Talk:Battle of Paštrik/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)