here, your edit-warring which led to lockdown of this page and your blatantly false editing shows how much you seek honest consensus. You also messed up talk page here with bad linking.

Source one: Yes, article describes myths - one such myth is "The KLA offensive had a major impact". It did not, KLA in fact was "creamed", if you want to put "KLA got creamed" in infobox do so. Air Force Magazine is published by Air Force Association which is an independent, non-profit, professional military and aerospace education association. Not winning means losing.

Not achieving you objectives is defeat. It is not a stalemate like you claim. You also seem confused about the outcome of this battle and the outcome of entire war (they are not the same).

Source two: is Croatian scholar and your claim that he somehow is not neutral is funny. You managed to stalk me to admin talk page and use the exact sentence I am quoting to admin for the first source, yet the second source (which I also quoted) you simply missed, along with the exact sentence that I quoted to admin: "UCK je postigao određene uspjehe primjenjujući gerilsku taktiku, međutim kad je 26. svibnja pokušao izvesti veliki frontalni napad, doživio je težak poraz" - try running this through google translate it says "HEAVY defeat", you can put that outcome in infobox too. I also privided the exact page of that quote, if you are not competent enough to find it, maybe you should not be editing Wikipedia.

Source three: yes it does, when operation "was not success" it can only mean failure/not accomplishing objectives/defeat

Source four: yes, not accomplishing your objectives is defeat. You should look up the meaning of that word.

I will also provide source five: Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999 and a quote "Despite NATO air attacks, including B-52 strikes, the KLA suffered heavily from Yugoslav counterattacks and was repulsed nearly to its starting positions", page 56, [1]

I showed you FIVE reliable sources that back my edits. My suggestion: revert back to "KLA/NATO defeat" with reliable sources that back that up. I see no other sources that say otherwise or that prove your claim for "Kumanovo treaty, End of Kosovo war", which is the worst version that ignores reality and brushes off battle like it did not happen. Again, you need to make distinction between outcome of this battle and outcome of entire war, and this battle sure did not contributed to its ending. Peervalaa (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "balatantly false editing" even though I didn't edit anything but just was reverting your claim of a KLA/Nato defeat that you tried to back up with sources which tell us a whole other story. The full block of this page only happened since I had to revert false claims even though I was asking which part of your sources show us a KLA/Nato defeat, which of course was ignored with the words "read carefully". I offered you to discuss it on the talk page wich you obviously rejected, so don't play the 'You don't want to seek an honest consensus' card. You also beeing dishonest since you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say like :"is Croatian scholar and your claim that he somehow is not neutral is funny." even though I said "This article is in Croatian, but English translation is given. The translation doesn't mention any defeat. I asked you to show me a quote but you acted ignorant. I would still recommend you to use neutral English sources since other languages especially in the Balkans always take a side and are harder to proof." in which I was not reffering to that Croatian source, but to non English sources especially from the Balkans in general.

I think that you are false interpreting some words like defeat in the way you like the most. By your logic a KLA/Nato defeat is not achieved either since the Yugoslav army couldn't prevent territory losses. The KLA goal in the first place was breaking through the border, eliminate Yugoslav troops and establish supply corridors. Even though in this battle the KLA did not get deep into the occupied territory, it still achieved its goal since the Yugoslav troops lost control over the border. Even though this was the last major battle in the Kosovo War you were right in the point that this battle didn't directly affect the signing of the Treaty of Kumanovo. Since no side can really claim a defeat I think that a stalemate in this part is an honest and the best solution, and it's accepted by other Serbian editors too.Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about this false editing [2] where you misrepresented casualties of 549th Motorized Brigade. You did the same thing here [3] and several more times before the lockdown of this article. I already explained those casualties in my edit summary here [4]. My claim is backed up by sources that tell exactly the tale that my edits say. Full block happened because you kept deleting and reverting sources even though you provided NONE for you claims in the infobox. I told you to "read carefully", which you clearly hadn't, I even singled out the pages per Wikipedia standards. I still think you do not want to seek honest consensus because you simply refuse to accept what sources say. I am not being dishonest since you said "since other languages especially in the Balkans always take a side and are harder to proof" saying Croatian/Balkan scholar is not good enough. I gave you Croatian quote in my previous reply which mentions "heavy defeat", easily verifiable.

I am interpreting word "defeat" as it should be, not "stalemate", not "Kumanovo agreement" or "End of Kosovo war". You are arguing semantics and missing the point. You need to separate outcome of this battle from outcome of entire war. KLA failed to achieve any of its objectives and NATO failed to achieve its objective of eliminating large number of Yugoslav troops in this battle. Yugoslav troops kept enemy at bay which was their goal which they accomplished. I do not think "Stalemate" and other edits regarding casualties are true. I also fail to see what supposed nationality of other users has to do with this discussion.

I have put forward enough sources that back my edits. You have none to back yours. Until something substantial comes up on this talk page this will all be just meaningless talk. Peervalaa (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Crazydude1912 but I simply do not see any arguments presented from your side, just personal opinions and analysis, which is of little interest for the Wiki. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We were clearly talking about the result section. Your are accusing me of blatantly false editing by linking reverts I did for the casualties section. This just shows your dishonest work since you try to create an image of me of an false editing editor with reverts I have done that in the first place don't have anything to do with this topic. I am going to tell you again that I'm not refusing your sources just because I tell you that your sources poorly back up the theory of a KLA/NATO defeat. "I have put forward enough sources that back my edits"-> No you didn't. Your sources decribe a stalemate. The only source you did show us that mentions a defeat is a Croation source that has to be first translated. On the other hand I can show you sources that clearly talk about a stalemate:

You also said:"KLA failed to achieve any of its objectives and NATO failed to achieve its objective of eliminating large number of Yugoslav troops in this battle." This was never and could never be a goal of Nato, killing a large number of troops. The main goal of Nato was the destruction of abilities to slows down the mass killing of Albanians. Nato with the help of the KLA was very successfull in that point.

We are talking about the Battle of Pashtrik which was one part of the Operation Arrow. The long term goal of Operation Arrow was penetrating deep into the center of Kosovo which was quite exaggerated and not achievable in the short term. With the not achieved goals of long term Operation Arrow you are claiming a defeat of KLA/Nato in the area of Mount Pashtrik.

The only real result for this article, which was also the longtime stable version, is a stalemate. The Yugoslav army was never able to recapture the whole gains of the KLA/Nato at the Mount Pashtrik.

For the second time - learn how to write response in talk page using ":" and learn how to properly link your sources. I accused you of false editing and provided sources for that claim because you reverted info for casualties which were sourced. My sources do not poorly back up but actually back up my claim. Your source "The Army Lawyer" can also be used for "KLA and NATO defeat" considering it talks about support from NATO to KLA and their communication. Yes, I did put enough sources forward to back my claim, more than you. I have already translated Croatian source to you several times, what is the problem? Reading your source "Bombs without Boots: The Limits of Airpower" I can see that KLA had achieved NONE of its objectives and was "stopped in its tracks almost immediately" and that Yugoslavs managed to "counter, push and hammer" KLA. That source also quotes general Klark who says "Kosovars were NOT ABLE to secure their objectives" and more.

Clearly KLA failed to meets its objectives considering what they were. Again you are conflicting objectives and outcomes of entire war and this battle. NATO did try to destroy as many Yugoslav tanks and troops at Paštrik as it could because it was providing support for KLA, something which should be clear by now. Short or long term, KLA set its objectives and date and FAILED to achieve them. Previous versions of article which said "stalemate" were not stable because they were not true. Maybe Yugoslavs did not capture back few square feet of a mountain slope but they sure did stop KLA from meeting any of its objectives and they did that while inflicting heavy losses. Result cannot be a stalemate because Yugoslav army had only one objective - to repel KLA attacks and it did just that. More sources back up that outcome.

References

P.S. Also learn how to sign your posts here. Peervalaa (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Maybe Yugoslavs did not capture back few square feet of a mountain slope but they sure did stop KLA from meeting any of its objectives and they did that while inflicting heavy losses." Sounds like a stalemate. I hope that you are aware of that this page will be blocked again if you edit this article based on your interpretation and point of view without reaching a consensus. Crazydude1912 (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a "stalemate" but a defeat of KLA which failed to achieve its objectives, as backed up by my and your recently posted sources. Page will be probably blocked if you continue to remove facts backed by sources. You also did not revert this page back to "Stalemate" when another Albanian user inserted its claims (same as yours) without any backing or consensus here [5]. My "interpretation" is backed by sources, while you and other users are more prone to interpretation. Consensus cannot be reached because you either ignore sources or when that does not work you diminish them. Peervalaa (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I did change it back since I revertet his edit too. I have shown enough sources that show us a stalemate even more than you show us a KLA/NATO defeat. So why should we take your version? Crazydude1912 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have showed more credible sources than you. KLA was not just stalled, they were also "creamed", "suffered heavily from Yugoslav counterattacks", they failed to meet any of its objectives (even with NATO support). Yugoslav army did meet its objective - driving KLA out and inflicting casualties, preventing KLA from completing its objectives. My version is backed by more credible and trustworthy sources. Peervalaa (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your version is backed up by a Croatian source only. 4 more sources don't even talk about a defeat but describe even more a stalemate. The war ended before the battle was over. No side met any its objectives. Where is it mentioned that the KLA was fully driven out? Crazydude1912 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My version is backed up by enough sources, more than you provided. Other sources you are mentioning are not describing stalemate, again, that is your interpretation. I have already suggested to you before, if you want you can put as outcome "KLA got creamed" as source says. Battle subsided before the end of war and the outcome was clear. KLA failed its objectives, Yugoslav army did not. Their objective was to defend the border and they did that. Their objective was to prevent KLA from advancing and they did that. KLA also suffered plenty of casualties. I have laid out my arguments, with plenty of credible sources. If you have nothing new, honest and valid to contribute (other than "I just don't like the outcome") I will not address you here anymore and I will restore my edits because we are just going in circles. Peervalaa (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Other sources you are mentioning are not describing stalemate, again, that is your interpretation" No it is not my interpretation but clearly mentioned in my sources.

"Their objective was to defend the border and they did that." Since the Yugoslav army lost control over it i suggest that it did fail its objective.

I'm going to assume that this won't convince you. Sombody completely neutral should have a look over this discussion. I see that you don't have arguments anymore. But still if there is no consensus then there is no change. Changing the article to your preferred version like you did again won't solve anything. Crazydude1912 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Page fully protected

In lieu of handing out blocks for WP:3RR violations and edit warring, I've fullY protected the page for three days. Hammer out your differences here and come to a consensus please. If a consensus is reached prior to the block expiring, you can request that the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

It's obvious that 1400 couldn't have possibly died out of a total force of 1200 people and the source which makes this claim is not reliable. The total numbers about Operation Arrow in Hockenos, Paul (2003). Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801441587. don't even come close to the figures which are being discussed by the involved editors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There were over 4000 KLA attackers. Peervalaa (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The total force of any armed formation is not the force that engages with the enemy. Logistics, tactics, back-up units etc. mean that only a fraction actually does the fighting. Details of the UCK units involved in 'Arrow' remain unclear, including the actual number of Kosovar combatants. Albanian television reported on 2 June that the 'Ismet Jashari Kumanova 121st Brigade and 123rd Brigade in the 'Pastrik Operational Zone' were engaging Yugoslav forces, but offered nothing more specific. Most reports indicate that up to 4,000 insurgents were involved in the offensive, while some have as few as 250 insurgents engaging the Yugoslav army. General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in his recent account of the war, puts the number between 1,800 and 2,000 from The battle for mount Pastrik: A preliminary study--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Revert article back to its sourced version

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Pa%C5%A1trik&oldid=968300352 Peervalaa (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem to add some sources to this current stable version. Instead of reverting it to a poorly sourced out version. Crazydude1912 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

* El C This page's protection ends tommorrow. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peervalaa: what do you think about this version? :

• KLA offensive has stalled
• KLA captured Mount Pastrik
• End of the war without a clear result

Crazydude1912 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that the KLA forces did not penetrate the second Serbian line which pretty much means that their mission was not successful. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The "which pretty much means" part must be put forward by bibliography, not by editors. This is 101 in editing policies, use reliable sources, not your judgment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What brigade of the KLA was active at the Battle of Paštrik?

The source (Hockenos, Paul (2003). Homeland Calling: Exile Patriotism & the Balkan Wars. Cornell University Press. pp. 238–239. ISBN 0-8014-4158-7.) is quite explicit that it's actually the 121st Brigade. @Adhurim Jakupi: is there a reason you reverted my edit? Here's the diff. Also, I tried to talk to you in your Talk page about similar behavior in the Battle of Košare article, and you haven't answered.--Aleksamil (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Two brigades from the operational zone Pashtrik fought during this battle; the 121st brigade 'Ismet Jashari' and the 123rd brigade, the 138 brigade 'Agim Ramadani' was not even a part of the same operational zone as these brigades. 138 was in operational zone Dukagjin. Durraz0 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Kumanovo Agreement a result of this particular battle?

I don't think this is corroborated by the sources provided in this article. @Adhurim Jakupi: do you have any sources to back that up? Also @Sadko: you're both close to breaking WP:3RR, as a more experienced user you should try to avoid this WP:EDITWAR. Adhurim doesn't seem to be responding to me, how do you propose we can deal with the edit war here (and the simultaneous one in the Battle of Košare article)? --Aleksamil (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not plan to break 3RR. It's very little that we can do (but revert up to a limit) because there is zero communication from the other side. Do you happen to have more sources talking about the outcome of the battle? ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't. But what we're generally supposed to do is enter anything from the sources directly into the body of the article, whereas the infobox should serve solely as a summary. That said, I haven't seen any source indicate the Kumanovo Agreement being a result of the Battles of Košare and Paštrik, both patrolled by user Adhurim Jakupi. If this goes on, I suppose we should try dispute resolution--Aleksamil (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea Aleksa. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Aleksamil. In modern warfare, in general, *one* battle cannot dictate the outcome of a war and the treaty that ends it. It has to do with the complexity of modern warfare which nullify the effects of the "grand battle" strategy. So - although they're educated assumptions based on general bibliography- I don't think that a source will emerge that would put forward the idea that this particular, single battle affected the whole war so significantly that it dictated the terms of the treaty.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Maleschreiber. I posted this section because of an ongoing edit war, unfortunately the reverting user didn't give his opinion on the issue. They're temporarily banned, as far as I know, but even if they decide to chime in, I agree there's unlikely to be a source that this particular battle resulted in the end of the entire war.--Aleksamil (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

And the same goes for Battle of Košare, where I have removed the agreement in the infobox. --T*U (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

93.87.128.3 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Tactical defeat of the KLA and NATO.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Norway, Albania

@Durraz0: Thank you for the article's expansion. I did some cleanup. Norway which has been added as a supporting force in the battle, seems to have assisted via the donation of a field hospital for wounded combatants and Albania provided artillery support. The average reader will not go into details and might think that they participated with active troops. I think that their involvement should be discussed via more specific terms on the infobox.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello there! Yes I agree with the fact that we should mention the involvement of Norway in the page as well. The participation of Norway was not with active troops as you said but with a field hospital which was donated by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign affairs (UD). however the doctors and nurses at the field hospital were Norwegian. Albanian army supported only with artillery and tanks, the tanks were only used to fire at VJ position over the border. I think we should mention both in the info box. perhaps something like "medical and artillery support" to clarify what the Albanian army and Norwegian states involvement was for the average reader who will just shim through the article. What do you think? Durraz0 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Artillery Support - Albania and Medical Support - Norway will work well.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Durraz0 (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

I have contributed a few updates to the page as I could see some errors and conflicting information.

1. Casualties: Serbian casualties were updated to (25 dead, 126 injured). I translated (Google translate) the referenced article in question and the previous statistics refer to losses sustained in the entire region from an unspecified time frame. The losses from this specific battle are listed as (25 dead, 126 injured). In addition, according to the Serbian Wikipedia page, 500 KLA troops were wounded. This uses the same reference as the current English Wikipedia page which states that 200 were wounded. This needs clarification. 2. Strength: The KLA figures are derived from the Albanian version of this page with no references attached. Given that this battle was a major offensive, it is impossible that 150 soldiers were initially put into action. Forage (2001) states that General Wesley Clark puts figures at around 1,800-2000. In addition, Task Force Hawk and the Albanian 2nd army were added, as stated in Forage (2001). 3. The sentence:

"Albanian refugees from Gorozup, Milaj, Gjonaj and Planeja at the slopes of Mount Paštrik reported that they had been beaten, killed and forcefully driven out of their villages by Yugoslav army, police and paramilitaries..."

uses a reference from April 1999. A better reference post conflict (June, 1999) would be better.

4. The sentence:

"Only around 250 KLA insurgents actually saw combat during the operation..."

Incorrectly states that the referenced author in question has come to this conclusion. This is false as the entire narrative states:

"Most reports indicate that up to 4,000 insurgents were involved in the offensive, while some have as few as 250 insurgents engaging the Yugoslav army."

The author of this article highlights that this is a disputed fact and provides no final consensus in the article. Further clarification is needed.

In all, great article.ElderZamzam (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, a reference needs to be found for the strength of the Yugoslav army. It currently stands at [450 men (initial),1,000 men (May)]. This does not make any sense as didn't the battle commence in May? The (initial) infers that the battle started before May? I suggest this breakup of initial troops and follow up troops be removed until a viable source can be found.ElderZamzam (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed all figures. Mondo.rs is WP:TABLOID and the source about KLA didn't specifically discuss battle of Pashtrik. Forage writes that Though NATO's battle damage assessment of these strikes has not been made public,60 Colonel Delic acknowledged suffering many casualties in the area. Delic commented that his troops had been under constant bombardment: 'Our positions resembled the surface of the moon from all the bombs we could not even count. Some 100 troops a day were incapacitated but new ones came to replace them.'61 In a speech on 12 August, 2000, General Lazarevic also conceded that 'we lost many heroes, who laid down their lives at Pastrik, Planeja, Cicavica, Gorozup, Kosare, Dulj, Reljan and other battlefields --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good work Maleschreiber, the info box looks much better now. Thank you.ElderZamzam (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If it falls under the category of Wikipedia:TABLOID, agree in regards to the removal of Mondo. However, the other source on Yugoslav military casualties that was also removed is an official Serbian MoD report on their site. EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

the 25 number comes from the 549th brigade only." U operaciji „Strela“ brigada je imala 25 poginulih i 126 ranjenih, a neprijatelj daleko više. U zoni odbrane brigade ukupno je poginulo 87 boraca, a 300 je ranjeno." this translates too "during operation 'Arrow', the brigade saw 25 dead and 126 wounded, the enemy fighters had far more. A total of 87 fighters died and 300 were wounded in the brigade's defense zone". Durraz0 (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If it only refers to the casualties of the one brigade, and there was more than that one unit involved in the operation/battle, then we can add a note stating the casualties refer to that one brigade only. EkoGraf (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should add a note. I speculate that it refers to the casualties of the unit by air air strikes and fighting with KLA. according to Forage the Yugoslav commander admitted they saw hundreds of casualties daily during the battle. Statements about the casualties seem to contradict. Durraz0 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Durraz0:@EkoGraf: I think that we have to discuss how to compare and contrast different sources. The article is not an official publication of the Serbian MoD, but the comments of retired general Stojan Konjikovac in a book presentation. Konjikovac claims that the 549th Motorized Brigade and other Serbian units were 14,000 in total and that the 549th had 25 KIA and 126 wounded. In a Balkan context, the distinction between official reports and personal comments in a semi-official context is important because in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars, involved states did not publish official figures for killed/wounded soldiers and different factions in each military apparatus put forward different estimations. About the casualties of the 549th, Forage (2001) writes: Though NATO's battle damage assessment of these strikes has not been made public, Colonel Delic acknowledged suffering many casualties in the area. After President Milosevic awarded the 549th the National Hero Medal on 16 June 1999, 'for heroic achievements in the defence of [Yugoslav] territorial integrity and sovereignty', Delic commented that his troops had been under constant bombardment: 'Our positions resembled the surface of the moon from all the bombs we could not even count. Some 100 troops a day were incapacitated but new ones came to replace them.' --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I read through the article, which was published by the Serbian MoD on their site to inform people about the book promotion and indeed does include quotes by Konjikovac, but also text to frame the story, so not everything in it is quotes by Konjikovac. Indeed yes the strength figure is quoted/cited to Konjikovac, I agree on that. However, the casualty figure is not a quote by Konjikovac. A "–" (dash) in the article indicates a quote, while where there is not a dash its part of the article published by the MoD. And there is no dash at the sentence regarding the casualty figure, which means its not a quote to Konjikovac. Also, please take into account, that the Forage source dates back to 2001 (17 years before this article), while the Delic quote itself is even more way back from 1999. Compared to this 2018 source, Forage/Delic is way outdated and it stands to reason that the situation is more clearer now. In these situations, we usually use more up-to-date sources/information on Wikipedia. Further, we have these reports by Serbia's public broadcaster RTS [6][7] and Serbia's daily newspaper Politika [8][9] from 2019 (so even newer sources) reporting 26 soldiers were killed in the battle/operation. So it stands that we should even possibly use these instead of the 2018 report since they are newer. One of these sources also includes an interview with Delic (who you mentioned) who is not contradicting the reported figure of 26 killed even when it is mentioned to him. In any case, we have multiple sources (per the newer ones for 26 dead) which show a widely accepted account on the number of dead per Serbia and there is no reason to exclude it. If we can find a source as per the Kosovo Albanians how many of the KLA's fighters were killed we should include it as well. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Several more sources citing the widely accepted figures of 25 or 26 dead [10][11][12] during the battle, including one from last year (2020) by the regional public broadcaster in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. If you wish, we can attribute the figure to Serbia, so it would be clear to the reader it is coming from them. I also have no problem to include the Forage source in the main body of the article to cite the estimation on the casualties from 1999/2001, but to acknowledge that today it is widely reported to be 26 dead, including (among others) as per the same person who was quoted by Forage. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The most recent addition to this article stating that 16 KLA troops were killed was removed. The reason being is that the article in question quotes a KLA regional commander immediately after the war. The same commander states that 180 Yugoslav troops were killed, which has proven to be inaccurate. The "Unknown" status is most appropriate, given the varying figures posted. The Albanian language page of this article lists (73) KLA troops killed, the Serbian (1,400), French (71), Croatian (Unknown).ElderZamzam (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The Albanian, Croatian and French WP articles all have no sources for their casualties. the Serbian WP article uses a Serbian source which is Serbian POV. I never put the number of Yugoslav dead as 180, just as we are using the claims of Yugoslavia/Serbia for their own casualties (25-26) we should use the claims of the KLA for their own casualties. Durraz0 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess someone REALLY likes that number 16 and didn't take too kindly to your removal of it, so the ridiculous claim is now back in the article. 178.221.64.252 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sylejmani interview

@ElderZamzam: can you quote where in the interview of Agim Sylejmani it is claimed that the Albanian army was one of the combatants in the battle of Pashtrik? An interview is not a good source for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, but before I remove it - as a native speaker of Albanian - I want to know from which part of the interview you inferred the content of your edit.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim isn't WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the page prior to my addition discussed the involvement of the Albanian army by multiple sources. My addition is a clarification of minute details of who exactly in the Albanian army was involved. If I was able to read the interview and make an inference from it, you being a native speaker of the Albanian language would also have reached the same inference. Did you read the entire text, or did you dismiss it? For clarification, during the interview, Sulejmani is asked Dihet mirëfilli se pjesa veriore e Shqipërisë, gjegjësisht zona kufitare ku ishin ngritur qendrat stërvitore të UҪK-së dhe bëheshin përgatitjet për frontin e Koshares dhe të Pashtrikut në kuadër të operacionit “Shigjeta”, ishte nën përgjegjësinë ushtarake të Divizionit të Kukësit në krye me Gjeneral Kudusi Lama. A mund të na thoni konkretisht, cili ishte roli i Gjeneral Kudusi Lamës me Divizionin e Kukësit, në përgatitjen logjistike për Operacionin “Shigjeta”?. To which he responds Divizioni i Kukësit dhe gjeneral Kudusi Lama ishin bartësit kryesor të luftës që zhvillohej në gjithë atë front të gjerë, aq sa ishte edhe vija kufitare Shqipëri-Kosovë. Ne kishim djem e vajza të gatshëm të jepnin edhe jetën e tyre për lirinë e Kosovës, por pa Divizionin e Kukësit, e sidomos të vetë gjeneral Kudusi Lama dhe gjithë stafit të tij ushtarak, as që mund të imagjinohet lufta e UÇK-së në kufi me Kosovën, ku ishin të përqëndruara njësitë elite artilerike e tankiste të ushtrisë serbe të shoqëruara nga njësitë paramilitare serbe dhe mercenare ruse. Kundër këtyre forcave të mëdha në numër dhe të paisura me armët më moderne të kohës nuk mjaftonte vetëm vullneti për të luftuar, por duheshin edhe mjetet përkatëse për të përballuar armikun shumëfish më të madh në numër dhe të paisur. The fact that you have already planned to remove the content without a valid discussion shows that you have no interest in engaging in any sort of constructive dialogue to advance this page. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It will be removed because nowhere does it claim or imply that the Albanian army was a combatant in the Battle of Pashtrik or that Kudusi Lama was a commander in any way, shape or manner in that battle. I didn't remove it beforehand in order to give you a chance to remove it yourself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)