Talk:Battle of Košare/Archive 1

Source
So the source is a Serbian propaganda movie that calls Albanians 'terrorists', says that the Mujahedin were fighting (did they see the Islamic flag flying???), the Albanian Army etc etc etc.?

Sorry Serbs, your credibility is not that great in this department. I'm putting a reliability questioned tag here. It's just a bit too convenient

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Find another source about Battle of Košare if you can. Until you find it, article should stay like it was. By the way, Drecun is not a politican. He is a war reporter and he was at Košare at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damjanoviczarko (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Drecun was working... for Slobo. And he was immediately banned from TV after the Butcher of the Balkans was deposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to Damjanoviczarko's response "Find another source about Battle of Košare if you can. Until you find it, article should stay like it was", please see Wiki's policy on verifiability, in particular WP:v: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Since content of the article has been challenged and the reliability of the one and only source is in question, it is in line Wiki's policy to remove the contentious material until it is adequately sourced.  If you can find reputable sources to back it up then by all means restore it, but until then policy dictates that it must remain deleted. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion reopened after six years
Battle was real, since Albania was used for training ground for KLA and NATO support during conflict. It was a point of entry to Yugoslav terittory and was expected area of conflict during whole "Kosovo war". In terms that it was a try to establish a control of Yugoslav-Albanian border and secure a support of KLA from Albania, as well as to provide safe area for further expansion of KLA troops from Albania, its also a stopped offensive Yugoslav victory. Not much in "already lost war with NATO" but fair enough.

Washington Post on wider NATO/KLA operation - where this battle is a direct result http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/military060299.htm

See pages 88 and 89 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2001/MR1351.pdf

On eastablishing NATO helicopter / artillery support for operation of border entry from direction of Albania Pages 502 onward. Interesting read, its Albanian-Kosovo border, and then in next line "Serbian air defence (over border) was on their own ground" :-) https://books.google.rs/books?id=MQXvyD-_GW4C&pg=PA493&lpg=PA493&dq=Operation+Victory+Hawk&source=bl&ots=zNUOUU0mFw&sig=NdIfReY2tsx-csjjQ3uqQKGkWDI&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=PjsXVaz2EYLfaoTggsAH&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Operation%20Victory%20Hawk&f=false

British guardian, while being surely pro NATO and KLA biased:

Yugoslav army shelling Kosare (after originaly taken in first wave of KLA attack) (propaganda part is high morale etc.) http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/11/balkans4

NATO admits bombing KLA positions at Kosare http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/allied_force-damage.htm http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/23/theobserver6 http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/24/balkans3

Guardian admits Kosare attack was a complete failure, finding another village that was a KLA point of penetration from Albania http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jul/17/balkans

Note for Allied Force: that it was de facto invasion from Albania to Yugoslavia, even war was never declared and broke every existing UN convention as well as NATO charter as defensive alliance and German constitution (forbidding use of German armed forces outside Germany).

About those claiming it to be pro Serbian propaganda (movie is not just Milosevic time propaganda, it features real commanders and soldiers included, at least in Serbian army documentary 30 minutes released 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByXRYUrrYLM ) Its sad that 16 years after operation Allied Force NATO gives no credibile history (operations, losses, collateral damages ...) of its "liberation campaign". Expect the same for other NATO operations, since then, now and in the future. So we have to dig some 16 years war propaganda to prove something has happened. Rasvoja (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Uck kla logo.svg
The image Image:Uck kla logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Uck kla logo.svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NATO collusion
I have removed two mentions of NATO which portray them as co-combatants supporting the Albanian offensive from the outset. Neither is supported by references or contemporary reports of NATO policy decisions. This looks like POV. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NATO Air Force participated in the Battle of Košare. It is a fact. I do not know exactly whose airplanes droped cluster bombs on the Serbian positions. If you have read the article, you will see that one frenchmen and one italian died in the battle. French Foreign Legion officers coordinated artilery fire... NATO participated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.115.139 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion that it is a fact, but we need to see some reliable verification. I don't question whether NATO was involved in aerial bombing in Kosovo at various points in the warfare, but I question whether it was co-ordinated with Albanian military participation in the Battle of Košare as other contributors to this article claim.  For example, it's equally possible that Albanians took advantage of the NATO bombardment to launch an offensive.  In the absence of references to verifiable sources it's equally possible, as far as Wiki is concerned, that the Battle of Košare never took place or, if it did, NATO were nowhere to be seen.  Please, back up your claims with reliable references or be prepared for them to be removed.  -- Timberframe (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Entire article is based on one source (movie about battle of košare)... From this source you can see that NATO participated and that their actions were coordinated with KLA and Albanian Army. If you have other sources that says that nato did not participated please provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.112.65 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A movie doesn't come close to being a veriable source. Please name the movie and provide a link to a transcript of it so that the article can be verified.  Even then, if the the movie is fictional or partisan it will still not meet Wiki's standards.  If it's true that NATO colluded with Albanian forces in this battle then there will be reputable documentary sources to back up your claim; please find them and cite them.  The onus is on you to provide evidence to support the claims you insert in the articles, not on others to justify removing unsupported claims.
 * Also, please do not reinstate the images which have been removed because of copyright concerns without addressing those concerns first.
 * Both of these issues are summarised by the statement below the edit box: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." These are the fundamental tests which your edits must pass, please follow the links to the Wiki policies and familiarise yourself with them. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a Documentary film. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2697219212819574923 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.114.88 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Two problems - one the documentary is not in English (it looks like Serbian to me but, forgive me, my knowledge of Serbian is elementary). Since this is the English Wikipedia it is reasonable to assume that the majority of its readers (as opposed to its editors) will have English as a primary language and few will be sufficiently fluent in the language of the documentary to be able to follow it.  Thus for the vast majority of en.wiki readers the one and only source for the article remains inaccessible.  That's why I suggested that you find and cite a published transcript of the documentary (in English) - that could form the basis of a suitable reference.


 * Secondly, there's the question of whether this documentary is itself a reliable source. Another editor has questioned this already it here at Talk:Battle of Košare.  If the documentary portrays the history accurately then I'm sure that there must be other independent reporters who can corroborate it.  Have a look at WP:V, in particular WP:V for guidelines on what makes a suitable source for verification, for example "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - in my opinion this documentary on its own falls short of Wiki's standard.  Without corroboration in respected sources the documentary looks like a personal point of view which makes it unsuitable. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then it is better for you to delete entire article. Why you have problem only with NATO participation. It is obvious from the article that NATO participated in the battle. Delete entire article then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.112.149 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well, I'll do that and see if anyone else come's to the atyicle's defence with credible references. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mujahedin
According to some sources there was also a Balrog and a Rancor there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.105.15 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Serbian decisive victory?
Well, it seems like it wasn’t exactly this way. And, if the Serbian victory were “decisive”, why the region of Kosare is today in the Republic of Kosovo?-- Kosare was always part of Kosovo and Metohija. Because NATO attacked civilian targets in Serbia from first day of aggression. Every bigger collateral damage is revenge for kicking ass on a battlefield. I only saw shooting down of one AH64. Remarkable and easy. And next day collateral damage. In war diary of dead KLA commander was number of near 100 named terrorist which was dead or killed after first ten days of attacks on Kosare. Maja Glava in some point was covered with several tens of dead KLA terrorists in the decay phase sending unbearable stench. Numbers of involved soldiers are more then inaccurate also as number of dead KLA soldiers. 201.52.86.117 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1.Your "article" doesn't speak ANYTHING about the actual battle, it just says that Serbs are fighting with artillery and thousands of Albanians are joining the KLA.

2. Your second statement is proof of your idiocy because we won the war on the ground, NATO forced us to leave Kosovo

3. Serbian Decisive Victory, we attacked you at Rasa Koshares, we stabilized your sections and inflicted heavy losses on you all. The reason why you took Karaula Kosare was because of NATO, but did this include NATO as a belligerent, no, but it did on the Srpski article and it said that we won that battle decisively. It was no Strategic Victory for you, it was for us because you insurgents were disbanded, but not us until 2003 when we changed into Serbia & Montenegro. Also, we sent T-55s to take on for Rasa Koshares and Mrcaj which the tanks in Rasa Koshares took more than like 100 meters over your held territory which soon became a part of our territory. We even broke your resistance and your team failed to break ours because we had like about a hundred or something troops on each section and you had some hundred and something insurgents, but we had more which outnumbered you all and defeated you in the battle, so we used artillery and reserve soldiers that defeated you. So thats how we decisively won. End of story. Oh and Nebojsa Pavkovic had even admitted we won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.153.253 (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE OFFENSIVE INTO KOSARE WAS STOPPED (WITH MORE ALBANIAN CASUALTIES I MIGHT ADD). And tell me this, in what way was it a KLA victory? Their goals were NOT achieved, they lost a significant number of troops, and most importantly, the offensive was repulsed. As the article the states, the KLA were INITIALLY successful but in the course of the battle (and Serbian counterattack) they were PUSHED BACK and the offensive was defeated and repulsed.


 * if nothing else, it does show that KLA was using kids as fighters which is against the UNICEF policies. Additionally, not all of the KLA fighters had proper uniforms.

Of course, if such kid-fighters get killed, then it was convenient to picture it as VJ atrocity against the kids (or in case of adult fighters without uniforms, as atrocity against civilian population) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.88.141 (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

enver: i change the victory of the serbs in victory of the kla and its THE TRUTH!!!SEE ALL INFOS ON CNN ETC...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.102.158 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and I reverted your change because you didn't cite any specific references to support it, and that is how Wikipedia works. If you can offer links to specific CNN reports which support your edit then please try again, this article desperately needs references to independant reliable sources. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to examples like this I find all articles about serbian history unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.181.119 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming that the KLA had heavy artillery operated by the French Legion but the KLA had only two batteries in koshare and those were operated by Kosovar soldiers. The heavy artillery is just an excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.187.162 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is pure propaganda! Hundreds of Russian volunteers? Are you kidding? In total there were 7 Russians.Serbs had 20 tanks? Fourth day of the offensive came two tanks. Albanian regular army is operated with howitzers and mortars. Serbian victory, the offensive destroyed, hundreds of terrorists killed, Serbian army remained in their positions unitli peace agreement and the end of the war. Terrorists destroyed and returned to Albania,Apache helicopters was destroyed (NATO officially claims to have been destroyed in an accident 10 km away from Koshare), terrorists spoke English at Motorola? Yeah, it is terorist not SAS but Serbian army captured L85A2 assault rifle (UK official Army rifle).A textbook example of propaganda sources exclusively from one party to the conflict (BBC).NATO General Clark in his book claims to have had two SAS fighting groups on Koshare and that Serbs was destoyeed Albanians offensive and hi must try elsewhere(15 days later offensives on the mountain Pastrik). General Clark admits in his book that he had complete command of the ground offensive, satellite phones with Albanians, SAS Fighting Group, Apache helicopters, and that they failed to pass the line of Serbian Army. Goebbels could learn a lot from wiki propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.243 (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
This article is very one sided, written from the Serbian perspective, doesn't have any source for the claims and says that Albania was engaged at war (which I really doubt). Thank you.  kedadi al  18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How did we Serbs lose 450and the insurgents lost 180. Wow, thats not true, some Albanian Wiki editor replaced it. I can tell the Serbian Army crucified the insurgents with the T-55 tanks and with their artillery. Also, on the first phase, we gave them heavy losses, we did damage and destroy the artillery with the T-55s, of course NATO (Nazi Aggression Total Oversupremacy) bombed us just 4% because about 96% were in Belgrade, and it was controversial according to the UN. Also for our T-55s, we destroyed about 200 Insurgents and about a hundred more, that can be 480 or plus 300 more with our reserve troops and artillery we also brought, which counts as 780, close to the estimate of 800 casualties so the insurgents did unsuccessfully on completing their goal so deep down, we gave them the heavy casualties, both on Opijaz and Rasa Koshares. And whats the point of editing a file if your gonna freakin' change it back Wikipedia, takeoff the editing if your gonna place that false crap back. You don't know nothing, Serbs had less casualties up to 45 then, not 450, you kidding. I swear you are a terrible editor, your false! Serbia got less casualties because the KLA is weak!

If the KLA had a Tactical Victory, they would've completed their strategic goal, if they had a Decisive Victory, they would've killed almost all the Yugoslav Army troops, but the truth is, they have killed around 50 or 30 or 45 Yugoslav Troops. Just like the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the NATO said they destroyed about 400 or 200 Armored Assault vehicles. But the truth is, that they destroyed only 22 or less vehicles. The Yugoslav had Volunteers from Russia, Greece, and I believe Yugoslav volunteers. NATO was involved, but had about six Aircraft (B-2 1, F-16 2, and AC-130 2), I believe the aircraft in the parenthesis are the ones that were used, but didn't inflict casualties, but for the F-16, I believe inflicted casualties 8. So Yugoslavia had less casualties than the KLA because regular troops are stronger than Militias or Guerrillas because they have better handling and training on weapons and hand to hand combat and have armored weapons and tanks and many more. The KLA only had guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.153.253 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was like that, Serbs won the battle. And Albania was engaged coz this happened on the border with Albania, but Albania had a limited time for fighting and then had to pull back the army, those were the rules. Feeling better now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbatimdat (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that conclusion would be, that the battle was tactical victory for the Serbs, but strategically inconclusive. For a campaign that wasn't very clear for both sides, it would be fair enough to say that no ground-breaking strategic progress was made, on either side, particularly when you take into account fairly small size and scale of the conflict. Anyway, i don't think that point of such article is to provide someone with clear definition of the outcome of battle, as much as to as precisely as possible, sum up the events, belligerent forces, equipment and units. Until better information and sources appear, keep the ones already present for reference, rather tan deleting and changing article every now and then.

P.S. Wasn't at the side of Republic of Albania, only artillery involved ?

Albanian artillery only apparently. As for one sidedness of the article, well, reasoning is simple: Point of encyclopedia is to provide accurate information. The most accuarate are ones provided by Yugoslav sources, simply because Yugoslav forces were only ones in the conflict effectively tracking movements, order of battle, losses, positions, maneuvers, etc etc. So when you strip all that information from political content, you pretty much get this article.

Battle was fought until the end of war, hence the conclusion of battle is peace agreement itself. However, it was a strategic failure for KLA/NATO forces overall, because war goals were achieved elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.2 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Blanking
If anyone is interested in working on the article, you should know that User:Timberframe blanked it in January 2010. The article before the blanking is here. Nikola (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more accurate, I removed layers of unreferenced POV, argument and tit-for-tat number-juggling. In doing so, I reduced it to a stub from which we could have another go at building the article properly, with each addition supported by verifiable references from reliable sources; sadly it seems nobody is interested in doing that or has suitable material with which to do it. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Result
Kumanovo treaty - NATO suspensions of air sorties aren`t results of the battle itself. It should be attack repelled / Yugoslav tactical victory

In the aftermath of the battle, Kumanovo Treaty and end of NATO operation Allied Force (end of Kosovo war) should be exaplained as end of hostilities in the zone, and retreat of Yugoslav army from its territory.

Rasvoja (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatant bias and unverifiable sources
It is clear that any articles pertaining to the wars in the Balkan Peninsula during the 1990s will be pervaded with scantly veiled prejudice and blatantly one-sided editing, but I've found this article to be especially bad.

The death counts are an obvious source of contention, yet they nevertheless lack any proper sources. In fact, the topic of sources within this article is one that needs to be seriously addressed. Every single reference that I have personally inspected for accuracy have not supported the claims made in Wikipedia article. Here are two examples:

"91 insurgents killed (KLA claim)[7]" Reference 7 points to this website: http://www.kosharja99.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=9 Opening the website reveals that there is no "KLA" death claim.

On the opposite side of that same section the table reads:

"Around 60 soldiers killed (Yugoslav claim)" And in this case, there is not even a reference at all!

The second example is the not-insignificant claim that two NATO A-10A Thunderbolt IIs were shot down during the operation by the Serbian forces:

"Two A-10 Thunderbolts shot down [9][not in citation given]" Reference 9 procures a military aircraft ejection history site and specifically a page listing all the (declassified) A-10A ejections. A quick inspection of the dates in question (spring of 1999) show that there were aircraft shot down, but only in the general vicinity of the battle (specifically above the major cities of Prishtina, Gjilan, and Skopje). None of the planes shot down within the context of the battle give any indication that they were related to the Battle of Kosare.

This article is riddled with inaccuracies obviously influenced by partisanship. This is made painfully clear by the lack of proper sources where they would be necessary and inaccurate ones where they are provided. Something needs to be done.

NuclearLemon (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points. Those are, sadly, common problems in articles about Kosovo. Would you like to help with cleanup? bobrayner (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute. Nixious6 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian volunteers in belligerents
There is no reason to have Russian volunteers as a belligerent. --Z oupan 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of Košare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130512195756/http://www.srbel.net/2012/03/25/komandant-odbrane-kosara-o-najtezoj-bici-kopnene-agresije-na-srj/?lang=lat to http://www.srbel.net/2012/03/25/komandant-odbrane-kosara-o-najtezoj-bici-kopnene-agresije-na-srj/?lang=lat

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I checked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020
No safe passage for KLA forces and weapons was provided (and no source for that part was provided), it was a frontline. Border outpost is not a military base, it was one larger house. And practically Yugoslav forces did not lose control of the borderline, they were still there only several meters away. I ask that these claims be removed from infobox because they are either not true, not supported by sources or simply exaggerated.

I ask that result says "Yugoslav victory" based on the goals and objectives of both sides. KLA (as it says in the main text itself) wanted to "enter Kosovo from Albania and cut off of the communication routes of the Yugoslav Army, and also take over of the region of Metohija". They achieved none of the objectives. Yugoslav Army objective was to stop them, which they did. That would mean it was Yugoslav victory. 91.150.107.227 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  12:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. I put forward my arguments and evidence and my reasons for making changes I asked for. I believe they are self-evident enough. If no one disputes them with counter arguments and reference works I will ask again for those changes to be implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.107.227 (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Change result
Two days ago I asked for changes, I found out I need consensus and no one else replied, I take that my request is OK. To be sure I will ask for change again.

I will repeat my points: No safe passage for KLA forces and weapons was provided (and no source for that part was provided), it was a frontline. Border outpost is not a military base, it was one larger house. And practically Yugoslav forces did not lose control of the borderline, they were still there only several meters away. I ask that these claims be removed from infobox because they are either not true, not supported by sources or simply exaggerated.

I ask that result says "Yugoslav victory" based on the goals and objectives of both sides. KLA (as it says in the main text itself) wanted to "enter Kosovo from Albania and cut off of the communication routes of the Yugoslav Army, and also take over of the region of Metohija". They achieved none of the objectives. Yugoslav Army objective was to stop them, which they did. That would mean it was Yugoslav victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.107.227 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Six days ago I asked for changes. You told me I need consensus and no one answered. Can result be changed now?
 * What you are performing is an WP:original research, which is not allowed. As I understand, you want to remove from the article the claim that KLA captured the Yugoslav military base in Košare. Bu, that statement is currently supported by WP:sources. And you did not provide any reliable sources to prove it was otherwise.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me source that says "military base", I can't find it. It was a border post, that is not my original research. Here is one source that says "guard post", it looks official:

This source says "border post":

Jamie Shea is saying "border post" in this book here:

This one says the Yugoslav were undefeated before withdrawal and it is a source for change of result to "Yugoslav victory":

This source says when they withdrew and when battle ended: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.107.227 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed "military base" to "border outpost" per your sources. The b92 says the same: The KLA [...] managed to take the outpost.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. About other points: claim that Yugoslav forces lost borderline is not true. I provide this source which says otherwise:, page 16, paragraph under picture, part which reads "since Serbian forces had been in control of the area". Also I see no source for claim "safe passage for KLA forces and weapons from Albania". I assume it meant to say safe passage to Kosovo, but how could there be safe passage if there was fighting, bombing and Yugoslav forces were there? Where did the KLA forces and weapons go? Did not most of them retreat into Albania and started attack on Košare only to be stopped there until June 14? Both forces and weapons were stopped at the border, in the fight. I ask that claim be removed.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020
I ask that following points from info box be deleted:

"Yugoslav forces lost control of the borderline between Albania and Kosovo" - Yugoslav forces did not lose control of the borderline, they were still there only several meters away. No source for this exists in the text. My counter source is, page 16, paragraph under picture, part which reads "since Serbian forces had been in control of the area".

"Safe passage for KLA forces and weapons from Albania" - No safe passage for KLA forces and weapons was provided (and no source for that part was provided), it was a frontline. I assume it meant to say safe passage to Kosovo, but how could there be safe passage if there was fighting, bombing and Yugoslav forces were there? Where did the KLA forces and weapons go? Did not most of them retreat into Albania and started attack on Košare only to be stopped there until June 14? Both forces and weapons were stopped at the border, in the fight. I ask that claim be removed.

I ask that result be changed to "FR Yugoslav victory" - KLA (as it says in the main text itself) wanted to "enter Kosovo from Albania and cut off of the communication routes of the Yugoslav Army, and also take over the region of Metohija". They achieved none of the objectives. Yugoslav Army objective was to stop them, which they did. That would mean it was Yugoslav victory. My request is based on the goals and objectives of both sides. I was told this means I am conducting "original research". Therefore I am providing two sources that support my request. This one says the Yugoslav were undefeated before Kumanovo agreement and this says when battle ended and how KLA failed its objective.

I was told to reach consensus on talk page, but barely anyone responds, so again I submit my request for edit changes with sources to back me up. 91.150.107.227 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: :First of all, please understand that all editors of this project are volunteers and may not respond on any particular schedule. There is no staff to make requested changes, for example.  In the case of this article, the article creator and three out of the four most involved editors to this page have either retired or been blocked.  This means that there aren't a many eyes on this talk page as might otherwise be.
 * Secondly, most of the requests fail on substantive grounds. The "Results" sections of battles and conflicts are not required to be independently sourced.  Infoboxes are summaries of the text of the article.
 * The cited sources from the body text make the loss of border control supported and the counter-source does not say what you want it to say. "Serbian forces had been in control..." is a verb usage that refers to a completed action in the past.  In other words, by the time Hashim Thaqi was making that statement, Serbian forces were no longer in control of the area.
 * The free passage of KLA forces across the border is not substantiated by the text. I have removed this from the infobox.
 * The body text makes no such claim of Serbian victory and the argument presented relies solely on Serbian government sources, which are not reliable or neutral.
 * I wish you health and safety during this time and I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I know people here are volunteers. I mentioned response time, because it takes about an hour to decline my request when it's not sourced and nearly a week when I need consensus, and even then partially. I see the page is locked, and I would bet there are enough eyes watching this page.
 * Secondly, I am glad results in infobox are the summary of the text. In that case I would like to repeat my arguments (the main body text which supports it) - KLA had three main objectives and they achieved none, Yugoslav forces had one (to stop KLA from going into Kosovo) and they managed that until the end of war. It was a Yugoslav victory since they managed to hold off KLA. That is why I asked for change, but I was told I am doing "original research" and that I need a source.
 * If I misunderstood text because of tense, my mistake. But Yugoslavs were still in control of the area and I would say border itself. The main text says they retreated just above the building, they were only meters away. I would not call that losing control of the borderline between Albania and Yugoslavia. I would also like to point out that it was a border between two recognized countries - Albania and Yugoslavia, not a border between a country and a province of another country. I would also like to see that fixed.
 * As for Serbian government sources being unreliable that's up for a debate, but the second source in English isn't governments source. The source says KLA failed to enter into Yugoslavia and they remained at the border until the end of the war.
 * Bless ya, Eggi, take care.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
Removal of "Yugoslav forces lost control of the borderline between Albania and Kosovo" as it seems like a dubious claim at best and not really supported by the sources. If this request is not acceptable per Wikipedia standards other change should be in the infobox from "borderline between Albania and Kosovo" to proper and legal "border between FR Yugoslavia and Albania" as it says in the beginning of the main text. 91.150.107.227 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Aasim 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Albanian army involvement
Was the Albanian Army involved in this battle? I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for this claim. The battle coincided with the Albanian-Yugoslav border incident of April 1999, but as for the battle itself I'd say evidence of Albanian involvement is lacking. I agree there should probably be mention of the fact that the KLA was allowed by Albania to carry out the assault from Albanian territory, though.--Aleksamil (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Article is a Joke
This article is a joke, if Serbs and Albanians can't come to the conclusion and make a balanced article, it should be deleted. Gen. Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe commanded during the battle? Or, on the Serbian side, gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, the commander of the Yugoslav Third Army? Serbs had 10,000 troops defending that outpost? (During the Kosovo War, they had 40,000 solders in and around Kosovo, so that would be 25% of troops arround a single border outpost.) The Kumanovo Agreement was the result of this battle? That was the reason that Yugoslav Army left Kosovo? --N Jordan (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the result of the battle, and removed the Kumanovo Agreement. Aleksamil (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is a step in the right direction. However... Did 82nd Airborn really participate? It was deployed in Albania near the border but it didn't fire a single shot during the war. Did the Yugoslav army had 10,000 troops deployed in that region - or they used 10,000 people during the battle? The same applies to the Albanian army. --N Jordan (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I'm not sure the Albanian Army participated at all, I've started a new section in this Talk page on that issue. As for the 82nd Airborne Brigade, the claim is unsourced but doesn't seem as unlikely. The Albanian Army would be a major issue in the war itself, and it's only mentioned in this battle, aside from the border incident on 13 April which has its own article.--Aleksamil (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The Kumanovo Agreement - a result of the Battle of Košare?
This point in the infobox is unsourced and doesn't seem to be a reasonable summary of what's stated in the article. I removed it per WP:BB, but my edit was reverted by. We should try to avoid an edit war and discuss it here. I propose the "Kumanovo Agreement" link in the Result section of the infobox should either be sourced or removed.--Aleksamil (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The figure of KLA dead
The 114-200 figures are a TOTAL/OVERALL figure of all deaths reported during the battle. The 67 deaths that were caused by the NATO strike took place during the battle. Thus the 67 deaths are a part of the 114-200. If the sources for the 114-200 deaths stated they referred to deaths only caused by the Yugoslav forces then I would agree with you and consider the 67 separate. But they do not. Listing the 67 additionally/separately to the 114-200 would be doublecounting in that case. This is the original form of the text that was previously agreed to a few years ago before the recent edit warring that took place in the article. As per Wikipedia's policy/guidelines, if some content is disputed, the status quo is maintained until the issue is resolved. Thus, the original text needs to remain until the issue is resolved at the article's talk page. If you still have a problem with the content even after my explanation, then the only compromise solution that I could suggest is to remove the mention of the 67 deaths from the infobox, since 114-200 is a clearly cited figure for the whole battle, but emphasis/mention the 67 deaths in the main body of the article. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edits about casualties which you removed have been there much longer and are a stable part of this article. You should have followed the rules and started discussion here first before making any unconstructive changes. I will restore previous version back until consensus is reached here. Until then show me where does in those two sources that are cited (for 114-200 killed part) there is a mention of 67 dead from bombing? Peervalaa (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your version has been there sporadically only for the last 2-3 months and a matter of constant edit warring. The version I reintroduced was stable and in the article from February 2018 to July/August 2020. EkoGraf (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The figure of KLA dead (again)
, regarding your edit here, I did not touch any sources, I in fact added sources for the information you earlier added without providing proper references, in regards to the killed foreign volunteers and casualties from NATO strikes. I even added further referenced info. Your edit both removed some of the info and the sources and added in info that is unsourced. Please refrain from removal of sourced content or addition of unsourced content. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Durraz0 edits
There is not a single KLA affiliated primary source which refers to the number 200 as the amount of casualties in the battle. in fact there are only 114 graves at the memorial in koshare to the KLA militants. this here is a pdf document by the Kosovo government which reference the casualties. "LOSSES In the Battle of Koshare, 114 Martyrs of the Nation died (two of them have been decorated by the Order Hero of Kosovo, whereas three other fighters are international freedom-loving and volunteers, foreign citizens from: Italy, France and Morocco) and 423 fighters were wounded from the KLA Brigade 138 Agim Ramadani. Whereas, on the enemy side, there is still no official record on the exact or approximate data of the losses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durraz0 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits are doing much more than just removing the number of 200 dead KLA fighters. Regarding your recent edits that are removing sourced material and its sources, inserting unsourced material and inserting material that is contrary to the cited sources, lets go step by step:

1. You are removing the Kosovar Albanian source for the initial strength of 136 KLA fighters involved in the battle; 2. You are inserting, without providing a source, that there were "600 additional Russian and Serbian military and paramilitary forces" (see Verifiability and No original research); 3. You are removing the upper Serbian estimate of 200 dead KLA fighters and its source - Wikipedia is based on verifiability and neutrality. We do not present the view of only one belligerent in the conflict, but both. In cases where there are competing claims by both sides, without third party sources for verification, we present both sides points of view for our readers; 4. You are adding "47 killed by Yugoslav forces" regarding KLA dead without providing a source (see WP:Verifiability and WP:OR again). Plus, this kind of breakdown is generally not done in Wikipedia's battle articles. We added the number of NATO strike deaths only due to its notability; 5. You are removing the other lower estimate, and its source, of 7 dead KLA fighters in the NATO friendly fire airstrike, which is according to the KLA itself. Additionally, you have removed the source for the higher estimate of 67 KLA dead from the NATO strike from the infobox, leaving the figure unsourced; 6. You are replacing the note of "3 foreign volunteers" killed with "3 soldiers from Italy, France and Morocco killed in battle", while removing the Kosovar Albanian and Italian sources for the three which state they were volunteer fighters, not soldiers. You also yourself admitted and cited they were actually volunteers, and not regular soldiers of those countries; 7. You are replacing the note, and removing its source, that 16 Yugoslav soldiers were killed by NATO with "8 killed by NATO" without providing a source. Additionally, you are again adding "99 killed by Albanian forces" which is considered unnecessary unsourced OR by Wikipedia; 8. You are removing the source for the 1 Russian volunteer killed and separating him from the overall count of dead Yugoslav forces, even though he is counted among the 108 (this leaves a case of double-counting); 9. You are changing the start time of the first artillery barrage from 03:00am to 05:00am, without providing a source, and while the cited reference continues to say 03:00 (you are also changing the end-date of the section to April 14th, even though the section ends with April 13th).

Please respond to each issue one step at a time please. I am also going to ping a few editors who have been involved in this article in the past or the articles in the former Yugoslavia in general for their opinion as well on how we can resolve the issues at hand. . EkoGraf (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . As you know, Balkan articles can be contentious and taxing. I've engaged in a slow-burning tug-of-war with Durraz0 in the past on Albanian–Yugoslav border incident (September 1998). Despite the fact that the only RS used states 6 combatants had been killed, and despite the fact that Durraz0 had been advised multiple times that this is the case, Durraz0 persisted in adding alternative figures without providing any sources whatsoever. (e.g. ) Textbook case of WP:IDHT. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I will admit to making a mistake. that mistake being instead of properly changing the 200 number I would copy paste from a previous article to undo it. this had the non intended result of removing legitimate changes such as references. I will work on improving this. however as it currently stands I still stand by my edits when it comes the the casualty rates. "3. You are removing the upper Serbian estimate of 200 dead KLA fighters and its source - Wikipedia is based on verifiability and neutrality. We do not present the view of only one belligerent in the conflict, but both. In cases where there are competing claims by both sides, without third party sources for verification, we present both sides points of view for our readers". if this is the case then we should add the Kosovan estimate for the Serbian casualty rate being 256. . "5. You are removing the other lower estimate, and its source, of 7 dead KLA fighters in the NATO friendly fire airstrike, which is according to the KLA itself. " where? i can not find a KLA source saying that. however a 3rd party source states the number of casualties from the bombing incident in was 67, which according to your 3rd point trumps the KLA's statement. Perhaps it would be mutually benefitable if we clarify where the numbers come from instead of dragging on with this "war". something, perhaps adding that the number 114 comes from the KLA itself whilst adding that the number 200 comes from serbian sources. then we should also add that the number 7 comes from the KLA whilst the number 67 comes from international sources. Durraz0 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You were removing the source (The Guardian) for the 7 dead KLA in the NATO strike. Here it is . EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a source from when the battle was an ongoing event. the source which puts the number at 67 was after everything was said and done. Also, either remove the Serbian estimate for the KLA soldiers who fell or add the Albanian estimate by KLA captain Hisen Berisha of 1000+ Serbs dead. If we want Wikipedia to project what happened we shouldn't use enemy estimates of how many people died instead we should use both of the respected countries own statement and if we use the enemy claim we should clarify that it is the enemy claim. Durraz0 (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with just the official figures of their own forces' casualties being presented and not belligerent counterclaims. However, if we are to stick to that, then the number of 7 dead KLA from the NATO airstrike needs to stay. Because, the claim of 7 dead came from the KLA itself (and NATO). While the other later figure of 67 was claimed by PBS (not the KLA). If both claims (7 dead & 67 dead) came from the same source (KLA/NATO) I would agree with you that the later figure is the newer/updated one and it trumps the older one. However, the sources of the claims are not the same. I have another suggestion. First, we remove any figures that are counter-claims of the belligerents (like Serbian claim of 200 dead KLA) and only leave official figures by the respective combatants of their own fatalities, as you suggested. Now, since 7 dead is according to the KLA (67 is not) we leave that, while we add a note that at a later date PBS reported the number to be actually 67. EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have made the necessary changes. I removed the Serbian claim of 200 dead KLA. Now, only the Serb claim of their own dead remains, with the numb. of those killed in the NATO strike (confirmed by them) and the confirmed Russian. Also, the KLA claim of their own dead also remains, with the numb. of those killed in the NATO strike (confirmed by them) and the confirmed three foreigners. Additionally, a note has been added to the KLA-confirmed number of 7 killed by NATO that PBS after the war reported the number was 67. EkoGraf(talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is policy is to use the most recent citations and avoid initial reports. The initial report is invalidated by the most recent and more reliable from when the battle was over.Durraz0 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The KLA did not receive NATO support
The KLA did not receive NATO support due to fears that the KLA would dominate the negotiating tables, dominate the political power of Kosovo and set up a dictatorship. NATO denied every KLA request for real air support. the communication between NATO and the KLA were described as "primitive" by western journalists. when the KLA requested close collaborations one western official responded with "NATO will not be the KLAs airforce". Durraz0 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree NATO and US officially denied they were providing direct support, but still, as per the Washington Post source, US intelligence and military officials said they did provide support. So I think it would be proper to include both the denial and acknowledgment and properly attribute. Also, your addition of the separation line between the KLA and NATO is proper and I am in agreement. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021
“ was fought during the Kosovo War between the FR Yugoslav Forces and the terror-classified Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) “

The armed group “Kosovo liberation army” has a terrorist stamp, I think if we add “the terror classified arm group” before “Kosovo liberation army” it is more accurate. This stamp is well know, one google and it’s everywhere on newspapers etc. 83.254.68.47 (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Also see Kosovo_Liberation_Army.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Durraz0 edits and revert
Durraz0, regarding your revert of me here I did read the source. And the part "Securing only a border outpost at Košare, the KLA never broke out of this small bridgehead and was ultimately unsuccessful at securing a corridor from Albania through this route." is per the source. As for the "unsourced" part, I was not referring to Pastrik's outcome, I was referring to "the KLA do to the Albanian army withdrawing support was unable to make further gains as they lacked heavy weapon." (which needs proper English grammar corrections) I was not able to find a source for this. As for the last sentence "This would lead to the Battle of Paštrik in late May, where the KLA was also unsuccessful." I was in the midst of rewording it to present multiple points of view on the outcome of that battle based on several sources when you reverted me. I was going to write "This would lead to the Battle of Paštrik in late May, where some thought the KLA was successful, others thought they were unsuccesful, and some considered it a tactical stalemate." All sources will be properly cited. Furthermore, I was actually going to thank you for pointing out the inconsistency of that sentence. EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you also provide me with the exact source quote for your addition "the KLA do to the Albanian army withdrawing support was unable to make further gains as they lacked heavy weapon" so we could save that in the text as well? Thanks. EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further reworded the sentence as I added several sources on the different opinions on the result of Pastrik and an expanded sourced explanation on what the KLA achieved and didn't achieve at Pastrik. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Durraz0 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021
93.87.128.3 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Tactical defeat of the KLA and NATO.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 &middot;  contribs ) 20:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021
I wanted to ask if the number of KLA soldiers killed by NATO friendly fire can be changed to 7-67 like it says in the source. 2A02:908:2910:3F60:C99C:E99B:5404:B096 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source states that 114 were killed. Terasail [✉️] 14:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I read the wrong source, I have changed it to 67. Terasail [✉️] 15:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source for the seven dead, as per the KLA themselves, is at the very end (after the brackets). Here it is . This issue was previously discussed between editors and a compromise solution was found where, taking into account we only present in the infobox KLA casualty figures published by the Albanians and Yugoslav military casualties published by Serbia, we presented the number of dead in the NATO strike as per the KLA, while leaving a note that after the war PBS (and only them) claimed 67 were killed in the strike. To put it another way, we have presented the overall figure of 114 dead as per the Albanians, including 7 dead in the strike (again per the Albanians), while noting that PBS later said it was 67. This discrepancy has also been mentioned in the main body of the article as well. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source for 7 dead is also from when the bombing had just happened, the PBS report is from after the war. we should put "KLA claim: 7 dead" and "American claim: 67 dead". Durraz0 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We agreed to only present casualty claims as per the belligerents in the infobox. Albanian casualties per the Albanians/KLA and Yugoslav casualties per Yugoslavia/Serbia. The Albanians/KLA never changed their estimate on the number of dead from the strike. And if 114 total dead is per the Albanians, then we present in brackets the air-strike figure as per the Albanians (7). Mixing claims creates a false impression as if the Albanians affirmed the 67 figure, which they did not. Also, we couldn't say "American claim: 67 dead" since the US officially also confirmed 7 dead at the time of the strike and never changed their estimate. PBS made the claim in their own capacity (so its not an official US claim). I think, our previously agreed compromise solution is more than satisfactory. We presented Albanian casualties in the infobox as per the Albanians (114 dead total, including seven in the strike), but we also left a note for our readers that after the war PBS claimed 67 were killed in the strike. The discrepancy is also mentioned in the main body of the article. We can expand a bit more in the main text so our readers could better understand the discrepancy. EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have either of you considered that the 67 figure may be a typo (and should instead have read 6–7)? This should be taken into account, especially if no source other than PBS mentions the 67 figure. If PBS is the only source, we should only list 7 killed by NATO (WP:EXTRAORDINARY). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * America was a belligerent on the same side as the KLA, do you have anything about America and the KLA continuously putting the number of dead from the airstrike as 7 after the war? Other than PBS i cant find anything about it from after the war or even after may 1999. yes I have thought of that however the other sources about it which I could find where all from when this was an ongoing event and they put the number of dead as 1, 5 and 7. Durraz0 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much think that is the actual case as you suggest (a typo), especially since only one source (PBS) has made the claim. Thus, I think us even mentioning the figure is contrary to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and agree we should list only 7 killed. However, for the sake of compromise, I have been trying to balance it out with the insertion of the note that mentions PBS's claim. Neither NATO nor the KLA made a new announcement since that day where they changed their stance on the figure of 7 dead. As for the lone PBS claim (independent from NATO or the KLA), like I said, I very much am of the same mind as Amanuensis Balkanicus. However, I am trying to balance the issue out while conforming to WP's guidelines. I have expanded the text in the main body of the article to more properly attribute the two rival figures. At this point, the best course of action might even be to just remove the figures on the number of dead from NATO strikes from both columns, and only leave the overall figures of dead (with the number of dead foreigners). While the air-strike casualties would remain mentioned in-depth in the main text. If any of you have any more suggestions I would be glad to hear them. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I thought PBS was US state media my mistake. but I think we should expand the airstrike segment, I found this . Durraz0 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good source on NATO's accounting of the events. Thanks for finding it. If you can, please use it to expand the relevant paragraph. Also, what do you agree on (beside PBS' claim not being an official US claim)? Removing numbers of air-strike fatalities altogether from the infobox (leaving it in the main text) or leaving 7 dead in brackets beside the 114 dead overall with the note regarding PBS's lone claim? EkoGraf (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)