Croatia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Serbia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1

Good article, and I believe an image inclusion is worth it but I don't think the statistics box is necessary as it makes it seem like Serbs from Croatia are a separate ethnicity from Serbs in the Serbs article. Antidote 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a proposed List of Serbs from Croatia is getting a little silly, seeing as it would just be a small selection of people from List of Serbs. Antidote

Serbian nationalistic myths shouldn't be included in the article, at least not without being noted as such. --Elephantus 16:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only facts no myths! Truth hurts doesn it? Luka Jačov 16:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it hurts some people(s) so much that they tend to replace it with myths. --Elephantus 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were some inaccuracies here:

1. Claims that Einhard somehow mentioned a place Srb in Croatia are false. The text in question apparently runs:

   "Liudevitus Siscia civitate relicta, ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatie partem obtinere dicitur, fugiendo se contulit"

   Now I don't know much Latin, but it appears that the only mention of the Serbs is "Sorabos" which is the accusative plural of the Serbs. Claiming somehow that it means he fled to Srb in Lika strikes me as... a stretch beyond the breaking point.

2. Organization of the Military Frontier was pioneered by the Turks who settled Orthodox auxiliaries to weaken the enemy by periodic raids. It was later copied by the Austrians. Serbs today seem eager to bury this "Turkish connection", but some, like eg. Radovan Samardžić in the appendices about Yugoslav history he wrote for the Serbian edition of Encyclopedie Larousse (Belgrade, 1973), do admit it.
3. Of course, Gundulić and Bošković claims, completely baseless, or "based" on falsehoods obvious to those who aren't Serbs on first reading.
4. Sources for the Serbian, Bosnian and rest of the world numbers?

--Elephantus 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You mentioned only one sentence from Einhards chronics.
2. You didnt write about Military Frontier??
3. Bošković was Serb for sure cause he father comes from dominatly Serb village Orahov Do but when he moved Dubrovnik cause of Law in Dubrovnik that only catholic faith is aloved he was forced to convert Luka Jačov 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The other sentence mentioning Sorabs isn't much more enlightening: "Allatum est Imperatori de interitu Lindeviti, quod relictis Sorabis cum in Dalmatiam ad Lindemuslum Avunculum Bornae Ducis pervenisset, et aliquantum temporis cum eo moratus fuisset, dolo ipsius fuisset inter fectus." Still no mention of Srb in Lika anywhere.
2. What does "You didn't write about Military Frontier??" mean?
3. Orahov Do was as much Croatian (Catholic) as eg the neigbouring village of Ravno. It was "Serbian" only in the minds of those Serbian extremists who claim that most Croats are Catholic Serbs. The alleged "conversion" is in fact an article of faith, often mentioned but with no source whatsoever. Serious Serbian propagandist works don't even mention it, relying instead on other things to try to connect Boskovic father with the Serbs. --Elephantus 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider only Bošković and Gundulić part. Many references claim that Srb was mentioned in 9th century. Luka Jačov 11:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"this is not only about historical Croatia; but the territory of present Croatia too"

Well, that is a problem. He was listed here among "Prominent Croatian Serbs" with explanation that his mother was Serb. But he was born in Petrovaradin, which is not in the territory of present Croatia and which also was not in the territory of historical Croatia in the time when he was born. In both cases, he is not "Serb from Croatia". In fact, he is not Serb at all. :) PANONIAN (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elephantus appearently thinks that I am joking about Rudjer Boskovic. If he need some sources that are not biased, etc...; he should see the Development of Astronomy among Serbs volume II or Razvoj Astronomije kod Srba II, a Publication of the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade or Publikacija Astronomske Opservatorije u Beogradu edited by M. S. Dimitrijević; Belgrade, 2002. It refers to Boskovic as the first Serbian Astronomer, and one of the greatest astronomers and diplomats of the XIX century. If anyone calls this book biased; he is biased. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? Umm, maybe it will switch that honor over to Edmond Halley if it is discovered that his great-uncle wrote a sentence about Serbia somewhere? And maybe it will do some more research and find out that Boskovic lived in the 18th century? --Elephantus 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo (my bad). No, it does not speak anything of its origin. In fact, 99% of it deals with his life and work. It is not just another piece of nationalist propaganda. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Srb: There is no mention of Srb in the Royal Frankish Annals whatsoever; he was reffering to (western) Bosnia most probably, although this is still an issue of debate.

About Rudjer:

Serbian ancestry: There are some propagadist sources like Srpstvo Dubrovnika and the list of noble Ragusian Serbian families like

Coats-of-Arms of several Serbian families in Dubrovnik and there are sources like Ruđer Bošković, ancestry which carefully explains his situation, but User:Elephantus has denied even that source. Other sources confirm his conversion to Catholicism like The Virtual Library. There are no sources whatsoever that deny his sources otherwhise. Two of the three theories of the ancestry of the House of Boshko (to which Ruđer belongs) confirm Serbian ancestry (the third confirming a Montenegrin ancestry, who was actually of Serbian orientation)

As Serb: He is known as the first Serbian astronomer according to the Development of Astronomy among Serbs volume II; a renown book that is a Publication of the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade from april, 2002. Other sources like that of Vlastoje D. Aleksijević, who wrote in most detail about Rudjer Boskovic in his Životopis Ruđera Boškovića, građanina Dubrovnika i sveta (Biography of Roger Boshkovich, a citizen of Dubrovnik and the world) confirm that he was a Serb; as well as almost every edition of The Universe; a magazin that has been published for decades by the Astronomical Society of Belgrade Ruđer Bošković, which was founded to continue his legacy. The Catholic Encyclopedia and several versions (but not the present) of Encyclopedia Britannica are also confirming his Serbian nationality. Rudjer is found on the list of 100 Greatest Serbs. Although there are argues that he should be present there, no hard enough reason not to put him there was presented. A Serbian-culture organization that can be located at www.rastko.org (it is a very famous organisation) regards him as a Serb. In 2005 and Italian branch of the site was to be put into action, but it got delayed; the commercial can be seen on the link which I presented. It was to be built in fame of two famous Serbian-Italian individuals; one of them being Ruggero.

As non-Serb (Croat): His face appeared on every Croatian dinar bill of the 1991-1992 wartime Republic of Croatia. The television in Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro B92 had shown an interesting matter, filmed by the BBC (together with that series regarding the Fall of Yugoslavia; appearently, the presence of Boskovic on the bill caused an near-international crisis; until Croatia finally replaced its currency by the kuna bill, which has no record of Rudjer whatsoever. The other Croatian source is a postmark of the fascist World War II Independent State of Croatia (where he is present). The current version of Encyclopedia Britannice refers to his father as a Croat, but denying to distance itself from reffering to Rudjer as Serbo-croatian. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia also regards him as Croatian.

All in all, he deserves to be put into the article, but we will be sure when www.rastko.org finished their Italian branch (very soon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyRomanEmperor (talk • contribs)

Hm, wait a second. On one side, we have sloppy Serbian propaganda articles, created after the nationalist explosion of 1990 quoting other sloppy Serbian propaganda articles created after 1990, and on the other side we have serious encyclopaedic works (and btw, Britannica doesn't mention him as a Serbo-Croatian, it just gives a version of his name in what it terms "Serbo-Croatian"). Whom should we trust? That's a hard one. Maybe there was an anti-Serbian cabal in place in Moscow in the 1970s and it moved to the USA in the 1990s? :-) --Elephantus 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being a little one-sided. Here we have Serbian nationalist propaganda as sources (Serbdom of Dubrovnik) (which has actually never been proved as incorrect). You said "created after nationalist explosion of 1990" As I said, the Astronomical Society of Belgrade Rudjer Boskovic has been printing the magazine Vasiona for decades (during the 60s, 70s and 80s it was very famous). You asked for non-nationalist sources. I presented you the old Biography of Rudjer Boskovic by Vlastoje Aleksijević and the Development of Astronomy among Serbs II from april, 2002; both being informative sources about his life and works (no nationalism). You are being one-sided as you seem to accept only sources that regard him as Croatian and deny all sources regarding him as a Serb. It's strange how you don't notice it. The Virtual Library also confirms his transition to Catholicism. This source speaks in full detail about his origin, and I fail to see that it is biased as it is quitte informative and historic: Ruđer Bošković, ancestry Although appearently, the main problem is that regards Rudjer as a Serb. You were also refering to the Catholic Encyclopedia which is actually an encyclopedic work. Note about Encyclopedia Britannica: If one sees the previous versions of the encyclopedia Britannica, he will notice that the source keeps switching with Rudjer's ancestry from Serbian to Croatian and vice versa (the next edition will probably regard him as Serbian). His Serbian identity was confirmed by the three greatest experts in the field of Dubrovnik in Serbia and Montenegro personallly (check with User:Millosh for confirmation if you don't believe me). Did you count the Rastko Organisation (a huge database that has received more rewords of international degree than we can count) as Serbian propaganda too? The Military Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia (is that after 1990 :) also confirms him as a Serb. I mentioned the 100 Greatest Serbs, but you have disregarded the list as nationalist (without detailed explainations), so we'll have a blind eye on that. And then, aside from Croatian Ustaša and 1991/1992 nationalist propaganda, we have the slightly propaganda/communist Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Any rational person would see that the situation is far too complicatly that just so narrowly as User:Elephantus seems to see it. We will have definite answers when the Rastko Organisation finishes their Italian branch (as I had previously mentioned, they're running a little late, see the commercial on the bottom of www.rastko.org; or better, if User:Joy returns from his break, who has much more experience than me in dealing with controversial subjects and nationalists. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elephantus had evicted several prominent Serbian individuals and deleted all sources/references of the article.

For the other matter, the place "Serb historian claim..." is POV. Since that fact is internationally accepted, like can be seen at Brockhaus' encyclopedia (the best German ecnyclopedia on Earth). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elephantus had removed a large chunk of the article and called it removal of my nationalism. Although that edit could be regarded as vandalism, it is necessary for me to point out that he was reffering to the ever-lasting controversy of Rudjer Boskovic. Still, because of one fact, it is highly inappropriate to remove large portions of an article just because of one bit. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently written from a Serbian (nationalistic) POV, especially in regards to the History section. Also, the list of notable Serbs requires clarifications and footnotes on the status of the so called "Catholic Serbs" it includes. I have also removed the Jelačić mother part until a reliable source is found. --Elephantus 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. The History section must be reworked; but where's the confusion on the Catholic Serbs? If you aim at Rudjer Boskovic, let's finish that discussion first... Oh, and don't you think that your last post needs a NPOV tag too? (read it again :))) I'm looking for Jelacic's sources... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the census information but:

1. Žumberak isnt only municipality in Žumberak region, it also compromises parts of Samobor, Krašić and Ozalj municipality.
2. As they converted from Orthodox and became Greek-Catholic they became something between Croats and Serbs, and gradually many started to declare themselfs as Croats.
3. Cause vaste majority from Žumberak doesnt live in it we cannot trace how do they declare now.
4. If you look on the map which shows representation of Setbs by settlements in 1981 you ll see that in area aroun village Radatovići in today Ozalj municipality that it is Serb inhabitated.

Luka Jačov 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

1) When you add ALL of Samobor, Krašić, Zumberak and Ozalj municipalities, you have a total of 296 ethnic Serbs and 47033 ethnic Croats, according to the 2001 Census results (out of a total population of 48,522 people). Ethnic Serbs make up slightly more than half of one percent of the population of the four municipalities you cited. Even assuming that ALL of these declared Serbs live in the "Zumberak areas" of the four municipalities, the percentage of Serbs is still negligeable.

2) The 296 Serbs represent one tenth of a percentage point of the Serbian community in Croatia. We might as well list Medimurje as a region with Serbs in it since there are 248 Serbs listed in that zupanija.

3) Ethnic origins of Greek Catholic Zumbercani are mixed, at best. Many of the last names have Montenegrin origin while others are particular to Zumberak. However, I do not believe that a categorical assertion of "Serb" can be made because some of them lived in Glamoc before supposedly coming from Montenegro. We do not know whether these people came from other Orthodox areas before settling in Zumberak.

4) Even if ALL of them were Serbian 500 years ago, this would not make them Serbian today. Ethnic communities exist, particially on the basis of self identification. Therefore, if Zumbercani do not identify as Serbs (except perhaps in one small village), then who are we to declare a group Serbian.

5) It is interesting to see the Zumbercani diaspora. They established two Greek Catholic churches - one in Cleveland and one in Chicago about 100 years ago. Both churches identified themselves as Croatian - not Serbian. Indeed, the vast majority of Greek Catholics from the region are involved in Croatian ethnic societies in North America.

5) I just don't see the point of listing "Zumberak" as a region with "smaller numbers of Serbs" when one could literally memorize the names of each Serb in the area.

15:30, 17 April 2006 Redina

Luka Jačov keeps reverting my changes and deleting very important references to croatian 2001 census, which proves that Serbs in croatian speak croatian and serbian language, not so-called Serbo-croatian. Here is what he does all the time: [1].

Please, someone, stop him vandalising this page. He obviously has a problem with references that proves him wrong. --Ante Perkovic 11:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before engaging in edit war. This page is now protected so you have some time to cool off and discuss. Please do that. --Dijxtra 09:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unprotecting this page now. But, any substantial change to "Language" section of this article has to be discussed here. --Dijxtra 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next person that makes undiscussed revert will be blocked for 24 hours. --Dijxtra 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they declare is merely political preference and this will only make confusion among readers. Luka Jačov 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.

It is your political preference that will only make confusion among readers. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, citing sources, not on POV political preference of some editors. --Ante Perkovic 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last word should have experts not censuses, you can name same thing in different names. Luka Jačov 09:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a description of the Serbs in Croatia. Therefore, the census data is relevant here, since it shows what name is used by this ethnic group for the language they speak. I will return the paragraph, but without the irrelevant assumptions. --Zmaj 10:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cause we are talking about what they speak not what they declare. Luka Jačov 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you can name same thing in different names. It really buffles me why the term that you use should be put before the term that 200 000 serbian speakers use. This is not your private website, but this information somehow keep bouncing from your mind.

What you do can be explained only as a extreme stubbornes in pushing your political preferences.

I can believe that you keep dismising official census of a country as an unimportant source.

Gees, you are one of a kind. You just don't know when to stop, do you? --Ante Perkovic 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60% of them use that term others use term serbian nonetheless this doesnt mean they speak different idiom. Luka Jačov 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely offtopic, Luka.

You see, text you deleted wasn't about the name of the language at all. It was about the term that Serbs of Croatia use when they speak about their language. It was pure fact, not someone's oppinion. Basicaly, you censored it because you didn't like it. --Ante Perkovic 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said before this would only create confusion among readers and census data isnt so releveant when one could espect that they speak Serbo-Croatian and not Chinese or whatever. Luka Jačov 18:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion, it's merely a peculiar thing. The Serbs of Croatia have stated on the census that they don't feel that the language their speak is different from those that the Croats of Croatia speak. Theoretically they should all have said that they speak Serbian (for example, the Serbs in BiH do that), but they didn't. It's only confusing if our reader is an amoeba that can't comprehend information that isn't completely consistent. I'm sorry that you want to disparage the reader like that, but I do not. --Joy [shallot] 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One the other hand 40% declared Serbian, when in fact its the same idiom. How cant this create confusion?! Luka Jačov 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these 40% who declared Serbian? If 1.1% people declared Serbian, and there are 4.5% Serbs, that's 24.4% at most.

Secondly, the confusion can be fixed by linking the appropriate articles. Linking only Serbo-Croatian creates the impression that this is current data - but it is not, it's old nomenclature. --Joy [shallot] 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They always spoked same idiom as Croats they leaved with so no way about Croatisation. Croatian standard language is based mostly on idiom of Croatian Serbs. Luka Jačov 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka,

You can't just revert complete other people's contributions. This make you look extremely stubborn. You are becaming living example of WP:POINT. You could at least change a few lines to make it look like you actually read what Joy wrote. This way, it's obvious that you didn't even read it.

You are disruption to this wikipedia. Just, grow up, for god's sake.

I'll skip comenting your original research about bases of croatian Serbs (unrelated to your change, anyway) and I will say only this:

Serbs of Croatia in eastern Slavonia have separate schools because they want to learn serbian language. There is no way that you can make neutral contributor back you up. You should now that.

Your reverts shows that you are loosing nerves. Maybe you could taje a rest for a few days and thinka about everythink. I would like to see you here, but only after you cool down a little.

Please, don't let your pride and stubbornes make you look silly.

--Ante Perkovic 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to compromise only if naturaliazation and croatisation sentence is off. Luka Jačov 09:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the standard dialect is based mostly on the that of the Serbs and Croats of eastern Herzegovina, which is fairly far away from both the Croats and the Serbs of Croatia :)

I wasn't aware that you disagree with the stance that this involves naturalization and Croatisation. I agree with that stance to a certain extent, but not completely. Right now I can't find a logical explanation of your stance. It's the same idiom - but there's no longer a Serbo-Croatian, and people at census say so. We state clearly that it's the same idiom (by explaining it's štokavski/ijekavski). We also state clearly what they say at the census. What else needs to be done to appease you? Why do you keep reverting most edits that I do? --Joy [shallot] 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Herzegovinan is biggest shtokavian dialect and it is spoken on much greater are then East Herzegovina. Serbo-Croatian exists not as unique standard form but as joint name for four dialects and three standard forms. Serbs that declared Croatian and those who declared Serbian speak in fact same idiom and that makes census data unrelevant. Those who declared Croatian only wanted to state that their language is no diffrent from their neighbours. Luka Jačov 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you say "Serbo-Croatian language" then this implication that it is merely a joint name for the four dialects and three standard forms is fairly obscure. And if you agree with my assessment that the census data simply says that the population doesn't feel their language is different from the one of the majority population, then why do you keep reverting my edits that explain this nicely? Is it better to keep this unexplained, and leave it to the anonymous vandals to keep inserting it as a talking point? I don't believe it is. --Joy [shallot] 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Luka's I am willing to compromise only if naturaliazation and croatisation sentence is off.

OK, let's explore this possibility. So, Luka, You are willing to let parts related to census to stay if we delete this part related to croatisation? I'm not sure id that's what you wanted to say, so please, clarify your proposal. --Ante Perkovic 12:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You understood. Luka Jačov 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, You just confirmed that you are willing to let one information stay if we delete other, unrelated information. This is a blackmail!

Luka, I told you before, and I will repeat one more time - this is not your private wikipedia. You either agree with the census part or you don't! You can not bargain with the truth and trade one information you don't like with the other.

I always knew that this is the way you see wikipedia, but I needed you to confirm it.

You just did.

Regards, --Ante Perkovic 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've polished up your last edit, are we done now? --Joy [shallot] 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian stays, thats my compromise. Luka Jačov 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/me cries. You really have to be an ass, don't you? --Joy [shallot] 10:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really have to be an ass, dont you? Luka Jačov 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being an ass here, I haven't reverted your edit. But I don't doubt that other, less considerate people will in the future.

And, for your information, the correct demonym for Yugoslavia is indeed "Yugoslav", not "Yugoslavian". --Joy [shallot]

Whats the problem? Luka Jačov 12:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. The problem is that you are using the wrong adjective for the toponym. It's "Yugoslav", it's not "Yugoslavian". How many times do I have to repeat that? --Joy [shallot] 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then, you are right. This was misunderstanding. Sorry! Luka Jačov 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have an edit war here again. Now I feel like a teacher with a bunch of naughty kids. I didn't think I'll have to enforce my threat of blocking on grounds of non-discusing, but since I said I'll do that, here's a list of undiscussed reverts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=next&oldid=57738830 by User:Ante Perkovic
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=next&oldid=57739238 by User:Estavisti
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=next&oldid=57749486 by User:Zmaj
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=next&oldid=57760507 by User:Bormalagurski

Now I will block this users for 24 hours.

As for Luka, he has been very smart. He was very careful not to break WP:3RR, nice work there. But it is plain to see that he is the person who re-initiated this edit war... then again unfortunately I don't see the grounds to block him and I don't want to be accused for blocking without proper reason. But, since I'm not blind, since I don't like being manipulated and since I've had enough of edit warring on this page, I will now present this case at WP:AN. Something needs to be done. --Dijxtra 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this case to WP:AN. --Dijxtra 15:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text that wa highly POV here. The problems with the text are described below

However while the above table may represent the official Croatian position there are 2 very massive problems with it.

Firstly the 100,000 refugess Elsewhere in the World is not supported by anything. Were there to actually be 100,000 Krajina refugees in Hungary, Slovenia or western Europe generally it would have been expected to be noticed as, for example, much smaller groups of Roma from the Czech republic or indeed Kosovo Albanian refugees there who decided not to return have been commented on. There simply is no evidence of survivors on this scale. Further a glance at the map above also shows that Serb refugees fleeing Croatian Nazi death squads only route of escape led to Bosnia & Serbia not western countries.

Secondly & even more seriously, the table gives a combined total of survivors in Bosnia & Serbia of between 300,000 & 450,000. However the OSCE report on the subject says specificly of the refugees from croatia that only "some 200,000 of whom now live in neighbouring Serbia & Bosnia". Since the OSCE is a pro-western body it is inconceivable that they would distort figure in a manner beneficial to the Serbian case, quite the reverse.

This means that there is a discrepency between the people known to be alive under Croatia Nazi authority & those "accounted for" of between 200,000 & 450,000 human beings.

Since the western powers assisted Tudjman, the Croatian Nazi leader by supplying him with weaponry, in the case of Kohl's Germany & officers & command systems, in the case of Clinton's USA, despite, or because of, knowing that he was already on record as saying that "genocide is commanded by the word of the Almighty" their total lack of concern as to what happened to several hundred thousand innocent men, women & children must be taken at face value. The manner in which the media of these countries has also been able to censor virtually all reporting of this genocide also displays not only a total lack of any honesty but a similar lack of human decency.

POV parts:

• Since the OSCE is a pro-western body it is inconceivable that they would distort figure in a manner beneficial to the Serbian case, quite the reverse.
• Serb refugees fleeing Croatian Nazi death squads
• under Croatia Nazi authority & those "accounted for" of between 200,000 & 450,000 human beings. - implying genocide of 200 000 to 450 000 people?
• Tudjman, the Croatian Nazi leader
• their total lack of concern as to what happened to several hundred thousand innocent men, women & children - conspiracy theory?
• The manner in which the media of these countries has also been able to censor virtually all reporting of this genocide also displays not only a total lack of any honesty but a similar lack of human decency. - POV, conspiracy theory.

To sumarise, this text is so full of conspiracy theory crap, labeling and POV that it is much easier to move it here that to leave it in main namespace. If someone finds that few sentences could be used, use ti, but don't return the hole text.

-- Ante P. 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article say that according to the census "there were 18 municipalities with a Serb majority" in Croatia. Does somebody know the names of these municipalities? Their names should be mentioned here as well as created links to articles about these municipalities. PANONIAN (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the census ([2]). There were actually 16 municipalities with a Serb majority in 2001. I will add them to the article with their respective counties. --Zmaj 08:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...should be added. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added examples of territorial changes throughtout contemporary history that would lead to the fluctuation of the relative proportion of Serbs in Croatia. iruka 10:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavily" Serb populated region? Considering the fact that only a northern third of Syrmium was a part of civil Slavonia (or Croatia-Slavonia) and only for a short time, isn't this overestimating (especially the heavily bit). --PaxEquilibrium 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it had a very large Serb population relative to other peoples and in terms of population density. The statistical phenomenon that I am trying to convey with this and other examples is that the inclusion/exclusion of different tracts of territory in a Croat state entity e.g. ranging from medieval Croat dukedoms, to Kingdom of Croatia to Croatia-Slavonia to SR Croatia, will have a bearing on the proportion of the population of Croatia that were Serbs. How would you rewrite it? iruka 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are you aware that you're talking about several square kilometers that had no major settlements and compose about a quarter to a fifth of geographical Syrmia..? --PaxEquilibrium 17:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some definitions are required b/c what is meant by Croatian Serb. I take it to mean someone who considers themselves Serb & reside in Croatia, but may or maynot be a citizen of the Republic of Croatia. This would be consistent with notions of national minorities in most western countries. People that identify themselves as Croat but may have as a Serb heritage I think would fall into a different category. Thus some definitional categories may include:

1. For Serbs that reside in modern day Republic of Croatia; 2. Serbs born in a previous iteration of a Croatian state e.g. Banovina Hrvatska, NDH etc 3. Serbs who reside outside Republic of Croatia but were born in Croatia; 4. Serbs who were born & reside outside Republic of Croatia but trace their ancestry there; 5. Serbs who were born outside Republic of Croatia but currently reside there.

iruka 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference to YCP membership as a factor in determining police/military ranks;

Pointed out that Croat & other Euroeans were part of the miitary class in the frontier. iruka 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting (I know - unaware of it), not info about Serbs, but really info about Croats. That's why I rv Your edits Marinko - please concentrate on Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the edits is to provide context in what otherwise are misleading statements.

Lets go through each one:

• The toponym Srb - the way the article is written it states the connection of the term Srb and Serb are related when this is only a theory. You have mentioned that Croat historians dispute it. All I have done is fleshed out the basic premise of both Serb and Croat linguists views on the matter. This addition is needed to ensure NPOV. I have rewritten the paragraph anew and put a footnote - pls advise your view on it now.
• Shortened my explanatory note of Vlach-Serbs to Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term "Vlach" was often used to describe Serbs. That is because many of them were Serbs while alot of those that weren't would go on to develop a Serbian identity through religious affiliation. Most of the migrants that passed through Croatian lands were nomads.. I don'T understand how Vlachs could be Serbs b/c they were Nomads. The Roma were Nomads, as were the Wallachians, and Albanians. It didn't make much sense to me thus I have changed it to mention that they were just nomads. Happy to leave it at this unless you can explain otherwise;

The part about Serbs being a military class is misleading because it connects this to the Yugoslav overrepresentation in the officer corp, whereas this has more to do with the hegemony of the largest ethnic group and communist party membership. It is also misleading, b/c Serbs, as well as Croats, Germans, Hungarians, Wallachians, Ruthenes were part of that military class. I know this is an article about Serbs, but you need context otherwise it is creating a false scenario in the absense of said context. Can you rewrite it to remove such ambiguities pls. iruka 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Your good intentions - I just hope You know what You're doing. The "Vlach" Serb origin theory relies itself on nationalist xenophobia, rather than historical facts. It is mostly used to represent how there were no Serbs in Croatia before the national romantic period, but these go together with the theory how "Serbs" are a "confederate ethnic group" and that up to the 19th century Montenegrins were not considered Serbs, that Eastern Orthodoxes in Bosnia-Herzegovina're really Orthodox Bosniacs, and that all Orthodoxes in the Ottoman Empire are not Serbs, but simply Orthodox Slavs. That ideology is mainly there to show that the Serb nationalist territorial pretensions to Croatian lands are unfounded (yet the very same that support this theory, amazingly, admit "GreaterSerbianism" as legal - for they would not work on these things and point them out otherwise). A good comparison are the claims that (Catholic) Dalmatians were not Croats and that there was no Croat in BH and Slavonia (and the rest of Hungary) up to the romantic ages. Over here, theories of how the Albanians on Kosovo are "Shquiptars", and not Albanians have ranged from scientific essentially true researches of Jovan Cvijic, who calls them "Arvanites", different from Albanians, to the modern disgusting and xenophobic theory of them being "not really Albanians" (Serbs're "not really Serbs, but Vlachs") and has become into a feeling simpathetic to the Albanians themselves, but opinion on how these Kosovar Shquiptars are some God-forbid mutant Alban-like race that's a disgrace to the world. In Croatia it's even worse, as Belgrade as some sort of a "conspiracy center" is being accused of manipulating all those Vlachs, and turning them into Serbs; eventually becoming an all-out Serbophobia. Then again, Vlachs in Croatia're more autochtonous than Croats themselves (there were no Vlach migrations - the 1242 migrations to Knin were inner-Croatian ones) - so the contradiction lies in the theoreticians' themselves, again with their own nationalistic ideologies stabbing them in their backs.

Choose carefully around this, very, very carefully. --PaxEquilibrium 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but must confess to being perplexed that any such manipulation by extreme nationalists would be taken seriously. Also I think a people's origins are irrelevant to their existential concerns. Ironicaly, from what I understand, in Croatia, you have many Croats who were are descendent from Austrians, Hungarians, Ruthenes, Slovaks, and some other Slavic groups etc in addition to Croats. Likewise with Serbs, you have their origins in Serbs, as well as a variety of other Vlach communities and other Slavic and non-Slavic groups. I think in most cases, the process would have been fairly organic.

How about if we state that the term Vlach was both used as an umbrella term and interchangeable term with Serb, however given the solidifying of modern national identities around the confessional rule (although not exclusively), most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb. iruka 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Old Croatian"? As far as I know, there is Old Slavic. That linguistic theory was found false by many, as serbati, srebati does not mean "to sip" in Old Slavonic (including the Croatian recension). And Serbian linguists do not claim that - historians do (linguists stay off history), but (some) Croatian linguists do claim that which you added. --PaxEquilibrium 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for certain what Old Croatian as it doesn't explain in the source. I can only guess that it means a word that was previously used in Croatian but later became redundant or evolved. I'm pretty confident that it isn't a reference to Old (Church) Slavonic.

If the first reference is a toponym, the study of place names is fundamentally one of linguistics and history is it not? That's why included linguists. iruka 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that sounds fairly reasonable.

• You're right. However, that can be only (the Croatian recension-) Old Slavonic and nothing else. Everything else dates from a later period. --PaxEquilibrium 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality and factual accuracy of history section is disputed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.108 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC). Yes its like that you just live unsigned post and the article is disputedLord feanor 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but comparison of censuses shows that most of the people who self-identified as Yugoslavs by nationality (a 105,000 population) were Serbs ...

• This represents original research as it is your interpretation. Many of those Yugoslavs were Bosnians, Macedonians, Croats, Serbs, or in the majority of cases, people with a mixed heritage. The war forced some to choose a new allegiance, whilst others maintained their Yugoslav identity & sought refuge o/s. Because the claim is unsourced, I have removed it.

• That's why I changed to *a lot of*. In the end, those people were ethnically cleansed/left too (the Yugoslavs), so we'd have to change at Operation Storm and all the other articles all the "Serbs" to "Serbs and Yugoslavs" in that case. --PaxEquilibrium 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all personal conjecture. What does alot of mean. Alot of Yugoslavs were Croat/Bosnian/Maco/mixed marriage. Most chose a new idenity, some left the country (as in Yugoslavia), other moved to a new location (in Yugoslavia). Source pls. iruka 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1991-1993 around 300,000 Serbs left and the number of refugees in the afterwards of Operations Storm and Flash

• Clumsy expression - does it mean during the course of the entire period of the war or just during operations Flash/Storm.

It means that 300,000 left in the period from 1990 to 1993. --PaxEquilibrium 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left to where - how many of these were part of the quoted 250,000, b/c depending on interpretation, Croatia's entire Serb population left, & both you & I know that this is not correct b/c there are 201,000 Serbs in Croatia. iruka 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Operation Storm itself, 250,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia; while Operation Flash recorded a data of 30,000 exiles.

• The claim of ethnic cleansing is disputed. Lets wait until the ICTY brings down it's decision shall we?
• 90,000 is the Tudjman govt figure, but approx 120,000 is the HHW figure, & most NGO's will generally quote b/w 120,000 - 250,000. The 300,00 tends to be the Serb sourced figure. If we are going to quote the Serb figure, then we should quote the Croat figure & everything in between. W.r.t the Srebrenica figures, they are usually sourced from independent international investigators - unrelated to this article.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned neither the unrealistic Croat 90,000; nor the unrealistic Serbian 300,000 - but the general consensus of 250,000.

There is no consensus figure, but a range of most of quoted firgures ranging from approx 120,000-250,000. Note also there is no mention of the number of returness since 1995. I suggest as a compromise, we express a range 90,000-300,000, then footnote the individual figures & quote the source. That way readers can make up their own minds as to the credibilty of one figure vs another based on the source. iruka 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BBC, 200,000 Serbs were displaced in Operation Storm. According to Amnesty International, 300,000 Serbs were expelled. According to the United Nations report, 250,000 Serbs were displaced. According to the ICTY indictments, 200,000-250,000 Serbs were expelled by Croat forces. According to all Serbian sources, 250,000-300,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed in the military operation. Who puts it at 120,000?? Yes, international investigators are used here too. --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term of ethnic cleansing, after the most recent findings of Tudjman's planning at Brioni, is hardly doubtful. There are many occasions of ethnic cleansing in former Yugo in which the ICTY still hasn't brought their decision - do we have to wait and say that no ethnic cleansing occurred in Srebrenica? --PaxEquilibrium 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brijuni documents refer to Serb forces, not civilians. That is the point of dispute. In response to your question - yes, we should wait for the ICTY/ICJ decison b/c despite the flaws of these institutions, it is the most percieved independent source we have. All other opinions are just that, opinions. BTW, ethnic cleansing in the form of genocide was the ruling for Srebrenica by both the ICJ & ICTY. iruka 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I understand. So he called the Serb forces "civilians". What did he mean then when he separately said "soldiers"?

Why would he organize a planned propaganda campaign to secure that "Serb forces" all leave and ensure that they leave, and especially, why should Tudjman falsely guarantee the civic rights of Serb forces? Pardon me, but that makes no sense. ;) I saw the entire thing myself, and the only controversial thing is that the insects stopped making sound in fear when Franjo opened his mouth (the possibility of alleged forgery) ;)) --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, 150,000 Serbs remained altogether in Croatia.

• Again, a statement that involves an interpretation - the statement implies that the rest have left when this may not be the case. There is the issue of integration (as in most areas of the former Yugoslavia, people have chosen new allegiances - particularly the old settlers); there is also dispute of the census method as noted by Pupovac's comments who believes the 4.5% figure is too low. Hence rephrased to a more neutral tone i.e. Today, only 150,000 people of Croatia's population espouse a Serb identity. iruka 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry? --PaxEquilibrium 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statement implies the difference b/w census results is a result of people having left Croatia when that may not be the case. There is the disparate census methodology criticsied by Pupovac as underestimating the number of Serbs. There is also the effect of integration into the mainstream as an organic phenomena but also the desire not to be tainted by the war crimes of the Krajina entity, or to get economic benefits. Hence my compromise suggestion for Today, only 150,000 people of Croatia's population espouse a Serb identity. But even this figure is wrong because in Croatia there are 201,631 people that espouse a Serb national identity (4.54%) [3] [4] [5] so pls update to the correct figure. iruka 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you did not only fix some clumsy phrases, you changed the whole article to a personal version.--Methodius 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I removed the clumsy phrase and replaced the questionable figures with a range that covers different sources & views. May I suggest as a compromise, we stick to the range in my edit, & add footnotes that cite specific figures + source. iruka 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared out those new changes. Making all 105k Yugoslavs Serbs is just plain old conjecture. The number mania really got out of hand in that paragraph that was supposed to be a neutral prelude to the text below. The 300k number for 1991-1993 is completely unsourced, and the sentence was completely broken. The 250k number for 1995 is unreliable and there is no real consensus, only various guess-estimates floating around. Claim of that all being ethnic cleansing is quite stretched and offensive, regardless of whatever snide comments Tuđman made. 30k for Flash is also unsubstantiated. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just note the controversy. After all It's highly impossible that between fifty and one hundred thousand Serbs migrated away from Croatia between two censuses.

The 300k number is one taken from other Wikipedia articles, such as the History of Croatia article. It's the most quoted figure (by both Serb, international and even some Croat sources). Seeing through the history of some articles, you yourself reverted back that figure which was once removed. in the period 1990-1993 over 300,000 Serbs and over 200,000 Croats were misplaced in the war.

The 250k for Storm might be essentially controversial, but is far from unreliable. It's sourced (much more than any other figure) and it's the result of a logical deduction if the brain is turned on. ;)

Well, that's a touchy subject - but is the claim that ethnic cleansing was conducted by the Bosnian Serb Army in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina offensive? I think that the denial that Operation Storm was an organized campaign of planned ethnic cleansing is more precisely what is highly offensive.

Also, those aren't just snide comments. Today the mass-criminal attempt organized by HDZ and its sympathizers is quote open (much more than before), and the ICTY trials of Ante Gotovina and the other two will put the dot on the case. I would only like that Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are in the Hague too, so that finally the utterly genocidal ideologies of SDS and HDZ (which is, to my greatest satisfaction, entering its last stage of political importance and dying out rapidly, just like all anachronism) are finally revealed. --PaxEquilibrium 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Radovan Karadzic for similar snide comments... --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I went into too much detail in that explanation... the core of the problem was that the numbers were partially removed which left them quoted out of context, and all that left us with sentences that were bumped together mindlessly, partially broken, and to top it all off, inflammatory assessment was added. That's simply not encyclopedic material. Everyone can read the data and the context in the surrounding text, nobody needs mindless number-waving in the middle of an otherwise perfectly rational article.

If someone believes that there were valid points that aren't raised in the article, please make worthwhile contributions about them in the article, and if that needs arguing, let's argue that. On the other hand, this revert-war-provoking junk just wasn't worth it. --Joy [shallot]

Lol, if there is any error and/or problem with an article - be bold and outright solve it. Don't let the problem itself stupidly frustrate you and make you write needless comments on the talk page, which would eventually make other people see your wrong side and get a highly incorrect opinion about you in general. ;0) Just "edit out" the problem yourself. Lol, cheers. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did write most of that section myself. And then random people came in and screwed with it in just a couple of slaphappy edits. Sigh. I often ignore bullshit and do something productive instead (not to brag, but as it happens I just noticed this discussion again after having fixed up Miljevci plateau incident to contain facts from a biased Veritas web site), but I can't always be exceedingly patient with abuse. I'm sorry, I'm also human. Let's move on. --Joy [shallot]

It would be nice to add reference to Duško Gruborović, late writer and actor. I suppose he was Serb too, because Mali Gradac had no Croat inhabitants (according to all censa). --Plantago 08:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaxEquilibrium stop writing serbian lies. You write/protect this in article:

"Most of the Serbs came in Croatia during Ottoman intrusions and were settled by Turkish authorities along the border with the Austrian empire. When they conquered these areas Austrians kept the special territorial organization of the area, called Military Frontier, mostly inhabited by Serbs"

Even you know that this are lies because Serbian wiki write this:

"У току XV до XVIII века трају непрекидне миграције Срба у Славонију и Крајину. Процес је имао устаљену шему: на опустошена имања и напуштену земљу уз турску границу досељавају се Срби из крајева под турском влашћу. Турци досељавају Србе из унутрашњости, да запоседну напуштено подручје с турске стране. Досељени Срби првом приликом напуштају турску крајину и селе се у Аустрију, тј. Славонију и Хрватску, куда их позивају аустријски цареви"

For users which do not known Serbian short translation is: During Ottoman times Serbs are coming to live on Ottoman side of border with Habsburg Empire (Croatia). After coming there they are crossing border and coming to live in Habsburg Empire (Croatia and Slavonia) ....

Point is Austria has not annexed Croatian Krajina but this has always been part of Habsburg Empire. --Rjecina 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wow, wow. Hold your horses down there. Don't bang with nationalism (after you've proven that you're not quite nationalist, just often get frustrated by the Serb nationalists). Just read the "up". It's just a typo. Ah, man. ;D --PaxEquilibrium 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Dragutin has never ruled in Croatia or Slavonia. For evidence I giving this map of his state which is very much used on this wiki:

From map it is clear that he has not ruled north of river Sava. It is possible (I do not know today) that his son has been ban of Slavonia but you know very much how great is difference between position of Croatian or Slavonian ban and position of king. If Stefan Dragutin son has been ban of Slavonia he has been very similar to "viceroy" of Hungarian kingdom nothing more or less. --Rjecina 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and it makes it non less relevant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CroSer (talk • contribs) 13:32, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I am interested to hear how Slavonia has been ruled by King of Mačva when even Serbian maps are showing that Slavonia has not been part of his state. Can somebody please explain that fact to me ?? --Rjecina 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to explain. Slavonia was never Serbian, that is undisputable historic fact, period. I cannot believe there is even a discussion around this. DIREKTOR 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that depends what you mean by that. Serbian lords governed Slavonia. More than half of Slavonia was owned by Serb Despots, and in the 18th century Serbs formed majority in Slavonia. I would pretty much call it "Serbian". ;))) And Slavonia was always mixed (with many Serbs) up until the most recent war when it became mostly Croat-inhabited. --PaxEquilibrium 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! Slavonia was never ever Serbian, isnt and NEVER will be, just like their fictitous "Krajina"! Serbs have got serbia. And even THATS too mach for them (look waht they did to Vojvodina and Sandzak, not to mention Kosovo). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom (talk • contribs) 19:34, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I take this is an un-serious joke from a troll that seems to be a throwaway account, aimed just to present that Croats look badly in general. --PaxEquilibrium 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told you, take it easy, UstashkiDom (that sounded a little strange ;). There is no need here for rhetoric. Take two steps back, calm down, and start looking for sources, if you really want to help, that is. DIREKTOR 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put that his son was Ban of Slavonia. I think it'll satisfy him. Today it's still controversial whether he answered to Dragutin - for according to some, but still only some sources the double principle like with Croatia (Ban of Slavonia was "subjected" to both the Croatian Ban and the Hungarian King), he was vassal to both the Syrmian King and the Hungarian. --PaxEquilibrium 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a little strange, Pax. The Ban of Croatia was a vassal of the Hungarian King, so ultimately there was no "double principle" in your example with the Ban of Slavonia. I really doubt a vassal could ever possibly have two kings (to have a ban and his king is a different matter entirely) as sovereigns. In other words, you're either part of one kingdom or the other... DIREKTOR 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The history is over-loaded with such examples. The Despotate of Serbia was throughout the most of its existence a vassal of the Ottoman emirate and the Kingdom of Hungary at the same time, just to name an example. --PaxEquilibrium 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, if there is any source confirming the double allegiance theory, include it. If not, simply explain the controversy concerning this. Agreeable? DIREKTOR 00:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have writen part of text about this ban. For users from Croatia I need to say that on croatian wiki where is list of bans there is Ladislav od plem. Ratold so I have writen text about this fact and situation in Hungary during that time. For users from Serbia there is need to say that I have refused to write about "Kingdom of Syrmia". Why ? In SFRJ books this kingdoms has never existed. In SFRJ history books (which I have) there is state of king Dragutin because of that my personal thinking is that title king of Syrmia is born in last 20 years. --Rjecina 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are those (former) elementary, high school or faculty history books?

Of course it wasn't. The Serbian Archbishop from the Medieval Ages that wrote a biographies of the Nemanjics, Danil II, wrote this when he talked 'bout Dragutin & Milutin: I otpusti vazljubljenoga svoga brata u njegovu sremsku državu, i sam otpočinu malo sa svojim vojnicima. Edicts of King Dragutin to other rulers (Hungarian, Bosnian, Croatian, Papal and Serbian) reveal his title as simply "sremski kralj". Danil also recorded the turmoils between Serbia and Syrmia: Posle nekoga vremena dogodi se velika skrb blagočastivomu kralju Urošu, jer se beše podigao njegov brat blagočastiv Stefan, kralj od sremske zemlje, sa mnogom silom, hoteći da uzme njegov presto i da ga dade sinu svojemu Urošicu. I beše mu velika nevolja. Jer sva njegova vlastela odmetnuše se, i ne imađaše nijednoga na koga bi se pouzdao,.. And Danil wrote 600 years ago. --PaxEquilibrium 13:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of statement Dragutinova država is povijesni atlas iz 1982. Maybe you will be surprised but even in SFRJ we have learned very little about Serbian history. All in all do you agree that Vladislav question is solved OK ? --Rjecina 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Vladislav was Ortodox (Orthodox?)?

Also, don't you think there's a possibility that that Ladislav is actually Vladislav? The two names changed a lot (the standard European-Latin is Ladislaus for Vladislav). --PaxEquilibrium 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This are bans of Slavonia during Vladislav life time: Nikola od plem. Gutkeled 1278. - 1279. Nikola Gisingovac 1279. - 1281. Petar Pakrački 1281. - 1283. Radoslav Babonić 1290. - 1293. Henrik Gisingovac 1291.) Jakov Kopas 1298. - 1299. Ladislav od plem. Ratold 1300. Henrik Gisingovac 1301. - 1309. Stjepan Babonić 1310. - 1316. Ivan Babonić 1316. - 1322.

Only Ladislav can be Stefan Vladislav. You must not forget that his latin name has been Ladislaus so Croatian version will be Ladislav. In 1 place (maybe 1 of books which you have given me) it is writen how he has been good ortodox and he has needed only to change religion to become claimant on hungarian crown.--Rjecina 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could've been Vladislav just as so.

Well perhaps, but I'm not sure. Would be weird though, since both of his parents were Catholic Christians and he lived in a Roman Catholic society. --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data that his parents have been Catholic is surprise for me. After looking internet I have made this finding about father of Vladislav [6]. There is very clear writen :"Према писању његовог биографа Данила, краљ Драгутин је у источном дијелу Босне преобратио патарене у православље" ?? .--Rjecina 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His mother was Kathlin, the daughter of the Hungarian King Stephen V. He lived in a area under Catholic influence, especially when he left to Slavonia. His father was indeed, a Roman Catholic. --PaxEquilibrium 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Serbs (in Croatia or otherwise), I believe that there are many mistakes in this version of the text:
1) The incorrect map (the removed one suppodsedly on the Serbian population in the Kraina before the war). This map admittedly has errors and does therefore not deserve inclusion in any Wikipedia article. I do not think anything more can be said about this.
2) Yugoslavs in the 1991 census. It is ridiculous to say that the Yugoslavs "may have been Serbs". They may have been Croats as well. If we say that they "may have been Serbs" we are creating an unfounded view in the eyes of the reader that they were more probably Serbs than Croats. This is not true (I personally know three Croats who declared themselves Yugoslavs to try and prevent the dissolution of the federal state).
3) Serbian despots ruled Slavonia?! Now that "revolutionary" piece of historiography I will revert without discussion every time I see it until someone can find me a reliable (non-ex-Yugoslav, preferrably English) source confirming it. If you do not have this source, please do not insert this claim it might start an edit war. The map presented above only states that a despot ruled an extreme eastern section of Slavonia, hardly the etirety as stated in the article, it is also from an unreliable source. DIREKTOR 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's correct what makes you think its not?

2) then wed have to change everywhere that 'Serbs AND YUGOSLAVS' were expelled in Operations Storm or Flash, 'Serbs AND YUGOSLAVS' were killed in Operation Medak Pocket, 'Serbs AND YUGOSLAVS' were massacred in Gospic. We cant do that. so its easier to out here this info. Its not sure that 'they may have been serbs', but its KNOWN that probably, most of them were. (a) compare censuses)

3) The map above has nothing to do with Serb despots (and is partially imprecise), missed by 200 years and your reaction show yu now nothing of historie. --CroSer 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, according to the UN all sides committed ethnic cleansing in 1991-1995. --PaxEquilibrium 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, according to the UN there was no ethnic cleansing in Croatia, by either side (and both sides did pretty much the same things at one time or another, in varying degrees). DIREKTOR 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, here are parts of that for which ICTY charges Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač:

The indictment further describes that the ethnic cleansing operation included severe violence against the Krajina Serbs and organised and systematic plunder and destruction of Serb property and that this conduct was not sporadic or limited, but part and parcel of the whole campaign, intended to drive any remaining Serbs from the area and/or to prevent or discourage those who had fled from returning. The indictment states that in the course of Operation Storm and the following actions, participants in the joint criminal enterprise and subordinates of the accused inflicted extensive and widespread inhumane acts on Serb civilians and persons taking no part in hostilities, causing not only mental abuse, humiliation and anguish, but also severe physical injury, by shooting, beating, kicking and burning people, including extensive shelling of civilian areas and an aerial attack on fleeing civilians. Family members were often forced to watch while other family members were beaten and abused. Inhumane acts and cruel treatment were especially inflicted on the most vulnerable victims, including elderly women and civilians in hospitals. In addition, many Serb civilians who remained in the area rather than fleeing, including men not of military status and unarmed, elderly women and invalids, were unlawfully killed. At the same time, a "demographic policy" was also implemented whereby much of the Krajina region was to be "urgently colonized with Croats," whereby Croatian forces and other Croats were moved into many of the abandoned Serb houses that survived and homes belonging to Serbs were expropriated. The indictment concludes that by 15 November 1995, the devastation of Serb properties in the southern Krajina region was so extensive that the Krajina Serb community and habitat were virtually destroyed.

There are other instances, but at many of them the actual word "ethnic cleansing" isn't used - however only a man with a low IQ would see if he/she reads the indictment that it factually is ethnic cleansing. AFAIK, that which is in the indictment of these two (and Ante Gotovina) actually is under logic sense possible to fold under (as horribly as it is to allude) *genocide*. I'm referring to the "JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE". --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor could you give me a reference for that so i can erase everything that has to do with ethnic cleansing by Serbs on articles such as Saborsko massacre? Paulcicero 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a misunderstanding here (my fault). What I meant was that no real large-scale (on the scale of an an entire state) ethnic cleansing took place. The ICTY accepts this (I think its even stated in the article). OF COURSE "small-scale" brutal incidents took place. This is the Balkans after all... DIREKTOR 09:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a UN document interpreting the ICTY indictment. You're talking just about the war in Croatia, right (not elsewhere in Yugoslavia)? --PaxEquilibrium 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. This does not apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina. DIREKTOR 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map in question has errors. These errors are such that they add a Serbian majority to areas that do not have it. This creates the wrong idea in the eyes of the reader. It is mentioned in the description that it has errors, but this does not change the fact that it has errors of the worst kind: the biased kind. These "errors" create the idea that Serbs populated areas they actually did not. Its not like the map has a couple of typos or something. DIREKTOR 11:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let us find out which those errors are. --PaxEquilibrium 12:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is accepted and known that the map has errors of this kind. The exact errors are unimportant. In these sensitive matters it is enough that one village is portrayed as Serb while actually being Bosniak (Muslim) or Croat. I hope you see understand that there can be no room for any errors of that kind while discussing matters related to the Yugoslav wars. DIREKTOR 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, please don't make those large spaces. They take... well, space. :)

Who has accepted it? Who knows it? It's all new to me. --PaxEquilibrium 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Pax! The guy that posted the map claimed there were errors, so you'll forgive me if I believe him. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which guy was it? If I recall I wrote myself the words that it was incorrect, on the request of another Wikipedian that had disputes with several maps in former Yugoslavia, but he said that he was wrong and backed down. In addition to that, I here have an ethnic map of SFRY, and that quite much looks just like a "cut out" piece of it. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well then would you kindly say where and when does this ethnic map of the SFRY come from? Can you post it somehow? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I believe it comes just like this one, from the (Socialist) Federal Statistics Office. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that map is based on the 1981 population census, statistics office.

BTW what's this supposed to mean? What are you doing? --PaxEquilibrium 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the map until we can get to the bottom of this, relax.
Can you post a link to verify it is a census map? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you wrote in the edit summary a reference to me as if I added the map? And now I have no idea to which map are you referring? --PaxEquilibrium 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Map is crap, but it is a good example of how to lie with maps. I explained this here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina#Fraudulent_Map , and therefore I shall delete it. I was the one who added that it has errors, but some proud seljak had to delete that. Well, in that case there should be no such fake map. Make a new one that is accurate or do what they did in the RSK page. Pozdrav, (LAz17 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Ah, I see. We should delete it then. But I'm not sure which of the two maps like you showed is correct. Both are alluding at the same source, but are obviously different. It's quite confusing. --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw LAz17's post on Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina. When I saw the map again a couple of months later, I remembered it was fraudulent but I couldn't remember where that was explained. Sorry for the mixup Pax. :) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one that says Srpska Polika, linked on the other page, is the wrong one. One can see that blue was added around certain places in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. The plain map from the University of Belgrade, the one that looks like a photo of a map with some folds on it... that is the right one. But it's too bad that the map is kinda too small. :( But anyways, the point that both maps make is still there. (LAz17 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Are there any concerns that you may have with the information that i have added. I dont mind if you change the wording to sound more "fair" to whomever. However, I think that it would be unjust to exclude the information that i have added. Please feel free! to add your own information so that we can have a fair and just article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I or you think is not important ! Please explain reasons for changes .--Rjecina (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored some of Mike's edits (I didn't go into the rest). I'm afraid there is simply no reason to remove it, as it is relevant, correct and referenced. I don't mean to offend anyone... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading his false statements in section "Early Modern period" I have reverted everything. Until now I have not seen any difference between this SPA account and edits of older SPA accounts user:Votec , user:Justiceinwiki or Velebit. I do not have time for reading everything which is writen by nationalistic SPA accounts. When I see false statements I revert ! --Rjecina (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your statement im accusing you of being un-wipipedia freindly. What i have added is an add-on to the initial article. How can you claim otherwise when i have cited my sources? I belive the best thing for the quality of the article is that we talk about and revise sections to make it more equal to whatever side. Mike Babic (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure books are not sources ! You are un-wikipedia friendly because you are deleting, reverting sections of articles about where it has been agreement between many editors. It is not possible that you know history better of all others editors which has edited this article. Even if you know better of everybody else it is not possible that you know better of Habsburg emperors which has ruled this lands !!!--Rjecina (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my sources are British Encacolopedias. Therefore i think that they qualify. It is just a paraphrased sentence no changes to th actual facts. lets start a discussion on this issue. What facts dont you agree with? Mike Babic (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Serbs of Croatia are speaking Serbian language !! For personal experiance I know that version which are spoken by Serbs of Krajina and Serbs from Serbia is very, very different. Serbs of Croatia has during Yugoslav time learned in schools Serbo-Croatian language !
• Section "Early Modern Period" is false and this is not good faith mistake !
• About NDH there is no need to say anything.

Do not worry. All this POV editing will be reverted.--Rjecina (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are argueing that the language should be changed to Serbo-Craotian becasuse of your personal experience. Fine change it even tho u made me remove schooling from the introduction because you felt that my experience was un-wikipedia friendly. You really should not revert the entery for the sake of wikipedia (a site that you invested a lot of your time in). My suggestion is to stop fighting and let the truth be told without constant fightining. Mike Babic (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language is smallest problem--Rjecina (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that your view is baised. That you hold prejudace. And that your motives for condributing to the artice Serbs of Craotia are questionable. Mike Babic (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not another nationalistic SPA account .--Rjecina (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a second, to my knowledge the Serbo-Croatian language no longer exists (as much as I would like to see it reinstated). Though it is absolutely true the Serbs in Croatia speak a mixture of the two languages, Serbian with Croatian influences or Croatian with Serbian influences. We cannot say they use the language as such a mixture would probably be (or is) officially classified as a dialect of Serbian (I doubt Croatian Serbs would say they speak Croatian, whatever they may speak). Anyway, this is a totally ridiculous discussion corresponding with the ridiculous division of the two languages. There are in fact greater linguistical (and cultural) differences between dialects of Croatian than between the official Croatian and Serbian languages. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SerboCroatian language exists and will exist, but by different names, such as: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian or Central South Slavic Language DiaSystem. Regards and Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not language but his deleting of historical data in section Early Modern Period and changing this data with false and misleading information. His adding in text about WWII are overkill.

My only problem is that I can't revert that false statements another time because of 3RR rule.--Rjecina (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wrote a merge that omits no information. The grammar was rather poor in the starting version, so Mike could have been removing it for that, but that's been fixed now as well. How's this guys? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Thanks for your time, and your effort.

Also DIREKTOR, i dont want to seem un-patriotic by asking you to collaborate with a Serb, but could you help me think of a way that we can inform the Serbs that they commited war crimes and Craotians that they commited war crimes, without looking like we are biased. I feel like some articles are gorossly misguided and that this is leading to the biased views on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 little change because even original text has been wrong. Military Frontier or better to say Krajina has been created from Croatia for protection of Croatia and other Habsburg land against Ottoman attacks. This is very important because information writen until now is false:"The Habsburgs (re)conquered the region and established the Military Frontier as a defence". This has been Croatian territory from begining and in 19 century after end of Ottoman danger this territory has been restored to Croatia. You must agree that this is very different of what is writen until now.

Srbe na vrbe need to be deleted because if we want hate speach we need to speak about Serbian words klaćemo Hrvate (1991-92) and why has Serbs been hated in 1941.--Rjecina (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rjecina. You have to understand a few things about the era when the Krajina was created. There was no "Croatia" as a real state, the monarch of Croatia was the Holy Roman Emperor (a Habsburg), and only he (not the Ban) could possibly create any new territorial entity. All he did was remove some territory from the control of the local viceroy (Ban) and placed it under his direct control. In short the Habsburgs and Croatia are not different things, so you can't say one created something instead of the other. The King of Croatia created the Krajina out of Croatian territory, and the King was the Habsburg Emperor. At no point does the text say this was not Croatian territory, it clearly states that this was Croatian territory and that it was reunited with the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia.

Also, "Srbe na vrbe" mustn't be deleted, but both "sayings" must be included and a point must be made that there was killing on both sides, in my opinion that is.

Re Mike. Sure, I can lend a hand, I pretty much consider the Serbs and Croats the same thing (like the rest of the world;) so it would definetly not be "unpatriotic". However, I would like to make a point before we start that I do not consider Operation Storm to be ethnic cleansing. While I see that Tudjman may have hoped for the outcome, he had to play fair because of Clinton breathing down his neck. That being said I assure you that I have no prejudice whatsoever towards either side. (BTW, I recommend you sing in as you will gain a lot more credibility, illogical but true.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the small change to the section Rjecina, do you find it satisfactory? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Croatia has been kingdom with Habsburg king. We are having many documents which are showing that. In the end I am having very great problem with:

"The Habsburgs (re)conquered the region and created the Military Frontier " because this is old Serbian POV which has been defeated many times in discussions.

What is wrong with:

"Later in the same century, large areas of Croatia and Slavonia adjacent to the Ottoman Empire were carved out into the Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina, German Militaergrenze) and ruled directly from Vienna military headquarters. The area became rather deserted and was subsequently settled by Serbs, Vlachs, Croats and Germans and others. As a result of their compulsory military service to the Habsburg Empire during conflict with the Ottoman Empire, the population in the Military Frontier was free of serfdom and enjoyed much political autonomy unlike the population living in the parts ruled by Hungary" (text is taken from another article).--Rjecina (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, what I said was not wrong, it was identical to what you just said. We have no differing views, I am fully aware of the personal union you speak of and I know my country's history. But I also know History in general, and it may be difficult to explain what I meant so I will only write this: "Croatia created the Vojna Krajina" = "The Habsburgs created the Vojna Krajina" because only the King of Croatia, i.e. the Habsburg Emperor, could create it (the Ban could not and did not).

What happened there, anyway? 1) the Turks conquered Bosnia. 2) the Turks conquered the future territory of the Krajina from the Croatian crown lands of the Habsburg Monarchy. 3) Time passed. 4) the Habsburgs (& allies) invaded the Turks, they conquered the future territory of the Krajina (+ a little more). 5) The majority of the conquered lands were turned, by the Habsburg Emperor (i.e. the Croatian King), into the Vojna Krajina, for defense against the Turks.

Nothing is wrong with your text, its just longer. Now you tell me WHAT is wrong with the text: "The Habsburgs (re)conquered the region and created the Military Frontier."?! The Habsburgs DID reconquer the region, and they DID create the Vojna Krajina, now what's the problem FFS! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, the Ustaše did go beyond even Nazi practices. There are many letters, for example, of SS officers protesting the "horrid senseless slaughter" (quote) by the Ustaše and their military chaplains.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this sort of editing must important is timeline:1) the Turks conquered Bosnia. 2) Croatia is choosing Habsburg for kings 3) Krajina is created from Croatian territory in 1553 4)After wars in 17 century newly liberated lands are added to Krajina. This lands has been parts of Croatia before Ottoman conquest 5) Croatia is in 19 century demanding restoration of Krajina 6)Krajina is restored in 1881.

RFC about Jasenovac has clearly shown Serbian overkill of Ustaše crimes. For example that article is having more words like sadistic killings and similar of all others Extermination camps together (I have not writen that)--Rjecina (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we agree and everything is clear I will rewrite the damn thing again, see how you like it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

according to the wikipedia, the term was derogatory (racist). so, i want some proof, anything at all really, that states that this was an umbrella term. I have searched google for "vlah serb umbrella term" and got NO results.

Im asking for proof because like i said, its a racial term, and i found no evidence for its use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where is writen that Vlach is derogatory term for Serbs. For me this is another example of Serbian wartime mythology because Vlachs are nation like any other. --Rjecina (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach

it clearly states that it is "(pejorative)" = racist thus, i need evidence that Serbs and Vlah's are the same as you claim. (its kind of saying that "dirty mexican" is a term for all latin people)

do you understand, now, why im asking for proof? Mike Babic (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this definition:

"Vlach is a Slavic-derived term from the Germanic word Valah/Valach used to designate the Romance speaking peoples of South-Eastern Europe: Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians".

writen in that article you do not understand ??--Rjecina (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"writen in that article you do not understand ?" HUH????? i dont get what your trying to tell me. it clearly states that it is a "(pejorative)" term = racist (not nice) thus, i need evidence that Serbs and Vlah's are the same as you claim. (its kind of saying that "dirty mexican" is a term for all latin people) Mike Babic (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again what part of this definition:

Vlach is a Slavic-derived term from the Germanic word Valah/Valach used to designate the Romance speaking peoples of South-Eastern Europe: Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians.

writen in that article nationalistic SPA account Mike Babic do not understand ??--Rjecina (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "Vlach" is most certainly NOT a racist or a pejorative (see Wallachia). The term "vlaj" is a pejorative. It is a little silly to be calling a name for a people "racist". Its not racist its simply what it is. Some people around here consider being called a Serb insulting... This argument is kinda pointless, as they certainly were a separate people assimilated by Serbs in Bosnia and the Krajina. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for proof that it was used as an "umbrella term for Serbs".

Since beside Vlah, it says "Words[1] and phrases are pejorative if they imply contempt or disapproval. The adjective pejorative is synonymous with derogatory, derisive, dyslogistic, and contemptuous. When used as an adjective, pejorative has two meanings: (1) tending to make or become worse, and (2) tending to disparage or belittle.[2] When used as a noun, pejorative means "a belittling or disparaging word or expression".[3]"

THUS, I'm asking for you to prove your claims that it was an umbrella term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach

and look for the word "pejorative" and follow the link. What does it say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna of Transylvania wrote in 1862 a detailed book known as "History of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Austrian Empire". In there, it says: ""Vlachs" is a foul derogatory term used for Serb colonists by the Croatian Catholics, to mark their inferiority and later, to separate them from their own people in the Servian Kingdom".

From a book from one Hungarian 19th century writer, 1877: "Because of the same faith with the Wallachians, the Roman Catholics also call the Serbs, derogatorily, Vlachs."

It is (or seems, was until this last war) a general consensus that "Vlachs" was a derogatory term used by the Catholic Church for the Serbs. Konstantin Jireček, Ferdo Šišić, Franjo Rački and Vatroslav Jagić all claim that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Pax, the term Vlach may have been used as a derogatory term for Serbs, but that has no meaning here. We are not using the term Vlach as a derrogatory term, but in its original meaning, i.e. to represent the people of Wallachia that were settled in the Krajina. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't actually read the talk page. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Wallachians, I think, are totally unrelated to these Vlachs - when migrating westwards, they didn't migrate from Wallachia itself. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not very knowledgeable as to exactly where the Vlachs come from :) (I'm pretty sure its modern-day Romania), but I know noone is actually trying to insult the Serbian population by using an outdated 300-year-old derogatory term. Its pretty much common knowledge that these people did exist as a separate nationality before their assimilation, so mentioning them can hardly be perceived as an attempted insult. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check out the Vlachs article. There are different groups of autochtonous Vlach populations - like the Istro-Romanians. For the Vlachs that populated Croatia and Bosnia itself, it's very difficult to determine, but it's safe to say that the greatest number came from Eastern Herzegovina and Rascia (the Old Vlach region, nationally-romantically called "Old Serbia"), with of course a lesser degree from elsewhere (like Zeta). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the page for one week to allow discussion to talk place and a consensus reached on which version, or a compromised version, should be used in the article. If edit warring resumes after the protection is lifted, it may be replaced and/or blocks may be issued. Lara❤Love 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined the dispute between Mike Babic and Rjecina (seen in this reversion), I'd just like to give some outside comments here:

• ethnic-group infobox: I'm not a big fan of infoboxes. If anything about the box should be contentious, please just leave it out.
• Image:Serb_population.JPG: Is this contentious?
• "Geographical representation" section: please break this down in talk to what exactly is contentious about either version of this section.
• The bit about the "Vlachs" ("Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs. However, given the solidifying of modern national identities around the confessional rule (although not exclusively), most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb."): Mike is right that this passage is unsourced. Moreover, and most importantly, it seems to lack any motivation in the context. As an outsider uninvolved reader, I'm simply baffled why it is there at all. Also, I find Rjecina's contributions in the discussion above to be very much lacking focus; he was clearly not responding to Mike's objections in a meaningful way.
• Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg: Questionable encyclopedic value; I note that earlier versions of Mike's caption to this image were very openly tendentious (the latest one is better)
• Description of the war: "ethnic conflict between the Orthodox Serbs and the Catholic Croats" is clearly more NPOV than "military rebellion of Croatian Serbs, incited and encouraged from Serbia, as a part of Serbian campaign of military conquest of Croatia" (the latter is blatantly tendentious, as should be clear to anybody reading it.)
• Similar for "fled those areas as they were under Croatian military control" versus "put themselves on the side of Serbian aggressor," etc.
• Passage about ethnic cleansing: Needs thorough checking, but some mentioning of it is clearly legitimate.

This dispute during the last few days has seen some pretty poor behaviour on both sides. I seriously ask you all to work this out in a more constructive style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About ethnic cleansing - the term is fishy, but is used (e.g. by the ICTY) and therefore should be in some form in the article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Vlachs... Why is it there? In 16th century, after Turkish expansions, there were 2 main waves of refugees coming from the east and settling in Krajina (Croatian territory) by permission of the Austrian authorities. The most of them were Vlachs and Serbs. Some of these Vlachs were Catholic, the most of them Orthodox christians. Refugees were followed by their soul shephards, so Orthodox church also came in the region. By time, Orthodox Vlachs transformed to Serbs, Catholics to Croats, or Serbs if becoming Orthodox. From 20th century there were only Serbs and Croats in Krajina. Zenanarh (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice and plausible, and (if sourced) can certainly be said in the article. But it's not what that section ("Late Middle Ages") is currently saying. That (a) some Vlachs integrated into the Serbs is one thing, fine. That (b) the term "Vlach" was used as a cover term for both groups, as the article claims, is an entirely different thing. That (c) "modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb" (today) is yet something entirely different. (b) may well be true but seems quite irrelevant in the context. (c) sounds pretty dubious. (a) is only expressed one section further down. In order to state (a), you don't even need (b). So why is (b) there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets show must important points about Vlachs. We all agree that Vlachs have come in Croatia during Ottoman wars. Source for that is Statuta Wallachorum from 1630 (google will give many hits). In 19 century we are having decision of Croatian parliament which is saying that rights of Serbs and Vlachs from Krajina will be protected after restoration of this region to Croatia. Maybe I am mistaking but this parliament decision from late 19 century is last time when name Vlachs has been officialy used for state decisions. In latter period words Vlachs has been sometimes used for ortodox population which are living in villages (never in towns). --Rjecina (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Is there then any objection against removing that misplaced/unmotivated passage at the beginning of the "Late medieval" section as Mike Babic wanted, or replacing it with something else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (b) is probably the rest of some past edit wars. Zenanarh (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this entire section carefully. The problem was with the (b) claim. Vlah is an racist word to describe a Serb, i sourced this claim. That is why i was asking for the user to source his claim that "Vlah was an umbrella term to describe Serbs".

I know it will take a lot of time, and effort, but please state all objections to the questions that were written at the beginning of the section "Outside comments" by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Afterwards:

1. Can we agree that the last revision was an improvment and should be reinstated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198582584&oldid=198570352

2. Are there any other reasons why the revisions may seem unfair to people?

Lastly, I know that this article will be fail, informative and greatly presented if we work on it together. Also, thank to the admins who took the time to help us resolve the last dispute. Mike Babic (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Vlachs again:

1) Actually that edit is pretty correct but badly placed in the text, at the first sight. So there is a lack of motivation in context, at the first sight too. Explanation comes in the next few rows, but all together it looks a little bit confusing, it needs rewriting, not deletion.

2) As here [7] ...three centuries later (which means 19th century), the term "Vlach" was still being used in Bosnia to mean "member of the Orthodox Church which is of the same meaning like in this article since these Orthodox members in Croatia were Vlachs and Serbs, the same as in Bosnia. Here it's: Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs. It's really not a racist word - it is just correct in historical context. Vlachs didn't become Serbs immidiately, it was 300 years long process and they made majority in this refugium. There were also Serbs among them, however the name given to them in mentioned regions was Vlach. This historical duality of the term lead us to new problem nr.

3) However, given the solidifying of modern national identities around the confessional rule (although not exclusively), most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb - this goes only for modern Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia for previous reasons, not in general. This is Serbs of Croatia, not Serbia. It's really true that the most scholars equate it that way, Serbian scholars precisely. So we have problem nr.

4) Mike have source where Vlach is described as a racist word for Serb (where? when?) - so we should erase Vlachs from the article and have only Serbs in Croatia in 16th century - which is well known modern Serbian bias. Maybe that is purpose of that source? Zenanarh (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time when we are having SPA accounts new administrator demand that we show respect and think that his mistakes are good faith edits and we are loosing time and time for nothing.

1821 population census 125,528 Serbs and 122 Vlachs in Civil Croatia.(data taken from another discussion)--Rjecina (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are sidelining the discussion again, I'm afraid. I don't see how the figure you quote has anything to do with the need for the disputed sentence in the "Late middle ages" section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only answer to Mike Babic which is saying again and again that Vlachs has not existed and that this is rasist word for Serbs. You can see that Zenanarh has writen in point 4 about this and this has been my answer in support of his statement. You will need in my thinking about 2-3 months before discovering all old discussions (and consensus) which are defeating 99 % arguments of newly created SPA accounts.--Rjecina (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for point 4, you have to the up. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? where did Mike say Vlachs didn't exist? I have the feeling you really need to make more of an effort at understanding what other people are saying, before you stamp them "nationalist SPAs" and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my thinking he has earned nationalistic SPA name with deleting again and again this statement:"Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs. However, given the solidifying of modern national identities around the confessional rule (although not exclusively), most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb." (we have here solved question about modern scholars) and his comments "to use the term vlah to describe serbs is pejorative in modern times. thus, i will need to see some evidence that this term was used to describe the serbs at that time as you claim" With this statement he is saying that term Vlachs has always described Serbs ????

Second reason for calling him this way is typical Serbian overkill in Ustaše crimes [8] . 1 neutral editor interested in WW II crimes has noticed during RFC about Jasenovac that in article about this camp word sadistic killings (or similar) has been used more times of all others extermination camps put together.

All in all after reading this 2 changes made by Mike Babic he has become Serbian SPA account which is writing about bad Croats and good Serbs.--Rjecina (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not addressing the issue, about this particular statement about Serbs and Vlachs. Not some other strawman statements about Serbs and Vlachs, but specifically the one at the beginning of the "Late Middle Ages" section. I explained above why it is problematic. Read that again, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, calm down. Please, read my postings carefully, I have never said that Vlahs did not exist. Your comments are ludacris and off topic.

Zenanarh, thanks for the reply. I have read the link that you have posted about the term vlah. The website is called "G-d, Bosnia and Bosniaks", so i took all of the information describing Serbs with a grain of salt. I did enjoy reading the article, it definietly had a lot of information that could be incorporated into the article (if there is another source backing it up). I have two major concerns. Firstly, the article concentrates on the Bosnian side Vlah's and not the Croatian side (the article is Serbs of Croatia not Serbs of Bosnia). Secondly, the article concludes with "...when one hears... Russian politicians talking about the need to defend their ancient Slav brothers in Bosnia, that the one component of the Bosnian population which has a large and identifiable element of non-Slav ancestry is the Bosnian Serbs." I do not know how accurate the article is because of the last statement (in my opinion it leans towards the Muslim side). Also, inside the article there is a mention that Serbian scholars identify the term Vlah with shepards. Irrespectively, I think the article link was a great contribution.

After reading the article, the Bosnian Vlah's were "settled" by Ottomans. Conversely, Croatian side Vlah's "escaped" Ottoman prosecution. This was a mistake in "Serbs of Croatia" article, which stated that Vlah's were settled by the Ottomans in Croatia.

Also, the site that you menitoned Zenanarh states the following (racial in my opinion) claims against the Serbs:

"‘Serbs’ in the tongue of the Romans is the word for ’slaves’". http://www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/znacenjerijecisrbin.htm

"Chetniks (Serb) commited genocide" http://www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/chetnikgenocidalcrimes.htm

That is why, altho interesting, the stated facts found in that website should not be used to cite sources.

Mike Babic (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to say that you will stop sending other editors to hell ??

You obviously don't know that one of theories of the origins of the name Serb comes from verb "to serve" in Latin language (actually Bytzanth involved) or in Romance language (earlier spoken by Vlachs). Have you ever heard about "Servilia" - some kind of Medieval Serbian state under Byzantine rule (before Nemanjić's), where Serbs were Byzantine vasals. that's one of the exsisting theories, that's not my own opinion.

About chetniks, well if you claim that they didn't commit genocide in WWII in Bosnia, Herzegovina, eastern Serbia and central Croatia, then civilised discussion is over. In that case you're not objective user worth of losing time here. Just because Serbs were "holly cows" in ex-Yu and Croats persecurted as "Nazi nation" (?!) which was common communist politic in Yu. Do you know that Ustaše were mobilized mostly among Croats and Bosniaks (Muslims) from the same regions as above, since in the same regions Chetniks erased a number of Croatian and Muslim settlements. Noone was clean there, genocide was commited from both sides in WWII. We (Croats and Serbs) are first neighbours, if we want to live as neighbours everyone must admit crime if it was made. You seem to be heavily biased in this matters. BTW 15 years ago, what Serbs made in Croatia and Bosnia was genocide. Is there any other name for their actions in Srebrenica or Škabrnja? Don't provocate, please, stick to agenda! Zenanarh (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that there were a lot more Croats than Serbs in the Partisan ranks. One may not expect it, and I didn't believe it myself until I read several sources confirming the fact. The "Partisans = Serbs" stereotype that has developed lately in Croatia is totally wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was this, the website that you posted was full of ideas and links that are one sided. Thus, even if the claims are true, the website can not be used to source ideas because of this one sided bias. I have sourced why i think the website was one sided.

(IRRELEVENT TO THE DISSCUSSION) If the Serbs were "slaves" write it down, i wont erase it, but only if you have a valid source.

I don't think so, the website is quite objective and is talking about the Vlachs. What Serbs-slaves you're talking about? Zenanarh (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling people "nationalists". It is offensive and a waste of time. According to the modern psychiatry and the police detectives interrogation techniques, you are the ones that are nationalistic and one sided because of self-projection psychological projection. This means that when a person is biased themselves they project this onto other people. So, a editor might call out "vandalism", when in fact they are the ones who are vandalising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I will not reply to any more accusations of nationalism, or other claims since it is a waste of time that could be used to develop the article. Thankfully, I don't have to waste my time on such issues since there is an administer that took his time to watch this article and help us combat false claims and other serious problems. These problems are the causes of the current stagnation in development of the article.

I am sure that nobody can explain me that our actions in blocking and reverting edits of this SPA account has been wrong.

It is not possible that only he know truth and we all others are wrong. This comments is writen because of his need to "develop the article, his need to combat false claims and other serious problems" against which we are having consensus of all editors. In my personal thinking not even child can think that he is new editor and not somebody puppet

For example how is possible to change controversial article I will use Independent State of Croatia which has during last month been edited by 7 or more different editors who are trying to change nationalistic edits of banned user Velebit.

I will now stop writing comments against this user arguments because there is no point in that. He will never understand our writings or NPOV policy. I know very good what will hapen after protection of the article will end--Rjecina (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts were wrong in my opinion. I kept the additions moderate, citing only Croatian sources.

I am having many problems with history sections of this article so I will write my thinking here.

• "According to Serbian linguists the first mention of Serbs is a toponym..." Which Serbian linguist ?? This statement is in my thinking POV. From my historical knowledge there has been even during Yugoslavia great discussion about where has been place called Srb during this time. Serbian historians are putting this place in today town called Serb, Croatian historians are moving this place in Bosnia. Similar comment is about Royal Frankish Annals because they are never saying where has Prince Liudevit escaped. There are saying to Serbs but not where this Serbs are living (if you look today places).
• In the end of this part I am interested to hear what is source os this statement "At this time, the Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia (referring to the ex Roman province)." ?

Srb in Croatia got its name from old-Slavonic language verb "srbati". In that age there were no Serbs around there. Connecting Serbs to that toponim is ridiciolous, which is already shown by the scientists, unfortunately it doesn't make problems to some Serbian quazi-historians, so we will have this same debate for the next ten centuries. Oh my God... In DAI it was written that Serbs occupied some regions of Dalmatia (referring to the ex Roman province), for some Serbian authors recently it means half of Bosnia and Dalmatia, although it actually goes for regions around Drina river (precisely eastern Bosnia and eastern Herzegovina). BTW how come that there were no signs of any Serbian identity at all through all history of Dalmatia (except local situations like in Krajina after 16th century or some other minorities like in Dubrovnik)? In fact Dalmatian Slavs were always recognising themselves as Croats. Are they all wrong? Just one example how some of these Serbian "historians" write their modern constructions: wherever there is a Slavic grave with ceramic pots it is Serbian grave (?!?!). Well, I don't know how good archeologists you are but it's really damn stupid and deserves one never-ending LOL around the world. But these "scientists" simply don't mind. That is proof for their claims because they wrote so. And our problem is that serious scientists simply don't want to lose their time and paper for such stupid and ignorant claims. So there are no "serious" counter-proofs. Of course because it's not science, but it still makes problem here in Wikipedia in a number of articles. I also read somwhere that Serbian language is the oldest language in Europe (in this version all Slavic languages are Serbian in fact) and that Greek and Latin languages developed from Serbian... what to say... Zenanarh (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• De Administrando Imperio has become on wikipedia Serbian Bible for showing how all lands are Serbian. If this must be in article then we need to add statements which are showing how Constantine work is POV (this has been discussed in other articles)

• Can somebody please tell me what statements about Vlach, Serbs and Mongols are doing here ? Maybe I am mistaking but Vlach and Serbs has come in great numbers in Croatia only during Turkish wars.

I am interested to here comments about this article problems (in my thinking)--Rjecina (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was....":
- "...both used as an umbrella term and interchangeable term with Serb" or
- "for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs"
"most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb".
This doesn't stand. The Serbs appear in Croatia in 19th century, when local Orthodox priests, that attended school in Srijemski Karlovci, became indoctrinated there with idea of Serbhood, and began later spreading the idea of Serbhood among local Vlach population in Croatia (and in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro).
Later, Kingdom of Serbia took actions of further spreading and cementing of idea. I owe you some references here.
Croatian Serbs are mostly those Serbized Vlachs. After 1918, Serbian hegemonists began colonizing families of Serbian volunteers in northern Croatia (Slavonia), either by settling them in villages, or by giving them agricultural land, creating the new villages. In both Yugoslavias, Serbs were majority in professional military personnel and in police forces, so these came to live in Croatia (where military authorities sent them) that way also, sometimes creating whole cityquarters/blocks (together with other nationalities in JNA, but reflecting the share of Serbs in JNA).Kubura (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. There's no "Srem" in Croatia, but Srijem. But, in English, the word is Syrmia. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I said: what's that passage doing there? Strangely, you two were revert-warring for keeping it in, and got a fellow editor blocked for wanting to get it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will be maybe surprised but I am legalist. Controversial article will be changed after discussion on talk page. This is controversial article and SPA account has not given reasons for change. On other side it is possible to see that he has lost respect of other editors with false statement writen in article [[9]] or deleting of Vlachs again and again and for the end overkill with Ustaše crimes [[10]] which is must popular Serbian wartime mythology about Croats during and after Yugoslav wars and must popular thing with Serbian nationalistic SPA accounts.

Your stand in this is without question POV because 1 editor has recieved revert ban of 3 months because of edit warring and other has recived 42 hours block for edit warring, insult, 3 RR and using multiple accounts for editing 1 article.--Rjecina (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 1st block, Rjecina, was automatic and computer generated. After the block, I wrote a nice NPOV addition, which you cited as "vandalism", my friend. Your revert, along with your complaint, was unjust and got me banned again. Remember, there are 3 editors who identify themselves as Croatian on this article. There is, on the other hand, only one Serbs, me.

I have asked user DIREKTOR if he was willing to work with me on the article. In hopes that he would bring a different prospective to my additions, he agreed that there was a possibility of cooperation. With my past work, this (unintentionally) proves my efforts and determination for a NPOV article. If I'm banned as a wiki editor, there would not be a Serbian side to the article, which could lead to a bias.

What have you expected with writing how Vlach are pejorative name for Serbs ?? Anybody which is taking seriously this statement will say that Serbs are using pejorative name for Serbs [11] :))

If article is neutral there is no need for Croatian, Serbian or Albanian side

You will not recieve any help from established Serbian users because of agreement with which all Croatia-Serbia edit warring has ended. Your only possible help from Serbia will come from bandit clown and similar SPA accounts about which Serbian users has spoken very clearly [12] --Rjecina (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198582584&oldid=198570352 is a much better version than the current. Do people have any objections? Please take a look at the 7 points under "Outside comments" section. Are there any ideas or problems that you may have with the revert? I'm asking if there are any objections because i intend on reverting the article to that version.

Next 7 days I will be on wiki vaccation and before that I want to give proposition to vote. My proposition is to delete statement in section Late Middle Ages. This statement is:"Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs. However, given the solidifying of modern national identities around the confessional rule (although not exclusively), most modern scholars equate the term Vlach with Serb. Most of the migrants that passed through Croatian lands were nomads. During the Tartar hordes that passed on a raiding campaign through Hungary in 1242, there is a mention of these Vlachs-Serbs as having just been settled in Cetina, Knin and Lika."

In my thinking we are having consensus about this deleting.--Rjecina (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, also, any information that needs sources please add the fact box beside it.

Mike Babic (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or change - "The Ottomans, on the other hand were settling, first orthodox Vlachs, and then Serbs in the area."

Ottomans were settling Serbs in Bosnian Krajina (West of Croatian Krajina). In Croatian Krajina (East of Ottoman Krajina), Austrians "encouraged" the Serbs to settle there by giving them tax exemption.

The sentence is not true since the Ottomans would not settle people into the enemy's first defense. They did, however, settle people into their own defense region (Bosanska Krajina, West of Croatian Krajina). Mike Babic (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we speak about Serbs and Vlachs in Krajina we are having 2 different stories. First is speaking about Serbs and Vlachs which are living Bosnian Krajina and starting to live in Croatian Krajina because of Austrian "tax breaks". Second is speaking about Serbs and Vlachs which has become Krajina "citizens" after 17 century peace deals when parts of Ottoman territory is annexed to Krajina. You must not forget that until 1537 Ottomans has taken all Northern Dalmatia and great part of Lika. In 17 century peace agreements this territory is given to Habsburgs or Venice !--Rjecina (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, but why would Ottomans settle more Serbs in the Croatian part of their newly conquered territory, when serbs that settled in croatia, fought against the ottomans?

They have settled Serbs and Vlachs on Ottoman side of border. I will use like example Knin. In 1522 town has fallen to Ottoman hands and latter it has been "liberated" by Venice only in 1688. Similar story is about other parts of Krajina. You need to find on internet map of Croatia in year 1600. This map will best show borders between Habsburgs and Ottomans before great parts of "today" Krajina are "liberated" from Ottomans. On that map you will see that Ottoman has transfered Serbs from one to another Ottoman territory during XVI and first half of XVII century. --Rjecina (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, on the 24th, tomorrow, the article becomes unprotected. I intend to change the article to the previous version because the previous version "looks" more professionally done. I want everyone to update the article, discuss the article with me and other editors and work together on this article. Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians dont have to like each other, but we should still work together online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a website that outline what the past and current demographics of Serbs in Croatia was/is. It is cited by "uman Rights Watch World Report: Croatia 2001-2003" and by "US Department of State Human Rights Reports: Croatia 2001-2003."

I feel that citation are satisfactory and that the information is valid. Does anyone have any objections to this website? http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=34401#summary

Mike Babic (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this source will not be OK. Editor which has writen Assessment for Serbs in Croatia is having very low knowledge about Croatia-Serbia history. For example I will use his words:

"The origins of conflict between Croats and Serbs in the former Yugoslavia can be traced back at least as far as the late 1920s when Franz Ferdinand's imposition of dictatorial rule...." ?????

You can use for example Human Rights Watch World Report (which is use like source for assessment), but you need to be more clear which things you want to change ? Period after 1991 is 1 great compromise and if somebody start to write how bad are Serbs situation in today Croatia he can expect response in article (example:incident in eastern Slavonia where Croatian children has been going in school which is teaching only on Serbian language !) --Rjecina (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem very low for people living in Croatia and the "Rest of the world". Could someone cite the table? I will look around for information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 10:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is list for Slavonia during period in question:

• Henrik Gisingovac 1291
• Jakov Kopas 1298. - 1299.
• Ladislav od plem. Ratold 1300.
• Henrik Gisingovac 1301. - 1309.
• Stjepan Babonić 1310. - 1316.
• Ivan Babonić 1316. - 1322.
• Nikola Omodejev 1322. - 1324.

Problem solved.--Rjecina (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean it's in the gap between 1291 and 1298?

P.S. That's from that book printed in NDH during WWII, right? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right [13] but this list is standing until we find other source .... You will see that there is many years when nobody has been ban (in this list) --Rjecina (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I it is very sad that we don't know anything about our history. The most accurate data for the years from 1225 to 1476 is - the number of Bans: 52 (!) and that data is just stated for most of the time, without precise names. I hope further research can be done with this... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Or user which has edited article about this on Wikipedia has looked this list or all names are OK and in missing years nobody has been ban because this NDH list is showing 52 bans ? --Rjecina (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Good point. Btw I don't think Vladislav received the title of Ban in precise. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking other internet sources answer is Babonići are ruling Slavonia in period 1290-1325 [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] .

Maybe I am make mistake but this is overkill of sources which are saying that Babonići are ruling Slavonia and not Stefan Vladislav II of Syrmia.--Rjecina (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, but all the sources dealing with Vladislav say that he came to own all the lands of Slavonia save for those by the Frangepans and Babonics. --21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are his land when everything else is ruled by Tomasina Morosini with title Duke of Slavonia (ducissa totius Solavoniae)--Rjecina (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know something about that. Named Duchess (not Duke) in 1293 and quelled the Babonic rebellion in 1295, right? Also that's the year Charles Martel dies and Dragutin and Vladislav cross to the "real" King, who confirms them their lands. Hm, you're right - this is pretty confusing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has been Duchess between 1293 and 1299. To tell the truth I am having only 1 source for end year but ....--Rjecina (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for categorization WikiProject Serbia. These Serbs are citizens of Croatia, not of Serbia. Placing this article under that category is just another attempt of presenting of Croatian territory as Serbian. Don't play with that, that's open expansionism. I ask involved users to not to play dumb. Kubura (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's standard practice in the Wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few examples, Pax? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Talk:Kosovo, Talk:Republika Srpska. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but these articles are not about national minorities, like the Serbs of Croatia article, they are about state entities, a different matter altogether. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those state entities are not parts of Serbia or Albania, are they? ;) Same case. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I must disagree. Articles on state entities can not be used as a precedent for articles dealing with national minorities, the two have little or nothing in common. For example, it may be acceptable for the article on SAO Krajina to be part of Wikiproject Serbia, this article is about people, not things, however. And these people are, indeed, citizens of Croatia not Serbia. Now if it is Wikipedia standard practice for articles on national minorities to be part of the Wikiproject of their main country, well and good, but if it is not, then the article cannot logically be part of Wikiproject Serbia. Also, Serbs are a constituent nation of BiH, but they do not have the same standing in Croatia (the main point of argument, I think we can all remember).

Therefore I must ask you once again in good faith, are you are able to corroborate your claim that standard practice for articles on national minorities to be part of the Wikiproject of their main country? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that that's referring to more to the fact that Albania, Serbia, etc. are nation-states, and it has nothing to do with the respective states. Therefore, the fact that Talk:Bosnian Serbs has it has got nothing to do with any sort of status (their constitutionality). Next to that, the issue constitutional-national minority is a bogus one, BH's unique specific status is practically unique in the whole wide world. But what do I know... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, BiH dosn't matter, its not the only country in the world. At least three national minorities with their nation-state's Wikiproject would be nice, if you want to prove its standard practice. I personally have no idea whether what you say is true or not, I just thought you could give us some kind of proof, that's all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dunno. That's just what I thought. Remove it from here and add it to Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina if you find it that wrong. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Palestinian Jew is part of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. There's no reason why this article couldn't be a part of both projects. SWik78 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Talk:Armenians is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and Wikipedia:WikiProject France. Why is this one any different? SWik78 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you all know, we're dealing with a problematic region to say the least. This may be (and has been) interpreted as an "unfair" classification, considering the fact that the people are Croatian, not Serbian, citizens. The fighting of the Yugoslav wars actually started with Serbs of Croatia declaring that the territories they live on are not part of Croatia (I'm not going into whether this stance was provoked or not). All I'm saying is that there is no reason for this article to be part of Wikiproject Serbia, if that is not standard practice (and it would appear that its not, I did a little checking). Now, I want to make it clear that I don't really mind that much, but in my opinion this will be a source of constant problems. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think it is standard practice. Nagorno-Karabakh is a region geographically and politically within the autonomous, independent and internationally recognized country of Azerbaijan. The region's population is mostly Armenian. On December 10, 1991, the Armenians from this region held a referendum and declared the region independent. To this day, the self proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic remains not recognized by any single country in the world, including Armenia. Yet both articles are still listed within the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan. The political and historical notability to an encyclopedia will not end from the Azerbaijani perspective if the world ever recognized N-K as independent and, likewise, Armenian interest is also notable. Inclusion of the article into WPArmenia does not imply the region should belong to Armenia or the Armenian people. It's simply a topic that Azerbaijani and Armenian editors have knowledge of and can contribute to it. The article on Serbs of Croatia is no different. I agree with DIREKTOR that this is a touchy subject (it may be an understatement, actually) but the article's inclusion into WPSerbia is not politically motivated, it's encyclopedic. SWik78 (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did a little research and it would appear it really is standard practice (pretty much). The Wikiproject is fine by me, but I still think this will be a source of problems, due to the historical context. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Germans of Poland, no Polish Germans -> redirected to German minority in Poland, no German Poles, no Poles of Germany; there's only Polish minority in Germany. There are no French Spaniards, no Spaniards of France, no Spannish Frenchmen, no French Spainards, etc. As you see all these pretentious titles are unnaccepted. Because of inevitable political motivation and monstrous context. Isn't it time for Serbs to become Serbs of Serbia or Serbian Serbs finally.

In Encyclopedia only one title is possible: Serbian minority in Croatia as well as Croatian minority in Serbia. That's the only way to keep Project:Serbia here, or to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia there. Otherwise this is article for deletion. This is the only right and possible encyclopedic approachment. Zenanarh (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croats of Serbia, Croats of Vojvodina, Croats of Boka Kotorska, Croats of Slovenia, Croats of the Republic of Macedonia, Croats in Slovakia and Croats of Romania. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear so :D. But maybe its time they all be renamed into the more proper form? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then have to rename Albanians in Kosovo, Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia, Albanians in Greece, Albanians in Montenegro, Albanians in Serbia, Albanians of Romania, Serbs of Montenegro, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs of the Republic of Macedonia, Serbs in Hungary, Serbs of Romania, Serbs of Albania, Serbs in Greece, Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgarians in Serbia, Bulgarians in Hungary, Bosniaks of Serbia, Bosniaks of Montenegro, Romanians of Serbia, Romanians in Russia, Jews of Afghanistan, Jews of Nigeria, Jews in Norway, Jews in the Philippines, Jews in Tajikistan, Roma people of Hungary, Roma in Spain, Hungarians in Vojvodina, Hungarians in Slovakia, Hungarians in Ukraine, Slovaks in Vojvodina, Czechs and Slovaks in Bulgaria, Roma people of Vojvodina, Roma people in Serbia, Slovaks in Bulgaria, Roma in Bulgaria, Roma in Kosovo, Roma in Turkey, Roma in Ireland, Roma people of Greece, Greeks in Romania, Greeks in Turkey, Greeks in Egypt, Greeks in Armenia, Greeks in Bulgaria, Greeks in Hungary, Greeks in Argentina, Greeks in Chile, Greeks in Ukraine, Greeks in Germany, Greeks in Brazil, Greeks in Panama, Greeks in France, Greeks in Cuba, Greeks in Belgium, Greeks in Saudi Arabia, Greeks in Serbia, Greeks in Sweden, Greeks in Switzerland, Greeks in Uruguay, Greeks in Poland, Greeks in Venezuela, Greeks in New Zealand, Greeks in South Africa, Bulgarians in Ukraine, Montenegrins of Albania, Montenegrins in Argentina, Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegrins of Croatia, Montenegrins of Serbia, Montenegrins of Kosovo, Montenegrins of Vojvodina, Czechs in Croatia, Czechs of Romania, Germans in Argentina, Germans in Bulgaria, Germans in Korea, Germans in the Czech Republic, Germans of Romania, Germans of Hungary, Germans of Yugoslavia, Germans of Paraguay, Germans of Kazakhstan, Germans of Croatia, Germans of Serbia, Russians in Korea, Russians in Ukraine, Russians in Kazakhstan, Russians in Australia, Russians in Japan, Russians in Bulgaria, Russians in Georgia, Russians in Finland, Russians in Mexico, Ukrainians of Romania, Ukrainians of Argentina, Ukrainians of Australia, Ukrainians in Russia, Ukrainians in Armenia, Belarusians in Russia, Turks in Germany, Turks in the Republic of Macedonia, Turks in Bulgaria, Turks in Canada, Turks in Belgium, Turks in Sweden, Turks in Kosovo, Turks in Azerbaijan, Turks in Japan, Turks in Austria, Turks in Liechtenstein, Turks in Australia, Turks of Romania, Lithuanians in Brazil, Lithuanians in Ireland, Italians of Romania and all the countless others... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow... I think you made your point --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we look other similar articles it is important to notice that category:History of the Serbs is wrong. For example I can use like example all articles for which PaxEquilibrium has given links. Only Serbian minorities are having category:History of the ..... Right question if if all other articles are having wrong category or only Serbian minorities is having wrong category ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why that is there is because there was a History of Serbs of Croatia article or something like that, but it was merged together with this one - hence, the category.

...or that Serbs in Croatia really are history. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to believe that all articles about Serbs has been called History of Serbs. This category has been added by PANONIAN to all articles Serbs of ..... (I have checked this and Montenegro)

We will all agree that category History of the Serbs in this article is against Wikipedia standard ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/general/_croatia/ Your opinion? Mike Babic (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian revisionism, propaganda, paranoia, a lot of prefabricated numbers and data,... Just a result of unsuccessful and defeated Serbian expansionistic politics from last 100 years. An attempt of an agressor to act like a victim, after it was beaten. Whenever Serbs have a chance to organize themselves to a modern society on their own territory, within their own political borders, they are never capable of doing it. To hide their own weakness, unreadiness, inability, they always dig the dust on their neighbours territories, awakening the demons of the past, which occured as reflections of their own Serbian actions, actions that the Serbs are not ready to take responsibility of. Manic depression of a Serbian universal political being. Sad and shameful. Zenanarh (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique view, interesting to read. What about the website? Some pictures and stated opinions are backed by reputable sources. In addition, the website only refelct the lives of Serbs who lived in Croatia and not Serbs are a whole. Therefor, it is a great addition to the article Serbs of Croatia.

Mike Babic (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you must be joking. I suggest you to share your propaganda on some anti-Croatian forum and not in encyclopedia. Zenanarh (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow all those massacres Serbs comitted in Croatia are forgotten and nothing is in the article about that. Serbs are playing victim again,while they were the aggresor.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamefull view. Lets discuss the contents of the website. In world war II, Serbs are not the agressors. On the website, there are real photos of Croatians sawing off Croatian Serbs heads off. I will post more links. The website also talkes about how in 1990's Croatian Serbs are removed from the Croatian constitution. Moreover, at the same time period, the website discusses Serb protests and cites that 2,650 Croatian Serbs are killed or missing. Lastly, the website points out the rising neo-nazi movement in Croatia in present time and connects it to the past neo-nazi movements in Croatia. In essence, I'm pointing out real historical events that Croatian Serbs lived in and I should have every right to cite and add the information to the article Serbs of Croatia.

http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/images/hrvatska/ustashi-killing-serbian-man.jpg Mike Babic (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Babić is playing dumb. What was the role of the Chetniks in 1st 3 years of WWII? They were innocent babies? And all those burned down villages and masacres in Bosnia and Croatia during WWII were done by the Martians? Croats were agressors? The partisan resistance to the Nazi's was started by Croats in Croatia. Mr. Babić make your own blog and push your POV there. Zenanarh (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog is never source for wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into a personal attack with anyone here. Thus no reply to your attacks.

Mike Babic (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The total population of Serbs who originate directly from Croatia is estimated at around 700,000 people"

1991 Yugoslav pre-war consensus of Croatia shows 585.000 Serbs.

Some moved out of Croatia before 1991 and are counted. Also, some lived in Serbia, Bosnia, yet originated from HR.

Mike Babic (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,that as reliable as the number of Serbs that left so-called Krajina given by the "RSK govenment in exile". They published a number of 800.000 Serbs that fled during Operaton Storm. LOL.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little too much Mike, 700,000!!? That's not 14%, that's almost a quarter of the total population(!) Post a source for the pre-war census or don't include that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you removed the image of the population graph again? Mike Babic (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After 24 hours I have reinstated the graph that was removed by Rjecina without an explaination. In additon, I'm warning user Rjecina that if he removes further work without discussing why because of his action i will lable him a vandal and take appropriate actions. Mike Babic (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me source that number of Serbs in Croatia has fallen between 2001 and 2008 ! Only source of this statement is Mike Babic because you have writen 2 sources which are speaking different story--Rjecina (talk)

11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--Rjecina (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all those here who are interested in Serbs. Here is a great website to learn about us. http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/jilic-croatia.html Mike Babic (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Mike Babic (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting much lower number now that im researching the demographics.

"120,000 had registered their return to Croatia by August 2006. But international and local organizations estimate that only 60 to 65 percent remain permanently in Croatia"

Thus, there are only 72,000 to 78,000 Serbs in Croatia right now !!!

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/croati14774.htm Mike Babic (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been researching the question of how many Serbs have returned for Operation Storm, so I peeked in here to see what others have come up with. (I already found this same HRW report.) The trouble with your "72,000 to 78,000" figure is you are ignoring the Serbs who remained in Croatia. They did not all leave. Therefore, this is not an accurate figure for the number of "Serbs in Croatia right now." If you are are strictly speaking of those who have returned, then I see no reason not to quote to HRW report and let the readers do the math for themselves. Civilaffairs (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Hello, i was wondering if you can share some sources that you came across? I would like a helping hand very much in finding out the numbers.

Mike Babic (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to refugees and returnees, the most reliable source is of course UNHCR. In May of 2007, UNHCR reported on a study they had completed: Less than 50 percent of registered returnees live in Croatia: UNHCR study. More info on IDPs, refugees and returnees can be found on the UNHCR website .

A word of caution if you are not used to dealing with UNHCR figures. Some UNCHR reports inlude IDPs, refugees and returnees of all ethnicities combined. In the case of Croatia, these would include ethnic Croats, ethnic Hungarians, ethnic Serbs, etc.

I have mostly been looking at IDPs, refugees and returnees, not total population. Is there a problem with the official Croatian 2001 census figure of 176,000? Unless I'm mistaken, they only counted ethnic Serbs who reside in Croatia. In other words, they did not include those who registered for return but do not actually live there, so there is no need to subtract non-resident "returnees" out of the census figures. Civilaffairs (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Oops, I just noticed the total population of ethnic Serbs according to the 2001 census is given in the article as 201,631, not 176,000. Therefore the source I googled up must have a very strange method of rounding off figures, or it is simply wrong. Ah, I see now. Those were preliminary figures, so 176,000 is wrong.

I may have also been wrong about the census not including non-resident "returnees", judging from an HRW report, too. Is it possible to find official information on the 2001 census where the methodology is given? No source is given for the 201,631 figure, which I assume is from the census. If it can be found online, it would be helpful to add the source. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Hello, once again. Thanks for the your information.

I agree lets use the UN sources listed above. So current Serb population in Croatia is 50% of 120,000 plus those whom remained after Oluja? Also, "43 percent of returnees are aged over 60".

I want to state that 201,000 is not a realistic number of Serbs living in Croatia. So im looking for a number that is realistic and reflective of the current status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you will find the number you are looking for. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I don't know where to find that number. The 2001 census breaks out ethnicity and numbers abroad, but these are not cross-referenced. There is no way to extrapolate how many of the persons abroad are of which ethnicity.

As far as I know, all you can do is search for a reliable news account or journal article which may have have cross-referenced information or note the number of Serbs abroad counted in the census. A couple of links I have come across which might be helpful to you:

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN004464.pdf

http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/362

I'm glad you agree on using the UNHCR figures. HRW often summarizes the reports of other agencies, and occasionally even summaries of summaries of reports. It is best to go to the original report if possible, for obvious reasons.

Speaking of sources, over on the Operation Storm talk page I have proposed taking a cue from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation to create source guidelines to help achieve NPOV. Perhaps it needs to be project-wide effort, rather than specific to one article. All articles in the project would benefit, and more effort could be put into improving articles rather than arguing over sources. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_lyon_and_andrew_stroehlein/2007/11/double_trouble.html

Some sources claim that the Serbs were cleansed. I think that we should add that to the article. Mike Babic (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show as this words because in article I only see:

"In the 1990s, Bosnia fell victim to Belgrade's efforts to create a Greater Serbia, with well known results: genocide, ethnic cleansing, systematic rape, concentration camps, a brutal three-and a-half-year war and the Srebrenica massacre"

I still wait your source for falling number of Serbs after 2001 ! Today I will again delete table.--Rjecina (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 When somebody use like source site www.rastko.org.yu we in Croatia are laughing. Site is clearly POV and I have shown 1 time before evidence which has been accepted by users from Serbia.
• 2 "Military Border was a separate political unit within the Habsburg monarchy for centuries and only at the beginning of the eighties of the 19th century it was annexed to the civilian Croatia" ????? Military border has been created from Croatian territory for defense against Turks. After end of Turkish danger territory has been returned (not annexed but returned or restored) to Croatia.
• 3 Drop of population has been solved earlier on this talk page.
• 4 It is possible to write that Dubrovnik has been Italian, Turkish, Croatian, Serbian or Montenegrin town. Similar thing we can write about Belgrade (which is under Serbian control less of 200 years) but we do not write this--Rjecina (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that Republic of Dubrovnik was part of Croatia? Please be more carefull when editing and correct your mistake. Mike Babic (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he say that? Zenanarh (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Dubrovnik was indeed not a part of any Croatian state, but it was a country populated by Catholic Croats of a distinctly Shtokavian Croatian language and culture. Ivan Gudulić, for example, is considered to be one of the most important early Croatian writers. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He undid the part where it said Repulic of Dubrovnik was not part of Croatia.

Mike Babic (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suppose he was wrong, however that depends on the wider context. Could you give us the whole picture? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we expect that you stop bombarding this article with POV sources? Can we expect that you stop editing this article in way you're doing it right now - building POV constructions to prove that Croatia is not Croatia and similar. Can we expect from you to stop editing this article by anti-Croat statements. Can we expect from you to finally edit what it says in the title: Serbs of Croatia? Zenanarh (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking the Editor and start attacking the work. That is the Wikipedia way.

Mike Babic 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not presume to teach other people the "Wikipedia way". We are not attacking the editor, we are attacking the work, i.e. your biased sources of appalling quality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE Start attacking the information. Change all information as you please but add sources to your claims. Stop attacking the editors. This is taking too much of my time to defend myself against baseless accusations. In addition, the time could be used to develop the article. I want to warn people that attacking editors is against Wikipedia rules. Thus, please be mindfull of this. Mike Babich Mike Babic (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are biased, terrible, and POV to say the least. Stop corrupting the article with data from Serb radical sites. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your views and personal attacks are dissgusting because of their racial nature. My sources are neutral.

http://www.rastko.org.yu/strani/e-impresum.html#about

UN Humans Rights

Croatian Statistics

How dare you attack my integrity!

Mike Babic (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP WASTING MY TIME Prove me information wrong. Otherwise, you are vandalising the article.

Mike Babic (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, no one is attacking your integrity, we are attacking your sources. We do not have to disprove your data, that is illogical, you have to properly prove your data first. You cannot ask of a person to prove a negative, it does not work: how would you disprove my claim that there is an invisible, untouchable pink elephant right behind you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will now show POV and false claims of http://www.rastko.org.yu using article which has been earlier used like source [19]

• Point 2 in article: Only Serbs has created 2 independent states (Serbia and Montenegro). Majority of Montenegro population do not agree with this claim (POV ?)
• 3 Serbia has lost 47 % of population in WWI. After reading similar stuff in wiki articles I am really interested to see Serbian census from 1910 (or similar year)
• 4 Right of Serbs self-determination ? It is interesting how in example Russia has not asked for self determination of Russians ?
• 4 basis of the principle of the right to self-determination, the Serbs, along with Slovenes and Croats, separated from Austria-Hungary. false Croatian parliament has with vote ended union between Croatian Kingdom and Hungarian Kingdom.
• 5 EU and USA are unjust towards Serbs
• 5 Again question speach about the right to self-determination of the Yugoslav peoples which is against international laws. See end of Soviet Union--Rjecina (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm, going to restate your point before I get to mine. Your view is that it is hard to prove made up up facts that the website states. On the other hand, i see it as the exact opposite. For example, when I write that on February 17 1990 Log Revolution happened, you could come up with a source that says otherwise. Thus proving my point wrong. The website deals exclusivly with Serbs and is written by a proffesor in the University of Belegrade: (U of Belegrade is world recognized, i personally know because my mothers degree is recognized in Canada).

Secondly, your points are appreciated but I must refute. For example: "Point 2 in article: Only Serbs has created 2 independent states (Serbia and Montenegro). Majority of Montenegro population do not agree with this claim. I'm not sure the point behind it but I would like to point out that the website is written in 1995. Serbia has lost 47 % of population in WWI. After reading similar stuff in wiki articles I am really interested to see Serbian census from 1910. I'm not sure if it is the case, I know that Serbs did lose a lot of people:(I think it was 1/3 of the total population).

Irrespectivly, I belive that the site should be used as a baseline and additional facts should be added. Also, I belive that if lets say 5% of the statements on the site could be proven wrong then we could remove all of the information. Mike Babic (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disscussing the infromation and not just labeling it as something different.

Like historian I have seen creation of many nationalistic myths in ex Yugoslavia which has been used to create hate between different nations and I hate this... If your mother has ended university before June 1991 degree is OK in Croatia. In May I will visit cousins in Belgrade :)

Now lets return to "job"...

I have stoped to attack article in point number 5 but now I will continue from 6 to 10

• 6 "Serbian people became the hostage of the exclusively administrative borders of the former Yugoslav republics" This is bad joke ! Border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia is having 290 years (-Period of Yugoslav banovina) and border between Croatia and Slovenia is much older.
• 7 this point is short version of Memorandum SANU and we know signification of this memorandum.
• 8 Crying about Kosovo and Vojvodina and asking why Dalmatia is not having autonomy is misleading because article is not saying why Kosovo and Vojvodina has recieved autonomy. Answer is Serbs are not absolute majority.
• 9 Again demand for self-determination of people and not republics. This is typical example of Slobodan Milošević warmonger policy. He has asked for self-determination of Serbs but he has refused to allow self-determination of Albanians (on Kosovo and south Serbia) and Hungarians (Vojvodina)
• 9 During history Dubrovnik has been much a Serbian as it was a Croatian town (we have spoken about that)
• 9 Roman Catholic Serbs ??? Are they joking ? We all know that extreme right wing Croats think that Bosniaks are Croats of muslim faith and Serbs are Croats of ortodox faith. We all know that extreme right wing Serbs think that Bosniaks are Serbs of muslim faith and Croats are Serbs of catholic faith. This statement is more than enough to declare article POV.
• 10 It is saying everything about NPOV position of article.

If you are interested to read about change of borders before and after end of Yugoslavia you can read my article on Croatian wiki. Article is writen because of many people which are crying how Croatian or Serbian territory is stoled by bad communists. On english wiki article has been deleted by nationalist which has thinking that it is offensive ????

I am sure that you will agree with minimal 50 % of points which I have writen and because of so many "mistakes" article can't not be used on wikipedia --Rjecina (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina I want to agree with you but I'm not well read on the topics that you have discussed above. I'm 100% sure that the website that i posted is one sided but it doesnt need to mean that the information is wrong. I can say however because I'm reading a book The Bridge on The Drina, that Bosnians are Serb or Croat converts who took the Muslim faith. I can say thin because the book is known for its historical accuracy. (Ivo Andric was Croatian).

I think that point 6 was explaining the administrative division that Tito made or King Alexandar who drew up the borders of Croatia/Serbia,etc. I'm not sure.

I haven't added any facts that are unprovable. I could actually help you research some things that could disprove the website. I don't mind because fake statements downt have a place here and true statements only will explain the history to the readers. Mike Babic (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please explain deleted section current problems and "great" difference between this section and section recent history  ?? In my thinking between this 2 section there is no difference. Text of deleted section is:

Since the end of the Tudjman era, tensions have been reduced but significant problems remain. The two pressing issues are (i) high levels of official and societal discrimination against Serbs and (ii) the indeterminate position of hundreds of thousands of Serb refugees (some of whom have returned) who have not had their property restored or been compensated for their losses. New laws continue to be introduced to combat discrimination, demonstrating an effort on the part of authorities, but it will take time to assess their implementation and efficacy. Recent court decisions also suggest progress on property restoration and allocation of reconstruction funds to Serbs but, again, these are small advances relative to the size of the challenge. Lengthy and in some cases unfair proceedings, particularly in lower level courts, remain a major problem for returnees pursuing their rights in court. Croatian Serbs continue to be discriminated against in access to employment and in realising other economic and social rights. Some cases of violence and harassment against Croatian Serbs continue to be reported

In my thinking section Recent history is speaking similar stuff. Can somebody tell me if my thinking is wrong and in reasons why is wrong !--Rjecina (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it and merge it.

Mike Babic (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All of them were officially called upon to stay [By Tudjiman" shortly before the operation"

While planes were dropping bombs and artillery shells fell on streets, the president was calling people to stay on the radio. And his stupid little voice kept repeting "Stay at your homes, you are citizens of Croatia". Meanwhile my friends mom got killed by an artillery shell and my friend ran down to my basement and said "THEY KILLED MY MOM". I should add picture of those people who stayed! Mike Babic (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say what you want but they have be called to stay.

I do not know if you have been reading but on other side UN has asked Croatia to open roads toward Bosnian territory controled by Serbs so that everybody who want can leave Croatia.--Rjecina (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it seems only Mike's friend had a mom. This user is so shameless that he writes about 3 days of artillery attacks on Knin, while there was 4 years of constant artillery attacks on half of all Croatian cities, resulting in thousands of killed civilians etc... I've got no nerves for this. Zenanarh (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to the appropriate article. Don't attack me. Help improve this article or go type what you think on your personal page.

Mike Babic (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mike: Tudjman probably wanted all the Serbs to leave? Yes. Tuđman wanted a purely Croatian nation-state? Yes. However, he simply could not use his army in the same way as Serbs in Bosnia did. Why? Here's why: because the whole operation was backed by the United States (NATO), which de facto armed the HV and organized its tactics so that it would not have to send its own troops in. However, if you're going to receive assistance from the US, you have to follow their rules. And the United States of America could not be seen arming and organizing an ethnic cleansing army, this is why Tuđman had to ask the Serbs to stay (he most certainly did), this is why the troops could not actively go through with ethnic cleansing. Now some officers did use ethnic cleansing, but they had to be rogues. These men were indicted. Tuđman may or may not have ordered violence against Serbs, the point is we just don't know. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, you have certainly elevated the quality of this discourse. Someday, perhaps the whole story will be known. As you say, "we just don't know" whether Tudjman personally ordered violence at this time. You are probably correct in surmising that Tudjman made that announcement at the behest of the US. We have some indications that the US was somewhat embarrassed by the excesses of Op Storm. One US official commented "the trouble with puppets is they, too, pull on the strings" (an oblique way of saying Tudjman and/or HV did not exactly follow all of the "rules" and caused some headaches in Foggy Bottom). In his book, Holbrooke called the Croatian Army "our junkyard dogs" which I presume Croats find as distasteful a phrase as I do as an American. Lastly, Carl Bildt's quip about "the most efficient ethnic cleansing we've seen in the Balkans" was intended to be more of a dig at the US than at Croatia, I imagine.

On the other hand, how does one "use" or "carry out" ethnic cleansing? Op Storm followed the classic Fizzy Bottle Doctrine of "first, shake the bottle" (artillery bombardment plus allowing some violence against/killings of civilians, strafe a few refugee columns -- doesn't have to be huge numbers killed, just enough and widespread enough to terrorize -- also handy to have a "partner" like Dudakovic's V Corps to do the really messy end of the terrorizing). Second, allow some of the contents to spray out. Once the refugee exodus is well underway but getting in the way of finishing off any remaining military, it's time to "push the cork back into the bottle" (seal the exits -- cut off the escape route -- this was done at Dvor). Shake it up again and let the pressure (anxiety, fear, thirst) build up until any remaining military forces now trapped by their own civilians surrender. Third, allow the cork to pop (open passage via Lipovac) and the frightened and trapped people burst out of the area, frantic to get away. Finally, destroy homes and erect legal and other impediments to return. Clean, efficient, with "details" easily scapegoated.

Mike Babic, you have a point about actions speaking louder than words. As Rjecina and DIREKTOR have pointed out, Tudjman did say those words. The actions which preceded and followed them are fairly well documented in NPOV sources such as Reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, UNSCR 1009, and various reports from ECMM, OSCE, UNHCHR, UNHCR, and various other international agencies, plus press accounts from a number of accepted independent news outlets. As DIREKTOR noted, there are some things which are not recorded, and it is not up to us to speculate. Let us not disparage the reader. The reader will compare words and actions and decide for him/herself.

Rijecina, the source you have used for "UN has asked Croatia to open roads toward Bosnian territory controled by Serbs so that everybody who want can leave Croatia" is state-controlled HRT, hardly an NPOV source. It is further filtered through translation. There are plenty of NPOV sources available in English for statements by UN officials. Secondly, Mr. Akashi's correct title was "Special Representative of the Secretary-General" (abbreviated "SRSG"). I trust you will correct his title and find a more suitable NPOV source.

Finally, whoever wrote the heading "HAHAHAHAH" for a section of the talk page dealing with death and destruction is beyond the pale. This is not an opinion forum slugfest nor is it a junior high school. We are editing an encyclopedia. Let us rise to a higher standard.Civilaffairs (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

The events of Operation [Desert] Storm ;) have been thoroughly blurred in the Balkans by contradicting interpretations. The Croats view it as a great victory of their nation, oblivious of the fact that the whole event was simply NATO using the HV for its dirty work on the ground. The Serbs tend to exaggerate the victims and equate the Croatian actions with their own army's, also "forgetting" NATO and the fact that the Croats were really unable to truly perform ethnic cleansing due to the support they enjoyed. One double-crosses the US at their own peril, sanctions would have been inevitable if the embarrassment to the Clinton administration was any more significant. This creates fundamentally different POVs that conflict often on Wiki.
Anyway, upon better examination of the operation's execution, it's painfully clear to anyone more acquainted with these things that the operation employed textbook NATO operational maneuver doctrine, and that it had little or nothing to do with JNA strategies the HV officers favored up to 1994. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is "painfully" clear. Well said. On the other hand, Tudjman got what he wanted out of the deal, no? Many see him as playing a very shrewd game with the UN and US. They may have a point. It worked out rather nicely for him. Mind you, I am not making light of the suffering of any side.

I don't want to hijack this discussion or go off on a tangent, but I am wondering about the use of the term "ethnic cleansing". Does it mean different things to different people? Does it mean eliminating or drastically reducing the population of a certain ethnicity from a country/region/city by whatever means (killing, expelling, terrorizing, destroying homes)? What does it mean to you? I'm wondering if it means one thing to foreigners who read about it and another to the people who live in the countries of the former Y.

It appears editors have reached a consensus on using this term, but sometimes I wonder whether we would be better off using terms at least closer to those used in international law, like "forcible transfer" or even "expulsion"? Maybe not, but it would be helpful to me to understand if you would be so kind as to point me to previous discussions or clarify for me. Civilaffairs (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Personally, I think the guy just lucked out. He was probably praying the Serbs would leave, and they did. Had they simply stayed put in their full numbers, he could not have removed them. I think their own propaganda played its part in frightening the Serbs about the "Ustaše" that were coming to get them.

Well, in my view it means "eliminating or drastically reducing the population of a certain ethnicity from a country/region/city by whatever means", but I'd like to make a point: soldiers simply moving into an area are not in my opinion committing ethnic cleansing if the local population evacuates because of what they might do. They really have to "kill, expel, terrorize, and destroy homes" before that can be ethnic cleansing. In other words, to say Operation Storm was ethnic cleansing is an inaccurate generalization. There were incidents, but the vast majority of the population fled because of what the soldiers might have done, before they even got to them.
In any case, Tuđman valued his presidency too much to allow real ethnic cleansing had the majority of the Serbs remained in their homes. He would have probably faced severe sanctions, and an American-backed political opposition exploiting the resulting economic stagnation (something ala Milošević). In short, I think Operation Storm should not be branded as "ethnic cleansing". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be involved in this discussion too much since I was a participiant of these accidents, not "Storm" actually, but my unit was, so I have a lot of informations from the first hand. It's hard for me to follow this discussion and stay aside. Therefore a few points: 1) action "Storm" was never planned to be an ethnic cleansing, orders given to all units were to strictly follow international millitary law; this operation was planned to neutralize Serbian paramillitary forces; orders given to all units were to save the civilians - explain them that they can stay in Croatia, or if they want to leave to give them such opportunity; 2) in the same time it was known that Serbs already planned massive leaving, it was very well known 15 days before the action; their media produced an atmosphere of fear - like "Ustaše will kill you" and similar... 3) Tuđman's words on the radio were just a part of legal action; it's stupid to calculate what was his wishes; 4) name "Storm" speaks for itself, the action was planned to be quickly finished - there was no time for anything else than attacking millitary points; 5) that's how the action was developing, actually according to testimonies Krajina was almost already empty, many Croatian soldiers didn't spare a bullet at all; 6) there were conflicts just at some strategical points; 7) the Serbs were very scared thanks to their authorities - this resulted with some isolated conflicts with the civilians who didn't leave and were "defending" their houses - it was very sad part of the story - there were a several similar incidents - example: a Croatian unit approaches to the Serbian house with 2 oldmen inside, asking them to get out and nothing bad will happen, but the oldmen are already scared to death, they have weapon and they use it, killing one or two Croat soldiers from the unit which is not ambushed, but rather stay in the open space to show them their positive intensions, a civilian house automatically becomes millitary target - there's also instruction not to get to long crossfires, the action should be quick, so one hand rocket into the window resolves a problem, resulting in 2 dead Serbian civilians and burned house; only a several of such incidents were recorded; 8) "Storm" was really quick, in 3 days Croatian forces crossed 200, 300 kilometers - the resistance was much weaker than it was expected; 9) operation "Storm" officially ended 7 days after its beginning, during this period there were no war crimes in fact; 10) problems occured in the next period, Krajina fled into civil authority, it seems it was not well organised, it was hard for police units to cover wide, almost totally empty area consinting of many little villages (of a few houses), almost all crimes were commited in that period (about 30 days long) by Croatian civils or ex-soldiers, not soldiers. Unfortunatelly some Croat ex-soldiers were just waiting for such opportunity to revenge, there were 4 years of destroying Croatian cities, towns, villages, many deaths and suffering, a lot of madness was accumulated in people who were directly hit. Of course it's not good reason to make a crime, but that's what actually happened. And it's interesting that massive leaving of the Serbs made it possible. If they stayed it probably wouldn't happen. 89.172.80.0 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, well said. I have to say I agree with nearly all your points. Operation Storm could not have been organized with ethnic cleansing in mind. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 89.172.80.0. Welcome, maybe you could make a user name and contribute more since you are a first hand source. Also, I want to ask you if you could find sources to add the information outlined above to the article. A lot of Serbs like myself don't know what happened from the other side of confilict.

Conversly, I belive Civilaffair has made a valid point as well when he described the Fizzy Bottle Doctrine. For example Knin in itself had 1 army base. Also, it officially had two military targets. Why did the army bombard the city for over 6 hours with artillery? Mike Babic (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic bombardment, it is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing. The Serbs bombarded the center of Sarajevo for years (not 6 hours), they are not considered to have ethnically cleansed that area. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. However i must rested the point above. Also, the difference is in the outcomes. One area has no people who lived there for 400 years and the other does. There were 2 military objectives in Knin while shelling lasted for a long time (6+hours).

I propose that we descirbe the outcome as a region that is "ethinclly dominated by Croats after the war". While stateing that fears (both real and unreal) lead Serbs to escape to Serbia. Mike Babic (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing this reply to DIREKTOR's 02:35, 25 April 2008, but got to too tired to check over it for typos and spelling last night, so please bear with me. I agree Tudjman, (or perhaps, rather the US?) got lucky. I think he got lucky because of Srebrenica and the (predictable) shelling of Bihac. I also agree that if they had all, all of them stayed put, there was not much Tudjman could or would have done about it. I agree, too, that if soldiers simply move into an area and people flee because of what they "might" do (with no reason to believe they might come to harm), it is not ethnic cleansing, especially if they are allowed to return to their homes.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the "vast majority" left because of RSK propaganda. Even at the time, the PSYOP side of Op Storm was known, at least among the US er, analysts, and international observers. This has been brought out in the ongoing ICTY trial of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač. See the trial transcript of 11 March, scroll down to page 426, line 25:

The intention to get Serb civilians to flee was also reflected in efforts to broadcast false radio messages and drop fake leaflets that pretended to be from Serb authorities, leaflets and broadcasts instructing civilians to flee. Here's one of them instructing the entire civilian population to withdraw from the area and providing a route because of the expected attack by the "Ustasha army." This was not perfectly done as you'll see from the stamp at the bottom. The first four letters are in Latin script instead of Cyrillic. But that's not the only reason you know about these efforts. The minister of defence later bragged about them and General Gotovina himself later wrote in his book, which was entitled "Offences and operations of the Croatian army and the Croatian Defence Council," which was published in 1996, in referring to leaflets for the population to leave he wrote that: "It is true that such leaflets were dropped from aircraft prior to Operation Oluja and that this action had an effect."

This quote is from the ICTY prosecutor (similar charges also contained in the indictment), and the decision has not been handed down yet, of course. (The prosecutor's contention that one of Tudjman's goals during the planning stages of Op Storm was to drive out the population begins on page 423, line 24.) Whether the prosecutor can prove his case remains to be seen. If this is proven out in court, we have this question: if Tudjman and his generals believed the RSK propaganda was sufficient to drive the people out, why go to such lengths to add to it? And why also resort to other measures, as well?

Back to the situation during Op Storm. People do tend to run away from shelling and shooting--how can you get them to all stay put even if you try? It's simply a fact that civilians tend to flee from advancing armies and the shooting and shelling that comes along with them. Some had already fled from villages being shelled by HV into Knin at the end of July when Op Summer took a little chunk of RSK. After Op Storm commenced, many of those who fled over the border hoped they would be able to return home after the fighting was over. Others, especially in Kordun and parts of Banija, moved inward and away from the front lines toward the interior until they were massed around Topusko, hoping to keep safe until the fighting was over and then go home again. The Medak incursion was on the minds of many at the outset. (True, HV tactics had changed by then, but the people still had this on their minds.)

Some "rogue officers" or "rogue elements" doing things they really ought not also produces terror among people who are aleady frightened, especially as time passes and more stories are spread among the "huddled masses". BiH V Corps was particularly "rogue-ish" and their actions especially frightened the refugees massed in the interior. What was happening along the Glina-Dvor road was not reassuring to them, to say the least.

By the time the surrender was negotiated, after days in the heat with no water and all the stories circulating, plus what they had seen with their own eyes, they just wanted out, to get away from there. They realised that the UN could not guarantee their safety if they stayed, only Tudjman could, and they didn't trust him considering what had been going on around them and what they had seen. And so they went, nearly all of them. In Knin, those who sheltered in the UN compound hoped to go back to their homes, but when a few tried it and returned to the compound beaten, that hope began to die.

Then, there were the murders and disappearances of some of the elderly who remained. Villages, with the exception of houses marked as belonging to Croats, were burned. Some were blown up. Houses that were not burned were extensively looted, including shingles, window frames, appliances and even toilets. Around mid-December, the UN Military Observers reported after a careful village-by-village survey that 75% of the houses in former Sectors North and South had been destroyed or so extensively damaged they were rendered uninhabitable after Op Storm. ECMM filed a similar report (not sure of the date) stating 73% were destroyed or extensively damaged after Op Storm.

Tudjman claimed this was done by "uncontrollabe elements" and he "did not have enough police". (Sadly, police looted and burned, too, however.) But it is obvious he did not discourage this activity. There were few crossings into the former Sectors. Police manned these crossings and allowed a never-ending stream of looters and "rogue elements" through without stopping or checking them. They did reportedly stop journalists and question them, however. It would have been a fairly simple matter to restrict traffic into the former Sectors until a proper police presence could be established. Legal barriers to return are also an indication that Tujman desired a homogenous population in Croatia.

The real test of whether ethnic cleansing was a goal (if the goal of ethnic cleansing is to drastically reduce or eliminate a certain ethnic group) is whether ordinary people are allowed to return to their homes when the fighting is over. I think it is clear that Tudjman did not intend for them to have any homes to come back to, and to make returns as difficult as possible. (Many of the barriers to return have been lifted by subsequent administrations, and they deserve credit for this. I am writing only of the Tudjman regime.)

Now, 89.172.80.0, you are correct that many HV acted professionally during Op Storm, and at least most, if not all, of them were formally instructed to behave professionally. Indeed, reports indicate they did in many cases. There were also a number of reports that some did not (a few killings of UN Peacekeepers and using UN as human shields, plunder of UN property, the actions near Dvor where refugees were killed, other killings of unarmed civilians, a few summary executions of disarmed soldiers, mistreatment of refugees in the column, looting and burning, etc.) While it may be true that much of the destruction following Op Storm was carried out by ex-soldiers and civilians, according to UN reports, active police and military in uniform were very much engaged in this during Op Storm and in the days and weeks immediately after Op Storm. They were the "first wave." (Again, I'm not saying all HV, CroPol or Special Police engaged in these activities, or even most of them, but many did.)

It is true that many Croats suffered terribly. You put it very well when you wrote "a lot of madness was accumulated in those who were directly hit." It is also true that nearly all Croats had been brutally expelled (ethnically cleansed) from the former Sectors. There were killings and terrible mistreatment, as well. There is no question of that.

I am glad we are all able to have a reasonable discussion on this. 89.172.80.0's input as a direct participant and observer is very helpful, too. The question still remains, was it ethnic cleansing? Numerous Western press accounts described it this way, as did HRW and other international organisations. Were they correct? Is ethnic cleansing defined by result, by intention, by process or all three, or two of these? Tudjman's statements before and after Op Storm indicate that the result (enormous reduction or elimination of a certain ethnic population) was what he desired. His actions, at least afterward, bore this out.

As for the US, they were somewhat embarrassed by some of the excesses during Op Storm, by the massive destruction in the aftermath, by Tudjman's remarks and by the legal barriers against return of refugees. The US leadership did not suffer much criticism from the press (who were mainly only interested in Srebrenica at the time) and Clinton's "miracle of Dayton" also served to deflect criticism.

Oh dear, my sincere apologies for the length of this. It is a complicated question, and Op Storm and its aftermath are understood very differently by different people. Also, Op Storm covered a large area and had several distinct phases, even though it was a short operation. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

This is awsome. I'm finally realizing what happened. This should be in the article!

Also to add. (The purpose is not to make Croats look bad). But there was a rumor that firebombs were used in burning down homes. Its like a little bomb that explodes and causes a high temerature burning fire. Also, at my cottage in Croatia in Lika there were clear bullet holes all over the front of the house. In addition, there were UN food supplies found in front of the cottage thus adding to the evidence of (Armed men burning houses and stealing from the UN).

When you said that at the end of July when "Op Summer took a little chunk of RSK". I remeber the refugees comeing into Knin. I felt so sad for them as a kid.

Civilaffairs, you seem to be an expert or at least well educated on the subject. Please stay with us on this article.

Mike Babic (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call myself an "expert" but I'll stay. I may not be able to partcipate as much in the near future (I hope my broken foot will allow me to hobble about soon). I would very much appreciate some help over on Op Storm from all the editors here when we are done with this article, too. Oh, and I'm a "she" by the way :)

I think this is a very helpful discussion. You and 89.172.80.0 have valuable direct experience to contribute. DIRECTOR has a fine analytic mind and has certainly furthered our process of questioning and understanding. Of course direct experiences cannot be used in an article (WP:OR), but they can help give us key words or phrases to search online or in libraries. And they can help to understand the situation better so we may steer the article toward accuracy and NPOV.

I tried to stick with information available in online sources, such as UN documents, when writing my too-long (blush) bit above. I'm not sure I completely succeeded, but for the most part I think I did. Most of the reporting about Op Storm tended to concentrate on the Knin area in Sector South. Op Storm looked quite different in some areas than others at certain times, or phases. I have studied Op Storm in former Sector North more in depth, but also former Sector South somewhat.

You were asking about sources. We might want to put that in a separate section so as not to interrupt the discussion of Op Storm and ethnic cleansing in this section. I will start a new section and add some online sources there.

As 89.172.80.0 said, much (if not most) of the destruction after Op Storm, especially after the first couple of weeks, was carried out by ex-soldiers and Home Guards, plus civilians. Certainly almost all of the harassment and sometimes "disappearing' of the remaining elderly and handicapped after the first week seemed to have been done by them and not active HV, CroPol or Special Police. I wanted to make that clear. We must also remember that even during Op Storm there were professional HV brigades, and then there were Home Guards (not so professional) participating as well. In general, it was the latter who engaged in the "excesses", while the messiest "excesses" were committed by BiH V Corps.

The situation seemed to have improved around October when some detachments of professional active HV and CroPol were deployed in the former Sectors (partly due to international pressures, as well), although looting by civilians and a few ex-soldiers and Home Guards continued. Oh, I made a new heading for this section that is less distasteful and also more useful for reference in the contents. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

89.172.80.0 is actually me, I was probably automatically logged out and didn't notice it, so there's not my username, I apologise. Zenanarh (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one detail is missing here. Croatian army was not "ethnically clean". Croatian soldiers were of multiple ethnicities, although predominantly Croatian, which is logically. In Storm there were many Serbs, the citizens of Croatia, on Croatian side, people who have recognised Croatia as their country, country where they've lived and which law they've respected. Also nobody who was living in the directly attacked Croatian cities from 91 to 94 was not cool, because of the brutality of Serbian parramilitaries and JNA attacks. Mike asks why 6 hours of bombarding Knin? Jesus Christ! The longest air alarm in that war was recorded in Zadar (91/92) - it lasted 18 months!!! It means 18 months of constant (every day in repeated series) bombarding of mainly civil targets, churches, hospitals, civil buildings, streets,... The longest series (barrages) without 60 seconds of break or silence lasted for a few days (mainly by weekends). And Zadar was not directly attacked, except once (October '91). Then usage of the illegal weapons - cassette bombs, chemicals,... No electricity, no water, no food - just junkfood from the cans. Now imagine what happened in Vukovar! Or Sarajevo, or...

Whatever, ethnic cleansing is very wrong definition for Storm, it's presuming one ethnicity against the other. Here it was the citizens of a republic against the rebels who were just a part (not all of them!) of the largest ethnic minority. Some of those "Ustaše" in Cro army were loyal Serbs and Montenegrins! BTW I've lost my best friend (1 of 3) in that war. He was a Serb, a hero fighter in HV. His parents were the Serbs from Krajina by ancestry. There were a few of my friends, also Serbs, who wanted to be mobilised in Cro army from the very beginning of the war, but since some of their relatives were on the other side, they were not accepted by the HV offices. However it didn't stop them to participate in civil organization of the city defence (civilian guards, repairing buildings, building the street barriers, transportation of food and water, etc...).

All in all, I'm little bit disgusted by attempts of generalizing: Croats vs Serbs. Also I don't understand why in the article "Serbs of Croatia" we must discuss about the war and Storm at all? Or why a large part of the article is concentrated on attempts to prove how bad Croats are and Serbs are poor? POV eternity per my opinion.

As I said I was a participant of that war, so therefore my words can be titled as OR or bias. I preffer other themes in Wikipedia, much older history for example. Zenanarh (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plebiscite means direct vote.. its simple english i channged it so people know what it means. Mike Babic (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we agree on numbers? Lets discuss it under this section. Mike Babic (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need NPOV sources in writing articles. I know that we will not agree but best NPOV source for writing about Yugoslav Wars is Haag tribunal. When I speak about that I speak about court decisions not about "witness" statements, not about statements by Prosecution of Defence but only court decisions. Only accepted witness is person which is talking who he has killed or ordered killings.

I am sure that nobody can attack neutrality of this sources.

Now because we are having new editors on this page I will speak about other NPOV stuff.

Because all this is very controversial we need internet sources and not obscure books. If somebody is interested I will show here link for 1 article which has been edited by 2 POV users with different thinkings. When you see 2 versions of that article which are confirmed with obscure books you will understand problem.

Internet pages can be sources if they are NPOV. When I say that I want to say that it is not possible to use internet page (or internet books) and say this statement is NPOV and other statement is POV. Page can be NPOV or POV and nothing else. Similar thing is for internet books. It is not possible to say book page 77 is NPOV and book page 78 is POV.

Last thing is that we can't write something like this:

"this was best seen on January 22, 1992, when the Croatian Army Attacked the regions of the Republic of Serb Krajina"

You need to write place of attack (town or village). In Yugoslav Wars there has been many stories of battles or massacre in unknown location and must of them has been false, created by state to inspire hate towards other side.

If I have missed something about NPOV sources you can tell me...

For the end it is important to notice that if we start looking for sources about all "incidents" during time period 1991-95 we will find more Serbian crimes of Croatian crimes (I think that it will be 4:1 or 5:1). I only saying that because of possible wish that there will be many writings about Croatian crimes. Only possible response will be to write about Serbian crimes..--Rjecina (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can show here sources and then speak if it is NPOV or POV. For example I will show here The New York Times of October 14 1992 . On wikipedia The New York Times has been declared NPOV source (if I do not make mistake).

Serbs of Croatia is difficult to research. There are only a few sources tops. These sources are mostly sided but are usually built on facts. We should combine one sided Croatian and Serbian sources, then we can see where they differ.

Mike Babic (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you started this section, Rjecina. As you know, I tried to initiate a discussion on reaching consensus on NPOV sources over on the Operation Storm talk page under the heading "Consensus on sources", but did not get much constructive response there. Many of the arguments about Balkans articles tend to revolve around sources. Perhaps if this issue were resolved, we would all be able to better work on content and improving the articles as to accuracy and NPOV. Again, I will propose that it might be useful to take a lesson from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. As you all can see, they have managed to reach consensus and developed a table for rating sources. Does anyone think this might be useful for articles relating to the former Yugoslavia? Should we try to make this a project-wide effort?

My thoughts on some sources, submitted for consideration:

Reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council: NPOV

United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Facts; best NPOV source is the UNSCR itself.

Statements by Council members: POV, but accurately reflect the position of the member's country.

Reports of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly: NPOV

Statements by GA delegates: POV, but accurately reflect the position of the delegate's country

ICTY: Indictments and decisions are facts, and the obvious NPOV references are the documents themselves. (Indictments are hardly proof of guilt, of course, but they are facts.) Statements by prosecution and defense attourneys are, by their very nature, POV (they are arguing their cases). Statements by witness, in my opinion, should be handled with care if used at all, They also should always be attributed if used, in my opinion. (Example: "Norwegian forensic specialist Dr. So-and-so testified....) Transcripts are probably more useful as a resource for discovering information to look up and verify in other sources (news articles, UN documents, books, etc.) than as sources in and of themselves. I have asked for help in finding or creating a template for citation of ICTY documents on the talk page of WP:International law.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): As I stated above in the section headed "Sources", I believe the best and most accurate NPOV source for refugees and returnees to be UNHCR reports.

Human Rights Watch: Also, as I noted above, HRW reports often summarize the reports of other agencies (UNHCR, for example), and occasionally even summaries of summaries of reports. It is best to go to the original report if possible, for obvious reasons.

UNHCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) NPOV

Letters from government representatives to UN bodies (such as the UN's Economic and Social Council's Commission on Human Rights are POV (can even take on a Baghdad Bob tone in some instances) but accurately reflect that government's POV. If used, these should only be cited in reference to that government's POV, and correctly referenced. (They should NOT be identified UN Human Rights reports!).

Croatian Helsinki Watch is held in very high esteem among human rights professionals, and I would consider it an NPOV source, as well.

For ICFY, the obvious choice is The International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia: Official Papers. This is a very long book, and I will be happy to provide the page numbers for specific information upon request so editors can find it easily in the online version. For example, one can find information on the Z-4 Plan beginning on page 1097. Reports of the Secretary-General often include information about the negotiation process conducted via ICFY and these may be easier to reference when available, however.

Press accounts can be problematic in regard to accuracy and POV. For example, a media outlet (broadcast or print) may report inaccurate figures during the early stages of an event (battle, refugee crisis, etc.) simply because the situation is confused at that stage. Some inaccuracies can be attributed to ignorance and/or assumptions on the part of certain reporters and editors. For example, I have seen coverage of funerals in BiH on CNN and other American broadcast outlets clearly showing Catholic or Orthodox symbols, but the victims being buried were identified as "Bosnian Muslims", not Croats or Serbs! POV comes into play somewhat as well in this age of "advocacy journalism". Analyses (as opposed to news articles simply relating events) have a much higher degree of editorializing in general. In addition, the account of a situation in, say, the Washington Post may read rather differently than the account in the Washington Times, for example. While I don't object to classifying some news outlets as NPOV, the news account itself might be subject to discussion such as whether was it written/broadcast before final figures were available, etc. Does anyone have some thoughts to add on this?

Books and journals: After so many years, many of the reports from international agencies and press accounts are no longer available online. Many more are not available for free online. I don't think we should entirely rule out using books and journals not available for free online, if information is not available online. A number of books are fairly commonplace in the personal libraries of people interested in this subject. It might be possible for editors on both sides of the fence (and neither side) to cross-check information in these books for accuracy. WP Military history/Logistics has a list of editors with access to JSTOR. That might be helpful for information hard to find elsewhere. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Does ethnicity of the author determine whether NPOV/POV? Regarding the New York Times piece by Chuck Sudetic proposed by Rjecina, I think we need to reach consensus on whether authorship by Croats, Serbs, etc. is a POV problem. Rjecina has objected to an Oxford Journals article as a "Serb source" because (I presume) he/she thinks the author is of Serbian descent. Chuck Sudetic makes no bones about his Croatian descent. Discussion of this issue is needed.

Forums: Accuracy, verifiability, and POV are big questions with these. I do not believe anything should be sourced to a forum. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

YouTube videos: Problems abound, from copyright to verifiability. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Civilaffairs (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

I think that {Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation} is a great idea.

Mike Babic (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Civilaffairs on this one. Official UN documents and sources especially cannot be questioned. I believe we should disregard both Serb and Croatian sources entirely. Though I am not implying these are "all the same" (a frequent mistake when going into this matter is the "they're-all-the-same" attitude), I think we need to establish a "level playing field" of sorts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets user Croat and Serb sources and then compare the difference. We must reply on those sources in oreder to have any content to the article.

Mike Babic (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are not "all the same". It is true that, for some subjects, there may be no online sources that are neither Croat nor Serb. Some editors may insist on online sources, but perhaps a compromise could be worked out? In cases where information is disputed, could online sources be checked against offline sources that are neither Croat nor Serb?

Meanwhile, Mike Babic was asking for some sources for Operation Storm. You can find my list of sources for Op Storm here: User:Civilaffairs/Sources Civilaffairs (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

I agree that it is possible for us to make agreement which sources are OK. My only condition is that this agreement will be for Yugoslav Wars and not only for Croatia related articles. If we agree about that then we can start to create list.

Tip: Add new rows using the following code:

|-
| [[]]
| [http://www. ]
| UnclasS
| 
| 

On list there are no forums and blobs because they can't be source on wikipedia. Online books can become source only after voting (book for book), but books which are not on internet can't be source because of this and this . 2 fundamentalist versions of 1 article and both are confirmed by obscure books.

The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press are declared reliable sources by Wikipedia.

I am calling new users to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before trying to add new sources.

If we reach here agreement about sources we will then call all users which are editing Yugoslav Wars to vote about this sources.--Rjecina (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have forget to say something about Youtube. Wikipedia policy is that Youtube movie can be source if it is confirmed by other sources. if not .....

I agree that consensus on sources should be project-wide for the 1990s conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps we can move this to the proper project talk page once we have discussed and refined here? Or start a project page similar to the one for Sri Lanka?

I added UNHCHR and UN Commission on Human Rights, to include ONLY reports of UN officials and experts, not letters or statements from various governments. I also added OSCE (which would include ECMM for that time frame).

I put a question mark for the Serbian Helsinki Watch, not because I have particular doubts, but because I have not looked into it carefully. I will do so and remove the question mark when I am satisfied one way or the other. I know Croatian Helsinki Watch (HHO) enjoys a very high reputation among human rights professionals.

I put a question mark beside ICTY self-incrimination because I have read of cases where witnesses or indictees gave false reports including self-incrimination. I don't recall whether any of these actually made it into an ICTY trial or transcript, but I would like to look into this before voting. I will try to research this in a timely manner.

What about ICTY indictments? These are facts, but not proof of guilt. How do we handle them?

I am unclear what is meant by United Nations Security Council. If this means Security Council resolutions, then OK. They are facts. If statements by members of the Security Council are included, then I would say these are POV, but accurately reflect the position of the member's government.

For the United Nations General Assembly, I did not vote OK. Reports of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly would be OK, however.

Would it be easier just to have a column for "Reports of the United Nations Secretary-General"? The Secretary-General makes reports to various to various UN bodies including, of course, the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Concerning the media: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press" (bold mine). I don't object to listing them all out one by one if it is necessary, but we may end up with a very long list. Could we go with "mainstream newspapers such as...", "mainstream broadcast outlets such as..." and wire services such as..."? I am not trying to nitpick or quarrel, just wondering how to make this job easier. Does anyone have a problem with, for example, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Washington Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), etc?

We still have the question of authorship, as I noted above, even if the source is "mainstream". How do we handle cases where the writer is of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin?

What about images taken from forums? The image of the "Martic Order" was taken from the CroForce forum. It appears in this article and in the Operation Storm article. How can we know this is authentic, especially considering parts 17c and 28 of the ICTY Amended Joinder Indictment of Gotovina, Cermak, Markac. For specifics on what the prosecutor is charging, see the trial transcript of 11 March (scroll down to page 426, line 25).

This is an excellent start. Kudos to Rjecina for making this table. Civilaffairs (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

I have changed Croatian and Serbian Helsinki Watch in Helsinki Watch because in articles we will use Helsinki Watch from all countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia). Maybe because of that somebody of us will change vote ?

I am having problem with The Washington Times and Sydney Morning Herald (Australia). First is controled by church and it is small newspaper (see article). On other side influence of Sydney Morning Herald outside of Australia do not exist.

Because New York Times is OK then International Herald Tribune must be OK (see article). Reuters and Agence France-Presse are without question OK.

About Martic Order we have discussed earlier. Order is confirmed by NPOV source (Human Right Watch) [20] so it is staying. We can question place from which this order has come to Wikipedia (I question many Babic pictures) but say for example that I delete this picture from wikipedia and few days latter DIREKTOR put this picture again on wikipedia with words selfmade (example from Babic pictures which has been deleted on wiki and then returned with other text). Order is OK because it is confirmed by accepted source (Human Right Watch). If latter court make decision that order is false it will be deleted from wiki but from now we are not having NPOV right to question this order.

Because in this voting we are having users which support Croat and Serbian position but nobody speaks for Bosniaks (and we will make agreement for Yugoslav wars) I will call somebody who support Bosniaks positions in other articles. --Rjecina (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)--Rjecina (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key to my asterisks: *Better to use reports of agencies (such as UNHCR) summarised in HRW reports than the HRW report if available. **OK so long as there are no reliable sources proving the self-incriminating statements were false. ***OK so long as: (1) the news articles are not used to support figures based on preliminary estimates, etc (time factor) and (2) the news articles do not contain errors (for example, differing from UN reports) and (3) the writer is not of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin.

I am now okay with the Helsinki Watch organisations. I wanted to check them all out before casting my vote, and I have done so now.

I understand objection to The Washington Times based on the Moonie stake in it, but I am not sure it is reasonable to base a decision on excluding a media outlet such as, for example, The Sydney Morning Herald based on location or perceived "world influence". Should the test for NPOV not be journalistic integrity and independence from state (and/or faction) control? Shall we add more newspapers to the list, such as The Guardian?

As I have pointed out twice before, we still have the question of whether authorship is a problem with NPOV (in cases where the writer is of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin). Would anyone like to comment on this?

Ref the "Martic Order" I cannot find any reference to it in the HRW link you gave. I am not saying there is no reference, only that I cannot find it. Would you be so kind as to point out the section of the report where it appears so that I might find it? There is still the matter of Gotovina's book. According to the ICTY prosecutor, Gotovina bragged about dropping these fake leaflets in his book. This must be verified, of course.

Ref reports of the Secretary-General, again, should we make this simply "Reports of the Secretary-General" or add more entries for "Reports of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly", etc.? I consider all reports of the Secretary-General to be OK.

I proposed earlier that we move this effort to reach consensus on sources to a project page once we have worked out a basic format for discussion and voting (which we are doing now) and I repeat that proposal now. This would give all sides a chance to discuss and vote. An effort to reach consensus on sources on a project-wide basis should be on an appropriate project page, not here. Reaching agreement for all Yugoslav wars simply does not belong on the talk page of this particular article. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

About Martic order there has been my mistake. See this:"On August 4, 1995, Milan Martic, the "president" of the RSK authorities, issued an order26 calling for the evacuation of all persons incapable of military service from the Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drnis and Gracac municipalities."[21]

• Question is what will we do if there is HRW report about incident which is not in UNHCR ?
  • Maybe is better to say that self-incrimination is accepted if it will result in latter court actions or if it is given to recieve clemency of the court.
    • This is my greatest problem with newspapers. If you ask me about media we need to use only The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press (which are declared respectable by Wikipedia), CNN and BBC which are creating world thinking, and Reuters and Agence France-Presse which are news agencies. In my thinking this is more than enough. If you extend and extend this list we will enter trap of POV nationalistic editors which are writing for not so respected newspapers.

I have called to vote users HarisM , BalkanFever and Berkowitz which are in my thinking NPOV editors.

We are having administrator support for this creating consensus about sources [22]

When we reach consensus about sources (on this page) we will move this discussion (table) on talk page of Yugoslav Wars. I think that this will be OK :)--Rjecina (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Hbercowitz) Hey guys, I have voted on those possible sources. Just one thing: if there is useful information found in a POV source, you can still include it, by saying "Croatian sources claim..." or "Serbian sources claim..." etc. But it would probably be best to leave them out or to bring them up on the talk page first, and work on the wording before it is added. Cheers, BalkanFever 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I am very glad to see discussion about sources is started finally. I support all neutral sources (especially ICTY). I think there are two more neutral sources not included in the table:

Sense Tribunal agency [23] - This agency is specialized for ICTY trials, and is very relaible sources (covers all trials with key points).

Radio Free Europe for Former Yugoslavia [24] - This is only media focused on the Balkans, without any nationalistic speach.

And I have to say that I don't fully support sources such as CNN, and BBC because they are not very familiar with Balkan, but they can be used as the second sources. --HarisM (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina: Thank you for providing the correct HRW report. I can find it now. The HRW has based this piece of informaton on reports from three Serbian media sources. I am not, however, disputing the infomation as given in the HRW report: "On August 4, 1995, Milan Martic, the "president" of the RSK authorities, issued an order26 calling for the evacuation of all persons incapable of military service from the Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drnis and Gracac municipalities. The decision indicated that the civilians should be evacuated toward Srb and Donji Lapac,"

As I noted in the section headed Operation Storm above, civilians did move toward the interior and away from the front lines, sometimes apparently at the direction of local Serb leaders. Srb and Donji Lapac are in the Lika municipality of Croatia, away from the HV/ARSK CFL during Op Storm, while Knin, Benkovac, Obravac, Drnis and Gracac were on or very close to the frontline. This matches with what I have written myself above in the Operation Storm section.

The image from the CroForce message board seems to have disappeared now from this article, but is still in the Operation Storm article. The caption reads "August 4th order by the Serb Supreme Defence Council ordering evacuation of civilians from the main areas of RSK." This is apparently used to support the contention that "The Krajina Serb Supreme Defence Council met under president Milan Martić to discuss the situation. A decision was reached at 16:45 to "start evacuating the population unfit for military service", which resulted in the majority of the civilian population fleeing for Bosnia." This contention, is, in turn, referenced to the opening statement of a defense attourney in the Gotovina, Cermak, and Markac ICTY trial.

I still cannot tell what this document in the image from the CroForce message board is supposed to be, exactly (quality is very poor), and whether it matches the description of the fake documents allegedly dropped from Croatian aircraft or an authentic document issued by Martic. All I can say at present is that the caption as it is written and the information sourced to the defense attourney are highly questionable.

I recommended using the original UNHCR report instead of the "summary of a report of" as found in an HRW report if the original UNHCR report is available. If it is not available, then fine to use HRW. This would also apply to other reports summarised by HRW, but, of course, only if the original reports are available.

We are in complete agreement, Rjecina, about refining here and then moving to a project page. No problem :)

Hello and welcome to BalkanFever and HarisM. True, BalkanFever, there will be instances where the POV of a certain side might be mentioned in an article and good sources for those are needed as well. I have mentioned this before, too, and glad you brought it up again. HarisM, I share your concern about inaccurate media articles, as you can read above. I have found some appalling errors in the mainstream media, especially CNN, but also newspapers and news magazines. "Pack journalism" and "advocacy journalism" also eroded the quality of the coverage of the conflicts. Christianne Ammanpour was discredited after the falsity of certain claims came to light during the Kosovo conflict of 1999; perhaps that will keep other journalists from the more egregious false claims in future, at least I hope so. Thank you for suggesting Sense Tribunal and Radio Free Europe for Former Yugoslavia. Would you like to add them to the table? Civilaffairs (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Please take my comments in the spirit they are offered: I am, by no means, an expert on the region, but I think I can make some reasonable observations on the overall problem of working on a conflict where many of the sources are POV, and there is a shortage of NPOV. There's been an informal discussion of the general aspects of this problem in userspace, a discussion that actually started with some dispute over Iran-Iraq War, but soon broadened to several European subjects. I've also been studying one of the best examples of fairly successful POV handling at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project WP:SLR, and I've drafted an essay, User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV, that reflects, I hope, the successful experiences there and also in some related problems, such as how competent intelligence analysts work with all-POV sources. Please feel free to use or comment on any sources there. :-) I'm now writing some things that I'll probably add to the essay.

Before I go to work on the table, let me make some general observations on what I would call "often reliable sources". My [Note 3]: electronic media like CNN are excellent for finding out that something may have happened, but, if it's outside a courtroom or the like, it's wise to remember that they are under time pressure and also don't have much space to explore complexity. My general approach is to use them to get alerted but try to confirm the report. One note where CNN can be excellent: they sometimes go back and do in-depth interviews, especially for Cold War events. See Time Magazine below.

I agree about the Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press , CNN and BBC with the understanding they are electronic media and their "special reports" are most apt to be reliable; and Reuters and Agence France-Presse. Several U.S. news outlets need more caution. The Wall Street Journal is very good in its news sections, but generally POV on its editorial pages; this is even more so with the Washington Times, which can do some good news reports but is POV both in editorials and columns, but also some reporters are more accurate than others. Not as good as it once was, but generally reliable, is the New York Times.

Of weeklies, while the title might seem POV, the Christian Science Monitor tends to have excellent international coverage. Time Magazine often is good; since it is owned by the same organization of CNN, I often get the first note from CNN, but look for a more detailed article in Time.

NGOs are more of a challenge. My note [1]: HRW and Amnesty International have lots of valid material, but, to some extent, they may tend to want to find atrocities. They are most accurate when they say something didn't happen, and are useful but probably should be verified on the more extreme claims.

[2] The UNGA can be OK, but it also can get caught up in politics of a certain bloc. Almost by definition, UNSC is good because it can often enforce its decisions.

Forums are like electronic news, but much less accurate. As far as anonymous or pseudonymous blogs and YouTube, I'll want full independent confirmation. For blogs by a respected analyst, (e.g., Pat Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis), I'll trust them.

Let me mention one unusual source, which are very authoritative on primary and secondary government documents: the National Security Archives at George Washington University (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/). Their commentary is highly reliable, but the government documents themselves have to be considered on their own merits--other than you can trust they did come from the indicated source.

As far as things like self-incrimination, see my essay. This is an area where Wikipedia's WP:OR policy starts to clash with legitimate academic and intelligence analysis. If I were not limited by WP:OR, I would ask a question posed by many lawyers: cui bono, or "who benefits"? If the individual shown remorse and there is confirmation, the report might be very good. You may, however, run into something like the Tokyo tribunal after WWII: there was an agreement among the defendants (and to some extent the Occupation) to say nothing that would incriminate Hirohito.

Using cui bono again, a POV source, even outside a court, may be useful in a restricted sense: if it is speaking of something fairly objective, as to who commanded a unit, it may be OK. An apparently self-incriminating statement makes sense if it's consistent with the side's overall policy. Beyond that, looking for trends is a valid research technique, but probably not for Wikipedia.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having agreement with sources and from table is possible to see that all users which has voted are having consensus about 12 sources. Next 3 sources are declared NPOV by Wikipedia (The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press) so we are having 15 sources. If you do not have nothing against I will move table on talk page of Yugoslav Wars and on talk page of Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War and Kosovo War so that all users know about consensus (and can say thinking) !

In my thinking example of Martić order is not needed in articles and we can move it in talk page. To tell truth I do not know what people are learning in Serbia or Republika Srpska but we are having many users which are coming to articles Serbs of Croatia and Croatian War of Independence and start writing how there has been Serbs has been expelled by Croatian forces. This order need to be in article or on talk page because of this users.--Rjecina (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard C. Berkowitz You obviously have a great deal of experience in working out NPOV/POV issues on WP, and have put much careful thought into the best ways to deal with these situations. Would you like to weigh in what our next step should be here? Taking this to a project page, or ...? Should we refine the table so that UN sources are rated as more accurate and NPOV than media sources, for example?

Good questions. Increasingly, I'm beginning to think that some general Wikipedia structure, which I'll tentatively call a "project on POV and sources", is appropriate, but I don't know how to set it up. In any case, there would need to be a [sub-?] project page on the particular conflict, so there could be a unique source and POV table for it.

Is anyone reading this an admin, or otherwise knowledgeable enough on Wikipedia policy and procedures to suggest a technique?

As a bit of an aside, I would never say any source is always accurate. The Washington Post, for example, is a superb newspaper. Some years ago, one of their reporters was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles about a troubled young boy, but, some months later, the articles proved to have been total fiction written by the reporter, and the Prize was revoked. When I was in college in the late sixties, I did some part-time science reporting for the Post, and discovered something in a column by a syndicated columnist was absolutely wrong from a medical standpoint. While I mentioned to an editor, their policy was essentially that they didn't argue about details in syndicated materials, which, after all, were generally not written by a member of their staff. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say all editorials are POV, in any newspaper or magazine, by definition. Especially since about the late 1980s/early1990s, many "news" articles border on editorialising, as well. And, when it comes to former Yugoslavia, it is also possible to find news articles which directly contradict each other even in the same publication, including the New York Times. Sometimes AP will say one thing, Reuters another. How to sort out conflicting reports? It seems to me the best way to deal with this is to go to "higher" sources whenever possible, such as UN reports. When this is not possible, either consensus will have to be reached on whether one (or some) report(s) are more accurate than another (others), or both sides will have to be presented.

Giving both sides is one possibility; the challenge is presenting them without emotional bias. This is a constant challenge even for excellent analysts not under Wiki constraints; see cognitive traps for intelligence analysis and intelligence analysis. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined some of the problems with media coverage of the 1990s conflicts already (see above). Another problem with news coverage during the 1990s conflicts in former Yugoslavia was the predominance of green journalists who knew nothing about the area. For some reason, experienced Eastern European bureau chiefs and reporters who had reported from the region for years and understood it well were cast aside by some publications (including at least two from the New York Times staff) in favour of younger, relatively inexperienced journalists. In addition, restrictions on journalists' freedom of movement necessarily meant that some areas of the conflict went unreported or badly reported. Also, as I noted above, the media (both print and broadcast) sometimes got facts very wrong, either out of an editorial desire to "simplify" matters because the "American public is incapable of grasping complexities" (such as in the case of the famous clip of the tank chewing up the little car presented as occurring in Slovenia, when the footage was actually shot in Osijek, Croatia) or because of the "fog of war".

If it was indeed a tank and merely in the wrong country, you may be doing well. I've seen news coverage that claimed that an armored ambulance, clearly marked with the Red Cross, was leading a patrol of tanks and armored fighting vehicles, when the combat vehicles were escorting the ambulance. Still, although I've mentioned it before, my all-time favorite was the report from a very new U.S. television journalist, from a local station, who announced that "the former Yugoslavia was becoming (gasp) Balkanized!" Had any professor of journalism, history, or international affairs had killed her on the spot, I would argue justifiable homicide. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina: I'm fairly new to WP and not sure what is the best next step, but it seems to me we might want to streamline the process by having one "master table" in one place, perhaps on an appropriate project page, rather than several tables scattered around on selected article talk pages. Editors could then come to that one place first to vote, and later, for reference. We could also put notices on related article talk pages, such as the ones you noted, to alert editors to come and vote on the project page. I hope other editors will suggest what they think best, too.

Ref the "Martic order", I still have problems with misrepresenting what the HRW report actually said. The HRW report said, as noted above, that the "Martic order" indicated the population unfit for military service was to move away from the front lines toward interior towns within the borders of Croatia; it did not say they were to "flee to BiH" as misrepresented in the article(s) and referenced to defense attourney claims. Perhaps these people you speak of did not learn anything at all in Serbia or RS, but rather got their information from the ICTY indictment of Gotovina, Cermak and Markac and/or other widely available international sources.

There has still not been any discussion of whether authorship by someone of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin pushes a "mainstream" news article into the POV category. I will go on record as voting that such articles are affected by the author's/reporter's POV.Civilaffairs (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

That's a delicate call, as even people from highly partisan organizations can have an individual reputation for total honesty. I'm reminded of two posthumous awards of the highest British combat decoration, the Victoria Cross, awarded on the basis of Nazis who reported the gallantry through the Red Cross. In one case, there were corroborating British witnesses, but in the other, it was only survivors from the submarine the aircraft sank before it crashed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Civilaffairs you are right. We will move table in right time on talk page of Yugoslav Wars and only after end of discussion on that place we will make copy (or something similar) on talk pages of Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War and Kosovo War.

About Martic order situation is simple and we are having 2 answers. First is panic created by evacuation order and second is order to flee toward Bosnia. Order is speaking about fleeing to interior but then it is speaking about towns Srb and Lapac like final destinations. Small problem is that this are border towns (between Croatia and Bosnia).

You can find many witness statements that Evacuation order has been given. Until now you are having order, HRW now I will add testimony of Milisav Sekulić officer and member of Krajina Serb General Staff:"At the [Supreme] Council of Defence [of the Republic of Serb Krajina] the worst possible decision was taken - for the evacuation of the population....." [25] . Yes this site is POV, but you must not forget that UN has asked Croatia to open roads toward Bosnian territory controled by Serbs.

Another thing is if Croatia which is spying Krajina and Serbia has used this order to create greater panic and started to send order copy from planes (example) to all towns in Krajina. In the end we will agree that similar order has been given all other things after that are not important (because of panic).

You have given link for 1 superb web site ([[26]] ). Thanks.

It is possible to see that we have refused all electronic media and about last 3 we can't do anything because they are proclaimed respected by Wikipedia....

On other side I do not like United Nations Security Council because great powers are having too great influence. I know that they are having great influence in United Nations General Assembly but in my thinking this UN body represent all people on Earth.

Sorry Howard C. Berkowitz but we need to have clear sources which will be supported by many to reach consensus. I, you and Civilaffairs can reach agreement about many more sources and rules but to be accepted by great number of wikipedia users we must use simple rules. Saying that The Washington Post (example) is very good and respected newspaper which is making mistakes from time to time will create situation where this source will be attacked again and again by POV users using that argument. Because ot that maybe it will be best that we do not speak about any "respected" source in our consensus ? "Older" wiki users will known about Wikipedia respected sources and it will use them, but younger and possibly POV users will not know ? Your thinking ?

I would be very hesitant to give in to restricting to "simple sources", which is the exact reason that people are confused by mainstream media reports. It is unrealistic to say that it should not be said that a normally good source can make errors, in order to avoid POV attacks. If a POV warrior attacks generically because of a specific mistake, and there is no strong reason for believing a particular report is wrong, that, unfortunately, may become the job of an administrator to enforce. If a source generally meets WP:RS, and someone attacks all its coverage in an area, I believe that becomes a dispute resolution process that needs an admin or possibly a mediator to resolve.

While national intelligence services certainly make mistakes (see cognitive traps for intelligence analysis, I would rather see Wikipedia take on the more difficult role of reporting ambiguous matters, with appropriate caveats and monitoring, than to become the equivalent of television reporting with 30-second sound bites. If Wikipedia does the latter, why have it at all, rather than relying on television? Things worth doing are not necessarily easy. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experiance in articles related with Yugoslav Wars is that administrators start to look for exit if somebody speak about problems with Yugoslav related articles. It is enough that user (we can say vandal) start to scream editorial dispute and everybody (administrator) will say this is editorial dispute and we are not having anything with editorial disputes. --Rjecina (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this is not a problem limited to Yugoslav-related articles. Just in the last few days, I can think of several such disputes going on with wars in very different parts of the world, and with subjects that have any political character to them, such as intelligence or diplomatic material. I've stopped editing in one of my own professional fields, computer network engineering, because I grew tired of reverting the same technically wrong changes, putting back the absolutely definitive source references, and then being told that the source that develops the standards was wrong and some undergraduate textbook was right.

I can think of one military confrontation article where admins constantly have to protect, because there is constant vandalism -- nonsense rather than arguments. To be honest. if Wikipedia is going to be viable, it has to get a number of problems, not unique to Yugoslav matters, under control. While I haven't given up yet on Wikipedia, I have started contributing to a Wiki with quite different policy and enforcement. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are questions what will happen with this consensus ? Best answer about that you can recieve from administrator Future Perfect which is Boss in things related with edit warring in articles about ex Yugoslavia [27]

In articles other sources will be used, but it is possible to say that sources about which there is consensus will be protected (other sources will be without that protection).--Rjecina (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated this table with our votes on talk page of article Yugoslav Wars.--Rjecina (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, I am confused about what you mean by "protected". Would you be so kind as to to explain, please? If it means these sources are sacrosanct or incontrovertible, then I will change my votes. A definition of how these sources are to be considered is perhaps in order. I would prefer that they be used as a guide. For example, “higher sources” like UN reports should be considered more reliable and used whenever possible. Organisations like HRW and AI and the better news organisations would be considered more reliable than state-controlled Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian media, etc. In other words, the table should be an index of reliability, not a set of “rules” to be misused by contentious legalistic editors. WP has not cast in stone that certain news outlets as bastions of truth and not to be questioned. We merely have “Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press.”

Ref the Security Council, yes there is the issue of certain countries wielding the greater power here. Security Council resolutions are facts, however. General Assembly resolutions are sometimes a result of arm-twisting by powerful nations. The 1947 GA resolution on Israel is a famous example of this. Still, GA resolutions are facts. Reports of the Secretary-General (no matter which body is being addressed), on the other hand, are careful summaries of what UN observers on the ground have reported, updates on peace negotiations involving his envoys, etc.

Back to the "Martic order". Yes, those towns are near the BiH border. It is a very narrow strip of land there. To get away from the Western border, one winds up on the Eastern. Then again, perhaps that was the idea. That corridor (Donji Lapac – Srb) had been allegedly deliberately left open by HV for the flight of (driving out of) the Croatian Serb population. Was this "panic" you describe entirely caused by an "evacuation order"? Or was panic caused by shelling and an advancing army? How about the torching of houses and the strafing of refugees? A combination of factors, perhaps? Alas, things are not always simple. The "Tudjman tapes” in which he and his generals and advisors discuss how to create panic among the Croatian Serb population and force them to flee during Op Storm have been transcribed and translated and printed in a number of sources, as well. Also, let us not forget the area under discussion is only the Knin area, a fraction of the area affected by Op Storm. What about Banija, Kordun and northern Lika? This “Martic order” does not appear to cover those areas.

Further, the leaflets dropped from the Croatian aircraft were not faithful copies of the problematic "Martic order" (as I presume you are saying-- not sure what you mean) they were complete fakes. These fake leaflets are described in Gotovina's book and in the ICTY transcripts. (No, I am not proposing using the transcript as a source.) Spying has nothing to do with the leaflets so far as I know. The quality of the CroForce forum image in the article is so poor I can't tell what the thing really is--the fake ones (as described) or the elusive genuine "Martic order." One more problem: This "Martic order" is translated as having been being issued by "Mile Martic". "Mile" is the first name of Mrksic. "Milan" was Martic's given name.

Yes, that blog you cited is extremist, and I will not consider it. Ref "the UN asking to open the roads" see my first post to you about this under the section headed "Operation Storm" above. Do you have a new and more reasonable source for this? Considering the source, why does this piece of “information” appear in more than one WP article? The only other source I could google up for for anything like this was some disgusting white power racist site. (This “white power” site also has the very same poor quality “Martic order” as the CroForce forum). Where did this thing come from, and is it a genuine document or one of the fakes, or even something some nut on a forum photoshopped?) Where this thing originated needs to be tracked down. Ah, the “Stormfront” (white power site) “Martic order” is hotlinked to Wikipedia. How nice.

Why do I get the feeling I am riding on this bus? Civilaffairs (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

In controversial articles popular sport is to declare sources which somebody do not like POV and delete statements confirmed by this sources. Because of consensus this will not be possible, but user will need to show many sources to defeat statement confirmed with consensus sources. This will be only real difference between sources from this consensus and other sources. Maybe somebody will say that this is very small thing but believe me that this is not small thing. In the end if there will be problems administrators will enforce this sources. Way in which they will act I can't know but it will be used against nationalistic POV editors to protect Wikipedia NPOV policy. For more information you will need to ask administrator future perfect

I am becoming tired of Martic order... About this order we are having 3 questions

• 1 Evacuation order has been given by Martic ?
• 2 Order has been droped from airplanes on Serb controled territory by Croatian forces to create panic ?
• 3 After "liberation" of Krajina Croatian forces has destroyed Serbian houses with aim to stop Serbs from returning ?

Answer on number 1 is Yes

Answer on number 2 is Possible

Answer on number 3 is Yes

Maybe I am mistaking but if answer on number 1 is Yes then answer on number 2 is not important (for me)

In your thinking answer on number 1 is Yes ? --Rjecina (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are saying about some POV editors rejecting pieces of information with no regard to source. That is one reason I think this table will be useful in curbing POV edit wars. I should hope that in cases where there is a conflict between accepted sources, reasonable editors can work out a solution. A simple example: A battle took place between 1 January and 14 January. Obviously, press reports on the number killed as reported on 6 January are not the best reports to cite. Later reports with the final count should be used instead. All of these reports may be from accepted sources, but some are clearly better than others. There will be times when accepted sources conflict and the answer is not so simple, however, expecially when it comes to analyses rather than simple reports of events. In such cases, either both views will have to be presented, or there will have to be an agreement to simply stick to the facts as reported, leaving out the whys and wherefors.

Attention must also be given to the ORIGINAL source. Press accounts, HRW reports, and even UN reports sometimes simply quote the statements of this or that government. This must be handled by either discounting these pieces of information or only using them with in-text attribution ("The XYZ government stated...").

Ah, we agree on something! I am past tired of the "Martic order". It appears in multiple articles, however, and you continually use it to "prove" the Croatian Serbs "cleansed themselves": Then there is claim about ethnic cleansing in 1991-95 and how all Serbs are expelled. Creator of this article know very good that this is false because rebel government of Croatian Serbs has given order to all population to leave Croatia and go to Bosnian or Serbian exile [28] (only one example).

Now, taking your premise that the only reason for the flight of the Croatian Serbs following Op Storm was this elusive "Martic order", how can you logically ignore any effect the fake broadcasts and the fake leaflets dropped from Croatian aircraft might have had? What if few people were aware of the "real" Martic order but many were aware of the fake orders and fake radio broadcasts? If the fake orders dropped from Croatian aircraft were of no importance, why did Gotovina write in his book that he was so pleased with the efficacy of this tactic that he later repeated it to good effect in BiH?

Furthermore, this order applies only the Knin area, a fraction of the area affected by Op Storm. How do you account for all the other people fleeing the front lines in all the other areas? Do over 200,000 people flee an area of over 10,000 square km because of one piece of paper issued on 4 August affecting only the southernmost tip of that area?

Might they have fled because of shelling, an advancing army, torching of homes, the killing and strafing of refugees from Glina to Dvor, the mistreatment (and worse) of refugees trapped in the interior? Am I saying all HV acted like the Black Mambas and the most unprofessional of the Home Guards? No, but enough of them did. Then there was ABiH 5th Corps. Somehow Dudakovic has escaped indictment despite evidence of widespread serious human rights abuses (around 200 civilians slaughtered in Zirovac alone).

Finally your premise is "evidenced" by a very poor quality image from a very questionable source (and translated as having been signed by "Mile Martic" yet), but you quickly revert any notation that this thing is in dispute or that evidence has been gathered by ICTY that fake leaflets were dropped by the Croatian forces over the area.

Ref your #3, houses were being torched during Op Storm as well, as evidenced by UN reports.

You asked whether I think your #1 is true. I suppose it very well could be true, and probably is true. I do not think it was the only or even main reason people fled. I really don't know how much of a factor it was in people deciding to flee. I don't even know how much a part the fake leaflets and fake radio broadcasts played. I believe there is no one simple answer for why they fled. From evidence based upon UN reports and reports of various international organisations (and refugee interviews), it appears they fled first from the front lines because of shelling and fighting, then, after seeing and hearing about some of the more egregious abuses, they became terrified. There were also the past events of the Medak incursion and Op Flash which I am sure played a part in the fears of the people. The RSK leaders fled first, of course; some fled before Op Storm actually began. Many (if not most) of the people who fled hoped to return when things calmed down and the fighting was over. The best explanation I have ever found for the whole thing is the "fizzy bottle" as described above in the Op Storm section of this page.Civilaffairs (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Will you stay if government has given evacuation order ? [29]

Will you stay in hospital if Health Minister has given evacuation order ?[30]

Will you stay if officers are giving withdraw order ? [31]

Who know maybe you will stay but 99 % of population will leave.

Facts are simple: Serbs government has given evacuation order, Serb military has recieved withdraw order and Serbs Health ministry has ordered evacuation and in the end Croats are guilty ????? Persons which supports this stand on wikipedia are POV editors. With this my discussion about Martic order is ending. Question if Croatian forces has used fake Martic orders is entering domain of war strategy and not domain of Martić order. My short thinking about Operation Storm is: "Government of Krajina has given evacuation order and ulmost all Serbs has left for Bosnia. Of Serbs civilians which has stayed maybe even 1000 has been killed by Croatian forces. During next month empty Serbs houses has been destroyed or Croats from Bosnia has started to live in them."

I do not believe that question of Martić order has ended with our agreement but question about NPOV sources has ended with agreement :)--Rjecina (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are not conducive to productive discussion, so I will simply ignore them.

You ask me to continue the discussion by asking me questions, but say you are "ending" your end of the discussion. That strikes me as rather odd, but I will do my best.

Will you stay if government has given evacuation order ? That would depend on whether I was aware of the order (and on who/what my government was and whether I thought it was a good idea for me to follow that order). Furthermore, the "Martic order" specifies only a small area. What about the rest of Krajina? And could the people have even been aware of this order over such a huge area during a time of such confusion, especially considering Serb comms were jammed compliments of my country. If my real life goverment (USA) ordered the evacuation of Washington and I lived in Topeka, no I would not evacuate. On the other hand, if Topeka was being shelled and people fleeing from a nearby area where enemy soldiers were already present were full of tales of unpleasant happenings, I might very well evacuate with no order from my government.

Will you stay in hospital if Health Minister has given evacuation order ? If I were a patient lying in hospital, I daresay I would have no choice about whether I was evacuated. I don't see how evacuating a hospital in a city which has been under heavy artillery fire all day accounts for over 200,000 people fleeing former Sectors North and South.

Will you stay if officers are giving withdraw order ? Your link for this question is the same link as for the hospital, so I am not sure how to answer here. Suffice it to say that not all ARSK officers evacuated. Colonel Bulat, for example. A certain few ARSK officers fled over the border a day or two before Op Storm began. If I were a civilian, why would this order affect me, anyway?

No, facts are not so simple. The order covered a very small area and we have no idea how many people even knew about it. If you believe people fled because of an RSK government order, then why do you think the fake leaflets purporting to be RSK government orders had no influence on their decisions to flee? If these leaflets were a war strategy of the Croatian government, what was the goal? Obviously, it was to convince them to flee.

Again, destruction of houses began during Op Storm, although it continued for months afterward.

If you choose to see this complex situation as having one simple cause, that is your perogative. It is based on OR, of course. As is my "fizzy bottle" explanation. Where does this leave us?

I will be content if you (1) stop overgeneralising the "Martic order" (implying or outright saying it ordered all Serbs in all of Krajina to flee to BiH) and confine your edits in articles to what it actually said as per the HRW report and (2) you do not present your OR as fact in articles (state they all fled strictly because of this order) and (3) you stop reverting any mention of the fake documents, provided the text is supported by agreed NPOV sources.

It would also be nice if a better quality image could be found from a more reliable source. And the "Mile" thing needs attention, too. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

It will be nice that you give link to statement of Martić, Babić or somebody else from high Krajina officials which is saying that they have not given that order. Until now only thing which I see are attacks on sources provided by me. --Rjecina (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some misunderstanding. I already said the order was most likely given by Martic. I have found nothing stating that Martic himself either confirmed or denied issuing this order, but I am not disputing the order itself. I do question whether the image from the CroForce forum is an authentic document signed by Martic, as I have no clue where the guy on the message board got the image. I am not insisting that a new image be found, only that it would be nice, especially if it could be authenticated and/or was of better quality. I have not attacked the HRW report you use as a source. I have only asked you to stick to the facts as given in the HRW report and not overgeneralise about what the order said nor expand the area to which it applied. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Yes there has been misunderstanding. I have been thinking that order is in question and not copy of "order" on Wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. I am sorry if I did not state my position clearly enough. I don't know if you're a drinking man, but it's Friday and if you are, then I'd buy you a nice cold Karlovacko (that's a kind of beer, folks) if were talking in person. Then we could toast the end of the discussion of the tiresome Martic order :)Civilaffairs (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

In the end sources are not problem but what users want to write are. Like example I will use Srpska banka. Our "source" is saying:

"The Srpska banka was founded in Zagreb in 1895 and the painstaking life's work of our grandfathers was invested into it. This labour was robbed first in the name of Croatian statehood by Ante Pavelic, and after him in the name of creating socialism by Josip Broz (Tito). Tudjman and Milosevic gave our remaining property to their associates. The current authorities are trying to sell that property to foreigners for a pittance" The cited text is part of the introduction to the Srpska banka web site ......[32]

user Mike Babic want to write again and again: "The Srpska Banka company was founded by a Croatian Serb family in Zagreb in 1895. It was the life's work of Saskijevic family that had thier property robbed first in the name of Croatian statehood by Ante Pavelic in World War II. In addition, the Serb family owned two hotels in Dubrovnik Hotel Lapad and Hotel Imperial that were also robbed by the goveremnet of Independent State of Croatia in World War II"

In doing this he is broken 2 NPOV Wikipedia rules but in he want that his truth is known (I think that because he has reverted my NPOV changes).

• First he has used words of POV heirs (which want bank restoration) for truth
• Second he has been happy with first sentence how bad Ustaše has stolen bank, but he has not wanted to write how good Tito has again stolen bank (he has deleted that statement [33]) because Croats must be bad (my thinking) ! This is clearly POV position of editor.

For the end it is best that we do not play with nationalization because if we are NPOV we all know how many things have not be returned to heirs of original owners after end of communism (I do not believe that more of 20 % is returned).--Rjecina (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if nothing else, the wording has to be altered. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to answer on the fly. I removed tito/tudjman/milosevic because the section was WW2 and Serbs in it.

The bank is a great example to illustrate what happened since its a widely known complex

Once again the attack on me was lame.

Also, i wrote down' a note in the history that im alright with people changing the words as long as the meaning is left alone.

Mike Babic (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All edits with poor english should be reverted because they take away from the quality of the article and take too long to correct. Mike Babic (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but your English isn't too hot either Mike :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'd like to discuss your removal of info about Croats being expelled from the Krajina, which is true and directly related to the context. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also added

":On November 1991, civilians of Serbian origin were dragged out of cellars and shelters, after which they were killed in front of their homes.^[1]"

While this is possibly true, I'm not sure about the reference. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a university student, hence, my english is more than correct. To reply, I removed the contents cited above because they don't relate to Serbs of Croatia since the sentence describes Croatians of Croatia. Also, the information quoted above "Croats being expelled from the Krajina" should be added to Republic Of Serbian Krajin article. You must agree. Don't you?

Mike Babic (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Croats expelled from Krajina" involves actions by some Serbs of Krajina. I could agree that a longer and more detailed account of this might belong in another article (such as the article about RSK), but I don't agree it can be entirely left out of this one.

If there are problems with poor English, I will do my best to correct them if asked to do so. I am a native speaker of English. My spelling fluctuates between Brit and American, but I have now installed a US spell-checker on my machine and can use it to check article content to make up for this shortcoming of mine. Just put a note on my talk page if help is needed. I don't think that contributions should be limited to editors with perfect English. Civilaffairs (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

It would be awsome to have someone proof-read the article (it would be time consuming as well). I don't want to restrict people from adding because of their english skills. It's extremely painfull to edit bad english since sometimes you dont know what they waanted to say. Thus if you change it you might be changing the meaning. On the other hand, if you don't change it, it makes the article look unprofessional. Mike Babic (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Babic (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I must agree. I have added the "Croats expelled from Krajina" part but i added also how it related to Serbs. Also, i have added the actions of Serbs against Croatians while mainly talking about the Serbs.

Mike Babic (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious in your thinking that article is NPOV if it is speak about Croatian crimes but it is not speak about Serbian crimes. It is important to notice that if we look wikipedia articles Serbs has commited 7 massacres and Croats 2 and because of that if you want to write about massacre commited by Croats I will add in text 3 or 4 massacres commited by Serbs.--Rjecina (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you serious in your thinking that article is NPOV if it is speak about Croatian crimes but it is not speak about Serbian"

Rjecina, I have added two sources, one Serb and one UN for the massacre at Borovo Selo. And I dont care if you add that Serbs commited massacres to the article. As a matter of fact, I have added how Serb police killed 40 croatians 2 days after the Borovo massacre.

Mike Babic (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, I have seperate your statement into two dates. For example, on July 31 and December. Also, I have added a time period called "retrospect". Change anything you want, i just think its more organized this way.

"On 31 July 1990 Milan Babić has become President of the Serbian National Council and in december he will become President of the Temporary Executive Council of the SAO Krajina. Latter he will declare "that during the events, and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian propaganda"

Mike Babic (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll proof-read the article, per Mike's request. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is noble of you since it take a lot of time. Thanks a bunch. Let me know if I can help.Mike Babic (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :), it'll be done today. I've got to go for an hour or so --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I had gone a long way with editing for correct English, but when I went to save it, DIREKTOR had already got started (it would not let me save because of conflict). I'll let DIREKTOR continue with his/her good work and bow out for now. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Done. The article still needs work though. Copy-editing and better text organization would improve it significantly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DIREKTOR, I wasn't complaining :) just explaining. Some of your edits were almost the same as the ones I tried to make (for example fixing the sentence about the 2007 elections). You've done a great job. I ran into some cases where content was something of a problem, not just copy editing. Maybe we can all discuss this and then do a final copy-edit and perhaps some organisation? I'll join in the census questions below for now. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Who said you were complaining? With the spelling & grammar now fixed, we can get to work on sourcing statements and "weeding" out the more radical statements, in accordance with the sources criteria we've established. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, going through the text I found a very large number of rather controversial tagged statements. Some of them might stay in this form, but there are many that should, in my opinion, be corroborated or removed as soon as possible. These are:

"The total population of Serbs originating directly from Croatia is estimated at around 700,000 people..."

"During World War II, Serbs comprised 30% of the population of the Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945) and lived on one half of its territory,"

"The 1931 census in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia recorded around 633,000. 504,179 Serbs were registered in the 1840 Austrian census conducted in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (Croatia withot Dalmatia and Istria), making up 32% of Croatia's population."

"Football player Milan Rapaić." (whether or not the man's Serbian)

"One of the theories about the arrival of the Serbs to the Balkan peninsula says they first came to western Dalmatia, more specificly to Srb on the Una river) and then Solin (near Split)." (!)

"According to the population census carried out by the Austro-Hungarian Empire on December 31 1910, the Orthodox, i.e. 'Greco-Eastern' Serbs accounted for 24% of the population in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia."

The census information should especially be referenced or removed. We can't have people writing censi reports in accordance with personal approximations or something. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, these elusive Austro-Hungarian censi. I've seen them often quoted without any reference in all sorts of disputes. Is there any site that lists the results of this research? I for one would certainly be interested in the exact population numbers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to find the source of the information. I don't think that it is made up because they seem to have a lot of details. However, its safe to remove unless we can sources them. Mike Babic (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a great job editing! The article is much nicer to read now. Mike Babic (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should hope so :). I'll remove the statements, then. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place where the war started. I'm going to research more about the incident in 1991. Also, to remain fair, someone should also add information about the incident that is Croatian.Mike Babic (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sources (in alphabetical order):

Croats killed (Pakrac area 1991): Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992) Annex III.A Special forces S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) 28 December 1994

Serbs killed (Pakrac area1991): Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992)Annex X Mass gravesS/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. V) 28 December 1994

Please note that the original sources in these reports were in some cases the Croatian or FRY governments. Some reports were confirmed by UN, while others were not. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

It started in Plitvice Lakes area and Borovo Selo.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this article on Mercep (mentions Pakrac) based on a declassified CIA report: . I think this same story was also released by HINA (Croatian news service).

Actual declassified CIA report (Be sure to click "next" at the bottom of each page to read it all.)Civilaffairs (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

There are times when I've wanted just five minutes, in a locked room, with the programmer that wrote the CIA FOIA reading room search engine. May I offer a few tips in getting it to work to any reasonable extent?

• First, understand that there are no URLs that will take you directly to the document. You have to go to http://www.foia.ucia.gov/ (a little different than Civilaffairs wrote), and put in the search term.
• Next, assuming you have found something of interest, the document reader, at least with the browser I use, won't show the complete page. The best workaround I have found is to select the "print document" option, which collects all pages. If it's a small document, I simply print it. If it's larger, your choices depend on your software. Since I have full Office 2003 and plenty of disk space, I send it to the Microsoft Document Image Writer pseudo-printer, which then can be used to read the document as full pages on the screen. If you have Acrobat or a browser that produces PDF, that's another alternative. On UNIX/LINUX, print it to .ps and use a PostScript/GhostScript viewer. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this all belong in the Croatian War of Independence article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard C. Berkowitz: Oops. I goofed up on that one! Thank you for your kind help and good advice. I changed the link and it appears to be working now, but maybe others can check? I use Opera (browser), so maybe things work differently for me?

DIREKTOR: I hear you. On the other hand, there does seem to be considerable overlap between articles about the former Yugoslavia. If this were an article about the Medak incursion and someone wanted to include Gospic or Pakrac, I would say, no, that belongs in those articles and in the main article about the war. Same thing if someone wanted to include Vukovar in an article about the Zagreb rocket attack of 1995. This article is about a people, not an event, so I find it harder to see where lines should be drawn or what should be excluded. If Pakrac is included in this article, I think the violence committed by both sides should be included, of course. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

This is a Serbian democratic website

http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nation as a problem or a solution(Historical revisionism in Serbia)

Omladinski Centar Novi Sad - Srbija

http://ck13.org/en/nationalism_and_revisionism --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that noone was charged for ethnic cleansing "trough shelling of towns" in cases of Vukovar,Erdut,Dalj,Glina,Osijek,Slavonski Brod,Zupanja,Pakrac,Kostajnica(91),Dubica(91),Zadar,Sinj,Dubrovnik,Cavtat,Cilipi,Sarajevo,Zvornik,Bjeljina,Srebrenica,Zepa,Foca,Prijedor,Derventa,Bihac(pocket),Tuzla etc. troughout the whole war.Shellings that caused thousands and thousands of dead.Snipers that killed few thousand people in Sarajevo only.

But somehow they managed to accuse Gen. Gotovina of shelling Knin for few hours witout consideration that there WERE military targets in the town. It's not Gen. Gotovinas fault that Serbs ran like cowards because their political leadres advise them to do so. My city was shelled for 4 years and they all stayed there to defend their homes,aldough they knew what happened to Croats and other non-Serbs in Bosanska Posavina!!!--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand point of your writing in this section. Can you help me ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelling is not ethnic cleansing on its own, we agreed on that earlier. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha sorry,i just read some of the comments on the talk page written by ultranationalist Serbs and got pissed off!! :D --(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina thanks for that comment. On a seperate note, I want to add the Medak indicent to the timeline but i would prefer it if a Croatian user added it because I'm trying to keep a NPOV in the article.Mike Babic (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to add it yourself? It does not have to be added by a Croatian user to make it NPOV, just make sure you use the most neutral wording imaginable, and include only reliably referenced info without any unnecessary embellishments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article about the Croatian war of independance has covered that all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking if I should work on this article or add it to the article Croatian war of Indep. I'm 50% 50% undecided as of now.Mike Babic (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should be in the Croatian War of Independence. If it seems to belong here as well, there is no reason not to add it yourself as DIREKTOR pointed out. I have learned that those who scream loudest and longest about "nationalism" are themselves nationalists (projection?). Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain. Civilaffairs (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Timeline will be deleted. Reason is that we are having timelines and we are having articles. We are not having articles inside which there is section timeline. With your timeline you can create article Croatian War of Independence timeline or Serbs of Croatia timeline. Like example you can take "my" project Timeline of Yugoslavian breakup--Rjecina (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is fallacious from the start, as there is no such thing as collective guilt of an ethnic group - not for individual crimes, whole wars or historical leadings... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Applause. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]